Sie sind auf Seite 1von 140

oo/g9 , _, ,..

J_l

Unclas 26174

_A

HUNTSVILLE,

ALABAMA

_LSSIFICATIOH

CHAZ_TG_]

RESULTS

OF THE I LAUNCH VEHICLE

THIRD SATURN

TEST

FLIGHT

e-,_

,_ ,

; .... J- ....

ltA_ ',....

ii

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS SPACE AND ADMINISTRATION

MSFC

"

Form

774

(Rev

February

1961)

GEORGE

C. MARSHALL

SPACE

FLIGHT

CENTER

MPR-SAT-63-3

RESULTS

OF THE

THIRD

SATURN Flight

I LAUNCH

VEHICLE Group

TEST

FLIGHT

By Saturn

Evaluation

Working

(U)

ABSTRACT

/bu_q
The sented results in this of the report SaturnI which SA-3 represents test flightare the early preengi-

neering evaluation. The performance of each major vehicle system is discussed with special emphasis on malfunctions and deviations. The SA-3 flight test was a complete success with

all missions malfunctions a serious

of the test beingaccomplished. or deviations which would system failure or design

No major be considered occurred.

deficiency

Any questions mation contained be directed to Director, Huntsville, Attention:

or comments in this report

pertaining to the inforare invited and should

George C. Marshall Alabama Chairman, Flight Group, M-AERO-F

Space

Flight

Center

Evaluation (Phone

Working 876-2701)

NASA o . , ..,,e<'>',.,

T_

x- No, aqG

GEORGE

C.

MARSHALL

SPACE

FLIGHT

CENTER

MPR-SAT-63-3

RESULTS

OF THE

THIRD TEST

SATURN FLIGHT

I LAUNCH (U)

VEHICLE

SATURN

FLIGHT

EVALUATION GROUP

WORKING

(U)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Acknowledgement is made to the various divisions and elements of MSFC and Launch Operations Center for their contributions to this report. Without the assistancc and cooperation of these elements this inteSatinhave grated report would urn Flight Evaluation debted made to the major following contributions: not have Working branches been possible. Tile Group is especially (of MSFC)which

Aeroballistics Aerodynamics Aerophysies Dynamic Flight Astrionics Electrical Flight Guidance

Division Branch and Analysis Astrophysics Branch Branch Branch

Evaluation Division Systems Dynamics and

Integration Branch Systems

Branch Branch Branch

Control

Gyro and Stabilizer Branch Instrumentation Development Computation Data Launch Division Branch Operations Engineering, Structural and Vehicle

Reduction Vehicle

Division Measuring and and Tracking Office

E lectronic Office Mechanical, Propulsion Propulsion Structures Vehicle

Propulsion

Engineering Branch

Division

and Mechanics Branch Engineering Branch

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS

Page SECTION I. FLIGHT A. B. C. SECTION II. Flight Test Times TEST Test Objectives of Flight SUMMARY Results ............................. ............... ................................. Events ............................ ................ 1 I 2 3 5

INTRODUCTION

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

SECTION

III.

LAUNCH A. B. C. D. E. F. Summary

OPERATIONS

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

6 6 6 6 6 8 ............ 8 i0 i0 10 i0 i0 i0 ii li 18 i8

...................................... Milestones Atmospheric ............................. Surface Conditions ...............

Prelaunch Prelaunch Countdown Holddown Launch

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

Complex

and

Ground

Support

Equipment

SECTION

IV.

TRAJECTORY A. B. C. Summary Trajectory Actual i. 2. D. E. and

.................................... ...................................... Analysis Predicted .............................. Trajectory ......................

Powered Flight ............................... Cutoff ..................................... Rockets Release .................................. (Destruct) ..........................

Retro Water

SECTION

V.

PROPULSION A. B. C. D. Summary Individual Vehicle Pressurization i. 2. 3. 4. E. F. G. Fuel LOX Control Air

..................................... ...................................... Engine Propulsion Performance System Systems Tank Tank Pressurization Pressurization System ....................... Performance ............................ ........................ ........................ ........................ .................

18 19 26 26 26 26 26 26 27 27

Pressure Supply

Bearing Propellant System Rocket

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

Vehicle Hydraulic Retro

Utilization

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

Performance

SECTION

VI. A.

MASS

CHARACTERISTICS Weights Center

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

30 30

Vehicle Vehicle

................................. of Gravity and iii Moments of Inertia ...........

B.

30

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS

(Cont'd) Page

SECTION VII. CONTROL A. Summary B. Control


i. 2. 3. 4.
Co

...................................... ...................................... Analysis ................................. ................................. .................................. .................................. After Cutoff ...................

35 35 35 35 39 39 43 46 46 50 50 50 55 58 58 58 58 58 59 59 59 63 63 63 ....... 63 65

Pitch Plane Yaw Plane

Roll Plane

Attitude and Control

Functional Analysis ............................... i. Control Sensors .............................. 2. 3. 4. Control Actuators ST-124P Computer Stabilized Sloshing... ............................. Platform Attitudes ...............

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

D.

Propellant GUIDANCE

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

SECTION

VIII. A. B.

..................................... ...................................... of Guidance Guidance System .......................

Summary

Description i. 2. ST-90 ST-124P

System System

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

Guidance Analysis

Co

Operational i. 2. 3. Guidance

.............................. Errors ...................... .................... ..................

Intelligence Outputs Outputs

Aceelerometer Aecelerometer Analysis

(ST-90) (ST-124P)

D.

Functional i. 2. 3.

............................... ............................. and Signal Processor Repeaters

Guidance Velocity ST-90

Sensors Encoders

Stabilized

Platform

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

SECTION

IX. A.

VEHICLE Summary Flight

ELECTRICAL

SYSTEM

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

68 68 68

...................................... Results ..................................

B.

SECTION

X.

STRUCTURES A. B. Summary Bending i. 2. C.

AND

VIBRATIONS

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

70 70

...................................... Moments Loads Loads and Normal Load Factors ..............

70 70 70 70

Instrumentation Moment

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

Longitudinal

iv

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS

(Cont'd)

Page D. E. Bending Oscillations .............................. 75 75 75 75 75 82

Vibrations i. 2. 3. Summary

..................................... of Vibration Data .......................

Instrumentation Discussion Acoustic

............................... Measurements ...............

of Vibration

F. SECTION XI. A. B.

Vehicle

Measurements

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

ENVIRONMENTAL Summary Tail i. 2. 3. C. D. Skin Section Base Engine Forward

TEMPERATURES ....................................

AND

PRESSURES

........

84 84 84 84 92

...................................... Environment Compartment Heat and ............................. ........................... Flame Shield ....................

92 92

......................................... Canister Pressure Temperature .............................. ..................... .......................... ......

Instrument i. 2. Canister Canister

96 96 96 97 . .............. 97 97 and Center of 97 97 97 .................. ..................... 97 102 !02

SE CTION

XII. A. B.

AERODYNAMICS Summary Ratio Gradient Pressure


D.

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

....................... of Gradients of Angular Force Acceleration Coefficient Ratio) ...............................

( Stability
C.

of Normal Location 205 860 989

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

Surface i. 2. 3. 4.

Pressure

................................ Measurements and and 863

Station Station Station Centaur

Measurements Pressures

1019 ............................

Simulation

SECTION

XIII. A. B. C. D.

INSTRUME Summary Measuring Telemetry RF i. 2. 3. 4. Systems

NTATION

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

106 i06 106 107 i07 107 109 i09 109

...................................... Analysis Systems Analysis ............................... Analysis ......................... ..............................

Telemetry UDOP Azusa C-Band

.................................. ..................................... ..................................... Radar ................................

TABLE

OF CONTENTS

(Cont'd) Page

SECTION SECTION

XIV. XV. A. B. C.

SUMMARY SPECIAL

OF MALFUNCTIONS MISSIONS

AND

DEVIATIONS

..........

ii4 i16 i16 i16 li6

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

Project Highwater ................................ Horizon Scanner ................................. Other Special Missions ............................

vi

LIST Figure
lo

OF

FIGURES

Page Saturn Booster Polarity Chart ............................ Countdown Time in Minutes .............................. Trajectory ......................................... EarthFixed Velocity .................................. Dynamic Longitudinal Chamber Outboard Vehicle Vehicle Typical Vehicle Pressure Pressure Engine Thrust Mixture and Mach Number ........................ Acceleration ............................... 4 7 t2 13 14 15 22 23 24 25 28 Mass Moments ...... ..... 34 36 37 38 40 Actuator Position Angle-of-Attack .................. SA-2 and SA-3 ....... ....... ....... 41 42 44 45 47 48 49 51 52 53 54 56 57 (Telemetered Velocity, System Processor 60 Altitude ST-90 61 ............... Range ............ ........ 62 66 67 ST-124P Signal Cross 7 Engine ....................

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.
/._.

Build-up .............................. Thrust Decay ............................ and Specific and Impulse Total Flow ........................ Rate Ratio

Retro Rocket Chamber Thrust ....................... Weight, Longitudinal Center of Gravity and Time ............................. Velocity and Average Velocity and Vector Angle Free-Stream Operating Actuator

of Inertia Versus Range Pitch Attitude, Angular Tilt Pitch Program Plane and Wind Pitch

Position

.................. Angle-of-Attack with

Components

Pitch Angle Design Criteria (8 Engines Tilt Program) ....................................... Yaw Yaw Roll

Attitude, Angular Velocity and Average Plane Wind Component and Free-Stream Attitude and Average Actuator Positions of Roll Angle Retro Rocket Yaw Yaw Control Local

Comparison Roll During Pitch Pitch and and

Deviations for SA-1, Firing ........................... ........................

Accelerations Angles-of-Attack

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

Representative Non-Control Hydraulic Attitude Center After Sloshing Guidance Calculated)

Actuator Loads ............................ Actuator Loads, SA-3 .... ..................... Source Pressure Between Telemetered and Level ....................... ST-124P ................ Ampii_ude_ ST-90 and Sloshing

Differences LOX Tank 100 Seconds Frequencies Velocity

..................................... .................................. Comparison (ST-90)

29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34.

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

Telemetered Cross Range and Slant Guidance System ..................................... Guidance Incremental Simplified Comparisons, Velocity Schematic ST-124P Pulse Patterns, Range of Cross

Guidance

vii

LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd) Figure 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55.. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. (it. 62. 63. 64. 65. Distributor Connectionsand Unit 9 Measuring Supply ............. BendingMoment and Normal Load Factor ..................... BendingMoment at Station 979, Angle-of-Attack, and Gimbal Angle vs RangeTime .................................. Longitudinal Load at Station 979 ........................... Maximum Dynamic Response............................. SA-3 System Frequency Trend ............................ SA-3 Bending Mode- First Mode, Yaw at Liftoff ................ SA-3 Bending Mode - First Mode, Pitch and Yaw (53 to 57 sec) ...... BendingMod6"- First Mode, Pitch (151 to 152.5 sec) ............ Vibration Envelope of Structure, Canister and Engine Compartment Measurements ............................. SA-3 Vehicle Acoustics ................................. Base Pressure Minus Ambient Pressure Versus Altitude .......... Flame Shield Pressure Comparison Versus Altitude .............. Ratios of Base Pressure to Ambient Pressure Versus Mach Number... Comparison of Gas Teml)eratures on tleat and Flame Shield, SA-2 and SA-3 ........................................ Total ttcat Rate to SA-3 Base............................. Total Heat Ilate to M-3t Panel Compared to SA-I and SA-2 Rates..... Total tIeating Rate on Flame Shield, SA-1, SA-2 and SA-3 ......... Radiant tleating Rates for SA-3 Flight Comparing Preflight and hfflight Data Correction Techniques......................... Engine Compartment Structural Temperatures ................. Environment, Folwcard Side of Flame Shield .................. Base Environment, Forward Side of Heat Shield ................ Propellant Tactic Skin Temperature at Station 745................ Propellant TmflSkin Temperature ......................... Temperature Measurement on Dummy S-IV Stageand Interstage ..... Temperature Measurement on Dummy S-IV Stageand Interstage ..... Ratio of Gradients of Angular Accelerations Versus Range Time ..... Center of Pressure Location and Gradient of Normal Force Coefficient Versus Math Number .......................... Ratios of Surface Pressure to Ambient Pressure Versus Math Number ....................................... Ratios o[ Surface Pressure to Ambient Pressure Versus Maeh Numl)er . ...................................... Ratios of Surface Pressure to Ambient Pressure Versus Math Number on Interstage .............................. Page 69 7i 72 73 74 76 77 78 79 80 83 85 85 85 87 88 88 90 91 93 93 93 94 94 95 95 98 99 100 10i 103

viii

LIST OF FIGURES(Cont'd) Figure 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. Pressure Coefficient Versus Mach Number on Centaur Simulation Panel ..................................... Pressure Coefficient Versus Vehicle Station at Various Mach Numbers on Centaur - Simulation Panel .................. Telemetry Signal Strength (Cape Telemetry 2) ................. Telemetry Signal Strength (Green Mountain and Mandy) ........... UDOPSignal Strength .................................. Azusa and Radar Signal Strength........................... Picture Sequenceof Project Highwater Experiment .............. Page i04 i05 I08 li0 I ii l i2 117

ix

LIST Table I. II. Ill. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. Cutoff Conditions Events

OF TABLES Page

.................................... .................................... Cutoff Information ......................

16 i7 20 21 31 32 33 64

Significant Engine Engine Retro SA-3 Mass

Ignition Cutoff Rocket Vehicle

and Impulse

................................. .............................. ................................. Comparison .........................

Parameters Weights

Characteristics Comparisons

Guidance

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

C ONVE RSION

FAC TORS FOR PRE FE RRE D MSFC MEASURING UNITS To Obtain 3.04800x10 6.4516x10-4 5.25539x101 m4 5.25539x101 k -s 2 -1 m/s m2 2

Quantity 1. 2. 3. Acceleration Area Density

Multiply

ft/s 2
in 2 lb-s 2 ft 4 slug/ft 3

4. 5. 6. 7.

Energy Force Length Mass

BTU lb in lb-s ft 2

2.51996x10 4.53592x10 2o54000x10 1.48816

-1 -1 -2

kcal kg m kg-s2 m = TMU

8.

Mass

Flow

Rate

lb-s ft

1.48816 m 2 7.03067xi0 5.55556xi0 3.04800xi0 3.78543xt0 2.83168xi0 2.83168x10 3.78543xt0 -2 -I -I -3 -2 -2 -3 kg/cm oC m/s m 3 m3 m3/s m3/s 2

9. 10. 11. 12.

Pressure Temperature Velocity Volume

lb/in

o F_32 o ft/s gal (U. S. ) ft 3

13.

Volume

Flow

ft3/s
gal/s

xi

GEORGEC. MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER

MPR-SAT-63-3

RESULTSOF THE THIRD SATURNI LAUNCH VEHICLE TEST FLIGHT By Saturn Flight Evaluation Working Group
SECTION A. FLIGHT Saturn hours tests. EST The a complete or deviations tem failure TEST space success, flight test RESULTS SA-3 16, did not was 1962. the first reveal launched The flight two at t 245:02 test was flight The control essentially the system same forthe as that Saturnvehicle used in SA-t SA-3 and was SA-2. sysSaturn I. (C) FLIGHT TEST SUMMARY

sys,tems

functioned

properly,

with

good

results Block well

from II gas within

vehicle

on November

the increased propellant ullage. All hydraulic expected limits.

load to simulate systems operated

as were

any malfunctions a serious

which could be considered or design deficiency.

SA-3was launched arrival of the S-I stage uled 16, ten-hour 1962. countdown The holdat count t0:45

approximately eight at Cape Canaveral. began was hours at 0200 EST EST continuous

weeks after The schedNovember for one gen-

However, the control gains (a o and bo) were different. These were changed because of the increased propellant loading to maintain the same correlation with the vehicle mass as on SA-1 and SA-2.

except

45-minute eratorpower sequencing Launch launch were

due to a ground

attack

Engine deflections, attitude angles, and angles-ofwere less than those observed on SA- 1 and SA-2 primarily due to the the trajectory same shape. in the pitch The plane wind as was almost on SA-2. of the

failure. processes as expected

All automatic propellant loading were within expected tolerances. execution of the countdown, demonstrated support equipment and and successfully the ground

flights

preparations,

magnitude experienced Operation trol

the compatibility

between

hydraulic satisfactory. vehicle (Prototype) in the

actuators

and the

con-

and the space vehicle. The launch complex and support equipment suffered less damage thanwas expected from The Slightly actual lower flight path of SA-3 was close the to nominal. altitude and

computers The Saturn

was SA-3

was

flown guidance

without systems

active for both was

path ST-90

guidance.

However,

passenger

hardware

acceleration

caused powered at times stages time

and ST-124P equipment

ered flight, be greater struct of the occurred kilometers.

but a longer than expected SA-3 dummy sec range at 292

flight after

caused both to burnout. DeHighwater of 167.2

guidance The ison

Saturn

flight

environment.

for Project at an altitude

telemetered indicate system of the test,

dataas satisfactory throughout ST-124P was quite

well as a trajectory comparperformance of the ST-90 powered flight. The opguidance satisfactory. system, as an engi-

guidance eration neering

The performance satisfactory for this

of the propulsion flight test. The

system total

was very perErroneous outputs from the cross range accelerometer system mounted on the ST-124P platform were noted before ignition. No correction was made and the cross range measurement contained extraneous signals _%

cluster

formance averaged within approximetely of predicted. Individual engine performance isfactory ues being with no major noted. The deviations propellant from tank

one percent was satval-

predicted pressurization

throughout liminated

flight. from

These range

extraneous was

signals deducted

were

e-

Third i.

Objective Aeroballistics Confirm

- Vehicle

in Flight.

the telemetered information

accelerometer

output from

and valid cross the measurement. The flight

values

of aerodynamic

character-

data

indicated

that

the

SA-3 recorded

vibration during

levels were the previous The showed 10

generally similar to those two Saturn flights. bending accelerometers at frequencies

istics, correlating predicted stability andperformance with that encountered in flight - achieved. 2. Propulsion Prove providing hicle velocity. the through the Determine that the thrust the controlling engines, other booster trajectory inflight stage the at is capable Block the required of all of I ve-

flown in the range

on

SA-2 proper to propel

response

of first

and second vehicle bending. These frequencies were present in both pitch and yaw direction with a maximum amplitude single amplitude a forced curred sponse The was flights. response at a coupled is lower than base region to Radiation that at liftoff on the nose cone of 0. 016 gTs for first mode of 2.0 cps. At OECO of 0. 095 frequency on SA-2 environment encountered heating rates g's single amplitude The ocreof 2.7 eps. before OECO. duringthe on the on SA-3

desired

performance

eight engines, the outboard gimballed lant utilization, achieved. 3. Structural Verify airframe, specification during

movements of the four engines' cutoff, propeldesired propulsion data-

and

and

Mechanical integrity of the Block I

SA-3 are

flight the structural in good

similar

two previous

agreement with values obtained on the previous Saturn flights and are considered representative for the Sat-_ urn I, Block I vehicle. A total of 607 flight measurements was flown on SA-3. Of these measurements, fourteen were completely except values. unusable, C-band sixwerepartiallyusable The radar, signal was strength very of all close and one RF to the was questionable. systems, expected

by correlating requirements Specifically,

theoretical calculations and with conditions encountered to determine the inflight construcand viand associated frequency throughout the vehicle increments to the be calculated and component

flight.

stress, vibration levels, tent at various locations ture, so that the dynamic may bendingmoments brationenvironment overall structural occurrences. strain, which bending

shear

may be determined. Measure the response to define critical dynamic Evaluate the presence of any excessive data of the and accumulate the mode shape

body bending effects, may be used to determine curve 4. during flight and

- achieved.

Guidance

Control the capability stabilized of the platform) G & C to ,

B.

TEST

OBJECTIVES To demonstrate of the Saturn SA-3 flight test were

as

The objectives follows: First Ob)ective

system

(a

modified

ST-90 control, the Block the

perform the required tional sequence for - Booster. Prove the propulsion of the cally, to prove that design, and control - achieved. system

guidance, and operaI flight tests. Specifiwill establish an ac-

system

system, structural high thrust booster

curate space-fixed coordinate reference for determining vehicle attitude and providing an accurate coordinate velocity signal - achieved. Fourth Objectivecloud experiment on the SA-2) will 87,329 stages' upper Project (similar kg "Highwater". to the experiment by injecting lb) the of water stages of approxiwith A waconthe ballast

Prove

Second the

Objective operational facilities

- Ground Support Equipment. concept of the associated supfor Saturn class vehicles; checkout pedestal and automatic launch

ter upper into

porting

launch

ducted

be accomplished ( 192,528

which include propellant systems, cquit)mcnt, special instrumentation, with holddown arms, and other - achieved. launching equipment

atmosphere, rupturing

at an altitude upper

necessary

handling

mately 167 kin, by primacord - achieved.

C.

TIMES

OF

FLIGHT

EVENTS

Event

Actual Time

Range (sec)

Predicted (see) -3.57 .... .... 0. i0 ....

Act

- Pred

Ignition Command Thrust Launch First Commit Commit Motion _

-3.79 -0.49 -0.08 0. i0 0.33 Device) 10.33 68.10 Pressure 78.60 141.66 144. 149.09 152.78 153.66 292. Signal 292. O0 O0 25

-0.22

Liftoff Signal (Start Program Begin Mach Tilt 1 Reached Dynamic Engine

-68.03 78.28 140.34 -147.95 150.48 152.34 292. 292. O0 O0 1.14 2.30 1.32 0 0 O. 07 O. 32 1.32

Maximum Inboard End

Cutoff Decay

of First Thrust Engine

Outboard End Retro Project Loss

Cutoff Decay

of Second Rockets

Thrust Ignite

"Highwater" of Telemetry

* Reference

point

for

comparison

4J Q; P_ O_-

O;
_

c_
I

P_

+
! O; O \ ,_ ._ ; O '_ . _ '_ O 0D,-_ (n O q_ c2

+
E_

0 0

\
P_ q c_

I--4

Jr

H I--4 I-4 I-4

SECTION

II.

(U)

INTRODUCTION

Saturn EST on plex Florida. 34,

space Atlantic SA-3

vehicle 16, Missile

SA-3was from Range, vehicle

launched Saturn Cape

at 1245:02 Launch Comtested Canaveral,

November was

1962,

This report and groined

is presented covering support equipment.

all vehicle

systems

the third

to be flight

in the Saturn I R&D program. of this test was to evaluate the sion system, kg (1.3 control million system,' lb) 590,000

The major objective designs of the propuland structure of the uation atives booster.

This

report

is published Group, report time. whose Space

by the Saturn members Flight the will unless prove are Center not

Flight

Eval-

Working from the at this

representDivisions. MSFC be followed

thrust

all Marshall

Therefore position

represents This report report should

official

by a similarly integrated ysis and/or new evidence This gineering report evaluation presents of the the results SA-3 test of the early flight. The enper-

continued analthe conclusions Final evalby the MS FC and/or

presented here partly or wholly wrong. uation reports will, however, be published Divisions special covering subjects. come of the major

formance of each major vehicle system is discussed with special emphasis on malfunctions and deviations.

systems

SECTION A. SUMMARY Saturn 1200 hours at 1245:02 launched from N and Vehicle EST SA-3, scheduled 16, for 1962,

III.

(U)

LAUNCH

OPERATIONS Date Event 1962 1962 RP-I Launch fuel loaded

launching was launched

at

November November

14, 16,

on November

hours EST, on an azimuth

on that date. The vehicle was of 100 degrees East of North Latitude degrees 28. 52153 W. began at 0200 degrees

complex Longitude

34, Geodetic 80. 56136 10-hour

C.

PRELAUNCH TION

ATMOSPIIERIC

SURFACE

CONDI-

The EST, except

scheduled

countdown

November for one

16, 1962. hold at 1045

The count was continuous hours EST. There was

General a at the was flight better. (1018.5 perature (SW) time path. mbs),

weather of launch The

conditions were There visibility pressure Surface

around were was was

Cape

Canaveral There along miles) of mercury and tem215 degrees the or

exceptionally 16 km

good. (10

ground generator power failureat this time. continued for 45 minutes and the count was at 1130 sequencing Launch launch were hours EST. All automatic propellant expected of the processes preparations, as expected we re within execution

The hold resumed loading and

no precipitation. Barometric 24.7 C. at 3 m/s.

no clouds 764 mm 36 percent, from

tolerances. demonstrated equipment and support expected

relative

humidity winds

countdown,

were

and successfully

the compatibility and tile flight equipment from the

between the ground support configuration. Thecomplex

suffered low liftoff

less damage than was acceleration of SA-3.

D. B. PRELAUNCII Date September 19, 1962 S-I stage naveral ,' Promise" S-I booster erected at pad 34. S-V, to the on launch MILESTONES

COUNTDOWN Holds. Launch EST power countdown began 16, hold 1962 minutes at T-600 and was (Fig_ure caused mincon2).

Event arrived at Cape Caon Saturn barge

utes tinuous

at 0200 except

on November failure at T-75

for one 45-minute

by ground apl)arently causing the of the found overthat had voltage The sen-

generator

Network generator number 2 dropped out, due to the over-voltage sensing circuit, hold. The nominal value for activation however, device moment the for this of dropout). voltage shifted device is 37 volts; sensing at the was all it was

September

21,

1962

pedestal September 24, 1962

the over-voltage to 35 volts of the generator sing device circuit for

generator

(apl)roximately replaced. generators

terminal

Dummy stages S-IV, and payload assembled S-I booster. Service for RF Structure check.

The over-voltage bypass (normally energized at were then jumpered for the to avoid further difficulties was launch. The by the automatic command countdown 363.45 is 10.55 due prishorter with resumed at 1130 hours

October

19,

1962

removed

"LOX bubblingcomplete") remainder of the countdown in this EST and area. The count until continued

October

31,

1962

Fuel S-VD ted.

test completed; water loading

S-IVD, complesec sec tion.

Automatic sequence was prior later The due

Countdown. initiated

firing

November November November

2, 6, 9,

1962 1962 1962

LOX loading Overall Retro completed test Rocket

test

colnpleted

to ignition command (T-O). This than the firing command on SA-2, to the time to the difference smaller in LOX tank time ullage gas LOX tank pressurization was

marily 4 completed installation on SA-3

pressuriza-

associated

the full propellant loading for this vehicle as compared to the partial loading on SA-1 and SA-2o The times shown output function. were read from sequence records. No digital for events was available due to a computer mal-

November

13,

1962

Simulated formed

flight

test

per-

0 ! E'_

I [-_

_v 0 I [._

I I I
0'_ _,,-G _0 c;3

I L

0 xl

_g
u'_ r..T.1 _ 4.J 0 00 T--I

I-I

I.--I r.=]

0 0

i-I r._ u3 .IJ _ 0 I--I

E_

.>
0 0 0 ,0

I
0

I
0

I
0

I
0

I
0

I
0

I
0

J 8

E.

HOLDDOWN Engine start and transition ignition were were ig_aition smooth from with all

regulator used for of these ward sition. likely l)revent from the times sequence Retract about records Pressure all 500 ms after show irO1,:" enation The damuge

or

that

one

of the two-way

"button"

valves, Either force to-

remote eoul)ling , could have leaked. possibilities would result in a net rather of the and what

engines

receiving

a positive

a I,OX lead All critical established

in the gas generator blockhouse measurements redline Two regular switch values. events sigllals. eyeled

system. within the

the fomvard position The circumstances are cause its being of fttilure rectn'renee.

than the retract poI,OX fill mast failure t() determine steps can the most to be taken

to retract

investigated

"File "SUl)l)ort several

complex than was

an(I SUl)l)ort expected Film 3.2 see from coverage longer

equipment shows to reach

suffered that SA-3

less took

the low liftoff

acceler-

gines were running. This could one or more of the four switches. four switches the pressure able were would to move wired cause (one source)

be due to vii)ration on The function of these

of SA-3.

al)proximately

93 m altitude At this to "flare conthan be exlonger would

on each SUl)port arm assembly at is to show that pressure is availretract arm. The switches on any one switch possible problem and these The other valve

than either of the two previous altitude, the exhaust flame out". tact with either pected Therefore, the SA-I from since SA-3 more pad approximately or SA-2, SA-3. of the the launch after

Saturn vehicles. and jets cease remained 30 percent l)ad damage

the support

in close

in series and vibration the eyeling noted. This

was noted early in the Saturn program switches were taken out of the cutoff circuit. irregular stayed ends. other signal showed that tim

I_OX bubbling

Examination equipment vealed The low torus that the damage after the

launcher of Saturn was

and

ground

SUl)l)ort SA-3 and reto SA-2. to the to the inarea

open for 137 see instead of the exl)ected 60 seeThis is considered a measuring error since parameters (such l)Umll as inlet) l,OX did tenq)erature not reflect this in the long

vehicle SA-1

damage

of a level

eoml)arul)le

observed

the launcher

tanks and at the bubbling time.

only obselwed dttmuge readily attributable liftoff acceleration was increase(I (lumuge ring retaining of flame was tower the SA-2, I)antls deflector the tubing base room. wall it and did would not be and a noti(:eal)le warl)ing. on the exposed This tubing distorted. on the occur difficult larger A damaged

F.

LAUNCtI COMPl,EX EQUIPMENT All items of ground

AND

GROUND

SUPPORT

crement of interest umbilical

wall of the was ripl/ed Alth(/ugh launches of the

support

equipnmnt

functioned

loose this SA-1

from tubing or

severely

nornmlly with the exception of the LOX fill mast, which failed to retract on command. This failure to retract did not interfere with the subsequent liftoff of the space vehicle, tlowever, the failure to retract on command resulted cause in the ultimate of the vehicle failure blast of the LOX fill the mast mast bebreaMng cylinder

damage

to assoeinte

damage with any launch 3. It is believed that mounting launches. umbilical sembly. destroyed umbilical system Saturn swingarm being vehicle

eharactbristic this damage weakened SA-3 was of the

t/eeuliur t(/ SAresulted from the during the first long cable l)revious to use an mast as-

mountwith the subsequent forward motion mast assembly. Post launch i_vestigations of the mast failure to retract have been Sequence the mast and event to retract records was show received that and the

of the upper of the cause inconclusive. command for to by valve have to the re-

instead

Thelongealllemastassembly during the SA-t and swing arm installation


dulnage

SA-2 use(I

was essentially launches. The to service hmneh SA-3 alld can

responded

the solenoid valvein box. The actuation resulted retract traction valve test to and tim

the LOX fill mast assembly of this solenoid valve should

sustaine(Ivery minor be reused with minor Following individual GSE She1% Cable This equil/ment

duringthe refurbishment. assessment

in the application of pneumatic pressures cylinder, which would result in the ultimate of the day. nrtst. The cylinder during The correct were the post response meclmnieal verified launch prior of the during to command was (lemonstrated

is a detailed items. Mast should and

of damage

to

solenoi(I

"Fail Cable

Mast

Assemblies. with

components commotions to launch strongly cylinder of presof the reThe second "cushion', investigation.

be subject

to refurbishment

on T-I retract reverified

a majority (if the mechanical vageallle. The uml)ilieul swing to refurbishment with minimum disconnect The bungee arm theumbilieal umbilical age. input tion l)late e(ir(I sustaine(l redundant platform

eoml)onents being salarm shou[(I be sul)jeet effort. The umbilical to one ejection system, burned minor
used

The l)ost launch analysis s_) far points most to a theory which indicates that the retract failed sure. to stroke This subsequent failure could to tim al)l)lieation be due "freezing" cylinder. of the

damage retract was

l)in.
oll

disconneetplate, selwiee

away.

The dam-

to two l/ossibilities.

sustained

The first would be a mechanical tract cylinder piston within its possibility would be that

Electrical but possibly testing.

cabling, in general, evidenced heat will be reused, subject to qualifica-

of a failure

to

Fuel Loading refurbishment

Mast. This mast should be subject with a majority of the mechanical and Flexible hose the retractable assemcou-

Holddown equipment away. Flame a pronounced

ArmsandAssociate sustained minor

Valve damage

Panel.

This

consisting pribeing burned

components being reuseable. blies, electrical harnesses, pling are subject to replacement.

marily of tubing and flex hose assemblies

Deflector. increment

This of

can

be reused. as

It suffered this

warpage;

however, to compromise

with

LOX very

Fill few

Mast. This components, box assembly,

sustained major damage, other than the steel base subject to salvage.

warpage is not considered its usefulness. The vehicle it also launch again

so severe

and the

valve

proved

the

comparability

of the

and the ground support equipment. In addition, proved that a vehicle with low liftoff accelera(11.4 m/s 2 compared damage to the 13.6 launch m/s 2 for complex normal to an would not amount.

Retractable

Support

Arms.

These

support

arms

tion

sustained minor damage of tubingwhich is exposed

consisting of random failure nearly directly to the blast.

flights) excessive

l0

SECTION

IV.

(C)

TRAJECTORY

A.

SUMMARY The actual Slightly flight lower path of SA-3 was caused close to no_aduring caused burnat

placement (Ze) was 0.41 km left of nominal at IECO. About 0. 255 km of this deviation was due to the difference VIII) in alignment of the platform and vehicle was caused ( Chapter by latis is acceleration the altitude , and approximately The remaining small effects. in Reference I. was up to about l. 2 the power flight, howacceleration The velocity was only at first actual veloc0. 110 km

inal.

and range to be less powered flight, but both to be greater out. Water release 292 sec at an altitude

than nominal at any time a longer powered flight expected at times after (Project of 167.2 Highwater) kilometers.

eral winds. due to other presented

difference The nominal

{ 0. 045 km) trajectory

than

occurred

m/s At IECO the actual altitude the range was 1.8 km longer, 18.4 m/s greitter than nominal. was 1.4 km higher, and the velocity was

The longitudinal acceleration 2 less than expected during

ever the maximum longitudinal 0.5 m/s 2 lower than nominal. cutoff cutoff was 18.4 occurred

m/s more than expected since 1.3 sec later. The earth-fixed 4. Mach number

B.

TRAJECTORY The electronic a post that flight obtained

ANALYSIS tracking trajectory on the first data were obtained somewhat for estabpoorer The acusable Accelprior during interAc-

it3; is shown Actual

in Figure and nominal

and dynamic

lishing than

two vehicles.

pressure are shown ters were calcfllated data to an altitude Between 33.4 and

in Figure 5. These two parameusing measured meteorological of approximately 47.0 km altitude 33.4 kilometers. the measured data

celeration prior to

components from UDOP were not 35 sec nor after about 120 seconds. not usable available data all from was stations.

eration components from Azusa were to 75 or 80 sec and were intermittently the remaining during flight. the entire FPS-I6 flight Radar from mittent

were gradually adjusted to the 1959 ARDC atmosphere, above which the 1959 ARDC was used. The actual peak dynamic pressure was slightly less than nominal due to a lower velocity. 2. Cutoff. A comparison at both I. At range inboard OECO was 1.8 (0.006 kg/cm 2)

celeration components were not usable radar sites prior to 40 or 50 seconds.

any of the

of actual

and

nomi-

nal parameters shown in Table combination Theodolite, telemetered comsecposition and the 20 meat 292 the with of l. 1 km ity was interval higher,

and outboard cutoff is the actual altitude was km longer, and velocThe time 7.43 sec for The accelwas about 2t IECO and comvelocity

The "Close-in" and data puted onds. Mark using from

postflight and II Azusa

trajectory Fixed and through tracking

is data, a ballistic water

"regular"

Camera,

11.9 m/s greater than predicted. between the two cutoff times was nominal. nominal the

transients, 160 sec maximum

trajectory release

the actual, and 7.61 see for the eration level of both actual and m/s 2. parison between expected loeityat m/s Since the actual 0.2 would IECO OECO observed. level during see less burning than OECOwas

The

difference

between

time

between

components from this systhesized tracking data during powered flight telo$.

trajectory was about

nominal,

be expected and OECO. between be 14.4 Figure outboard would

to change by about 4 m/s This would mean that the actual m/s, engine and instead that operation velocity nominal of the the is ve11.9 less def-

difference

C.

ACTUAL 1.

AND PREDICTED Powered Flight. The

TRAJECTORY initial longitudinal was very acceleration flights accelerto approxinitial acclose on due

6 indicates in an increasing

acceler-

ation

celeration to nominal this ation imately flightwas to maximum

on SA-3 was 11.36 m/s 2which (11.27 fins2). The initial lower propellant g's on the and nominal than to 1.16 those loading. g's as previous altitude, This flights.

than nominal, resulting icit from predicted.

on previous compared

is equivalent 1.38

Comparisons of actual and nominal parameters at sigaiificant event times are given in Table II. Thrust Decay. outboard engine thrust inal velocity gain was two has no significance The actual decay was velocity 7.9 m/s gain during and the nom-

Actual raage (Ze) and range second

range, actual until

and

cross

are shown in Figure 3. The were essentially the same ( Figure 3). The actual

altitude after the range dis-

cutoff

cross

7.6 m/s. A comparison of the since LOX depletion occurred.

11

In addition, a commutated by as gain. much

the time as to

of actual

OECO

was This

obtained time in the

from error velocity is

"part of Figure operation was

6. about

The

velocity

lost

due to retro

rocket

telemetry

trace,

which

may

be in error

9 m/s

or approximately

the veloc-

_ 83 milliseconds. a :L i. 7 m/s

equivalent

uncertainty

ity loss predicted. ration sequence, (non-separated)

Deviating this velocity SA-3 vehicle.

from the Block II sepaloss applies to the entire

D.

RETRO SA-3

ROCKETS was the first Saturn vehicle to use retro (F7lower

E.

WATER Water

RELEASE release was was

(DESTRUCT) at 292.0 and sec 3.76 _ange km time. further

occurred 0.45 expected.

rockets. The measured 13) during retro rocket

longitudinal operation is

acceleration shown in the

The

vehicle than

km higher

in range

.lZ

._

.iJ

13

,%
0 0

I
0

0 I-4

.
_o

0 0 0 0 u% 0 0 0 u'_ 0

_, (

13 Earth-fixed 2000 velocity (m/s)

1800

IECO

--7

_--

OECO

1600

",,X,,
_ _ _Vj--Actual

1400

1200

i000 Water Release

800

600

400

200

/
40 80 120 Ran,re i(0 Time s:.c) 200 240 280 320 FIGURE 4. EARTH-FIXED VELOCITY

14

MachNo.

DynamicPressure (kg/cm 2) I
Dynamic

I
Pressure

#f

(Nominal)

- .28

fl
_--

-- Mach

(Actual)

Water OECO _,_ ,,

Release

IECO Mach (Nora

inal)_

Dynamic Pressure (Actual)

40

80

120 Range

160 Time (sec)

200

240

280

320

FIGURE

5.

DYNAMIC

PRESSURE

AND

MACH

NUMBER

15

Longitudinal Acceleration (m/s2) 50

IECO

OECO

4O

Nomiral

30

20

i0

20

40

60 Range

80 Time (sec) IIEC O

I00

120

_':

160

Lon'_itudinal 50

Acceleration

(_il/s) 2

ECO 40

30

L
Actual

! Nom' na i 10 I

i I
L

125

il 0 Range

! J Ti_ ,.e(sec)

-10 FIGURE 6. LOI_GITUDINAL ACCELERAT!OU

16

0 |

,_

r'_

_ i

_0

u_

cO

c_ 0 0 0

O_

c_

c_

Ox

r_

Lr_

u_

_
I_ 0

_-__1

o_
e_

o"
r_

o"

_"
cn _

_
cq

_-d-

c;
0

_-_

o_ 0

,h _-_

_ _-_

0 ,-_

o0

o_ o_

_9 co

0o ,-_

_0

Z 0 F_

en
I 0

r_
* I I"-I

00

0"_

0"_

0 0

8
0 F_ 0
0

xl cO _0

_ -<l"

0"_ _

0 0

[._

'.0

_'

.<l

,,0

on

od _0

,_

4_ ,_

_ ,-4

_ ,--4

._4 b,1

L'q

,<_

v
_n 0 c_ c_ _-_

l>
"0

,-_
_

o
0

I .z:l _ _

_ ._ O0 _

._I o 0 ,-_

.r_ o 0

17

o
I

o_

brl xl
!

oo

uh

_o

c;

c;
I

c;
!

c_

_4

c;
i

o o o_ i _ _ _.o o

0d

c;

,J
_o oo o_

o .i..i

oo o.i

o o
_

o oo

0_1

o u_

oo

c;

,J

_d

co"
r_

._-

F_

F_ Z 0

oq

xl

o .,-4 o

o .,-I
v

t_

.iJ
v

_-_ o

o 0 o o o _-q

F_
n_

v
_ v

o o ;-I o 'o 00 .1_1 ,-i o0 o ! 00 _ .r_ _-q 00 _ l> ,-q n_ ,-I .r-i ",-4 0 0

_ 0

I-,
O2

"o ,-i 'o o _1 o 00.;.-4 o ,-1 t_ r-q r-q


-,-I

qq !

.IJ

0 0

[/2 .r-I

.,-i

-I

18

SECTION

V.

(C)

PROPULSION

A.

SUMMARY to Vehicle propulsion test limits. systems, system performance was tank well of individual throughwithin satengines,

2. LOX

The

thrust

OK cutoff achieved

of outboard a significant

engines increase in engine

due in shut-

depletion

out

the

flight

of Saturn Performance

SA-3

propellant utilization with down and vehicle control. 3. factorily The retro rockets

no problems

isfactory hydraulic

and propellant

pressurization

ignited stage

and operated powered flight.

satis-

system s did not deviate significantly from the predicted values. The vehicle longitudinal thrust was 0.15 percent lower and specific impulse 1.10 percent higher than corresponding All special missions, missions, predicted including were of particular system are propellant values. primary, secondary, Results and of the ve-

at the

end of S-I

B.

INDIVIDUAL The

ENGINE

PERFORMANCE individual The that was calculated approximately engines from 1.8 on the deviation flight per-

performance thrust,

of the between values,

accomplished.

SA-3 in data

flightwas and predicted

satisfactory.

maximum

special missions hicle propulsion 1. ullage loading operation. The volumes system, full

significance to the described below: load simulating to the system, Block

engine

II

cent, occurring viations for the percent low). mean as

on engine positions other engines varied to the predicted

6 and 8. The defrom - 1.6 to +1.2 thrust (see the beactual

presented

no problem

propellant and engine

compared

the pressurization

The engine-to-engine thrust was from +1.5

deviation from to -0.8 percent.

% Deviation

from

Predicted

Thrust

Predicted

-1

-2

0j
Individual Engine Deviation From Predicted Thrust Throughout this report, psi indicates an absolute pressure.

Thrust

NOTE:

19

The maximum between predicted curring other compared that on engines values, engine varied to the

deviation was

in engine from 2. +0.35 impulse The to

specific flight +2.6 +2.26 (see data

impulse, and for percent the octhe as The spe-

reconstructed position from predicted

Outboard engine cutoff signal OK" switchon engine position Engine sitions position 1, 3 feeds the from cutoff 2, and 3 had already

came from the "thrust 3, due to LOX depletion. LOX tank entered was 04. the given Engine thrust pode-

approximately

percent,

deviations below).

cay period when position 3. The values pressure by position a programed imum deviation proximately engine build-up number

signal

by engine

engine-to-engine cific impulse Engine

deviation from the was from +1.8 to -1.0 main propellant valve

actual mean percent.

starting of all were

sequencewas Figure engines. between pressure between 7 shows The

within the starting

expected chamber pairs 1, 3 with The maxof apt and 3. re-

of predicted.

opening

and closing

times are shown in Table III, and the cutoff impulse is shown in Table IV. All values shown in Table IV are nals as based for much on chamber the as outboard and 83 ms, channels pressure engines could, which decay. were therefore, The cutoff sigby measured a possible on cornerror When the into conchamber impulse

5, 7; 6, 8; 2, 4; and pairs. engines build-up

100 ms 40 ms

delay

in chamber occurred

mutated

be in error

represents

This deviation is within peatability limits. Inboard engines. was ure modified 8). engine The slightly

expected

engine-to-engine

in impulse of 6760 kg-sec ( 14,900 lb-sec). possible 83 ms error in cutoff time is taken sideration, pressure from trajectory All engine uatedand ation sition the decay cutoff are impulse values (Section from with the IV C. ). in good agreement

shutdown engine by the LOX

was

normal

on all cutoff

four ( Fig-

outboard

cutoff depletion

characteristic

information subsystems indicated

and components acceptable levels

were

eval-

the data

of oper-

except for the gear 2, which exceeded

case pressure on engine pothe limit of 0.7 kg/cm 2 (10

Actual total flow are shown There vehicle method ments vehicle propellant

and predicted vehicle longitudinal rate, mixture ratio, and specific in Figures 9 and 10. were two approaches system used

thrust, impulse

psi gauge). The currence appears line tailed (Section analysis XIII

mostplausible explanation of this octo be an obstructed pressure sensing B. for a detailed position in the explanation). 5 subsystems measuring Decould power of engine

to evaluate The measure-

the first

propulsion compared to corresponding thrust curve chamber flow GOX.

system propulsion

performance. inflight

not be made supply feeding C. VEHICLE Overall flected Inboard time ter was engine

due to a failure this area. PROPULSION propulsion cutoff

predicted was calculated pressures. as total engine engine flows flows,

information. The from measured The propellant lube are vehicle fuel total flows, expended

combustion SYSTEM PERFORMANCE as sec 7.43 reby the vehicle

is defined to include The

and vented system occurred cutoff performance, was at very 141.66 in vehicle and outboard at 149.09 initiated performance, engine satisfactory. range see la-

reconstructed

from flight parameters and discrete and are considered more accurate termined are hicle The vehicle thrust from flow meters. impulse However, was important for the recognition specific and totalpropellant

liquid level data than the flows dethe latter from flows vetransients. above.

occurred

of the flow determined flow

seconds. Inboard engine by the LOX tank 04 liquid

cutoff signal level sensor.

described

70 Deviation
3 m

from

Predicted

Specific

Ir:_pulse

Eng 6 Engl Ii Eng2

E ng 7

Eng 8 Predicted Specific Impulse

0 Individual Engine Deviation lrom Predicted Specific

F-].r-n
Irnpulse

2O

,.-I

O 4-_

o rj _,.zl
_0 o1-1 ,-I

,-I I I I

o
r-I v

o
r-i

rj

,-I

O Z
O

o u'_

o P._ _o

o o_ _.o

o o _o

o oq _D

o o _o

o o0 _o

o o i'_

o
z
Z O

.,-I
,-I O0

O r_
,-I V

O oq

O 04

O 04

O c'q

O _

O C_l .i--I

Oxl

.._
*,--I

OO
.,-I

o
O O O O O O O O

m ,-I

Z Z

c_

dddd

u E_ o OOOO O
O_

O
Cq

O
O'_

O
Cxl

O
I--I

O
,-I oo

m o 004-_ i._ q,-t 0.OO _O o q-i

21

TABLE ENGINE CUTOFF

IV IMPULSE

Engine Position

Engine

Cutoff

Impulse (ib- sec)

Comparison (kg-sec) See See See

with

Nominal (ib-sec)

(kg- see) 32,997 28,817 24,725 see see see Note Note Note

72,746

Note Note Note

5 5 5

3 63,530 3 54,510

25,348 25,437 24,281 24,547

55,883 56,079 53,530 54,118

-7038 -6949 -8106 -7839

-15,517 -15,321 -17,870 -17,282

NOTES I. 2. 3.

The nominal cutoff impulse is 32,400 _ 2400 kg-sec (71,400 5200 Ib-sec) for a one sigma confidence level. All values are based on chamber pressure decay data. The cutoff signal for engines i, 2, and 3 was commutated and could be in error by 83 ms, which represents an error in cutoff impulse of The cutoff impulse measurement have been 6760 for kg-sec engine (14,900 4 could cutoff the Ib-sec) or 21 percent. not be calculated due of engine engines 4 appears prevents to a to

failure; normal.

however, on

The LOX depletion cutoff comparison with nominal.

outboard

22

l l | I

I I
I I

I t

23

0 O0

i-I

o
0 0 v m

z
0 0 m

_.j

u ,-t v m I.-I

,-4

I--4

Q
0
M

0 o 0 v ,IJ Q o o o 0

0,.-I

Z4

Thrust 700

(I000

kg)

Thrust

(I000

Ib)

.1500 Fredicted-600 Cal_ulated from MeaSured Data 500 ii00

"1300

900 4OO

700 300 0 20 40 60 Range 80 Time (sec) I00 120 140 160

Specific 300

Impulse

(sec)

Reconstructed_

280

--Predicted 260

240 2O 4O 60 Range
C_

80 Time (sec) AND

I00

120

140

160

FIGURE

9.

"VEHICLE

THRUST

SPECIMC

IMPULSE

25

Vehicle 2.4

Mixture

Ratio

If)X/Fuel

\
2.3 2.2

----

Recon_[tructed

! 2ol

20 0 20 40 60 Range 80 Time (sec) I00 120 140 160

Vehicle 4000

Total

Flowrate

(kg/s)

ib/_)
8000 Predicted

3000 6000

2000 _Reconstructed

i000 2000

0 0 20 40 60 Range FIGURE I0. VEHICLE 80 Time (sec) RATIO AND TOTAL FLOW RATE i00 120 140 160

_FIXTURE

26

The

second

approach

is through

the

flight with

simulation a differenadjustments will produce

curves. Block

The II vehicles,

prediction based

technique on results system is betweenthe

will

be refined flight.

for

method,

whichis

a computer precedure parameter matches deviation

program

of this designed center

tial correction to the propulsion a trajectory The that percent

used to obtain inputs which the actual

trajectory. along with

taina board essary

The pressurization differential pressure

to mainand outis necprior to

from

predicted, of each below.

LOX tanks. The differential pressure to cause depletion of the center tank tanks tank. to prevent The required

the estimated accuracy from both approaches,

limitations is shown

parameter

depletion of the outboard usable LOX inthecenter tial pressure is maintained interconnect orifices was than pressurizing across these ( t. 3 psi) 3. pressure SA-3 flight. Blockhouse supply-sphere gauge) at over flight onds. at psi) liftoff at i50 records pressure

trapping of differenin the

by orifices lines. The approximately at IECO. System. expected

located

Flight Thrust Total Specific Flow Rate Impulse

Propulsion Percent -0.15 -t. +1.50 _- 1 + I 63 1

Flight -0. -t.

Simulation Percent i5 0.25 24 0.25

pressure drop 0.09 kg/cm 2

lower

predicted

+1. t0 0.25

Control Pressure system operated as

The control throughout the

The tracting ted. The

deviations predicted largest percent, the two

shownabove from deviation which methods. actual between is well

are and

computed dividing the two

by subby predic-

showed to be

the 195

high-pressure2 (2780 psi

kg/cm

approaches expected re-

is only 0.4 sults from D.

within

liftoff. This pressure to 144 kg/cm 2 (2050 psi pressure gradually This type a gauge Bearing was bearings predetermined was decayed absolute regulator. and with

gradually decayed gauge) at 150 sec2 (775 kg/cm decay psi) 2 (762 is

Regulated seconds.

54. 5 kg/cm to 53.6 pressure

PRESSURIZATION 1. Fuel Tank

SYSTEMS Pressurization. The fuel tank

expected pressurization system operated satisfactorily during flight. Gaseous nitrogen, supplied by 48 high pressure spheres, showed a pressure of 205 kg/cm_ (2920 psi gauge) proximately During slight 60 and again pressure at liftoff and decayed 77.3 kg/cm 2 (1100 intervals The first increase These heat as expected to appsi gauge) at OECO. pressure occurred small showed between pressure increases through in the when The 2 (1000 4. air trogen pressure stabilized bearing at

Air a

Supply. to provide flow, of the

The

purpose gaseous and

of

the niand

supply to the air platforms.

clean ST-90

temperature,

ST- 124P

two time increases. 80 seconds. increased result

the sphere

Blockhouse

records

show

that

the

air

bearing

high at apST-90 2 ( 3200 gauge)

At 106 to 115 seconds, slightly. from transferred

pressure supplywas maintained prior to launch proximately 210 kg/cm 2 ( 2990 psi gauge) for the and psi 209 gauge) kg/cm 2 (2970 and psi gauge) limits 183 kg/cm air from for the whichwas withinthe maximum The low decayed range redline pressure slightly time of 220 kg/cm 2 (2600 psi

ST-t24P,

sphere walls to the nitrogen little or no gas is being used spheres psi gauge) showed a rest pressure at 160 seconds.

at a time in flight from the spheres. of 70 kg/cm

minimum. of the ST-90 psi) at 32 sec

to the air bearings 2. 41 kg/cm 2 ( 34. 3 kg./cm 2 (33. 7 psi) at

to 2.37

ization was

2. LOX Tank Pressurization. of the LOX tanks, which was sequence by helium was begun prior from a ground

Initialpressurthe final function start source. T-115 timer, Pressec and

t50 seconds. The remained constant Specifications perature tainedat temperature Blockhouse inlet air

low pressure supply to the ST-124P at 2.24 kg/cm 2 ( 3t. 8 psi). for the air bearing inlet air tem-

in the automatic provided surization

to ignition

at approximately

was stopped by the LOX tank pressure switch at T-39 sec at a pressure of 4.25 kg/cm 2 (60.4psi). The pressurizing time of 76 sec was tl sec shorter than the pressurizing time for Saturn SA-2, due primarily to smaller initial volumes on SA-3 caused by the increased propellant loading. throughout flight volumes associated in accurately the LOX tank was as with

stated that the temperature 25 1C. Blockhouse records was records temperature maintained showed effect inlet within a cycling

must be mainshow that this specified in the 8.9 air limits. bearing per thercycles of the

of approximately of a cycling air heater.

minute, which was the mostatically controlled E. VEHICLE

LOX tank pressurization expected. The small ullage this ting flight the caused some problem of characteristics

PROPELLANT propellant one of the

UTILIZATION utilization (PU) most significant for the results

predicpressure flight

Overall vehicle of SA-3 was

27

ofthetest. Anevaluation ofthePU,utilizingvarious types offlightdata,ndicates i that99.4percent ofpredicted usableropellant total p wasconsumed during the flight. Thehighpercentage ofpropellant utilization resulted fromthe outboard engines being allowed to
deplete pressure the LOX tanks switch. before Center cutoff LOX by the "thrust tank depletion have occurred 0.7 see after lower-than-predicted and outboard LOX OK" (gas near IECO, break-through), IECO, occurred due to a 0.09 differential tanks. pressure which should approximately kg/cm _ (t. 3 psi) between

t35 sure lated

seconds. throughout from the

The

fuel

container

Ap transducer differential

outpres-

put indicated

a higher-than-predicted powered flight. LOX and fuel

The AP ratio calcucontainer AP data was in the correlates AP data period with may

generally below predicted, particularly of 90 to t40 seconds. However, this the individual propellant be attributed from Fuel system that the level data. the PU liquid probe However, system 100 seconds. level and therefore, Data lant ance. PU tank to performance level data probes PU correlate LOX results This level

and

dispersion. in the well probe propelwith data the inup

center

may be used

to compare

system

perform-

An evaluation dicates lb) outboard that 2145 engine of fuel remained

of vehicle (4,728 thrust onboard decay.

propellant the vehicle This

utilization 3892 at the compares

inend of well

dicate

do not

correlate

lb) of LOX and

kg (8, 58t

to approximately

difference

in sys-

tem results might be attributed mining a valid LOX density, onthe PU system results would first portion highest, and powered flight,

to difficulty in detersince the density error be greatest during the column is the end of

with the predicted residuals which lb) of LOX and 2248 kg (4957 lb) kg kg (8,58f (2000 lb) lb) of fuel was left onbeard, as extra loaded

were 1454 kg ( 3f97 of fuel. Of the 3892 approximately fuel, part 900 of which extra LOX on

of flight, where the liquid would tend to diminish near where the liquid column system

is lowest. performance some disagreelevel probe also varies be attributed

is considered bias to insure the burning of any LOX in the event it is usable and thereby assuring depletion. If the same cutoff timer had been SA-3 aswas usedon SA-i and SA-2, occurred 6 see after IECO and the

Overall was ment data. considered

propellant

utilization

used

satisfactory

although

cutoff would have LOX and fuel re3443 in-

was prevalent from the LOX discrete Some PU system performance data data; however, dispersion. SYSTEM data from SA-3.flight this may

siduals would have been 4,765 kg ( t0,504 lb) and kg (7,591 lb) respectively, showing a substantial crease in performance for a depletion type cutoff.

from predicted to performance F. HYDRAULIC The

In order ation, twelve

to check overall vehicle propellant liquid level probes were located discrete propellant useful information was the weight levels obtained

utilizin each during from the the

telemetered

indicated satismeaslimits.

tank to indicate flight. The most flight at the basedon gated from however,

that operation factory. All urements G. RETRO Four Saturn active flight 90 deg stage. through

of all four temperature,

hydraulic level, acceptable

systems was and pressure operating

of propellant

onboard

remainedwithin ROCKET solidpropellant

end of flight. Flow information during flight, the liquid level probes, has not been entirely Various obtain liquid reliable level probe techniques continuous signals. (PU) (as system was carried to deand was Results conare being investito the flow information

PERFORMANCE retro rockets were flown on

satisfactory.

A propellant on the SA-3 flight

utilization test

SA-3 vehicle; these retro rockets were part of the S-I/S-IV stage separation testedon SA-3. The retro rockets were apart Retro the S-I on the spider beam at the top rocket thrust vectors were stage center of pressure.

the only system mounted of the S-I directed

on SA-1

and SA-2)

termine system performance and reliability not a control feature of the Saturnfirst stage. from the PU system indicate that the propellant sumption rate cutoff (IECO) in LOX tank later uted than was close to predicted. was initiated by the 04 at 141.66 The sec late range cutoff

The

rocket

Inboard engine level cutoff probe time, might or l. 32 see be attribsuch pressures, as

motors were directed downward and canted 12 deg from the vehicle centerline. Retro rocket locations are sec shown sec after in Figure range inboard 11. time} engine retro Telemetered indicated Retro was cutoff rocket given on SA-3 curve rocket firing as command 12 (t53.66 scheduled, vehicle. is shown presperformlevels for of the retro predicted, in

predicted.

to dispersion

in performance

parameters container

variables propellant

in engine calibration, loading and densities. AP transducer differential during

A typical Figure sure data li.

rocket satisfactory

thrust retro rocket retro

chamber

LOX container higher-than-predicted out powered flight

output pressure the time

indicated a throughfrom il0 to

ance and approximately the four retro rockets. rockets was within

equal performance The performance expected limits of the

except

g8

c_
9.3 0 .._.j

E-_

;.-,:
i'q

L) E_

M
r_

< u

F_

t/%

,,.-I

C)

L_

0 C.) 0

4_

c_
l.,'h

_c,,_

29

with total impulse as calculated from ber pressures being about i. 7 percent dicted. pressures surements retro Table The performance is substantiated (Section IV D. ). rocket V along During (clockwise 4. 3 deg/s retro rocket performance with some retro viewed occurred rocket from and is as calculated by flight Measured

measured chamhigher than prefrom and chamber meascalculated listed in mechanical

foreach and/or terline. reached fications ments of retro

rocket, caused by twisting misalig_ment of the rockets The ST-90 platform roll at 158.4 sec range time. did not require alignment onthe SA-3vehicle. on SA-3 The is not rockets

of the to the limit

spider vehicle

beam een-

of 15 deg was

Retro rocket specito prevent roll moeffective considered misalignment significant Proper vehicles be signifiinteraction

parameters are predicted values. operation, the rear) attributed a

vehicle

roll

because S-I/S-IV separationwas alignment of retro rockets scheduling cant during S-I/S-IV separation. stage possible in preventing

not scheduled. on future Saturn separation S-I/S-IV will stage

of approximately to an effective 0.3 deg

misalignment

of approximately

3O

SECTION

VI.

(C)

MASS

CHARACTERISTICS

A.

VEHICLE The

WEIGHTS weight was approximately ApIb) of propellant phase of flight

B,

VEHICLE OF

CENTER

OF GRAVITY

AND MOMENTS

INERTIA and radial center of inertia are are also plotted of gravity and pitch given in Table VII. versus range time

total vehicle 348,219 kg

500,137 kg ( I, 102,614 Ib) at ignitioncommand. proximately were consumed 12). (Figure (767,692 during the S-I powered

and These

Longitudinal roll moments parameters i2.

Table VI indicates weights at various

in Figure

flight events.

31

O0 I-.I

O0

o i'_ o

Oo OO <1-

o'_

Oo o"1 i_ _,,.D

co c_l _o

e_ o,_t ,.-_0 oo'_

_0 O_

O0 O0

O_ O_

0 00

O0 O0

O0 ,.--_ O_

CO o4

O.<J" ,-"gO

_ O_

O0 O0

_ _0 _D

r_o O0 O0 _ O0 _ _ _ _ _ O_ _0 O_ _0 O_ O0 O0 _ _0

,--I

.< ;>
i._ 0 O0 o"_ I._ O0 i._ oO I'_ O_ _0 O0 _ O0 O0 _0 _0 ',..0

o,I

u,..i 0

.<
,--I

0 0
m-I 1_ ,-I O0 O0 00 I.rl O0 _1 I_. u"_ ,,4D

_g
_ ! 4.1 0 0 ,--I .,-I _._ _1 vv q.I I-I 0 m

o._
_.t I_ IlJ 4..I O,O W 0

_ .H

_>

32

4J ,Z::

CO r_

_0 ,_

oo u'3

_'x] oO r--. u-_

_-I cxl

u'3 P_

,,.0 Ox oo 0 ,._ 4-1 J _1

N
r._ o_ r._ ._,-_

,_

m r3

_0_

_0_0

u_
--4 0_0_0 _0_ ,-CO _ 0

,4

e2 _
0 ,--_ .4" m 0 _0_ _0_0 _ _ 0

o_

I1)

"0

r.zl

g_0_

_0 0 u'_ 0

0 _00_ _0_ 0 0

e_

,.-4

_13

0_0

_d
_ 0

__0

0",

:_

_0_

0_0_0 _0_

_0 _ 0 4J u_ 0 m _l

_0_0 '_ t'_ _0_

_.__
0 _._ C

1.1 C e_

C 0 _ v

o
0 _-/ 0 _

_ 0

._

_d
0 [-.I

P_

33

_r_

_4
I

! I

O0

O0

dd
b_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 0

dd
_ 0

d_
0 0 o.l _D ! o_ I

_2

_
O_

_
O_

_
_

_
_0

_
_

4-1

.._

O_ el.. o 0 ,13 0 ImelllO Io.*,tl ool** p_

0
0 0 _,1 ",D _,D

0 _" el?

O0 H

O0 0

m <

_ "0

O0 o

o oel r_ 0 0 0 0 I I 4..I ,1= t_O _-I .e.-t I:_ _-_ .IJ nD O0 -1 ,._ _J 0 _D 0 o_ o_ oo oo

o .r_ .,-; bO .,-I

o_

c_

_4
uh o

,._ .,-I

nn r_ 4_ U _

n_ 0 if-, 0 .,-I ,-I I-.t0 0 H[._O _F4_ "0 _ 0 "_ 0 4._ O0 .1J ou_ "o _ o o ,el nD .l m

?.

34

Vehicle 6 x I05

Weight

(kg)

Longitudinal Center of Gravity (calibers from gimbal station) I I IECO OEC(_ " 5.0

I
4 I _ 4.0

i
I i i I I 3.0

!I I
0 20 40 60 Range 80 Time (sec) i00 120 140 160

Pitch

Inertia

(kg-m-sec

2)

Roll

Inertia

(kg-m-sec 24 x

2) 104

6 x 106 End .Pitch of

I
Thrust Decay

20

16

12

0 20
i "

40

60 Range

80 Time

i00 (sec) CENTER RANGE

120

140

160

FIGURE

12.

VEHICLE WEIGHT_ MOMENTS OF

LONGITUDINAL INERTIA VERSUS

OF GRAVITY TIME

AND

MASS

35

SECTION

VII.

(U)

CONTROL

A.

SUMMARY The control system essentially the same for the Saturn vehicle SA-3 as that used in SA- 1 and SA-2.

Parameter

Magnitude

Range

Time

(sec)
was Attitude Angle-of-Attack (Free-stream) Angular Normal Actuator The tilt program for the ST-90 platform was generated by a synchronous motor driven Transients which _lppeared in the pitch tions by the on SA-2, cam due to a periodic the tilt generating program, cam as on SA-2. actuator deflecencountered did not occur priorto Pitch attitude 50 sec and deviations after t15 sec were (Figure essentially i3). zero Vehicle (similar to The tilting engine operation engine the operfor confailure. cam Velocity Acceleration Position t. 8 deg -6.8 deg 88.5 115.0 101.4 83.3 83. 3

However, the control gains (a o and bo) were changed because of the increased propellant loading in order to maintainthe same correlation with the vehicle mass as on SA-t and SA-2.

-1.0 deg/s -1. i m/s 2 -2. 8 deg

resistance

on SA-3. Engine deflections, of-attack were less than SA-2 The direction SA-2. The flown closed for on SA-3, be in closed flights greatest primarily wind
I

tilting was initiated by the ST-90 tilt cam the one used on SA-2) at 10.33 seconds. attitude those due the angles, observed in the as and angleson SA-I and shape. pitch plane on program ation the trol prior remainder requirements (Figure to 20 14) was see and of the flight, in the to measurements based seven in order event of made on eight engine an of

to the same

trajectory experienced

to minimize ST-90

speeds nearly

occurred

andwere

According

Statham operational indicate loop loop

control study that

accelerometers, purposes should on SA-4. Statham for the they

which first

were time for will rate

by LVOD, the actual tilt program cut on the cam started differing from the requested tilt beginning around 90 seconds. Final tilt arrest occurred at t32. 03 sec with vertical. The time cam device of initiation provided at 10.33 continuous sec, until tilting from tilt arrest at zero and Periodic position on SA-3. 8 degrees of a wind incre/ment of the vehicle tilted 44. 28 degrees from the launch

be satisfactory accelerometers The control

operation. operation

gyro package also performedproperly. bration effects were present, although with proper as an active filtering control if the rate sensor gyro in its

The usual vinot detrimental package was location. all performed noticed at subsensor. Q-ball sec could of flight. and the the used

the

132. 03 sec, a maximum transients, SA-2 due The occurredat gradient

withthe tilt rate varying between of 0.6 deg/s at 85 seconds. which to the occurred cam device, in the did actuator not occur of-2. an altitude

present

Angle-of-attack measuring systems satisfactorily. An"upwash effect"was sonic With have speeds this been The control The ST-124P differences used on for the Q-ball into properly taken control of the were account

maximum 83. 3 sec of 0.023/s

actuatordeflection (Figure acting over

angle-of-attack up to 100-110 hydraulic

13) as a result

of 390 meters. This 9.0 m/s as determined compared The wind plane was and to the both attack due changed to 8.7 m/s component very engine different gains. and

gust had a velocity increment of from the angle-of-attack winds Irom variation rawmsonde to previous (tail were measurements. for the pitch flights Angles-ofhowever, by SA-3 and in Saturn wind). lower, flown with altitude

operations computer attitude platform which

actuators

satisfactory. from by the the except fact passenger for some the that

similar

measurements were are satisfactory explained accurately "trimmed"

magnitude

direction deflections trajectory

ST- 124P was not aligned resolver chain was not SA-4. B. S-I CONTROL 1. trol Pitch

in azimuth and the as will be done for

control

Shown component ANALYSIS Plane. for the The SA-3 maximum powered pitchplane flight were: consources;

in Figure winds rawinsonde, as

15

is a comparison of time and rocketsonde,

of the from

pitch three

a function

angle-of-

parameters

attack winds. The angle-of-attack winds (solid line) were determined from attitude and angle-of-attack measurements made onboard the vehicle which were

36

0 :.el

! ----I

" L ....

---

",-,1" [,--4

,-4

_.--

-_
;m 0 t_

0 E_

,
L 0 <2,-,--4

r..)

<

.<

i--I r_

0 00-I ,---i r_

_"-"-

I L w LI ,-.-4 C_ [--i i--4

,Z_-'-.',.D

IE i L_ v r.. b v e0 .,,-I i d] 0 U

E4 _ 0-...-.-

_4
,-...4

L U 4J

0 .I.J t'1

;2
J 4J .,-4 0 I 0 r! 4J *,-4 _'0 ,-...-I U < _4

>

4_1 C_ I-I )

V--< 0 "4 o4 _ 0 _4 I _1 I

o ,.-.i

"D
v

37

.,-I

ilj

o
.IJ

\
v

4..J ,-.I rJ

o o 4J 0

"o
4.1 .rt

o 00

E-t
I

.iJ
v

u o

o
r_.4

4..i

0
I

38

0 .I-I

0 4-1 4-1

q-I 0 0 0 ,--4 O0

OJ .I.J

0 !

,4"

eq

eq I

._ I

'_0 l

GO I

0 I

39

combined nents Science applying factor. titude ure i5. of Rocketsonde from

with meters)

trajectory were

angles Local used for

and velocity angles-of-attack this calculation

compo(U. S. after trol

2.

Yaw

Plane. for the

The SA-3

maximum powered Magnitude

yaw flight

plane were:

con-

tracking.

parameters Parameter

the appropriate Rawinsonde winds 33.3 The km (ti4.3 are winds after maximum

correction for were obtained sec vehicle as solid winds are

the upwash up to an alrange time}. in Fig-

Range (sec)

Time

shown

points

Attitude Angle-of-Attack (Free-stream) Angular Velocity Normal Acceleration Actuator Position

-0.4 1.3 -0.6 0.5 -1.7

deg deg deg/s m/s 2 deg

80.6 79.5 104. 5 77.9 103.7

angle-of-attack 117 seconds. pitch plane

considered

questionable The measured pressure The free degrees. attack can

wind

component

as

by rawinsonde duringthe maximum dynamic region was 30.9 m/s at 83. 1 sec (13.9 km). stream angle-of-attack at this time was -4. i Approximately be attributed 51 percent to the winds. of this angle-ofThe remaining

Small

yaw

deviations

were

observed Essentially of winds. occurred

throughout all of Compart00

the powered flight (Figure 17). these deviations were the results atively large actuator movements seconds. The largestactuator at 103. 7 sec as a result over an altitude increment gust had a velocity mined from angle-of-attack from rawinsonde winds. Yaw plane light wind titude plane, attack (dashed throughout component wind components

portion is attributed is based on seven period.

to the fact that the tilt program engine operation during this flight

around

deflection was -1.7 deg of a wind gradient of 0.02/s of 670 meters. This wind of 13.5 winds m/s as deterto 12. 4 compared

Figure design criteria engine tilt The gains were state count eters inal from propellant

16

shows with

an eight

estimate engine

of the operation

pitch

angle

increment

on a seven

program used for the loading. Drift

for a flight establishing Minimum The response

time of 70 seconds. the design criteria Principle due to the for 2a the full steadyto acparamthe nom-

( Figure

18) were

very

winds has for gusts. have response The solid as of the values been

been increased by 25 percent Variations in aerodynamic accounted for by increasing

the flight. The maximum yaw plane was 13.2 m/s (from the left) at an al-

of 12.4 km (79,6 seconds). As in the pitch good agreement existed between the angle-ofwinds lines). (solid lines) and the rawinsonde (solid points) winds were and point Rocketsonde winds

11 percent. lines a function from angle-of-attack of the budgeting considered were: engine of tilt in Figure of time, the SA-3 are for 16 represent and the flight. two the bar the points Shown various design are the to the

criteria observed right

also in good agreement with both angle-of-attack rawinsonde winds. The dynamic pressure at the where the angle-of-attack was Roll 0.026 Plane. winds kg/cm 2. of the vehicle the appear ( 122 sec) 3.

to be unreliable

graphswhich factors.

are estimates The factors i. 2. 3. 4. 5. The cent maximum ity at 70 sec below the

Roll attitude

was

Seven Effect

program gains gains winds being different from

maintained by control engines The the SA-3

differentially in both pitch roll flight plane were:

deflecting and yaw. coatrol

outboard

control

drift minimum 2or steady-state Wind Stability actual gusts ratio

maximum powered

parameters

for

(C1/B ) variations are approximately which The wind were 36 peris near the well

Parameter

Magnitude

Range (sec)

Time

flightvalues values pressure 20. I m/s. condition.

of the

design dynamic was design

at 70 sec, region.

Attitude Angular Effective Deflection Velocity Engine

0.7 -0.6 -0.

deg deg/s i deg

142.1 143.0 80.0

veloc-

All parameters

40

Free-stream, (deg) 16

Pitch

Angle

of

Attack

12

Design At 70 sec

CI/B Variation ApFroxiY_ Of Att-_ck :--_ Angle _ased j on Gusts

Design

Criteria

f
Act,_al /0 At see 2 o Winds Gains Observed On SA-_ Engine Tilt

20

I 40

! 60

! 80 Range Time

I 100 (sec)

Pitch (deg)
8,

Actuator

Deflection Approximate F Deflection Engine l_ased r L:_ On

4,

, 20

40

, 60

I 8U

l 100 Range Time

I 120 (sec)

Dynamic Produ

Pressure

Angle

of

Attack

- " ,
0 20

I'
40

I
60

,
80 Range

I
i00 Time (sec)

,
120

FIGURE (8 ENGINE'S

16.

PITCH

ANGLE WITH 7

DESIGN ENGINE

CRITERIA TILT PROGRAM)

OPERATING

,41

0 Pt E-I I--I

0 [--I

I,,4

P_

_J v

._I 4-I 4-I

42

43

tions

The roll attitude and average are shown in Figure 19. what is now obviously

roll actuator posiThe roll of SA-3 expattern rep"dis-

the

bending

in yaw

was

approximately

2 percent

of

hibited

a characteristic

critical damping. until 151 see, after most 153.66 normal As mode root mode constant seconds. in both the until

Bending in pitch initially damped which the amplitude remained alignition this, of the retro was rockets essentially at After damping

for the Saturn vehicle. resents an equilibrium

The observed roll attitude between some unknown

turbance" moment and the control to the average engine deflections shown in the in the in Figure period below: 19. are The cutoff table compared

torque corresponding in the roll direction moments for all three in roll flights

planes. thrust approaches indicated be slightly decays, the that the at first zero bending region. thrust which A the is in

disturbing

engine root analysis would

coupled locus in pitch

unstable

unstable,

ROLL Prior

MOMENT Prior to OECO kg-m 928 713 672 the roll same angle trajectory time histories. and

agreement tween pitch

with the flight. and yaw mounting

There is a difference beconstraints of the instruplatform, was 0.5 would this give by such that the to 0.6 that in an increasing would must not be There

to IECO kg-m

ment canister containing the control feedback gain in yaw pitch. damping explain other ence lag possible At the zero thrust this effect. damping However, observed

SA-3 SA-2 SA-1 SA-t had similar and SA-2

1553 2140 1490 followed

itself

in yaw.

effects. Some possibilities might be a differin structural damping in yaw, increased phase of the servo system at small in the amplitudes, complete and system. other non-linearities

characteristic

SA-3 flew a different of the roll angle for from roll that attitudes of the for the

trajectory, and the time history SA-3 was also somewhat different two vehicles. three flights are However, plotted if the together

first

as a function of Mach number, is almost identical and indicates The increase in roll (in the 1.5 can be correlated tion. The variations {prior Mach fect. to Mach number, 1.5) are indicating

{ Figure 20) the trend a close correlation. after Mach acceleraand 90 sec with ef-

CW direction)

with the longitudinal in roll between 60 most closely a possible

Since the effect of the thrust vector angularity of the engines duringthrust decay is of interest in future design, values have been obtained for all three Saturn vehicle during flights. any portion The largest of the thrust decay vector that angularity has been period

correlated aerodynamic

consideredoccurred the 10 percent values obtained are for allowed All deg values

on SA-I and was 0.33 deg during to 0 percent thrust decay period. The for well in the the within S-IV SA-3 the flight design are listed below. of one design. angularity

The

roll

after

Mach

1.5

appears

to be more

likely in the One to with engines coupled cause The a soft-

an inertial effect. This level changes in the roll possible roll ness the are with an inthe explanation CW direction system The in the proper and the of

is also very apparent bias after each cutoff. this is that structure of gravity such load, the basic with associated of the that, it could vectors. be associated

stage Thrust

separation

trend

may and centers

Vector Angularity During Cutoff Decay Yaw (deg) 0.08 0.14 0.08

in the servo actuators. offset the angular softness

Pitch i00 to I0 Percent Thrust i0 to 0 Percent i00 Thrust to 0 Percent Thrust A large degree of deg) exists in the small deviations Retro rockets their

(deg) 0.21

direction inertial of

0.08 0. t2

misalignment

the thrust

actuator loads, tial pressures hypothesis. Theroll tional pursued

as measured (Figure 25),

by the actuator are consistent

differenwith this

deviation from

clearly of the a general and Control engines mode

does

not

affect

the

funcwill be

uncertainty (estimated above measurements analyzed. flown for the first

to be 0.75 due to the

performance further 4. Attitude outboard bending

vehicle,

but analysis interest After

being were

viewpoint. time on Cutoff. sec The The excited and yaw damping cutthe at a of SA-3 to test functional performance prior to their

off

of

the

at 149.09 in both cps.

vehicle coupled

first

pitch

use for hicles. were

separating the SI-SIV stages Close alignment tolerances for this flight and measured

on Block II vefor the retros alignment is

frequency

of 2.6

to 2.7

waived

44
0 0

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

..4

0 ..d . [-.-t I-4 I. 0

"F

o4

r-=]

4J 00 o.I "0 i-4 ! r.3 .o .z= ,-1

o-.,

0 .r..l

i-4

O0 "0

m 0 0 0 -_

n= _J 1 0 4-1 4-1 4-1 .< _ (11

P4

_ _

,--.4

0 I

45

I,
ii
I

_4

_2
I

I
r_ u'3

\\ I

_4 _,_ \'_.\

o Z o

t'M

g(
v
0

_'_
u'3

I.-I

I/
I
.IJ

rT'_

/ !
i
,-_ 0 ,-4 I 0

46

questionable. LOX since beam stud the LOX centerline

However, became a load

there path

is a possibility at retro

that

the and

range

(_ 100 deg/s)

rate

gyro

package

was

also

on-

ignition,

studs are 3.8 inches off of the spider an effective misalignment would rethe spider beam outside The results would be observed from of the in the

board for vehicle failure analysis if required. All of the instruments operated properly. Some vibration effects were evident in the two sets of low range rate gyros, butwere proper ployed which were on continuous telemetry channels, not detrimental to the basic information. With filtering as an active c. control local the "control" control sensor package in the could control Four (U be emloop. active device, meas-

sult from twisting of cross beam network. same data. At a sharp rocket direction as

that

telemetered

the time of retro rocket roll deviation began. burning (t55.73 sec),

ignition At the the roll

(153. 66 sec) end of retro angular veloc21). To obof all four to the were pitch cant any misor yaw

Angle-of-attack angle-of-attack

meters. meters

S. Science) for

ity had increased tain this roll rate retro angle rockets planes, of was the

to 4. 3 deg/s (Figure an average misalignment deg perpendicular If there in the rockets and could measured its This forced required. retro small angle reached

were used on SA-3. A Q-ball angle-of-attack similar to the one used on SA-2, was used uring purposes. The U.S. Science meters were mounted surface inthe

of 0.285

radially at station pitch plane

alignments

planes, they were The roll attitude bilized deg at platform 158.5

not be determined. on the ST-90 stastop ST-90 of out 15 of the

90 deg apart in the payload body t841. Two of these meters measure and two in the yaw plane. measurements and the shown on the in Figure they 23. are body

mechanical

The average of the two pitch two yaw measurements are Since these meters by the are body located upwash. influenced

seconds.

reference in yaw and no usable vehicle attitude information was obtainedafterthis event. Figure 21 shows the simulation (dashed retro of roll rocket each plane line) of this event pressures, same using the with ditelemetered a misalignment rection in the C. chamber

Free-stream recting the Figures From attack sonde from

angles-of-attack, local meters for 18.

resulting upwash, are

from corpresented in

15 and

retro rocket in the of 0. 285 degrees.

the comparison

of the

calculated

angles-d-

FUNCTIONAL 1. Control a.

ANALYSIS Sensors. accelerometers. (pitch purposes and for Two Statham

from rawinsonde (square wind data (solidpoints) and the local meters, it can

points) and rocketthe angles-of-attack that these

be concluded

meters functioned sure was greater yaw) were flown the first time on (Figure 22) during flight. closed loop opthe Q-ball the to from time. these The meters pitch

properly when the dynamic presthan 0.026 kg/cm 2. Information is probably meter reached unreliable after this its measuring limit

Control

control accelerometers for operational study SA-3. show These eration made The proper would in the between from telemetered operation have been

of 10 deg Shown direct

at 117 seconds. in Figures measurements Good angle-of-attack after approximately At speeds 15 and 18, as dashed of angle-of-attack agreement is obtained 65 sec below (Mach Mach and the angle-of-attack 1 there lines, from are the from t) and up is

accelerations of the equipment acceptable for

flight control the telemetered independent less of the

system. A comparison acceleration and that flight measurements gives than 0.2 m/s 2, which is reduced data used in the frequency appear on were exflown in type loop

indicator.

between

the Q-ball locals 105

calculated satisfactory within the comparison. (approximately

agreement, errorlimits

seconds.

A considerable 10 to 15 the

amount of high cps) oscillations

probably an upwash of angle-of-attack

effect influencing from the Q-ball.

the measurement (Volume II).

the measurements, perienced from

but they are less than Edcliff accelerometers SA-1 and will be of the SA-2. flown local

the same location on control accelerometers control on SA-4, transducers. b. located Minneapolis of the age S-I for pitch in Rate both stage

Statham in closed angle-of-attack

The angle-of-attack telemetered individual namic Q-ball. pressure These correction are shown

was also differential as

calculated pressures

from and

the dy-

in place

factor as measured by the circled points in Figures measurein the pitch of for plane essenagrees

15 and 18. The agreement ment of angle-of-attack gyros. the control Rate gyro packages (a and in the large measuring were 3-axis tail packplane about tially very attack is quite 0.25 deg good starts instrument Kearfott A 3-axis canister package) "measuring" and

with the direct from the Q-ball where continues The yaw which

up to 65 sec, of the time.

a deviation

Honeywell (a 2-axis and yaw).

the remainder

well with the direct measurement of angle-offrom the Q-ball prior to 105 seconds. At this

4? Attitude 16 Roll (H3-15) (deg) /


s

12 ated

/
1! 7

.Y
## P

#st

/
153 i i4 155 -4 A:_ular Velocity Roll (F14-15) 4

i;_6

15 3 Range

[_ 9 TJ ne (sec)

16 0

(deg/s)

_,<" '

] _ ted

/
4 ] 55 i__0 1_=.7 15; Range -i i! Til 16 0

(sec)

FIGURE'21.

RCLL

DURING

RETRO

ROCKET

FIRING

48

, "1 _'_

....

-- ....

_'_

v _--0 _ ...............

r.

c_

o_
I-I

!-

E
i 0 ,---4 I ,..-4

4..; I-I

,--.4

4-1 0 0 0 L.) 0

,j

3_
0

_J

I-

JF-

_J

IIJ

113 ,--4 -_

j.,1

&9

ii
..... _ ....... v_ ................. ............... v .................. ......... 0 [.-4 ....................

@%

7:

" !
.,-/

I
7_

!
!

L
,.@

4.
v
S"

i I
_

i
,
C4

__

.o_

i
I
r-I 4-I

,r-I

J CM I

.IJ

-]<

_--I I

50

time, urement attack

an increasingdeviationbetweenthe from from the the Q-ball differential the and the pressure calculated

direct starts.

measThe from latthe

a ioad outboard. act this maximum and was

on

each The inertial

of the increase load

engines

tending

to swing

them

angle-of-

in actuator can readily portion

loads to counterbe observed in the of Figure 25. The

ter follows essentially locals and the winds. The attributed comparisons, system onds. appears deviations to telemetry the use prior

angle-of-attack

veetordiagram

in the lower inertial 970 kg.

loading occurred just prior to IECO Gravitational loading effects prior clearly indicated Ap since curtain loads inmeasurements

to 105 sec inaccuracies. of the Q-ball

may

possible

be

to

liftoff

are

not

Based

on these 105 sec-

angle-ofoattack

and the terfere

exact zero point of the with the determination.

to be feasible

up to at least

The 2. control Control Computer. on this flight The was operation entirely outputs values as was of the satisfacof the based exfirst stability 3. actuators ator Actuators. The was satisfactory. during the differential misalignments for gimbal all actuators. friction operation of the An investigation was made hydraulic of actuduring ators than computer

maximum the

demands time

on the

actuators where demands rate

occurred all actuof 4. 5 was less

90 to 104 sec The

period, level

experiencedpeak I deg/s. After mode of OECO bending this mode there

deflection nominal

tory. Comparisons of the telemetered computer and calculations of the output onthe static deg control or equation for gives all three in 0.6 pected. better axes,

to 5. 5 deg/s.

of demand

an agreementwithwere several were periods excited. by the where The oscillations is influenced

movement

of the controlengines. in response to control bending inertia bending B. 4). tuators. one indicates occurred frequency effect mode This of the

When the engines are swiveled commands at the first mode thrust tends discussed to condition, decrease in Section the the VII acfor This engines {as

loading

flight

by analyzing

and at a zero

the actuator Thrust vector determined tain and reliable torques

pressure measurements. and inertial loads were An investigation torques was not made when for periods of cursince these

stability

swiveling requires power to move the Figure 26 shows representative curves engine hydraulic supply after OECO.

data was not available could be isolated. misalignment forces,

typical

that complete depletion of hydraulic pressure at 158.5 seconds. Between OECO and this for the control into system used on SA-3, decreasing energy the be fed a bending oscillation,

Thrust

as

determined are were

from shown deterthe

time, could stability.

the differential pressure measurements, in the upper portion of Figure 25. These mined pressure values were yaw. (Figure explain by subtracting values just after just ignition. the prior telemetered to engine Thrust

differential ignition from 4. The was ST-124P flown as ST-124P stabilized a passenger Stabilized platform on SA-3. Platform {prototype The Attitudes. model) is and will beginning ST-t24P forces

misalignment

less than 250 kg on all actuators except engine 2 The force on this actuator was about 435 kg 25). the The indicated is roll direction in a consistent deviation of the (Section net thrust to in roll systematic direction

misalignment

planned for use on the operational vehicles be flown in closed loop on Block II vehicles with SA-7. A comparison the two difference tematic titude platforms in all deviation, measurements the The of the attitude measurements

VII B.3). from (ST-90 and ST-t24P) three axes (Figure shown between the the two from shows some 27). The sysyaw and roll atis due

However, this explanation appears unsatisfactorywith regard to the fact that the roll deviations were so similar in all three Saturn flights if the (Figure magnitude 20). As yet, misit has not been determined alignment is sufficient. The maximum differential actuator of the

platforms,

pressure loads of prior loads pressure each the of

measurements 1,433 kg

indicate (design load

to the misalignment reacting, through Section VIII C.3.

of the ST-124P vebicle tilting, additional backlash telemetry systematic resolver small

platform azimuth as mentioned in differences are in the servo gear and data reduction difference chain. This bepitch mis-

5,230 kg) occurred just (Figure 24). Variable during center displaced imately sembly. coupled the high of 20 radially dynamic of from gravity

to inboard engine cutoff up to 689 kg appeared region the outboard center of flight. engines line approxThe is

felt to be due to excess trains in the ST-124P and errors. tween mismatch angular The the pitch in the error (_e) much attitude ST-124P larger

angles

is due to an impedance of the impedance

engine

cm primarily The increasing this offset

due to the acceleration center of gravity

turbopump asof the vehicle,, location, puts

is a function

with

match and the sine of twice -M sin 2).. is the tilt angle

the resolved angle it. e. (Pc of the ST-124P outer pitch

51

-I0 (o 0

t_ 0 H

1
<-

t.D

]o" t_

_L

T
o

tD

&
v

t_ H o

o 4J c_ u-_

i
|

o o o

o o u-_

52

Actuator

Load

(kg)

600

400 Actuator Load (kg)

Thrust

Vector

Misalignment Loads On Actuators t 4OO

0 20]

40O

400 Inertial Due To Changes 0.2g 600 I -I 0.gg 1.7g Change Change Change Load Changes

Acceleration

800 400 Inertial Acceleration

0 Load On

Actuators

I000

800

600

400

200

0 I

20(

400

600

800

i000

(kg)

]
Note: Total Vector View Looking is From Rear Forward

Length Indicates Internal Load At IECO 400

600

800

I000 FIGLqlE 25.

NON-COntROL

ACTUATOR

LOADS,

SA-3

53
_o

/
tj D 0

00

\/
1.1 H ilJ 0 0 ,IJ 0

/
Xl cq I-I o m

00 o0

v 0 I_ 0 0 0 u'_ 0 0 0 u_ 0 0 0 0 co

o v

o xl

o o

o 00

o _o

0 ,q

54

Attitude

Pitch

ST-90

Minus

Attitude

Pitch r

ST-124 I

(deg)* ' I

_-------Pitch difference corrected for impedance mismatch in ST-124P resolver chain

' _'b':_ ,'-" r -i . "

.'. .": '-. "V _

'.'" '_ I' I ,;'._ _ K_n_e llne

.' _sec)

_./,,,,r_._

-2 *Measured AtLitude Yaw ST-90 Minus Attitude Yaw from ST-124 Launch Zdeg) Space-fixed Vertical

$0 Range Ti

i(

_e (see)

Attitude

Roll

ST-90

Minus

Attitude

Roll

ST-124

(deg)

L|A^

/ -_,/vv
21 0 6_ 8 )0 -i

"'VV
12 0 Range

F"
I _0 Ti le (sec) i(

FIGURE

"27.

--ATTITUDE

DIFFERENCES

BETWEEN

ST-90

AND

ST-12_P

55

resolver. maining

The difference

dashed

line

in Figure angles 0.3 made.

27 shows after percent)

the

re-

by measurement continuous

D6-OC

which The

was

telemetered are extremely

on the sen-

in the pitch _2 {approximately error has been

a correcimpe-

channel.

results

tion for a 1.3 dance mismatch To platform ilar The error error

sitive to many parameters, the propellant surface in the quency. The results results shown the best to be obtained

especially tank and the here are at this time.

the height of exciting frebelieved to be measconverexact Presently,

substantiate for SA-4was build-up for This a tilt will

the mismatch asstunption, testedand found to have as be the tilt program to less was than angle of 44 deg portion amounted of the

the a simrun in. deg to 1.75

ground tests uring system sion procedures methods. The round the

of this slosh differential pressure are being analyzed to verify the being used or to develop

more

degrees.

reduced

0.25

by balancing out the major before the platform is flown. D PROPELLANT The outer same SLOSHING baffle tanks

mismatch largest time amplitudes of maximum of sloshing dynamic occurred pressure a(80

configurations as usedon SA-2.

were

used

in the baffles

sec). The table below compares amplitudes observed on SA-3 with

the peak sloshing those of SA-2. Peak-toPeak

propdllant

These

again proved effective in keeping at low levels. However, some sloshing A peak actuator OE CO. frequency amplitude positions were of at noted 145 sec, 0.2 deg

sloshing amplitudes oscillations at the engine positions. in the damped pitch out by occurred being

Tank Fuel Fuel 2 2

Plane Pitch Yaw Pitch Yaw Pitch Yaw

Meas. D4-F2 D5-F2 D6-04 D7-04 D6-OC D7-OC

No.

Amplitudes SA-3 15 8 24 20 10 10

(cm) SA-2

in the

13 10 11 11 10

LOX 4 in three of the nine propellant tanks was LOX 4 Center LOX Center LOX

Sloshing measured ments. LOX

by means of differentialpressure Slosh measurements were made LOX tank 04 and fuel tank (in center telemetered LOX tank) and on continuous

measurein the center F2. MeasureD6-04 {LOX telemetry

tank,

ments D6-OC tank 04) were channels.

ered center

The most noticeable flight was detected tank. went A pronounced which the 120 sec, below

sloshing near on measurement regular before (Figure was

the

end of powD6-OC in the started surampliThe

oscillation the propellant 28).

around All properly first few apparently indicated SA-2 are Start of the during seconds, valid measurements apparently functioned during the The first the times times for face tude fluid

baffles

most of the flight except which is characteristic. information below. was obtainedat Comparable

amounted to only about 1 cm up to the time the surface went below the slosh probe and the measended. The dashed slosh This was in Also, frequency lines amplitude has been baffles, different The magnitude that the sloshing vehicle as in Figure observed referenced since sloshing on started was the time due to the in the SA-2 and driven 28 show in the to the hiscenter SA-3. more propelof the on SA-2. the two flights differences. similar it appeared on SA-3.

urement

in the table also shown. Times

the envelope center tank location of tory lant tank earlier of the loading was

end of the

of Valid

Slosh SA-3

Measurements SA-2 3 sec 20 18 15 14 pressures to obtain the is a funclevel dampin

However, D4-F2 D5-F2 D6-04 D6-04 D6-OC DT-OC The telemetered must be multiplied sloshing tion the tank, height of many 0 sec 0 8 29 0 18 sloshing differential by a conversion factor This including acceleration, factor the liquid propellant The center

somewhat previously,

at the sloshing than SA-2. Figure quencies pared IECO are to the

mentioned

29 shows detected predicted. frequencies which

a comparison sloshing The indicate square that the detected

of some measurements points vehicle

of the shown of the was

frecomafter

in the

in some

accelbeing

erometers,

in centimeters.

parameters,

forced by the sloshing. The pitch actuator also indicated this. In this case, in contrast the vehicle of the appears propellant, this to be driven rather is at the than consistent quency at some or

positions to SA-I, freis not coupled not

longitudinal

natural

ing, and frequency of oscillations. pellant slosh heights for the shown in Figure 28. The best

converted proLOX tank are was obtained

information

frequency. Whether known at this time.

56

_J

t_ _S _Q

?
-i-I c_ _0 t_ t_ J_ _-1 _OI O

O t_ O Q v_

J_
O ,'j

pm

mmmmmmm

i-1

2
v--4

! r_ V

[d_
J,J -r-I

c_

I-g

rf_ immm m CO i-g '_ 0 I 0 ! |

5?

o t_

o
P

o o 0

_Q
o ,4,-I

_o
_ v "1

o f

Io I o I%o
o I
0 M

4_
o o

P.

tll

I I

1
r_
I v v

I
P_ i11

o
v

I I

I I

1
o
r_

t/I

I I
!

I
I

I
0 CM

I I
I
m

7 I I
o o

X o _-_

_J 0 m_,,i Q; o o

Q o

58

SECTION

VIII. (C)

GUIDANCE

A.

SUMMARY is a four The Saturn SA-3 vehicle was flown ST-124P establish telemetered satisfactory equipment without active

2. grating ement.

ST-124P Guidance System. gimbal system utilizing two

The ST-124p AMAB-3 inte-

path

guidance

or velocity

cutoff.

However,

passenger (Prototype) the operain data perforthroughout the as

accelerometers mounted on the stabilized elPlatform orientation is maintained by three The vehicle accelerometers were velocities in the verthe lay The altitude accellocal vertical at in the fixed of its launch horiThis azimuth.

hardware guidance tional Saturn mance powered

for both ST-90 and systems was onboardto capabilities flight of the flight. of the environment. comparison ST-90 guidance The confirm

AB-5 stabilizing gyros. oriented to measure the tical and cross erometer was launch; zontal orientation the stable the plane

guidance

equipment

range directions. aligned along range normal axis and

a trajectory

cross

to the firing

remained essentially element was forced out

in space until frame of ref-

Erroneous ometer system noted the signals could ometer deduced before cross range

outputs mounted ignition.

from the cross range acceleron the ST- 124P platform were No correction contained These extraneous the telemetered range was made extraneous signals accelerwas and

erence.

measurement flight. from

Mechanical reached Platform the

limits indicated

and times stops are

when listed

both below. Time

platforms

throughout be eliminated output from

and valid cross the measurement.

information

Mechanical Stop

Limit

(sec) Record 158.4 158.9 to 159.4 *

Computed 415 _11 deg deg 158.4 158.54

ST-90 The output of the altitude acceleromcter mounted ST-124P on the ST-124P platform was satisfactory. Comparisons with both calculated and ST-90 guidance data indicateda vclocitydifference of approximately 0.2 m/s at end of thrust, after the altitude velocity was corrected for a 0.09 percent scale factor error. The Saturn SA-3 vehicle after ignition of the retro Both the ST-90 experienced a high roll rockets at about 153.6 and ST-124P at platforms mately approximately Guidance data

Roll Yaw or X-gimbal

*Indication of loss ofplatform reference from the yaw gyro pickup measurement (H19-12) occurred during a calibration period. The vehicle 45 deg was measured flying at an the angle of approxiX-axis.

rate

seconds.

from

platform

reached their mechanical limits 158.4 see and 159.2 sec respectively. past these points were invalid.

Therefore, form X-axis axis

the component of motion about the platdue to roll about the vehicle longitudinal given by: t

is approximately

B.

DESCRIPTION

OF

GUIDANCE

SYSTEM

0y _

sin

45 t

f
O

@rolldt

ance

I. ST-90 Guidance System. The ST-90 system was similar to that flown on SA-2

guid(RefA rotation 158.54 sec was tered values forming the ignition. tt19-12) urement 158.9 of 11 deg about by in the from the inserting 124P X-axis the telemeat computed

erence 3). Three integrating accclerometers (AMAB3) were mounted on the stable element to measure velocities in the slant range, slant altitude,and cross range directions. The slant range accelerometer was oriented in the firing direction and 4i up from the launch horizontal; the slant altitudeaccelerom eter was 4l from the launch vertical; the cross range measuring direction was in the launch horizontal plane and completed orientation form was at 158.4 a right handed coordinate system. This remained fixed during flight until the platforced out of its frame of reference in roll seconds.

for _0 roll integration

above equation and perthe time of retro rocket

The yaw g_cro servo signal (measurement indicated that a bias shift to full scale measoccurred and 159.4 indication The is during a calibration period between seconds. The time at which this from its normal level should be that the platform is no longer difference in the computed and obdue to truncation of the equation for

measurement the true space-fixed. served

del)arts

times

59
0y, errors in data used in the computations, response ofthevarious telemetry channels, and prototype hardware components for the ST-I24P system. It should form limits ST-124 C. was only be an emphasized engineering that test the ST-124P platSlant Range Velocity range accelerometer values assuming computed ideal These data (ST-90). were from alignment differences The outputs of the compared with corearth-fixed of the are plotted trajecand verplatform

slant tory

responding accelerometers.

model

and gimbal

existing in this system will not apply to the equipment to be flown in the Block II vehicles. ANALYSIS The guiddeviations in from be found platform by comwith the

sus time in the upper errors oscillate around flight. errors within The in small the data one errors

portion of Figure zero for the entire observed and values. (ST-90). The sigma are the hardware

30. The powered results errors of

compared

OPERATIONAL

established Cross Range

ance the

1. Guidance Intelligence Errors. intelligence errors are defined as guidance the measurements errors system guidance resulting and may measurements

Velocity

cross

range

velocity, is plotted 3i.

as measured by the ST-90 versus time in the upper incrementaloutputs

guidance portion were

system, of Figure on the - 2. 82 were

and aecelerometer paring vehicle The clude gence noise guidance level The trajectory. errors hardware errors, and shown

Extraneous

noted

telemeter trace of the cross sec to about 3.9 seconds. manually reduced with of the ST-90 platform position deg E of produced of the vehicle cross N respectively. the range and profile wind

range velocity from However, the data

presented intracking and errors.

in

Figures reduction ST-90 30, are

30 guidance within errors.

and as

32 inwell intellithe data as

little difficulty. and the Fin Iwere i00.0ii This velocity the external also reflects alignment

The azimuth Fin III launch deg and i00. 381 difference by both

errors

data

in Figure

observed

one sigma made

hardware

the accelerometer overall velocity equiprange veCross m/s trol range the cross range

tracking. The the changes in

errors

by the the

ST-124Pguidance and cross VIII C. 3.

velocity. velocity was about-2.2 concross to

ment in measuring locities are discussed

vertical in Section

guidance

at 40 sec coefficient) velocity

of flight when entered the increased

bo (angle-of-attack control loop. The -2.2 m/s

ertial

2. Accelerometer velocity outputs the

Outputs (ST-90). The inof the integrating accelerommotion as sensed by the from both the ST-90 and were velocities Ideal alignments for the indicated reduced and of the comfrom guidcomputed

range

from

at 40 sec

eters represent guidance system. ST-i24P pared external with guidance tracking

vehicle The data systems

-3.0 m/s at 50 sec to about 85 seconds. range gine loop velocity cutoff. at it5

and remained relatively constant From this time the ST-90 cross to -7.5 m/s at outboard out of the entaken control

increased

corresponding data. were assumed comparisons data, errors errors.

The term b o was sec of flight time. between cross range the

ance hardware lations. The

guidance calcua favorable a-

Differences lated time ences ST-90

telemetered are

and plotted

calcuversus

velocities

greement of the tem. The small to errors and in the hardware

especially observed data The

for the ST-90 sysmay be attributed reduction, tracking, outputs

in the lower portion of Figure 30. oscillate around the zero reference From this time the differences -0.5 m/s at 90 to 130 seconds. sec and remain The differences

The differuntil after increase practically go to esprofile are preprobthe

telemetered

70 seconds. to about constant

accelerometer

were monitored averaged over accelerometer ST-90 Slant Slant Cross where error. established than was

prier tt_ ignition. The several time points, angular misalignments

velocity errors, corresponded to of:

sentially zero by 140 seconds. The error sents no definite trend and the differences ably due to bias shifts in tracking data ST-90 guidance velocity errors equipment. are within

rather

than

However, the cross range the usual noise level of

Range Altitude Range angle

+0.003

deg

the

guidance

hardware. (ST-90). the actual The telemetered velocity as sensed The telemetered plotted after tilt lower lower and versus than arrest,

-0. 002 deg -0. 009 deg slant represents remained essentially a positive in its no errors until output reference greater reference

Slant Altitude Velocity altitude velocity was ST-90 guidance of Figure 3i slant values, Telemetered

a positive The

ST-90platform at liftoffwith

by the portion time.

accelerometer. presents the velocities was

precalculated precalculated

altitude velocity

established lost in roll

one sigma deviations, at about 158.4 seconds.

generally

particularly

60

Slant

Range

Velocity

(m/s)

IF, CO

I OECO

Range -2

Time

(sec)

Slant

Altitude

Velocity

(m/s)

0 _ 20

__ 40 60 80 i00 120 I'_ 16o

I -2

Iii Range (sec)l Ill

Time

Cross

Range

Velocity'

(m/s)
!

I I I I 20

-2

_0

60 .an, c Time I I I (sec)

FIGURF

30.

GUIDANCE

VELOCITY

COMPARISON D)

(ST-90)

(TELF#IETERE D- CALCUlaTE

61
Cross 4 Range Velocity (m/s) IECO

0 ",_0 60 80 'i00 120

-4

-8

Slant 1400

Altitude

Velocity

(m/s) '! I

I Measured Precalculated

I I I

I I I

1200

I l I
i000 I

I I t
I

I I
I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I ,I
60 Range FIGURE-3 i. 80 Time I00 (sec) AND SLANT SYSTEM ALTITUDE VELOCITY, 120 140

800

600

400

,_

200

f
0 20 40 TELEMETERED CROSS RANGE ST-90 GUIDANCE

I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I I I I I I I I I I
160

6Z

Altitude ST-12z:P

Velocity - Calc

Comparison lEO0 OECO

(m/s)

0 20 40

60

_20 _

140 Range Ti

160
(see)

-2

-4 Altitude ST-124P 2 Velocity - ST-90 Comparison (m/s)

0
20 40 -2 O + O ___ 120 140

[
160 Range Ti;me (sec)

O Consi( ering accelerometer scale factor error of 0.09%


-/-4-

T_. .

I I

Cross Range Velocity Comparison ST-124P - ST-90 (m/s) 2

160

-2

I Range

I
t

Time

(sec)

-4
....

-6

I I
FIGURE 32. GUIDANCE COMPARISONS, ST-124P GUIDANCE SYSTEM

63

resulting from rates and about

approximately 0.28 deg extra was

1.2 percent lower flow tilt. At end of thrust, 1241.4 m/s, or 12 m/s

However, were

valid

values the

were same system. portion zero

obtained. measurementas

These

data sensed is dif-

comparedwith

the slant altitude velocity lower than precalculated. The lated slant differences altitude

by the ST-90 guidance presented on the lower ferences are this engine essentially the cutoff From board difference alignment form. to enced The to the The the azimuth time,

This comparison of Figure 32. The until about 5.0 increase is about until m/s.

80 seconds. at outThis

between velocities

telemetered are plotted

and versus

calcutime

differences the value

in the middle portion of Figure 30. The oscillate around the zero reference within indicating Table velocities etered very good agreement of the data

differences 0.3 m/s, compared. guidance Telemcalculated agreement. are dis-

may be attributed to a difference of azimuth of the ST- 124P platform and the ST- 90 platST-t24Pplatform as was the Fin of the not for ST-90. I - Fin ST-124P be optically the ST-124Pto vehicle was not optically it was III position. is acceptable aligned. be flown since Precise on SA-4 aligned referInstead,

VIII presents at some guidance

a comparison flight velocities

of the events.

significant

ST-90

and those are in close measurements

azimuth could

from external The deviations cussed in Section

tracking data in the ST-124P VIII C. 3.

platform

azimuthalignment will not be possible on SA-4 will be the

since the mounting arrangement same as SA-3. However, this will the Block II vehicles. shows platforms. ST-90. about the Esthe X a

3. urements in the tical

Accelerometer Outputs (ST-124p). were made by the ST- 124P guidance and cross data range were directions. reduced easily

Meassystem The but vermuch

be no problem The constant The 0.27 deg cross azimuth South no

for

vertical telemetered

range velocity comparison difference between the was optically rotations oriented aligned occurred of the

difficultywas experienced outputs. This difficulty D. 2. Altitude Velocity of Figure 32 presents etered and calculated ences From of thrust are this essentially time, the the value

in reducing is discussed

the cross range in Section VIII

ST-124P

platform platform

approximately

sentially (ST-124P). The upper portion differences between the telemaltitude velocities. The differ-

or Y axes until after reached its mechanical

retro firings, when limit in roll.

platform

zero until about differences increase -2. was i m/s.

40 seconds. until at end

D.

FUNCTIONAL 1. Guidance

ANALYSIS Sensors. flown with as The operation (three single of items exception stabiservo of the the on of

is about

five A similar puts of the comparison vertical made between (ST-124P) from the carried is Both the the outand 90, SA-3, the lized accelerometer

AMAB-3 two cross on was platform. as

guidance ST-124P) expected,

accelerometers, passenger the

on ST-

corresponding values determined and slant altitude accelerometers 90 platform. portion an error velocity A scale This of of comparison Figure 32. from of approximately middle dicate titude

slant range on the STin the inalsystem. was in the

range

accelerometer Telemetry

on the ST-124P measurements

presented comparisons 2.5 m/s ST- 124P -0.

pickup tinuous from endof dicate was is or

voltage for oscillation before flight. that the liftoff gain set

this accelerometer indicate a conof the system at about 60 to 65 cps (approximately tests adjustment T-140 following of the area, to a fairly at a setting where servo sec) the to the inflight amplifier the system

telemetered factor error

Laboratory

about

f percent

probably

in a critical

.u_u _. _,,_ v_ _,_ ,_,_,_ ............ abeut 90 ,._in prior to launch. An error of this magnitude would produce the scale two observed factor guidance velocity error, systems error. the are in After correcting velocities agreement, of the for the from indicating ST-124P the altitude orientation

_tnble unless subjected mechanical disturbance;

large electrical in this critical the sysThe critmaximum servo were loop nor-

area, tem ical

once the required disturbance occurs, goes into a self-sustained oscillation. area of gain setting is just below the The amplifier. accelerometers

maintenance of proper platform about its Z-axis. The circled points velocity difference error of 0.09

gain capability of the servo signals for the remaining mal.

the factor

shown in Figure 32 represent for an accelerometer scale Repeaters.

2. locityencoders

percent. 124P). Much difficulty the cross range data.

Velocity Encoders The operation was satisfactory.

and Sigual Processor of the accelerometer veFive encoders were

was

Cross Range experienced

Velocity (STin reducing

flown, three and two with

with the ST-90 system accelerometers the ST-124P system accelerometers.

64

_0 O0 0
(I] Cq p_ I

cq

c'_
Oq I

c-_

_o c_l
I

0 I

c;
I

c_
I

Cq I I

p_
r-4 !

E_ _J m .q0
Cq Cq Oq

_)

oq
op._

O4

c;
(.,q

..lCq p_ C_I Oq

oq

oq

cq

o4

Lr3 cq _._ 0 0 o
I I I I Oq Cq p_ I

_o cq

c_
I I

_o cq
I

c_
I

o_

Z <
o c_ 0 o

L_

C_

_o

_o

c;
Cq

o_
c_ c_

O4

cn

Lr_
O4

E-_

,--4_

< E_

Z .< C_
_ m 0 4-1 ,--4 _ o o _o
(_1

r_

c_ o _o
o4

oo r_ Lr_
Cxl

_)
Cq

o_ _o

..-i-

r_

_) F_ o4

I_-

o4

O4

m_

r"q

(_

r..)

_J _J

u r--4 C_ L)

c_ u

0J

(..)

iJ

u_ o .2

o .iJ

4_1 ,._ r--I o .I-I 4J 0 4J CO -_-.I

C .,--4

"o ,-_ o o n_ 0 o

65

Two flown

Guidance

Signal

Processor each stabilized

Repeaters platform.

were The

range of the in both

time bias

andwas voltage range

characterized for_the altitude coarse

by improper velocity channels. Short

shifting indication term on the B+ extraneous of the have invertcould

on SA-3,

one for

processor for rily throughout 124P causing sensing ments. down. curred period system, loss of

the ST-90 the flight; had a failure one

system operated the second unit, in a buffer DC logic

satisfactofor the STstage used in

cross

amplifier signals

voltage transients line are believed switching transients originated er, or The not cause 3. of the could eitheron in the signal

of fairly large amplitude to be the source of this bias not flip-flop. be determined, the D21 buss, processor switching in the Stabilized flown as that AMAB-4 the at air 2.4 on systems in th_ power of the The but supply. bias

of the

source static

the polarity of the cross range velocity increThis malfunction occurred early in the countA second intermittently from li3 due disturbance in both to voltage to 125 seconds. in this channels The transients processor during the disturbance on the prococtime is

improper any error ST-90 platform and the the properly, constant

flip-flop

did

believed to be essor B+ line.

incremental Platform. SA-3 the platform AMAB-3 units. bearing kg/cm from

velocity The utilized flown

values. ST-90 similar on SAopthe 0.98

Ground recording showed a disturbed range that has velocity been shown the accelerometerwas

and inflight telemetry condition of the ST-i24P which appeared after to wandering randomly. a detailed

records cross indicate This study

stabilized components 2, with replaced erated relatively

system,

exception usual with

accelerometers All 2 (34 systems pressure and to psi) 1. f0 supply

to be incorrect

of the ground and i,dlight records, the logic network of the signal processor, and the 65 cps oscillation obselwed in the accelerometer of the servo accelerometer positive which change. used the shown cancel loop. system and negative each However, with other would increexa loss

compartment pressure varying kg/cm 2 (15.6 to 14.0 psi). The arrest 44 deg final tilt angle of

Oscillation normally mental cept for result velocity actual

in both pulses, velocity

the ST-90

platform with the

at tilt intended

was 44. 28 deg (Section VII B.

as compared 1).

of one DC logic signal the velocity increment, uous As patterns pulse the pattern occur as as changes shown system

in sensing the polarity of output would be a continin pattern i of Figure patterns 33. pulse intermediate

ST-124P. The platform, resolvers, electrical circuitry),

ST-i24P system and associated flown on SA-3,

(consisting mechanical was

of and

a prototype

position, in the

even numbered

of Figure 33. When the pulse pattern on the telemetry record changes from one pattern to a second distinct pattern, The pulse c onditious: 1. 2. 3. a velocity patterns change result of 0. i m/s from has occurred. of three a combination

or engineering test model. Many of the components were not optimized for high accuracy and are not the same as those to be flown on Block II vehicles. SA-3 was flown the on first SA-4). flight The test of this system test (also to be primary objectives of the

system were the observation tion and familiarization with the 5 kc/s The was servo operation systems of the ment.

of its functional operathe resolver chain and environsystem as an engineering

A small Loss essor. of

true one

acceleration. servo logic loop oscillation. in the signal procsignal

in an operational

Accelerometer

test

quite

satisfactory. usedwith the ST-124P system were

The resolvers of Figure should 33 shows occur the if the incremental system was

The

lower

portion

not trimmed and therefore some error in their output must be expected. The error in the output of the pitch resolver is a function of, and increases with, the programmed pitch angle. The pitch attitude data obtained incremental from the attributed differences in ST-124P and STto this effect. A to be used on pitch resolver as that experi-

velocity operating

pulses as they properly. concluded signal combined

It was one DC logic circuits,

from input with the

this to the

study rotation

that

the sensor

loss

of

90

systems

is

primarily

logic of the

65 cps

modulation

laboratory test SA-4 indicates for enced this system on SA-3

of the ST-124P that the error was (Section about the

system for the same

true aeeelerometer of incrementalvelocity

output, could produce pulses observed the (Figure above used

the patterns on the telemLabThe the the the acST-

VII C. 4). supply pressure and the air temairpressure 14.0psi),

etry and ground recordings oratory tests confirmed pulse tual 124P pattern telemetered system. occurred sequences cross The second

33 and 34). conclusion. to reduce from to lf3

were range

was varied while

During flight, the air bearing air a constant 2.2 kg/cm 2 (32 psi) was 24. 6 C. The compartment

velocity from

perature

disturbance

signal

processor

intermittently

to 125 sec

from 1.03 to 0.98kg/cm 2 (14.7to the temperature was 24.7 C.

_66.

u u o

,,,1" I C_

m"
_J [-t "4

..c:

L
o_ 0

8
o _ _ o t_

I-I

Ov ,H o

I...4 .H

u_..l u .r.t u

(lJ ._ I:> ,_-I ,--4 o

_;.M

67
I.-I 4.1

_L
CJ 0,-_ r_ _ _U _ 0

T
r-I 4J ,_ I._ cJ bO U _ O'J 0

T
o I_ -r.1 _-- o i-.i _.-4

0 rJ2 r_ r._

-,-I 0 0 ","4 0._ 0 m m

rJ2 r_

u,...i 1".4 m _l:Cl _1 0 _ u,-I .,-I r_

t_

i,.4

_I_
I-i -i..,I u,-i r,_ .,q 4-1 r,.._ -,,4 _ ,-.4 I:1 _J 0

i,-4

..1:

1'-4

Io 1

68

SECTION

IX.

(U)

VEHICLE

ELECTRICAL

SYSTEM

A.

SUMMARY -2.17 All vehicle the networks failure of performed measuring satisfactorily supply number 5. ex-

Measuring sec prior

supply

number Since

failed

on

SA-3 period

at is

to liftoff.

this time due

associated engines, the

with the

initial shock have time

to ignition made

of the

cept

for

investigations with this

been

to correlate shaker during

failure

period.

Simulated failure

tests indicate B. FLIGHT RESULTS this period. current (D21) of were 898 for battery at D20 28.5 was of and its volume pounds, vehicle, 9 consists and one transistors. load (Dll) 27.6 at as for caused volts, end of 165 flight. with and battery the DI0 voltage and its and liftoffto voltages volt increases correcurrent 28.0 and

a possibility

of transistor

The corresponding and for 165 the

voltage

and buss

The of

measuring approximately is located the eight filter. Five

voltage 208 in the

supply cu. thrust

assembly in., frame 35). The power contains were through weighs area

has 7.05 of the

constant amp-minutes 33.9 percent

volts used battery

amps. flight or Figure distributors.

A total

and above of input

approximately 35 shows

firewall individually

(Figure isolated

assembly supplies seven ultraEn-

capacity. inflight

the

connections

for

the

Each power supply of the seven transistors transistors from two type indicate 13531) in measuring are being Pacific remaining and that transistor voltage conducted Itowever, on SA-4. one the obtained

The sponding to vary 95

variable buss from amps were

high-reliability gineering Incorporated. sistedof type. ductors cause 5. more of Additional detailed will one Shaker type failure

type Magnetics The Fairchild tests (EM

Semi

Conductors conInstrument Semi the Con-

ampsat These 0.4 the

transistors Texas Pacific was

volts, currents when heaters

expected, lights off.

the

continuous were switched

angle-of-attack

probable number determine type of

supply to this

tests

information. be replaced

The was The was 399. usual

frequency 788 to 400.

of

the 225

precision cps over

inverter the caused flight by

on

SA-3

transistor

period. ignition All open, the Main open, exception fuel and and of LOX closed) valve operated position signmls (start with These of the failure of

frequency -0. 202 cps \vere within

disturbance

within

of the inverter allowable

frequency.

satisfactorily

frequencies

tolerances.

measurementsA6-5andAll-5. were lost 5. because

measurements Measuring busses D8I voltages through operated for D85. buss D85, D88, of the eight located the "slave" in the 5 volts supply units off measuring :_5 percent number 5, nals by Cutoff were LOX siglmls as depletion. measuring supply

number

distributors, limits, which except supplies

within

(inboard)

and Outboard

flight cutoff

sequence was

siginitiated

Measuring

expected.

failed before

liftoff.

28

VDC

28

VDC

69

Battery

DI0

Battery

D20

Voltage Control Supply 60 VDC 115 V AC

To

Control

3-Phase

J-DII

Buss

IDistributor Power

To I I _h DII D21 9A4 Meas.Distr. 9A3 Meas.

Busses

D21

in

Distributor

_J_ DII

5 VDC D21 Supply 9A7

Outpu

-,---See Meas.

Below Power

for

Supply

Assembly

D83,

84,

87

and

88 Busses

Measuring No. 5

Supply

(Failed) Unit 9 g Power Assembly Supply

_ICURE

35.

DISTRIBUTOR

CONNECTIONS

AND

UNIT

MEASURING

SUPPLY

7O

SECTION

X.

(U)

STRUCTURES

AND

VIBRATIONS

A.

SUMMARY The instrumentation on the truss for SA-3 included and on the strain LOX

this

time.

A vehicle at high loads time moment were gauge

bending point available moment 81.6 occurred

moment sec, and (Figure

diagram where reliable 36).

was another aeroIn this

constructed relatively dynamic figure at the existed dicted for detecting vehicle body bendfive rethe measurements pins dinal flight dicted members

from which pitch and yaw moments forces were computed at various times. values. Instrumentation The results compared

and longitusignificant with pre-

strain

is shown

by a cross

well

gauge location, station 979. Good agreement between this strain gauge moment and the prebending moment the normal reading of the distribution. load from stud factor flight. gauges Also shown in with compared

Figure 36, is the accelerometer Because

ing consisted of vehicle stations. sponse

ten bending accelerometers The accelerometers in the range of first

at showed and

five

eight

of the 1.8

at frequencies

second

vehicle bending. These frequencies both pitch and yaw directions, with plitude amplitude forced curred sponse The at liftoff for on first the nose of cone 2.0 mode

were present in a maximum amsingle a ocreAt OECO,

(70 inch) LOX tanks (station 869) were lost, no bending moments about the pitch and yaw axes could be calculated at that station. However, the three gauges which functioned properly gave some check on the bending moment at station 979. These three were found to be in agreement with predicted The station gauges values. axis time are

of 0. 016 g's cps.

response of at a coupled is lower flight than data

0.095 g's frequency on SA-2 indicated

single of 2.7

amplitude cps. The

before that

OECO. at the SA-3 recorded vibration during

vehicle bending moment about the pitch 979 is shown in the 75 to 85 sec range in Figure 37. Also shown on this graph

interval

levels were the previous B.

generally similar to those two Saturn flights. MOMENTS AND

the angle-of-attack (a) and gimbal angle pitch axis. Close agreement in frequency tion between the three values is evident. C. LONGITUDINAL Multiplication calibration LOADS

(fl) about the of oscilla-

BENDING TORS 1.

NORMAL

LOAD

FAC-

Instrumentation. bending moments strain and sixteen gauges

Instrumentation and strain normal main gauges load on the

for compres-

dethe

termining consistedofeight sion

factors

of the actual factor results the

telemetered in the loads The solid differential lbs) line

strain shown

by in

members

on the tension 979. In 869 were tank stud offered

Figure 38 was adding lostwhen load was tion data

38 (circled points). obtained by using the 101,290 the gauges determined and theoretical

in Figure strains and which was

members addition, gauged. gauges

of the interstage eight LOX tank However, were lost five prior of to

truss at station studs at station the eight LOX and hence ignition

kg ( 223,300

of load

were set to zero. from SA-3 thrust drag data.

The calculated and accelera-

very little information. obtained as decommutated so in digitized form. determining ments about slices. 2. Moment Loads.

The telemetered data were oscillograph traces and alFlight evaluation consisted of motime mand, of load and bending axes for numerous

During the system. large of 100

firing

of the forces These

engines, arise forces of the engine in the

before can be

launch amplified

commasses and to

dynamic

deflecting

the instantaneous the pitch andyaw

cause time

vibrations ms between

vehicle. A staggering pairs was expected

Maximum

bending moment

keep the vibratory force lower or cent of the nmximum static thrust. the results of an investigation of the above support engines value. arms. staggering times force below the system 2) located were on the

equal to twenty perFigure 39presents to see if the actual keep the vibratory frequencies of the (YL-1, these YLfrequency

at station 979 occurred

at 69.2 sec range time, ap-

madc still The From

proximately Mach i. At Mach I, a vehicle bending moment diagram could not be constructed since there were no aerodynamic loads data available, moments were llowever, at the highest strain gauge observed

measured

by potentiometers

71 Vehicle 0 2000 Station -2 Bending -4 Moment (I0000 -6 m-kg)

/\
1600
i

Accelerometer

Readings

t = M = q = = =

81.6 sec 1.52 0.2814 kg/cm 2 3.63 2.45

1200 _--PredbiCterdve_aS _`

xand

C_.

800
r

400

0.08 Normal Load Factor AND

0.16 (g's) NORMAL LOAD

O. 24

FIGURE

36.

BENDING

MOMENT

FACTOR

72

if5

O_

I-4

r_ f3

0 0

r_

[2 0

,.D r_

,w

0 0 _4

73

[I\ \ \ \

\ \ \ \
0 0 o-,

0 E-_ < u]

CD

.-. o ,..,

<

[---t

N.
C .,-I

b-t Z

_-.

_J

S
_e3 0

C 0

I-.-4

o
4-J C_ 0 0

I
t

0 0 CD 0 0 0 v

,1%

I I

+ +
0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.J ,.4 0 0 0

0 I

'i
I,"4

ii
\
___

U _ v

0 II WU

v m0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .4" 0 0 0 u_

75

measurements the maximum maximum 39. was by the Figure sponse thrust. D.

and

from

single force show of

engine was

thrust as

curves, shown on restatic yet flight mine

c. urements, been

Transients for which determined.

were

observed An intensive

in

several analysis

meashas of not the

vibrating theoretical results sixteen These

obtained the

a satisfactory

explanation

response that the

{calculated) maximum maximum

percent

data is presently in progress in order the causes of these transients. 2. Instrumentation. instrumented with

to deter-

BENDING All

OSCILLATIONS appear as to have before results responded flight. vary

was

The SA-3 space vehicle 40 vibration measurements. and data bandwidth in Volume II. The by two telemetry were frequency cps, The of 50 cps a data 0 to 1050 channel. range systransrange

accelerometers and have polarity

The location, axis of each measurement vibration tems. data Five from the were canister

of sensitivity, is described transmitted area with or telemetry were frequency

properly The slightly in

reported as flight considered

measurements

frequencies in accuracy,

presented but all are

mittedonFM/FMchannels varying upon 0 to 330 cps specific data

to be with-

depending remaining with an to 3 kilomeasbasis telemetry

0.15cps. a predominant fre12 to 20 cps throughin amplitude This could at liftoff possibly be

35 measurements The oscillographs showed quency content of approximately out and the the flight, two with engine increases cutoffs. approximate cycles. urements with four channels. 3. Structural first The trend of the vehicle first mode trends from SA-D tests (Figure shapes mode 40), shown and trend mode in Figures is mode for follows similar substantiated 41 and 42. The but cannot the fill ments were measurements

transmitted

by SS-FM

The eight hydraulic were transmitted measurements

actuator vibration on a time-shared on each of two

caused which cies, control

by the natural is about 17 cps. analysis and of the propellant

frequency of the accelerometers In addition to the high frequendata showed frequencies in the sloshing range.

Discussion Vibrations. monitored on the

of

Vibration Five

Measurements. measureThe and two El00-

structural SA-3 flight. more events (E99-1f

during spider

beam

conditions by the second

is further present,

11) varied considerably, being than the engine measurements

much to the

sensitive of flight

frequency

be shown by second of response. After of for 2.7 cps due is present to engine discussion). sponse

mode shapes due to low amplitude OECO, a predominant frequency (Figure gimbaling 43) and (see is a forced Section reVII B. 4

(i.e., ignition, Mach i, q max, cutoffs, and retro firing). This same characteristic was experienced during both previous flights. The engine girnbal point support measurements displayed high level transients at decayed to the mainstage remained relatively conof flightuntil cutoff, due to

further

(E40-1 and E40-7)

all can tank,

Other frequencies of which cannot of the be attributed vehicle no comparison VIBRATIONS

were present in the analysis, be identified with known natural Some structural and vehicle data of these response, bending frequencies coupled modes for

ignition, then immediately level. These measurements stant throughout responding much their near-engine The maximum

the remainder location.

frequencies

system. to local

like engine measurements

torsion,

which E.

is available.

heat shield measurement

(E47-i)

showed

build-up at ignition, then decreased

grad-

uallyto a very low level at approximately Data. levels during the The were flight gentime. This measurement in vibration level at Mach 2 flight.

95 sec flight

data erally

1. Summary of Vibration indicated that the SA-3vibration similar to those recorded flights observed (Reference in the flight

did show a slight increase i and q max similar to SA-

previous The upper part of Figure 44 displays maximum and minimum accelerationtime histories of the structural measurements. The upper portion of the envethe gimbal point and heat shield measurement, lope was established bythe data from

two Saturn deviations as follows: a. ments b.

2 and 3). The major data are summarized

Three contained

combustion erratic

chamber data. on the fuel

dome

measure-

support measurements

which were previously noted to have remained constant throughout flight. The lower portion of the ensuction line which highvelope, characterized by the spider beam measurements, shows gion of Mach an increase in vibration level in the rei and q max.

A measurement position levels

feeds engine er vibration

eight indicated significantly than previous flights.

76,

Frequency

(cps)
12

i0

4"

0 0

I
20

I
40

I
60

I
80 Time

I
I00 (see)

I
120

I
140

I
160

FIGURE

40.

SA-3

SYSTEM

FREQUENCY

TREND

77

Vehicle Station
2000 E67-30 1800 2.0 Fred (cps)

1600 SA-3 1400 E65-20 1200 E63-20 I000 E67-30 E65-20 E63-20 E61-10 E252-9 G's .0164 0 .007 .0164 .0074 In .04014 0 .01713 .04014 .018114 mm 1.02 0 0.44 1.02 0.46 Single Amp

800

600

400

200

E252-9

0 _I.0 Relative 0 Amplitude 1.0

FIGURE

41.

SA-3

BENDING

MODE

- FIRST

MODE,

YAW

AT

LIFTOFF

78

oooo
ooeo

U _0 0000
oooo r_

u_ o o

Lr_ I 4J ,-4

_o
-,-4 4J 0 0 ! Lr% cO
|

,-4 I

E_ : : ; t

.,4

8
o
i:1 r-. (,,i o 0

0 I

c_c_c;
_'_ ,.o 0 00,-4 o00

I ,-4 _J

r,,_O

"_oog

ME) QO0

CO 0

oooo_ t,% I III1_

I I:,.1

I bd

I Dd

I I_d

o ,TI .-@ ._ (M

79

Vehicle 2000

Station

E66-30 1800

1600

Time (sec) 151.0 - 152.5

Fre_. (cps) 2.7

1400 E64-20 1200 E62-20 I000 E66-30 E64-20 E62-20 E60-10 E251-9 SA-3 G's .095060 005393 .044994 .066503 .024575 Single amp In 13136 .007452 062175 .091898 033959 mm 3.33 0.18 1.57 2.33 0.86

800

E60-10

600

400

.200

E251-9

0
i . : : 1 : I I I I I

-1.0 Relative

0 Amplitude

1.0

FIGURE-43.

_ BENDING

MODE

- FIRST

MODE_

PITCH

(151

to

152.5

sec)

80

Structure 24

Meas

0 -20 0 20 40 60 80 i00 120 140 160

Gr

,s

Canister

Meas.

0 -20 0 20 40 60 8 0 i00 120 140 160

Gmis

60
Engine Comp. Meas.

f --Fuel

Suction

Line

(E45-8)

40

20

0 -20 20 40 FIGURE 44. CANISTER AND 60 80 i00 OF STRUCTURE, MEASUREMENTS 120 160

VIBRATION ENVELOPE ENGINE COMPARTMENT

8i

Propulsion bration 3 flight. at to change measurements These or

System

Vibrations. were monitored

Twelve during

engine the

viSA-

propulsion of 22 vibration

unit

distributor measurements.

were

monitored

by

a total

measurements immediately state the engine of powered noted zero. the thrust therefore successful. at Data cutoff, were chamber they after level. vibration

showed ignition, There

considerable followed was no signifthe by eight were engine similar The hydraulic actuators measurements. from Vibration the data the yaw were The actuator instrumented only erratic with data on very

build-up a decay

a steady in portion were to on

vibration recorded four. to

icant mainstage tion by a

levels Increased

during

measurement appeared to be

flight.

vibra-

amplitudes recorded of Figure time envelope on indicates, build-up during

levels decay

followed available dome were

immediately only inter-

previous

flights.

mittently measurements, only partially

longitudinal to be

of the ratic

The center part the RMS acceleration canister transients As area.

44 presents histories does some all

an envelope obtained from not of the reflect the ermeascanister the Mach

considered

This

whichoccurred the envelope recorded

urements. All pared urement about engine well vibration to SA-I (fuel data and from SA-2 SA-3 flight commeaswas area 1 and very data except

measurements q max region.

during

E45-8 twice

suction

line long't) , which

as highonSA-3 no evidence An

flight as coml)ared of structural investigation

to SA-2 out 124 on were ments sec, frame. tively ST-90

Quasi-periodic recorded measurements. all of the six flight

transients on the These ST-t24 intermittently ST-f24 not roll observed of was panel 14 required this gimbal ST-90

were

recorded and did on

throughthe ST-

flight. However, indicated

failure was is being made

gimbal

in this area. the cause levels

transients measurements. by the

not

appear

to determine of the high not included

of these

high levels.

Because E45-8 was

Transients three If0 measureand mounting A relasec in the spider the on the 126

indicated,

measurement and minimum

recorded on but the were An high

in the maximum as shown

accelerapart of Figis

between the shown at ST-t24 below. 138.8

tion time ure 44. valid.

histories However,

in the lower

on is

it is felt that the measurement

example transient two canister is

recorded

gimbal, and at the study transients.

measurements support to on determine

cansiter beam. cause of

Component ST-90, lower ST-I24P, support,

Vibrations. retro

The

hydraulic

actuators, 14

14,

rocket

number

l, canister

Additional these

instrument

panel

in canister

14, and

Vibration

Record

On ST-124

Gimbal

Vibration

Record

On

ST-124

Mounting

Frame + Start of Transient

Retro three indicated and though plitude periods ments. under q max. an vibration

rocket

number measurements. increase were sudden at data the time were of these

was

instrumented The vibration periods at engine in of

with levels Mach alamSeveral measurepresently l

a gradual No effects

to noted

the

cutoff

expected

increase of noted retro on

vibration

occurred of erratic The investigation. cause

firing. all the is

transients

One propulsion very firing.

vibration unit

measurement distributor. This only and at a

was

located

on

the was

measurement build-up cutoffs and at

smooth

indicating 60 sec

slight

ap-

proximately

engine

retro

82

F.

VEHICLE

ACOUSTIC

MEASUREMENTS at

The 138.8 Section unusual of this

inflight sec

measurement range time (see

recorded component

a disturbance vibrations to appear The source time.

The SA-3 vehicle had one inflightacoustic measurement ments (LI0-11) (XL24-9, and four trailing wire XL25-9, XL26-11, measureThe XL27-13).

X E. 3) andcaused the measurement throughout the rest of the flight. disturbance is unexplained at this

inflightmeasurement

was located at station889 on fin

line IV and followed the general expected trend (Figure 45). The primary purpose of this measurement was to obtain "inflight"acoustic data. To obtain this type of data, the calibration range of the recording system was 120 to 140 db; consequently, the higher level "on-pad" inflightdata. acoustic data were sacrificed for the The trailing wire recorded data between period was tic data. measurements acoustic measurements -3 and+6 sec range on SA-3 time. This

sufficient to obtain useful "on-pad" acousThe maximum levels recorded on these were as follows:

Meas. XL

No.

Location Inside Sta. toward Shroud 167 off Fin Fin I II

Max

OA-SPL

(db)

24-9

149.0 1 XL 25-9 Outside Sta toward XL 26-11 Sta. Shroud II 157.5 f IV Liftoff Fin I

167 off Fin

889 on Fin to 13

Adjacent Canister XL 27-13

149.5

Liftoff and

Sta 889 Inside Canister 13

132.0

6 sec

The sound

time

histories part

of thege of Figure levels 24-9 and a noise

measurements 45. The maximum indicated of about then , recorded

are

shown overall

in the lower pressure

ing the last 3 sec of data due to a change in the spectral characteristics of the external sound field. The difference in the maximum overall sound

(OA SPL) XL 25-9, reduction XL 25-9

on measthat the 8.5 db at fairly pressure levels 27-13 indicated canister throughout of measurements a noise reduction db. This noise which during XL 26-11 and XL across the wall of reduction data were existed obtained.

surements XL shroud provided liftoff. constant acquisition,

Measurement

remained

during the remaining time while XL 24-9 decreased

duration of data somewhat dur-

13 of 17.5 the period

83 Over-all 160 Telemetered (Stao 150


0 ,_ _L_ _IH ,_ o _._ _10_

Sound

Pressure

Level

(db)

RE:

0.0002

Dynes/cm 2

9 on F_n IV)

--Clipped 140

Data

1
it U II I I

130

120

\
80 I00 (sec) RE: 00002 Dynes/cm 2
!

_--- Trans ient II0 0 20 40 60 Range Over-all 160 Sound Pressure Level (db 120 14( 160 Thne

Outside
m _ _

Shroud

I 150 I I _ Outside

I
Canister r lnside Shroud

//
140

/f

130

//
F
Sta. Sta.

/-Inside

Canister

120

/
Trailin_ Wires

889 on Fin 167 off Fin

IV ll--_Fin I

Ii0 -6 -4 -2

i
0 Range FIGURE45. 2 Time 4 (sec) ACOUSTICS 6 8 i0

SA-3 7EHICLE

84

SECTION

XI.

(U)

ENVIRONMENTAL

TEMPERATURES

AND

PRESSURES

A.

SUMMARY during the SA-3 on the two prerates Saturn heating total on I, SA-3 are I Block environ-

on ence

the

SA-3 and

vehicle the the lower region

to measure compartment aft of the

the

pressure (forward shield.

differof heat This after of a

between

The base region environment flight was similar to that encountered vious vehicle. flights. Absolute Radiative representative values heating for the of the considered

shield) pressure ignition power

heat

differential measurement failed just and prior to liftoff, due to a malfunction unit supply difference (see Section IX). base pressure and

ment after 90 sec of flight are considered at this time. The heat shield and flame insulation scheme was the same for SA-3, except was insulated (M-31). shield M-31 dicated The cated heat ever, lemetry Skin generally to the (except insulated the

questionable shield thermal SA-2, and

The bient shield on the other imum served area of (90 0.03 sec

between

am-

SA-1,

pressure for is presented heat shield throughout pressure at between kg/cm of flight) shroud.

both the heat shield in Figure 46. All were generally

and the flame measurements with each A min2 was obin the value of 17 km and the of

for one panel on the heat shield which with the Block II insulation material made forward of the heat the temperature measurement on the panel which failed prior to liftoff) into be entirely measurements adequate. on SA-3 indi-

consistent

Measurements

the powered differential of 6 km observed the appears the outboard 2 was There between

phase of flight. of -0.03 kg/cm (60 see engines. outboard

an altitude

of flight)

A maximum engine

insulation pressure

at an altitude

base

engine a higher indicated rence trajectory flights

to be an indication

a slightly shield than results error

higher pressure gradient across the indicated on previous flights. Howall three flights are within the te-

pressdre gradient across the heat shield than on previous flights. Although this occurmay are be a direct by the consequence SA-3, error error. resttlts margin of the from which different all three can be atfollowed within to telemetry

from band.

temperatures lower on SA-3 propellant

on level

the than

prol)ellant on previous in the tanks. stage and temt)erature the interstage

tanks flights Skin

were due tem-

tributed

higher

peratures on the dummy S-IV fairing indicated no sig]lifieant cept where were on the conical skin Skin portion of maximum indicated. stage temperatures temperatures

interstage rises exfairing of

The largest ambient pressure where extreme an altitude ure 46). behavior on the titude of 2.5 The

magnitude of base pressure minus occurred in the flame shield region values ranged from -0.15 kg/cm 2 at km to 0.37 shield kg/em data region 2 at 17.2 indicate than was km( Figtelemetered a different obselwed

of 71 C to 159 C in the vicinity were within expected

the S-IV levels.

protuberance

in the flame first two Saturn of approximately shield between to'the star expected. flame shield data area 3 and base

flights ( Figure 3 kin, the with level. time, 17 kilometers. pressure occurred

47). At an alpressure in the a Then slight decrease at IECO (6f.5 conclusions phenomenon of not region has dein it rapidly

h_strument within the required out flight. tained within both the atures 2C) B. prelaunch ST-124P

canister level The canister an acceptable and during guidance

pressure (0.7 to 1.2

was kg/cm

maintained 2) through-

flame crease decreased the kin) have in the

stabilized expected At this in regard in the

only A sharp

temperatures were mainrange ( 10 to 40 C)" during flight. Both the ST-90 range and ( 25 + compartment teml)erature temper-

center as the

no definite unusual Close star

platform

been drawn pressure

to this center

were in an acceptable at liftoff. TAIL 1. a. SECTION IMse Enviromnent,

pressure. to suspect

investigation or meas-

revealed urement.

any reason

the telemetry

Average Absolute identical instrument base pressure to that on SA-I was installed

values

of

the

ratio

of

base

to ambient

instrumentation and SA-2.

Prose pressure. on SA-3 was In addition, one

pressure, pb/Pa , for both the shield (center star) are plotted in Test Figure 48. Wind AEDC, tunnel are test also Facility,

heat shield and flame versus Mach number data shown from for the Rocket comparison.

85

Base 0.4

Minus

Ambieat

Pressure

(kg/cm

2)

-SA-2

Flame

Shield

o.2

/
I / s

SA-3

Flame

Shield

---%
%

%
s S _'J/JfJ//_ .......

_---He at

Shield

(SA- i, SAi2,

SA-3) 80

-0.2

)V

io
FIGURE 46.

20 BASI (kg/cm

30 PRESSURE 2)

40 Altitude MINUS

50 (km) AMBIENT PRESSURE

60 VERSUS

70 ALTITUDE

Flame 1.2

Shield

Pressure

0.8

/--SA-3 0.4 % %

SA- 2_
'-%

i0 FIGURE'47.

20 FLAME

30

40

50

60 VERSUS

70 ALTITUDE I

80

Altitude (km) SHIELD PRESSURE COMPARISON

Ratio 12

of

Base

to

Ambient

Pressure

/
/!

/i0
I I i I I I .I..

! 8 / / s/ --SA-3 Flame / /

Shield

_
__

.
dh,

\
Mach 1.6 Number TO AMBIENT 2.0

I --SA-3 Heat
i

I
Shield 3.2

0.4

0.8

1.2

2.4

2.8

FIGURE

48.

RATIOS

OF

BASE

PRESSURE

PRESSURE

VERSUS

MACH

NUMBER

86

The

absolute

pressure D27-5, D143-2, the

measurement

in the

lower

the

lowest

band temperature

in

Figure is

49.

Although the two both are

the

shroud

compartment, measurements, for measuring compartment these failures power supply. The ambient expected. forward pressure The

and four D143-4,

differential pressure D144-9, and D145-9, lower and upper

stringer

a structural

measurement, measuresubjected

difference

between

the temperature-time ments shows similar to the same instruments tape. similar

history of trends since

pressures, failed prior to liftoff All of are attributed to loss of the inboard

base heating. were covered

On the SA-3 vehicle, these by reflective aluminum however, show on SA-2, with the whichwas maximum. gas temperature on the flame the 49 SA-2 is the probe a trend stringer approx-

Both measurements, to that measured reaching lower in C67-7, gas 100C also than Figure which

compartment except maximum difference

pressure below between

lagged 2 kin, the

the as for-

measurement imately

a maximum

at altitudes

ward compartment and ambient pressure was approximately -0 023 kg/cm 2 at an altitude of 21 kilometers. b in the SA-3 of unshielded distributed The areas shown in Base base over bands base Figure temperatures. region the of 49. area gas was measured valid Gas temperature with a series were

Shown measurement, shield. This

was

located

temperature

extendedapprox-

imately 8 cm The maximum (1600 to measurement

below the temperature is only went

surface of the flame shield. measured by this probe an estimated during this value period. as the Be-

thermocouples.

The thermocouples to insure temperature-and for SA-2 Gas and SA-3 temperatures

i650C)

information. associated flights are measured

off scale

yond approximately 15 to 20 km, temperature remained constant mately indicating 50 percent a choked of engine flow condition.

the flame at 1500C

shield gas (approxi-

of the

region

chamber

temperature),

during the SA-3 measured during Measured not included correction gas

flight compare the SA-2 flight from bands

favorably with those at the same altitude. the SA-1 of the flight necessary for the SA-1 SA-3 are orimeters of these approximately calorimeter, Block

temperatures in these required

c. Heating were located calorimeters, 26 cm C77-5was shield

rates. Four total on the SA-3vehicle C76-3and aft of the mounted (M-31) C63-t heat flush

heating base. were

calTwo

because to

mounted and one Saturn I, flown as cal-

factor

compensate

shielding of the gauges; gas temperatures also measurements. The heat km same (or as maximum 1150C, sec range the maximum i03 gas

however, compare

the corrected well with the

shield on the was

II heat

panel

which

temperature occurred time for measured at

measured approximately this SA-3);

on the 25 was The the gas

an experiment orimeter was The total calorimeters SA-3 flight measured

on theSA-3 flight. The remaining mounted on the flame shield. heat is by flux C76-3 shown these that

shield,

on SA-2.

the the flux SA-2 tween

(radiation plus convection) to and C63-1 measured during in Figure two 50. during The the total show SA-1 heat good and calorimeters

temperature near the outboard peratures the shroud, during the The pears flame latter ability te rs.

measured heat shield,


I

between the inboard and between the shroud a maximum below that of SA-2.

engines, and the tem-

engines

reached 50C

of 700 C on SAHigh

agreement

with

measured

3, approximately measured labeled SA-3

between the outboard engine and SA-2 in the figure, did not appear

flights up to approximately 16 kilometers. Be16 and 25 kin, these measurements indicated rates SA-lor approximately SA-2 flights. were rates two times From also higher that than measured untilOECO, those of 25 km

heating on the the SA-3 SA- 1 and The orimeter M-31, high this heat heat plying technique following eter loss

flight. in the heat shield region apthe The their

gas temperature

heating SA- 2. total

to be shield would to flush

the result of reversed and circulating in the indicate the that base the region scoops above

gases leaving base region. tend 15 or to lose

heat

flux flush

measured with 51. liftoff, the With

by C77-5, panel the the with The

the

calwith of a

mounted is shown just

insulated exception heat SA-1 and relatively resultof

20 kilome-

in Figure after

transient area flux flux two

SA-3

flux

in

The bove 25

slight kin

decrease

in the

gas

temperatures to the inability temperrather

a-

agrees, as expected, up to 32 kilometers. band from 32km to cutoff calibration independent considers cutoff for coefficient

SA-2 wide apOne

can possibly

be attributed

is the

of the thermocouplc ature at these high than a real trend. Surface shroud's

to measure altitudes and

the true gas low densities,

techniques.

only the temperature-time the determination of the to be applied throughout utilizes a laboratory the inflight corrections.

decay calorimflight. calibration

temperatures and skin

of

the

outboard are

engine shown as

stringer

respectively,

The other technique method to determine

87

2000

Tenmeratur_

{C) Total Mea_;urements SA-2 a_d SA- 3

1600
_=.,_r .,._ ,,_7._ _"_,_-;__ __

1200

10

20

30 Altitude

40 (km)

50

60

70

FlGIIB_'49.

C(]MPARISONOFGAS AND_

TEMPERATURES ON HEAT SA-3

SHIELD s SA-2AND

88 6O Total Heat _te (kcal/m2-.sec)

Measurements 40 SA-3 SA- i and I

C76-3

and !

C63-I

SA-2

20

0 i0 FIGURE i00 Total Heat Rate 50. 20 TOTAL 30 I_a%T RATE TO 40 SA-3 BASE 50 Altitude (keal/m2-see) (km)

80 Measurement C77-5 077-5

SA-3 SA-I 60 and SA-2 _--_

40

20

.i.."

-20 0 i0 20 30 40 50 Altitude FIGURE 51. (km)

TOTAL HEAT RATE TO M-31 TO SA-I AND SA-2 RATES

PANEL

COMPARED

89

This showed C76-3 and

particular almost C63-1 identical

calorimeter, efficiency in laboratory

even as calibration,

though had a loss history) C63-1,

it

Differences

existed

between

the height,

mounting,

calorimeters

after cutoff (bused of almost twice the or on previous (see ments illustration

on the temperature-time rate encounteredon C76-3, total below}. calorimeter

and insulation in the immediate SA-2, and SA-3 calorimeters. should be considered before

vicinity of the SA-I, These differences firm conclusions are of heating appeared the heat rates. to be shield of to

flights'

measure-

reached as to the relative comparison Even though the total heating rates higher on SA-3, this did not influence forward side the same as these obtain temperature SA-1 and which was SA-2. Further

A second degree through the temperature The heating OECO; i.e., perature source or the decay there This

polynomial was used to smooth data shown in the illustration. does not appear is no inflection indicates that the to be affected by point in the temthe major heating engines inboard

approximately evaluation in an effort

measurements a truer loss

will be performed coefficient.

decay.

at high altitudes is either turbine exhaust ducts. time indicates in whereby is possibly the the not no explanation decay the heating valid following and

In general, the total calorimeter on the heat shield should only be used ues since preliminary error sources evaluation stated above. has possible

heating values as relative valindicated As these the error

At this rapid evaluation difference exists, cutoff possible indicated

as to the but

cause

of this 1) a possibly after 2) than and hitting

sources end

could conceivably become

significantnear the

temperature

is available, cooling factor for the

preliminary

of flight, one should not attempt a conclusion as

possibilities: cycles entire obtained flight,

to whether convective heating or cooling was dominant to the calorimeter surfaces. The calorimeter total heat C78-8 flux measured by the flame 52. The shield SA-3

correction

conduction losses by the laboratory

during flight higher calibration method, source exist.

is shown

in Figure

3) a possibility the calorimeter

of a convective cooling surface at cutoff could

inflight heat flux to the flame shield is in good agreement with that measured during the SA-1 and SA-2 flights and absolute values are considered valid. The

IECO

OECO

m..

Typical Decay

q)

7
Time COMPARISON OF CUTOFF DECAY FOR C77-5 WITH

C77-5

A TYPICAL

DECAY

90

Total 300

Heat

Flux

(kcal/m2-se)

250

_ooI _ _

d
i00 -SA-I, SA-2 ,&SA-3 50 0 0 I0 20 30 Altitude FIGURE-52. TOTAL HEATING RATE ON (kin) FLAME SHIELD_ SA-I, SA-2 & SA-3 40 50 6O

91,

_) c6_-_ (_

Radiant I00

Heat

Flux

(kcal/m2-sec)

80

60

rrect_on

ba_ ed

on

prefll ght

callbrat

iQn

40

20

t-Correctior 0 10 20 30 Altitude

based

on

tI

flight

loss

determinatll 50

_//////////////_i n
60

40 (km)

FIGURE

*53.

RADIANT PREFLIGHT

HEATING AND

RATES INFLIGHT

FOR

_A-3

FLIGHT

COMPARING TECHNIQUES

DATA

CORRECTION

MPR-SAT-63-

92

maximum

heat

flux measured

near

liftoff

on SA-3

was

3. temperatures ment C20-5, C21-5,

Forward

Heatand

Flame

Shield.

Two

other

slightly higher flux measured where the heat

than that of SA-i at approximately flux appears

or SA-2. The heat 8 km (the altitude strongly inwas Beyond slightly approxrel-

are also shown in Figure 55; measureattached to the flame support strut, and to the level flame area shield is as on the seal support. The in this expected. forward side of 56. well to C70-7 report) and of

to be most

attached

fluenced by exhaust lower on SA-3 than imately atively 25 km constant. Two 26era two in calorimeters inboard desigll. positions. thermal until

jet flow reversal) on SA-I orSA-2. IECO, the heat flux

temperature

remained

Temperatures the heat The heat shield shield The the results,

recorded are presented measurements and SA-2, high temperature

as a band in Figure on SA-3 agree ranging measured in the upon based it is not from by SA-2

radiation shield located in calorimeters

calorimeters on the between approximately differed SA-3 an

were vehicle. outboard

located Both and

with during cannot SA-3

those

of SA-I SA-2 flight

-25

aft of the heat were engines These

+25 C.

(described that

symmetrical considerably

be explained;

however,

the SA-I

it follows

characteristic

the heat shield ture of 25 C, cates that the radiation flight made are levels shown which in Figure data the in the data consider The were 53. measured Correcadequate. Due

temperature. The maximum temperameasured during the SA-3 flight, indiheat shield insulation was more than to the failure of the measurement in

Thermal on tions ent slug was put the SA-3 were techniques, temperature

to the telemetered both of which history.

by two differcalorimeter upper band inof slug heat history

back of the M-31 insulated panel, the relative adequacy of the two insulation materials cannot be assessed.

obtained by varying and measuring the to obtain data was

the calorimeter temperature-time correction. by evaluating

C.

SKIN The skintemperatures tanks for thermocouples. measured during indicated at various the SA-3 vehicle Generally, the SA-3 the SA-I positions were on the

the slug band of

the proper corrected

The lower the losses slope input. fac-

propellant by ten atures than (Figure tanks; within

measured

after engine and defining This second tor is ficient

cutoff using the temperature-time a heat balance assuming no heat method assumes that the correction throughout the same flight; i.e., for both the

the skin temperflight were lower and SA-2 flights in the were Also

those

during

constant will be

the loss coefheating and the

57) , due to the higher however, the measured the anticipated range

propellant level temperatures

cooling cycles. time however, technique, flight. A point values the

This point has not been proven at this and based on the laboratory calibration loss coefficient varies throughout

of skintemperatures.

this

shown (Figure 58) are the skin temperature measurements of the fuel tank, C50-F3, and the LOX shroud at station 835. The latter measurements were in good agreement with those of the SA-1 and SA-2 flights.

that within

of interest concerning the two methods is obtained at both liftoff and cutoff agree accuracy since compared of the the data. At liftoff losses heat this would be At The skin dummy measured mocouples dummy mination S-IV by temperatures at various positions fairing of the located on the were theron the stage and the f8 thermocouples. by interstage Twelve were calorimeter to the sensible should input.

bc expected negligible

cutoff it appears that the two techniques also yield approximately the same results. Intermediate values between liftoff and cutoff differ due to the methods utilizccl.

(requested

DAC)

S-IV stage to supplement the of structures in the vicinity

analytical deterof protuberances measurements to monitor firing. any

and separated regions. on the interstage fairing skin 2. partment ronment within peratt, re Engine exl)cricnced during the each engine 0C above Compartment. The engine comNo aerodynamic ical portion skin temperatures to 159 C were C133-11 shown significant heating of the rise was temperature rise

The other six were located during retro

rocket

no extreme temperature enviflight. Aml)icnt air teml)eraturc area or was I)eh)w measured -50C and was no temindieate(I.

in

skin

temperature except where

due maximum

to

indicated, fairing

on the con-

interstage

The upper limit of the engine COmlmrtment gas temperature of SA-3was slightly below that of SA-2 flight ( Figure 54).

prior indieated in Figures

to retro rocket (measurements 59 and 60).

firing of 71C Ci28-1 i and

93

50

Temperature

(C) r-Upper Limi SA-2

25 ' F J. SA-2 "i::ld SA-3_

_i.!i_.:. t:.:::;-_.f._.: ...!:_-_(..i_-.--.-i: ..........,:


!!:':'-:2
-25

-50 0 i0 20 FIGURE 30 54. 40 50 60 70 80 90 i00 ii0 i Range ENGINE COMPARTMENT STRUCTURAL TEMPERATURES 140 Time ,50 (_ec)

C20-_ i00 )erature (C) C2[-5_, .__.____ _ /_ .__ --_--__. C21-5

75

/
50 /
f

/
25

./
/
f

C20-5 0 10 20 FIGURE 30 55. ENVIRONMENT, } FORWARD 80 SIDE 90 OF FLAME I00 SHIELD C72-[ _ ii0 12( Range _

Time

(sec)

%"nC_e% _ _ o

C73-2

50

}er_ture

C69-5

-- o/'-'hk._J_o/_"

C 6 3

,
/-

,
SA-2

,
and SA-3

, _
[_)C_i-4())

25

...... :_T.,.:..J.:.:.. ::4-."

!:'t::'_

-25

-50 i0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 i00 it0 120 Range 130 Time [40 (_;ec) 150

FIGURE

56.

BASE

ENVIRONMENT,FORWARD

SIDE

OF HEAT

SHIELD

94 TemperatureC) ( i00

\
-I00

SA-I

& SA-2

_n_u_ulu4_fll ::::::::::::::::::::::

- SA-3

-200

-300
20 40 60 Range FIGURE 57. PROPELLANT 80 Time (sec) TEMPERATURE AT STATION 745 i00 120 140 160

TANK

SKIN

Temperature i00

(C) I 741 C50_3, Sta ._= ___ _--LOX Shroud, Sta 835 B-_

--_-_______ ____..__

i! iii
-i00 --LOX -200 Tank Measurements

-300 20 40 60 Range FIGURE.58. 80 Time (sec) TANK SKIN TEMPERATURE i00 120 140 160

PROPELLANT

95

Temperature 200

(C)

Compression Measurements

Side

C133-II

i00 C132-II "_ C130-20

-i00 0 40 80 59. 120 Range FIGURE Tem _erature 400 (oc) Time 160 (sec) DUMMY S-IV STAGE AND INTERSTAGE 200 240 28(

TEMPERATLrREMEASUREMENTON

Expansion Side Measurements

300

C127-II 2-00

i00 C128-II C126-II I C129-20

-I00 40 80 120 Range 160 (sec) ON 200 240 280

Time

FIGURE60.

_fEMPERATUREIIEASI/REMEI,_T S-IV STAGE AIR INTERSTAGE

DUMMY

96

i53 from

The retro rockets were ignited sec range time and the response the retro rockets' 60. the rocket plume 59 and Measurement

at approximately due to the heating is shown (Figure increase at 154 sec to made attachthat may skin temto Cf27-II

the and sures tions

canister i. 2 kg/cm

pressure 2 during

to

be

maintained Three flight and maintained

between canister

0.7 pres-

flight. during was

impingement

in Figures

were measured that the pressure

gave indicawithin this 0. i

60) indicated during retro 315C determine ment, have at

maximum temperature firing (from 10C An investigation effects

range. kg/cm

Canister pressure 2 from 0 to 150 sec

decayed approximately range time. Temperature by an external arm. there After was the

161 see).

is being etc.) actual

any secondary

(thermocouple

nearby prevented

structural members, an indication of the

the four package cal

2. Canister Temperature. canisters was controlled mounted arm on the was swing retracted

in coolcr umbili-

peratures. Teml)cratures protuberance heating theory were in the vicinity expected twice of the that S-IV predicted stage a by

swing

no additional of canister were with-

canister cooling. temperature was in the acceptable

The acceptable 10 to 40 C. All range at liftoff.

range canisters

within

levels,

although

rate of approximately was encountered. analysis is being

Further

performed

to determine the tempera-

the factors which may tures indicated by these D. INSTRUMENT 1. guidance Canister components

have influenced measurements.

Specifications call for ambient air temperatures in the ST-90 and ST- 124P guidance platform compartments to be controlled at 25 + 2 C. Both ST-90 and ST- 124 P guidance were in the compartment the temperature platform compartment at liftoff. temperatures The ST-t24P

acceptable temperature stayed flight.

range

CANISTER Pressure. located in the Instrumentation canisters and required

measurement indicated that within the acccptablc range temperature was not

throughout monitored

flight. during

ST-90ambient

97

SECTION

XII.

(U)

AERODYNAMICS

A.

SUMMARY

Calculated greement with when data has is static coefficient, determined stability and from were ratio, gradient of pressure telemetered with preforce for the of

values predicted plotted a

of

C z' values

and

CP/D and

are previous

in

fair flights'

a-

Aerodynamic normal location data. dicted force were

results SA-3

versus broader to

Mach error the

number margin

(Figure than lower SA-I

62). or

the center the SA-3 in agreement

SA-2which of on angle-of-attack the SA-3 of

attributed and trajectory.

generally pressure unreliability numbers and values within low

values

The

flight results However, the center larger flights,

dynamic The

experienced and limited supersonic as well error as wide the reSA-I

values. and

the gradient of pressure margins

of normal location than due

coefficient SA-3 from ues

scatter SA-3analysis gion. and of the In SA-2

data to

at the

higher transonic predicted were

Mach

flight had previous

error

did results val-

as expected, and dynamic

to lower

this

region, results

of angle-of-attack

pressure.

flight results.

the

margin

SA-3

Surface sentedas sure. wind SA-3 tunnel

pressure a ratio pressure tests.

data of surface data

for

the

SA-3 to well

flight

are

preD. from 1. face pressure on extreme to the Station 205 Measurements. at of the Station flared-out of the 63 versus is fuel a plot Mach Also at this 205 All on region and of four SA-3 surwere SURFACE PRESSURE

pressure agreed

ambientpreswith data

pick-ups fillets lower SA-2.

Pressure shield sults. pressure hind the are in The

data excellent flight (Cp in

on

the

simulated with

Centaur wind a Mach region.

weather tunnel relow be-

located to the similar

adjacent LOX tanks,

agreement results =-1.74 the subsonic indicate at

portion Figure ratio

maximum 0.7) right

surface-tofor are all

region shoulder

ambient-pressure four individual

number shown station.

measurements. radial locations

their

approximate Sketches surface report, pressures Section XII. showing are the detailed in locations Volume II of of the this rose Mach B. RATIO E RATION OF GRADIENTS (STABILITY OF RATIO) ANGULAR ACCELimum greement tunnel The (stability erage and ratio of the gradients ratio CI/B ) was pitch of angular determined engine acceleration from the av(tip) had on The been the test Except steadily number pressure is included

for

measurement above of ambient

D78-10, at this 0.4, Mach SA-2

the station reaching 2. values

pressures after a maxawind a

approximately ratio of i. 5 at with

Excellent and

also

shown

data.

validity previously

of the

data

from

measurement after widely trend As shown was the from SA-2 wind

D78-10 flight tmmel by the 63,

telemetered

plane

deflection

questioned it differed the consistent

the free-stream

angle-of-attack

(C_p).

grounds and three data for thereby 2. from

that

results The cle sus and time values predicted ( Figure at the of C1/B obtained agreed A minimum of maximum ,-nr_di_ted error is also margin shown in well for when value dynamic value inthe Figure the SA-3 plotted of -0.58 pressure of -0.55. flight61. sure four C. GRADIENT AND CENTER OF NORMAL OF PRESSURE FORCE COEFFICIENT Stations in tion The and tained normal the gradientof center using of the pressure normal force coefficient (CP/D) of were (C z ) obsure station tion of Figxlre of LOCATION vehiverwas other SA-3 to from values 61). time

exhibited in Figure

measurements. measurement adding

D78-10 some validity

very to the

similar results

SA-2, SA-

obtained

(_a. nv _v_,o_ _. An estimate

compared of the stability

tn.... _ possible ratio

2. ratios

Station (surface

860

and to (same

863 ambient) as plotted

Measurements. obtained on SA-2), Mach the radial Surface D82-F3, extreme direction. located situated upper from located

Presthe at

determined

measurements 860 64 each and with 863,

are

versus

number locapresat porMeasfacing the

a sketch

indicating

individual

measurement. D80-FI and on the flight were

measurements 863, the fuel D81-FI were tanks and

location values

located facingthe D83-F3

telemetered and

angle-of-attack,

acceleration,

engine

deflection.

urements

98

v ,IJ -,-4

,--_ .IJ

0 0 ,IJ ,I.J II _

.,.-t 0 0 ,_ c_ 0 .,-I C,O "1:3

rJ 0

II

CO v r.

0 00 0 (J 0

g_
,.o ,0

q_ 0

4.-I

_.0 I

) -I J

o,,I

-.1"

'..0

oO

6
I

o
I

c_
I

o
I

99

..1:

u'l ,,o

> Z
t'M

P I
00
C-.I

i-I r_ I-I

0 r..p _._ r_ 0 r_

co

-o'-

0 Z r._ o

o o i.-.i

L
v

4-1

_
t.l

.;-I

,,.o ,..o

r_
v 4-1

n_
i

.;-I

E
H o

I I

,i
oo

o .;-i

I"
I
!

r_ 0

t'M

,J o

l P,
d

c;

E
0 Z o -4" ! 0 xl r_

rj o o

r_ / 0

100 20 Surface Pressure/Ambient Pressure

SA-3 SA-2

Telemetered Telemetered (Wind

Data Data Tunnel)

Predicted

Measurement 1.0

D76-I0

0 0 2.0 Surface 0.4 0.8 1.2 P1essure 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 Mach Pressure/Ambient

3.2 Number

Measurement 1.0

D77-I0

_-_--

0 0 2.0 Surface 0.4 0.8 1.2 Pressure 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 Mach 3.2 Number Pressure/Ambient

I
Measurement D78- I0

I
1.0

0 0 3.0 Surface 0.4 0.8 1.2 Pressure 1.6 2.0 2.4 .8 Mach 3.2 Number Pressure/Ambient

Measurement 2.0

D79-I0

1.0

0.4

08

.2

1.6 III

2.0 D78- i0

2.4

2.8 Mach

3.2 Number

D79-I0

asurement (Sta. 205) Location D77-I0 D76-I0 FIGURE 63. , RATIOS OF SURFACE

II

IV

I PRESSURE TO AMBIENT PRESSURE VERSUS MACH NIJMBER

P 2.0 Surface Pressure/Ambient ressure Measurement D80-F] 1.0


J

SA-3TelemeteredData I 01 SA-2TelemeteredData Predicted (WindTunnel)

--_-

_ _

0
0 0.4 Surface 0.8 iient 1.2 Pressure 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 Mach 3.2 Number

2.0

Pressure/A:

Measurement 1.0

D8L-FI

- 7_-o-Crc
0 0 Surface 2,0 0.4 0.8 Pressure/Ambient 1.2 Pressure 1.6 2_0 2.4 2.8 Mach 3.2 Number

I
Measurement 1.0 D82-F

0 0.4 2.0 Surface 0.8 .2 Pressure 1.6 2.0 2.4 Pressure/Ambient

I 2.8 Mach

3.2 Number

I
Measurement D83-F3 l.O

L
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 D83-F3 1.6 III 2.0 D82-F3 .4 2.8 Mach 3.2 Number i_ta. 860_ Measurement (?ta. LocatLons Sta" 863

86-' q 863) "_ D80-FI Sta, 863 1 _'-F! D._ Sta. 860

FIGURE

64.

RATIOS

OF

SU.;LFACE PRESSUFE

TO AMBIENT

PRESSUF, E

VE_

I'S MACH

hR24BER

102

center fuel

of the cluster tanks. Observed

at Station flight to a minimum and gradually

860, readings

slightly indicate

above that

the the iment shoulder failure adverse shoulder

4. Centaur was flown

Simulation on SA-3

to

Pressures. simulate

An experthe Centaur The to an of the To

pressure dropped bient at Mach 1.2 around results ley for error Mach from 2. wind

of 80 percent of amincreased to ambient agreement in the with Langshown lower the conducted

configuration behind the nose fairing. of the first Centaur flight was attributed pressure with distribution respect in the information two panels vicinity to a venting arrangement.

SA-3 tunnel

data

is in good

tests

8-foot TPT comparison than margin

and 4-foot UPWT. SA-2 data, in the figxlre, indicates slightly SA-3, but both results data. are telemetered

gain some the failure

full scale flight cause hypothesis,

in support of were mounted

pressure

within

of the

on SA-3 to simulate ation. Two 2.3-cm

a portion of the Centaur configuthick panels were installed on the

3. (surface ments

Station to ambient)

989

and are

1019. from

Pressure the four Mach

ratios measurenum-

payload surface of the vehicle, one between fin locations III and IV (designated panel IH- IV) and the other between fin locations I and II (designated panel I- II). The panels were approximately 60 degrees wide in circumference and extended from Station 1698 to 1731. The shoulder of the nose cone was moved back 10 cm to Station A total located 1727 on the area encompassed meascenter-

obtained

on the

interstage

plottedversus

ber in Figure 65. These surface m ents were obtained for the first urement_ imately tively; D84-20are 7 degrees D85-20and from D87-20 located fin are

pressure measuretime on SA-3. Meas989.3, at Station approx1019.3 III and I, respec-

at Station locations located

by the panels. surements was line area stalled each surface similar on

of 11 surface longitudinally

pressure on the

also at approximately 7 degrees from fin locations III and I. Values of the ratio of surface to ambient pressure at Station 989.3 increased from 1.0 at Mach 0.3 to approximately nel tests data. at Langley 2.1 at Mach (_ = 0) 2. agree Data well from with wind the tunflight

of the panels. to the base SA-3. Base panels

The Centaur of the simulation pressures were SA-3 the

vented in an panels inmeasured on

one of the

during

flight.

sure tained

Figure 66 is a representative coefficients versus Mach from is also coefficient shoulder, 0.7. Values of are pressure plotted show (Reference excellent 4) the six measurements and sketch

plot of surface number whichwere on panel of each

presobA

III-IV. measure-

Measurements 1019.3 tion closer indicated 989.3, as expected,

D85-20 slightly lower since corner

and the

D87-20 orifices

at than are

Station at Stalocated of the

configuration ment sure the Mach

the location

pressures on the

shown in the figure. occurred at Station where a value of -1.74

The largest pres1726, 2.5 cm from was obtained at

to the expansion

frustrum

S-IV stage. dropped from bient the drop at Mach local

Readings from 1.5 at Mach 1.2 1.6. wave moving tunnel

measurement D85-20 to a value slightly amat this time that this downstream measurements caused 67. nel

coefficients versus vehicle agreement on the

at various station with Centaur Center results the wind

Mach tun-

It is conjectured Wind

numbers Results results

in Figure shoulder for the indicate shoulder

shock

in pressure.

at loca-

tions in close proximity to the flight measurement do not indicate this drop. However, the value obtained from the wind tunnel tests was a faired value and the possibility exists that the faired value is not correct.

configuration Mach numbers a very in the subsonic

tests at Ames Research available. The flight region right region.

low pressure

behind

103 Surface 4.0 I I D84-20 Pressure/Ambient Pressure

3.0

fJ I

2.0 D86-20

____/I

1.0

Station

989

I
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 Mach 1.6 Number

-D84-20 (SA-3) ----- D86-20 (SA-3) (_) Predicted (Wind I i 20 2.4

Tunnel) 2.8

Surface 4.0

Pressure/Ambient

Pressure

3.0 II

85- ]0

-----Q 2.0 D87-20 IV

D85-20 (SA-3) D87-20 (SA-3) Predicted (Wind

T_nn

1.0

Station

1019

0.4

0.8

1.2 Mach

1.6 Number

2.0

2.4

2.8

FIGURE-

65.

RATIOS VERSUS

OF SURFACE PRESSURE TO AMBIENT MACH NUMBER ON INTERSTAGE

PRESSURE

104

P-P Pressure -1.8 /--1726 Coefficient, a

-1.6 II I- IV II__ Pane i

-1.4

-1.2 1720

-i.0

-0.8

/
-0.6 1707--_ I

-0.4

qJ
_//
l I
I

c .,
1.2 Number 1714 I

Panel Base (1698)

,,

-0.2

0 0 Sta. 1727 (shulder) .--_1726 a 1720 a 0.4 0.8 Mach

1.6

2.0

1707 i

17011 g/------1698

(Panel

Base)

FIGURE

66.

PRESSURE COEFFICIENT VERSUS MACH CENTAUR-SIMULATION PANEL

NUMBER

ON

P-Pa Pressure -1o6 Coefficient, q

I05

SA-3 -1.2

Data

_r-

-_

Wind Test

Tunnel Data

--

-0.8

\
M -0.4 = .78

1728

1724

1720

1716

1712

1708

1704 Vehicle

if00 Station

Pressure -1.2

Coefficient,

P-Pa q

-0.8

-0.4

SA-3

Data

\
Test Data M = .86 1716 ]712 1708 1704 Vehicle 1700 Station

Wind

Tunnel

0 1728 Pressure -1.2 1724 1720 Coefficient, P-Pa q I SAL3 ____ -0.8 I Wind Testt Data Tunnel Data

M -0.4 1728 1724 1720 1716 1712 1708

_95

I
1704 1700 Vehicle Station

FIGURE'67.

PRESSURE MACH

COEFFICIENT ON

VERSUS

_HICLE

STATION PANEL

AT

VARIOUS

NUMBERS

CENTAUR-SII_JLATiO_

t06

SECTION

XIll.

(U)

INSTRUMENTATION

A.

SUMMARY Overall reliability All no deviation inflight RF to of the from SA-3 measuring performed normal were from good all data operation. normal. telemetry during the links flight system satisAll

Inlet; Dr3-5, Pressure LOX sure Turbine Inlet;Dr8-5,

PumpInlet; D14-5, PresPressure Gear Case Top; PresInside

was

97.0

percent. with and

commutators calibrations power

D19-5, Pressure Gear Case Lub, Hi; D20-5, sure Gear Case Lub, Lo; and D27-5, Pressure Tail. These failures occurred command. All of these measurements

factorily preflight

3.2 sec after ignition had responded failure. Inverter, did func-

to their various systems Transmitted was time that sufficient Measurement showed tion. no output M27-12, even

prior to the power Frequency this Static inverter

produce

of approximately the entire system

292 seconds. Indications are performed without significant

though

failure. The pressure measurement Gas in LOX Tank No. i, became The signal C-Band Radar, Even normal the cient though signal, for This dundant XUI D., one ing data good flight UDOP strength was very tracking and trajectory has again of all closeto Radar the information Azusa information. proven As flight periods the usefulness of rein Section data from trackusing The pressure D145-9, ignition. received also camera to that coverage of SA-2. for ignition. Pressure tion Chamber, measurement A normal Three output of measurement failed became was the DI-4, Presstlre range noisy CombusThis time. Ap Across These a very measurements Shroud, measurements high "g" load of D143-2, were lost Dt44-9, 0.5 sec and after RF systems, the expected received from system this except values. system, suffiafter ignition. The signalwas later. The strain measurement E21-02, Strain, MountD3-01, Pressure of intermittent t.6 sec lost 3.9 see

completely

the C-Band system,

a lower-thanwas

ing Stud, had no output. This failure is believed to be in the strain gauges. There were four other gauge failures on similar measurements before launch day.

tracking systems. some periods of may be but redundant engineering flight was these

pointed out exist when to provide may

system information, from The

insufficient systems. sequential comparable

good be filled

are believed at this time. in this

to have There is area at

a large

amount

displacement

the B.

SA-3

MEASURING Measurement

ANALYSIS Malfunctions. There were 607 flight made on the SA-3 vehicle. Of these fourteen were found to be completely

at 73 sec extremely observed after

time. at this

cutoff. probes did not

measurements measurements,

108

discrete

level

unusable, six were partiallyusable, and one was questionable. Two types of malfunctions occurred on tl_e flight. First, there were seven pressure transducers and one temperature tion in the ments in area measurements apparent The failures. measurement power supply lost serving because the of a malfuncdirect measureother had were six components

function. They were probes number measurements A19-OC, AI9-01, and tively. Partial failures were

6, 2, and 11 on A19-03 respec-

also observed

on A6-5

and

AII-5, Main Fuel and LOX Valve respectively. These measurements recorded the valves' opening, but failed to record the valves' closing because uring voltage failure mentioned The measurement D18-2, of the measpreviously. Pressure Gear Case

five. Second, there in which the measuring

eight

measurements

that

were

lost

because

Top,

showed

an unusually

high pressure.

This is a

of measuring ture Radiation

voltage failure were: C69-5, Shield; D12-5, Pressure

TemperaFuel Pump

gauge type pressure transducer. A systems analysis does not support this high pressure. It is believed

107

that was

the

orifice

to the thus

pressure trapping

port the

of the transducer gas some-

The propellant showed higher ings. the flame db)

Block tanks

H antenna

panel

(located

between

the

obstructed,

nitrogen

at the forwardportion

of the S-I stage)

time during atmosphere, transducer the gas

the launch. the pressure decreased, at

As the vehicle rose into the on the vent side of the showing port. an increase The pressure in

good results, and somewhat The attenuation as that for noted the

with the signal strength being more constant than other recordat retro Block less rocket I antenna; (probably Block I type. firing as was much about the as 10 however,

thereby the pressure

trapped

same than

rise in this case was mospheric pressure. shortly before cutoff.

the same as the drop in the atThis obstruction was relieved

attenuation

was

on the

the plus which

Measurement SA-3 measuring eighteen failures the optical three are The

Reliability. system failures of the nine liquid

Overall reliability was 97. 0 percent; this for 108 598 discrete measurements, level probes

of is

D.

RF

SYSTEMS

ANALYSIS

assuming

i.

Telemetry. km at signal lowest The approxistrength the rewas level

remaining type

measurements. probes, used for the

Cape Telemetry 2 Station (1.7 imately 240 from Pad 34). Telemetry (Figure ceiver received 68) at this threshold during station appears The firing. this time at all times. retro dbm rocket at

level

to be above signal

first The

time onthis reliability the was

flight, performedvery of these probes was of the impedance 56 percent.

satisfactorily. 97.2 percent, type probes

signal

whereas on SA-2

reliability approximately

dropped 25 to 35 -65 to -75 dbm. Other decreases

to approximately

The pressure transducers sidual pressure in the combustion off performed transducers performed as on satisfactorily. the surface

that recorded the rechamber after cutAlso, and the pressure retro rockets

in signal

strength

were

present,

areas

but they were less intense. These may to multipath, cross polarization, antenna aspect angle, and flame attenuation. Flame attenuation not noisy attenuation was present at

be attributed nulls, small

expected. this However, station the measurements they did on the on the measuring gave SA-2 a 100 perflight, exwhich did failure. from approximately 98 to 138 seconds. until approximately occurred between drop

cent cept

The temperature performance for the

as

measurement due to the

M31 panel voltage

signal was Maximum sec and

118 seconds. 120 and 130 t0 to However, end prior changing

not operate C.

caused

a signal

of approximately

TELEMETRY Data transmission

SYSTEMS

ANALYSIS testing Saturn vehicle system In ad-

25 db below normal, which was expected. it wasn't expected that the attenuation would to engine cutoff. aspect angle. Signal resulting ords that the relatively attenuation from retro it is not This was caused by the

for flight by eight

SA-3 links

was

effected

radio

telemetry assembly.

and a TM auxiliary

equipment

due firing, very

to can gain

the

roll

of the vehicle, on these This aspect recmeans angle is

dition, two experimental systems, (link 6) and a UHF RF assembly (link tested for factorily. the first time. All Systems

a PCM system 9), were flight operated satis-

be seen at this

although

pronounced.

vehicle antenna constant.

Cape The excellent, tem will strength were The retro enough PCM overall and performance indications are of link that accurate was very most 6 was the data. good. likely found to be sysPCM/FM mately shows sufficient difference lemetry from onds 5 to Link of the the for UHF UHF link band 9 was will links. station board expulsion Possibly, in the future

Telemetry

3 Station

(6.9

km

at

approxi-

200 from Pad that the signal to prevent existed 2 station. multipath of flight. 10 sec later l0 experienced Even recorded engine of though cutoff. exhaust

34). Preliminary strength from dropout this was more during station

investigation this station was Some Cape Teand

provide very from this link but package these showed

The signal A few nulls antenna drop at a level nulls. during high

signal between There

at anytime. signal the first was less

noted

were still

fluctuation few secand began 2 station. than other less, after the this outsignal

a 30 to 35 dbm remained

propagation Flame

rocket firing, but for good data. overall,

attenuation

than at Cape Telemetry less flame attenuation flame This attenuation decrease was gases. probably Some was due of a short in signal

The found be used telemetry

performance

to be satisfactory. more extensively data.

transmitting

to the final

108

Signal

Strength

(dbm)

CAPE

TELEMETRY Link 2

Retros

F ir.__,..

_--Meas

ured

f
LT__ I

"g_ "_._

Predictec

J
0 40 80 120 Flight 160 Time (sec) 200 240 280 320

Signal

Strength

(dbm)

CAPE

TELEMETRY Link 6

-10L_,f''_"

_--PrediJted--.---RetrosFire

__Measur

ed

-50

-70 0 40 80 120 Flight FIGURE 68. 50 Time (sec) SIGNAL 2) STRENGTH 200 240 280 320

TELEMETRY (CAPE

TELEMETRY

109

strength creases the vehicle Signal about the

decreases at Cape began

were Telemetry to roll. due

more

intense

than especially

the

deafter

2 station,

dbm below normal) onds. Retro rocket tion of approximately Signal variation

occurred firing

between produced for their

125 and 133 seca signal attenuaduration. retro rocket

25 dbm occurred caused

attenuation same as at the

to retro

rocket

firing 2 station.

was

between

Cape

Telemetry

firing and destruct,

by nulls in the antenna

pattern as the vehicle rolled. Green Mountain Telemetry Station (near MSFC). at this Average been time. Signalwas it was noisy received and attenuated (Titusville Pad 34). preliminary was after until 465 sec after after liftoff, but

The telemetry signal station approximately signal than The on strength SA-2. but was The is could

( Figure 69) was received 128 sec after liftoff. approximately reason under possibly for this investigation be caused has

destruct.

15 to 18 db higher not yet at this km was Some Tango Station at 270 from higher signal than especially - Cocoa Airport, 22.9 Average signal strength predictions experienced the vehicle ( Figure began to roll. 70). due to anten-

determined, difference in calibration the different flights.

by an error

or by a difference weather conditions

in propagation due to of the SA-2 and SA-3

attenuation

na nulls,

Signal

GBI Telemetry was received All fired.

Station at this

(Grand station

Bahama between

Islands). 48 and 55 retro links

Retro rocket firing produced to 15 db below the average signal. tion ceived was was very experienced approximately and attenuated noisy at this until 464 sec after

an attenuation of 10 No flame attenuaSignal after liftoff, destruct. was rebut it

station.

seconds. rockets

links functionednorrnally At this time, the signal

until the on some

dropped low enough to cause noise inthe Also, some decreases due to roll were to cause signal noise. sent at this station. No flame

reduced data. large enough was pre-

Other several Station.

Stations. other They

AGC records including

were the

received Green with Tango

from and

attenuation

stations, all compared

Mountain

favorably strength 23.4 km

from ally firing may

Hangar D Station (4. 3 km at approximately Pad 34). The signal at this station was low and be and at attributed to hand experienced intervals tracking partially dropouts during used at retro roll. the vehicle to a low gain by this

210 generrocket This and

Mandy records. The signal tion (Merritt Island Airport, 214 from 3.

from Metro Staat approximately

Pad 34 is presented in Figure 70. Azusa. Records from the MK II station

system

partially UHF proximately that The lent UHF

station. (7.7 km at apis the first time

(12.4 km at approximately that the system operated to 170 seconds. ting between5 Azusa flight. flights hicle. which sec _*^ of the passive sec, was signal These because However, meets to destruct, _a ,_hm _ vehicle, records from the propagation and

194 from as expected (Figure the first for longer the

Pad 34) indicate for the first 160 71) was fluctua80 seconds. The due first than to multipath part of the

Telemetry200 from telemetry

Mandy Station Pad 34). This has been used

The signal i2db for

normally and antenna effects

fluctuates lobing lasted

on a Saturn

flight.

signal strength and, as shown almost effects affected from this

during powered flight was excelin Figure 69, it followed the preperfectly. the engine system There less was than no evidence the the VHF retro sysexhaustand

on previous of the ve-95 dbm, From as much 160 as roll was 270 signal

dictedcurve of flame rockets tems. roll, was from this

of the slower the signal range the tirno_ since data signal This the indicate

liftoffvelocity remained above commitments. was attenuated has the onlyone is probably that

The signal was low after but this could be expected using the value 2. Man@ only station was only

the vehicle began to because the system away noise below

due to the

system

antenna.

one antenna and it was turned much of the time. The data -102 two dbm times and for the short sigaal dropped periods.

However,

MK II system 225 until The

160 until

220 see,

and from

threshold

while the attenuated 4. Station

MK I station most during Radar. (4.7 km

was tracking. these periods.

UDOP. Station (7.7 km atapproximately at this exception 200 from

C-Band 1.16

at approximately it was moding

199 from

Pad 34). The AGC voltage until 125 see, with one seconds. began board Signal attenuation, at approximately engine cutoff.

station was constant between 78 and 79 caused by flame, until in(f2 to 15

Pad 34). Prior to liftoff, Band Beacon was frequency pulse so the pulse. output. receiver This This detuning was was detuned caused

noticed that the Cand giving a double range a single signal lock-on, narrow level than

probably

causing

erratic to get a lower

125 see Maximum

and continued attenuation

llO

GREEN S1g__ -50 Strength (dbm)

MOUNTAIN

TELEMETRY Link 5

STATION

I
Retros Fire--,-

-7O

IA

-90

-ii0 0 40 80 120 Flight 160 Time 200 (sec) 240 280 320

UHF Signal -50 Strength (dbm)

TELEMETRY-MANDY Link 9

STATION

-70 PrcclJc _ed _ _etros 90 Fi:'e __ {

{
Data N__o:,se Threshold {

-llO 0 40 80
/ .

120 F_ight

160 Time

200 (see) STRENGTI_

240

280

320

FIGURE

69. (GREEN

TELEMETRY MOUNTAIN

SIGNAL AND

MANDY)

ill

Signal -50

Strength

(dbm)

TANGO

STATION

" Measured

-- Predicted

Retros -ii0 0 40 80 120 Flight 160 Time (sec)

Fire

1
200 240 28O 320

Signal -50

Strength

(dbm) t Predicted

METRO

STATION

__

f'-_

p_/'-'_

I-

l- Retros

Fire

-ii0 0

I
40 80 120 Flight 160 Time (sec) FIGURE-70. UDOP SIGNAL

I
200 240 280 320 STRENGTH

112

Signal

Strength

(dbm) AZUSAMK II
I

-60
-- Predicted

I
-80

I I I
Retros Fire -_

asured

-i00

-120 0 40 80 120 Flight 160 Time (sec) 200 240 280 320

C-BAND Signal -20 Strength (dbm) Station

RADAR 1.16

-._--- Retros

Fire

-40
Predicted

-60

I,r
I

I
f
___Measured

-80
_----Signal Drop-out

-i00
0 40 80 120 Flight

I
160 Time (sec)

200

240

280

320

FIGURE-71.

AZUSA

AND

RADAR

SIGNAL

STRENGTH

113

would normally felt that it was be used if the strength signal 71.

be received at this station, but adequate because skin tracking beacon from proved this to be inadequate. is shown station

it was could The

34).

Station This until

0.16 ( Patrick station used T+22 for sec, tracking. beacon

AFB, 32.9 km south of Pad the MK 51 optical tracking at which time it switched station this, After to AGC at the ground 53 seconds.

system automatic appears

in Fig_dre

normal

the first

Automatic and used pattern than decreasing hunting skin ing this which noise cern. ances was time, tracking used the during predictions. at at about

beacon this about from from

tracking The time,

was signal

acquired followed

at liftoff a smooth lower began began trackDuring 20 to 30 db

it has a 2 to 3 db jitter for the remainder of the flight. Records show that this station also had trouble with narrow from this the by pulse detuning width, its double It apparently beacon as more track was at pulsing, hadn't station difficulty. three 140 times sec and response were after been caused during may the have and 1.16 countdown for done had beacon. prepared

for 92 seconds. Records 85

but was show sec; then,

20 to 30 dbm that the the signal system Beacon seconds. was

and therefore This flight. The

experienced station first lost time

91 sec 103

and was until

switched 196.5 ratio

to automatic

92 to 103 seconds.

signal-to-noise

is sufficient was present by flame, 10 to However, of

for high accuracy tracking. Some between 115 and 132 sec which may but retro it wasn'tenough rocket firing the drove to cause caused sig_ml-to-noise probably level had condisturb-

been a combination attenuation. The rockets had fired

of poor beacon other two times and may have

and flame the retro by roll. automatic from 140

be caused

The system switched back and forth between beacon tracking and automatic skin tracking to 187 sec and from destruct. struct. ended up using automatic It tracked the water

15 db which

ratio down to 12 to 15 db. This disturbance would have been insignificant if the signal been normal. After retro rocket firing, the noise level at about switched happened to skin again tracking around

skin tracking cloud after de-

low was This

the signal dropped be194 sec and the system from 235 197 to 202 seconds. sec and the system 241 sec tracked

GBI Statiori (Grand Bahama Island). The signal was received at GBI 65 sec after liftoff. It experienced the same trouble as the other stations. No flame imately attenuation firing 5 db. response to track between was below normal, beacon all the way, 192 and 228 seconds. this exwas caused present a signal at this station, but retro rocket attenuation of approx-

was switched until destruct. pieces of Highwater.

to automatic skin After destruct, and

tracking from this station formed

the vehicle

the cloud

by Project

station cept

Even though was able for one period

the

ii4

SECTION

XIV.

(C)

SUMMARY

OF

MALFUNCTIONS

AND

DEVIATIONS

The flight test of Saturn SA-3 did not reveal any malfunctions or deviations which could be considered a serious system failure ever, a number of minor summarized here for or design deviations deficiency. did occur purposes. recommended by the listed. These are item is listed in the Howand are

10.

The

retro

rockets roll motion drop and

were

misaliglmd,

causing

a vehicle ii. The the kgfcm pressure center

(Section the than

V G. ) .*" orifices between was 0.09 at IECO

across lower

documentary were items Each

outboard

LOX tanks predicted

2 ( 1.3 psi)

Corrective measures divisions for some of the marked with an asterisk. area Launch where the malfunction

(Section Control: i2. An tilt error angle

V D 2. ).

occurred. in tilt of 44.28 cam resulted angle in a maximum arrest as com( Secdeg at tilt

Operations: failure caused a 45-min(Section IIID. ). 13.

i. A ground generator ute hold at T-75 2.

pared to the desired tion VII B. i.) .* A clockwise observed i4. Increased 04 compared maximum observed cm

of 44degrees

minutes

roll moment

of 1553 kg-m

was

The digital output computer for the sequence records malfunctioned (Section III D. ). The "Support Retract Pressure OK" switches cycled several times about 500 ms after all engines were running (Section IIIE. ). error indicated that the LOX Guidance: i5.

at IECO sloshing to

(Section VII B. 3.). was that on observed the SA-2 in LOX flight. tank A

3.

sloshing amplitude in pitch on SA-3, as (Section VII D. ).

of 24 cm was compare_ to 10

on SA-2

4.

measuring

bubbling valve of the expected 5. The mand Trajectory: 6. The than burning expected range due LOX fill

stayed open 60 seconds mast failed

for 137 see instead (Section III E.). to retract on com-

Erroneous celerometer were

outputs system

from

the VIII

cross C. 3. ).

range

ac-

on the

ST-124P

platlorm

(Section

III F. ) .* 16. time for SA-3 was 1.3 sec (Section IV C. 1. ). displacement to a difference IV C. 1. ). i8. longer

observed

(Section platform resolver

The ST-124P imuthand the ( Section VIII

was not aligned in azchainwas not trimmed D. 3. ) ._'_

C. 3 and VIII

7.

Cross nominal tween to winds

was to the left of in alignment beand also due

i7.

A failure due to an open circuit in one buffer amplifier stage of the ST-124P guidance signal processor repeater was encountered (Section VIII D. 2.). A disturbance cessor between D. 2.). VIII was observed 113 and in the 125 seconds signal pro-

the platform (Section

and vehicle,

Propulsion: 8. The higher 9. The gine vn.). vehicle than gear specific predicted pressure 2 exceeded impulse (Section was VC. 1.1 ). percent

(Section

Electrical case measurement its limits on en(Section 19. position

System: Number 5 measuring prior to liftoff (Section supply voltage IX B. ) ._ failed

w'
1t5

Structures: 20. A high fuel E45-8 21. vibration line, (Section level was observed on the

suction

longitudinal;

measurement

X E. 3. ). were observed in eight

Systematic measurements

transients (Section

X E. 3 and X F. ). and Pressures:

Environmental 22. Total dicated noted 23. Heating

Temperatures calorimeter losses (Section rate twice XI B.l.c. on the

measurement as great ). skin as

(C77-5) previously

in-

S-IV

was

twice

as

much as would XI C.). 24. Flame shield

be predicted

bytheory

(Section

pressure

was

unusual

(Section

XI B. i.a.). 25. Base pressure gradient than 1.a.). Instrumentation: 26. Fourteen were able 27. The than measurements were unusable, was questionsix on the previous heat shield hada flights (Section higher XI B.

partially (Section C-Band predicted

usable, and one XIH B. ).

Radar signal strength was (Section XIH D. 4. ).

lower

116

SECTION

XV.

(U)

SPECIAL

MISSIONS

A.

PROJECT A water

HIGHWATER cloud on experiment SA-2) was range (similar accomplished time with of water to the experisuccessstages' injecupper at-

B.

HORIZON

SCANNER

Useable tained during ues. and between this Data mmsable. the retro

data 100 period in other No data at

from and were data

the 130 within

horizon see range _:5 deg of the expected continued

scanner time. of

were The

obdata val-

ment

conducted

fully on SA-3. water ting ballasts 86.7

At 292sec were

the upper primaeord, into the

expected were until to be 100

ruptured gal) of of

l)ortions was have

flight

erratic sec;

in a (22,900 At the time at an altitude and at

mosphere. hicle was than al)ove

Project 167.22 of

Itighwuter, km (0.45 211.41 km

thevekm higher (3.76 km

however, until

should 153.6

useable

l ire

seconds.

predicted) predicted).

a range

C. The Saturn water flight with that the of the to range release in order on of experiment to the compare SA-2 the gal) to an noise of was the concloud duetedontheSA-3 formation to by to investigate the release

OTHER

SPECIAL

MISSIONS

In scanner flown as

addition output, tests discussed report. special

to a on

Project number SA-3. in detail

Highwater of The in special results the table are

and

the

horizon were tests

observed effects 86.7

experiment, ionosphere water and

missions of these

l)erturbing

m 3 (22,900 return monitor 300 eps to radio 400

have of a

been this

l)reeeding lists the

chapters section

monitor and

ionosphere's passively from

equilibrium through

The mission

following restllts

state, frequency

in which

discussed:

megacycles. at Vero Beach inLact alter deThe tumbling extended to be on Itighwater, see and continued were d. e. is f. g. of 72 of i. j. h. motime. translinks 3, but b. e. a. M-31 ( Block LOX Full Loading Block Passenger PCM Centaur S-IV "llld l_loek Retro I1 Antenna ST-124P Panel lteat II Shield Tyl)e) Panel XI B. 1. e. Reference Section

Fihn showed struct tion A of few of

from the that theS-I the Ut)l)er

long range camera booster remained dummy was stages. for

the

booster

obselwed

an

booster on 8

measurements Telemetry lost 335 Link and

continued signals after 360

mitted 4, were until not to and

telemetry. were temporarily between secands. 420see;whereas, until

Depletion Propellant

V B.

regained after lost transmit 400 until

V D. XIII VIII XIII study XII XI III V C. B. 2. C. D. 4. C. F. G.

7 telemetry link 6 (PCM) 600 of the The

signals

contiuued It repreout

apl)roximately if any

seconds. data would was Fig_tre periods

Telemetry Pressure Stage 1)ressure

questionable sent camera presents Project reliable range

however, measurements. when

booster

breakul)

occurred. during various

Teml)evature Meas. Arm

camera Ilighwater.

coverage

II Swing Rockets

117

Burst M.02 Seconds

Burst H.06 S e c o n d s

~~

Burst +0.13 Seconds FIGURE 72.

Burst +0.19 Seconds

PICTURE SEQUENCE OF PROJECT HIGHWATER EXPERIMENT

118

(U)

REFERENCES

i.

M-AER0-PO-3-62; Be Flown By SA-3"

"Saturn (U) ; by

C-I

Vehicle O. Flight December

SA-3

Test

Flight: November (C)

Trajectory 2, 1962.

Corridor

'ro

Hardage, SA-I dated

M. ; dated Evaluation" 14, 1961.

2.

MPR-SAT-WF-61-8; Evaluation Working

"Saturn Group;

; by

Saturn

Flight

3.

MPR-SAT-WF-62-5; Evaluation Working

"Saturn Group;

SA-2 dated

Flight June 5,

Evaluation" 1962.

(C)

; by

Saturn

Flight

4.

NASA Space

TM

X-503;

"Steady Payload

and Shapes"

Fluctuating (C) ; by

Pressures Coe,

at

Transonic March

Speeds 1961.

On

Two

Vehicle

C. F. ; dated

119

(U) DISTRIBUTION Dr. Dr. Mr. yon Braun, M-DIR Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. M-AERO-DIR M-AERO-PS M-AERO-A M-AERO-G (4) (2) (3) M- LVOD Dr. Mr. Mr. (25) Mr. M-RE Mr. Gruene, Zeiler, Sendler, Collins, L Schulze, M-REL (3) M-LVO-DIR M-LVO-M M-LVO-E M-LVO-EP (3) (4) Mr. Blackstone, Mandel, Hoberg, M-ASTR-FF M-ASTR-G M-ASTR-I

Rees, M-DEP-R&D Gorman, M-DEP-ADM

M-AERO Dr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Dr. Dr. Mr. Mr. Geissler, Jean, Dahm, Vaughan,

Bell, M-ASTR-IM Moore, M-ASTR-N McMahen, M-ASTR-NT (5)

Ryan, M-AERO-D Holderer, M-AERO-E Speer, M-AERO-F Hoelker, M-AERO-P R. D. Cummings, Douglas,

M-AERO-TS M-AERO-TS

M-L&M Mr. Hueter, M-L&M-DIR (2)

M-QUAL Mr. Mr. Mr. M-COMP-DIR t M-COMP-A M-COMP-R M-COMP-S Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. M-RP Grau, M-QUAL-DIR Klauss, M-QUAL-TS Wittmann, M-QUAL-E Urbanski, Brooks, Peck, Smith, M-QUAL-M M-QUAL-P M-QUAL-PS M-QUAL-Q

M-COMP Dr. Mr. Mr. Mr. M-ME Mr. Mr. Kuers, Groth, M-ME-DIR M-ME-TS (4) Hoelzer, Fortenberry Cochran, Shaver,

Dr. Mr. Dr. Dr.

Stuhlinger, Miles, Jr., Shelton, Heller, Thompson,

M-RP-DIR M-RP-R

M- FPO Mr. Mr. Koelle, Weaver, M-FPO-DIR M-F_PO (2)

M-RP-N M-RP-T M-RP-I

Mr.

M-ASTR Dr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Haeussermann, Noel, Wagnon, Digesu, Taylor, Fichtner, BaggsBoehm, Hosenthien, M-ASTR-TSJ M-ASTR-TSR M-ASTR-A M-ASTR-R M-ASTR-E Mr. Stroud, M-ASTR-F M-ASTR-E M-ASTR-M M-ASTR-DIR

M-SAT Dr. Dr. Mr. Mr. M-H Dr. Rudolf, M-HME-DIR Lange, Kuettner, Vreuls, D. R. M-SAT-DIR M-SAT-AP M-SAT Bowden, (5) M-SAT-SII (Downey)

120

DISTRIBUTION

(Cont'd)

M-PaVE Dr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Dr. Col. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. M-TPC Mr. Smith, M-TPC Mrazek, Weidner, Burrows, Palaoro, Glover, M-P&VE-DIR M-P&VE-DIR M-PaVE-REL M-P&VE-V M-PaVE-VA (I)

M-MS M-MS-IPL M-MS-IP M-MS-H M-HME-P (8) (4)

Stein, M-PaVE-VE Rothe, Barraza, Seymour, Sehulze, Harber, Kistler, Hoffman, Goerner, Lueas, Fellows, Paul, Reed, Furman, Wood, Connell, Heusinger, Kroll, Hunt, Verble, Farrow, Sterett, Showers, Thompson, M-PaVE-VG M-PaVE-VK M-PaVE-OH M-PaVE-E M-P&VE-EA M-P&VE-EF M-P&VE-ES M-P&VE-F M-P&VE-M M-P&VE-NP M-P&VE-P M-P&VE-PL M-PaVE-PM M-P&VE-PT M-P&VE-PH M-P&VE-PP M-P&VE-S M-P&VE-S M-PaVE-SB M-PaVE-ST M-PaVE-SS M-P&VE-SL (4) (3) (2) M-P&VE-PA (4) (2) (2)

M-PAT Mr. Warden, M-PAT

M-MICH Mr. Dr. LO Dr. Dr. Col. Lt. Mr. Mr. Mr. Debus, Knothe, LO-DIR LO-TS (3) Robert Constan, L. Riemer, M-MICH M-MICH-QA

Bidgood, LO-F Col. Petrone, LO-H Poppel, Darby, Body, LO-D LO-DHE LO-DS

M-TEST Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Heimburg, Auter, Sieber, Thornton, Driscoll, Tessmann, Reilmann, M-TEST-DIR M-TEST-E M-TEST-M M-TEST-MC M-TEST-T M-TEST-C M-TEST-T

t21

DISTRIBUTION EXTERNAL Headquarters, National Aeronautics & Space Franklyn

(cont'd)

Administration W. Phillips

Washington 25, D.C. Assistant to the Administration: Office Office Associate Office Director

of Plans & Program Evaluation : Abraham Hyatt of Scientific & Technical Information: Melvin S. Day Administrator: of Programs of Reliability & Quality Flight Holmes : Joseph F. Shea & Propulsion: Robert Freitag Assurance: James T. Koppenhaver Robert C. Seamans, Jr.

Office of Manned Space Director: D. Brainerd Deputy Director

Director (Systems) of Launch Vehicles

Office of Space Sciences Director: Homer E. Newell Launch Director: Vehicles Donald & Propulsion H. Heaton Research F. Dixon and Programs (10) & Technology Power Generation: John L. Sloop

Office of Advanced Director: Thomas Director of Propulsion

Office of Applications Director: Morton J. Morris Goddard Space 4555 Overlook Flight Avenue

Stoller

Tepper Center

Washington 25, D.C. At/m: Herman LaGow Director, National Moffett Ames Field, Research California Center: Smith J. DeFrance

Aeronautics

& Space

Administration

Manned Spacecraft Center Houston 1, Texas - P.O. Box 1537 Attn: Director: Robert R. Gilruth Robert Smith (5) Alfred Mardel (3)

122

EXTERNAL Director, National Langley Director, National Langley Aeronautics Field,

DISTRIBUTION L.

(cont'd)

Research Center: Floyd & Space Administration

Thompson

Virginia

Lewis Research Center: Abe Silverstein Aeronautics & Space Administration

21000 Brookpark Road Cleveland 35, Ohio Director, National 150 Pico Director, Western Operations Aeronautics & Space Blvd., Santa Monica, Flight Research Office: Robert Administration California Paul F. W. Kamm

Center:

Bikle

National Aeronautics P.O. Box 273 Edwards, Director, National Wallops California Wallops Aeronautics Island,

& Space

Administration

Station: R. L. Krieger 5, Space Administration

Virginia

Jet Propulsion Lab 4800 Oak Grove Drive Pasadena Attn: Jet Attn: Office Room The Attn: Director Office Room The Irl 2, California Reports Group CCMTA Newlan,

Propulsion H. Levy

Laboratories, (4) Sec.

of the Asst. 3E1065 Pentagon 25, D.C. Tech Library

of Defense

for

Research

& Engineering

Washington

of Guided of the Secretary 3E131

Missiles of Defense

Pentagon 25, D.C.

Washington

123 EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION (cont'd) Commander, Armed Services Tech Info Agency (5) Arlington Hall Station Arlington 12, Va. Attn: TIPCR (Transmittal per Cognizant Act. Security Instruction_ U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, SandiaCorp. University of California Radiation Lab Tech Info Div P.O. Box 808 Livermore, California Attn: Clovis Craig U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, SandiaCorp. Livermore Br, P.O. Box 969 Livermore, California Attn: James McMinn, Document Control Sec. Central Intelligence Agency (2) 2430 E Street, N. W. Washington 25, D.C. Attn: Liaison Div, OCD Director, National Security Agency Washington 25, D.C. Attn: CREF-22 Commanding General (3) White SandsProving Ground New Mexico Attn: ORDBS-OMTIO-TL Commander, AF Missile Test Center(o,o Patrick AFB, Florida Attn: Tech Info Intelligence Office, MTGRY Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force (2) The Pentagon Washington 25, D.C. 1 Cpy marked for DCS/D AFDRD 1 Cpy marked for DCS/D AFDRD-EX

124

EXTERNAL Commander Wright Air (5) Development Air Center Force Base,

DISTRIBUTION

(cont'd)

Wright-Patterson Attn: WCOSI-3 Commander

Ohio

Air Force Flight Test Center Edwards AFB, California Attn: FTOTL Commander Air Force Ballistic Missile Div Unit Post Office Hdqrs, ARDC, Air Force Los Angles 45, Califronia Attn: WDSOT Commander-in-Chief Strategic Air Command Offutt AFB, Nebraska Attn: Dir of Opns, (2) Development Station, Center Force Library Tennessee Missile Division

Commander Arnold Arnold Attn: Air Tech.

Engineering

Commander Air Force Missile Force Development Base (SRLT) Center Holloman Air New Mexico Attn: Tech r Air Missile Test Center California of Weapons D.C. 1Cpyto SP, 1 Cpy to AD3 (4)

Library

Com mande U.S. Point Chief, Naval Mug_,

Bureau

Dept. of Navy Washington 25, 1 Cpy to RESI,

1 Cpy to REW3

125

EXTERNAL Chief of Naval 25, 463 Research D.C.

DISTRIBUTION

(cont'd)

Department Washington Code

of Navy

Director (2) U.S. Naval Research Washington Attn: Code 25, D.C. 2027

Lab

Douglas Aircraft Company, Missile and Space Systems Santa Monica, California Attn: H.M. Thomas (i) A.J. D.A. ORDAB-HT ORDAB-C Aerospace 2400 East E1 Segundo, Attn: D.C. Arinc Research 1700 K Street, Washington Attn: W.J. German Petty (2) (5)

Inc. Engineering

Technical Library, ABMA Control Office, ABMA Corporation E1 Segundo California Bakeman Corporation N.W.

(5)

6, D.C. Willoughby

The Boeing Company Saturn Booster Branch P.O. Box 26088 New Attn: North Space 12214 Orleans R.H. 26, Nelson Louisiana (3)

American

Aviation Systems

& Information Division Lakewood Boulevard (2) (1)

Downey, California Attn: A. Shimizu W.F. Parker

126 EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION (cont'd) Rocketdyne 6633CanogaAvenue CanogaPark, California Attn: O.I. Thorsen (3) Chrysler SpaceDivision Michoud Operations Attn: V.J. Vehko (1) B. Heinrich (5) W.C. Beomer (2) Huntsville Operations Attn: H. Bader , Jr. (2) Headquarters 6570thAerospace Medical Division (AFSC) UoS. Air Force Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio Attn: H.E. Vongierke Radio Corporation of America Defense Electronic Products Data Systems Division 8500 Balboa Blvd Van Nuys, California Attn: L.R. Hund, Librarian Martin Company SpaceSystems Division Baltimore 3, Maryland Attn: W. P Sommers Scientific and Technical Information Facility (2) At/m: NASA Representative (S-AK/RKT) P.O. Box 5700 Bethesda, Maryland