HPR-SAT-FE-66-8 May 6, 1966

SPACE FLIOHT CENTER

HUNTSVILLE,

ALABAMA

(ACCES_ION ,.'-_/NUMB_A:_)

__.,,_j ,

_,,2

_sA
AVAILABLE TO NASA OFFICES AND NASA RESEARCH CENTERS ONLY _.r.,o ,_S VEHICLE OF THE FLIGHT TEST

AS-201
_,"._
-- THI_DOCUMENT CONI"AII_,_q_AZIOII _I]_T'_'_ZlR_INT_J;_ NATIO_t_.L DA_,.J,_&I_"_: THEUNITED

_._

o_- _ _SP_ON_V. T

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS ANDSPACE ADMINISTRATION

of the United _"_s

u.s.c.,ma_[_n s___io>_,_ in any

with_he

mean_of_the

_onage is_ohibited _

La_itle

it, _ontent, law.

18,

MPR-SAT-FE-

66- 8

By Saturn George Flight Evaluation Space Working Flight Group Center

C. Marshall

(U) This of AS-2OI, The mission report presents the

ABSTRACT results of the Early Engineering Evaluation

the first of twelve Saturn IB vehicles to be flight tested. flown was an unmanned sub-orbital type Apollo mission.

Apollo Spacecraft 009 and Launch Vehicle SA-201 were launched from Cape Kennedy's Launch Complex 34 at 1112 EST on February 26, 1966. After 3 hours and 27 minutes of countdown holds, the vehicle lifted off and performed nearly nominal throughout the powered and coast phases of flight. No major system malfunctions were evidenced, however, some deviations were encountered and are discussed in detail within this text.

Any questions in this report are Director, Huntsville, Attention:

or comments invited and George

pertaining should be

to the directed

information to: Center

contained

C. Marshall

Space

Flight

Alabama 35812 Chairman, Saturn R-AERO-F (Phone

Flight Evaluation 876-4575)

Working

Group

GEORGE

C. MARSHALL

SPACE

FLIGHT

CENTER

MPR-SAT-FE-66-8

RESULTS

OF THE FIRST

SATURN

IB LAUNCH VEHICLE AS-201

TEST

FLIGHT

(U)

_NOAi_O_OCUME_T

CONTAINS
L O EFE_,_=_mZM_*"UNI T_D

.......

v_

, .|,__

..t ....

4_ _11 II

SATURN

FLIGHT WORKING

EVALUATION GROUP

(U)

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS Page

1.0 2.0 3.0

(C) (U) (U) 3.1 3.2 (U) 4.1 4.2 (C) 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

Flight

Test

Summary

I 4 5 5 6 7 7 7 12 12 12 12 Helium Loading 14 14 16 17 17 18 18 20 20 20 20 22 22 23 23 23 24 26 27 28 28 and Moment of Inertia Analysis 28 29

Introduction Test Objectives Launch Vehicle Objectives Spacecraft Objectives Times of Events Summary of Events Sequence of Events Launch Operations Summary Prelaunch Milestones Countdown Propellant and Cold 5.4.1 RP-I Loading 5.4.2 LOX Loading 5.4.3 5.4.4 5.4.5 5.4.6 5.4.7 Holddown Ground 5.6.1 5.6.2 5.6.3 5.6.4 5.6.5 5.6.6 5.6.7 5.6.8 Launch

4,0

5.0

LH 2 Loading Cold Helium Loading Auxiliary Propulsion System S-IB Stage Propellant Load S-IVB Stage Propellant Load Support Equipment

Propellant

Loading

5.5 5.6

Active Ground Support Equipment Facilities and Structure Electrical Support Equipment Ground Computer Apollo Access Arm Pneumatic Distribution S-IB GN 2 Control Pressure Digital Data Acquisition Facility Measurements Problem System

5.7 6.0 (C) 6.1 6.2 6.3

Mass Characteristics Summary Mass Analysis Center of Gravity

iii

(U)

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS

(CON_) Page

7.0

(U) 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4

Trajectory Summary Tracking Data Trajectory S-IVB/CSM

Utilization Conditions

35 35 35 36 41 46 46 46 46 57 61 64 64 68 71 71 72 72 72 72 73 79 82 85 85 88 92 92 97 103 105 105 105 Systems 105 108 ll0 ii0

Analysis Separation

8.0

(U) 8.1 8.2

8.3 8.4

8.5 9.0 (C) 9.1 9.2

S-IB PROPULSION Summary S-IB Propulsion Performance 8.2.1 Stage Engine Performance 8.2.2 Individual Engine Characteristics S-IB Propellant Utilization S-IB Pressurization Systems 8.4.1 Fuel Pressurization System 8.4.2 LOX Pressurization System 8.4.3 Control Pressurization System Camera Ejection System S-IVB Propulsion and Associated Summary S-IVB Propulsion Performance 9.2.1 Engine Chilldown 9.2.2 Start Characteristics 9.2.3 9.2.4 Mainstage Engine Analysis Cutoff Characteristics Propellant Utilization Propellant Mass Analysis PU Valve Response and Thrust Fluctuations Pressurization Systems Fuel Pressurization System LOX Pressurization System Auxiliary Pressurization Systems Propulsion System Systems

9.3

9.4

S-IVB 9.3.1 9.3.2 S-IVB 9.4.1 9.4.2 9.4.3

i0.0

(U) i0.I 10.2

S-IVB Auxiliary Summary APS Performance 10.2.1 10.2.2 Propellant APS Motor System

and Pressurization Performance

ii.0

(U) II.i 11.2 11.3

Hydraulic Summary

S-IB Hydraulic S-IVB Hydraulic

Systems Systems

II0 112

iv

(U)

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS

(CONT) Page

12.0

(C) 12.1 12.2

12.3

Guidance and Control Summary System Description 12.2.1 Changes for Saturn IB AS-201 12.2.2 Function and Hardware Description 12.2.3 Navigation Scheme Description Launch Vehicle Flight Control 12.3.1 S-IB Stage Control Analysis 12.3.2 S-IVB Stage Control Analysis 12.3.3 Control During Coast 12.3.4 Control Component Analysis 12.3.4.1 Control Accelerometers 12.3.4.2 12.3.4.3 12.3.4.4 Launch Vehicle 12.4.1 12.4.2 Angle-of-Attack Sensor Rate Gyros Actuator Performance Guidance

114 114 114 114 114 118 118 126 134 137 137 137 137 139 139 139 147 152 152 152 155 155 155 155 157 157 161 166 166 166 168 168

12.4

Guidance Intelligence Errors Navigation and Guidance Scheme Performance Analysis 12.4.3 Guidance System Components Analysis 12.4.3.1 LVDC/LVDA Analysis 12.4.3.2 ST-124M Stabilized Platform Analysis 13.0 (U) 13.1 13.2 Separation Summary S-IB/S-IVB Separation 13.2.1 Ullage Rocket Performance 13.2.2 Retro Rocket Performance 13.2.3 Separation S-IVB/Spacecraft Vehicle Summary Electrical Dynamics Separation Systems

13.3 14.0 (U) 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 15.0 (U) 15.1 15.2 15.3

S-IB Stage Electrical System S-IVB Stage Electrical System Instrument Unit Electrical System Range Safety and Summary Command Destruct Instrument Unit Command Systems Command Systems Performance

Performance System Performance

174 174 174 174

(U)

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS

(CONT) Page

16.0

(U) 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 16.6 16.7 16.8

Emergency Detection System Performance Summary Description of EDS EDS Bus Voltage EDS Event Times Thrust OK Pressure EDS Rate Gyros Q-Ball Differential Launch Vehicle

(EDS)

Performance

176 176 176 179 179 179 184 188

Switches Pressures Reference Monitoring

Attitude

188 190 190 190 190 192 195 195 195 198 201 201 201 204 204 204 204 208 208 210 210 210 210 210 217 217 219 219 219 219 223 223 227

17.0

(U) 17.1 17.2

17.3

Structures Summary Total Vehicle Loads and Moments 17.2.1 Longitudinal Loads 1"7.2.2 Bending Moments 1'7.2.3 Body Bending Oscillations S-IB Stage Analysis 17.3.1 S-IB Fin Bending and Torsion 17.3.2 S-IB Stage Vibrations 17.3.3 H-I Engine Vibrations S-IVB Stage Analysis 17.4.1 S-IVB Vibrations 17.4.2 J-2 Engine Vibrations 17.4.3 S-IVB Internal Acoustics Instrument Unit Analysis 17.5.1 Instrument Unit Vibration 17.5.1.1 Structural Measurements 17.5.1.2 Component Thermal Measurements

17.4

17.5

18.0

(U) 18.1 18.2

Pressure Summary Vehicle 18.2.1 18.2.2

and

Environment

Pressure External External

and Acoustic Environment Surface Pressures Acoustics

18.3

18.2.3 S-IB Stage Internal Pressures 18.2.4 S-IB Stage Base Pressu_s 18.2.5 S-IVB Stage Internal Pressure 18.2.6 Instrument Unit Pressures Vehicle Thermal Environment 18.3.1 S-IB Stage Aerodynamic Heating 18.3.2 S-IVB Stage Aerodynamic Heating 18.3.2.1 External Skin Temperature 18.3.2.2 Protuberance Temperatures

vi

(U)

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS

(CONT) Page

18.4

18.3.3 S-IB Stage Base Thermal Environment 18.3.4 S-IVB Stage Base Thermal Environment 18.3.5 Instrument Unit Temperature Instrument Unit Environmental Control Systems 18.4.1 Thermal Conditioning System 18.4.2 Air Bearing Supply System Aerodynamics Summary Fin Surface Drag Instrumentation Summary Vehicle 20.2.1 20.2.2 20.2.3 Airborne 20.3.1 20.3.2 20.3.3 Measuring Analysis S-IB Stage Measuring Analysis S-IVB Measuring Analysis IU Measuring Analysis Telemetry Systems S-IB-I Stage S-IVB Stage Instrument Unit

228 234 234 236 236 236 241 241 241 241 245 245 245 245 248 248 249 249 251 251 252 252 252 253 254 254 254 258 258

19.0

(U) 19.1 19.2 19.3

Pressure

20.0

(U) 20.1 20.2

20.3

20.4

Airborne Tape Recorders 20.4.1 S-IB Recorder 20.4.2 S-IVB Recorder 20.4.3 Instrument Unit RF System Analysis 20.5.1 Telemetry 20.5.2 Tracking Optical Instrumentation 20.6.1 Ground Cameras 20.6.2 Onboard Cameras Spacecraft Summary Spacecraft

Recorder

20.5

20.6

21.0

(U) 21.1 21.2 (C) 22.1 22.2 22.3

Performance

260 260 260 263 263 263 263

22.0

Summary of Malfunctions snd Deviations Summary Systems Malfunctions and Deviations Recommendations For Corrective Action

vii

(U)

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS

(CONC) Page

Appendix A.I A.2 A.3 A.4 A.5

(U) Vehicle Description Summary S-IB Stage S-IVB Stage Instrument Unit Payload A.5.1 A.5.2 A.5.3 Command Module Service Module Lunar Excursion

268 268 268 271 273 276 276 276 278 279 279 st Launch Time Time 279 279 279 288 293

Module

Adapter

Appendix B.I B.2 B.3 B.4 B.5 B.6

(U) Atmospheric Introduction General Surface Atmospheric Observations

Summary Conditions st Launch

Upper Air Measurements Thermodynamic Data Far-Field Sound Intensity

Levels

viii

(U) Figure 5-i 6-1 6-2 7-i 7-2 7-3 7-4 7-5 8-i 8-2 8-3 8-4 8-5 8-6 8-7 8-8 8-9 8-10 8-11 9-1 9-2 9-3 9-4 9-5 9-6 9-7 9-8 9-9 9-10 9-11 9-12 9-13 9-14 9-15 9-16 9-17

LIST

OF

FIGURES Page

S-IB Control Pressure System Vehicle Mass, Center of Gravity and Mass Moment Inertia During S-IB Stage Powered Flight Vehicle Mass, Center of Gravity, and Mass Moment Inertia During S-IVB Stage Powered Flight S-IB and S-IVB Trajectory Earth Fixed Velocity Total Inertial Acceleration

25 of 32 of 33 37 38 40 42 44 49 50 51 53 56 59 60 63 65

Mach Number and Dynamic Pressure S-IB and S-IVB Stage Ground Track S-IB Individual Engine and Stage Thrust Buildup S-IB Stage Longitudinal Thrust and Specific Impulse S-IB Stage Propellant Flow Characteristics Typical Longitudinal Thrust Inboard and Outboard Engine Thrust Decay Uprated H-I Engine Schematic Performance Deviation of Individual Engine Parameters (S-IB) S-IB Fuel Tank Bottom and Levels Fuel System Pressurization Fuel Tank Ullage Pressure Characteristics Schematic and Helium Sphere

67 69 74 75 76 78 80 83 84 87 89 90 91 94 96 98 99 102 104

Lax Pressurization System Characteristics Engine Chilldown-Thrust Chamber and Manifold Temperatures Engine Chilldown-Thrust Chamber Throat Temperatures S-IVB Thrust Chamber Pressure Start Transient S-IVB Main Oxidizer Valve J-2 Engine Start Conditions S-IVB Steady State Operation S-IVB Thrust Chamber Pressure (Engine Cutoff Analysis) Transient

S-IVB Stage Ignition and Cutoff Weight Overall Propellant Mass Sensor Non-Linearity Effect of Flight Correction Factors on Manufacturing Propellant Mass Sensor Non-Linearities S-IVB PU Valve Position and Thrust Fluctuations LH 2 Tank Pressurization System Performance

LH 2 Pump Conditions Propellant Pumps Inlet LOX Tank Pressurization LOX Pump Conditions Pneumatic Control and

Start Requirements System Performance Purge System Performance

ix

(U) Figure i0-i 10-2 ii-I 11-2 12-i 12-2 12-3 12-4 12-5 12-6 12-7 12-8 12-9 12-10 12-11 12-12 12-13 12-14 12-15 12-16 12-17 12-18 12-19 12-20 12-21 13-1 13-2 13-3 13-4 13-5 13-6 13-7 14-1 14-2 14-3 14-4

LIST

OF

FIGURES

(CONT) Page

APS Oxidizer and Fuel Consumption APS Total Impulse Hydraulic Oil Pressure, Level and

Temperature

107 109 iii 113 116 119 120 121 123 124 125 127 128 129 130 1.32 1.35 ].36 138 143 ].45 148 149 i[51 i[54 iL56 [59 [60 162 163 164 165 167 "

Hydraulic Fluid Pressure, Level, and Temperature Guidance and Control System Block Diagram Attitude Error S-IB Powered Flight AnguLar Rate Gyros S-IB Powered Flight Average Actuator Position S-IB Command Angles S-IB Pitch Plane Wind Velocity Component and Free Stream Angle-of-Attack yaw Plane Wind Velocity and Free-Stream Angle-of-Attack Slosh During S-IB Powered Flight Attitude Angular Actuator Pitch Errors S-IVB Powered Flight Rate Gyros S-IVB Powered Flight Position S-IVB Command Separation

Steering

S-IVB LH 2 Slosh Second Flight Stage Orientation For Pitch and Yaw Control Accelerometers (C) (C)

ST-124M Stabilized Platform System Error Sources Inertial Velocity Component Differences (Tracking-Accelerometers) Computer Estimate of Force/Mass from Actual and Simulated Data During EMRC Force/Mass From Flight And Simulation Data Change in Z Channel Measured Velocity From Simulated and Flight Data Accelerometer Pulses From Venting and Spacecraft Separation S-IVB Ullage Motor Performance Typical Retro Rocket Thrust Separation Sequence of Events S-IVB Separation Distance and Incremental S-IVB Attitude During Separation Separation Angular Velocities S-IVB Attitude and CSM Separation S-IB Stage Current Angular and Velocity During Velocities

Voltage Current

S-IVB Battery Voltage and Current Instrument Unit Battery Voltage and +6D51 Bus Voltage

169 171 172

(U) Figur_ 15-1 16-1 16-2 16-3 16-4 16-5 17-I 17-2 17-3 17-4 17-5 17-6 17-7 17-8 17-9 17-10 17-11 17-12 18-i 18-2 18-3 18-4 18-5 18-6 18-7 18-8 18-9 18-10 18-11 18-12 18-13 18-14 18-15 18-16 18-17

LIST

OF

FIGURES

(CONT) Page

Command Destruct System (2 Systems Per Stage) Saturn IB EDS Functional Control Rate Gyro Noise Density Near Mach Proposed Changes in Characteristics l EDS

Vehicle Diagram Envelope Rate

Portion 175 178 and Power Spectral 185 and Filter 186 187 189 191 193 194 196 197 199 200 202 203 205 207 209 211 213 Engine 214 215 216 218 220 222 224 226 229 230 233 235 237 238 239

Gyro

System

Telemetered and Filtered Control Rate Gyro Data Q-Ball Differential Pressures Longitudinal Force Versus Vehicle Station Longitudinal Load Versus Time (Sta. 23.9 m) From Strain Data Bending Moment Versus Vehicle Station Vehicle Bending Amplitudes Fin Bending and Torsion Modes Vibration Envelope of Structure Vibration Envelopes of S-IB Distributors Vibration Envelope of S-IB Fin Tip Vibration Envelope of H-I Engines S-IVB Vibration Envelopes S-IVB Stage Internal Acoustics IU Vibration Levels S-IB Sta_e External pressure S-IB Stage Acoustics S-IVB and IU Acoustic Levels Exhaust Noise Levels Coefficients and Rocket

Sound Pressure Amplitude Buildup Due to Oscillating Shock Waves Selected Spectrum Shapes For External Acoustic Microphones S-IB Stage Internal and Base Pressures S-IVB Stage and IU Internal Pressures S-IB Stage Thermal Surface Environment S-IVB Skin and Stringer Temperatures S-IVB Aft Skirt Protuberance Thermal Environment S-IB Stage Base Heating Rates S-IB Stage Thermal Environment S-IB Fin Trailing Edge Thermal Environment IU Compartment Thermal Environment Thermal Environment of Typical IU Components IU Thermal Conditioning System Air Bearing GN 2 Supply System

xi

(U) Figure 19-1 19-2 19-3 20-1 20-2 20-3 A-I A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6 B-l B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7 Fin Fin 5 Differential 7 Differential

LIST

OF

FIGURES

(CONC) Page

Pressure Pressure

Coefficient Coefficient

242 243 244 255 257 25!) 269 270 272 274 2715 277 282 281} 285 286 287 291

Base Drag and Axial Force Coefficients Telemetry Reception Ground Station Coverage Optical Observation of Object Exhausted AS-201 Configuration S-IB Stage S-IVB Stage Instrument Unit Layout SA-201 Instrument Unit Payload AS-201 AS-201 AS-201 AS-201 Scalar Launch Launch Launch Launch Time Time Time

From

Plume

and Antenna Layout

Orientation

Wind Wind Direction Pitch Wind Component (Wx) Yaw Wind Component (Wz)

AS-201 Launch Time Pitch (Sx) and Yaw (Sz) Component Wind Shears Relative Deviation of AS-201 Temperature and Density From PAFB (63) Reference Atmosphere Relative Deviation of Pressure and Absolute Deviation of the Index of Refraction From the PAFB (63) Reference Atmosphere Sound Intensity Levels (db) As Inferred From T-0 Rawinsonde Virtual Temperature and FPS-16 Wind

292 Data 294

B-8

xii

(U) Table 4-1 4-11 5-1 5-11 5-111 5-1V 6-1 6-11 6-111 7-I 7-II 7-1II 7-IV 7-V 8-I 8-II 8-III 8-IV 8-V 8-VI 8-VII 9-I 9-II 9-III 10-I ii-I 12-1 12-11 12-111 12-1V 12-V 12-VI 12-VII 13-1 13-11 16-1 16-11 16-111 17-1 17-11

LIST

OF

TABLES Page

Event Times Summary SA-201 Sequence of Events AS-201 Prelaunch Milestones Countdown Summary (C) AS-201S-IB Stage Propellant Ignition Command (C) AS-201 S-IVB Stage Propellant S-IB Ignition Command (C) Vehicle Masses Weights Weights at

8 9 13 15 19 at 21 30 31 34 35 39 41 43 45 47 _4 55 55 and Uprated 58 61 64 77 81 86 106 112 122 Data 133 140 140 142 144 146 157 158 180 181 183 192 206

(C) AS-201 Flight Sequence Mass Summary (C) Mass Characteristics Comparison Data Utilization Cutoff Conditions Velocity Gain (m/s) Significant Events S-IVB/CSM Separation Parameters Engine Start Characteristics Average S-IB Stage Propulsion Parameters Velocity Deviation Analysis Time Deviation Analysis Major Differences Between Models of the H-I Engine Propellant utilization Cutoff Probe Actuation MOV Opening Time S-IVB Propulsion System Performance S-IVB Propellant Mass History APS Propellant Consumption Hydraulic System Parameters Maximum Control Parameters APS Event Summary S-IB Actuator Maximum S-IVB Actuator Maximum Performance Parameters the Original

(C) Guidance Intelligence Errors (C) Guidance Inertial Velocity Comparison (C) Guidance Comparisons S-IVB Cutoff Ullage Rocket Performance Retro Rocket Performance Telemetered EDS Signal Switch Selector Functions Pertinent to EDS Performance Summary of Thrust OK Pressure Switches Vehicle S-IVB Maximum Vibration Bending Summary Moments

xiii

(U) Table 20-I 20-11 20-111 21-1 22-1 B-I B-If B-Ill B-IV B-V B-VI Measurement

LIST

OF

TABLES

(CONC) Page

Malfunctions Description

246-247 250 256 261 264-267 280 281 284 Region Region 288 289 290

AS-201 Launch Vehicle Telemetry System Electronic Data Acquisition Equipment Mission Events Summary Surface of Malfunctions and Deviations Observations at AS-201 Launch Wind Data

Time

Systems Used to Measure Ra_insonde Data

Winds Measured By Cajun-Dart Rocket System Maximum Wind Speed in High Dynamic Pressure Extreme Wind Shear in High Dynamic Pressure

xiv

(U) Abbreviation APD ABS AS AGC AGCS APS CG CIF CW CM CSM CSP CCF CCW CO DOM DDAS ELS EST ETR EPS ESE EDS EMR EMRC ESC ECS ETW EBW FRR GFCV GBI GTI GSE GRR TAG IECO IGM LC LCC LES LET LV

ABBREVIATIONS

Adapter Positioning Device Air Bearing Supply System Apollo-Saturn Automatic Gain Control Automatic Ground Control Station Auxiliary Center of Propulsion Gravity System Facility

Central Information Clockwise Command Module Command Service

Module

Control Signal Processor Converter Compressur Facility Counterclockwise Cutoff Data Output Multiplexer Digital Data Acquisition Earth Landing System Eastern Standard Time System

Eastern Test Range Electrical Power System Electrical Support Equipment Emergency Detection System Engine Mixture Ratio Engine Mixture Ratio Change Engine Start Command Environmental Control System Error Time Words Exploding Bridge Wire Flight Readiness Review GOX Flow Control Valve Grand Bahama Island Grand Turk Island Ground Support Equipment Guidance Reference Release Identification Inboard Engine Cutoff Iterative Guidance Mode Launch Launch Launch Launch Launch Complex Control Escape Escape Vehicle Center System Tower

XV

(U) Abbreviation LVDA LVDC MOV MILA MI NPSP NC NO OECO OASPL PACPS PSD PCD PTCS PU PCM PDM RCS RMR RMRC RDSM RMS SA SM SPS SSB SV S/C or SCS SLA SPS SMCX SCO SS TM T/C F/M TOPS U.T. VCO VSWR SC

ABBREVIATIONS

(CONC)

Launch Vehicle Data Adapter Launch Vehicle Digital Computer Main Oxidizer Valve Merritt Island Launch Area Mineral Insulation Net Positive Suction Pressure Normally Closed Normally Outboard Overall Platform Open Engine Cutoff Sound Pressure AC Power Supply

Level

Power Spectral Density Pressure Control Device Propellant Tanking Computer System Propellant Utilization Pulse Code Modulation Pulse Duration Modulation Reaction Control System Reference Mixture Ratio Reference Mixture Ratio Change Remote Digital Submultiplexer Root Mean Square Saturn Service Module Service Propulsion Single Side Band

System

Space Vehicle Spacecraft Spacecraft Control System Spacecraft LE_4 Adapter Spacecraft Propulsion System Steering Misalignment Correction Sub Carrier Oscillators Switch Selector Telemetry Thrust Chamber Thrust/Mass Thrust OK Pressure Switches Universal Time Vehicle Carrier Oscillators Visual Standing Wave Ratio

Term

xvi

CONVERSION FACTORS TO INTERNATIONAL SYST}_4 OF UNITS OF

1960

Parameter acceleration area barometer density energy mass flow Rate volume force heating impulse rate pressure

Multiply ft/s 2 in 2 mbs ibm/ft 3 Btu Ib s/ft gpm ib Btu/ft2-s Ib-s ft

By 31048xi0 -I (exact) 6.4516xi0 -4 (exact) 1.00xl0 -2 (exact) 1.6018463xi01 1.0543503xi03 (thermal chem.)

To Obtain m/s 2 m2 N/cm 2 kg/m 3 watt-s kg/s m3/s N (Newton)

4.5359237xi0 -I (exact) 6.30901064xi0 4.448221615 1.1348931 4.448221615 3.048xi0 -I (exact) 2.54xi0 -2 (exact) 4.5359237xi0 -I (exact) 1.355817948 1.12984829xi0 -I 1.355817948 2.9287508xi0 -4 6.894757293xi0 4o788025898xi0 1.57087468xI0 _ 5.555555556xi0 -I 3.048xi0 -I (exact) 5.144444444xi0 -I 2.8316846592xi0 -2 (exact) -I "3 (thermal chemical) "5

watt/cm 2 N-s m m kg N-m N-m kg-m 2 kw N/cm 2 N/cm 2 N/m 3 OK m/s m/s m3 m3

length in mass ib s2/ft ib-ft moment ib-in moment power of inertia Ib-ft-s 2 Btu/hr ib/in 2 pressure specific weight ib/ft2 Ib/ft 3 F+459.67 ft/s velocity knot* ft 3 volume gallons** 3.785411784xi0 -3 (exact)

temperature

Note:

go = 9.80665

m/s 2 (exact)

* knot (International) ** gallon (U.S. Liquid) xvii

IIHAul

&

MPR- SAT- FE = 66 - 8 RESULTS OF THE FIRST SATURN IB LAUNCH AS-201 VEHICLE TEST FLIGHT

1.0 Saturn IB space vehicle

(C)

FLIGHT

TEST first

SUMMARY of the Saturn IB series

AS-201,

vehicles, was launched at 16:1201 UT on February 26, 1966. The flight test was the first in a series of R&D test flights in which the primary objective is to flight test and qualify the Saturn IB launch vehicles. Other important objectives are qualification of the Apollo spacecraft and qualification of the launch vehicle - spacecraft physical and flight compatibility. AS-201 was successfully launched from Launch Complex (LC) 34 at Cape Kennedy, Florida after being postponed three times due to weather and a sub-cable failure. The launch terminal countdown proceeded satisfactorily, but with several holds resulting in a total time lost during countdown of 3 hrs 27 minutes. The major contributor to the countdown holds was a S-IB GN 2 control pressure system replenishing problem which was due to insufficient flow from the ground supply through a 0.160 cm orifice when purges started on the vehicle at T-35 seconds. A bypass for this orifice is planned for future flights to be activated for replenishing after the spheres are initially pressurized. The AS-201 vehicle was launched on an azimuth of i00 deg east of north and rolled into the proper flight azimuth of 105 deg east of north. The actual trajectory of AS-201 was very close to nominal; at S-IVB cutoff altitude was 0.73 km higher and range was 31.0 km longer than nominal. The space fixed total velocity was 8.0 m/s higher than nominal at cutoff of the first stage and 0.5 m/s lower than nominal at S-IVB cutoff. The propulsion systems on flight simulation performed data, the satisfactorily throughout flight. first stage thrust and specific

Based

impulse were 0.06% lower and 0.28% higher than predicted, respectively. The total flowrate was 0.34% lower than predicted and was the principal contributor to a 0.89 sec later than predicted inboard engine cutoff. The outboard engines were cut off 5.48 sec after the inboard engines, 0.37 sec later than predicted, caused by a premature activation of the fuel depletion sensor in the sump of fuel tank F4. This was probably due to localized voids (bubbles) in the propellant mass draining through the sump during this terminal phase. Second stage average thrust and specific impulse were 1.63% lower and 0.50% higher than predicted, respectively. During the portion of flight with high mixture ratio, the thrust was 0.1T_ lower than predicted and the specific impulse was 0.53% higher than predicted. During the portion of flight with reduced mixture ratio, the thrust was 1.10% lower than predicted due to a slightly incorrect reference mixture ratio command from the PU system and the specific impulse was 0.48% higher than predicted.

The J-2 engine had a slightly longer thrust buildup time (3.6 compared to 2.9 sec expected ) after start command. This has been attributed to a colder environment around the engine than expected ing a slow opening resulted for this of the flight. main oxidizer valve. No serious

sec caus-

consequences

The scheduled mixture ratio change on the sec earlier than predicted. The mixture ratio to 5.1:1; predicted reduced mixture ratio was more rapid predicted,

second stage occurred 14.2 was cut back from 5.50:1 5.23:1. Because of' the

mixture ratio step change and lower thrust after cutback than the second stage burn time was 9.8 sec longer than expected.

The LH 2 tank ullage pressure decayed much more rapdily after J-2 engine start than predicted, probably due to propellant sloshing. Minimum pressure reached was about 24 N/cm 2 which was still well above the required minimum. Performance of the S-IVB auxiliary propulsion system was satisfactory 1 and 2 satisfactory

throughout flight. The average specific were 237 and 250 sec, respectively. All

impulses for modules APS firings were of

frequency and duration. The total propellants consumed was approximately 36% ofthe total loaded propellants. able propellants were required for roll control during flight.

by the APS motors Only 5% of availS-I_-B powered

In general, performance of the guidnaee and control system was as expected. The control system functioned properly with no excessive body rates or instabilities. The maximum angle-of-attack observed was -3.5 deg in the yaw plane. Total wind speed encountered by the vehicle was 70 m/s at an altitude of 14 km corresponding to a flight time of approximately 80 seconds. The space fixed velocity at S-IVB cutoff as measured by the guidance system was within 0.045 m/s of the preflight trajectory value. The auxiliary propulsion system adequately corrected for roll during the S-I'_-B stage powered flight and for pitch, yaw and roll during the coast period. All maneuvers were adequately accomplished. S-IB/S-IVB separation was accomplished as planned, and the sequence executed within the desired time period. The S-IVB engine cleared the interstage approximately 1.15 sec following separation command, 1.0 sec after first motion. Separation transients were small and within design requirements. Ullage and retro rocket performance was as expected. S-l_-B/Spacecraft separation The separation system functioned transients were observed. occurreH at approximately 845 satisfactorily and relatively seconds. small

ml

I",iCLAc
The flight. tions. vehicle electrical system All currents and voltages

I _

'

'

performed satisfactorily were within the operating

throughout specifica-

The launch vehicle Emergency Detection System (EDS) functioned properly in that no false abort signals were generated. The three EDS buses were energized properly. Automatic abort was enabled at liftoff and deactivated prior to S-IB stage cutoff arming. The angular overrates did not cause an abort signal, and since there were no S-IB stage engine failures the abort bus was not energized. However, noise was sensed by the EDS angular rate sensors due to acoustic excitation which approached the EDS limit in the pitch plane. At approximately 62 sec of flight, an angular rate of -5 deg/s was experienced. The abort setting for pitch and yaw, was within a band of 4.725 to 6.275 deg/s. A structural analysis of AS-201 indicated that all structural components performed satisfactorily. The vehicle load and bending moments were considerably below the design values. The vibration and internal acoustics were within their expected limits. The pressure and thermal environment of this flight was about as expected. The significant deviations noted were the lower than predicted protuberance temperatures; a lower boundary layer temperature due to cold from wave LH 2 tank walls and the frost buildup; in the vicinity of The measurement possible mass injection and the presence of a the Instrument Unit. on AS-201 into the boundary strong oscillating layer shock

evaluation

revealed

that

98.4%

of

the

1213 measurements, active at liftoff, performed satisfactorily. A total of 20 measurements failed during flight. All RF systems performed satisfactorily with the exception of the IU telemetry antenna breakdown for approximately 24.3 sec at retro rocket burn and lack of continuous coverage GLOTRAC. from ODOP and from downrange instrumentation sites on Azusa/

Excellent launch. the film inability

film

coverage

was

obtained

from

the

cameras

available

at

The first launch attempt which terminated at T-4 sec depleted in 60 of the 75 engineering sequential cameras due to the to stop the cameras after once started. Twelve cameras had and provided their film was that S-IB good coverage. by launch time. The remaining 3 cameras

start-stop capability had not quite depleted Excellent coverage tracking film revealed out of the edge of the

obtained from the tracking cameras. an unidentified, long slender object stage plume at 72 seconds.

The exhausted

The onboard cameras appeared to function satisfactorily and were jetti_ned as expected; however, the parachutes on both camera pods failed to open. One camera was recovered and provided good coverage. The other camera sank.

...,:

_/--'=%

..,..,,.s,.. _, ; i .

"

2.0

(U)

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of the Early Engineering Evaluation of AS-201, the first Saturn IB launch vehicle flight tested. The evaluation is centered around the performance of each major vehicle system with This special emphasis on by malfunctions the Saturn and Flight deviations. Evaluation Working

report

is published

Group which is composed of representatives Flight Center Laboratories, John F. Kennedy prime contractors. Those making significant evaluation were: George C. Marshall Research and Space Flight Center Operations

of Marshall Space Center, contributions

Space and MSFCrs to the

Development

Aero-Astrodynamics Laboratory Astrionics Laboratory Computation Laboratory Propulsion and Vehicle Engineering John Manned Chrysler Douglas F. Kennedy Space Space Flight Center

Laboratory

Flight

Center Space Division

Corporation Aircraft

Company Machine Corporation

International Rocketdyne

Business

This report represents the official MSFC position at this time. This report will not be followed by a similar report unless continued analysis andor new evidence should prove the conclusions presented herein partially or entirely wrong. Final stage evaluation reports will, however, be published by the stage contractors. Reports covering major systems and/or special subjects will be published as required.

3.0 3.1 LAUNCH The I. launch VEHICLE OBJECTIVES

(U)

TEST

OBJECTIVES

launch

vehicle

primary

objectives

were

as

follows: of the

Demonstrate vehicle and

structural integrity and compatibility spacecraft and determine launch loads.

Specifically: (a) Demonstrate compatibility and structural integrity the Space Vehicle (SV) during S-IB stage power flight and confirm tural loads and dynamic characteristics - Achieved. (b) Demonstrate structural space vehicle during powered Demonstrate (a) (b) 3. Verify S-IVB CSM separation from from S-IB of: - Achieved - Achieved guidance and control systems: integrity and compatibility phase and coast - Achieved. of struc-

of

S-IVB

and 2.

S-IVB/IU/SLA of

operation

propulsion,

Specifically: (a) ratio (b) performance Demonstrate S-IVB shift and determine Demonstrate S-IB propulsion system system performance propulsion system including program parameters - Achieved. and evaluate subsystem

mixture

parameters

- Achieved. System, achieve guidance

cutoff,

(c) Demonstrate Launch Vehicle Guidance and evaluate system accuracy - Achieved.

(d) Demonstrate LV control system during S-IVB powered phase, S-IVB coast phase, and S-IB powered phase, and evaluate performance characteristics - Achieved. (e) Demonstrate LV sequencing system - Achieved

4.

Evaluate

performance

of

the

space

vehicle

EDS

in an

open

loop

configuration 5. mission The i. 2. 3. 4. system 3.2

- Achieved. required for launch,

Demonstrate the mission support facilities operations and CM recovery - Achieved. launch Confirm Evaluate Evaluate Demonstrate - Achieved. vehicle LV LV secondary flight objectives external were as

follows: - Achieved.

powered internal

environment - Achieved. conditioning

environment thermal

IU/S-IVB

inflight of

system

- Achieved.

adequacy

S-IVB

residual

propellant

venting

SPACECRAFT The I.

OBJECTIVES objectives Separation and from from Boost for AS-201 of: Cover from CSM/LV. were as follovs:

Spacecraft Demonstrate (a) (b) (c) LES CSM CM

Protective

S-IVB/IU/SLA SM

2. Verify the operation of the following subsystems; CM heat shield (adequacy for entry from low earth orbit); SPS (including restart); ECS (pressure and temperature control); communications (partial); CM RCS; SM RCS; SCS; ELS; EPS (partial). 3. 226.98 (28,000 Evaluate the watts/cm 2 (200 ft/s). CM heat shield at Btu/ft2-s) during a heating rate of approximately entry at approximately 8,500 m/s

4.0 4.1 SUMMARY OF EVENTS

(U)

TIMES

OF

EVENTS

Table 4-1 presents a summary of event times, obtained from performance analysis of launch vehicle AS-201. The most significant deviations from predicted shown in the table are IECO, Arm Mixture Ratio Shift, and S-IVB cutoff. Cause of these time deviations are discussed in detail in Sections 8.0, 9.0 and 12.0 of this report. 4.2 SEQUENCE OF EVENTS at 16:1201.37 UT. sec range time 0.ii sec range time. Instrument The Launch to the approshould occur,

Range zero was 16:1201UT and liftoff occurred Guidance Reference Release (GRR) occurred at -5.038 (time from range zero) and first motion occurred at

Switch selectors in the S-IB stage, S-IVB stage, and Unit provided programmed event sequencing for the vehicle. Vehicle Digital Computer (LVDC) provided programmed input priate switch selector. If a switch selector malfunction

a complement address would have been sent to the switch selector, thereby providing redundancy. The analysis indicated that no outputs :esulted from complement addresses to the s_itch selectors and the operation _as normal. An analysis of the PCM data from AS-201 was performed and all but twelve of the command output times were verified. The twelve commands were lost from telemetry during the separation of the S-IB/S-IVB because of telemetry dropout. Also, the parallel PCM data verified the LVDC data. Table bases 4-11 were Liftoff Low OECO S-IVB lists all switch selector established as follows: = Time Sense Base Base I = 0.37 Base 146.94 sec 2 = sec Base 4 = 603.11 sec to range 139.75 sec event times. The nominal

time

Level

= Time 3 =

= Time CO

Interrupt

= Time

zero

All times discussed unless specifically

in this report will be identified otherwise.

referenced

TABLE

4-I

(U)

EVENT

TIMES

SUMMARY Range Act_lal 11.20 20,55 134 39 Time (sec) Act-Pred* 0.89 0.89 -1.72 0.89 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 [.0 -90.0

Event Start Roll Tilt IECO OECO S-IB/S-IVB S-IVB LET Engine Separation Start Pitch Disable Arrest and Roll

141.46 [46.94 147 149 172 176 Ratio Shift Detection 76 35 64 ii

Jettison IGM Mixture

Start Enable

181.94

(Guidance

Computer) Change Detected 275.92 -49.19

Engine Mixture Ratio (Guidnace Computer) S-IVB Start Start Cutoff Pitch S/C Signal Over Separation Separation

(Guidance)

602.86 613.95

10.13 11.24 10.16 13.20 [0.5

Sequence Attitude

663.11 728.31 844.9

Achieved S/C

Separation

Predicted

Times

as

published

in Ref.

i.

TABLE SA-201

4-11 OF EVENTS

SEQUENCE

Function

Stage

Range Time (see) 0.37

Time Fm. (actual)

Base

Time Fm. Base (nominal) 0.00 5.02 i0.03 25.01 27.04 30.03 32.02 39.01 60.01 90.01 90.22 95.23 119.82 120,03 120.21 124.92 127.51 127.72 132.13 132.33 135.81 136.O1 136.22 136.43 136.63

Liftoff-Start

of Time

Base

i (TI) @

0.37 IU S-IB S-IB IU S-IB IU S-IB IU IU IU IU S-IB IU IU S-IB S-IVB S-]VB S-lVB S-IVB IU IU IU IU S-IB

0.00 5.02 i0.01 25.01 27.02 30.01 32.01 60.01 90.01 90.21 95.22 119.83 120.01 120.21 124.91 127.53 127.72 132.11 132.31 135.81 136.02 136.22 136.43 136_63

Auto-Abort Enable Relays Reset Multiple Engine Cutoff Enable S-IB Telemeter Calibrate On Telemeter Calibrator In-Flight Calibrate S-IB Telemeter Calibrate Off Telemeter Calibrate Stop In-Fllght Calibrate Tape Recorder On - Note i Enable Launch Vehicle Engine EDS Cutoff Flight Control Computer Switch Point [ Telemeter Calibrate In-Flight Calibrate Telemeter Calibrate Stop In-Flight Calibrate S-IB Telemeter Calibrate On Flight Control Computer Switch Point Control Accelerometer Power Off S-IB Telemeter Calibrate Off 2

5.39 10.38 25.38 27.39 30.38 32.38 *39.38 60.38 90.38 90.58 95.59 120.20 120.38 120.58 125.28 127,90 128.09 132.48 132.68 136.18 136.39 136.59 136,80 137.00

Special Calibration Relays On Regular Calibration Relays On Regular calibration Relays Ola Special Calibration Relays Off Excessive Rate (y,P or R) Auto-Abort Inhibit Excessive Rate (,P or R) Auto-Abort Inhibit S-IB Engine Out Auto-Abort Inhibit Enable S-IB Engine Out Auto-Abort Inhibit Enable Propellant Level Sensors S-IB Propellant Sensors Actu_tion Start of Time Base 2 @ 139.75 IU Tape Recorder Fast Record On Inboard Engine On Cutoff -

Enable

139.75 iu S-IVB S-IB IU S-IB 140.07 141.17 14i.46 143.46 143.67 144.65 144.85 145.05 146.12 146.45

0.O0 0.32 1.42 ].71 3.7i 3.92 4.90 5.10 5.30 6.37 6.70

0.00 0.32 1.42 1.71 3.70 3.90 4.92 5.12 5.30 6.31 6.72

Q-Ball Power off Cameras Start Charge Ullage Ignition On Engine 250 Watt Instrument Engine 25 Watt Instrument Prevalves Closed Off Fuel and LOX Depl_tion Heaters Off Heaters On Enable

S-IVB S-IVB S-IVB S-1VB S-IB

Cutoff

Note

I:

Tile tape recorder on cormmand could not be verified in the LVDC dat:_, but was verified in the PC24 data. The loss of this command in the LVDC data is attributed to telemetry dropout. Time

parallel

*Estimated

TABLE SA-201

4-II

(CONT) OF EVENTS

SEQUENCE

Function

Stage

Range Time (see) [46.94

Time Pro. Base (actual) 0.00 0.00 0.58

Time _i. Base (nominal) 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.82 1.03 1.20 1.40 1.61 1.83 2.00 2.20 2.41 2.41 2.91 3.20 3.40 5.22 6.80 8.10 8.40 8.60 9.70 12.81 13,50 18.82 19.00 20.01 20.51 22.41 25.32 25.53 i)5.70 203.71 207.82 208.71 212.3I 252.0l 302.41 _51.8(} _58.71 434.12 .q45.79

C) g

Start

of Time

Base

3 @

146.94 S-IB SqVB S-IB IU 8-1VB S-IVB S-IVB S-IVB S-IVB S-IVB S-IVB IU S-IVB S-IVB S-IVB S-IVB S-lVB S-1VB S-1VB S-IVB S-1VB S-IVB 111 S-IVB S-IVB IU IU S-IVB 1U [I} 111 11] S-IVB 111 S-IVB IU S-1VB 111 IU S-TVB S-IVB

S-IB O_Ltboard Engine Cutoff Fire Ullage Ignition On S-!B/S-IVB Separation On - Note "2 Flight Control Computer S-IVB Burn Mode On - Note Engine Cutoff Off - Note 2 Engine Ready Bypass - Not(. 2 Engine Start Interlock Bypass On - Note 2 Fuel Chilldown Pump Off - Not(! 2 LOX Chilldown pump Off - Note 2 Chilldown Shutoff Valves Closed On - Note' 2 Engine Start O_ - Note 2 EDS Arming of S-IVB Eng. Press. Switches - Note 2 2

146.94 147.52 "147.76 "147.96 "148. 12 ,148.32 "148.52 -148.72 -148.92 -149.12 "149.135 "149.35 *149.g2 .150.17 150.TU 452.20 153.75 155.07 155.37 155.57 156.64 159.77 160.44 165.72 165.95 166.94 167.46 169.34 172.24 172.44 172.64 _50.67 354.74 355.64 359.26 D8.96 449.57 500.b5 505.66 581.02 602.86

Engine Start Off - Note 2 LOX Tank Flight Pressure System On - Note Fuel Injection Temperature OK Bypass Engine Burning 1 Relay On PU Activate On Engine Start Interlock Bypass Emergency playback Enable On Fast Record Off Charge Ullage Jettison On Fire Ullage Jettison On Water Coolant Valve Open off

3.43 5.26 6.81 8.13 8.&3 8.63 9.70 12.83 1'I,50 18.78 19.01 20.00 20.52 22.40 25.30 25.50 25.70 203.73 207.80 208,70 212.32 252.02 302.43 353.71 )58.72 /434.08 4%.92

Ullage Charging Reset Ullage Firing Reset IU Tape Recorder off Telemeter Calibrator In-Flight Calibrate Emergency Playback Enable Off Telemeter Calibrator Stop In-Flight calibrate LET Jettison "A" LET Jettison "B" Telemeter CalibraU)r In-Pli!_bt Calibrat(' Regular Calibration Relays On Telemeter Calibrator Stop In-Flight Calibrate Regular Calibration Relays Off Flight Control Computer Switch Point 3 Engine Burning 1 Relay Off Telemeter Calibrator In-Flight Calibrate Telemeter ('alibrator Step In-Flight Calibrate Point Level Sensor Arming S-IVB Engine Cutoff (guidance)

Note

2:

During telemetry Time

tile

separation dropout.

of

tile

S-IB/S-IVB

stages,

t_ehe

S_itch

Sel('_tot

Oc_nunands

were

lost

title

to

*Estimated

TABLE SA-201

4-11

(CONC) OF EVENTS

SEQUENCE

Function

Stage

Range Time (see) 603.11

Time Fm. Base (actual) 0.00 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.21 1.41 1.82 2.00 2.20 2.60 5.00 5.21 23.01 23.21 27.51 27.71 42.20 48.22 60.00 90.00 120o00 120.20 12'3.00 123.21 125.00 125.21 177.90 178.10 207.90 208.10 342.96 348.21 973.21 978.23

Time Fm. Base (nominal) 0.00 0.40 0.61 0o81 1.02 1.20 1.40 1.81 2.02 2.23 2.60 5.02 5.20 23.00 23.21 27.50 27.71 43.22 48.20 60.00 90.01 120.01 120.22 123.01 123.23 125.00 125.21 177.91 178.11 207.93 208.11 343.22 348.23

Start

of Time

Base

4 @ 603.11 System Off S-IVB S-IVB S-IVB S-IVB S-IVB S-IVB S-IVB S-IVB S-IVB S-IVB IU S-IVB S-IVB S-IVB S-IVB S-IVB IU IU IU S-IVB S-IVB S-IVB S-IVB S-IVB S-IVB S-IVB S-IVB IU S-IVB IU IU IU IU IU

LOX Tank Flight Pressure Prevalves closed On Coast Period On Engine 25 Watt Instrument

Heaters

Off

603 51 603 71 603 91 604 ii 604 32 604 52 604 93 605 Ii 605 31 605 71 608 ii 608 32 626 12 626 32 630 62 630 82 645 31 651 33 663 ii 693 ii 723 ii 723.31 726.11 726.32 728.11 728.32 781.01 781.21 811.01 811.21 946.07 951.32 1576.32 1581.34

LH 2 Tank Vent Open On Engine Cutoff Off Point Level Sensor Disarming Range Safety System Off Enable PU Activate Off PU Inverter and DC Power Off Flight Control Computer S-IVB Burn Mode Off Auxiliary Hydraulic Pump Off Special Calibrate Relays On Regular Calibrate Relays On Regular calibrate Relays Off Special Calibrate Relays Off Telemeter Calibrator In-Flight Calibrate Telemeter Calibrator Stop In-Flight Calibrate LV/SC Separation Sequence Start LOX Tank Vent Open On LOX Tank Vent Open Off LH 2 Tank LOX Tank LH 2 Tank LOX Tank Vent Vent Vent Vent Open Off Boost Closed Boost Boost Closed Closed On On Off

LH 2 Tank Vent Boost Closed Off Tape Recorder Playback On IU Tape Recorder Playback Reverse On Tape Recorder Playback Off IU Tape Recorder Playback Reverse off Telemeter Calibrator In-Flight Calibrate Telemeter Calibrator Stop In-Flight Calibrate Telemeter Calibrator In-Flight Calibrate Telemeter Calibrator Stop In-Flight Calibrate

UNCLAS
12 5.0 5.1 SUMMARY (C)

.......
LAUNCH OPERATIONS

Launch occurred at 1112 EST on February 26, 1966 from Pad 34 at Cape Kennedy, under bright clear skies. The launch countdown proceeded satisfactorily but with several holds due to relatively minor problems resulting in a total time delay during countdown of 3 hrs 27 minutes. All launch support equipment functioned satisfactorily to produce a successful launch, although there were a number of problems encountered. Corrective action has been initiated to repair or redesign, as appropriate, and no problems are anticipated for future Saturn IB launches. At the time of ignition and liftoff, temperature and vibration effects somewhat more severe than was experienced with the Saturn I vehicles.

were

A major power failure occurred at launch when a high voltage fuse vibrated loose from the holder clips in the pad area substation. This power failure affected Launch Complex 34, Launch Complex 37, the Converter Compressor Facility (CCF), and several Eastern Test Range (ETR) areas and lasted approximately 60 minutes. The power outage also caused loss of water quenching systems which contributed to the general fire and temperature damage. There _as a substantial amount of miscellaneous damage to the pad

and auxiliary systems located on adjacent structures caused by the flames and vibration. All damage can be easily repaired and adequate preventive measures taken so that no serious problems are anticipated on future Saturn IB launches. 5.2 PRELAUNCH MILESTONES leading to the

A chronological summary of events and preparations launch of AS-201 is shown in Table 5-1. 5.3 COUNTDOWN

The launch countdown for AS-201 began on Sunday, February 20, at 2400 hours, at T-52 hours and 30 minutes. The count proceeded _s planned until held for weather and recycled to T-13 hours on February 22, at 1830 hours. The count was again delayed on February 23, due to weather and sub-cable failure, for 24 hours. An additional 24 hour hold for weather was called at 1715 hours on February 24. The weather during the hold period was characterized by high winds, heavy overcast, low ceiling, intermittent rains and high seas in the recovery area.

UNCLASSiFI _,

TABLE

5-1

AS-201

PRKLAUNCH

MILESTONES

Date

Event

August

14,

1965

S-IB and

stage mo_'ed stage the pad.

arrived into }_angar

at

KSC AF to

via on this

barge daLe.

and

_as

elf-loaded

August

[8,

1965

S-IB on propellant systems.

transported The tanklngs stage Lo

Launch used the

Complex as a LOX spa, and

3_ er

and for

erected S-IVB-F loading

_as verify

LH 2

Sept.

10,

1965

The

forward

bulkhead

on during

fuel

tank

FI

_ms

reversed

by leak

overpress,lr_zation tests.

instr,lment

compartment

Supt.

19,

1965

S-IVB hangar

stage AF

_rr_ved for

_t

_SC

vin

barge

am3

_aS

take_

to

inspection de-erected.

and

modifications.

Sept.

28,

1965

S-IVB-F

stage

Sept. Oct. Oct. l,

29,

1965 [965 1965

Fuel S-IVB IU

Tank stage

Pl

of erected.

the

S-IB

stage

_as

echr_:_ged.

20,

arrived

at to

KSC

via

barge AF to on the for

and this S-IB the

_as l!ote.

off-loaded

and

transported Oct. 21, 1965 Initial operating Oct. Oct Oct 25, 25, 1965 1965 IU erected. Mod. power

hangar applied programs

stag_, RCA-110A

with

interim computer.

system

Command

le

009

arrived

at

KSC.

26,

1965

Initial

po_er

applied

to

the

S-IVB

stage.

Oct

27,

1965

Service

Module

arrived

at

KSC.

Nov

10,

1965

Launch

vehicle

electrical

mate

nccomplished.

No_ Nov

12, 29,

1985 1965

Primary Cat.hand

RCA-IIOA guidna_e

computer and control

operating system

tape checkout

affixed. co_un_nced.

Dec

26,

1965

Spacecraft

erected.

Dec Dec

27, 31,

1965 1965

CSM/SLA Exploding

mating Bridge

completed. Wire (EBW) test completed.

Jan

5,

1966

Holddown

arm

qualification

test

completed.

Jan.

18,

1966

Launch Flight

Vehicle/Spacecraft Readiness Revie_ overall test

electrical (FRR) completed.

mate

completed.

Jan.
Jan.

2t,
24,

1966
1966

Umbilical-In

completed.

Jan.

24,

1966

LES

mate

and

thrust

vector

alignment

completed.

Jan Feb

28, 2, 8,

1966 1966 1966

Space Plugs Countdown

vehicle out overall

flight test

electrical completed. test (dry)

mate

completed.

Feb

demonstration

completed.

Feb Feb

9, 12,

1966 1966

Countdown Flight

demonstration Readiness Test

test completed.

(wet)

completed.

Feb Feb

19, 20,

1966 1966

Commenced Launch date at

RP-I Countdown T-52

Tanking for

Operations AS-20I 30 began minutes. at 2400 hours this

hours

and

Feh.

25,

1966

Terminak

countdown

commenced.

Feb.

26,

1966

LAUNCH

_I

_ -

14

Terminal countdown began at 1715 hours, on February 25, at T-780 minutes. Launch occurred at 1112 EST, 3 hrs and 27 minutes later than scheduled. Table 5-II is a summary of the terminal countdown showing the major problems encountered and the resulting delay time. 5.4 5.4.1 PROPELLANT AND COLD HELIUM LOADING

RP-I LOADING

Loading of RP-I commenced at 1420 hours on February 19, 1966. Manual slow fill was initiated at a rate of 0.015 m3/s (240 gpm). At 46% mass readout, the loading rate was increased to 0.076 m3/s (1200 gpm). At a mass readout of 95%, the manual slow fill operation was secured. The Propellant Tanking Computer System (PTCS) was then programmed to a S-IB tank ullage of 1.75% (corresponding to thumbwheel setting of 0.9010 for a pressure of 12.5 N/cm 2 gauge (18.14 psig). Automatic slow fill to complete loading to 100% was attempted, but could not be accomplished as liquid sensor 2 indicated dry, preventing an automatic slow fill standby indication. Therefore, an automatic replenish sequence was initiated to complete RP-I loading. The RP-I overfill sensor picked up at 100% mass readout which automatically terminated the replenish sequence. As the programmed 1.757o ullage is within 1.27 cm (0.5 in) of the RP-I overfill sensor levels, this was considered a satisfactory termination of RP-I loading. The PTCS was reprogrammed to a pressure of 12.476 N/cm 2 differential (18.095 psid) which was equivalent to a 2.0% ullage, and an automatic level adjust drain was initiated to drain the vehicle to a 2.0% ullage and verify PTCS operation. The PTCS satisfactorily controlled the automatic level adjust drain. The RP-I loading was completed at 1715 hours. The RP-I tanks were replenished at 0645 EST on February 26, 1966. To obtain flight mass requirement, a 2.0% ullage was used due to an increase in density from low bulk temperature. The vehicle tanks were level adjusted at T-If minutes in the countdown to required flight mass. Due to holds, and declining temperature gradient during holds, the tanks were again replenished to 2.0% ullages. The RP-I automatic replenish sequence had to be reinitiated twice due to cutoff by the overfill sensor. Pickup of the overfill sensor is attributed to gas bubbles being forced into the RP-I tanks. The problem is in the RP-I transfer air release system. Replenishing of the tanks during holds, required that another level adjust drain be performed during countdown from the first T-15 recycle.

15

TABLE COUNTDOWN

5-II SUMMARY

One

hour

built-in Hold

hold Time

at

T-30

was

utilized

as

follows:

Countdown Time T-266 T-90 min min

(min_ 30 30 Work caused by

Cause Apollo access by arm problem*

To catch regulator

up on work caused problem (GSE)**

helium

Lost

Time

Due

to unscheduled

holds

and

recycle

was

as

follows:

Countdown Time T-30 T-4 min sec

Lost

Time Cause Hold to complete spacecraft closeout control pressure

(min) 78 73

Hold due to low nitrogen in S-IB Stage *** Recycle to T-15 min in

15 T-5 min 34 sec & 31

countdown

Hold for additional assessment of nitrogen control pressure and special test of control pressure system Recycle to T-15 min in countdown

i0

Total Lost Time

207

minutes

Notes:

*See **See ***See

Section Section Section

5.6.5 5.6.6 5.6.7

U N C LASgf
16 The S-IB RP-I parameters setting Thumbwheel Delta

I.' '.-i-.L:_ L,,:J.....

" "

,.:
prior to ignition were:

at

final

reading

0.9046 12.519 N/cm 2 differential (18.159 psid)

pressure

Mass Mass Mass

readout readout

(auto) (manual)

99.74% 99.68% 129,489.3 (285,475 kg ibm)

Average Average

temperature density

280.3K 815.18 (50.89 kg/m 3 ib/ft 3) with the high RP-I PTCS system readout was

Malfunctions: the pickup when mast

The

only

anomaly

associated

of the overfill sensor and corresponding purge came on after adjust level drain. Action: cm (2 in) identical Design action has been

Corrective existing release 5.08 valve

initiated

to

replace

the

air release valve to that installed

with a 10.16 cm (4 in) air at Launch Complex 37. Modifiany propellant count and/or after

cations are being contemplated tank computer system discrete liftoff. 5.4.2 LOX The LOADING IX)X fill a a command

to prevent issuance of signals during terminal

S-IB

to

22%

was

initiated

at T-6

hours.

Revert

occurred at 22% after S-IB main fill was at

total elapsed time of 22 minutes rate of approximately 0.057 m3/s

and 34 seconds. (900 gpm).

After replenish was initiated, the flow through the main fill valve was _.056 m3/s (890 gpm) and through the replenish valve was 0.006 m3/s (i00 gpm). LOX fill command to 100% was initiated at T-4:42:48. At this time the stage contained 42.2% of the LOX load. Flow rate after pump command was 0.177 m3/s (2800 gpm). After replenish pre-cool, main fill was 0.173 m3/s (2750 gpm) and replenish was 0.008 m3/s (120 gpm). The eight minute timer, which fast fill at: 95% occurred was initiated at 50%, 18 minutes and 20 sec timed after out at 86%. fill command. Stop The

system was then set up for manual replenish, S-IVB stage was initiated. The S-IVB stage 0.057 m3/s (900 gpm) and in a total elapsed was filled to 99%.

and fill command to the was loaded at a rate of time of 35 minutes and 7 sec

UNCL_A

"..-_-'_ I t "-.,_,,'

....

,__ -.. !..

UNC
17 At T-00:02:43, the computer and 100.20% for the S-IVB stage. indicated 99.99% for the S-IB stage

Materials consumed: 505.35 m 3 (133,500 gallons) of LOX were consumed in loading the S-IB and S-IVB stages prior to launch. In order to provide the necessary quantities during countdown plus adequate reserves, it was necessary to replenish the storage tanks. System Performance: LOX system performance _as satisfactory; however, a number of changes are being incorporated which will improve the overall performance. Modifications are being considered to prevent issuance of any PTCS discrete signals during terminal count and/or after liftoff. 5.4.] LH 2 LOADING was nominal for this launch. sequences were accomplished. No leaks One item

The LH 2 system performance were detected and all automatic

of concern was the difficulty in maintainin$ the LH 2 storage tank pressure. When the liquid level reached 94.6 m _ (25,000 gallons), it was impossible to repressurize the tank. The final pressure at launch was 33.1N/cm 2 gauge (48 psig) as compared to normal system pressure of 44.8 N/cm 2 gauge (65 psig). This problem is under investigation. Modifications are being considered to prevent signals during terminal count and/or liftoff. Materials LH 2 were 5.4.4 consumed: Approximately any PTCS discrete

408.8 m 3 (108,000

gallons)

of

consumed

for this mission. LOADING

COLD HELIUM

Prior to the initiation of LH 2 loading, the cold helium spheres were pre-pressurized to 483 N/cm 2 (700 psi) from the Ground Support Equipment (GSE) cold gas system to prevent them from collapsing as they cooled during the initial par_ of LH 2 loading. Cold helium loading was initiated when the LH 2 92% mass level was achieve_. The sphere pressure was increased to and maintained at 2068 N/cm _ (3,000 psi). A temperature of 277K,at a pressure of 2068 N/cm 2 (3,000 psi), was reached 1,500 sec after the start of cold helium loading. At liftoff the spheres were charged to 2068 N/cm 2 (3,000 psi) at 216K.

U NCLASSI

_8

5.4.5

AUXILIARY The

PROPULSION

SYSTEM

PROPELI_NT System

LOADING was loaded with fuel

Auxiliary

Propulsion

(APS)

and oxidizer on February 20, 1966 for the APS confidence firing. Propellants were not unloaded, but were maintained in the tanks under a blanket pressure until the launch. During modules oxidizer loading, i and 2 was 3.81 the bellows em/min (1.5 extension in/min). (fill) rate for The tanks were of Fuel 24.9 was cm

both

loaded to 24.9 and 25.0 cm loaded at 3.81 cm/min (1.5 (9.8 in) for both modules. 5.4.6 S-IB STAGE PROPELLANT

(9.8 and 9.85 in), respectively. in/min) to a bellows extension

LOAD the are first stage the use of fuel the

of

S-IB-I loading system is similar to that used for the Saturn I Block II vehicles. Notable exceptions

new loading computers in the GSE, and the determination of the density from temperature measurements in each tank rather than pressure difference between fixed probes in one tank. The in Table load required at ignition 5-III. The reconstructed in conjunction reconstruction. with and the reconstructed load _as determined IV computer

load are shown from telemetered propulsion

probe data simulation

the Mark

program

The values shown for the load required at ignition are the LOX and fuel weight prescribed by the loading table for the fuel density of 815.18 kg/m 3 (50.89 Ib/ft 3) determined just prior to ignition. The reconstructed load _as based on discrete probe data, _Jith consideration given to the effect of the ambient conditions on propellant density, and tank volumetric changes due to dynamic conditions. The reconstructed load shows good agreement with the loads required for the fuel density at ignition, with a total off-load of 214 kg (472 Ibm). The KSC loads are based on the percent mass readout from the loading computers. The computer output the percent mass fuel to 99.68% of 443 kg (976 load. ments, The but fuel such 635 kg was last recorded readout indicated at T-460 that LOX seconds. At this time, was loaded to 99.99% and a total off-load the reconstructed show good agreeP manometer at T-7 minutes

of the desired load. This represents ibm), which shows good agreement _ith manometer delta is not the case (1400 ibm) less

P and the mass read-out for the LOX. The delta LOX than the mass

indicated

readout

and 40 seconds. During LOX replenishment, earlier in the countdown, computer readings sho_ed good agreement between manometer delta P and percent mass readout, with indicated LOX load near that required. The percent mass readout was used for comparison _ith the reconstruction as it is felt that it more accurately reflects the true case.

C Z

TABLE 5-111 > (C) AS-201 S-Ig STAGE PROPELLANT WEIGHTS AT IGNITION CON_ND

I--

Weight

Requir_ents

Weight

Indications

Weight

Deviations

Propella,t LOX (kg) (Ibm) Fuel (kg) (ibm) (kg) (ibm)

LaunchPred' Prior to (I) 286,078. 9 630,696 127,974.7 282,136 414,053.6 912,832

Ignition(2) 286_078.9 630,696 129,489.3 285,475 415,568.2 916,171

KSCRead.out Mass 286,050.3 630,633 129,075.2 284,562 415,125.5 915,195

LoadRecnstructed(3)KSCignitionMaSS Readout-(_) 286,015.8 -28.6 630,557 129,338.2 285,142 415,354.0 915,699 -63 -414.1 -913 -442.7 -976 -0.32 -0.ll -0.01

Reconstructed-_gn.(_) -63.1 -139 -15hl -333 -214.2 -472 -0.12 -0.05 -0.02

Reconstructed-Pred.(_) -63.I -139 1,363.5 3,006 1,300.4 2,867 1.07 0.31 -0.02

_i "_" _'--_'_

Lj

Total

(I)

predicted determined Propellant

propellant

weights

were based

on a LOx

density

of i129,62

kg/m 3 (70.52

Ibm/ft 3) and

a fuel density

of 810.05

kg/m 3 (50.57

ibm/ft 3)

C.J0

(2)

immediately prior tO launch. weights required at ignition

were based on a LOx

density

of l127.8_kg/m

3 (70.41

Ibm/ft 3) and a fuel density

of 815.18

kg/m 3 (50.89

ibm/ft 3)

i73]

(3)

Best estimate

of actual

load.

'i ...._

20

5.4.7

S-IVB

STAGE

PROPELLANT

LOAD load at S-IB ignition determined from the PU trajectory reconstruction.

Table 5-1V presents the S-IVB propellant command. The best estimate includes loading system, 5.5 level sensors, engine analysis and

NOLDDOWN Monitoring: No fire alarms or recorded before or after fueling LH 2 propellant SUPPORT GROUND EQUIPMENT SUPPORT EQUIPMENT as designed minor modifisystems appeared indications operations to be of gas concenprior to liftoff. tight.

Hazardous trations were Both 5.6 5.6.1 GH 2 and GROUND ACTIVE

exceptionally

All active ground support equipment systems performed to achieve a successful launch. Some systems will require cations to correct deficiencies. The postlaunch evaluation of system revealed that refurbishment minimum amount of delay. The GSE the active ground of these systems will not pace the

support equipment can be made with launch of AS-202.

The launcher, engine service platform, holddown arms, firing accessories, environmental control system and pneumatic distribution system all sustained some damage. The loss of water on the launch just after liftoff was one of the major contributors to the damage incurred. During liftoff, the exhaust blast was deflected along the deck at the 8.2 m (27 ft) level of the umbilical tower and _as directed against the vertical cable run causing in more considerable damage. Details of the detail in the following paragraphs. incurred damage are described

Damage to the propellant systems (RP-I, LOX and LH2) The RP-I transfer reset was rotated due to whip action of hose at liftoff. All pneumatic valves, relief valves and the LOX shutoff valves to the 8.2 m (27 ft) level will be and replaced. Some along with facility 17 mineral insulation cable. Burst discs on (MI) cables the dresser

was quite minor. the mast flex piping about removed, cleaned,

will be replaced couplings (LH 2 To_er LH 2

mainfill line) uill be replaced as will vent line supports _ill be repaired. The pneumatic system on and around

blown

transducers.

the

launcher

received

considerable

damage. The fuel and LOX mast retract solenoid, boxer solenoids, and tubing, and the 34.5 N/cm 2 (50 psi) launcher purge line around the outside of the Torus area _ill be replaced. All pneumatic tubing on the launcher must be thoroughly checked out. The doors of Valve Panel 4 were blown open by the engine blast. These panel doors will be repaired.

} ., . ,

f ."

i .

(]
F >

Weight Propellant Pred.

Requirements I I 87,429.9 192,750 16,914.0 37,289 104,343.9 230,039 Ignition

Weight Loading System 87,398.2 192,680 16,851.8 37,152 104,250.0 229,832

IndicatLons Best Estimate 87,302.5 192,469 16,953.4 37,376 104,255.9 229,845 Loading Ignition -31.7 -70 -62.2 -137 -93,9 -207 -0.09 System(%)

Weight _est

Deviations Estimate(%) Best Pred. -161.9 -357 47.1 104 -114.8 -0.08 -253 -0.ii Estimate(%)

0
-0.19

Prior

to Launch LOX (kg) (ibm) (kg) (Ibm) (kg) (ibm) 87,464.4 192,826 16,906.3 37,272 104,370.7 230,098

Ignition -127.4 -281 39.4 87 -88.0 -194

-0.04

-0.15

Fuel

-0.37

0.23

0.28

Total

b ....

Fq

t-J

22

The

Environmental

Control

System

(ECS)

building

received

minor

damage _hen one wall was dislodged. Vibration damage to serveral Johnson Controllers, however controllers are repairable. The ducts on swing swing arms arms experienced i, 2 and no damage, 3 did receive

during launch caused most of the damaged

however, minor

the

air

conditioning

damage. heavy damage. damaged beyond The Q-Ball repair

cover

Several of the and the cover

firing accessories inflator flexible

received hose were

on impact with the umbilical tower and _ilI require replacement. The fuel mast damage was moderate to heavy. The lower pipe weldment _as buckled near the top and the blast removed the control box from its mounts. The only damage to the LOX line was the loss of expansion joints and both short cable masts were damaged in the flex lines. The LOX replenish system will be replaced. The ECS and boattail quench control and feedback mineral insulation (MI) cables were damaged by heat and vibration. Damage to the MI cables was extensive enough to cause possible failure of circuits. Twelve hard run cables were replaced, but jackets on the remaining cables are to be repaired.

was and 5.6.2

Damage to the launcher water system and the control system cabling extensive. All boattail quench valves were burned to various extents several to_er ring nozzles were damaged. FACILITIES AND STRUCTURE

The complex facilities all performed normally. There was no malfunction of any critical equipment during the prelaunch countdown to liftoff. The industrial power failure a few seconds after liftoff was the only failure noted. The industrial po_er outage occurred when high voltage fuses vibrated loose from their holder clips in the pad area substation. All three fuses were found lying in the bottom of the cabinet. The the complex. resulting Complete condition caused loss of industrial a cable failure external to power in Complex 34, Complex

37, the Converter Compressor Facility (CCF), and several ETR areas that were supporting the launch occurred. It required approximately eight hours to clean the pad area and restore power, however industrial power was restored to other areas within an hour. Corrective action is being taken 5.6.3 to eliminate ELECTRICAL the recurrence EQUIPMENT of this type power loss.

SUPPORT

was one

The integration Electrical Support Equipment (ESE) overall performance satisfactory throughout the entire countdown and launch except for malfunction that occurred at T-9 hours 15 minutes. Voltage + 4D310 a pin jack Corrective (JI8/D) was faulty action has been

became erratic and it was determined that due to a jumper that had been installed. taken to eliminate this problem area.

23

5.6.4

GROUND

COMPUTER the

The launch computer systems functioned satisfactorily through launch countdown of AS-201, with the exception of two malfunctions.

I. The Launch Control Center (LCC) Computer dc power failed. The exact cause of this power failure could not be determined due to the lack of monitoring circuitry. This malfunction caused a loss of computer service of approximately 50 minutes which included power up and acceptance test and required that both the Automatic Ground Control Station (AGCS) and Blockhouse computers be reinitialized. 2. A positive high voltage power supply failed in Display Console 6. This failure, however, did not cause any problems as it was not required during the countdown. 5.6.5 APOLLO ACCESS ARM

Mating of the environmental chamber to the spacecraft, at approximately T-9 hours, required disabling of the Adapter Positioning Device (APD) Centered signal. This was accomplished by physically displacing the APD. Subsequently the APD inadvertently returned to a centered position and electrically permitted a partial mating to occur. From this configuration_ it was necessary to manually retract from the spacecraft by applying pneumatic pressure directly to the individual pneumatic cylinders. After completion of the manual backout, it was noted that the "Hooks Open" signal was not being received_ even though the hooks were physically open. This was due to the "Left Hook Open" limit switch being out of adjustment. This switch was adjusted and two successful automatic mating-demating sequences were performed with the chamber left in the mated condition. During the retraction of the Apollo Arm at T-30 minutes, the "Left Hook Open" limit switch again failed to close. This faulted the retraction sequence. In order to continue, the "Hooks Open" signal was jumpered (after visual verification of "Hooks Open") into the logic circuit and the retraction sequence reinitiated. The retraction cycle then went to proper completion. 5.6.6 PNEUMATIC DISTRIBUTION

During the performance of procedure CSD-E-8019, Pneumatic Launch Preparations, the Helium number 2 system malfunctioned, in that the 4137 N/cm 2 (6000 psi) inlet pressure leaked through the APCO regulators into the 2068 N/cm 2 (3000 psi) outlet pressure_ causing the pressure on the Pressure Control Device (PCD) He panel manifold to increase to 2344 N/cm 2 gauge (3400 psig). After determining that the number 2 system was causing the manifold pressure increase, it was brought back to zero

24

pressure and secured. Launch was supported system without any further problems. Examination of the APCO regulators

by

the

number

i helium

revealed

a bubble

in

the

rubber

coating on the diaphragm plate This was the second occurrence however APCO functions. regulators

that prevented proper seating of the stem. of this problem in the helium systems, have no record of similar mal-

in GN 2 systems

Corrective Action: The APCO regulators were removed from the system and reworked. Regulators with new diaphragms were installed Recommendations are being prepared to change the helium systems APCO regulators to Grove regulators. Potential Problem Areas: The only potential problem area, the LOX Dome Purge Bypass System, is being redesigned for AS-202 and subs. This system's flow rate was low, requiring a waiver of the vehicle flow requirements for AS-20I. AS-201 launch was not affected. 5.6.7 S-IB The with the GN 2 CONTROL holds holds PRESSURE and PROBLEM recycling supplies resulted GN 2 for from the of problem

launch ground

countdown which

system

purges

engine

injectors and the flight system which supplies GN 2 to actuate S-IB stage valves, purge calorimeters, pressurize the engine gear boxes and purge the LOX seal area of the engine turbopump. This system is shown in Figure 5-1. The high pressure storage sphere is filled from a ground source with the pressure being maintained from the ground source until liftoff. Initial pressure was 2103 N/em 2 (3050 psi). At chamber T-35 fuel sec the injector high flo_rate purges to manifold were started. the At LOX dome T-28 sec and the the thrust pneumatic

controls and calorimeter purges were started. By power transfer (T-10 sec) the pressure in the high pressure spheres had decreased to approximately 1999 N/cm 2 (2900 psi) instead of the normal 2068 N/cm 2 (3000 psi). By T-4 sec the pressure in the high pressure sphere had dropped below the redline value of 1951N/cm 2 (2830 psi) and automatic cutoff was initiated by a pressure switch. After discussions it was purges (to fuel and LOX dome) preventing it from maintaining pressure regulator of the GNo 2172 N/cm 2 (3050 to 3150 psi_ The requested of flight countdown a hold. sphere decided that the high flow rate ground were starving the ground manifold, thus pressure in the flight sphere. The ground source was reset from 2103 to to provide increased flow and pressure. at T-5 minutes, stage system indicated that if the high the result of excessive engineers rate purge

was recycled and Quick calculations pressure decrease

were

2068 N/cm 2 (3000 ib) Control Press OK Vent Control _'(Firlng & Firln_" Press Sphere

/Prep Panel) / Cablemast No'. 2 ___431 N/cm 2 Gauge

N/cm2 GaugelPsig_

1955
...... J ,Short Cabld _Mast No.4 Valve Panel i0 uick

2835/

--(625psig>

Inect F" Filter L__. N/cm 2 750 psi) Dis_r Filtl gulatol Vehicle Relief Valve 2068 N/cm 2 3000 psi

cm (0.063 in_ orifice

Check Valve

Calorimeter Purge

Prevalve Control

LOX Relief Vent Valves

To Gear Box Pressure & LOX Seal Purge

FIGURE

5-i

S-IB CONTROL

PRESSURE

SYST_4

26

flow or leakage in the flight system, a liftoff sphere pressure of 1999 N/cm 2 (2900 psi) might not he sufficient to maintain the 689 N/cm 2 (I000 psi) required to pressurize gear boxes, purge seals, and operate LOX and fuel pre-valves, at stage burnout. Stage engineers recommended that the calorimeter purges be cut off to reduce demand'. It was quickly determined that the launch window would expire before the estimated 2 hours of disconnect work could be completed. The recommendation to scrub was made at this time. Launch crew engineers then devised and suggested a test of the flight system to check the actual GN 2 flow requirement of the vehicle control and purge systems during a simulated flight. This procedure was concurred in by stage engineers and the countdown was restarted at T-15 minutes, pending results of this test. The test consisted of shutting off the ground supply at a simulated liftoff and running all flight system purges and controls for a 150 sec simulated flight. From this test it was determined that a liftoff pressure of 1993 N/cm 2 (2890 psi) in _he flight sphere provided by a ground regulator setting of 2172 N/cm (3150 psi), resulted in at least 896 N/cm 2 (1300 psi) in the sphere at the end of the simulated S-IB stage flight. These test data were confirmed with calculations by the stage engineers who concurred in continuing the count. The countdown and launch were then successfully completed, with no change in sequencing required since the flight sphere pressure was above the pressure switch dropo_ point of 1951N/cm 2 (2830 psi) at liftoff. Telemetered flight data confirmed a residual pressure in the sphere of 896 N/cm 2 (1300 psi) at S-IB cutoff. It has been determined that the low pressure reading was caused by slow replenishing rate due to limited flow through the 0.160 cm (0.063 in) orifice, shown in Figure 5-1. To avoid recurrence of this problem, a bypass line around the filling orifice will be installed and used during GN 2 replenishing and the initial 2172 N/cm 2 (3150 psi) for future 5.6.8 DIGITAL DATA ACQUISITION sphere pressure flights. SYST_ will be increased to

The Digital Data Acquisition System (DDAS) station performed satisfactorily during countdown and launch, but with a few minor problems resulting in minimal, if any, loss of data. During RF switchover, the output signal of the S-IB Line Receiver was distorted, which resulted in dropping sync after liftoff. This system is currently being redesigned to eliminate this problem.

27

5.7

LAUNCH The

FACILITY obtained

MEASUREMENTS by the facilities measurement systems (Digital

data

Recording System, Vibration Data Acquisition Systems, and displays) was of high quality, and sufficient in quantity. 232 facility and environmental measurements were recorded. one were performing properly at liftoff. The recording AGCS were not adversely affected by launch, and recorded during ignition, holddown and liftoff.

Strip Chart A total of All except in the data

systems valid

The acoustic measurement system was essentially the same as used during the Saturn I program at LC 34. A new pre-amplifier was employed to reduce the data dropout from pyroelectric effect. Data was obtained from 42 of 45 stations and revealed that the RMS sound pressure levels on Complex 34 were from 2 to 8 db higher than levels recorded at the same location during the Saturn I launches. did not indicate a significant change from The Saturn far field I levels. stations

UNC"
28 6.1 SL_4_,ARY

L,
6.0 (C) MASS CHARACTERISTICS

Postflight analysis indicated that the vehicle weights were higher throughtout S-IB powered flight than predicted. Weight deviations ranged from 1,144.9 kg (2,524 ibm) at first motion to 1,076.4 kg (2,373 Ibm) at S-IB/S-IVB separation, and were primarily attributed to approximately 1,360 kg (3,000 Ibm) more fuel (RP-I) tanked in the S-IB stage. Vehicle longitudinal center of gravity was aft of the predicted value throughout S-IB powered flight, and mass moments of inertia were slightly higher than predicted primarily due to the increased propellant load in the S-IB stage. The vehicle was approximately 180 kg (400 Ibm) lighter than predicted at S-IVB ignition, and approximately 136 kg (300 lbm) lighter at S-IVB first motion. 6.2 MASS ANALYSIS

Postflight mass characteristics are compared to the final predicted mass characteristics (Ref. 2) which were used in determination of the final predicted trajectory (Ref. I ). The postflight mass characteristics were determined from an analysis of all available actual and reconstructed data from ground ignition through spacecraft separation. Dry weights of the S-IB stage, S-IB/S-IVB interstage, S-IVB stage, and vehicle Instrument Unit were based on an evaluation of the Weight and Balance Log Books (MSFC Form 998). Spacecraft mass characteristics were obtained from MSC. S-IB stage propellant loading and utilization was taken from the Mark IV propulsion simulation reconstruction. S-IVB stage propellant loading and utilization was taken from the postflight propulsion evaluation by DAC. Propellant loading was within the specified tolerance. The postflight dry weights were within the predicted three sigma deviations. The MSFC/MSC interface weight (weight above the vehicle instrument unit, excluding the LES) was only 43.5 kg (96 Ibm) high. At first motion the vehicle weight was determined to be 592,684.6 kg (1,306,646 ibm), which was 1,144.8 kg (2,524 Ibm) higher than predicted. This increase is primarily due to the S-IB stage total propellant loading being 1,303.2 kg (2,873 ibm) more than anticipated in the predicted document by 1,363.5 kg (3,006 Ibm) more RP-I and 60.3 kg (133 Ibm) less LOX. This additional fuel weight was required to compensate for the fuel bulk temperature which was colder than anticipated due to the lower ambient temperature and long hold time. The vehicle weight at outboard engine cutoff signal was 189,733.1 kg (418,290 ibm) and at separation 189,011.4 kg (416,699 Ibm). The vehicle weight at S-IB/S-IVB separation was 1,076.4 attributable kg (2,373 to higher ibm) more than predicted which was directly S-IB propellant residuals. The vehicle weight

U NCLASS!

c-:_

29

at S-IVB ignition was 137,963.7 kg (304,158 ibm) which was 187.8 kg (414 Ibm) less than predicted. Weight at $-IVB cutoff was 33,533.1 kg (73,928 Ibm) being 141.1 kg (311 Ibm) less than predicted. The vehicle mass history is presented in Table 6-1. flight sequence mass summary is presented in Table 6-11. representations are illustrated in Figures 6-1 and 6-2. 6.3 CENTER OF GRAVITY ANDMOMENT OF INERTIA ANALYSIS A vehicle Graphical

The vehicle longitudinal center of gravity was slightly aft of the predicted value at ground ignition and approximately 0.152 m (6 in) aft at separation. These devotions were mainly caused by the additional S-IB propellant mass located aft of the predicted center of gravity. As S-IB stage propellants were consumed, the combination of this additional mass moving to a lower position on the vehicle and the decreasing vehicle weight result in a progressively greater deviation between the actual and predicted centers of gravity. Mass moments of inertia of the vehicle during S-IB powered flight were slightly higher than predicted values. Deviations of 0.5% in roll and 1.3% in pitch and yaw were noted at separation. These deviations were primarily a result of the additional S-IB propellant mass. The center of gravity and mass moments of inertia at the beginning and end of the S-IVB powered flight were essentially as predicted. The longitudinal center of gravity was 0.043 m (1:7 in) forward of the predicted value at cutoff due to less propellants. The radial center of gravity was within 0.012 m (0.5 in) of the predicted value at cutoff. Weight, center of gravity, and moment of inertia data for the dry stages and the vehicle at significant events during flight are presented in Table 6-117. Graphical representations of th_ data are illustrated in Figures 6-1 and 6-2. All weights presented are of masses for one standard "g" acceleration.

...

.,

,,_/-,,_

_i- ,

:(.

_r,

iL:iil]i
: ..................
!27::

-. ....
...............................

,o<_.<,o [,:.

.... _'

:ii!

, .............

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

" ....

"......

t:i_]

:]

'

tT

'"

..... '......................... ...................... J. ,.z ,,; ,,;

..... -

_" ,..-

I"_

.... . ,j

,t .

'

i ..

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

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

_.........

_:];

......

:,

:LiL

NC LASSI F,
_'I I_-.........

TABLE

6-11

(C)

AS-201

FLIGHT

SEQUENCE MASS

SL_'LCRY

ACTUAL MASS HISTORY kg (Ibm) K_

PREUIC'fED (ibm)

S-IB Stage at Gro.nd Ignition S-1B/S-IW_ Interstage at Ground Ignition S-ZVB Stage at Gro,md Ignition Vehicle Instr,ment Unit at Ground Ignition Spacecraft First S-IS First S-IS S-lg S-IS S-IS S-Ig Flight Thrust Flight Mainstage Frost Gear Box Seat Fuel at Ground Stage Buildup Stage at Liftoff at Ignition Gro,_nd Ignition

&58.107.9 2,910.7 1[5,3q2.1 1,980.8 20,788.1 599,179.6 -6,495.O 592,684.6 o401,O27.8 -453.6 -331.6 -3.6 -I0.9 -977.5 -136.0

1".009,955 6,417 25&,3n6 4,367 &5,830 1,320,965 -14,319 1,306,646 -884,115 -l,O00 -731 -8 .24 -2,155 -ZOO -23 418,290 -t,575 -16 416,699 -IO6)O28 -6,417 =25 -67 -3 -1 30&,lSg -609 -& -qh 303,&51 -220,964 -223 O -2 -8,336 73,q28 -[48 73,780 -gO -18 -140 -489 73,0q3 -31,230 -_,367 -3,691 33,805 11.002 8,055 1&.661 87

456)641.6 2,884.8 115,445_6 2,053.0 20,756._ 597,780.8 -b,241.0 591,_3Q._ -401,219.3 -453.6 -751.8 -4.5 -I0.9 -977.0 .45.4

[._O6,721 _,360 _,_1_ .,526 _,_= L,317,881 -13,7%9 1,304)122 -S84,537 -I,O00 -5%5 -lO -2& -2,15& -lOO

Propellants Cons_Jmption (Oronite) (Re-I)

P_lrge Additive

S-IB fEED Propellants S-IVB Frost S-IVB First R2 Press,re Flight Stage Gas aC Vented OECO Signal

-10.5 189,733.1 -71_.4 -7.3 189,Oll.4 -48,093.% -2,910.7 -11.3 -30.3 -1.4 -O.5 t37,963.7 -276.3 -1.8 -&2.6 137,643.O -100,227.6 -101.2 tics -O -0.9 -3,780.2

188,%77.t -642.2

4|5,7_2 -I,416

S=IB OETD to STVB Ullage First Flight

Separation Rocket Propellant Stage at Separation

18),q35.l -_6,840.7 .2,884.8 -11.3 -4&.9 -1.4 -O.5 138,151.5 -164.2 -1.4 -38.1 137,9_7.8 -IOO,363.2 -98.0 -O.5 -19.9 -3,792.0 33,674.2 .&l.7 33,632.5 -15.9 -34.5 -b3.5 -181.4 33,_37.2 -14,319.9 -2,053.0 -1,602.5 15,361.8 5,030.4 3,742.1 6,561.2 28._

_14,32b -103,266 -6,360 -25 -gq -I -! 304,572 -362 -3 -8_ 304,123 -221,263 -2L6 -1 -4_ -8,360 74,21_ -9_ 74,147 -35 -76 -140 =4OO 73,_q6 -il,StO -_,526 -l,%13 33,867 ii,OqO 8,250 I&,465 6_

S-IB Stage S.IB/S-[VB S-IVB Aft S-IVS S-IVB S-IVB Second S-IVB S-IVB S-IVB Second S-IVB S-IVD S-IVB S-IVB La,nch Second S-IVB Second S-IVB S-IVB S-IVB S-IVD Second Ullage

at Separation Interstage Frame Rocket Propellant

Separation System Components Ullage System Cc_aponents Flight Thrast Stage g,,ild,*p at Ignition

Propellant

LH 2 Start Tank Ullage Rocket Propellant Flight Stage at Liftoff

Mainstage Ullage Rocket Heli_ Engine APS po_er Roll Escape Flight Thr_*st Flight System Stage Decay Stage

Cases enema,s

at

O_toff

Signal*

33,533.1 -67.l

at

ETD

33,466.0 -lS.t -8.2 -63.5 -221.8

Engine Liq,xids APS ALtitude Control LaX Ullage Vented Vented Stage at Separation H2 Ullage Flight

33,154.4 -14,165.7 .1,980.8 -1,674.2 15,333.7 4,990.4 3,653.7 6,650.1 ]9.5

S-IVB Stage at Separation Instrument Unit gdapter (Less R_ng) Spacecraft Command Mod.le Service Hod,le

Less

Propellant

Service Module Propellant S_Attach gin s

*Guidance Note:

Cutoff IETD OETD - Inboard - Ontbnard Engi.e Thrust Decay Engine Thrust Decay

UNCI ' i

"{:'- "-"'":'" :" ,.D/_ , .-..::. ,,--J L"

"" .........

3Z

Center of Gravity Mass (I000 kg_

in Calibers

(Ref Sta 2.54 m) (I cal _ 6.53 m) 6

600

500

"-...

-.....
_
of Gray

,
_Mass

400
Center

f
_ J

200 -20 20 40 60 Range Time 80 (sec) i00 120

_ 140

2 160

Mment of Inertia-Pitch (lO00 kg-m 2) 80,000

Moment of

Inertia-Roll (i000 kg-m 2) 2500

_ 70,000 _

20_

60,000 50,0_

__

1000 1500

40,000

5_

o 3'00-20 0 20 40 60 Range 80 Time (sec) 100 120 140 160

FIGURE 6- I VEHICLE HASS, C_,'TER OF GRAVITY, AND HASSHOMENT OF INERTIA DURING S-IB S_,_E POWERED FLIGHT

33

Center Mass 180 (i000 kg) (Ref

of Gravity Sta 27.59 m)

in Calibers (i cal = 6.604 2.6 m)

Center

of G

140 1
I00 , 60 _ _ 20 0 90% Thruat----_ Moment ( i000 12,000 of (152.9 Range I00 sec) Time 200 S-IVB Burn Time 300 (sec) Moment 400 500 Inertia-Pitch kg-m 2) ( I000 I0,000 --_ 8 _,000 _ Pitch

2.
1.8 1.4 1.0 of Inertia-Roll kg-m 2) 240 200 160

6,000

Ro.J
\
0 i00 (152.9 Range FIGURE sec) Time 6- 2 VEHICLE OF INERTIA 200 S-IVB Burn Time 300 (sec) MOMENT _ 400 500

120

4,000 90% Thrust--_

80

MASS, CENTER DURING S-IVB

,4

OF GRAVITYp AND MASS STAGE POWERED FLIGHT

WNCLASSI

_ r"

.,,

I INC[ /,<c:, + .... ......

" " [ r

" _

"

35

7.0 7.1 SUMMARY

(U)

TRAJECTORY

The actual trajectory of AS-201 was very close to nominal. The space-fixed total velocity was 8.0 m/s higher than nominal at OECO and 0.5 m/s lower than nominal at S-IVB cutoff. At S-IVB cutoff the actual altitude was 0.73 km higher than nominal and the range ,as 31.00 km longer than nominal. The cross range velocity deviated 4.6 m/s to the right of nominal at S-IVB cutoff. The S-IB stage was calculated to have impacted at a surface 1.39 km greater than nominal. S-IVB stage impact was calculated surface range 81.81 km greater than nominal. range at a

The vehicle at S-IVB/CSM separation had a space-fixed velocity of 0.8 m/s more than nominal. Altitude and range were 1.4 km and 31.9 km greater than nominal, respectively. 7.2 TRACKING DATA UTILIZATION

Tracking data were available from first motion through S-IVB/CSM separation. Tracking data, excluding radars, showed deviations between the various systems of less than 25 m in position components until 250 seconds. After 250 sec, GLOTRAC was the only precision tracking system that furnished data. The postflight shown in Table 7-1 trajectory was established from the data sources

TABLE

7-1

DATA UTILIZATION Time Interval 0.II - 27 27 - i00 I00 - 135 135 - 165 165 - 844.9 (sec_ Fixed ODOP GLOTRAC Adjusted Best Station I Guidance Data Source Camera

Telemetered

Estimate

Trajectory

36

All

tracking

data

were

smoothed

and

transformed

from

the

tracking

point to the vehicle center of gravity. Telemetered guidance data; adjusted to ODOP, GLOTRAC Station I, and the computed trajectory; were used to obtain the proper velocity and acceleration profiles through Mach I, S-IB The best stage cutoffs, and S-IVB stage cutoff at 165 time sec, periods. utilized the

estimate

trajectory,

beginning

telemetered guidance velocities as the GLOTRAC Station I data along with data

generating parameters and fit from 5 different radar systems

through an 18 term guidance error model. The radar data used as observations in this solution went to S-IVB/CSM separation. Comparisons were then made with the resultant computed trajectory and showed the data from the various radars to be consistent and in good agreement. GLOTRAC provided seconds. The GLOTRAC the only data and high precision data available the best estimate trajectory after 250 agree to

within 200 m in position components for the S-IVB powered portion of flight. GLOTRAC was not used in the final trajectory due to late arrival and the differences between GLOTRAC and the computed trajectory were 7.3 insignificant TRAJECTORY Actual the launch actual and and for most ANALYSIS nominal altitude, surface range, and cross range for evaluation purposes.

vehicle nominal

powered flight, are presented total earth-fixed velocities and nominal 7-11. The

in Figure are shown

7-1. The in Figure 7-2.

Comparisons of the actual events are shown in Table in Reference i. Through the major than nominal and

parameters at the nominal trajectory

three cutoff is presented

lower

portion of the surface

the powered range _as

flight greater

the altitude than nominal. less than

was The

longitudinal for both the

acceleration shown in Figure 7-3, was SolB and S-IVB powered flight phases.

nominal

The S-IVB stage a 0.37 sec late S-IB than nominal burning cutoff signal, nominal. The

cutoff 10.13 sec later than nominal; considering stage cutoff, the S-IVB stage had a 9.76 see longer time. The actual space-fixed velocity at the S-IVB

given by the guidance computer, was 0.5 m/s less than late S-IVB cutoff is mainly attributed to low performance

of the S-I%rB stage. The longer burning time explains the 31.0 km excess in surface range at S-IVB cutoff. The larger than expected altitude deviation (0.73 km higher than nominal) at S-IVB cutoff is the result of errors that have been discovered in the nominal trajectory computation. These errors 0.05 km less amount to 0.78 km. than the corrected The actual nominal. altitude would then only be

37

Actual __ -- -- ffomina I Surface Range Altitude

(k_)
1.800

(_)
300

S-IVB

CO

1500

25O

1200

200

Cross (km)

Range

900

150

6O

6OO

;ur face

40

300

50

Cross

20

0 [40 220 300 Range 380 Time 460 (sec) 540

I Io
620 IE_OECO Cross Range

Su,faco_.ge
(_)

^ltit_de
(_)

II l I

<m)

_OO _

ii i i

II

60

60

200

ICross 40

_nge

i 0

i
0 ...... 0 20 40 60 Range FIGU_ 7-1 S-IB 80 Time AND

.f/
100 (sec) T_E_RY 120 140

i
-4OO 160

S-I_

38

Actual Nomina 1 Earth-Fixed 7000 Velocity (m/s) S-IVB CO

,I

_ooo
5000 Z/

,//

II

4000

3000

zooo

/
220 300 380 Range 460 Time 540 (set) 620 700 780

1000 140

Earth-Fixed 2000

Velocity

(m/s)

IECO

OECO

15oo 10oo

II II II

500

_ii
20 40 60 Range FIGURE 7-2 80 I00 Time (set) EARTH-FIXED VELOCITY 120 140 160

TABLE CUTOFF

7-II

CONDITIONS

IECO Parameter Range Time Altitude Range Cross Cross (sec) Actual 141.46 52,86 53.96 Ze (km) Velocity, Velocity Ze (m/s) (m/s) O.12 8.34 1836.65 Nominal 140.57" 53.14 52.50 0.04 3.51 1819.52 Act-Nom 0.89 -0.28 1.46 0.08 4.83 17.13 Actual 146.94 58.04 62.82 0.17 9.42 1927.61 Nominal

OECO Act-Nom 0.37 -0.80 0.72 0.10 5.11 7.46 Actu_l 602.86 261.25 1622.15 39.65 215.81 6534.55

S-IVB

CO Act-Nom 10.13 0,73 31.00 1.44 4.60 -0.41

Nominal 592.73* 260.52 1591,15 38.21 211.21 6534.96

146.57" 58.84 62.10 0.07 4.31 1920.15

(km)

(km) Range, Range

Earth-Fixed

Earth-Fixed Velocity Vector Elevation (deg) Earth-Fixed Velocity Vector Azimuth (deg) Space-Fixed Total Velocity (m/s) (m/s 2)

30,796

31.269

-0,473

29.488

29.796

-0.308

8.440

8.415

0.025

105.464 2190.72 40.02

105.282 2172.52 39.95

O.182 18.20 0.07

105.528 2285.32 20.33

105.351 2277.30 17.12

0.177 8.02 3.21

113.624 6939.54 26.72

113,474 6940.00 26.74

O.150 -O.46 -0.02

Inertial

Acceleration

*Based

on a first

motion

time of 0.II

second.

Earth-Fixed Velocity Accuracy OECO + 0.3 m/s S-IVB CO _ 0.7 m/s Altitude Accuracy OECO + 30 m S-IVB CO _ 200 m -

40

------

Actua 1 Nomina i

Total

Inertial

Acceleration

(m/s 2)

S-IVB CO

30

0 150 230 310 390 471 Range Time 550 (set) 630 710 790

Total 50

Inertial

Acceleration

(m/s 2)

IECO

,1

./
30 j OECO I' 20 0 0 20 40 60 Range FIGURE 7-3 TOTAL 80 Time I00 (sec) ACCELERATION 120 140 160

INERTIAL

41

The S-IVB cutoff signal was given by the guidance computer at 602.86 seconds. The velocity increments imparted to the vehicle subsequent to the guidance cutoff signal are given in Table 7-111 for the S-IB and S-IVB stage at OECO and S-IVB guidance cutoff, respectively. TABLE Event OECO S-IVB CO 7-III VELOCITY Actual 2.0 7.7 GAIN (m/s)

Nominal 3.0 5.8

Mach number and dynamic pressure are shown in Figure 7-4. These parameters were calculated using measured meteorological data to an altitude of 48 km. Above this altitude the U. S. Standard Reference Atmosphere was used.

Comparisons of actual and nominal parameters at significant event dmes are given in Table 7-1V. Apex, loss of telemetry, and impact are given for both the discarded S-IB and S-IVB stages. The theoretical free flight trajectories for the discarded S-IB and S-IVB stage used initial conditions from the reference trajectory at separation. There were no tracking data available on either stage after it separated. A nominal tumbling drag coefficient was assumed for the reentry phase of the free flight trajectories. The calculated impact locations and ground track site are shown in Figure 7-5. 7.4 S-IVB/CSM SEPARATION CONDITIONS

The S-IVB/CSM separation conditions were obtained from a coast trajectory determined in the same manner as the computed S-IVB powered flight trajectory. The least squares fit to the tracking data through the guidance error model using the guidance as the generating parameters was performed to separation. Grand Turk (7.18) and Antigua (91.18) radars provided reliable data to use as observations during this coast phase. Velocity changes imparted to the vehicle as a result of venting were included in the guidance data used as the generating parameters. Table 7-V shows a comparison between the actual and nomihal S-IVB/CSM separation parameters.

42

Math Number

Dynamic Pressure (N/cm') _Actual

m -_

Nomina ]L

3.5 IECO OECO

11
6 3.0 \ Dynamic 5 2.5 P [ [

I
4 2.0 I

I
3 1.5 I

I
2 1.0 [

I
I 0.5 ach Number I

I
I
I I00 120 140 160

0 0 20

I 40

I 60 Range

I 80 Time

(see) AND DYNAMIC PRESSURE

FIGURE 7-4

MACH _ER

43

TABL_ SIGNI FICANT

7-1V E_VENTS

Event

parameter

Actual

_omina[

gLt-Nom

First

Motion

Ra_r&e Toeal

Time

(set) Accelera[ion (mjs 2)

0.1l II.75 63.5 2.86 26.0 (N/cm 2) 2.q5 [1.26 I&1.56 40.O5 l&7.2& 1930.25 252.1 107.22 (m/s) 233.29 1637.1 383.0 32.9 &&3.O Aeee[eration from pad (deg) (m/s 2) -&0.7 2.2_ 533.1 &bh.]? (deE) 6.0 27.3078 76.0323

0. ll [1.7_ 6&.7 7.93 28. l 3.00 [2.45 140.67 &0.0| [&6.87 1923.80 252.3 [08.37 232.05 1623.8 383.0 34.2 &Ig.2 -41.8 2.&6 hi&.2 &6].78 4.S 27.3225 76.0&68

0.00 -0.04 -1.2 -0.07 -2.| -8.05 -1.!9 8.89 0.0& D.37 6.&5 -0.2 -_.15 _.?& 13.3 0.0 -I.3 3.8 l.l -0.2] 18.9 1.39 i.. -0.0|&7 -0.0095

Inertial Time (set) (km) (set) (km) (set)

Hath

Range

Altitude Maximum Dynamic Pressure Range Dynamic A1tit,)de Maximum Total Inertial (S-IB Stage) Velocity Range Time Time

Press.re

Acceleration Maximum (S-IB Apex

Acceleration Range Time

(m/s _) (se_) (m/s) (set) (km)

Earth-Fixed Stage) (S-IB Stage)

Velocity Range Time

A[titlzde

Surface Range (km) Fmrth-Fixed Velocity Loss o{ Telemetry (S-IR Stage) Range Time (s_c) A1tituJe (km.) Surface Total Elevation Impact (S-Ig Stage) Ranse Surfac_ Time Range Angle (see) (km) (km) E._rth-Fixed

Range

Cross Range (km) Geodetic Latitude Longitude (deg)

Maximum Total Acceleration Maximum Veloclty Apex

Inertial (S-IVB Stage)

Range Time Acceleration

(set) 2 (m/s)

602.g6 26.7L 603.16 6540.06 1084.& &g2.SL 4672.89 (_/s) 6226.1 1706.O LO7.6 (m/s 2) 8215.9 -8.6 -36.31 1916.6 8661.30 320.2 (deg) -9.6621 [0.0783

592.B[ 26.76 59301 6540.00 1073.7 _90.2[ &440.92 6226.2 [706.0 89.6 8256.3 -S.R -36.62 1976.9 857_.49 316.2 -9.2451 lO.bg&9

10.[5 -0.C2 lO.lq 0.Oh [0.7 2.10 ]].97 -0.1 0.0 18.0 -40.& 0.2 0.31 -&0o3 8_.81 4.0 -O.&170 -0.6[66

Earth-Fixed (S-19B Stage) Stage)

Range Time (set) Velocity (m/s) Range A_t[t.de Surface Earth-Fixed Time (set) (_m) Range (k m) Velocity (s_c) (_u)

(S-IVB

Loss

of

Telemetry

(S-IVB

Stage)

Range Al_i_ude

Time

Surface Range (km) Tot_[ Earth-Fixed Acceleration ]evation Impart (S-_rB Stage) Angle from Pad (deg)

gan_e Time (set) Surface Range (km) Cross Range (_) Geodetic Longitude Lititude (deE)

7e_

EK) 0

45

_JO 0

15

00

//-----S-IB

Apex

252.1"

_ / _,/--s-_ _op.ct I 533.1. /_ -_..--- _ /-_o_.o. )_

J---I

C I

"-_c'---,o. ,_0

15"

? S

60

46

30 Longitude

IS

15

Range

Time

(sec)

FIGURE

7-5

S-IB AND S-IVB STAGE

GROUND

TRACK

45

TABLE S-IVB/CSM Event Range Time Space-Fixed Altitude Surface (sec) Velocity (m/s)

7-V PARAMETERS Nominal 834.4 6720.3 434.0 ]049.5 98.5 280.6 4.13 Act-Nom 10.5 0.8 1.4 31.9 2.6 3.5 0.01

SEPARATION Actual 844.9 6721.1 435.4

(Pan) Range (km)

3081.4 I01.i (m/s) 284.1 4.14

Cross Range

(Pan)

Cross Range Velocity Flight Path Angle

(deg)

46

8.0 8. I SD]_4ARY

(U)

S-IB

PROPULSION

The S-IB propulsion flight.

system

performed

satisfactorily

throughout

On the basis of flight simulation;stage propellant flowrate were 0.06% lower, 0.28% than predicted respectively.

thrust, specific impulse, higher, and "0.34% lower

and

Inboard Engine Cutoff (IECO) occurred 0.89 sec later than predicted. Outboard Engine Cutoff (OECO) was initiated 5.48 sec after IECO (0.37 sec later than predicted) by the premature activation of the fuel depletion sensor in the sump of fuel tank F4. Thrust buildup was satisfactory, although slightly slower than expected buildup. engine 5 experienced a

The fuel and LOX pressurization systems operated The new helium blo_;down system was used for the first pressurization system. Propellant predicted. utilization was satisfactory

satisfactorily. time in the fuel

and was within

0.27%

of

All mechanical The two movie successfully after 8.2 S-IB PROPULSION

systems

functioned

satisfactorily.

cameras at the top of the S-IB stage _ere ejected recording S-IB/S-IVB separation. PERFORMANCE

Two separate analyses were employed in reconstructing the S-IB engine performance. The first method, engine analysis, used the telemetered engine data to compute performance parameters. The second method utilized a trajectory simulation to generate multipliers that were enforced on the results of engine analysis so that the calculated trajectory fit the observed trajectory. 8.2.1 STAGE ENGINE PERFORMANCE

All eight H-I engines ignited satisfactorily. The automatic ignition sequence, which schedules the engines to start in pairs with a lO0 ms delay between each pair, began with ignition command at -3.038 sec range time. The recorded individual engine ignition signals are shown in the top portion of Table 8-1. The bottom portion of Table 8-1 presents thrust chamber ignition, main propellant ignition (Pc prime),

47 TABLE ENGINE START 8-I

CHARACTERISTICS

Engine Position

Time from Ignition Command to Engine Ignition Signal (ms) Actual Programmed i0 II0 210 310

5 and 7 6 and 8 2 and 4 I and 3

14 114 214 314

Time

from Engine

Ignition

Signal

(ms)

Engine Position 5 7 6 8 2 4 I 3

Thrust Chamber Ignition 579 565 564 556 554 564 539 564

I Main Prop. _Ign.(Pc Prim_) 986 894 930 942 944 934 955 939

TOPS* (Two Switches) 1348 1089 1182 1238 1218 1144 1231 1170 1374 1089 1183 1251 1198 1148 1242 1171

*Thrust

OK Pressure

Switches

48

and Thrust OK Pressure Switch (TOPS) pickup times, referenced to the individual engine ignition signal. These times indirate a satisfactory transition to mainstage on each engine, although engine 5 experienced a slightly slower buildup than the other seven engines. The late Pc prime time (986 ms) on Engine 5 could have resulted from a low thrust chamber jacket pre-fi11. However, the late TOPS pickup times (1348 and 1374 ms) cannot be attributed to a low jacket pre-fill, since pickup appeared to occur at the proper chamber pressure. This indi_tes that the delay was not due to high TOPS switch settings. Possible causes of the slower buildup to TOPS pickup include low turbine spinner power and extended main fuel valve opening time. The slightly slower buildup on engine 5 produced no adverse stage effects, and 90% thrust was reached within the model specification limits of 1.5 sec after ignition signal. Individual engine thrust buildup and stage thrust buildup are presented in Figure 8-1. The stage thrust shown is the sum of the individual engine thrusts and does not account for engine cant angles. S-IB stage performance throughout flight was satisfactory. Figure 8-2 shows stage longitudinal thrust and specific impulse determined from analysis of engine measurements. Stage longitudinal thrust averaged 88,520 N (19,900 Ibf) or 1.15% lower than predicted. The stage specific impulse was 1.90 sec or 0.68% lower than predicted. S-IB stage propellant flow characteristics are shown in Figure 8-3. Stage mixture ratio was 0.0252 (1.12%) lower than predicted. The predicted mixture ratio was 2.2275 to I. Total propellant flowrate was 14.1 kg/s (31.0 ibm/s) or 0.50% lower than predicted. The quoted performance parameters and referenced figures are not adjusted to sea level conditions. If the parameters in the preceding paragraph are adjusted to sea level pressure, the following values result. Stage longitudinal thrust averaged 85,072 N (19,125 ibf) or 1.20% lower than predicted. Stage specific impulse was 1.80 sec or 0.69% lower than predicted. Total propellant flowrate was 14.1 kg/s (31.0 Ibm/s) or 0.50% lower than predicted. The thrust deviation resulted primarily from the combined effects of a greater than predicted fuel density and lower than predicted LOX density. Fuel density was 5.13 kg/m 3 (0.32 ibm/ft 3) or 0.63% greater and LOX pump inlet density was 3.2 kg/m 3 (0.2 ibm/ft 3) or 0.29% less than predicted. The LOX pump inlet density is shown in the lower portion of Figure 8-3. Generally speaking, increasing the fuel density decreases thrust_ specific impulse, LOX flowrate, and mixture ratio but increases fuel flowrate. Lowering the LOX density will decrease each of the above parameters.

49

Thrust 1000

(1000

N)

Thrust

(1000

tbf)

200

400 80

_/
-2.5 -2.4 -2.3

_--2.2

_-I
-2.1

-2.0 Range Time

4
-1.9 (sec) -1.8 -I.7 -1.6 -1.5

Thrust 7000

(1000

N)

Thrust

(1OO0

Ibf)

1600

/ sooo /

5000 bOO0

1200

3000 800 600

400 2000 jr"""--"

I000

200

0 -2.5 -2.4 -2.3 -2.2 -2.1 Range FIGURE 8-1 S-IB INDIVIDUAL -2.0 Time -I.9 (sec) AND STAGE THRUST BUILDUP -1.8 -1.7 -I.6 -1.5

ENGINE

5O
_-ActuaI _m_predicted

Thr.st qO00

([000

N)

Thrust

(1000

[bf) 2000

8000

.....

_--

1800

7000

1400 6000

1200 5000

I000

4000 800

3000 0 20 40 60 Range 80 Time (sec) 100 120 140 160

Specific 300

Impulse

(sec)

290

J / fy

280

_//_

/ J

270

J t

250 0 20 40 60 Range FIGURE 8-2 S-IB STAGE 80 Time (sec) THRUST AND SPECIFIC IMPULSE 100 120 140 160

LONGITUDINAL

--Actua] --_ Mixture 2.& Ratio

51
predicted

3.3

"--t
2.1 0 20 &O 60 Range 80 Time (set) I00 120 I&O [60

Total 3000

Flowrate

(kg/s)

Total

F[owrate

(Ibm/s)

6000 2600

5000 2200

1800

&O00

1400

"-_

3000

1000 0 20 40 60 Range 80 Time 100 (set) 120 140 160

LOX Density 1130

(kg/m

3)

LOX Density

(lbm/ft

3)

""-._

70.2

1120 _ "_'% 69.8

ILLO

69.0

1100 O 20 40 60 Range FIGURE 8-3 S-IB STAGE 80 Time (sec) FIOW CHARACTERISTICS 100 120 140 160

PROPELLANT

52

The vehicle longitudinal sea level specific impulse, vehicle longitudinal sea level thrust, and total weight loss rate were derived from the telemetered propulsion system measurements in a simulation of the tracked trajectory. The simulation of the tracked trajectory was accomplished through the use of a six-degree-of-freedom trajectory calculation program, incorporating a differential correction procedure. This program determined corrections to the level of the vehicle longitudinal sea level thrust, total weight loss rate, and vehicle drag correction that would yield the best fit to the velocity and acceleration from the observed trajectory. The liftoff weight derived from telemetered propulsion evaluation was considered known. Many conbinations of thrust and flow rates will satisfy the tracked trajectory within its accuracy limitations, if the liftoff weight is allowed to vary. A percentage variation in the liftoff weight will alter the sea level thrust and flowrate by approximately the same percentage. This percentage variation will be in the same direction in each of these parameters so that the resulting specific impulse will be essentially unaffected. The necessary from the solid line in Figure 8-4 shows the total longitudinal force to match the observed trajectory (assuming the mass history flight simulation analysis is correct). This represents the

sum of all forces acting on the vehicle along the longitudinal axis, which includes engine thrust, turbine exhaust, drag, etc. The dashed line in this figure is the predicted total longitudinal force and the dot dashed line is the total longitudinal force derived by using engine analysis thrust and mass histories. Table 8-11 presents a summary of the average values and deviations of liftoff weight, sea level thrust, flowrate, sea level specific impulse, and vehicle weight near inboard engine cutoff signal from the flight simulation method, compared _ith the postflight engine analysis and predicted values. The axial force coefficient resulting from this solution along with the predicted axial force coefficient for AS-201 is presented in Section 19.0. The S-IB stage received inboard engine cutoff signal 0.89 sec later than predicted. The cutoff velocity was 17.47 m/s higher than the predicted. The flight simulation results were used in an attempt to explain the time and velocity deviations. To explain the velocity deviation, an error analysis was made to determine the contributing parameters and the magnitude of the velocity deviation caused by each of these parameters. Table 8-111 lists the various error contributors and the cutoff velocity deviations associated with each.

Total

Longltudlnel Flight

Effective Simulation

Force

(I04N)

790 800

_ .-......

Engine Analysis Pred i cted

/_

.... _ _

r////_ / / 780 /

'

770 760 //

if///// /

740

, '
........

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

,L.'" I /
....

730

,k-................. _'-./- ............ _

7,o ,--:2_
71oI/,',_/// 700
.i 690 0 20 40 60 Range Time FIGURE 8-4 TYPICAL 80 (see) THRUST !00 120 140

_, f - _./. ..W
_"

-i

LONGITUDINAL

TABLE 8-11 AVERAGE S-IB STAGE PROPULSION PARAMETERS

Parameter

Predicted

Engine Analysis

Percentage Deviation From Predicted

Flight Simulation

Percentage Deviation Predicted

From

Liftoff Weight

(kg) (ibm) (N) ([bf)

591,539.0 1,304,118.0 7,181,780.0 1,614,529.0

592,676.0 1,306,626.0 7,096,708.0 1,595,404.0

O.lq

592,676.0 1,306,626.0 7,177,470.0 1,613,560.0

0.19

Sea Level Thrust

-1.20

-0.06

Flow Rate

(kg/s) (Ibm/s)

2800.94 6175.00

2786.87 6144.00

-0.50

2791.40 6153.98

-0.34

Sea Level Specific

Impulse (sec)

261.46

259.66

-0,69

262.20

0.28

Weight

At

140 sec.

Flight

Time (kg) (_bm)

199,175.0 439,105.0

201,902.0 445,118.0

1.37

201,367.0 443.939.0 w,

I.I0

55

TABLE

8-111

VELOCITY

DEVIATION

ANALYSIS Dev. Fm. Pred.

Error

Contributors

_ V

(m/s) -9.8 -1.6

Liftoff Weight - 0.19% Total Thrust - 0.06% Total Axial Propellant Flow Rate Force Coefficient Errors - 0.34%

-8.3 0.0 2.5 -1.O 35.6 17.4 17.5

Meteorological Data Predicted Trajectory Change in Burn Time Total Contribution Observed Difference Since inboard the only quantities

(observed-total engine which

contribution)

+0.I

cutoff signal was given by a LOX level switch, affected cutoff times are those which alter

the level of LOX in the tanks. Table 8-1V lists the parameters which contributed to the deviation between the predicted and actual cutoff time and the "At" contributions made by each. the initial LOX load would have to be increased the mixture ratio would have to be decreased by TABLE 8-1V TIME DEVIATION To explain At "difference", by 344.7 kg (760 Ibm) or 0.36 percent.

ANALYSIS Dev. Fm. Pred.

Error

Contributors

_t

(sec) -0.13 1.00 -0.16 0.71 0.89

Initial LOX Load LOX Flowrate Tank 02 Low LOX Level Total Contirbution Observed Difference (observed-total contribution)

0.18

The cutoff sequence on the S-IB stage began at 139.76 sec with the actuation of LOX level cutoff probe in LOX tank 02. Inboard engine cutoff was initiated, as programmed, 1.7 sec later by the Launch Vehicle Digital Computer (LVDC) at 141.46 seconds. IECO occurred 0.89 sec later than predicted. The longer than predicted burn time to IECO resulted principally from the lower than predicted LOX flowrate. Thrust decay on each inboard engine was normal. The inboard was 1,166,355 N-s (262,207 ibf-s). Inboard and thrust decay is shown in Figure 8-5. engine cutoff impulse outboard engine total

56

Thrust 5O00

(IO00

N)

Thrust

{1000

lbf)

[OOO

4000 3000

_-Inboard

Cutoff

Signal,

141.46

sec

800

600

2000

Cutoff

Imputse

= 1,166,355

N-S &O0 200

i000

O 141.5

141.?

141.g

142.1

142.3 142,5 [42.7 Range Time (see)

142.9

[43.1

143.3

0 143.5

Thrust 5000

(I000

N)

Thrust

(I000

lhf)

[000 Outboard 4000 i 8O0 Cutoff Signal, I&6.94 sec

3000

"' 600 ff Impulse = 1,067,742 N-s

2000

4O0

I000

200

o 146.9

147.I

I&7.3

147.5

i47.7 147,9 148.1 Range Time (sec) INBOARD AM]) OUTBOARD ENGINE

IA8.3

148.5

_ 8.7

148.9

FIGURE

8-5

THRUST

DECAy

57

of

Outboard engine the fuel depletion

cutoff was initiated at 146.94 sensor located in the sump of

sec by actuation fuel tank F4. How-

ever, it was expected by TOPS de-actuation differential between

that outboard engine cutoff would be initiated when IX)X starvation occurred. The expected time IECO and OECO was 6.0 seconds. The actual time

differential was 5.48 seconds. Analysis indicates, however, that if there had not been a fuel depletion cutoff, LOX starvation cutoff would have occurred as expected, approximately 6.0 sec after IECO. A detailed discussion of the conditions leading to the fuel depletion probe cutoff is contained in Para. 8.3. The unexpected fuel depletion cutoff produced no adverse effects, and thrust decay was satisfactory on each of the outboard engines. Cutoff impulse for the outboard engines was 1,067,742 8.2.2 N-s (240,038 ENGINE ibf-s). CHARACTERISTICS

INDIVIDUAL

was The

The S-IB stage was powered by eight Rocketdyne H-I engines, and the first flight stage to be equipped with the uprated H-I engines. uprated H-I engine is a modified version of the H-I engine used on

the S-I stage of the Saturn I Block II vehicles. The uprated H-I engine has a rated thrust of 889,644 N (200,000 ibf) and a rated mixture ratio of 2.23 to I at sea level conditions. The Saturn I Block II, S-I stage H-I engine had a rated thrust of 836,266 N (188,000 ibf). The major modification made to the original model of the H-I engine, to arrive at the uprated model, are listed in Table 8-V. A schematic of the uprated H-I engine is shown in Figure 8-6. All eight engines functioned properly throughout the entire flight, and all measured engine parameters were within satisfactory limits. During countdown the measurement for bearing 1 on engine 3 intermittently indicated temperatures below the 255.4K redline value. However, the measurement readings were erratic and were judged to be erroneous. The measurement appeared to function properly during flight and the temperature prior to ignition was 316.0K, which is within the expected range. The performance of all eight engines was satisfactory. Thrust levels

for all engines from lower than predicted

analysis with an

of telemetered average decrease

engine measurements were per engine of 11,187 N

(2513 Ibf) excluding sea level adjustments. The average variations from predicted thrust for engines i through 8 were -10,854 N (-2,440 ibf), -6,005 N (-1,350 Ibf), -21,218 N (-4,770 ibf), -13,834 N (-3,110 ibf), -17,259 N (-3,880 Ibf), -6,583 N (-1,480 ibf), -979 N (-220 Ibf) and -12,766 N (-2870 Ibf) respectively (Figure 8-7). The greatest deviations for all engines occurred during the portion of flight from first motion to 40 seconds. There were lower deviations during the remainder of first stage flight because the LOX pump inlet density deviations during the later portion of flight were less (Figure 8-3). Average thrust

58

TABLE 8-V MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL MODELS OF THE H-I ENGINE AND UPRATED

i.

Thrust Chamber (T/C) tant, furnace brazed

- Nickel tube T/C replaced by corrosive 347 stainless steeel for longer life. with type 6002

resis-

2.

In_ector - Type I081C injector replaced which had lower LOX and fuel delta P. Main a. b. c. d. LOX Valve Changed material closing gate to Tens-50

injector,

3.

for greater

strength.

Increased Enlarged

force by enlarging for higher

piston.

shaft

strength. used on the uprated for greater model. strength.

Shot-peened Fuel Valve

shaft and new bearings - Changed material

4. 5.

Main Hark a. b. c. d. e.

to Tens-50

3H Improved KEL-F inducer

Turbopump tunnel bearing

on the Uprated wear

Model ring.

incorporated:

and impeller 2 carrier

Strengthened Improved Wider

to reduce

axial

deflection. life.

bearings

2, 3, 4 and 7 for increased face loading. line. on the Uprated line.

"D" gear LOX

to reduce seal drain

Additional

6.

Other a. b. c.

Improvements orifice

Incorporated LOX

Model

Double

bootstrap

Dual TOPS

switches used for the gas generator LOX injector was changed to hard anodized aluminum. from below turbopump duct. to end of main purge check

The material valve poppet

d. e.

Conax valve moved Redesigned LOX

fuel valve.

high pressure

60

Average Deviation

from Predicted

Thrust

(%)

2 I

-2 -3

4 5 Engine Number

Average 2

Deviation

from Predicted

Specific

Impulse (%)

-2

4 5 Engine Number

FIGURE 8-7

PERFOI_MANCE DEVIATION OF INDIVIDUAL ENGINE PARAMETERS (TEL_IETERED MEASUREMENT ANALYSIS)

(SglB)

61

levels for each engine were pellant density combination

lower than predicted, because of the proexperienced during flight (see Para. 8.2.1).

Reconstructed specific impulses for engines I through 8 show deviations from predicted of 1.89, 1.81, 2.04, 1.88, 1.95, 1.81, 1.50, and 1.87 sec, respectively (Figure 8-7). These deviations represent an average decrease of 0.66% from predicted, based upon telemetered engine measurements. These deviations are not adjusted to sea level conditions. 8.3 S-IB PROPELLANT UTILIZATION

Propellant usage is the ratio of propellant consumed to propellant loaded, and is an indication of the propulsion system performance and the capability of the propellant loading system to load correct propellant weights. Propellant usage for the S-IB stage was satisfactory and was within 0.27% of the predicted value. However, a LOX depletion cutoff was expected. The predicted and actual (reconstructed) percentage of loaded propellant used during flight are shown below. TABLE 8-Vl PROPELLANT (%) UTILIZATION Flight 98.97 98.41 99.23 (%)

Predicted Total Fuel LOX

99.24 98.63 99.52

The propellant loading criteria for S-IB called for simultaneous depletion of usable propellants with a fixed mainstage total propellant consumption. The ratio, of LOX to fuel weights loaded, was dependent upon the fuel density at ignition command. A LOX starvation cutoff of outb_rd engines was planned prior to flight. The LOX and fuel level cutoff probe heights and flight sequence settings were determined to yield a 1.70 sec time interval between any cutoff probe actuation and Inboard Engine Cutoff (IECO). A 6.0 sec time interval between IECO and Outboard Engine Cutoff (OECO) was planned. It was planned that OECO be initiated by deactivation of the thrust OK pressure switch on any outboard engine when LOX starvation occurred. It was assumed that approximately 0.283 m3 (75 gallons) of LOX from the outboard suction lines was usable. In addition, it was assumed that a liquid level height differential of approximately 7.62 cm (3.0 in) existed at IECO between the center LOX tank and the outboard LOX tanks. The use of the backup timer (flight sequencer) to initiate OECO was not intended, therefore the timer was set to initiate OECO 11.7 sec after IECO. To prevent engine fuel starvation, fuel depletion cutoff probes were located in the F2 and F4 container sumps.

62

The cutoff sequence on the S-IB stage commenced with a signal from the LOX level cutoff probe in container 02 at 139.76 seconds. The IECO signal was received 1.70 sec later at 141.46 seconds. OECO was initiated 5.48 sec after IECO, at 146.94 sec, by a signal from the fuel depletion probe in fuel tank F4.

The left hand portion of Figure 8-8 shows a typical cutaway drawing of the fuel tank bottom internal geometry. The fuel level is shown at the time signals were received indicating that the fuel depletion probes were uncovered. The fuel level measurements were commutated through a Remote Digital Submultiplexer (RDSM) which takes samples every 83 ms. Fuel levels, as a function of flight time, are shown in the right hand portion of Figure 8-8. The S-I stage fuel levels experienced on Saturn I Block II flights were lower than the fuel level on S-IB at the time the S-IB sensor uncovered. No fuel depletion sensor actuations were noted during powered flight of any Saturn I Block II flights. There is no evidence to support the conclusion that the fuel depletion probes malfunctioned, since signals were received from probes in two fuel tanks and only during the last two sec of flight. It is believed that the fuel probes were uncovered for brief intervals and that the uncovering may be related to fuel tank terminal draining characteristics associated with the lower acceleration profile and higher flowrate on S-IB stages. A fuel bias of 453.6 kg (I000 Ibm) was specified for the S-IB stage flight. The purpose of this bias was _o minimize the total propellant residuals associated with possible variations in the actual stage mixture ratio. If the specified propellant weight had been loaded and the performance had been as predicted, the 453.6 kg (I000 ibm) fuel bias would have existed above th_ fuel depletion probes at the time of thrust OK pressure switch dropouts. Since OECO was initiated by a signal from a fuel depletion probe, it would appear that the fuel bias was totally consumed. _owever, based upon continuous level probe data, the fuel level was approximately 17.8 cm (7 in) above theoretical tank bottom at OECO. The LOX levels indicate that approximately 0.6 sec of additional burn time remained before deactivation of the LOX TOPS would occur. Based upon these levels, and assuming that the fuel depletion probes had not indicated dry, OECO would have been initiated by LOX starvation as planned, and 45.4 kg (I00 Ibm) of fuel in excess of the bias would have remained. This compares very well with predicted. The propel_nt remaining above the main valves, after outboard engine thrust decay, were 2,209 kg (4,870 ibm) of LOX and 2,063 kg (4,548 Ibm) of fuel. The predicted values were 1,385 kg (3,053 ibm) LOX and 1,750 kg (3,859 ibm) fuel. Future S-IB flights will include the following changes to prevent the recurrence of a fuel depletion cutoff. An extra 362.9 kg (800 ibm) of fuel will be loaded, in addition to the 453.6 kg (i,000 ibm) fuel bias. Grouping of the TOPS will be independent of arming the fuel

-- I02.9 cm (40.5 in)

Height (cm) ItO

Height (in)

CONTINUOUS LEVEL PROBE-....--=-_ 40

-_ (30.0 in)

,oo \\\
'
80 _ _2 28

80.0

cm

SENSOR

(20.0 in)

DISCRETE

.0 in)

'
(145.35 sec RT) VORTEX RAFFLE AND SCREEN _ O.(Jcm jr (0.0 Ln) 20

36.8 cm (I&.L in)

__=__ L_EVEL AT0_co

(146.94 sec RT) 17 8 cm |

r t' I

I (7:0 _.) _..... v ,_'5_ I ) _-_,_'_11

-13.2 cm in) ('512

"-. ___ 8OTTO_ _-_" _ _ .... THEORETICAL T^_

FINAL FU_L LEVEL AFTER OECO

(9. 76i.) i
I -28,1 cm -(II.ObE in)

_o
30

16
First Dry Indication i Fuel Depletion Sensor FZ 12

--

INTERCHANGE

DEPLETION SENSORS

FILL & DRAIN

20

10

O 136

11 I_8 140 142 RanRe T_e 144 (sec) 146 148 150

FUEl, TANK BOTTOM

DEED (TypicaO/ AVENAG_ I_UL L_'VEL A_OVE TliF,ORLOTICAL AbFL [_rroM T

Lo

I_ICURE8-8

S-IB l 'UEL TANK BOTTOM AND LEVELS

64

depletion sensors. The catoff probes will be raised by approximately 3.81 cm (1.5 in) in the propellant tanks. The telemetry sampling rates of the cutoff probes will be increased from 12 to 120 samples per second. Propellant usage was analyzed from signals received from three types of probes located in the nine propellant containers. The first type is a system of 15 discrete level probes which was located in each container. An electrical signal was initiated by each probe as it was uncovered by the liquid level. level cutoff containers F2 from container probes, and F4. bottoms

The second type of probes was propellant located in LOX containers 02 and 04 and fuel IECO probe signal listed below. times and setting heights

The are

TABLE

8-VII

CUTOFF

PROBE

ACTIVATION

Container (cm) 02 04 F2 F4
]_

Heisht (inches) 27.45 27.45 31.50 31.50

Activation (sec) 139.76 140.01 140.15 140.40

Time

69.7 69.7 80.0 80.0 type five of probes was LOX containers

The third located in the

continuous level probes. and in fuel containers

F2

These were and F4.

These probes were to 131.3 cm (51.7 of the continuous Tank F1 contained 8.4 8.4.1 S-IB

used to determine liquid level from 28.4 cm (11.2 in) in) above theoretical tank bottom. Telemetered data level probe in fuel container F3 was not valid. Fuel no continuous probe because of an earlier tank exchange. SYSTEMS SYSTEM system operated satisfactorily during the fuel pressurization system is

PRESSURIZATION PRESSURIZATION

FUEL

The fuel tank pressurization the entire flight. A schematic shown in Figure 8-9. This was the first system is simpler, flight lighter

of

This

to use the new helium blowdown system. and more reliable than the Saturn I Helium gas is stored in 2,068 N/cm 2 (3,000 psi). sonic nozzle, control

demand-type nitrogen system which it replaces. two 0.566 m 3 (20 ft 3) spheres at approximately Two parallel solenoid valves, in series with a

oKs.,.o,__ ..,,_
I
CONTROLALVE V NO.2 I _SPHERE /--

c._c.v.LvE_ _-.,L...
I-,,o, PRESSURE _----_____,_,_LL
FUELPRESSURIZATION

-_ ORIFICE --_

_,/CONTROL

VALVE NO.l

FIGURE

8-9

FUEL

SYSTEM

PRESSURIZARION

SCHEMATIC

66

the flow of helium into the pressurizing manifold. A pressure switch, with an operating range of 20.3 N/cm 2 (29.4 psi) to 22.5 N/cm 2 (32.6 psi), controls tank pressure during prepressurization and during the 3 sec ground hold period from engine ignition to liftoff. At liftoff, electrical power is disconnected from the pressure switch and from the Normally Open (NO) solenoid valves. The system thus becomes a straight blowdown system with pressurant flow controlled by the sonic nozzle and the sphere pressure. Pressurant flowrate decreases with sure decays. Consequently pressurant flowrate tank ullage conditions or properties. This method provides which satisfies both a continuously fuel pump NPSP time as the sphere is unaffected by presfuel

one

decreasing requirements

ullage and

pressure, fuel tank

but

structural requirements. In order to remain above these requirements at all times, a minimum system design pressure of 6.9 N/cm 2 gauge (I0 psig) was chosen. This requirement can be met because the ambient pressure decreases with increasing vehicle altitude. The 6.9 N/cm 2 gauge (I0 psig) minimum tank pressure requirement and the 14.1N/cm 2 gauge (20.5 psig) vent valve relief setting define the envelope in which the fuel ulla_e pressure is designed to remain. The upper portion of Figure 8-10 shows that the fuel ullage pressure remained well within these limits. The upper portion of Figure 8-10 compares the measured ullage absolute pressures with predicted. There was good agreement between actual and predicted values during the first 70 sec of flight. Refinement of the predicted value during the latter portion of flight is required on future vehicles. No valid pressure data for the latter portion of S-IB burn can be obtained from static tests for purposes of comparison. Comparisons are invalid after p[essurization introduced during static tests. from the ground facility is

The terminal sphere gas temperature was higher than predicted, which would have the effect of raising the tank ullage pressure. Revision of the aerodynamic heating and heat transfer to the ullage gas will probably account for these differences. A time history of the pressure and temperature of the helium in the fuel tank pressurization spheres is shown in the lower portion of Figure 8-10. Fuel pressurization system operation throughout flight indicated sure transients. The solenoid valves properly. The new fuel pressurization system that there were no abnormal and pressure switch operated pres-

injects

helium

into

the

pressuriz-

ing manifold through a single point. Because the manifold lines to each fuel tank are not the same length, the fuel levels in each fuel tank became somewhat displaced from each other at actuation of the discrete probes. The displacement is greatest at actuation of the first probe, but decreases with each subsequent probe actuation. A common fuel level is approached _ear the end of S-IB powered flight. The maximum

67

Ullage 24

Pressure

(R/cm 2)

Ullage

Pressure

(psi)

20

-Absolute

Pressure

Actual Predicted

30 25

12

__

10 Pressure

4 5

O 0 Helium Temperature Helium 290' 20 (E) (N/cm 2) Helium Pressure 40 60 80 Range Time I00 (set) 120 140 160

Pressure

(psi) 3200

280 .

270

'

2800

260

Pressure

24OO

250

2000

240

1600

230 220 210

_k_

_ _

Temperature

1200

Pressu_ 200

800

_00 I90 0 20 40 60 Range FIGURE 8-10 80 Time I00 (sec) AND HELIUM SPHERE CHARACTERISTICS 120 140 160

FUEL TANK ULLAGE PRESSURE

68

difference in S-IB fuel tank levels at OECO which was well within acceptable limits. 8.4.2 LOX PRESSURIZATION SYSTEM

was 1.5 cm (0.6 in),

The LOX tank pressurization system performed satisfactorily throughout flight. The S-IB LOX tank pressurization system is basically the same as that on S-I-IO except for the heat exchanger orifice size and the full closed stop settings of the GOX Flow Control Valve (GFCV). The orifice diameter size was increased from 0.259 cm (0.102 in) to 0.264 cm (0.104 in). The effective flow area of the GFCV in the full closed position was increased from 12.3 cm 2 (1.9 in 2) to 13.5 cm 2 (2.1 in2). Pressurization of the LOX tanks provides increased structural rigidity of the stage and adequate LOX pump inlet pressures. Prelaunch prepressurization is effected with helium from a ground source. From vehicle ignition command to liftoff, an increased helium flow is used to maintain adequate LOX tank pressure during engine start. The prepressurization level is controlled by a pressure switch and solenoid valve. The ambient setting of the switch is 41.4 + 1.0 N/cm 2 (60 + 1.5 psi) for actuation and 38.3 N/cm 2 (55.5 psi) minimum for deac_uation. The prepressurization level satisfies the requirement of a minimum pressure of 55.2 N/cm 2 (80 psi) at the LOX pump inlet for engine start. The minimum pressure of 34.5 + 1.7 N/cm 2 (50 _ 2.5 psi) will occur at OECO, excluding the pressure d_p during start. LOX tank pressure during flight is compared with the LOX tank pressure during S-IB long duration static test (SA-26) in the upper portion of Figure 8-11. The LOX tank pressure during flight was lower than static test for the first 50 sec of flight and almost coincided with static test pressure thereafter. The lower pressure during the early period of flight was caused primarily by the smaller initial flight ullage pressure. The long countdown holds with LOX onboard also contributed to lowering the LOX tank pressure, due to greater chilling of the GOX standpipe inner lining. The telemetered LOX tank pressure during SA-26 static test was, on the average, 0.83 N/cm 2 (1.2 psi) lower than a similar hardwire measurement. The hardwire measurement was considered to be correct after the static test data was analyzed. Since the discrepancy could not be corrected prior to flight it may be assumed that the telemetered LOX tank pressure during flight was, on the average, lower than the actual pressure by 0.83 N/cm 2 (1.2 psi).

69
-Actual ----Static

Test

Center aO

LOR Pressure

(N/cm 2)

Center

LOX Pressure

(pal)

35

50

30 40 25 -20 0 20 40 bO Range Time 80 (sec) 100 [20 140 160

GFCV Percent 120

Open

I00

8O

6O

4o
zo
0 -20

I I | I |
O 20 40 60 Range 80 (sec) I00 120

-I
140 160

Time

CFCV Upstream 550

Temperature

(OK)

50o

450

400

35O -20 0 20 40 60 Range Time 80 (sec) SYST_4 100 I20 140 160

FIGURE

811

LOX PRESSURIZATION

CHARACTERISTICS

70

The maximum indicated LOX tank pressure after start was 37.2 N/cm 2 (54 psi) at 42 seconds. LOX tank pressure decayed to 33.4 N/cm 2 (48.5 psi) at OECO. The outboard LOX tank pressures were approximately 0.5 N/cm 2 (0.7 psi) lower than the center tank pressure between i0 and 140 seconds. The GFCV started to close at ignition and reached its full closed position at 24 seconds. The GOX Flow Control Valve (GFCV) position is shown in the middle portion of Figure 8-11. The figure shows the GFCV curve raised by 2% at the full open and full closed position. This offset was due to the calibration procedure. The GFCV remained in the full closed position for the remainder of S-IB powered flight. During $A-26 static test, the GFCV started to leave the full closed position at I01 sec, when the LOX tank pressure was 35.5 N/cra (51.5 psi). 2 During flight, the GFCV remained closed even though the indicated LOX tank pressure dropped as low as 33.4 N/cm 2 (48.5 psi). Considering the static test measurement bias, the GFCV should have left the full closed position at 130 sec and should have been about 4% open at IRCO. The data after OECO indicates that the GFL_/ opened at 159 seconds. It is highly unlikely that the GFCV froze in the full closed position for part of the flight, since it was capable of opening at 159 seconds. It has been demonstrated that the large area of the GFCV power bellows produces operating forces sufficient to operate its gate with badly damaged bearings. No evidence is available showing definitely that the GFLW malfunctioned, since the applicable specification requires only that the GFCV be fully closed at a pressure of 36.2 N/cm 2 (52.5 psi) and fully open at a pressure of 32,8 N/cm 2 (47.5 psi). There is, however, some indication that the GFCV set point shifted. Pressure upstream of the GFCI/ and differential pressure across the GFCV were as expected and indicated a GOX flowrate for most of the flight of approximately 8.53 kg/s (18.8 ibm/s). Temperature upstream of the GFCV (lower portion of Figure 8-11) was as much as 33.3K colder than on the $A-26 static test, which was a greater difference than expected. Differences of as much as 16.7 to 22.2K have been noted on previous flights. The GF6W temperature measurement remained close to the upper range limit of 488.7K during most of the flight.

--

....

71

8.4.3

CONTROL

PRESSURIZATION

SYSTEM pressure system single 0.028 m3 is a redesign of (i ft 3) capacity on S-IB 0.042 m 3 the SA-10 fiberglass

The S-IB stage control control pressure system. A

sphere is used as the GN 2 storage reservoir glass spheres, one 0.028 m 3 (I ft 3) and one were used on the 8A-IO S-I stage. The S-IB

while two fiber(1.5 ft 3) capacity,

the

decrease in the required control system flow capacity compared to SA-IO is due to the following changes: A decrease in the from I0 to 4. number of radiation calorimeter

aboard

I. required,

purges

2. Flight control pressure replenishing valve. Instead the 3. 1941N/cm Minimum 2 (2615 sphere pressure to 2815 psi) by

supply ground

not used to control the LOX supply source is used. increased tolerance from 1803 to pressure switch.

at ignition is using a closer

4. The requirement to open the LOX and fuel prevalves is eliminated. to be normally open and thus require at the end of the flight. Problems were countdown (Section

eight sets of normally closed (NC) These prevalves were redesigned pressurization for closing only

encountered with the 5). However, during

GN 2 control pressure during flight the performance of the

GN 2 control pressure system was satisfactory. After the ground supply pressure _as increased to approximately 2,172 N/cm 2 gauge (3,150 psig), the control system sphere pressure was 2,013 N/cm 2 (2,920 psi) at ignition. This was well above the high pressure switch deactuation setting of 1,973 N/cm 2 (2,862 psi). The regulated presure was between 524 and 530 N/cm 2 (760 and 768 psi), within the specified red-line band value of 493 to 562 N/cm 2 (715 to 815 psi). The predicted sphere pressure decay rate compared favorably with actual sphere pressure decay. The actual flight sphere pressure at 150 sec was within 17.2 N/cm 2 (25 8.5 psi) or 2.5% of the predicted value.

CAMERA

EJECTION

SYSTEM

The operation of the camera ejection system was satisfactory. Two movie camera capsules were incorporated on the S-IB stage to provide a permanent visual record of the S-IB/S-IVB separation, S-IVB ullage rocket operation and J-2 engine ignition. The movie cameras were ejected from the S-IB stage 25 sec following the S-IB/S-IIrB separation command. The predicted supply pressure drop at camera ejection was 86.2 to 172 N/cm 2 (125 to 250 psi), when the initial sphere pressure is 1,931N/cm 2 (2,800 psi). The supply source was a 0.028 m 3 (I ft 3) nitrogen storage The actual pressure drop was 89.6 N/cm 2 (130 psi) with an initial pressure of 2,172 N/cm 2 (3,150 psi). sphere. sphere

U NCLASSI
72 9.0 9.1 S_RY (C)

i: , i-S-IVB PROPULSION AND ASSOCIATED SYST_dS

The S-IVB propulsion deviations from predicted from the success

system performed satisfactorily. Although flight parameters were noted, none detracted

of the flight. was

On the basis of flight simulation overall average S-IVB thrust 1.63% lower than predicted; weight loss rate was 2.11% lower than predicted; and specific impulse was 0.50% higher than predicted.

The expected J-2 engine start time was approximately 2.9 sec, based upon stage acceptance firing. The actual start time (ESC to 90% thrust) was approximately 3.6 sec, due to a colder than anticipated engine environment. Propellant loading and utilization control by the PU system was satisfactory. The LOX and LH 2 loads were within 0.09% and 0.06% respectively, of the desired load. The PU system calibration was in error by 0.11% LOXand -0.71% LH 2 as determined from the masses used to derive the statistically weighted average mass at various flight times. PU valve cutback occurred 90.68 sec after S-IVB engine start command and 14.22 sec earlier than used for the predicted trajectory. Using the updated predicted cutback time, which incorporated two correction factors, yielded a 3.68 sec later than predicted cutback time. The average engine m_ture ratio after cutback was approximately 5.1 to I, rather than 5.23 to i as predicted. Because of this dispersion and the lower than predicted engine performance, an extended S-IVB burn time of 9.96 sec occurred.oThis 9.76 sec longer burn time combined with the 0.37 sec later than predicted start time resulted in the S-IVB cutoff being 10.13 sec later than predicted. A maximum thrust oscillation of 80,068 N (18,000 Ibf) occurred during PU valve cutback. Five percent of the steady state thrust was reached 0.818 sec after the initiation of guidance cutoff signal. The impulse after the S-IVB switch selector received the cutoff signal was 258,486 N-s (58,110 ibf-s) as compared to the predicted 200,392 N-s (45,050 Ibf-s). The deviation is attributed to the slower than normal closing of the main oxidizer valve. 9.2 9.2.1 S-IVB PROPULSION ENGINE PERFORMANCE

CHILLDOWN

During chilldown the thrust chamber skin o temperature decreased quickly, then leveled off to approximately 122 K. This lower than expected temperature decrease was due to recycling of the countdown,

U N C L:ASiS-IF.I::ED.::.-,.:.-

UNCLASSI;
which resulted in no-hold countdown. a cooler temperature than Chilldown was terminated

- ' Fh .....""

-..
73

""

"'

would be attained at liftoff with

during a thrust

chamber skin temperature of temperature was 136K (upper ment of 144 + 28K.

124K. At S-IVB engine start command the portion of Figure 9-1), within the require-

Figure 9-2 shows that the thrust chamber throat temperature at the scheduled liftoff time decreased about 2.8K with each recycling of the countdown. The temperature at liftoff was about 116](, at the lower limit of 144 m 28K required + temperature band. At 60 sec the lower engine manifold temperature had reached its

maximum (middle and lower portion of Figure 9-1). The subsequent temperature drop had not been predicted, nor is it presently explainable. The lower engine manifold temperature trend was expected to follow the same trend as the thrust chamber skin temperature. The chilldown and loading of the engine GH 2 start sphere were accomplished satisfactorily. At engine start command the temperature was lllK and the pressure was 892 N/cm 2 (1,275 psi); these values were well within the temperature and pressure requirements of 117 +

28K

and 862 + 34 N/cm 2 (1,250 + 50 psi) respectively. GH 2 mass in the _phere at lifto_f was 2.23 kg (4._2 ibm). The mass diminished, after start sphere blowdown, to 0.43 kg (0.96 ibm); the total mass consumed was 1.80 kg (3.96 ibm). The warmup rate after the sphere was pressurized, until liftoff, was 1.4K/min. The warmup rate was reduced to 0.44K/min during boost. The heating rate and mass consumption were satisfactory. The engine pneumatic control sphere conditioning was satisfactory. At S-IVB engine start command the sphere pressure was 2,224 N/cm 2 (3,225 psi), the temperature was 109K, and the mass was 1.28 kg (2.83 ibm). The mass remaining after engine cutoff was I.II kg (2.46 Ibm); 0.17 kg (0.37 Ibm) was consumed. 9.2.2 START CHARACTERISTICS

The S-IVB start thrust transient was slower than expected due primarily to a colder than anticipated engine environment. Thrust buildup to the 90Z level was achieved 3.575 sec after engine start command (149.35 sec), as compared to 2.948 sec during stage acceptance testing. Figure 9-3 shows the thrust chamber pressure during the start transient. There was a slight thrust overshoot during the buildup transient. The total start impulse to 90% thrust was 851,390 N-s (191,400 lbf-s), as compared to the predicted value of 738,405 N-s (166,000 Ibf-s). The deviation has been attributed to the slightly longer start transient time, which in turn, was caused primarily by a colder than expected Main Oxidizer Valve (MOV).

U N C LASSt-:I:ED

'

74

Engine Thrust Chamber Tern_erature (OK 140

Skin

130

120

ii0 -150 -I00 -50 0 Range Time 50 (sec) I00 150

Fin Line IV Lower Engine Manifold Temperature (OK

130

120

p-.-

II0 -150 Fin Line I -I00 -50 Range Time (sec) 50 I00 150

Lower Engine _anifold Temperature (K) 130

I00 - 150 - 100 - 50 Range FIGURE 9-1 ENGINE CHILLDOWN 0 Time 50 (sec) CHAMBER

S-IVB Start Command J 100

150

- THRUST

AND MANIFOLD

TI_PERATURES

Thrust 250

Chamber

Throat

Temperature

(OK)

First Launch

Attempt

Second Launch Attempt

Third Countdown & Launch

\
200 150

art

Liftoff

u2toff
, 0 , i0

100 -30

, -20

, -I0

I 0

, i0

, -20 Range Time

, -I0 (Min) CHAMBER

, 0

' -20

l -I0

FIGURE

9-2

ENGINE

CHILLDOWN

- THRUST

THROAT

TF/_ERATURES

76

Thrust 700

Chamber Pressure

(N/cm 2)

Thrust Chamber Pressure

(psi) i000

600 800 500

m

400

600

300

400

200 200 I00 j

-0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 ]49:35 sec Time From S-IVB Engine Start Command (sec) Range Time FIGURE 9-3 S-IVB THRUST CHAMBER PRESSURE START TRANSIENT

0 5.0

77

The main LOX valve required 3,320 ms to travel from the closed to the open position. This exceeded the nominal time by 60 percent. Each step of the valve opening was delayed by the times shown below: TABLE 9-1 MOV Sequence Nominal Time (ms) 50 + 20 MOV OPENING TIME Deviation Fm. Nominal (%) 80 Flight Time (ms) 190 Deviation Fm. Nominal (%) 280

Acceptance Firing Time (ms) 90

First Stage Travel First Stage Plateau Second Stage Travel Total
i

415 + 95

550

33

760

83

1,600 + 75

2,050

28

2,370

48

2,065 + 190

2,690

30

3,320

60

The above table shows that the valve opening time was delayed somewhat during acceptance firing and that the delay was accentuated during flight. The major factor contributing to this problem was apparently the temperature environment. During turbopnmp chilldown the MOVoactuator temperature dropped below the specified operating level of 219.3 K. The valve chilling was greater during flight test than during acceptance firing because the S-IB/S-IVB interstage enclosure prevented circulation of ambient air over the valve. In addition several pump chilldowns occurred prior to flight due to recycling.

The effect of the excessive valve chilling was to allow a greater helium mass into the closing side of the actuation cylinder at engine start. Since the valve opening time is a function of the time required to vent the closing side of the actuator, the venting time was increased proportionally. Figure 9-4 shows a drawing of the S-IVB main oxidizer valve in the closed position. The opening and closing control ports of the first and second stage portions of the valve are located in the lower and upper half of the drawing respectively. Monitoring the MOV actuator temperature and the MOV closing line temperature on future flights is being considered to improve cutoff predictions. The slower opening time also meant that the main LOX valve second stage operation was occurring when the LOX pump discharge pressure was approaching the steady state value of 620.5 N/cm 2 (900 psi). The hydraulic forces imposed on the valve opening under these conditions delays the valve opening during the early portion of the second stage operation.

..

78
CONTROL PORT

PISTON

__

CONTROL

PORT

VALVE

_-_TE

_R

FACII

PINJ (ROTATI_D

0PI_k_rNG F0_ CLARITY)

PORT

LET

s_noN A-A
8_L'NC P0_T SEAL E iNLET

FIGURE 9-4

S-IVB MAIN OXIDIZER VALVE

UNCLASSiFIED
79 Engine modifications designed to eliminate this problem on future flights include: closing side vent tion of an orifice delaying the pump The (i) installation of a large orifice in the actuator line thereby increasing the vent rate; (2) installain the gas generator valve control line, thereby valve rise. by 75 ms and subsequently delaying

the opening of the discharge pressure upper portion

of Figure

9-5

compares

the

LOX

valve

opening

time

with acceptance firing results. the measured fuel turbine inlet

The lower temperature

portion of Figure 9-5 with the reconstructed

compares tem-

perature. The reconstructed temperature is considered to be more representative of actual values. The deviation of the measured temperatures from reconstructed may possibly be due to an instrumentation malfunction. The reconstructed temperatures were higher than expected due to the slow opening of the MOV. 9.2.3 MAINSTAGE ENGINE ANALYSIS

Two separate analyses were employed in reconstructing the S-IVB engine performance. The first method, engine analysis, used the telemetered engine data to compute longitudinal thrust, specific impulse and stage mass flowrates. The second method, a six-degree-of-freedom trajectory simulation (flight simulation), utilized a differential correction procedure to generate multipliers that _ere enforced on the results of engine analysis. This permitted the generation of a trajectory simulation which fit the final observed trajectory closely. The S-IVB engine performance was reconstructed from engine start command to engine cutoff command. The results of three computer programs were averaged statistically to produce the final reconstruction. Deviations from predicted of the reconstructed performance values are presented in Table 9-II. Reconstructed performance values were based upon analysis of telemetered engine parameters. The predicted propellant depletion time was 452.6 sec after engine start command. This prediction was based upon acceptance data and the predicted PU system dynamics. The best estimate of lant residuals were 2,736 kg (6,032 Ibm) LOX and Depletion of these residuals would have occurred after it was predicted. 716 kg (1,579 at 467.6 sec, S-IVB test propel-

Ibm) LH 2. or 15 sec

Three factors contributed to extend this depletion time; (I) Burn time during the high thrust portion of the flight was reduced because the PU valve cut back 14.22 sec earlier than used for the predicted trajectory. (2) The PU system provided a lower mixture ratio after PU valve cut back, 5.1 to 1 as compared to the predicted 5.23 to I, resulting in lower total propellant flowrate. Just prior to cut back the mixture ratio was as expected at 5.5 to i. (3) A lower than predicted overall performance level. Each factor contributed approximately 1% to the burn time or a total of 3% (15 sec).

UNCLASSIFIED

U NC LASSIFiED80
Main LOX _alve percent Open

lOO
80 Acceptance Test \

/7--T/

60

//
S-IVB Stage ._ (_.J _?

_ _-_ Eog_o+
Acceptance Test

I I

20

/?

Actual

0 l.O 150.55 sec Range Time 1.5 2.0 Time 2.5 From Engine 3.0 Start 3.5 Con_nand (set) 4.0 4. 5.0

Fuel 1200

Turbine

Inlet

Temperature

(OK)

_.+onstrot..--_ _:i!_
1ooo _v:Y+:; :.__
600 /

.... .:-:_.....-_

_'_:+-+--_+_:-+ _ i_i_ ........ _

400
200 0 150.35 Range sec Time 0.5

I
1.0 Time from FIGURE 1.5 Start 9-5 Tank J-2 2.0 Discharge ENGINE 2.5 Valve START Signal 3.0 (set) 3.5 4.0 CONDITIONS

UNCLASSIFIED

C Z O
F"

>

C
TABLE 9-II

Z
" O High Th_st -0._ Reduced Thrust .2,52 Average Thrust -2.2_ High Thr.st: i _

S-IVBF_PULSION

SYSTFJ4PER_D|_AHC_

_,_.

Parameters

High Thrust (_) (Ibf) _,00?_dd

Reduced Thrust 2 916,333 ! 206p000 219._ 483.8

A_eraRe Thrust 3 9_,_7 213.123 227,5 501.6

High Thrust I,_lj_16

Reduced Thrust 5 90g,&lO 202,870 216.1 _7g,6

A_etage Thrust 3 927_676 208,550 222.7 &91.l

"""' ' ....

Thrust _ Thrust _ 9_6p29_ 203,743 216,0 476,2 93Z,_SP 209,_6 222,7 _91,0

H_gh ThrusL -O. ZP

Reduced Throst -_.fO

Average. Thrust -_,6_

;I _>
._

Longitudinal r'_ Vehicle Thrust

_,006,237 226,211

226,600 243.1 536.1

225,1_0 242.0 533.6

X..._,_

Vehlcle Ma., (kg/s) Loss Rate (lbm/s)

=0.45

-1.49

-2.09

241.4 532,3

-0.71

-_.57

-_,iI

gpeciflc Impulse (se_) Longl_udin_l Vehicle

422.7

625.9

424,9

421,9

_25,6

42_.6

-0.19

-0.07

-0,07

424.9

427.8

a27.0

0,53

0.48

O.SO II

. _!
_'_

i. 2. 3. 4. 6. 7. 5.

From Fr(_ From Fro_

0_ thruat to thlugt cutback thrust cutback to J-2 engine cutoff signal 9_ thrust tO _'2 eng_n_ cutoff signal 9_ thrust to PU _tback

Engine mna_ysls minus predicted in percent of predicted FILght mlnu= predicted in From PU slmuIatlon +50 _ec to J-2 engine percent of predic_ed cutback cutoff signal

(.. _w=_

._.

o,

U NCLASSI:F i L-)
82 S-IVB _tage steady state performance parameters, derived by engine analysis, are compared to predicted in Figure 9-6. Predictions are as shown in Reference I Maximum and minimum mixture ratio levels during flight were 5.55 and 4195, J-2 engine was satisfactory. Thrust fluctuations one-half was due respectively. Steady state performance of the

during

flight,

caused during made

by

the

PU

system,

were firing. electronics.

approximately This reduction

that experienced to a modification

stage in the

acceptance PU system

A trajectory simulation program utilizing six-degree-of-freedom was employed to adjust the S-IVB propulsion system engine analysis results. Using a differential correction method, this simulation program determined the adjustments to the engine analysis longitudinal thrust, mass flow histories, and pitch plane engine misalignment angle. This yielded a simulated trajectory which closely matched the observed trajectory. The flight simulation propulsion performance parameters are compared to predicted values and to engine analysis results in Table 9-11.

The mass flowrate determined vehicle mass at any point in time determination of the vehicle mass mass at S-IVB engine start command mined from engine PU, point level

by flight simulation combined with the on the trajectory allows an accurate history. The best estimate of vehicle and engine cutoff command as detersensors and trajectory simulation was Ibm) respectively. to yielding the best The esti-

137,964 kg (304,158 ibm) and 33,533 kg (73,928 flight simulation solution which came closest

mate weights indicated that the weights at S-IVB engine start command and engine cutoff command were 137,973 kg (304,179 Ibm) and 33,531 kg (73,923 ibm) respectively. The simulation indicated that the engine pitch misalignment required to match the actual trajectory was 0.537 deg in a direction that would produce a nose up attitude error. This is comparable to the 0.33 dug determined from the S-IVB control system ana lys is. The maximum inaccuracies in the flight simulated propulsion system parameters were estimated at 0.2 percent. These inaccuracies resulted from the combination of the simulation technique and the observed trajectory data. Additional uncertainties resulted from the accuracy to which S-IVB cutoff mass was obtained. The S-IVB cutoff mass uncertainty of + 62 kg inaccuracy 9. _. 4 (+ 137 Ibm) o_ 0.3% for has been estimated to individual propulsion result system in a total parameters. maximum

CUTOFF

CHARACTERISTICS shows that the cutoff transient was smooth. Five thrust was reached 0.818 sec after the initiation signal, and after 2.1 sec there was no significant percent of thrust.

Figure 9-7 of steady state guidance cutoff

LJNCL "

------Predict, Thrust 1050 ([000 N) _ Actual

_ " Thrust

,T

"

tb)

8_

::

(tO00

230

220 95O

\,
/_ //% i 210

G 850 0 149.35 Range sec Time 50 IO0 Time 150 from 200 Engine Start 250 300 Command (sec) 350 400 1,50

200

Specific 435

Impulse

(sec)

430

420

1.15 50 149.35 Range sec Time IOO Time 150 from 200 Eagine Start 250 300 Command

I 350 (sec) 400 450

Flowrate 250

(kg/s)

Flowrate

(Ibm/s) " 550

2013 0 ]49.35 sec Range Time 50 I00 Time I50 from 200 Engine Seart 250 300 350 400 450 Command (sec)

Engine 5.8

Mixture

Ratio

(4)

5.6

s.4
5.2

\
>/_ "/'_

5.0

_}

4.8 O 149.35 Range sec Time FIGURE 9-6 50 lOO Time S-IVB 150 from 200 Engine Start 250 300 (see) (ENGINE ANALYSIS) 350 400 450 Command

STEADY STATE OPERATION

UNCLAS

Thrust 600

Chamber

Pressure

(N/cm 2)

Velocity

Increase

(m/s)

I
at (_ 8

Total Inertial Velocity Guidance Cutoff Command was 8401.50 m/s

i

500

<)

_._a_

_--

X-Inertal

Velocity

_ncrease

'6

..,

400

_--Thrust

Chamber

Pressure

"' ""

300
4

"_ -'
"" sl ,i

3 200

h.-.L,
0 -0.2 0 4--"--602.86, l 0.2 Rangel Time (sec)l _ 0.4 0.6 0.8 Time From S-IVB FIGURE 9-7 S-IVB THRUST -"-_ _----__1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 Engine Cutoff Command (sec) CHAMBER PRESSURE CV/OFF TRANSIENT

Pressure At ------------_ 2,14 Sec J i. 8 l 2.0 0 2.2

UNCLASSIFIED
85 The cutoff impulse was determined from two sources, the propulsion parameters and the platform accelerometers. As determined from the first source the cutoff impulse was 258,486 N-s (58,110 Ibf-s). This impulse covers the period from initiation of the guidance cutoff signal at 602.86 sec to zero chamber pressure. The predicted cutoff impulse beginning with engine cutoff signal and based upon stage acceptance tests was 200,392 + 31,138 N-s (45,050 + 7,000 ibf-s). The higher than predicted impulse Was caused by two factors. (I) The final 10% of thrust decay produced more impulse than anticipated due to a colder than expected cutoff. MOV. (2) There was variation in the PU valve position at

As determined from the platform accelerometers, the cutoff impulse was 258,442 N-s (58,100 Ibf-s). This cutoff impulse begins with the initiation of the guidance cutoff signal at 602.86 sec and terminates at the end of thrust decay, 605.00 seconds. Both sources used to determine cutoff impulse were in good agreement. MOV temperature directly affects the cutoff impulse; i.e. as the temperature decreases the impulse increases. As an example, for an MOV temperature change from 144 to 117K an additional cutoff impulse of 22,241N-s (5,000 lhf-s) would result. MOV temperature was not monitored on SA-201, but other environmental measurements indicate that the engine was colder than expected and the higher cutoff impulse than predicted appears to substantiate this. Figure 9-7 also cutoff impulse. The The inertial velocity 9.3 9.3.1 S-IVB PROPELLANT MASS shows the velocity increase associated _ith the velocity increase levels out after 2.14 seconds. increase was 7.68 m/s. UTILIZATION ANALYSIS is presented (192,750 ibm) in Table 9-III. LOX and 16,913 The kg

PROPELLANT

The S-IVB propellant mass history desired propellant load was 87,429 kg

(37,289 ibm) LH 2. The statistically weighted average propellant resulting from total stage mass weighted averaging (Figure 9-8) a load within 0.09% LOX and 0.06% LH 2 of desired.

load, indicated

The PU system was calibrated in accordance with the mass-to-capacitance relationship established by the engine influence coefficient computer program, using acceptance firing data. Comparing the repeatability of the indicated PU flight masses, corrected from flight environment to acceptance firing conditions, resulted in repeatability factors of 0.06% LOX and 0.72% LH 2 of full load in each tank. These repeatability factors are approximate because the computer program used for flight was slightly modified from the one used for acceptance firing. The error of the PU

U NC LASS! F! r-:m

im.>

/-0
F"
TABLE 9-111 S-IVB PROPELLANT MASS HISTORY

I-....
Event PU System LOX S-IB Liftoff (kg) (ibm) Start (kg) (Ibm) (kg) (ibm) (kg) (ibm) 87,398 192,680 87,398 192,680 69,682 153,624 2,728 6,016 (I) LH2 16,851 37,152 16,808 37,056 13,627 30,044 725 1,599 Engine Flow Integral (2) LOX 87,294 192,450 87,294 192,450 69,366 152,926 2,722 6,002 LH2 16,972 37,417 16,972 37,417 13,663 30,121 711 1,567 Statistically Wtd. Average (3) LOX 87,302 192,469 87,302 192,_69 69,376 152,947 2,736 6,032 LH2 16,953 37,376 16,953 37,376 13,643 30,078 716 1,579 O_ "_'] _i'._ I'_ I

U!
----. _] . ....

S-IVB Engine Command PU Valve

Cutback

Residual

(4)

(I) (2) (3) (4)

PU System indicated Composite of engine

mass corrected for flight analysis programs

Composite of PU system, engine flow integral, reconstruction, and level sensor residuals Weighted average residuals include level sensor residuals of 2773 kg (6114 Ibm) LOX and 718 kg (1585 ibm) LH 2

U NC LASS:IPV-e Best Estimate: S-IVB Stage Ignition Weight 137,964 + S-IVB Stage Cutoff Weight 33,533 _ 60

L_.' :__.:
87

...

196 kg (304,158 _ 433 kg (73,928 _ 134 Ibm)

Ibm)

Level + 272

Sensors kg (600 ibm)

PU System + 277 kg _510 Ibm) Trajectory 64 kg (_ Reconstruction l&O Ibm)

Flow Integral + 263 kg (580 Cutoff Ignition Mass (I000 kg) (I000 73 Mass Ibm)

Ibm)

Ignition Mass (i000 ibm)

138.4

I/

'

305

138.2 138.0 f l #_

/
FU System _ 431 kg (950 Ibm) 304 303

137.8

137.6

137.4

137.2

I 33.0

I 33.2

I 33.4 Cutoff S-IVB STAGE

, 33.6 Mass (I000 IGNITION

, 33.8 mg) AND CUTOFF

, 34.0

FIGURE

9-8

WEIGHT

tjNof

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

;. c,.--', ....:_. ,

88 system calibration, based upon a comparison of the masses used to derive the statistically weighted average masses shown in Table 9-111 and, upon the PU system masses corrected for non-linearities at engine start command, yielded 9-9 errors presents of a 0.11% LOX and of -0.71% LOX and LH 2. LH 2 overall non-linearity _

Figure

comparison

curves derived from flight analysis, acceptance firing analysis and manufacturing specification computations. Non-linearities existed between the mass sensor specifications and the actual mass sensor outputs because of changes in tank volume versus height relationship subsequent to the design of PU mass sensors. The flight non-linearities are in close agreement with the manufacturing non-linearities, which are corrected to flight environment. The acceptance firing non-linearities curve for LH2,corrected for flight environment, is not in good agreement with the f_ght and manufacturing specification curves. This may be due to the modification of the engine influence coefficient computer program after acceptance firing. The LOX non-linearities are not as sensitive to computer program updating; therefore, good agreement between all three sources was obtained. Correction factors must be added to acceptance firing and manufacturing non-linearity curves to obtain correct flight non-linearity curves. One correction factor counteracts the sensor errors caused by center of gravity offset. The other correction factor counteracts the error caused by the changing tank shape in flight. The changes in tank shape are caused by changes in acceleration, temperature and pressure during flight. Figure 9-10 shows how the center of gravity (CG) offset and tank dynamic changes add to the manufacturing non-linearity for updated PU valve cutback prediction and postfligbt PU valve history discussed in paragraph 9.3.2 were Figures 9-9 and 9-10. 9.3.2 PU VALVE RESPONSE AND THRUST FLUCTUATIONS LOX and LH 2. The reconstruction of used in deriving the

The S-IVB PU system was changed after the acceptance firing to reduce the feedback gain of the FU servo valve loop by a factor of 6 db. This change effectively reduced the total PU system gain at 0.12 radians/s by 6 db. The frequency of the valve oscillations during acceptance firing was approximately 0.12 radians/s. The valve oscillation amplitudes experienced during flight were approximately one-half of the acceptance firing values. The upper portion of Figure 9-11 compares the telemetered PU valve position to acceptance firing results. The middle portion of Figure 9-11 compares the J-2 thrust history to acceptance firing results. During flight a maximum thrust excursion, due to sensor non-linearities, of 62,275 N (14,000 ibf) peak-to-peak occurred, excluding the cutback overshoot and sloshing. The peak-to-peak value during cutback was 71,172 N (16,000 Ibf). Corresponding acceptance firing thrust variations were 111,205 N (25,000 lbf) and 133,446 N (30,000 Ibf) peak-to-peak, respectively. The predicted maximum fluctuation for flight was 66,723 N (15,000 ibf). The three-sigma thrust

Lax Non-Linearity 800 I i

(kg) [ | _-_ "_1 _ _ "_ .... _ _ _ I Calculated From _

Lax Non-Linearity

(Ibm) 1600

Manufacturing

Specifications

0 0 i0 20 30 40 50 60 Lax Mass In Tank (i000 kg) 70 80 90

0 i00

LH 2 Non-Linearity 160

(kg)

LH 2 Non-Linearity *Effects of Center of Gravity offset and

Ibm)

/--_

/-- Flight

Tank Dynamics Changes were Included

300

I 120 / /_

_ _--_

Calculated

From Specifications 200

Manufacturing

_\ 0 _

Acceptance* Firing _ r

\\ _ - 0

-40 0 2 6 8 LH 2 Mass 10 12 in Tank (i000 kg) 14 16 18 20

FIGURE 9-9

OVERALL PROPELLANT MASS SENSOR NON-LINEARITY

L_ Non-Linesrity 1200

(kg) " Total Tank Dynamic

LOX Non-Linearity

(Ibm)

_on-Lineartty

Sensor Error

800

_.... /

__.. ",

1600

400
0 0 lO

_-_"_--_
80 90

800

Offset Sensor Error

Non-Linearity

20

30

40 50 60 70 LOX Mass In Tank (I,000 kR)

100 0

LH 2 Non-Linearity 120

(kg)

LH 2 Non-Linearity

(Ibm)

Non-Line_rtty 80 f "

200

40
0

/ _%:_n_;7_;_ _ i T
4 6 FIGURE 9-I0

_._
8 lO

//-Taok

Sensor Error

lO0

"" " "..

"'_._./ 12

"-----'..
14 _ 16 18 20

LH 2 Mass in Tank (I,000 kg) EFFECT OF FLIGHT CORRECTION FACTORS ON _FACTURI_ PROPELLA_ _SS SENSOR _N-LIN_RITIES

9)

Tet_LerPd

PI] yah, t, P_,,tri_m

(deg)

,o
15
20 i _" Flight

:z; ....

1
i

I,

!',
@

I
; .#5.1 I _" _ ', _

i
. ,

....

.......

,,
-',
-io ....
1_7, J5 _,-c

_.

.1_

! I I't-"V.' t',ili
i
I
loll

I_i,.

,_- -

J ill
t
.

_,r
V
$c_rt

'(;;t.,,_". ,
[,,
I __

.]
mc

i
i

2OO T_mt Ii,_ Engine

IOl_ CO_nL_ (se,)

",_o

Thrus_*llO0_

N)

*Effect=

of Slmth R_o_

fr_

cu_es

T!_rust

(Ioc_

l_,l)

_'-'=

illl_

71,172 II

-'-'!'

rl i_Ar

2_0

It',l',

.........

I_

_0 1_%%S _e lanll TI_

100

lSO Ti_

frl

200 l_li_

_t_rl

2_0 Com_t_a

]00 flue)

150

_.oo

A_0

le<ons_n_c_e,!

PU Valve

Position*

(_1)

*Effi,tl

of

_los_

ll_,,t_

fr_

C,J_es

I!
/
o

:,,,,-,,.... . < ,,.,,,< / ......... ....

\\_ ,,<.,<I
.

1
I i|

',

|
_

50 _t*9.3't nee R&nRe Tl=e

lot)

LSO Time tr_

_(IO 2_1 eglne Start C_.,I

_ _'se_)

BC,

.*e,o

:,50

FIGURE 9-il S-IV'ItU VALVE _SITICtI4 P

A_D _lLlll,_T FL_:rlmTION5

92

tolerance was The

prior

to PU

system

cutback

was

23,353

(!

5,250

Ibf)

and

+ 71,171N (_ actual values

16,000 ibf) during reference mixture ratio operation. for both were within these three-sigma limits.

Thrust oscillations caused by propellant sloshing also occurred. The frequency of the sloshing as shown by valve position (upper portion of Figure 9-11) was fairly constant at 0.38 Hx from 350 to 550 seconds. The sloshing frequency decreased to 0.26 Hz from 550 sec through S-IVB engine cutoff. The thrust fluctuations caused by sloshing ranged between 6,672 to

13,345 N (1,500 to 3,000 Ibf) peak to peak. The combination of sensor nonlinearities and sloshing increased the maximum thrust fluctuation values to 66,723 N (15,000 ibf) excluding the PU valve cutback overshoot, and to 80,068 N (18,000 Ibf) at PU valve cutback. The actual PU valve cutback time was 90.68 sec from S-IVB engine start command, and the predicted cutback time was 104.9 seconds. The original cutback time predicted by the stage contractor was 116 seconds. This prediction did not include the effects of propellant sensor nonlinearities, errors caused by center of gravity offset and tank geometry changes due to inflight dynamics. The updated these effects is compared to the reconstructed lower portion of Figure 9-11. Actual cutback later than the updated predicted cutback time The not center of gravity offset effects and included in the derivation of the PU prediction, which PU valve position time was just 3.68 of 87 seconds. the inflight system bridge includes in the sec

were

dynamic effects gain ratio.

These two effects, apparent during the flight, caused the PU error signal history to differ from the expected history. The error signal difference resulted in a lower than predicted valve position history which generated the lo_er than expected mixture ratio of 5.1 to 1 rather than 5.23 to I. The by the unusual PU valve between by minor the mass behavior the between 300 and 400 sec was caused

discrepancy an_ at

actual

propellant

sensor

nonlinearities in the probe seconds.

and predicted, between spacers 9.4 9.4.1 S-IVB FUEL The

manufacturing levels between

inaccuracies 300 and 400

PRESSURIZATION PRESSURIZATION pressurization

SYSTEMS SYST_ system performance was satisfactory through-

fuel

out flight, supplying LH 2 to the engine pump inlet within the specified operating limits. The NPSP at the engine LH 2 pump inlet was maintained above the allowable minimum throughout S-IVB powered flight. The minimum NPSP was 6.2 N/cm 2 (9 psi) at 2.1N/cm 2 (3.0 psi) above the S-IVB engine cutoff allowable minimum. and was at least Prepressurization

93

pressurization control, and step pressurization were normal and were within predicted limits, except during the system start transient. Fuel temperature and fuel ullage of To pressure were higher than predicted

during engine chilldown, fuel vent and disposal

because system.

a higher back pressure at assure at least a minimum

the facility NPSP during

powered flight, the ullage pressur_ setting was chan_ed from 19.3 to 21.4 N/cm 2 (28 to 31 psi) to no lower than 23.4 N/cm z (34 psi). In order to accomplish this change, the undercontrol orifice was resized from 0.559 cm (0.220 in) to 0.820 cm (0.328 in) nominal diameter. As a result of the high back pressure in the launch facility, ullage

pressure prior to prepressurization was 2.8 N/cm 2 (4.0 psi) above ambient. Consequently the lower ullage pressure switch setting of 19.3 N/cm 2 (28 psi) was never reached during flight. An increase in the LH 2 bulk temperature above design saturation conditions occurred, but was expected due to the increased ullage pressure setting. The LH 2 pressurization command was liftoff. The LH 2 tank pressurized received approximately iii sec signal was received 40 sec (36.1 psi). the ullage After liftoff,

before

later when the LH 2 tank ullage pressure reached 24.9 N/cm 2 However, the ullage pressure continued to increase because volume warmed and reached 27.1 N/cm 2 (39.3 psi) at liftoff.

the LH 2 tank ullage pressure continued to increase until 86 sec when the LH 2 tank relief setting was reached. The pressure remained relatively constant at 29.0 N/cm 2 (41.5 psi) for the remainder of S-IB powered flight (upper portion of Figure 9-12). At S-IVB engine start command, the LH 2 tank ullage pressure was N/cm 2 (41.5 psi). Between S-IVB engine start command (149.35 sec)

29.0

and 152.15 sec, GH 2 bleed from the engine flowed into the LH 2 tank through the normal pressurization orifice, the control pTessurization orifice, and the step pressurization orifice. The control and step pressurization orifices are normally open at S-IVB engine start command and are closed 2.8 sec later. Therefore, a short duration high flow of GH 2 entered the LH2 tank at S-IVB engine start. When the control step pressurization orifices were closed, the ullage pressure began rapid decline to a minimum of nearly 24.1N/cm 2 (35 psi) at 240 sec (middle portion of Figure 9-12). and a

The predicted gradual ullage pressure decay to about 24.8 N/cm 2 (36 psi) at 450 sec was not achieved. The predicted ullage pressure decay was based upon the resizing of the control pressurization orifice. Cooling of the ullage immediately following S-IVB engine start contributed to the abrupt drop in ullage pressure after engine start. Cooling of the ullage is attributed to the greater contact between ullage gas and LH 2 accompanying the LH 2 slosh noted soon after S-IVB ignition. Both

94

LH2-Tank Pressure 30

Ullage (N/cm 2) __

------Predicted --Actual Pressure (psi) 40

20

30

Liftoff I0 -150 -100 -50

_ 50 (sec)

S-IVB Engine Start Command i00 150

20

0 Range Time

LH 2 Tank Ullage 30

Pressure

(N/cm 2) Cormmand _ _

Pressure

(psi)

Step Pressurization

42

28

-'''"_"
26

Predicted

I 1i II Ve.ti.g
!

_]

_LH

2 Tank_..

40

38

k_Actual 24 150 200 250 300

--'. ,...r.._ _ I 350 400 _50 Range Time (sec)

S-IVB Engine Cutoff 500 550

i,
I600 650 3'6

LH 2 Tank Ullage Press.re (N/cm 2) 35

i
30 /

/'\

"_

25
20

i \_
_/, . Maximum-Noai _-. na i

15

----,----Minimum /

_ _ _'_'_

"_'_

I0 0 20

! 40 60 Time After S-IVB 80 Engine i00 Cutoff 120 (sec) 140 160

FIGURE

9-12 LH 2 TANK PRESSURIZATION

SYSTEM

PERFOPMANCE

95

simple cooling of ullage gas and an increased LH 2 boiloff rate contributed to the lowering of ullage pressure and temperature. Aside from this effect, the validity of the prediction is indicated by ullage data at initiation of step pressurization (450 sec). At this time ullage pressure and temperature data are close to predicted, due to the approach of the actual conditions to the equilibrium assumption upon when the predictions were based. Step pressurization was automatically initiated at 450 sec to provide adequate LH 2 pump NPSP until S-IVB engine cutoff. At step pressurization command both the under-control and step pressurization control valves were opened to permit additional pressurant to flow into the fuel tank. The ullage pressure increased from 24.9 N/cm 2 (36.1 psi) to the vent actuation pressure of 29.0 N/cm 2 (42.1 psi). Venting occurred at 499 seconds. The pressure remained between 29.0 to 29.2 N/cm (42.1 to 42.3 psi) until S-IVB engine cutoff. LH 2 tank venting after S-IVB engine cutoff conformed closely to the predicted profile and was within the predicted limits (lower portion of Figure 9-12). The upper limit of the predicted reflected the possibility of a quenching effect that could the ullage immediately following indicated by pressure data. result from LH 2 being distributed about cutoff. However, no such effect was

The GH 2 pressurization flowrates were 0.245 to 0.268 kg/s (0.54 to 0.59 Ibm/s) until step pressurization and 0.544 to 0.594 kg/s (1.20 to 1.31 Ibm/s) during step pressurization. These values were nearly equal to predicted and indicated that from S-IVB engine start command to S-IVB engine cutoff, 166 kg (366 ibm) of GH 2 was added to the ullage. The collapse factor varied from 0.90 to 1.01 during steady state operation. Calculations based on LH 2 tank ullage pressure and temperature conditions at S-IVB engine start command and cutoff indicated a LH 2 boiloff of 54.4 kg (120 ibm). The predicted value was 34.9 kg (77 ibm). The difference was the result of sloshing, an effect that was not included in the prediction. LHp Supply Conditions

The LH 2 pump NPSP was 13.8 N/cm 2 (20 psi) at S-IVB engine start command (ESC) (upper portion of Figure 9-13). It decreased with the LH 2 tank ullage pressure, reaching a minimum (except for just prior to S-IVB cutoff) of 8.96 N/cm 2 (13 psi) at 250 sec after ESC. It remained essentially constant until step pressurization, when it increased to a maximum of 12.2 N/cm 2 (17.7 psi), and then decreased to 5.93 N/cm 2 (8.6 psi) at S-IVB engine cutoff. The pump NPSP was less than predicted during most of the first 250 sec of the S-IVB powered flight, because the actual tank pressure was lower than predicted. At 400 sec after ESC, the NPSP was higher than predicted because the total pump inlet pressure was higher and the temperature was lower than predicted.

96 LH 2 _SP 15 (N/cm 2)

Predicted Actual _ (psi)

i
5 _" _ Required

lO

o
150 LH 2 P_p Pressure 3O 250 Total Inlet (N/_ 2) 350 Range Time 450 (sec) 550

i
650 Pressure

(psi)

42

28 40

38 26

36

24
22 150 LH 2 P_p _mperature Inlet (_ ! Step 250 350 Range I Pressurization Co--and Time 450 (see) 550

I I
| 650

34
32

Biased LH 2 Bulk Temperature Afte" 303 sec_:

22

"" "" _

"/

S-IN 21 150

Engine , 250

Start

Co--and I 350 Range Time

Cutoff 450 (sec) CO_ITIONS

Co_and_ i 550

650

FIGURE

9-13

LH 2 PUMP

97

The LH 2 system chilldown circulation was adequate. The chilldown pump was stopped and the LH 2 chilldown valve was closed one sec before S-IVB engine start. At S-IVB engine start command the LH 2 pump total inlet pressure (middle portion of Figure 9-13) and temperature (lower portion of Figure 9-13) tively, well within the Figure 9-14). were 28.7 N/cm 2 (41.6 psi) and 21.7K respecengine start requirements (upper portion of

The LH 2 pump inlet temperature data dropped out at 303 seconds. Therefore, the LH 2 tank bulk temperature and the LH 2 tank outlet temperature were biased to simulate the LH 2 pump inlet temperature for the remainder of SrlVB powered flight. The lower portion of Figure 9-13 shows that the LH 2 pump inlet temperature was less than predicted. The reason for this was that the actual tank back pressure prior to prepressurization was lower than the predicted back pressure. The predicted back pressure was based on the countdown demonstration test results. predicted, 9.4.2 LOX The As a result but it was the actual LH 2 bulk temperature _as lower than greater than the design saturation condition. SYST_ system performance was satisfactory

PRESSURIZATION

oxidizer

pressurization

throughout the flight, supplying LOX to the engine pump inlet within the specified operating limits. The NPSP at the engine LOX pump inlet was maintained above the allowable minimum of 13.9 N/cm 2 (20.2 psi) during high engine mixture ratio and above 9.93 N/cm 2 (14.4 psi) during reduced Engine Mixture Ratio (_ViR). The minimum available NPSP was 14.3 N/cm 2 (20.8 psi) at 173 sec (high _4R) and was at leasr_0,34 N/cm 2 (0.5 psi) abo_e the allowable minimim throughout S-IVB powered flight. The overall system performance was close to predicted. Prepressurizstion and pressurization control were normal and within predicted limits, except during the system start transient. LOX tank prepressurization was initiated 161 sec prior to liftoff and increased the LOX tank ullage pressure from 10.5 to 27.7 N/em 2 (15.25 to 40.2 psi) within 22 sec (upper portion of Figure 9-15). Two make-up cycles were required to maintain the L0X tank ullage pressure before it stabilized. The control _ressurization switch maintained the pressure between 26.0 and 27.9 N/cm z (37.7 and 40.4 psi). After the last make-up cycle, the ullage pressure gradually increased to 29.4 N/cm 2 (42.6 psi) because of the addition from the LOX tank vent valve helium purge. The LOX tank ullage pressure was 27.6 N/cm 2 (40 psi) at S-IVB engine start. During S-IVB powered flight the ullage pressure cycled 6 times and remained between 26.0 and 27.4 N/cm 2 (37.7 and 39.8 psi). The ullage pressure was maintained within acceptable limits throughout the flight

98

LH2

p_mlp Inlet

Temperature

(OK) (see) Opcratin Rmcio of Range for Hix_ure 5.0:l an_ Lower Mixture

26

3 5

i I00 300

P_cio

of 5v5:_

25

500

24 23

400

2L

22

i_0

12

)._

16

I_ LH2 Pump

20 Inter

22 SraCi{

24 Pressure

26

28 (N/cm 2)

3D

32

3&

3_

12

li

2;
L_ 2 P_mp l_let

3;
$ta_i_

g
Pzes_uTe

3;
(psi)

_2'

4;

5"o

92

90

99

LOX Tank 35

ULlage

Pressure

(N/cm 2)

Pressure

(psi) 50

3O

25

/
20 Liftoff 15 -151 -I00 -50 Range Time (sec) 50 S-IVB Star_ 100 Engine Command 150 30

LOX Tank 30

ULLage

Pressure

(N/cm 2)

Pressure

(psi)

I
28 _, Predicted

42

24

/
S-IVB Engine

;I
__

36
34

22 150 200 250 300 350 400 Range Time 450 (sec)

c_toff CotmandI
500 550 600 650

Venting LOX Tank 28 Ullage Pressure (N/cm 2)

and Coasting

Period Pressure (psi)

38

24 34 22

I
20 18 ,6
14 i/

No Data

i
I d

30

P-I /i

----t
I I
22

_6

12 600 7OO 800 900 I000 llO0 Range Tlme 12OO (sec) 1300 1400 15OO 1600 1700

18

FIGURE 9- 15

LOX TANK PRESSURIZATION

SYSTEM PERFOrmANCE

I00

except during the start transient (middle portion of Figure 9-15). During this period the ullage pressure dropped to 23.6 N/cm 2 (34.3 psi) at 170 seconds. This value was lower than the predicted 25.5 N/cm 2 (37.0 psi), and lower than the 24.8 N/cm 2 (36 psi) observed during acceptance testing. However, the pressure was sufficient to meet the minimum NPSP requirements. This pressure drop appears to have resulted from the following four contributing factors. (i) The ullage pressure peak after S-IVB engine start was lower than during the acceptance test, 28.3 N/cm 2 (41 psi) versus 29.3 N/cm 2 (42.5 psi). (2) The LOX pressurization cold helium regulator was operating at a lower pressure level than expected; as a result flowmtes were lower. (3) The energy entering the LOX tank ullage was lower during flight because both flowmte and diffuser temperatures were lower than expected. (4) More boiloff occurred than predicted due to sloshing. As a result the ullage gas was cooled, causing a decrease in pressure. After S-IVB engine cutoff the ullage pressure (lower portion of Figure 9-15) remained 26.7 N/cm 2 (38.7 psi) until the progran_ned LOX vent occurred at 694 seconds. The pressure then decreased rapidly to 13.8 N/cm 2 (20 psi) within 30 sec, as predicted. At 724 sec the LOX vent valv_ was closed. By 1660 sec the pressure had increased 17.9 N/cm _ (26 psi) due to the residual LOX vaporizing. to

The LOX tank pressurization flowrate variation was 0.145 to 0.170 kg/s (0.32 to 0.375 ibm/s) during overcontrol system operation, and 0.I00 to 0.122 kg/s (0.22 to 0.27 ibm/s) during undercontrol system operation, excluding the first 50 sec transient period. The variation in flowrate was caused by the cold helium regulator outlet pressure being 13.8 to 17.2 N/cm 2 (20 to 25 psi) lower than predicted. The helium used during S-IVB powered flight was 60.8 kg (134 Ibm); 161 kg (354 Ibm) was loaded. The calculated collapse factor reached a maximum of 1.15 approximately 130 sec after S-IVB engine start con_and. It then decreased continually, reaching 1.02 at S-IVB engine cutoff. The J-2 engine heat exchanger outlet temperature increased to 517K during the 50 sec start transient period. Throughout the high
.... O

englne mlxture ratlo portion of fl1_ht, the temperature was 533 K durlng normal system operation and was 547 K during step pressurization system operation. The heat exchanger outlet temperature decreased after the PU valve came off the stop. Before stabilizing, the temperature data rom this probe was lost. For purposes of analysis a constant value of 511K was used for the remainder of the flight. Temperatures during the flight, prior to the data dropout, were llK to 17K higher than those recorded during acceptance testing. This difference was caused by the absence of convective heat transfer loss in the uninsulated part of the pressurization line and by differences between the actual and the predicted engine mixture ratio. The helium flow through the heat exchanger was relatively constant at 0.082 kg/s (0.18 Ibm/s) during step pressurization system operation and 0.032 kg/s (0.07 Ibm/s) during normal system operation.

i01

LOX

Supply

Conditions NPSP at the pump inlet and biased temperature the NPSP was shown in the was for calculated from the pump inlet. the computed These values total indi-

The pressure

cated that command as

16.0 N/cm 2 (23.2 upper portion of

psi) at S-IVB Figure 9-[6.

engine start The NPSP decreased

after S-IVB engine start, reaching a minimum value of 14.3 N/cm 2 (20.8 psi) at 173 seconds. This was 0.34 N/cm 2 (0.5 psi) above the required NPSP at that time. The NPSP then increased and followed the pump inlet pressure closely throughout S-IVB in LOX temperature. The NPSP greater than required. The LOX system chilldown valve was closed at 0.5 powered flight, because was slightly less than of the small change predicted, but was

down

circulation was satisfactory. sec prior to S-IVB engine start

The chillcommand.

At the time of S-IVB engine start command (149.35 sec)= the LOX pump inlet pressure (middle portion of Figure 9-16) was 27.8 N/cm 2 (40.3 psi) and the temperature (lower portion of Figure 9-16) was 91.7K, and was within the start requirements (lower portion of Figure 9-14). At 173 sec the LOX pump total inlet pressure reached a minimum value of 26.1N/cm (37.8 psi). Based on comparison of the LOX pump inlet pressure data with the appeared was

LOX tank ullage pressure to be lower than expected

data, the LOX during S-IVB

pump total inlet powered flight.

pressure Since it

possible that measurement calibration may have been affected by condi_ons, the ullage pressure and maximum suction duct pressure drop from acceptance testing and the pressure caused by liquid head were used to calculate the pump inlet total pressure. The calculations indicated an average total pressure 1.03 N/cm 2 (1.5 psi) greater than that indicated by telemetered pump inlet pressure data. The pump inlet total pressure during the first 65 sec after S-IVB engine start command was lo_er than predicted because of the loner ullage pressure during this time. After this period the pump inlet total pressure was only slightly less than predicted. The fore, the LOX pump inlet temperature data was lost probe at 303 seconds. and Thereused

tank

liquid

position

1 temperature

was

biased

to represent the pump inlet temperature during S-IVB powered flight. This biased temperature, shown in the lower portion of Figure 9-16, closely followed the pump inlet temperature prior to the time of pump inlet temperature data loss. The pump inlet temperature _as 91.7K at S-IVB engine start command. It remained relatively constant during S-IVB powered flight but increased slightly near S-IVB engine cutoff. During the first half of S-IVB powered flight, the pump inlet temperature was about 0.6K higher than predicted. This difference then decreased with time less until S-IVB engine than predicted. cutoff. At cutoff the temperature was slightly

102 _---LOX _SP 25 35 (N/cm 2) _ Predicted Actual NPSP (psi)

3O

20

g_

2o

[I 10 _

FRequtred | I

15

tO

5
LSO 250 350 450 Range Time (set) 550

I
650

LOX pump Total 36

Inlet

Pressure

(N/cm 2)

Pressure

(psi) 50

32

35 24 I

i
20 150 250 350 Range Time 450 (sec 550 i 650 30

LOX Pum 92.00

Inlet Temperature

(OK)

Biased LOg Bulk 91.75 f'Temperature

91.50 / j. J [ |

..s 91.25 D S-IVB Start Engine Command "''_" 350 450 Range Time (sec) FIGURE 9-16 s _'_ _ ..- G

91.00 150

...... 250

"_

S-IVB Cutoff

Engine _! C_mmand | 550 650

LOX PUMP OONDITIONS

103

Calculations based on LOX tank ullage pressure conditions at S-IVB engine start command and cutoff of 175 kg difference diction. 9.4.3 (385 was Ibm). caused The predicted by sloshing,

and temperature indicate a LOX

boiloff

value was 72.6 kg (160 which was not considered

Ibm). The in the pre-

AUXILIARY

PRESSURIZATION

SYSTI_4S

The pneumatic control and purge system performed satisfactorily throughout the flight. The helium supply to the system was adequate for both pneumatic valve control and purging. The regulated pressure was maintained within acceptable limits and all components functioned normally.

At liftoff the sta_e pneumatic control helium sphere pressure was approximately 2000 N/cm Z (2901 psi). It had decreased to 1944 N/cm 2 (2820 psi) by engine start command. During S-IVB powered flight the pressure dropped continuously until it reached 1890 N/cm 2 (2741 psi) at engine cutoff. As expected, the amount of helium used was low. Sphere temperature was 252.2K at liftoff, and decreased to 248K at engine start command. By engine cutoff the sphere temperature was 248.2K. The helium sphere temperature and pressure are presented in Figure 9-17. The pneumatic helium sphere was loaded at liftoff with 0.503 kg (i. Ii ibm) of helium, the mass in the sphere at engine start command was 0.497 kg (1.095 ibm), and 0.488 kg (1.075 Ibm) helium remained at engine cutoff. The rate of helium use included a constant system bleed in addition to the normal system used. The constant system bleed prevented the system from operating in a "bang-bang" mode. All engine and pneumatic control valves responded properly throughout the countdown and flight. The pneumatic control helium regulator operated at a pressure level of 365 to 372 N/cm 2 (530 to 540 psi) during flight as a result of the low helium demand (lower portion of Figure 9-17). During the period of high pneumatic system cutoff command, the control pressure dropped to as (425 psi). Such drops have occurred on acceptance expected. Since the pressure recovers rapidly, the use at low as firings drops S-IVB engine 293 N/cm L and were acceptable.

are

During the countdown and flight all purge functions were satisfactorily accomplished. The LOX chilldown pump motor container pressure was maintained at 32.4 N/um2 (47 psi), close to the design requirement of 33.8 to 37.2 N/cm 2 (49 to 54 psi).

104

Control 253

Helium

Sphere

Temperature

{OK)

250

\
-200 -tO0 0 I00 200 Range Time 300 (sec) Pressure (psi) 3000 400 500 600 700 Helium Sphere Pressure (N/cm 2)

247

Control 2100

2000

i }

__--

_,,,fL._ _ -._,,_,_,-,_ A._-,,._ _ :_,--_ 2800

1900

1800 -200 - i00 0 I00 200 Range Control Helium Regulator Dischar e Pressure Time 300 (sec) S-IVB (N/cm 2) Cutoff Engine Command _| | A00 500 600

k 700

2600

Pressure

(pt-i)

375 350

II _ 5OO

325

475 450

30O 425 Liftoff I -200 -I00 0 I00 200 Range FIGURE 9-17 PNEUMATIC Time 300 (see) PURGE SYST_ PERFORMANCE 400 500 600 700

275

400

CONTROL

AND

105

i0.0 I0. I SUMMARY

(U)

S-IVB

AUXILIARY

PROPULSION

SYSTEM

The performance of each motor in the two Auxiliary Propulsion System (APS) modules was as expected. The average specific impulses of modules I and 2 were 237 and 250 sec, respectively. The APS functioned properly to provide roll control during S-IVB powered flight and to provide pitch and yaw control following S-IVB engine cutoff. Up until loss of telemetry, 36.4% of the available oxidizer and 36.4% of the available fuel were used. Only 4.7% of the available propellants were required for all control during S-IVB powered flight. 10.2 10.2.1 APS PERFORMANCE AND PRESSURIZATION SYSTEMS

PROPELLANT

Module 1 and 2 oxidizer and fuel systems operated properly. The quantities of propellants used by each module are presented in Table i0-I and Figure 10-1. Figure I0-i also shows the APS layout and nomenclature. Because of noise on the PDM data and the small quantities of propellant consumed, the values are approximate. Prior to APS activation, the module 1 oxidizer temperature was 306K and the mass was 17.52 kg (38.63 ibm); the module 2 oxidizer temperature was 297K and the mass was 17.54 kg (38.66 Ibm). At 1706 sec, the module I oxidizer temperature was 306K and the mass _as 10.42 kg (22.98 ibm); the module 2 temperature was 303K and the mass was 11.86 kg (26.14 ibm). Module 1 _ed 40.5% of the oxidizer mass and module 2 used 32.38 percent. Prior to APS activation, the module I fuel temperature was 304K and the mass was 10.67 kg (23.52 ibm); the module 2 fuel temperature was 297K and the mass was 10.74 kg (23.67 lbm). At 1706 sec, the module 1 fuel temperature was 303K and the mass was 6.28 kg (13.84 Ibm); the module 2 fuel temperature was 297K and the mass was 7.34 kg (16.80 Ibm). Module i _ed 41.15% of the fuel mass and module 2 used 31.63 percent.

APS helium pressurization out the flight. Prior to APS pressure was 2086 N/cm 2 (3025 (0.305 Ibm). at 296K and At the 1706 sec, remaining

systems functioned satisfactorily throughactivation, the module i helium sphere psi) at 298K and the mass was 0.138 kg N/cm 2 (2460 psi)

the module I pressure was 1696 mass was 0.115 kg (0.254 Ibm).

O_

T_LE i ModuLe Oxidizer Events Mass kg (Ibm) Percent Used

lfl-_ i

_P$

PRDPEI.,I.._I,Ta" CONSI._TION

[ Consumption Fuel Mass kg (Ibm) Percent Used Mass kg (Ibm) Oxidizer

Module

2 Consumption i

i Fuel

Percent

Used

Mass

kg (ibm)

Percent

Used

Powered

Roll

Control

0.&3 (0.95) 1.91 (4.21)

2,&6

0.19 (0.42) 1.21 (2.67)

I. 79

0.43 (0.94) 0.92 (2.02)

2.43

0.29 (0,64) 0.39 (0.85)

2.70

Initial Convergence, LH 2 Vent Disturbance Pitch Down Maneuver LOX and Stop L Limit Cycle Operation Vent Disturbance Disturbance

10.90

]1.35

5.23

3.59

0.67 (1.47) 0 0 O.Ol8 (0.04) 1.12 (2.47) 2.95 (6.51) 7.07 (15.65) 16.85 3.81

O.&7 (1.04) 0 0 0.15 (0.3&) 0.66 (l.46) 1.70 (3.75) 4.39 (9.68) 15.9& 4.42

O 0 [.32 (2.90) 0.09 (0.20) 0.27 (0.60) 2.66 (5.86) 5.68 (12.52) 15.[5 0

O 0 0.9| (2,01) 0.05 (0.12) 0.12 (0.27) 1.63 (3.60) 3.39 (7.49) _S.20 0

LH 2 Vent Pitch

Maneuver

7.50

8.49

O.10

1.44

0.52

0.51

S-IVB/Spacecraft Separation Disturbance Maneuvers Separation Tota[s After

6,39

6,2i

1,55

|.l&

40.51

41.[5

32.38

_I,6]

t_4R Average [_4R Average

Modl_le Module

1: 2:

L.65 1.67

107
III Module lllp 2

ip
ModuIe I Propellant 20 Remaining (kg) Propellant Remaining (ibm) 1

40 18

4odule

2 Oxidizer

14

30

12

Module Oxidizer

I _ _

_'_ 25

I0

__/---_

Module

2 Fuel

20

_
6 Start Tank 4 200 400 600 Ell 2 Blowdownd wv ||_ || Start 1 Stop Tank 800 LOX LOX I and Lll 2 Tank Blowdown

ts

I0

Blowdown I000 (sec) AND

1200

1400

1600

1800

Range _IGURE I0-i APS

Time

OXIDIZER

FUEL

CONSUI<PTION

108

The

module

i regulator This psi). was

outlet less

pressure than the

varied desired

from range

133 of

to ]35

135 N/cm 2 to 141

(193 to 196 psi). N/cm 2 (195 to 205 Prior to APS

activation,

the

moaule the was ibm)

2 helium mass 1758 had

sphere

pressure

_as

2087 N/cm 2 (3027 At 1706 sec, the remaining The mass module of

psi) at 296K and module 2 pressure 0.122 kg (0.269 outlet less

was 0.140 kg (0.308 ibm). N/cm 2 (2551 psi) and the a temperature varied from range of 133 of 290K. to 135 137 to N/cm 2 141

2 regulator This psi). was

pressure than the

(193 to 199 psi). N/cm z (195 to 205 10.2.2 APS APS MOTOR

desired

PERFORMANCE was satisfactory throughout the flight. The

motor

performance

total impulse required throughout the flight was less than predicted. However, it is evident from coincidence of APS pulses and flight events that all APS firings were of satisfactory frequency and duration. The longest pulse required was 7.745 sec on the module 2 pitch motor at 734.6 seconds. Chamber pressure on-times varied from 0.040 to 7.745 sec and had corresponding signal on-times of 0.065 to 7.775 seconds. The APS module I and module 2 total impulse for various events

throughout in Section 2 were 237 and module

the flight is presented in Table 12-11. (APS Event Summary) 12.0. The average specific impulses for module 1 and module and 250 sec, respectively. The total impulses for module i 2 for the entire flight are presented in Figure 10-2.

I09 Total Impulse (i000 N-s) Total Impulse (I000 Ib-s)

24

22
20
18 _I

f..Fj

r-J
16 z" j

14

- j

i0

Module 2

2 8

0
0 0

/
Start LOX Tank Blowdown Stop LOX and LH 2 Tank Blowdown !ank Blowdown i_ 200 400 600 L I 800 IO00 1200 Range Time (sec) APS TOTAL IMPULSE II

0 1400 1600 1800

FIGURE 10-2

110

I1.0 ii.i SI_ftARY

(U)

HYDRAULIC

SYSTEM

S-IB hydraulic system operation during the flight was satisfactory. Sufficient source pressures were maintained by each of the independent closed loop systems. The oil temperatures remained within acceptable limits, and the hydraulic oil level trends were as expected. An unusual oil temperature increase phenomenon occurred on all four of the S-IB hydraulic system_ as the vehicle reached Mach I. S-IVB hydraulic flight. 11.2 S-IB HYDRAULIC system operation was satisfactory throughout the

SYSTEMS

Four independent closed-loop hydraulic systems, employed on the four outboard H-I engines, transmit energy through actuators for engine movement to provide vehicle control. The system pressure levels were satisfactory similar to those of the last Saturn I (SA-IO) during flight, and flight. At 0 sec,

were

the system pressures ranged from 2206 to 2275 N/cm 2 _auge (3,200 to 3,300 psig). The pressure decreased about 34.5 N/cm z (50 psi) on each engine during the flight (Figure II-I, upper portion). This normal pressure decrease is due to the main pump temperature increase during flight. Reservoir oil levels were satisfactory during flight, and were also similar to those of the SA-10 flight. There was an approximate 3% rise in each level from 0 to 150 sec, indicating an average oil temperature rise of approximately IOK in each hydraulic system (Figure Ii-i, center port_on). The reservoir oil temperatures were satisfactory during flight. Liftoff temperatures for S-IB averaged 314K as compared to an average of 334K for the four SA-10 hydraulic systems. The decreased temperatures for S-IB were due to the three hour hold during which the hydraulic systems were not operated. The systems were subjected to 278 to 294K engine compartment conditioning during this hold period. The average temperature decrease during the flight was 8K for S-IB, compared to an average of 12K for the four SA-IO hydraulic systems. A reservoir temperature increase phenomenon, between 60 and 70 sec of flight, occurred on all four S-IB hydraulic systems (Figure II-I, lower portion). This condition did not occur on SA-I through SA-IO, and cannot be explained at this time. Also on S-IB engine 2, there was a temperature increase at 20 to 27 sec of flight. This condition also 'is unexplained at this time.

iii
II Pressure 2400 (N/cm 2 gauge) Pressure (psig)

c----Lower

Limit

2000

_ I

3000 2800

18OO

2600

I i600 -20 0 20 40 60 Range Time 80 (sec) 100 ll0 120 140

2400

Level 80

(%) I

Upper

Limit

_
20 -20 0 20 40 Temperature 320 (OK)

__

m 60 Range Time

I 80 (sec)

I00

llO

120

140

310

_--_.

---------

Lower 300 -20 0 20 40 60 Range FIGURE 11-L HYDRAULIC OIL Time 80 (sec) LEVEL

Limit

I00

II0

120

140

PRESSURE,

AND TEMPERATURE

iS-[B

STAGE)

112

11.3

S-IVB HYDRAtrLIC SYSTEMS

S-IVB hydraulic system performance was within predicted limits and the entire system operated satisfactorily throughout the flight. Noise problems encountered during checkout did not appear at any time during flight. At S-IVB cutoff the reservoir fluid level returned to plus 99% full without venting any fluid overboard. As predicted the fluid temperature was not great enough to cause fluid expansion sufficient to cause venting. Hydraulic system start, and S-IVB TABLE fluid pressure, level, and temperature cutoff are presented in Table ii-I. 11-1 HYDRAULIC SYSTEM PARAMETERS at liftoff,

S-IVB

Hydraulic

System

Fluid

II Liftoff

Start - N/cm 2

Cutoff

Pressure [ Auxiliary Pump 2447 (3550)

(psi)

Engine

Driven Pump Outlet

2454 (3560) 2464 (3575) 2478 (3595) Tem)erature - OK

2454 (3560) 2475 (3590)

Accumulator

GN 2

Engine

Driven Pump Inlet

317 310 229 284

316 311 298 284 24.9

347 334 304 295 33.0

Reservoir Yaw Actuator Pitch Actuator Reservoir Level - %

2516

before

Continuous fluid pressure, level, and temperature values liftoff to S-IVB cutoff are presented in Figure 11-2.

from

(_ _k Auxiliary and Engine Driven Pump Outlet Fluid and Accumulator GN 2 Pressures (N/cm 2) 2600 S-IVB Ign. O i | Maximum Auxiliary and Engine Driven pump Inlet and Reservoir Fluid Temperatures (OK) 450 S-IVB Ign, 3700 410 _ I | I

Pump Outlet Accumulator Reservoir Pump Inlet

GN2 (Temperature)

<> Reservoir (Level)

Pressure

(psi)

I":I Yaw Actuator Pitch Actuator S-IVB| CO _ i

S-IVB CO _

25so .........
2500

I U ..........
I

I I

__ ..--- " " . ---'D_tTDropoot

370

,
......... _____ Minimum

_
% l____

3600
330

| Between Valid Points M_xtmum .....,-4"" --Etr*poI*ted--I.j I - __ _ " k'_

24o0
-200

. - _ --I--- -500 600

35oo

_9o
250 -200

l
200

-100

i0O 200 300 &DO Range Time (see)

700

Minimum _____ ..... -1OO 0 I00

| ._ 300 400 500 600 700

Range

Time

(sec)

i Ya_ end Actuator Pitch Fluid (K)

Reservoir Level 40 (%)

Fluid

'
! I --'"_>

Temperature 360

i
I
|

30

320

2u
IO

I
I
|

..--,
Minimum

280 _o l 500 600 700 200 -20 Minimum

i
I .j I l
tOO 200 Range Time 300 400 500 6C (sec)

........ f
700 __.

-- -r- ........ l
0 -2DO -I00 O t0O RanKe 200 Time 300 400 (se')

--t
-t0O (S-IVg

7_
FIGURE 11-2 HYDRAULIC FI,UID PRESSURE, LEVEL, AND TF/_PERATURE STAGE)

114

_L.",'-'L _,_vw e llJLI_

I'rl J u In t.

12.0 12.1 SiU_4ARY

_@_'GUIDANCE

AND CONTROL

In general, the performance of the guidance and control system was as expected and satisfactory. The accuracy of the terminal conditions was impaired by two Z channel accelerometer reasonableness test failures due to high cross range wind shears near maximum dynamic pressure. The control system functioned properly. No excessive body rates were observed and no instabilities were detected. The maximum values for the parameters of attitude error and angle-of-attack that were observed near the maximum dynamic pressure region, were attitude errors of 2.2 deg in pitch, 2.5 deg in yaw and -0.9 deg in roll; and -1.4 deg in pitch and -3.5 deg in yaw angle-of-attack. Initial conditions at S-IB/S-IVB separation in pitch and yaw were small, creating negligible attitude and attitude rate excursions. The Auxiliary Propulsion System corrected for a constant roll torque throughout S-IVB powered flight which created an attitude error of approximately 0.5 deg. After powered flight, the Auxiliary Propulsion System satisfactorily performed pitch, yaw and roll control throughout coast and achieved the maneuvers as required. 12.2 12.2.1 SYST_ DESCRIPTION FOR SATURN IB AS-201

CHANGES

The Guidance and Control (G&C) System for the AS-201 vehicle differed from Saturn I SA-10 with major changes in hardware and flight program. The changes in operating mode were as follows: (i) the guidance coordinate system was established at Guidance Reference Release (GRR), about 5 sec prior to liftoff instead of at liftoff, (2) Iterative Guidance Mode (104) was used for all axes, replacing delta minimum guidance in cross range, (3) gimbal angles and attitude commands were resolved in the Launch Vehicle Digital Computer (LVDC) instead of through a resolver chain, (4) mechanical feedback was used on the S-IVB engine actuators, (5) an Auxiliary Propulsion System (APS) was used for roll control during S-IVB burn and for attitude control about all axes during coast. 12.2.2 The are used FUNCTION AND HARDWARE DESCRIPTION

terms for the three separate functions customarily discussed in this text according to the following definitions: of the

Navigation is the determination of position and velocity vehicle from measurements made onboard the vehicle.

j_,,_j_klrm

P_Pk, i"w'n I

115

Guidance is the computation of maneuvers desired end conditions of a trajectory (e.g.,

necessary to achieve the an insertion into orbit). stable attitude

Control is the operation required to maintain relative to an angular position command. A block diagram of the navigation, shown in Figure 12-1. guidance

and control

system

is

The stabilized platform (ST-124M) is a three gimbal configuration with gas bearing gyros and accelerometers mounted on the stable element to provide a space-fixed coordinate reference frame for attitude control and for nagivation measurements. Vehicle accelerations and rotations are sensed relative to this stable element. Gimbal angles are measured by redundant resolvers and inertial velocity is obtained from accelerometer head rotation in the form of encoder outputs (also redundant). The Launch Vehicle Data Adapter (LVDA) is an input-output device for the LVDC. These two components are digital devices which operate in conjunction to carry out the flight program. This program performs the following functions: (i) processes the inputs from the ST-124M, (2) performs navigation calculations, (3) provides first stage tilt program, (4) calculates IGM steering commands, (5) resolves gimbal angles and _teering commands into the vehicle system for attitude error commands, [6) issues cutoff and sequencing signals. The Control/Emergency Detection System (EDS) rate gyro package contains 9 gyros (triplex redundant in 3 axes). Their outputs go to the Control Signal Processor (CSP) where they are voted and sent to the control computer for damping angular motion. These outputs are also processed in the CSP for use as an abort parameter. The switch selectors are used to relay discrete co=_ands from the LVDC to other locations in the vehicle. The cutoff signal and time based events are issued through the switch selectors. Command Receiver, MCR 503 and a command directional coupler are portions of the Secure Range Safety System carried as passenger items on AS-201 for the purpose of qualifying this system. These items are also portions of the command guidance syste_ to be used on later flights for updating the computer data during flight. 12.2.3 NAVIGATION SCHEME DESCRIPTION by programs stored

Guidance during S-IB powered flight was provided in the LVDC and may be broken into three segments:

Located

on Top of

LES Tower

on CM

116

Q-g_ll 1_ _ ToIU
Transduc@ry EDS Distributor

SPACECRaFt INSTRtl4ER_ UNIT Passenger Only

r .... I o. .l ,

I i Co_:_n_and ,

r4"_
h

! Y
Ground NI_

Signals, po_er;

etc. Stab.

_ I Test Signals_\

[ ST126MPlatformStabilizedyR [i GyrosAccel.33 P

P'Y'RconditionerAccel.Signal Vi ttitude Signals /

_AcE'_ /|__ConCrolDisctetelnptSand .... ff

Range 4- i0 mls 2 Active 30 to from ll0 sec :on,tel Accel. Pitch Control yaw AcceI

+ 15 deg _4eering 1 Control Computer (Filters, and dist. scales, sums] input

Sigeals

0 p

Discrete Signals to IU Systems

Package

_ R

Range Active Lifter S-IVg

I Rate + lO deg/s Prior to f

Gyro

_ Signal on-off 0vet-rates _o EDS

STAGE

System (APS) Propu l s ton Provides roll control during S-IVS powered flight and pitch, yaw, and roll during coast

on-off Actuator Command Signals (,^-i) To pitch and yaw _t. control actuators _ e + 7 deg Discrete To S-IVB Signals Systems "

S-IB

STACE To Control for engines 8 deg 6 deg Inboard 3 deg Actuators 1,2,_ & _t,\ i r--==-ll----_

swivel angle cant angle engines Electrical i_ F Discrete Signals to S-Ig Systems Feedback

cant

angle

FIGURE

12-1

GUIDANCE

AND CONTROL SYST_

BLOCK DIAGRAH

117

I. 2. 3.

GRR

to i0 sec after

liftoff

(LO + I0).

LO + i0 to LO + 139 LO + 139 to IGM initiation

During segment l, all steering commands were zero except in roll. The roll steering command was set to 5 deg to inhibit the removal of the initial 5 deg roll attitude. In segment 2, the yaw command remained zero, roll was set to zero (rate limiting prevents the command from exceeding I deg/s), and the pitch command was computed from one of three third degree time polynomials Each of these polynomials is a least square curve fit. During the third segment, the steering commands were arrested.

The S-IVB stage was guided by a multistage three-dimensional form of the lterative Guidance Mode (IGN). IGM is an optimal scheme based on the optimum steering function derived from the Calculus of Variations. This approximate function was implemented in both pitch and yaw. Optimized vehicle performance dictates the use of two thrust levels during S-IVB burn. The desired thrust level change is achieved by a change in engine mixture ratio (_IRC). The 104 scheme is very sensitive to acceleration changes. In particular, tau varies as the reciprocal of thrust/mass (F/M). Due to this sensitivity, an artificial tau mode is employed which reflects an ideal step change in thrust for the first 30 see after the thrust level change. The OIRC is detected by a decrease in measured platform acceleration over two computation cycles twice in
Succession.

The sensitivity of the scheme to F/H changes increases as the tenuinal conditions are approached, requiring the use of a terminal scheme utilizing only the velocity constraint terms. This mode is chi tilde steering mode. During this mode, the altitude constraint terms in pitch are set to zero end the yaw terms are frozen at last values. A test was used for the first time on AS-201 to determine the

the their

reasonableness of sensed velocity changes by comparing with a band of values'inserted into the computer to prevent platform accelerometer failures from having an adverse affect on the vehicle flight. Failure of the accelerometers may be characterized by zero or extremely high values. The band of values, computed to be reasonable for the particular flight conditions, were inserted into the computer so that accelerometer input Signals that were within the band would be accepted and signals outside of the band would be rejected as accelerumeter failures.

118

The general sequence of coast guidance consisted of two phases. The first was the attitude reorientation phase which began ten seconds after the start of time base four. During this phase, one set of computed attitude commands was used to achieve tation for separation of the Command Module (S-IVB/IU). the proper attitude orienfrom the Launch Vehicle

The second part of the coast guidance consisted of post separation maneuvers. The longitudinal axis of the S-IVB/IU was aligned with the local horizontal and roll maneuvers consisting of two commands to +40 deg and to -40 deg were executed. 12.3 12.3.1 LAUNCH VEHICLE FLIGHT CONTROL ANALYSIS

S-IB STAGE CONTROL

The performance of the control system was satisfactory in the pitch, yaw and roll planes. Attitude errors, attitude rates and average actuator positions are shown on Figures 12-2, and 12-3 and 12-4 respectively. The maximum control parameter values observed (near the maximum dynamic pressure region) for the S-IB stage powered flight are presented in Table 12-1. The table also includes the maximum roll plane parameter values during the roll maneuver. The maximum vector sum values of total average actuator deflection, angle-of-attack and dynamic pressure angleof-attack product were: 2.1 deg, 3.65 deg, and 10.6 deg N/cm 2 respectS,ely. These maximum values were significantly below design criteria. In the pitch plane, the magnitude of the control parameters were small throughout S-IB stage powered flight. The pitch program (Xz) began at 11.2 sac and was arrested at 134.4 sec at an angle of 61.4 deg from the launch vertical (see Figure 12-5). This tilt program was biased for the average median wind for December. January, February, and March. A comparison of the (T = 0) FPS-16 wind and angle-of-attack wind (calculated from Q-ball angle-of-attack, attitude angle, trajectory angle, and space-fixed velocity) is shown in Figure 12-6. The angle-of-attack wind is in good agreement with the FPS-16 wind. The largest pitch wind component near max Q was 57.3 m/s. Also shown in Figure 12-6 is a comparison of the Q-ball angle-of-attack and the angle-of-attack obtained from a digital simulation using the measured FPS-16 wind. Yaw plane control parameters were, in general, significantly greater than in the pitch plane; however, they were well within the design limits of the AS-201 vehicle. A comparison of the angle-of-attack computed from Q-ball differential pressure measurements and results obtained from a flight simulation are in good agreement (Figure 12-7). Calculated and measured winds are shown on the upper portion of Figure 12-7. The yaw wind component reached a peak of 43.2 m/s at 81 seconds.

119
Pitch (+ Attitude Nose 3egin Up) Pitch (deg) Error _ Accelerometer Control Actix, _/--\ _-_ _ e _ Arrest Pitch Program

IECO I J

OECO ' '

Program

1
-i

I0

20

30

40

50

60 Range

70 Time

go 90 (sec)

100

iiO

120

[30

14G

150

Yaw Attitude (+ Nose Right) 3

Error (,l"ep

-_ _ +---Acce]erometer Control Active----

Telemetry _5-D Simulation

10

20

30

40

50

60

70 Range Time

80 (sec)

90

lO0

ll0

L20

130

140

150

Roll

Attitude

Error from Rear)(deg)

(+ CW Veiwed 1.5

1.0 i

0.5 Roll Maneuver

---

X./_

'

-0.5 -1.0 0 I0 20 30 40 50 60 Range FICHE 12-2 A_ITUDE 70 Time _ROR 80 (sec) S-IB 90 I00 II0 120 130 140 150

POWER_

_IG_

120

Arrest Pitch An_ular Rate (IU Control Rate Gyro) (deg/s) 0,_ _Begin Pitch Program

Pitch \ _ ] TECO OECO i ,

./_

Prgram

"'
-1.5 0 I0 20 30 gO 50 643 Range 70 Time g0 (sec) _Te[emetry yaw Angular (IU Control Rate Rate _ Gyro) (deg/s) _ _ 6-D 90 i00 II0 120 130

[ 140

1
150

Simulation

o _
-I 0 I0 20 30 40 50

_
60 70 Range Time

/_
80 (see)

a
90 IO0 llO 120 130 140

:
[5C

Angular Rate Roll (IU Control Rate Gyro) 1.0 -

(deg/s) -

_y' _//
-L.O
2.0 0 10 20 30

_
&O 50

'',
60

V," _l vV v_'70 Range Time 80 90 (sec) S-IB I00 IlO 120 130

I-:
140 150

FIGURE

12-3

ANGULAR

RATE

GYROS

POK_ERED

FLIGI{T

lZl

Average

pitch Nose

Actuator Down) , _--Begin Program ! Pitch

Position

(deg)

Arrest Program

Pitch _ lEO00ECO I i t

(+ Steer
1.0

_ I

0.5

-0.5

10

20

30

40

50

60 Range

70 Time

80 (sec)

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

--Telemetry Average Yaw Actuator (+ Steer Nose Left) Position (deg) _ _ _6-D Simulation l

-I_

-2' 0 I0 20 30 40 50 60 70 Range

}+
_ 80 Tim2 (sec) (deg)

_ 1)

90

iO0

110

120

130

140

150

Average Ro11 Actuator Position (+ CCW Viewed fro_ Rear)

0.2

-0.2

'
iO 20 30 40 50 60

-0.4

/
FIGURE 12-4 AVERAGE

tt,
I00 ilO 120 130 140

'

'
150

70 80 90 Range Time (see) ACTUATOR

POSITION

SIB

TABLE MAXIMI_ (Near the maximum dynamic

12-I PARAMETERS region and during Roll Maneuver)

CONTROL

pressure

Pitch Parameters Units Magnitude Attitude Error (deg) 2.2

Plane (see) Magnitude 2.5

Ya_ Plane "' Range Time 86.2 (sec t

Range Time 88.5

Angle-of-Attack (free stream) Angular Normal Rate Acceleration Position

(deg) (deg/s) (m/s 2) (deg)

-1.4 -1.4 0.8 1.2

77.3 91.0 88.2 88.3

-3.5 -0.7 -1.5 -2.1

80.2 89.1 77.8 80.4

Actuator

Angle-of-Attack Dynamic Pressure Product

(deg-N/cm 2)

4.1

77.3

10.2

80.2

Roll Plane During Roll Maneuver Magnitude Attitude Angular Engine Error Rate Deflection Roll (deg) (deg/s) (4eg) 1.4 -1.4 0.17 Range Time 14.0 14.8 13.0 (sec) After Magnitude -0.9 -1.7 -0.35 Roll Maneuver Range Time 78.3 62.9 77_6 (sec)

123-

Roll

Command

and from

Roll Rear)

Attitude

(deg)

(CW Viewed

5 4 3

" ....

_'+-'----

Platform \ _ "_'_ _----- q_R ST- 124M 1%_ Roll Attitude

Roll

Program

XR-----_ '_"

1 o
-I

I
5

I
IU 15

.;'"
20 Range

' '
25 Time (set)

Pitch

Program Down)

(deg)

Arrest

Pitch

Program

(+ Nose 65

(134.4 +

sec) [ 61.4 deg

60

"I

---4--

"
55 --- ..........

50
45

IECOi
--+--

40
35 --

t--

3O
_z Pitch Program //14 r<.. "Pitch Velocity Vectori: Angle i

//
20 -/._ i i

//
15 _

/]

+
)

i
!

lO
5
0 0 _ l0

/
20

/
40 50 60 70 Range FIGURE 12-5 80 Time 90 (set) I00

'
II0 120

'
130 140

I (
150 160

30

Cf_ANDANGLES

S-IB

Pitch Plane Wind (+ Downrange) 60

Velocity

(m/s)

,.,

FPS-16

Winds---_

.j-v

_.._ _

20

"v'" '1" "_j

20

Angle-of-Attack/.. "_'i 40

60

I Winds _1 80

" I00

%
Range

"
120 Time (sec)

-20

Pitch Angle-of-Attack (deg) (+ Nose Above Relative Velocity 2

Vector)

/---Calculated

from

Q-Ball

'
_

'
J I/_ _ _,'

_12o k._./,-X'' \,_,/,' _ ...,,'J" -'-'

6r%/ _)v ",,k_ /_A,_._ I %,,_ " Range Time (sec)

-2

-4

V
FIGURE

'
12-6 PITCH PLANE N-IND VELOCITY FREE STREAM ANGLE-OF-ATTACK COMPONENT AND

Yaw Plane Wind Velocity ( 20

(m/s) Plane) x----Angle-of-Attack Winds

Right of Flight

-_'

__.

'
20

"'~',-_':ft_--%_
" 4D

'
"_'_o_ '
_. ._

\
,I

h
v-Y

'
80

7, ''v _/_J" "IOO

Y3{\

./_v_ ,
L/'
120 (sec)

Range Time

-40

\.V
V

Yaw Angle-of-Attack, Free-Stream (+ Nose Right of Velocity Vector) 2

'

'
12-7

"'

'

A,
_ /
'_ W " ' k--Calculated From FPS-16 Winds--_ WIND VELOCITY AND FREE-STREAM

'V

-2 Calculated

RangefrOmimeQ_Ball(Sec) T

-4

FIGURE

YAW PLANE

ANGLE-OF-ATTACK
_J k_n

126

Apparently, the vehicle was subject to a clockwise moment in the roll plane as evidenced by the clockwise roll at liftoff and the roll attitude error of 0.5 deg (Figure 12-2) which was evident later in flight when most of the aerodynamic forces had diminished. The magnitude of this torque would be equivalent to a thrust misalignment of 0.I deg for each of the S-IB stage control engines. The -0.9 deg roll attitude error measured near max Q the turbine exhaust is attributed fairings. to unsymmetrical aerodynamic flow about

At 11.2 secjthe required launch-to-flight azimuth roll maneuver program began, rotating the vehicle's pitch and yaw axes into coincidence with the inertial axes. The 5 deg roll program, executed at a rate of 1.0 deg/s, was completed at 18.7 sec (Figure 12-5). S-IB stage tank sloshing was not monitored directly on the AS-201 vehicle. However, predominant slosh frequencies were observed from the time history of engine deflections. These frequencies and the predicted first tank slosh modes as a function of flight time are presented in Figure 12-8. Apparently, as on previous Saturn flights (Saturn I, Block II) S-IVB LOX slosh was the major contributor to actuator oscillations during the maximum dynamic pressure region. The maximum peak-to-peak response of the engines to sloshing was 0.31 deg in pitch and 0.35 deg in yaw 12-8). occurring at 83 and 81 sec respectively (middle portion of Figure

Both sensor for

S-IVB the

tanks S-IVB

were

instrumented

with

a continuous system which

mass was

level to

propellant

utilization

used

obtain measured slosh frequencies for the LOX and ment was obtained between measured and theoretical as shown at the bottom of Figure 12-8. 12.3.2 S-IVB STAGE CONTROL ANALYSIS

LH 2 tanks. first mode

Good agreefrequencies

The performance of the S-IVB J-2 engine control system in the pitch and yaw planes and of the APS in the roll plane during powered flight was satisfactory. All transients were within the capabilities of the systems. Attitude errors, attitude rates and actuator positions for powered flight are shown in Figures 12-9, 12-10 and 12-11 respectively. The flight control computer activated the J-2 engine control system at approximately 148 seconds. Initial body rates observed during separation were those imparted to the second flight stage by the lower stage. The separation transients were smaller than predicted due to lower initial angular rates. Steady state errors, which did not adversely affect the control system response, were slightly different than predicted due to a thrust vector misalignment of 0.33 deg (nose up) in pitch and 0.13 deg (nose left) in yaw. A slightly longer than predicted transient period, caused by a slower than expected roll motion response, occurred

127

Observed Slosh Frequencies From Engine Deflections (Hz)

1.8 Predicted 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 Observed 0 a Pitch Yaw /_/ Ist Mode Outer LOX & Outer Fuel Center LOX S-IVB LOX S-IVB Hydrogen / / j/ / I

0.4 0 20 40 60 80 100 12G 140 160 Range Time (sec) Response to Slosh, Peak to Peak (deg)

Engine DeflectLon 0.4 0.3 Yaw

Pitch I, 0.i 0.2 0 0 _t 20 40 l "_ !_. 60 80 I00 Range Time (sec) 120 140 160

Observed Slosh Frequencies From PU Probe (Hz) 2.0 Predicted Ist Mode

I.6 1.2 O. 8

....

S-IVB LH 2 S-IVB LOX

Observed X o LH2 LOX -0""_-0"_'-0 .

0.4_-_-'O-'d'-O 0

go

go
Range .Time

lbO 17o
(see)

1),o

FIGUR_ 12-8

SLOSH DURING S-IB POWERED FLIGHT

Guidance Initiation 176.1 | Pitch Attitude Error (deg)

End Artificiat Tau Mode 305.

Chi Tilde Guidance Mode 559.89 I

S-IVB Engine 602._6

CO

(+NoeeUp

_I

-1

140

18,

220

260

300

_l
I

340 380 Range Time (sec)

Llll
'

'

420

460

500

-71
540

580

II
.!

yaw Attitude

Error (deg)

(+ No,e Right)

. I

itULiILI
140 "180 220 260 Roll Attitude Error (deg) from Re_r) (+ CW Viewed

300

340 380 Range Time (sec)

l i_2L[ i i I!Lti
420 460 500 540 580

I
v
260

I
i
580

;_'

4
220

l
300

,
340 380 Range Time (sec) ATTITUDE ERRORS

!
420 460 500

I
540

-1

140

i80

I Ji

.FIGURE 12-9

S-[VB POWERED

FLIGHT

Guidance Initiation 175_1

End Artificial Tau Mode 305.9 Rate Gyro) (deg/s)

I
Pitch Angular Rate (10 Control/EDS

Chi Tilde Guidance Mode 559.89 _

S_IVB Engine 602,86

CO

-1
140

!
30 220 260 30(

I
340 380 Range Time (sec) 420 460 500 540 ' 580

Yaw Angular

I RaCe

(IU

Control/EDS

Rate

Gyr_)

(deg/e)

J"

' j_ _t
140 _80 220

,
_
I

260

-o Lii-i',, a L'l
3 3 0 380 Range Time (sec) 420 460

117 Tl
'

T
_

._.i !_ ,- ,i
_ ---

500

l ji
540

580

!i
:

|
Roll Zr Angul.r

;
(deg/s) --'-

hi I.,:J .
I fly

.....
,

,
.|

Rate (IU ,

, Control/EDS -, Rate '

Gyros) '

,
I i
380 (sec)

'

.ll'lL 140

, I ,
'

,
[

I
i

i I , ,

!1 t 180

[ I 220

t _ 300 I_._J___ I, ........ 260 340

Range Time FIGURE 12-I0 ANGULAR

,
,

, , I , I 420 I
S-IVB POWERED

_ i _
460 500 FLIGHT

....
_

!
540

i
_--

V]!
.,
bO

'

_ 580 , .

RATE GYROS

--

Guidance Initiation 176.1 ! pitch (+ Actuator Nose Position Down - Actuator _trsct)

End Tau

Artificial Mode Chi Tilde Mode S-IVB Engine 602,86 CO

305.9 Guidance 559.89

Steer

-t, 40 80 220 260 30

' 340 Range Time 380 (sec) 420 460

1 500

)i
540 580

'

Yaw (+

Actuator Steer Nose

Position Left - Actuator Extend)

__, -1 :
140

I _,k_.2,._._.]_
180 220 260 300 340 Range FIGURE 12-11 Time ACT_TOR 380 (sec)

I
420 460 POSITION S-IVB

-_-__i
500

1
540

, I i,
580

131

at guidance initiation (approximately 176 sec). The effects of sloshing are shown in the attitude errors when guidance entered the chi tilde mode at approximately 560 seconds. Noise on the attitude error and attitude rate telemetry signals precluded an accurate reconstruction of the APS phase planes, however for all pulses investigated the motors appeared to fire on or near the predicted threshold. Motor IIIIv had a lower operating threshold than motor Iii , therefore the roll motors did not always fire as a pair. In the pitch plane the observed steady state error, 0.25 to 0.45 deg (nose up), varied in flight due to center of gravity shifts. The effects of sloshing are shown in the attitude errors and angular rates (Figure 12-9 and 12-10) during the period when guidance entered the chi tilde mode. These transients disagree with the preflight predictions but postflight analysis has verified that the control system was responding correctly to the comands. The discrepancy was primarily due to inadequate input data in the predicted simulation. A comparison of the predicted shown in Figure 12-12. and telemetered pitch program is

In the yaw plane, the observed steady state error, 0.60 deg to 1.00 deg (nose left), varied in flight due to center of gravity shifts. Transients were small. The resulting effect on the J-2 engine control system from the roll control motors not always firing as a pair was negligible. In the roll plane, the three sigma allowance for powered flight roll control by the APS proved to be more than sufficient due to actual flight requirements for steady state J-2 engine swirl moments. The APS activities during powered flight are presented in Table 12-II. Roll motors IIV and IIIii corrected for counterclockwise (CCW) roll induced disturbances at S-IB/S-IVB separation and activation of J-2 engine control. Roll motors Iii and IIIIV corrected for clockwise (CW) roll induced disturbances from guidance initiation and Launch Escape System (LES) jettison and continued to correct for a constant roll torque of approximately 21 N-m (16 ib-ft) throughout powered flight which created an attitude error of approximately 0.5 degree. The longer period of transients at guidance initiation was caused by a slower than expected roll motion response which resulted from single rather than dual APS engine firings.

Arrest Steering Command 601.6 sec

I
S-IVB Cutoff 602.86 sec Pitch Program (+ Nose Down) 90 (deg) 77.8 degX z

80

" Guidance sec 176. i Initiation /_

_.... _'_'-"

70

60

--_

_/.:_._

592.73 sec 75.8 d.eg Y"z

--

50

40 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 Range Time FIGURE 12- 12 PITCH 440 (sec) STEERING CO_9_ND 480 520 560 600 640

TABLE

12-II

APS

EVENT

SU_qARY

Module Event Number of Pulses 9 12 7 5 13 6 52 7 44 8 29 6 25 64 90 9 33 315

1 Impulse N-s 292.69 396.34 222.85 155.69 405.68 187.71 ib-s 65.8 89.1 50.1 35.0 91.2 42.2 373.4 49.0 1,177.6 56.9 210.4 252.9 267.9 476.5 814.3 65.1 662.4 4,033.0 14 16 17 7 20 I0 25 36 5 164 Number of Pulses 8 12 9 7 14 i0 60 14

Module

2 Impulse N-s 265.56 398.12 290.91 227.30 451.94 322.94 Ib-s 59.7 89.5 65.4 51.1 101.6 72.6 439.9 114.6

Separation and Ullage Disturbances LES Jettison and Guidance Initiation Limit Cycle Operation Guidance Staging Limit Cycle Operation Control Until Engine Cutoff Total Powered Roll

1,660.96 217.96 5,238.23 253.10 935.91 1,124.95 1,191.68 2,119.58 3,622.19 289.58 2,946.50 17,939.68

1,956.77 509.77

Initial Convergence Following Engine Cutoff LH 2 Vent Disturbances Pitch Down Maneuver Initiate Maintain 1 deg/s Achieve Desired Attitude Maintain Desired Attitude Initiate Yaw Maneuver Maintain Desired Attitude LOX Vent Disturbance S-IVB/Spacecraft Separation Pitch Up Maneuver Initiate Achieve and Maintain Desired Attitude Total Coast to Roll Maneuvers

460.39 5,640.79 569.37 1,093.82 917.67 307.37 910.10 2,744.11 158.80 13,312.19

103.5 1,268.1 128.0 245.9 206.3 69.1 204.6 616.9 35.7 2,992.7

134

LH 2 sloshing was observed at the PU probe during sloshing at the PU probe was not prevalent; however,

S-IVB burn. LOX due to the probe

location, first mode LOX sloshing would not be detected. Some sloshing did feed through the control system creating an actuator limit cycle of approximately plus and minus 0. I degree. The limit cycle was expected due to the unstable LH 2 for approximately the first 100 sec of flight. Sloshing characteristics are presented in Figure 12-13. 12.3.3 CONTROL DURING COAST

The APS performed satisfactorily in pitch, yaw and roll throughout coast and achieved the maneuvers as required. Table 12-1I presents an event summary of APS activities from S-IVB cutoff to roll maneuvers. Activities began immediately following the activation of the pitch and yaw channels at 608.1 seconds. At approximately 613 sec, the second flight stage began its spacecraft separation orientation to 186.92 degrees. The maneuver rate was approximately 0.15 deg/s greater than the command rate limit. The S-IVB APS responded to the resulting attitude error signal satisfactorily, with the result that a pitch rate of 1 deg/s nose down was achieved, and the attitude error reduced from 3 deg (saturation level) to approximately 1.5 degrees. At approximately 690 sec, when the LOX vent was opened, the pitch attitude error became saturated. The S-IVB APS overcame the pitch attitude error requirement and attained the required attitude by approximately 730 sec, a full 115 sec prior to S-IVB/Spacecraft separation. As a result, all of the orientation transients were reduced to a negligible level by the time S-IVB/Spacecraft separation occurred (Figure 12-14). The impulse required to initiate the first roll maneuver was 206.3 N-s (46.4 lh-s) for module i and 118.7 N-s (26.7 Ib-s) for module 2. The impulse required to stop this maneuver and maintain the required attitude was 225.9 N-s (50.8 Ib-s) for module I and 232.6 N-s (52.3 ib-s) for module 2. The total impulse 2 was 505.7 N-s for module I was 494.1 N-s (113.7 ib-s). The nominal (iii.i Ib-s) and for allowance for the

module

40 deg roll maneuver, based on a maximum roll rate of 0.5 deg/s, was 338 N-s (76 Ib-s) per module. This nominal allowance was based, however, on a pure roll maneuver. To obtain a meaningful comparison of the nominal and actual impulse requirement values, the impulse spent for yaw control was removed from the values of impulse usage for modules I and 2. This resulted in a usage of 432.3 N-s (97.2 ib-s) for module and 351 N-s (79 Ib-s) for module mation is not available for the 2 for second the and pure roll maneuvers. third roll maneuvers. Infor-

136

Pitch Program (+ Nose Down) 200

(deg)

- X z Command ------_z Command Rate Limited Actual Orientation

_-2."
175 II

150

t" 125

CSM Sepa rat ion--_ 1

i00

77. 75

/_

--I i

Initiation

of CSM Orientatinl Cutoff 700 750 (sec) FOR SEPARATION 800 851

I _$eparitin 50 550 600 650

S-IVB Engine

Range FIGURE 12-14 SECOND

Time

FLIGh"_ STAGE ORIENTATION

137

The impulse required to initiate the fourth roll maneuver was 237.5 N-s (53.4 ib-s) for module i and 227.3 N-s (51.1 Ib-s) for module 2. The impulse required to stop this maneuver was 245.9 N-s (55.3 Ib-s) for module 2 and approximately 209 N-s (47 ib-s) for module I. The total impulse for module i was 446.6 N-s (100.4 Ib-s) and for module 2 was 437.2 N-s (106.4 Ib-s). The total allowance for the roll maneuver was 338 N-s (76 Ib-s) per module. 12.3.4 CONTROL COMPONENT ANALYSIS

12.3.4. i

CONTROL

ACCELEROMETERS

The two body-fixed control accelerometers located in the Instrument Unit (to provide partial load relief in the pitch and yaw planes from 30 to ii0 sec) functioned properly. Figure 12-15 shows the measured lateral accelerations (translated to the vehicle CG). Peak lateral accelerations of 0.78 m/s 2 in pitch and -1.52 m/s 2 in yaw were measured at 88.2 sec and 77.8 sec, respectively. In general, these telemetered values agree with flight simulation results. The control accelerometer outputs indicated an area of large amplitude noise at liftoff, near Mach i, and max Q. Predominant frequencies were between 14 and 25 Hz but because of the control filter used, had an insignificant effect on vehicle control. This noise is discussed in the EDS portion of this report. 12.3.4.2 ANGLE-OF-ATTACK SENSOR

Pitch and yaw angle-of-attack components were measured by a Model F-16 Q-ball angle-of-attack transducer mounted on the tip of the Launch Escape Tower (LET). The Q-ball transducer functioned properly and results compare well with the calculated angles-of-attack (from measure wind data, trajectory parameters, and telemetered attitude angles), when using a 0.4 deg pitch misalignment on the Q-ball. Maximum angles-ofattack of -1.4 deg in pitch and -3.5 deg in yaw were measured near the max Q region. 12.3.4.3 RATE GYROS

The AS-201 vehicle carried three + i0 deg/s (_ 20 deg/s in roll) range, 3 axis rate gyro packages in th_ Instrument Unit. The command package provided pitch, yaw, and roll angular rate information for vehicle control throughout flight (Figures _2-3 and 12-10). The reference package provided a check on the command package measurements while the third was held in reserve in case the outputs of the other two did not agree. All three provided acceptable attitude also indicated an area of large amplitude noise at and max Q, with frequencies between 14 and 25 Hz. cussed in the EDS portion of this report. As with rates. The rate gyros liftoff, near Mach I This noise is disthe body fixed

Control Acceleration Pitch Control Acceleration I.O (m/s 2) Accelerometer Control Active _) Simulation IECO OECO co

0.5

#t_. ..i,.

_o
A_

_o

1 _oo. ___ _o: ' _._o _o_ __ r_

Range Time (sec) II I I ! l ]
I

-0.5 -I.0

Yaw Control Acceleration (+ owards Fin IV)

(m/s2)

I.O 0.5 20 ,-_-_.^. .

,,-.---- Accelerometer 40 A, 60 ..... ,

Control Active 80 :

_ i00 A Range Time ($ec) 120 140 .^,_ _ ,.,A"

I , i , t I

Av.

-0.5

l I !
I

-I.0 I I -1.5 FIGURE 12-15 PITCH AND YAW CONTROL ACCELEROMETERS _

139

accelerometer outputs this effect on vehicle control. 12.3.4.4 ACTUATOR

high

frequency

signal

had

an

insignifi_:ant

PERFORMANCE

All eight S-IB stage actuators performed properly during S-IB stage powered flight. The maximum gimbal angle obtained was 2.35 deg on engine 1 yaw actuator. The largest gimbal rate was 4.07 deg/s on engine 1 yaw actuator. The actuator loads were generally smaller for AS-201 than those experienced on SA-10. The maximum torque observed pitch actuator and _as approximately -12,200 N-m (-8,998 is 40% of the design torque for the component, and 24.6% was on engine 2 [bf-ft) wilich of stall torque. S-IB of each max Q, in

The largest differential current (error signal) observed during stage flight was -3.96 ma on engine 2 yaw actuator. The maximum pitch and ya_ parameter for any single actuator durin_ liftoff, outboard engine cutoff, and for S-IB stage flight are presented Table 12-111. Both actuators of the S-IVB stage performed satisfactorily

through-

out the S-IVB stage powered flight. The engine positioning commands from the control computer were correct and well within the load, gimbal rate and torque capabilities of the actuators. The maximum actuator deflection between S-IVB start command and cutoff was 1.2 deg at 190 sec on the pitch actuator, 6.8 ma, at that time. The (5,500 lbf-ft)which is 13% 12-IV presents the maximum tion,cutoff and S-IVB stage 12.4 LAUNCH VEHICLE which also had the largest valve current, maximum torque observed was 7,457 N-m of the design torque for the component. Table of each pitch and yaw parameter during igniflight.

GUIDANCE

The overall performance of the ST-124M guidance system (ST-124M stabilized platform and electronic box, guidance signal processor, and digital computer) was very satisfactory. An analysis of the telemetered guidance data is discussed in subsequent parts of this section. 12.4.1 GUIDANCE INTELLIGENCE ERRORS well within estimates

The velocity errors shown in this report for AS-201 are the accuracy of the established trajectory data and preflight of the guidance hardware errors. With estimates the exception of of the component the and platform orientation errors, system errors were obtained

preflight from a series

of laboratory tests made several weeks telemetry was sampled for an indication This telemetry, adjusted for preflight and scale factor errors, indicated the aligned well within the 3 o tolerance.

prior to launch. Prelaunch of platform orientation errors. estimates of accelerometer bias ST-124M stabilized platform was

140

TABLE S-IB ACTUATOR MAXIMUM

12-III PERFORMANCE DATA*

r
Parameters Gimbal Angle Unit deg Axis Pitch Yaw Pitch Yaw Pitch yaw Pitch yaw Pitch Yaw Liftoff -0.6 0.4 2.0 2.1 -8,754 -5,734 -6,457 -4,229 -1.0 -2.0 Max Q OECO -0.8 0.2 0.83 0.79 -6,405 -3,813 -4,724 -2,812 0.2 -0.3 FLight -1.33 2.35 3.14 -4.07 -12,200 -11,895 -8,998 -8,773 -3.50 -3.96 -0.85 2.35 2.23 3.70 -11,743 -7,625 -8,661 -5,624 1.34 -I.0

Gimbal

Rate

deg/s

N-m Torque ibf-ft

Valve

Current

ma

Note:

The values represent the maximum and are not necessarily from the event.

from same

the 4 pitch and 4 yaw actuators actuator for any parameter or

TABLE S-IVB ACTUATOR

12-1V

MAXIMUMPARAMETERS

Parameters Gimbal Angle

Unit deg

Actuator Pitch Yaw Pitch Yaw Pitch Yaw Pitch Yaw Pitch Yaw

Ignition -1.2 -0%7 0.23 0.22 6,372 3,118 4,700 2,300 6.2 4.8

Cutoff -0.2 -I.I 0.05 0.17 7,457 3,796 5,500 2,800 2.6 6.4

Flight -1.2 -l.l 0.23 0.22 7,457 3,796 5,500 2,800 6.8 6.5

Gimbal

Rate

deg/s

N-m Torque Ib-ft

Valve

Current
J

ma

141

The

predicted

errors

of

the

ST-124M

inertial

system

for

the

AS-201

flight test were based on laboratory calibration of the ST-124M stabilized platform system. These errors are shown in Table 12-V and Figure 12-16 along with guidance error solutions based on both the postflight reference trajectory and GLOTRAC data. The 3 _ value for each error component is also shown. Telemetered inertial shown in Table 12-VI guidance velocities for comparisons with at principal event times the corresponding values The tra-

are

taken from differences

the postflight and preflight reference trajectories. between the telemetered velocities and the postflight

jectory data are within differences between the reflect the non-standard as well as small errors

the noise level of the data compared. The telemetered data and the preflight trajectory performance of the vehicle and assumption errors in the guidance hardware performance.

The telemetered guidance velocities were differenced against both the reference trajectory and GLOTRAC data. These differences (tracking minus guidance) are shown plotted versus range time in Figure 12-17. The predicted velocity component errors are also shown for comparison. Guidance error analyses were made to determine sets of guidance system errors that would simulate the observed velocity differences for both the reference ated with the and the trajectory and error solutions GLOTRAC data. Velocity differences associare shown as points enclosed in squares respectively. curves, the Although accuracies

circles for the error solutions

trajectory and GLOTRAC data fit the velocity difference

associated with tracking data are no better than the magnitude of the velocity differences which include tracking errors as well as guidance errors (see Section 7.3). In any event, the AS-201 vehicle was successfully guided to satisfactory of cutoff conditions shown between within end conditions in Table 12-VII. as shown by the comparisons The component differences computer values are well

the postflight trajectory and guidance 3 _ limits except cross range position.

Although the component differences shown in Table 12-VII between the preflight trajectory and the guidance computer values are relatively large, they are not attributed to the guidance system. The 10.13 sec difference in S-IVB cutoff time is the result of low vehicle performance. The the differences shown for Radial Distance, Altitude, and Path result of errors in the preflight trajectory computation. inputs were initialized between GRR and First at First Motion. Angle are The pre-

dicted trajectory for a 5 secinterval tion of of GRR. not the nominal

Motion to account However, the orienta-

the platform was assumed to be referenced to first motion instead Also, the digital filter used for trajectory computations was same as that used in the flight guidance computer. If the trajectory was corrected to account for these two errors, the

TABLE

12-V

(C5

GUIDANCE

INTELLIGENCE

ERRORS

Laboratory parameter i, I. System Errors a. Platform Leveling 15 About X Axis 2) About Z Axis b. c. Flight Azimuth Alignment Symbol Units

and

Error

So.roe Fm.

Error

So_lrces

3 Error Band

Pre-Launch Meas. Error Sources

Est_bllshed Traj Analysis

Established Fm GLOTRAC Analysis

deg LX LZ AzA deg deg MXY Myz Myx deg/hr _ X ;_Y ! Z deglhr/g i _ i ' _, _ X/_ X/Y Y/_ y/_ Z/X Z/Y 0,080 0.008 -0.005 0.002 -0.045 0.002 0.082 0,0071 -0.0167 -0.0027 0.048q 0,O47J 0.0449 0,0079 -0.00673 0.00186 -0.0567 0.00198 -O.0LO -0,O21 -0.001 -0,00744 -0.ii -0.0289 -0,011 -0.43 -0.001 0.0022 0.00[0 -0.0033 0.0011 0.997i x -O.OOlJ -0.00289 -0.0034 -0.4619 0.2928 -0.4377 x x l0 -_ 10 -3

, 0.005 0.005 O.O10

I0 "2

Accelerometer Misaligrtment 1) Range (X) Accel Rotated Toward Z Axis 2) Altitude (Y) Accel Rotated Toward X Axis 3) Altitude (Y) Accel Rotated Toward Z Axis Gyro Drift Rates, Constant i) yaw (X) Gyro (About X Axis) 2) Roll (Y) Gyro (About Y Axis5 3) Pitch (Z5 Cyro (About Z Axis) Gyro i) 2) 3) 4) 55 6) Drift Rates, g-Dependent yaw (X 5 Gyro (About X Axis Due to _5 Ya_ (X) Gyro (About X Axis Due to Y_ Roll (Y) Gyro (About Y Axis Due to X) Roll (Y) Gyro (About y Axis Due to Y_ Pitch (Z) Gyro (About Z Axis Due to X) Pitch (Z5 Gyro (About Z Axis Due to Y5 t

10 -3

0.0101 0.00_2 0.0089

d.

0.100 0.075 0.075

e.

0.100 0.060 0.060 0.075 0.075 0.060

2.

Component Errors a. Accelerometer Bias I) Range (X) Accelerometer 25 35 b. Altitude (Y) Accelerometer Cross Range (Z) Accelerometer Scale (X) () Range Factor

m/s/s Bx By Bz g/g Sx Sv S_ 0.1 0.25 0.62 x x x 10 -3 10 -4 10 "4 0.953 0.222 x x 10 .4 10 -4 O.1013 0.2556 x x 10 -3 10 -4 _.0 3.0 x x 10 -5 10 -5 0.27 -O.[5 -0.18 >: i0 "3 x x lO "A 10 "3 0.227 -0.454 -0.176 x x x I0 "3 IO "_ 10 -3 O._545 -0.1362 -0.1107 :.:10-3 x x 10 -3 10 "3 _,O x 10 -4 },0 x IO "A 3,0 x 10 -4

Accelerometer 15 2) 3) Range Altitude Cross

Accelerometer Accelerometer (Z5 Accelerometer

Platform Leveling about X and Z (deg)

Azimuth Alignment

(deg)

Accelerometer Misalignment

(deg)

Gyro Orlft Rates Constant (deg/hr)

---,011LL_ o X z . "OI I O AZA

.01 M M

.I l

--

I_ -.01

Mxy

yLjx

yz -.I

_x

_y

_z

Gyro

Drift

Rates,

g-dependent

(deg/hr/g)

Accelerometer B

Bias

(m/s/s}

Accelerometer (g/g) x

Scale

Factor

6x/_

"

'

By

B z

.C001

._

6y/_ 6z/_

_x/9 _y/x ._z/9

.0005

0 ____

0 -.0003

_I_

LI_

_.00003 ' .OOOO3 -,OOOl

--

--

-,I

Laboratory (or prelaunch) I---l measured error sources _rror from Sources trajectory determined analysis

Determined Sources Glotrac analysis _l_Errr 30 Error _and

from

FIGURE

12-16

(C)

ST-124M

STABILIZED

PLATFORM

SYSTEM

ERROR

SOURCES

144

,__fnD_lk 1

|pm_ik 11! IliJL-l'q

miml_al I l/'_

i-

TABLE (C) GUIDANCE INERTIAL

12-VI VELOCITY COMPARISON

Event Range Time (sec)

Telemetereo Accelerometer 1606.75 Computer 1606.75 2336.20 -4.24 1710.10 2392.40 -4.64 1867.80 2479.55 -7.94 7017.65 4619.30 O.61 7025.15 4621.00 0.61

Trajectory Postflight 1606.52 2335.87 -6.54 1709.75 2391.80 -6.93 1867.50 2479.34 -10.07 7017.26 4619.87 0.74 7024.76 4621.52 0.71 Preflight 1582.98 2282.27 -10.66 1697.35 2343.94 -II.45 1853.36 2428.49 -13.85 6999.99 4513.78 1.15 7005.91 4515.29 1.13

IECO 2336.20 141.46 -6.60 1710.10 OECO 2392.40 146.94 -7.00 1867.80 Guidance Initiation 176.11 y 2479.55 -10.30 7017.65 S-IV CO 4619.30 602.86 -1.75 7025.15 Insertion 4621.00 612.86 -1.75

* X - Range Velocity (m/s) - Altitude Velocity (m/s) Z Cross Range Velocity (m/s)

_,_|Xl

lil'qL iL

Range Velocity I

Differences OECO

(_i)

(m/s) S-IV CO --3o

I
-30 -I Ranqe Tlme 2 Altitude Velocity Differences (BYi) (m/s) __3o (sec)

TABLE (C) GUIDANCE

12-Vll S-IVB CUTOFF

COMPARISONS

Parameter Time Total Radial Altitude Path Cross Cross Thrust Angle Range Range Decay Velocity Displacement Delta Velocity From GRR Velocity Distance

Symbol

Units sec

Guidance

Computer

Postflight Traj. - Guidance 0 -0.42 -0.083 -0.037 0.0027 0.56 -0.803 0

Preflight Traj. - Guidance* -10.13 0.045 -0.826 -0.750 -0.014 -0.II 0.935 -1.88

607.898 6939.955 6636.112 261.292 7.941 -85.64 -44.625 7.68

Vs Rs h % is Zs _V s

m/s km km deg m/s km m/s

*See GRR

explanation occurred

Section

12.4.1 sec Range Time

at -5.038

147 following resultant deviations (Preflt. Traj.-Guid.) km km deg would result:

AR s = -0.045 Ah A0 = = 0.031 0.002

The cross range error was the result of acceleration exceeding programmed limitations (reasonableness test) in the guidance computer. The error in velocity gain due to thrust decay resulted from engine valve closing time being greater than expected. Each of these erroneous assumptions will be corrected on subsequent flights. 12.4.2 NAVIGATION AND GUIDANCE SCHEME PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS

was

In general, the steered to within

flight 40 m,

program functioned 0.003 deg and 0.05

as expected. The vehicle m/s of the computer's velocity in the at S-IVB artificial

estimate of the predicted radius, cutoff. However, minor anomalies tau mode, and in the reasonableness

path angle, and were encountered test.

The S-IB stage roll maneuver was performed correctly and then the roll steering command remained at zero for the remainder of the boost flight. The pitch profile for the S-IB stage was executed properly. The IGM commands initial pitch command in pitch was 49.1 and deg yaw began at 176.1 seconds. as compared to a predicted Tbe 51.9 degrees.

The artificial tau mode of IGM was initiated at 275.9 sec, approximately 50 sec earlier than predicted. The artificial tau mode was phased out at 305.9 seconds. The pitch commands during this period were as expected. The IGM arrest occurred at 601.6 sec and velocity cutoff was achieved at 602.9 sec (compared to a predicted time of 592.7 seconds). The late cutoff time is attributed to the early _RC and to low performance of the S-IVB stage after _dRC. Yaw guidance commands compare well with the predicted values. As was predicted, the yaw steering misalignment correction term (SMCX) comprised the major portion of the guidance command. The yaw IGM achieved, within 24 m, the desired (preset) cutoff plane.

The computer estimate of the platform acceleration (F/M) is shown from actual data and from simulated data in Figures 12-18 and 12-19. The _dRC detection is indicated in both cases. As evidenced from the plots, earlier in actual than in flight the EMRC was detected the simulated flight. with the F/M test 51.5 sec

The evidenced simulated the engine

actual data also in Figure 12-19 flight. at the

indicates a more definite which shows the total F/M to a faster step change. than

change in F/M as for both flight and cutback of

This was due mixture ratio

predicted

il i'='i p_k'P''_PL'''='

" "

-_--

16,8

Force/Mass

(m/s 2)

Actual

Data

9.5

93

9.1

__.......Q

8.9 267 271 275 Range Time 279 (sec) 283 287

Force/Mass i0.58

(m/s 2)

Simulated

Data I

i0.50 317 121 325 Range Time 329 (sec) 333 337

FIGURE

12-18

COMPUTER ESTIMATE OF FORCE/MASS AND SIMULATED DATA DURING EMRC

FROM ACTUAL

149

Force/Mass 28

(mls 2)

24

i I/

20

16 Predicted Start

/__

_- _'_

L---Flight Data

%S_e_aSr!_ rt 4 I00 I Actual 200

Sensed / 300 Range Time 400 (sec) & SIMULATION DATA 500 600

FIGURE

12-19

FORCE/MASS

FROM FLIGHT

150

The flight program utilized a delta time of 0. i sec as the length of time at full thrust required to achieve the total measured velocity at the end of thrust decay. The thrust was decayed approximately 2.1 sec after the S-IVB cutoff signal from the LVDC. The platform measured velocity change from thrust decay was 7.5 m/s in X, 1.65 m/s in Y, and 0 m/s in Z. The time required to gain this velocity at full thrust was approximately 0.288 seconds. The spacecraft separation attitude is dependent on the positions calculated with this time. The error due to the incorrect time was approximately -0.011 deg in pitch and 0.000158 deg in yaw. These errors are both below the quantization of the ladders. The pitch over to command module separation was executed properly. The separation attitude was 186.9 deg, as expected. The first roll maneuver was performed as expected. The second maneuver could not be fully evaluated as data was not available during this time period. A scaling overflow in the gravitational the orbital navigation scheme unstable after Up to this time the scheme gave good results The effects of the erroneous radius from the velocity calculation made approximately 1400 seconds. and functioned as expected. navigation scheme was slight.

An error of approximately 2.3 m/s was introduced in cross range velocity due to Z accelerometer reasonableness test failures between 78 and 82 seconds. Figure 12-20 shows the change in Z measured velocity from simulated data and from actual data; the band of accepted reasonableness values is shaded in the plot. The simulated data was obtained from a calculated trajectory utiliing the actual measured wind profile. The first failure occurred at 78.6 sec (flight data) and was 0.036 m/s outside of the band of accepted reasonable values. The actual change was -i.0 m/s and the value used in the flight program was 0.08 for a total error of 1.08 m/s in the computer estimate of Z velocity. The first failure contributed approximately 555 m to the position error at S-IVB cutoff. The second failure occurred at 81.4 sec and was 0.033 m/s outside the reasonable band. This caused an additional 1.19 m/s error in Z velocity for a total error of 2.27 m/s. This second velocity error contributed approximately 609 m in position error for a total position error of 1.16 km at S-IVB cutoff. The reasonableness test constant set in the computer was based on data obtained from preflight simulated runs utilizing the 3 sigma steadystate wind profiles. These runs did not show any failures. However, as evidenced by the data shown in Figure 12-20, when the actual _ind profiles were used in the simulation after the flight, failures would be expected to occur. The failures are attributed to the high wind shears that were encountered in flight. The effects of the high wind shears were not included in the 3 sigma wind profile utilized to establish thetest constant. Steps have been taken to remedy this situation for future flights.

151

_;_v--."-.%-;2.,_,Band of Reasonable "Change Used

Readings Program

in Flight

,Actual Change Change 2 in Z Measured Velocity ' Simulated (m/s)

at Failure

I Data , ..,

-_.:' ...._.:'-:i.-,

-1

!(i
71 73 75 Range Time 77 (sec) 79 81

-2

Flight Change 2 in Z Measured Velocity

Data

(m/s) . ,-._.-:._ _6.

-1

75

77

79 Range Time

81 (sec)

83

85

FIGUP_E 12-20 CHANGE IN Z cIIANNEL MEASURED FROM SIMULATED AND FLIGHT DATA

VELOCITY

152

12.4.3 12.4.3.1

GUIDANCE

SYSTEM

COMPONENTS

ANALYSIS

LVDC/LVDA

ANALYSIS

The LVDC/LVDA system functioned nominally throughout the mission. However, numerous Error Time Words (ETW's) appear in the Data Output Multiplexer (DOM) data that must be considered invalid. The words are either all zeros or contain what must be considered spurious bits. Examination of the LVDA logic indicates that if the DOM at a time when a T sync is received the DOM will effectively zero telemetry word to the output registers. Parity will be and the parity bit set in the 40 bit telemetry word. This leads or in to the conclusion that noise either in the bits is empty feed an all checked

IU,

data empty

transmission, bit positions In

in data processing is adding the telemetry _ord. to the above situation there

spurious

into

addition

are

instances

in which

bits have been set to spare bit positions or in positions where no hardware exists in the LVDA to set the bit. None of the different types of data words appear to be immune to the spurious bit problem. The LVDC data appears to have fewer errors, probably due to the fact that all such data that did not check for validity was thrown out by the data reduction program. This was not the case with DOM data. In at least two instances the data calls out a data identification

(TAG) code that does not exist and in several tion of data from the same telemetry tape has in the reduced data. 12.4.3.2 ST-124M STABILIZED PI_TFOI_M ANALYSIS

instances resulted

successive reducin disparities

The ST-124M stabilized platform analysis reveals nominal operation throughout flight. All three accelerometer pickoff signals after 90 sec were normal. The of 0.35 vibration Grm s with loads on the inner gimbals of 250 had Hz. an average acceieration

a frequency

bandwidth

and

The vibration levels on the mounting frame have the highest values frequency spectrum from about 20 to 2000 Hz. The levels were _ Grm s

1.75 Grm s at 120 Hz in yaw, 0.2 Grm s at 120 and 220 Hz in pitch and 0.4 average over a range from I00 to 300 Hz in the longitudinal direction. The most acceleration energy was contained in the tangential direction support which had an average from i0 to 2000 Hz. value of 0.35 Grm s over the entire range

153

The inertial gimbal temperature varied linearly from approximately 315.9K to 313K in 680 seh, which is about the same variation as was experienced during IU checkout except that in checkout the temperature started around 314[<. This drop is attributed to having the internal blowers turned on and blowing the internal gas over the exposed thermistor. Thus this measurement during flight is not considered representative of the actual gimbal mass temperature. Recommendations may be made that the blowers be cut out during future flight operations. The temperature of the GN 2 gas to the air bearing was low but since the gas flowrate is low, approximately 0.014 SCM/m (0.5 SCF/m) and the powered flight time of the vehicle is short, it is not expected that the accelerometer performance was affected. The internal N/cm 2 (17.4 psi) expected. pressure of the ST-124M at liftoff to 8.5 N/cm 2 compartment varied from 12.0 (12.4 psi) at cutoff as was

The AB and BC phases of the Platform AC Power Supply (PACPS) had a step change in voltage at liftoff which placed the measurements out of tolerance for the flight. Specifications are 26 + 0.5 vac, while flight values were 24.65 and 27.0 vac for phases AB and BC respectively. During flight, this 400 Hz power is only used for the gyro and accelerometer wheels and this amount of change would not adversely affect the speeds. The magnitude and sense of change appears to be a result of having the blowers turned on at liftoff. The accelerometer pulse count outputs after S-IVB cutoff exhibited rather significant changes due to S-IVB venting and spacecraft ullage and release. The changes in the X, Y, and Z accelerometer pulse count outputs are shown in Figure 12-21. The accelerometer counts in the figure are initialized as zero at 605.70 seconds. The actual platform velocity values at that time were: 7025.14 m/s in Range (X), 4620.91 m/s in Altitude (Y) and 0.5605 m/s in Cross Range (Z). As shown in the figure, the non-propulsive venting resulted in accelerometer count changes of +4 in X, -21 in Y, and -5 in Z. This was a change in velocity over the 30 sec venting period of 0.2 m/s in X, 1.05 m/s in Y, and 0.25 m/s in Z. The observed changes in velocity due to venting are larger than expected and will be investigated in further detail. The Switch Selector (SS) output at 663.11 sec _ich culminated in Spacecraft Separation. _he SS 180 sec timer which counted down and initiated the command sec was module (C_) separation. The first initiation of the Reaction Control ullaging. to 864.61 The Spacecraft seconds). The ullage ullage initiated the events output started a event sequencing for

event which began at 843.11 S_ tem (RCS) to provide lasted imparted for 21.5 sec acceleration (from to the

Spacecraft 843.11 sec

S-IVB until 844.96 sec when the spacecraft was shows that the ullage induced velocity changes in Y and 0.2 m/s in Z.

released. of 0.3 m/s

The figure in X, 0.3 m/s

154 _x I
Ventl | LOX RCS

R_nge (x)
Accel (Pulses)

o_ !
[

I w.t
[ Off

Ull_g_!
tart |

'
I I
800 ga.ge {

V
Separation

.x4

li I' I_ I
!i II
700 (Y)

I I

-5 6_

,
i
900 Time (see) 1000 1100 I

Altitude Accel. 5

(pulses)

! o l I I

I I l I I
I

I I l I
I

1' I
!
-5 l I 1

i
I

!
I l I

!
I I l

I I
I

I I
I

-lO

I -20 600 700

_/N_inalA_olLo '-Separation B00 go0 Rm_ge Time (see)

_VI
,
I ! !
I

iO00

!i00

Cross Range (Z) AcceL (Pulses)

s
o

il
I I I
_ I

'
I I

i !

, , !
I
-10 600

, i\
!
I

I
--N_J..tAport. Sep#ra_ion

_
lO00 llOO S_A_TION

I
_0 Range

!,
700 FICHE 12-21 ACC_EROM_ER P_SES

900 Time (see) FROM V_l_ AND SPACEC_

155

13.0 13.1 SUMMARY separation the desired

(U)

SEPARATION

S-IB/S-IVB executed within

was accomplished as planned, and the sequence time period. The S-IVB engine cleared the command. the design Separarequire-

interstage approximately 1.15 sec following separation tion transients were relatively-small and were within ments. S-IVB/Spacecraft separation occurred relatively small transients were imparted ration system functioned satisfactorily. 13.2 13.2.1 S-IB/S-IVB ULLAGE SEPARATION ROCKET PERFOI_MANCE

at approximately 845 sec; to the S-IVB stage. The sepa-

Ullage rocket jettisoned properly. 147.2 seconds. The

performance was sdtisfactory and all motors were The ullage rocket ignition command was given at chamber pressure averaged approximately 655 N/cm 2 limits. A comparison of the that the overall pressure temperature chamber of 294.3K. for

(950 psi), well within the motor operating flight data with manufacturer's data showed profiles The 5.80 sec (defined pressure compared The during chamber burn were typical was for

a grain 10%

pressure

above

nominal

pressure

compared to a nominal time of 4.96 as the time lapse between achieving and decay to 75% of maximum chamber with the nominal burn time of 3.81 individual motor average thrust

seconds. The burn time 107o of maximum chamber pressure) was 3.95 sec seconds. shown in Figure

as

level, motor. ibf).

13-1,

was

14,679 N (3300 Ibf) along for the three motors was

the axis of the 44,037 N (9900

The total average thrust Deliverable total

impulse (parallel to the axis of the motor) was 164,540 N-s (36,990 Ibf-s) and the total ullage motor impulse (parallel to the axis of the stage) was 135,137 N-s (30,380 ibf-s). This was within 2.53 of predicted nominal. Separation analysis revealed that the ullage motors were apparently misaligned by a negligible amount. The ullage motor jettison command was given at 159.77 sec, at which time all motors were successfully jettisoned. A 305 ms margin existed between the time at which the J-2 engine

reached 35,586 N (8000 settling) and the time during their shutdown. -erformance. 13-1.

ibf) (design criteria for the ullage motors reached

S-IVB propellant 35,586 N (8000 ibf)

parameters

of

the

S-IVB

ullage

rockets

are

shown

in

Table

156

Ullage Motor Thrust 18,000

(N)

Ullage Motor Thrust

(Ib) 4000

r---Motor I

._ 16,ooo ,/....,_:.._...
14,000

fMo_o_ 2 _._ _

3500

S:},

12,000

i0,OOO

8000

6000

2000

"_

500

J 2 Engine --_|

J-2 Engine -_107oThrust

J-2 Engine-_!

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

o
0

,
I 2 3 Time from Ullage Motor 4 5 6 Ignition Command (sec)

I 147.52 sec Range Time

FIGURE 13-1

S-IVB ULLAGE MOTOR PERFORMANCE

157

TABLE ULLAGE ROCKET

13-1 PERFORMANCE

Rocket Parameters

Burn

Time

(set) (N) (Ib) (N/cm 2) (psi)

3.98 14,821 3,330 662 960

3.98 14,679 3,300 655 950

3.98 14,545 3,270 648 940

Average

Thrust

Average

Pressure

13.2.2

RETRO

ROCKET

PERFORMANCE

The purpose of the four retro rockets is to decelerate the S-IB stage, after its separation from the S-IVB stage, to prevent a possible collision between the two stages and to minimize the effects of the S-IB stage on the S-IVB engine start. The retro rockets are Thiokol Chemical Corporation parallel mounted on of 9.5 degrees. TE-29-M-4 Recruit, the interstage with solid propellant a nominal nozzle motors and cant angle are

Performance of the retro rockets was satisfactory; although slightly lower than predicted, based on an altitude of 610 km (200,000 ft) and a propellant grain temperature of 288.7K, at retro rocket ignition. Burn times were longer, and impulses, thrusts, and pressures were slightly lower than predicted. Predicted values and performance parameters of the retro rockets are shown in Table 13-11. Figure 13-2 shows both average thrust and predicted thrust, versus time. Ignition of the retro rockets occurred at 147.81 seconds. ignition All signal, EBW

voltages discharged at the time of indicating firing of all exploding 13.2.3 SEPARATION DYNAMICS

the retro rocket bridge_ires.

S-IB/S-19-B separation was completed at 148.89 engine cleared the interstage, 1.0 sec after first tion system functioned satisfactorily; all events and within the desired time period. The separation are presented in Figure 13-3. Separation distance

sec when the S-IVB motion. The separaoccurred as planned sequence of events and motion were

TABLE

13-II

RETRO

ROCKET PERFORMANCE

Rocket Parameter I. 2. Burn Time Total (set) (N-s) (ib-s) 3. Average Thrust (N) (Ib) (N/cm 2) (psi)

Average

Nominal*

1.56 253,726 57,040 162,436 36,517 i,227 1779.60

1.56 250,595 56,336 160,434 36,067 1,217 1765.43

1.56 241,436 54,277 154,469 34,726 1,171 1698.11

1.61 248,838 55,941 154,558 34,746 1,163 1687.31

1.57 248,649 55,898 157,974 35,514 =, 1,195 1732.61

1.52 241,863 54,373 154,843 34,810

Impulse

4.

Average

Pressure

i.

Burn Time - The interval between the time at which the pressure attains 10% of the maximum pressure during the buildup portion of the pressure curve and the time at which the bisector of an angle (formed by the intersection of a line tangent to the pressure curve Just prior to decay and a line extending from the descending portion of the pressure curve) intersects the pressure curve. Total Average Average Impulse Thrust - Area under the thrust divided versus time curve. time. time curve divided by the burn time. of 610 km

2. 3. 4. *

- Total - Area

impulse under

by the burn versus

Pressure

the pressure

Nominal values (200,000 ft).

are based

on a grain

temperature

of 288.7K

and an altitude

_ .... Thrust 25 (N x.10 "4)

Actual

(Average

of Four Grain

Retro Rockets) Temperature Thrust at 610 km) (Ib x I0 "A)

Predicted

(288.7K

0 147.8

148.0

148.2

148.4

148.6 148.8 Range Time 13-2 TYPICAL

149.0 (see) ROCKET

149.2

149.4

149.6

0 149.8
%0

FIGURE

RETRO

THRUST

O_

o Enable S-IB Propellant 137 00

Inboard

Engines

Cutoff

141.46 _k 146.94

Outboard

Engines

Cutoff 147.52 _%\\\\,xx\xxxxx,,x_ On 147.76 147.87 149.40 A_2-2"2-2_-2j 147.88 148 89 149.32 151.50

Ullage

Ignition

On

Separation

Command

Retro First

Rocket Motion

90% Thrust

J-2

Engine

Clears

Interstage

J-2 J-2

Engine Engine

Start @

Command 151.30 152 90

10% Thrust

J-2

Engine

9_..0% Thrust

137

139

141

143 Range

145 Time (sec)

147

149

151

153

FIGURE

13-3

SEPARATION

SEQUENCE

OF EVENTs

161

determined separation Figure and

from extensometer distance as shown

data which closely in Figure 13-4.

followed

the

predicted

stages

]3-4 shows the incremental the total relative velocity

velocities imparted to the two of separation between stages. the 18.29 m corresponds

The S-IB/S-IVB separation event required 0.945 m (3.1 in) of (60 in) lateral clearance available. This required clearance to less than one sigma variation from nominal.

At separation command, the S-IVB attitude errors and angular velocities were below the design values of 1 deg and I deg/s, respectively. During and immediately following separation, the attitude errors and velocities remained relatively low and no problems were encountered in controlling the vehicle through these transients.

The maximum S-IVB angular velocities measured during the separation period were 0.38 deg/s nose up in pitch, 0.25 deg/s nose left in yaw, and 0.18 deg/s counterclockwise, looking forward, in roll. During these transients, the Auxiliary Propulsion System (APS) did not fire to correct roll. Roll corrections were initiated at 153.3 sec, 5.76 sec after separation. S-IVB attitude error and S-IVB and S-IB angular velocities during separation are presented in Figures 13-5 and 13-6, respectively. 13.3 S-IVB/SPACECRAFT SEPARATION from the S-IVB/IU 13-7 the attitude within acceptable at errors limits;

The spacecraft was successfully separated approximately 845 seconds. As shown in Figure and angular velocities of the S-IVB stage were all errors remained below one-half degree.

16Z-

Relative Translation 9

Longitudinal (m) m _ Predicted

8 _

Extensemeter Reconstructed

Data from

6
s
3

S-I_

Engine

Clears

Interstagej

!
J

!
C o_a nd /Y

/
Separation 148.0 Range 148.4 Time (sec) 148.8 149.2

147.6

Relative 30

Velocity

(m/s)

20

_Total

1o _
-10

_ 11_ -_VE S
"_

%_ -20 147.5 148.0 148.5 Range FIGURE 13-4 S-IVB SEPARATION 149.0 Time

_'_

_/---S-IB 150.0 150.5

149.5 (sec) AND

DISTANCE

INCREMENTAL

VELOCITIES

163

Pitch Attitude (+ Nose Up) I

Error

(deg)

-i 145

'
i

ii '
150 Range 155 Time (sec) 160 165

Yaw Attitude (+ Nose l

Error (deg)

Right)

o
-1 145

_
i I
150 Range 155 Time 160 (see) 165

Roll Attitude Error (deg) (+ CW ]Looking Forward)

o
-1 145

_ iIo_->--._ Separation Comma n d I 150 155 Range Time (sec) S-IVB ATTITUDE DURING 160 65

FIGURE

13-5

SEPARATION

164

Pitch Angular (+ Nose Up) 1

Velocity

(deg/s)

_S-IVB Stage .... S-IB Stage

I
-1 145 150 Range 155 Time (sec) 160 165

Yaw Angular Velocity (+ Nose Right) I

(deg/s)

I
0

i,'".i
145 150 Range 155 Time (sec) 60 165

-1

Roll Angular Velocity (deg/s) (+ CW Looking Forward)

I
_Separation Command

Start Command 0 _I

-i 145

__

APS Engines .... 150 Range 155 Time (sec) ANGUlaR

Firing I 160 165

FIGURE

13-6

SEPARATION

VELOCITIES

165

Pircl_ (+

Attitude Up)

Error

(deR)

Pitch (+

Rate Nose Up)

(deg/s)

Nose

r I
840

i
i
850 Renge Time

"
860 (so,:)

fir==,

,vO
850 Range Time (de:) 860

Ya_ RCtit.de (_ Nose Eight)

ETror

(deE)

yaw Rate (dog/s) (+ Nose Right)

--

al I

,'

I
-1 _0 Range 850 Time (see) 860 -[ _0

I
850 Range Time (se,) 860

Roll (+

Attit*tde C!4 Looking

Error Forwarfl)

(flog)

Roll (+ O/

Rate

(deg/s) Yorvard)

Looking

1
0 _ ,

,
0

i
_.-t _O Range Separatznn 8_0 Time (see) 860 -I 840 Range 10 e arattor 850 Tme {see) 8_

fIGURE

1]-

S-[V_

ATTITUDE

AND AI_Lr[_R

VELOCITY

DURING

C_q

SEPNgATION

166

14.0 14.1 SL_MMARY

(U)

VEHICLE

ELECTRICAL

SYSTEMS

All launch vehicle stage electrical systems performed as expected throughout their normal flight periods. Battery performance, including voltages, currents and temperatures was satisfactory and remained within predicted tolerances. The electrical portions of each individual stage control system responded normally and the range safety command system was operable until it was turned off. All Exploding Bridge Wire (EBW) firing units responded correctly. 14.2 S-IB STAGE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM

Inflight power for the S-IB stage is supplied by two 28 volt, zinc-silver oxide batteries which are designated IDI0 and ID20. Each battery is rated at 2175 amp-minutes. Three master measuring voltage supplies and 18 power supplies are utilized to furnish a precisely regulated reference voltage to the telemetry system. Each power supply converts 28 vdc to a regulated 5 vdc reference voltage for use in the instrumentation measuring system. In general, the performance of the S-IB stage electrical system was satisfactory. The voltage for each battery averaged 28 vdc throughout the normal flight period. Battery voltage drops correlate with significant vehicle events. The current on batteries IDIO and ID20 averaged approximately 38 amps throughout powered flight. These batteries were activated five days prior to launch as compared to a normal activated lifetime of three days. This longer than nominal activation time did not affect the voltage of the batteries during flight. The voltage and current profiles for the batteries are presented in Figure 14-1. The performance satisfactory. of the Master Measuring Voltage Supplies was

All thrust OK pressure switches and EBW units functioned properly. The average charge time for the retro rocket EBW units was 0.79 seconds. The charge time for the separation EBW units was 0.72 seconds. The destruct EBW units indicated no change. The performance of the S-IB stage switch .selector, used to determine event times in place of the flight sequencer and flight sequencer _lave of the Saturn I vehicles, was as expected.

IDII Bus Voltage (dc) 33

-" '

ID21 Bus V,Jltsge(dc) 33

31

31

: 2? ._::_.-:: :
Lower Limit Battery Volts_,e

29 2?

i:,,, ,...
Lower Li_it T_at.teryoltagej V

I
25-3o 0 30

I
120 150 180 25 -30 o 30

I
90 Range Time (sec) 120 150 180

90 Range Time (sec)

IDlO Battery Current (amps) 70

II [! I] ]|_

ID2O Battery Current (amps) 70

I! II

, Predicted, ...... 40 I _

50

I i [ _edict_d _. !

40

,
0 30 O _nRe T_e

Actual /

90 (sec)

120

150

180

30 -30

30

0 90 RanRe Time (sec)

Ao,L/ I

120

150

180

F_
FIGURE 14-1 S-IB STAGE CURRENT AND VOLTAGE "-J

168

14.3

S-IVB STAGE ELECTRICAI. SYSTEM

The S-IVB stage electrical system consisted of four batteries, one LOX and one LH 2 chilldown inverter, a static inverter-converter, two 5 vdc excitation modules; and seventeen 20 vdc excitation modules. The batteries designated forward i and 2 were rated at 5190 and 240 amp-minute respectively. The batteries designated aft i and 2 were rated at 3180 and 1350 amp-minute respectively. The current and voltage profiles for these batteries are presented in Figure 14-2. When internal power was switched on these batteries had an average temperature of 304K which, by S-IVB cutoff, had gradually increased to an average of 309K for all batteries except aft battery 2 which reached 323K. These temperature levels and the current and voltage profiles indicate that the batteries performed satisfactorily throughout the flight. Performance of the static inverter-converter and the chilldown

inverters was satisfactory. At umbilical disconnect the static inverterconverter voltage was 115.4 vac; the voltage remained at this level through PU system activate, to S-IVB engine cutoff. The LH 2 chilldown inverter satisfactorily supplied power to the LH 2 chilldown pump. the voltage was 52.6 vac at 401.5 Hz; operating temperature was 2876K. The LOX chilldown inverter satisfactorily supplied power to the LOX chilldown pump, the voltage was a nominal 52.0 vac at 402.0 Hz; operating temperature was 287o1(. All EBW firing units performed satisfactorily. The ullage rocket ignition EBW units were charged at 144.65 sec and normal ullage rocket ignition occurred, on command, at 147.52 seconds. The ullage rocket jettison EBW units were charged at 156.64 sac and they discharged at 159.77 seconds. This, and other data, indicates that all three ullage rockets were jettisoned satisfactorily. The electrical portions of the S-IVB control system satisfactorily to the commands generated by the sequencer Instrument Unit. The performance 14.4 INSTRUMENT UNIT of the S-IVB ELECTRICAL stage switch selector responded and the

was as expected.

SYSTEM

In the transition from the Saturn I, Block II configuration to the Saturn IB configuration, extensive changes were made in the IU electrical systems. All network distributors were redesigned to increase capacity, flexibility and maintainability. The launch vehicle portion of the EDS was incorporated and, for this flight, was flown open-loop. In addition to these equipment changes and modifications, all components have been

169

_,Voltage _Current

Voltage 50 _0 30

(dc)

Forward

Battery

Current

(amps) I00 80 60

t
20 ......... _-I .... _--

Sj
f_ ..... 40

to
0 -lO0

I I I
I 0 100 200 300 400 Range Time (set) 500 600 A 1680

20
0

Voltage 40

(dc)

Forward

Battery

Current

(amps)

30

L.;

f 2'

20.

f-! _ I

_j

r-"-7-..r .....
A

4
2
O 16go

lo0 -[O0

I
I i O lO0 200 300 400 Range Ti_c- (set) 500 600

Voltage 40 '

(dc)

Aft

Batter,

Current

(amp$) 40

30 -

_ II

-i.r._!

30

20
lo o - IO0 ,- ....... i 0 j lO0

|1
Ii I I

w'l
II [ t .J t_ #.. .... A 600

2o
to 0 1680

200

300 Range Time

400 (see)

500

Voltage 80

(dc)

Aft

Battery

Current

(amps) 150

60
40

L
I I
I
[ [ 0 IOO 200 300 Range S-IVB Time 400 (set) VOLTAGE 500 600

-] !
I _ _ --

125
I00

20
o
-20 -40 -100

75
50
25 0 1680

FIGURE

14-2

BATTERY

AND

CURRENT

170

mounted on thermal conditioning plates (cold plates). Also, the SA-10 Flight Sequencer has been replaced by the Switch Selector. Each launch vehicle stage contains a Switch Selector which is the connecting link between the Launch Vehicle Digital Computer/Launch Vehicle Data Adapter (LVI)C/LVDA) and the individual stage networks. The switch selectors consist of relay circuits which decode the digital flight sequence commands from the LVDC/LVDA and activate the proper stage circuits to execute the command. The IU power sys_m consists of internal and external primary 28 vdc power sources, inertial platform systems po_er source and instrumentation system power source. Four low rate zinc silver oxide batteries, each with a capacity of 18,000 amp-minutes, provide the internal primary 28 vde power. These batteries are designated 6DI0, 6D20, 6D30, and 6D40. The inertial platform system and the accelerometer signal conditioner power requirements are provided by the 56 volt power supply. The instrumentation system power requirements for transducers and signal conditioning equipment are provided by the 5 vdc supply. All of the IU batteries performed within allowable limits. These batteries are mounted on the thermal conditioning panels. Initial temperatures were approximately 288K as expected. The normal operating characteristic of this type battery at this low temperature is that the voltage will decrease for the initial portion of the discharge and will then increase as the internal temperature of the battery builds up. The operation of the batteries during the AS-201 flight followed this trend. The 6DI0, 6D30 and 6D40 batteries stayed much closer to the 28 volt value (26 to 30 volts specified) than did the 6D20 battery. This was due to the 30% larger current which was imposed on the 6D20 battery. The voltage and current profiles and predicted values for the batteries are presented in Figure 14-3. The battery currents did not follow the calculated values; however, they were very close to the values obtained during simulation test. All points of current change that have a corresponding voltage change are Nell defined and agree with programmed events. The output voltage of the 56 volt power supply was, nominally, 56 vdc throughout the flight. Voltage fluctuations on the +6D51 bus (used only by the inertial platform) were noted during periods of high vibration. These fluctuations, which reached a maximum of 1.8 volts, peak to peak, during maximum Q period of flight, were attributed to coupling from the guidance servo loops. This same phenomenon has also been observed during laboratory testing and the voltage regulation is completely adequate from the standpoint of proper platform operation. However, the power supply specification calls for a maximum peak-to-peak bus voltage fluctuation of 0.25 volts and it is planned to provide a means for eliminating the noise generated by the load from the measurement. Figure 14-4 shows the approximately variation of output voltage as functions of time.

171

-----predicted --,Measured VoLts (dc) + 6DIO Current (amps)

29.5

Ii

28

28.5

24

_'-_--' ---_1 j__o 2,0 ,o _oo 2oJ_6oo6,o 1,o ,oo ,,o_ 8,o,_ ,6oo16,oi,oo
18 Range Time (sec) Voles 28.5 (dc) -+ 6D20 -Current (amps) 29

28.0 _o,t_ -_Z _: ___

27.o

----- _. 'Z-F-!

_8

50

too z,o 200_00

iC I 26 650 700 750 800 850))1600 t6so 1700

Time (sec)

Range

Voles 29.5

(dc)

+ 6D30

Current

(amps) 26

r, 29.0
28.5 -Volics 'olts

;L__

_ ...........

J"___

24
22

28o 2,._
27.0 50 IO0 Volts 29.0 (dc)

I_ I
150 200 _ 1600 650 700 Range Time (sec) I 750 800 850

----18
600 1650 16 1700

o
23

+ 6D40

Current

(amps)

-4#
-

_._

22

28.0

21

2,.0 _0 _001,02006006,0,00,_0ooo8,0 i_00,6,0,00

Range FIGURE 14-3 Time (see) BATTERY VOLTAGE AND CURRENT INSTRL_qENT 1R_T

172

0 0 ,,-.4

I
oO Q ',0 ,-..e

173

During flight, the nominal output of voltage of the 5 volt supply was 5 vdc with a maximum bus ripple of 5.2 my.

power

The IU switch selector functioned normally. No complements of commands were received. The read command from the LVDA and the output pulse from the Switch Selector occurred accuracy of the telemetry tapes. at the same time within reading

174

15.0 15. i

(U)

RANGE

SAFETY

AND

COMMAND

SYSTEMS

PERFORMANCE

S U_VlARY Data indicated that all the vehicle active range safety and command

systems functioned properly and that they would have performed satisfactorily if needed. Each system responded properly to the safe command. Of the 4979 commands transmitted to the passenger secure range safety system, only three the maximum number the overall individual 15.2 transmissions of consecutive were lost. In transmissions three passenger flights lost was two, therefore, adequate since each

performance of this system ormmand is normally sent i0 DESTRUCT SYSTEMS

is considered times.

COMMAND

PERFORMANCE system is to radio command provide from the

The primary purpose of the command-destruct a means of terminating the vehicle flight upon

ground. Each stage of the launch vehicle contained two active range safety systems, each identical and independent of the other. A typical vehicle system is outlined in Figure 15-1. As indicated in this figure, only three commands were required for range safety purposes for this unnlanned flight. These commands are: i. thrust 2. Arm/Cutoff termination. Destruct - Arming of the Exploding Bridge Wire (EBW) and

- Firing

of

the the

EBW command decoding equipment from its

power

3. Safe supply.

- Disconnecting

During the AS-201 flight, telemetry indicated that the command antenna, receivers_ecoders, destruct controllers and EBW firing units would have performed satisfactorily if needed. EBW firing unit data indicated the units were in the required state of readiness. Because the flight was successful, no range safety commands were required and, therefore, all data except receiver signal strength telemetry, remained unchanged during the flight. At 627.37 sec, the "safing" command was initiated and data, signal strength telemetry, dropped to the telemetry noise level which indicates system deactivation. 15.3 INSTRUMENT UNIT COMMAND SYST_ PERFONMANCE

In addition to developmental system

the command-destruct system described above, a was passenger tested in the IU during the AS-201 system, main

vehicle flight. This is the Saturn secure range safety command which will replace the non-secure system presently in use. The

175

I_I

Command

Antenna

System

_-

Impedance-Matching

Tee

v I RECEIVER FM

(ANALOG) DECODER

To EBW

FIRING UNIT FIGURE 15-1 COMMAND DESTRUCT

l_ecoder _ I Power Off_ SYSTEM PER VEHICLE ) PORTION

CONTROLLER

( 2 SYSTEMS

STAGE

difference

between

the

two

systems

is;the

present

system

has

a analog

decoder, while the new (secure) system has a digital decoder. The digital decoder provides a high degree of security because of the extremely large number of coding arrangements which are available. Data evaluation indicate that the Secure Range Safety System, performed as expected. The total number of commands transmitted is assumed to be 4979 since off-the-air monitor tapes have not been received to _erify this. The total number of commands verified through telemetry was 4976. Thus, a total of 3 commands was lost. Two co_ands were lost during S-IVB stage burn period. One may have been lost during retro rocket burn. However, the decoder enable circuit indicates the command was received. The AGC field strength indicates signal dropout and, therefore, considered the command satisfactory. may have been lost. Overall performance is

176

16.0 16.1

(U)

_ERGENCY SL_dARY

DETECTION

SYSTEM

(EDS)

PERFORMANCE

PERFORMANCE

The EDS system on AS-201 vehicle EDS functioned properly and substantiating information were energized properly; and deactivated prior to armed at the proper time

was tested in open loop. The launch based on telemetered data from the IU obtained from MSC. The three EDS buses enabled or EDS the 40 at liftoff cutoff was sec timer,

automatic abort circuit was S-IB cutoff arming. Manual by the switch selector and

backup of this function, operated properly. Thrust OK pressure switches operated properly during thrust buildup and after cutoff on both stages. The InstrtEnent Unit properly monitored the indication of two engines out at S-IB inboard engine cutoff. craft of attitude reference failure. and measurements were satisfactory. abort signal, and was not energized. since there were There was no indication The Q-ball functioned Angular overrates did no S-IB engine failures in the Spaceproperly, not cause an the abort bus

Angular rates sensed by the EDS sensors approached the EDS limit in the pitch plane due to noise picked up by the rate gyros. At approximately 62 sec, a pitch angular rate of -5 deg/s was indicated. A disturbance of about + 6 deg/s was also indicated in the roll axis. None of the nine (3 per--axis) OF EDS System will be follows: (EDS) for AS-201 was essentially used for a manned configuration. overrate switches closed during the boost phase.

16.2

DESCRIPTION

the The

The Emergency Detection same as the system which major I. was differences are as

there

The Emergency Detection System would not give an abort; however, an RF commanded abort capability in the spacecraft (added to for unmanned flight only). The System (LES) or Service Module LES abort can occur any time capability (SM) abort liftoff provides for as follows: and LET

the spacecraft a Launch Escape a. jettison. b. spacecraft 2. have

between

SM

abort

can

occur

any

time

from

LET

jettison

until

the

separates

from

the

S-IVB Q-Ball

stage. on AS-201, whereas, manned flights

will

There was a Simplex a redundant Q-Bail.

177

3.

There

was

a Simplex

engine

cutoff

circuitry

from

the

IU

to

the stages on AS-201; whereas, on manned flights the cutoff circuitry from the IU to the stages will be redundant. Interim control programmer on AS-201 controls manual abort input (from tone RF link) and tower jettison (from Launch Vehicle Sequencer or tone RF link). 4. of: Spacecraft EDS controls and displays were omitted _ith excep-

tion

a. b. c. d. One was side of the telemetered.

EDS EDS

Power Auto

Switch Abort Auto Out Enable Abort Auto Deactive Abort across Deactivate the IU/Spacecraft interface

Overrate Two Engine

redundant

displays

5. The degree of on-the-pad checkout capability of AS-201 as complete as that required for manned flights, but was similar. following checks were not included: a. b. c. d. 3 Calips. S-IB EDS Conax Ready valve not bus inhibit for in GSE for checkout release not provided

was not The

incl_ed changes

ladder checkout OK not provided rather

Spacecraft

improved

than

S-IB thrust monitored by two thrust No provisions for remote checkout. pyrotechnic and logic buses

switches

6. by GSE. 7.

Spacecraft

were

armed

and

safed

IU

had

no

capability

to

change

rate

limits

in

flight.

Figure 16-1 is a functional diagram of the Saturn IB EDS. The system was flown "open loop" on AS-201. Bi-level displays and Q-ball output were telemetered from the spacecraft. The EDS accommodates two abort modes_ manual and automatic. The automatic abort parameters are S-IB two engines out and angular overrate. The automati _ abort system is enabled at liftoff and deactivated prior to S-IB cutoff arming (low level sense). After abort displays. The vehicle, are loss of differential pressure deactivation, these parameters are used for manual other manual abort parameters, sensed from the launch attitude reference and the resultant angle-of-attack (AP).

ABORT

,_ ,_

I '

SEPARATION AUTOMANUAL ABORT -

ABORT ..1/,_,_.. RANGE _ _vv,,,,,iMCC -I REQUEST I--_LAUNCH PAD J ANGULAR I 7 RATES (SC)I

DO

TWO ENGINES OUT DISABLE SC

MATIC

DISABLE

DECISION

NAUT /ERROR(SC) I

..JATTITUDE I

TMSC

CUTOFF

S/C _L_IANGLE OFI DISPLAYS _ ATTACK I i

LOGIC (VOTING)

TM ATTITUDEI REFER- I ENCE I

IU

CUTOFF ENABLE

OVERRATES (P,Y,R)

I L/V I
=

lU
TM

S'IVB CUTOFF s-z_zs S-IB

Is -rvB ,,THRUST
TM

S'IVB I
IMCC

S-IB TOFF

S-IB 2EN-I I GINES OUT

FIGURE 16-I SATURN IB EDS FUNCTIONAL DIAGRAM

L THRUST S-IB

S-IB

179

16.3

EDS

BUS

VOLTAGE Unit batteries furnished power to the three EDS buses

as

Instrument follows:

Battery 6DI0 6D30 6D40 The EDS buses were energized throughout flight. Characteristic Section 14.0 as battery voltages. 16.4 EDS EVENT TIMES

EDS

Bus

6D91 6D92 6D93 prior to liftoff and voltage fluctuations remained energized are shown in

tion

Telemetered signals from the of t_:e EDS system. Automatic

launch vehicle indicated abort was enabled (open

proper operaloop) at

liftoff, 0.37 sec range time and deactivated at 136.80 launch vehicle EDS cutoff was enabled by the IU switch sec and the 40 sec timer which will be used for backup operated properly. Table 16-1 lists signals pertinent that were telemetered. Event number l-4 in Table 16-1 are an indication

seconds. The selector at 60.38 of th_ function to the EDS system

of

the

Instrument of sec

Unit sensing the S-IB Thrust OK Pressure Switches (TOPS) after two the inboard engines cut off. The cutoff signal occurred at 141.46 ranme time. The EDS engine out signals were not sensed as failures because they had been deactivated 4.9 sec earlier in flight. events (LVDC)

Table 16-11 lists EDS signals and some flight programmed into the Launch Vehicle Digital Computer commands to the switch selectors during flight. 16.5 THRUST OK PRESSURE SWITCHES

that were and sent as

Each H-I engine was instrumented with two thrust OK pressure switches which, in addition to an indication of engine failure for the crew, would provide the signal for two engine out auto abort. Prior to engine ignition, a light remained on in the spacecraft that represented each engine. After ignition, during thrust buildup, one switch closing would cause the light to go off. In flight both switches opening were required to cause the light to come on again. Just prior to abled, and the only and outboard engines inboard engine cutoff the auto abort mode was disindication of engines out occurred after the inboard cutoff. Table 16-111 lists the H-I engine thrust

180

TABLE TELEMETERED

16-1 EDS SIGNALS

Meas. K9-602

No. EDS S-IB (Engines EDS S-IB (Engines

Title One Engine 1-8) One Engine 2-8) Engine Out 141_72

Range

Time

(see)

(IECO)

K10-602

Out

141.72

(IECO)

KII-602

EDS S-IB Two Signal A EDS S-IB Two Signal B EDS +6D95 Bus

Out

141.72

(IECO)

K12-602

Engine

Out

141.72

(IECO)

K13-602 K14-602

Energized Engine

0 Volts

Throughout

Mission Separation

EDS S-IB or S-IVB Cutoff from SC EDS or Manual S-IB or S-IVB EDS or Manual S-IB or S-IVB

843.225 (S-IVB/SC Sequence) 0 Volts throughout

K15-602

Cutoff

of

mission

K16-602

Cutoff

of

0 Volts

throughout

mission

K17-602

EDS Manual Cutoff of S-IB or S-IVB Engine Armed EDS Manual Cutoff of S-IB or S-IVB Engine Armed Q-Ball Q-Ball EDS On On Indication Indication Timer, Bus Bus or

60.4

seconds

KIg-602

0 Volts

throughout

mission

K57-603 K58-603 K86-603 K87-602 R31-602 R32-602

6D2[ 6D41 Out

On On

at LO, at LO,

Off Off

at at

143.52 143.52

40 Sec

Timed

40.32 172.4 None and 172.6

LET Jettison ElMS Rate EDS Rate Activate Gyro Gyro

Command Roll Activate Pitch and Yaw

None

181 TABLE SWITCH SELECTOR 16-II PERTINENT TO EDS

FUNCTIONS

Parameters Liftoff Auto-Abort Multiple Enable Enable Engine Launch Rate Rate Out Out Relays Cutoff Vehicle (Y,P (Y,P Auto Auto Cutoff Off Engine Cutoff or or Reset Enable EDS Cutoff Inhibit Inhibit Enable Enable

Range

Time 0.37 5 39 10.38 60.38 136.18 136.39 136.59 136.80 141.46 143.46 146.94 147.76 149.35

(sec)

Excessive Excessive S-IB S-IB Engine Engine

R) Auto-Abort R) Auto-Abort Inhibit Inhibit

Abort Abort

Inboard Q-Ball S-IB

Engine Power

Outboard

S-IB/S-IVB S-IVB EDS LET LET S-IVB Engine Arming Jettison Jettison Engine

SeParation Start of S-IVB "A" "B" Cutoff Thrust OK Pressure Switches

149.35 172.44 172.64 602.86

18Z.

TABLE PERFOI_ANCE SL1_tARY

16-lII SWITCHES

OF THRUST OK pRESSURE

ResuIts Pc N/cm 2 (psi) 424 -1.48 (614) 424 -1.48 (614) 428 -1.63 (620) 428 -1.63 (620) 419 -1.56 (608) 419 -1.56 (608) 428 -1.64 (620) 428 -1.64 (620) 426 -1.63 (618) 426 -1.64 (618) 430 -1.72 (624) 430 -1.72 (624) 444 -1.89 (643) 444 -1.90 (643) . 430 -1.63 (624) 430 -1.63 (624) 3.4 I 150.77 (5) 3.4 2 150.77 (5) 603.08 603.08 141.69 141.71 141.70 141.71 141.70 141.71 141.70 141.71 147.18 147.18 147.18 147.18 147.18 147.18 147.18 147.18 Pc N/cm 2 (psi) 123 (178) 123 (178) 185 (268) 185 (268) 184 (267) 184 (267) 164 (238) 164 (238) 272 (394) 287 (416) 257 (373) 257 (373) 240 (348) 246 (356) 270 (392) 276 (400) 469 (680) 469 (680)

Closed Meas. VKI38-1 No. Eng. Switch VKI39-1 Eng. Switch VK140-2 Eng. Switch VK141-2 Eng. Switch VK142-3 Eng. Switch VK143-3 Eng. Title I Thrust Press. OK (set)

Open (set)

i, Thrust 1 Thrust

Press. OK

2, Thrust 2 Thrust

Press. OK

1, Thrust

2 Thrust

Press. OK

2, Thrust 3 Thrust

Press OK

I, Thrust

3 Thruet

Press. OK

Switch VK144-4 Eng. Switch %_K145-4 Eng.

2, Thrust

4 Thrust

Press. OK

I, Thrust

4 Thrust

Press. OK

Switch VK146-5 Eng. Switch VK147-5 Eng. Switch VK148-6 Eng. Switch VK149-6 Eng. Switch VKI50-7 Eng. Switch VKISI-7 Eng. Switch _152-8 Eng. Switch VK153-8 Eng. Switch K14-401 J-2

2, Thrust 5 Thrust

Press. OK

I, Thrust 5 Thrust

Press. OK

2, Thrust 6 Thrust

Press. OK

I, Thrust 6 Thrust

Press OK

2, Thrust 7 Thrust

Press. OK

i, Thrust

7 Thrust

Press. OK

2, Thrust 8 Thrust

Press. OK

I, Thrust 8 Thrust

Press. OK

2, Thrust Thrust

Engine

Pressure K157-401 J-2

Switch Thrust

Engine

Pressure

Switch

183

OK pressure switch closing (light off) and opening (light on) times together with the combustion chamber pressure relevant to the buildup and decay of the engines. The pressure switches do not, however operate from combustion chamber pressure. Instead, they measure the approximate fuel pump outlet pressure at the pressure switch sensing port. The nominal switch pickup pressure is 552 + 10.3 N/cm 2 (800 + 15 psi) whereas the dropout pressure is 17.2 to 32.0 NTcm 2 (25 to 45 psi_ lower than pickup. There was no measure of fuel pump outlet pressure on AS-201. The nominal fuel pump outlet pressure switch setting converted to combustion chamber pressure (Pc) indicates that the switches should pickup prior to a maximum of 441N/cm 2 (640 psi) and dropout when the combustion chamber pressure was lower than 427 N/cm2 (620 psi). Table 16-111 indicates that the engine 7 pressure switches picked up at 2.1N/cm 2 (3 psi) above the 441N/cm 2 (640 psi) max, but the pickup times were telemetered at a sample rate of 12 samples/sec which would introduce as much as +0..083 sec error slightly larger in timing and than expected thereby account for an indication combustion chamber pressure. of a

All of the combustion chamber pressures shown the switches opened were considerably lower than 427 again can be accounted for by the +0.083 sec timing In addition, the rate of combustion chamber decay is buildup and therefore a combustion chamber pressure times introduces a wide error probability on the low decay.

in Table 16-111 when N/cm 2 (620 psi). This inaccuracy in measuring. much greater than reading at specific side during thrust

Two thrust OK pressure switches were also provided on AS-2OI to indicate J-2 engine burn; i.e. one switch operating in the closed position would cause a light in the spacecraft to go off during thrust buildup and two switches operating in an open position would cause a light in the spacecraft to come on during thrust decay. There was no provision for automatic abort during S-IVB burn. These pressure switches also functioned properly during thrust buildup and after the cutoff signalasindicated in Table 16-111. S-IVB pressure switches did These switches were an approximate pressure. The S-llrB main oxidizer not measure combustion chamber pressure. measure of main oxidizer injector injector pressure was measured on psi).

AS-201 and during pickup recorded approximately 345 N/cm 2 _500 psi). This compares to a nominal switch setting of 345 _ 21N/cm z (500 _ 30 After S-IVB engine cutoff, both switches operated properly at a main oxidizer pressure level of 296 N/cm 2 (430 psi). The nominal dropout pressure is 293 _ 17 N/cm 2 (425 _ 25 psi).

rate error shown

The S-IVB thrust of 12 samples per of +0.083 in Table

OK pressure switches were telemetered second. This sampling rate results Therefore, approximate. the combustion chamber

at a sampling in a possible pressures

seconds. 16-III are

184

As

mentioned

in

Section

9.0,

the J-2

engine

cutoff

impulse

was

greater than expected. The end of S-IVB thrust decay occurred at 605.00 sec, 2.14 sec after the cutoff signal. The S-IVB thrust reached 1779 N (400 ibf) at approximately the end of thrust decay, or about 2.1 sec after the cutoff signal. 16.6 EDS RATE GYROS

At approximately 62 sec in flight an angular rate of -5 deg/s was experienced in the pitch plane. Simultaneously, a disturbance of 6.2 deg/s was experienced in roll and 1.4 deg/s in yaw (Figure 16-2). The abort threshold for roll _as 20 deg/s; however, the pitch and yaw setting was + 5.5 deg/s with a threshold of 4.725 to 6.275 deg/s considering the--inaccuracies of the instruments and the resulting deadband. All EDS rate gyros and their voted output used for control indicated essentially the same disturbance source in each respective axis. None of the nine (3 per axis) overrate switches closed during the disturbances or at any other period of flight. An analysis of the noise content of the control rate gyros was made in an attempt to pinpoint the predominant frequencies and the noise source. A time slice around Mach i was analyzed up to I00 Hz using a bandwidth of 1Hz. Figure 16-2 shows the results of the power spectral density analysis up to i00 Hz of the noise content of the three control rate gyro measurements. It indicates that the predominant frequencies were between 14 and 25 Hz. It that is believed the that the external in the acoustic EDS rate environment gyros. was the the source time

produced

noise

content

During

interval of 61.5 to 62.5 sec, an oscillatory forward shoulder of the Instrument Unit (see possible that around Mach I, flow separation command antenna (located external to the EDS contributed to the noise content.

shock wave formed on the Section 18.0). It is also over an externally mounted rate gyros), might have

Subsequent Saturn IB configurations will also experience an oscillatory shock wave on the IU shoulder around Mach I and therefore necessary precautions have been initiated to eliminate the noise content in the EDS rate switches. An electrical filter has been proposed to be incorporated on AS-203, AS-202 and subsequent vehicles in the circuit as shown in Figure sho_n 16-3. in this Frequency figure. characteristics of this proposed filter are also

The characteristics of the filter shown in Figure 16-3 were mathematically simulated and Figure 16-4 shows the results of the digital filter on the telemetered output of the AS-201 control ra_ gyros. Both filtered and unfiltered pitch, yaw and roll rates are shown. When filtered, the telemetered noise content was reduced approximately 80 percent.

186

Computer

AS-201 EDS Distributor ' Comparator I _._ Control

O
AS-203 I Proposed Changes Amplitude 1.2 0.8 _ 0.4

Comparator _:_r =
Fi ! ter

Dis tributor EDS

to Rate

Gyro

System

Note:

0.I

\
i0 Frequency Filter (cps) I00

Break (gain

Frequency = O.707)

= 5 cps

Characteristics

FICURE

16-3

PROPOSED

CHANGES

IN EDS

RATE

CYRO

SYSTI_4 AND

FILTER

CHARACTERISTICS

Angular Velocity Pitch (Telemetered) (deg/s)

Control

Angular Velocity Yaw Control (Telemetered) (dag/s)

Angular Velocity Roll Control (Telemetered) (deg/s)

I
I ,A

5 1

I
-...-

5---

'I, '
i -----_----..d

0
-I -2 -3

1 i,

0
-I -2 -3

2
i I

i _

o
-I -2 -3

-4

-_

-4

-5
-7 0 I0 20 30 40 50 60 Range Time (set) Control 70 80 90

-s
-7 0

t
lO 20 I 30 40 50 60 Range Time (set) 70 80 90

-5
-7 0 10 20

L _ '

_ i_ _ 1 ,
70 80 90

' ' 30 40 50 60 Range Time (set)

Angular Velocity Pitch (Filtered) (deg/s)

Angular Velocity Yaw Control (Filtered) (deg/s)

Angular Velocity Ro11 Control (Filtered) (deg/s)

'

'

-_-_

rl

_ _/
I '

!,
/

_,,!
; 90

l[
:

1
' ' ;

/ .i.L
i

._|i
0 lO

20

! I i .L_.L_..I_L___ _2L.___.___2__J_l 1_ l,
30 40 50 60 Range Time (sac) 70 80 90 0 l0 20 30 40 50 60 Range Time (sec) 70 80 FIGURE 16-4

.21 L____ :, ....J _____. ......... ........

0 I0 20 30 40 50 60 Range Time (sec) 70 80 90 DATA

TEL_iETERED AND FILTERED CONTROL RATE OYRO

188

aspects

With of

the the

exception of noise on the EDS instruments were satisfactory. wheel speed

rate gyros, other performance Wheel speed of the rate maintained _ithin the

gyros was adequate. Monitored 1600 + 60 Hz requ_ed. 16.7 Q-BALL DIFFERENTIAL

was

PRESSURES

Differential pressures were measured by means of a Simplex Q-ball on AS-201. These measurements are a function of vehicle angle-of-attack. The launch vehicle telemetered the differential pressures measured in the pitch and yaw planes, whereas the Spacecraft measured the vector sum of pitch and yaw (reflective of total angle-of-attack). established for these measurements prior to a closed figuration flight. sensor for manned Q-ball flight. differential pressure will loop he Limits manned used as will be cona manual

Figure 16-5 shows the measured pitch and yaw plane differential pressures and compares their vector sum with the measured vector sum from the Spacecraft. Although the comparison of the vector sum is not exact, they are close enough to be considered adequate. The differences are attrihuted to inaccuracies in the telemetry calibration curves at values near zero. 16.8 LAUNCH VEHICLE ATTITUDE REFERENCE MONITORING

the and

Angular displacement of the vehicle, gimbal angles measured from ST-124M platform, are measured by two types of pickoffs, fine coarse. The normal mode utilized is the fine pickoff. If the fine 40 ms, the 0.4 deg is closed loop guidance 40 ms is measured three to the coarse piekoff; on in the spacecraft

range measured gimbal angles exceed 0.4 deg per dropped and the last good reading is used in the and control system. When 0.4 deg or greater per times in succession, the measurement is switched if 15 successive failures occur a light is turned which indicates loss of platform reference. The 0.028 maximum deg per measured 40 ms or angular displacement only 7% of the limit

was

of the AS-201 setting.

vehicle

189

_ Pressure 0.8

(N/cm 2)

Pitch

A Pressure

(psi) 1.0

0.4

0.5

kk
-0.4

- -0
--0.5

--1.0 -0.8 0 20 40 60 80 Range Time (sec) i00 120 140

A Pressure 0.8

(N/cm 2)

Yaw

_ Pressure (psi) I.O

0.4

0.5

_o.,
0 _ -0.8 0 20 A Pressure

"_'" ""

,_ /Xt_

] / V'_-_

""_" _; _'_-w-'_

--0

vip -1.0 40 60 80 Range Time (sec) i00 120 140

(N/cm 2)

Vector Sum L/V Data

/_

_ Pressure (psi)

0.8

, :alculated from
5pacecraft Data

,;r_, {
l I { l I | ' |

0.6
t

0.4

'

i_

O.8

0.2

0 0 20 40

"v"

'

_"I00 120

....

o
140

60 80 Range Time (see) 16-5 Q-BALL DIFFERENTIAL

FIGURE

PRESSURES

190

17.0 17.1 SUMMARY

(U)

STRUCTURES

The postflight predicted longitudinal load and bending moment for the AS-201 vehicle compares favorably with the flight measured accelerometer and strain data. Vehicle loads, due to the combined longitudinal load and bending moment, level were in key below limit design values were below and, their therefore, the stress limit design value. The S-IB stage than predicted structural members

lower

and the H-I engine vibration except for the engine turbine

levels were generally gear case which was on Saturn I

2 to 3 Grm s higher Block II vehicles,

than the past history environment established but probably as should be expected.

S-IVB stage vibrations and internal acoustics were within the expected limits with the exception of vibration at the aft skirt electronic equipment panels. Though the electronic equipment panel vibrations were higher than expected, none of the vibrations or internal acoustic levels indicated any structural degradation throughout the flight. The The J-2 engine vehicle vibrations was the were first as to expected. fly with an Instrument Unit

AS-201

structure made of honeycomb on the structure and on the within 17.2 17.2.1 the TOTAL design VEHICLE criteria LOADS LOADS

sandwich construction. Vibration levels internally mounted components were well for the Instrument Unit.

AND MOMENTS

LONGITUDINAL

Vehicle postflight predicted longitudinal force distributions were computed using the mass characteristics of AS-201 and the applied forces from the flight trajectory data recorded during S-IB stage burn. The longitudinal accelerations obtained from the analysis shows agreement with values measured during flight at all time points and reached a maximum of 39.9 m/s 2 at 141.5 see, the time of IECO. Comparisons that derived between from the the postflight predicted longitudinal force strain measurements at the spider beam are

and

presented in Figure 17-I for the conditions of maximum bending and maximum compression which occurred at 80.3 and 141.5 sec, respectively. These comparisons show the strain data to be consistent with the postflight predicted values. The postflight predicted load at the spider beam of 5,718,807 N (1,285,639 Ibf) at IECO is 3% greater than the preflight predicted value. This difference is the result of increased weight above the spider beam from the 1,331,980 N (299,4411bf) used in the loads

191

Longitudinal 9000

Force

(IOOO N)

8000 Postflight 7000 T -- 14i.5 M = 5.62 Predicted sec I I r,

Jt f" I

ax = 39.9 m/s 2

6000 Strain Data @ T = 141.5 sec

5000 Preflight @ Cutoff (R-P&VE-SL-212 4000 -63)

1 Strain Data @ T = 80.3 sec

3000 Post flight Predicted T -- 80.3 sec M= 1.6 q = 28786 N/m 2 = 3.94 deg = 2.05 deg 2 ax = 20.2 m/s 1000
_at ----. |

2000

70

60

50

40 Vehicle

30 Station FORCE

20 (m) VEHICLE

lO

FIGURE

17-I

LONGITUDINAL

VERSUS

STATION

L92

analysis, to the actual 1,403,605 N (315,543 Ibf) on AS-201. The combined measured longitudinal and bending moment load are below limit design values and therefore, this is not considered a problem. The longitudinal load versus time at Sta. 23.9 m (942 in), strain data, is presented in Figure 17-2 and shows agreement predicted loads points 80.3 and on Figure obtained with

from

the postflight values at time parameters

for the five time points considered. The 141.5 sec were computed using the flight

listed

17-1.

The S-IB individual engine and stage thrust buildup profiles are presented and discussed in Section 8.2 of this report. Structural system response to thrust buildup, the presence or absence of Pogo and Spacecraft response to thrust buildup are still being evaluated. No problems are anticipated in these areas. 17.2.2 BENDING The vehicle MOMENTS maximum bending moments are summarized in Table 17-1.

The effect of the 2.67 m (105 in) diameter LOX tank, listed as percentage of total moment carried, is included in the measured values which were determined from the LOX stud and tension tie strain measurements. The maximum bending moment in the yaw plane, at the spider beam, occurred at 80.3 seconds. The postflight predicted accelerations and bending moments are compared with the measured accelerations and strain bending moment for this time point in Figure 17-3. The postflight predicted values are based on the flight parameters indicated on the figure. TABLE VEHICLE MAXIMUM 17-1 BENDING MOMENTS Effect 2.67 m of Dia

Time (sec)

Vehicle Plane

Maximum Bending Moment N-m (ib-in) Measured Postflight Predicted

(105 in) Tank, % 10.56

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

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

88.4

Pitch

-729,000 (6,452,194)

80.3

Yaw

2,216,000 (19,613,252) 2,239,000 (19,816,820)

2,281,000 (20,188,551)

10.31

77.8
I

*Resultant

9.38
......

20

deg

from

Fin

5 (pitch

plane)

toward

Fin

4.

Longitudinal 7000

Load (i000 N)

T-- 141.4

sec 7

6000

ooo
4000 /

//

2000

_-_/

/
i000 0 Postflight Predicted .....

o
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 Range Time (sec) FIGURE 17-2

105

120

135

150

LONGITUDINAL LOAD VERSUS TIME (STA. 23.9 m) FROM STRAIN DATA

Vehicle Station

(m) 0 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2

Normal 4.0

Load Factor 4.8

(m/s 2) 5.6

7O
\ \ Flight Normal Load Factor -------Rigid Body Elastic Body

\ \ \
\ \

60

Telemetry Acceleration

50,

k _

-40 I

\ \ \

AS-201Postflight Predicted Bending Moment T = 80.3 sec, M ffi 1.6 q = 28786 N/m2 _ ffi 3"940, _k \\ \ _ "_ \ % _ _ ffi 2"050 Design Bending Moment Saturn IB Vehicle Limit T ffi 64.6 sac, _ = 1.05 q 27841N/cm _ffi 8.4 , B = 3.9 (R-P&VE-SL-212-63)

30

_asured Stra _n \

J k /
I/I/_

Data @ Tffi80.3 sec \\\

[
0
0 lO00 2000

_._s_"

kk _

(R-P&VE-SL-212-63) Design Normal Load Factor

30 0 4000 5000 Bending Moment (lOO0 N-m)

6000

7000

80 0

FIGURE 17-3

BENDING MOMEh_ VERSUS VEHICLE STATION

195

The 3.9 deg angle-of-attack is computed from the flight mechanics uation and is 0.4 of a degree greater than the Q-ball data. The

evalmeasured

and postflight predicted accelerations coincide, while the measured hending moment at the spider beam, obtained from strain data, is 3% less than the postflight predicted value. Va'Ines for measured bending moment at the S-IVB forward and aft skirt locations were to he obtained from additional strain gauges at these locations b,_t these gauges failed provide usable data. The limit design bending moment values are included for comparison. As moment experienced represents shown only in Figure about 35% to

17-3, the maximum bending of the limit design value

for the spider beam area of the vehicle. This less than expected bending moment occurred because the vehicle structure did not reflect the high loads due to wind gust normally expected with the existing high wind shears measured during the AS-201 launch and tends to indicate that the vehicle 17.2.3 did BODY not encounter any significant gusts.

BENDING

OSCILLATIONS

The AS-201 flight data compared bell with dynamic test first and second bending mode data. The response amplitudes, presented in Figure 17-4, were generally lower than those measured on the Saturn I flights as were the bending frequencies. The identification of first and second bending shown in the figure is based time which indi:'ate first bending at on plots of approximately frequency 1.5 Hz versus flight and second

bending at approximately 2.5 Hz. The maximum pitch response amplitude recorded was 0.05 Grm s measured in the S-IVB stage. The yaw response amplitudes are less than those recorded on the pitch measurements. The only significant deviation recorded in the command module from past Saturn flight from 85 to if0 seconds. data With was the

data

exception of the first mode bending response in pitch, the command module bending response reached peak _alues during this time period. This response peak has not been correlated _ith any significant flight event as yet, but an attempt is being made to find a sufficient explanation of this deviation. 17.3 17.3.1 S-IB STAGE FIN ANALYSIS BENDING AND TORSION indicated that no true flutter flight periods. The first two the analysis, were 20 Hz and torsion respecto confirm

S-IB

Predicted analysis conditions should exist nat,,ra| frequencies of

of the S-IB fin near the critical the S-IB fin, from

38 Hz with the mode shapes being first bending and first tively. For the AS-201 flight two fins were instrumented the analysis results. Since 50% of the data taken clipped, only a predominant frequency anal}'sis was Figt_re 17-5 are the predominant frequencies of Fin

during flight were conducted. Shown in 5 and Fin 7 which

_Ippeared at the various slice times analy_ed. The mode shapes, obtained from telemetered data that was not clipped, were first bending at 26 Hz and first torsion at 35 He for Fin 5, and first bending at 23 Hz and

@ Predominant 60 Frequencies (Hz) __ . __ m

Fin Fin

5 7

50

40 D
.... L

3 _ D v _ ist Torsion

_,m-30

--

Q .-- _ ist Bending

i.___ -_ "-_-"-r W .... ....... [

20

I0

0 -200

'200

400 Vehicle 17-5

600 Velocity

800 (m/s)

I000

1200

1400

FIGURE

FIN BENDING

AND TORSION MODES

198

first torsion at 35 Hz for analysis. Fin flutter was indicate any trends toward 17.3.2 S-IB STAGE VIBRATIONS

Fin 7. These agree with the results of not expected and the data analyzed does flutter.

the not

The S-IB stage vibrations were measured Thirty-three of these measurements gave valid powered flight. vided no useful recommendation A obtained One gear case measurement data. Eight measurements has been the made S-IB to reduce the

with data

34 accelerometers. throughout the S-IB and and proa

on engine 8 was bad were over-calibrated calibration vibration to +

10 g's.

summary of follows: from

stage

structural

environment

Data After

Instrument levels of

Panel 2.5

F-2

was

very

low

on

all

measurements. 17-6).

liftoff,

Grm s or

less were noted

(Figure

Upper structure measurements indicated a level of 2 Grm s throughout flight after a [iftoff level of 4 Grm s. Data from these measurements are approximately 1 Grm s higher than SA-8 and SA-9 (Figure 17-6). Spider Beam measurements indicated a level of 8.8 Grm s at ignition/ liftoff and a 2 to 3 Grm s level throughout flight. Past history data from SA-8 and SA-IO are presented since instrumentation transducers were mounted on similar structure at approximately the same vehicle station (Figure [7-6). The large difference between the SA-20[ data and the SA-8 and SA-10 data near 80 sec may be due to the differences in instrumentation mounting arrangements or other causes. Investigation of this problem is continuing. Engine thrust beam measurements were new measurements for this

flight. Data ranged hard to analyze with (Figure 17-6). The is no After level past Distributor history

from i Grm s to 5 Grm s. The data calibrations on these instruments

is very low and at + 40 g's

12AI

measurements The data

are was

ne_

measurements low on

so

there pickups.

comparison.

very

these an

a liftoff averaging The

level of from 2 to 4 Grms, data less than i Grm s (Figure 17-7). 9A3 vibration levels All the

indicated

inflight

Distributor

were

approximately

one-half

of that recorded on SA-8 and SA-10. values at approximately 90 sec where 4.3 Grms, 2.8 Grms and 2 Grins (Figure

measurements reached their peak three measurements indicated

17-7).

_elwro_iou _.l

(Grmm) [ --I" I "'

Acrelera_ion 10

(Gml) I

Spider '

Bemm

,...........,,2 ,
I I q 8

!
' _ SA-2o_ s*.lo

_-zoz

::

-20

20

40

60

80 Itanse Time (gee)

tOg

L20

160

160

100

0-20

20

_0

60

80 100 RanSe Time (ee)

120

140

leO

180

Acceleratio;l 10

(Gcaa) [ , _ Bemm EnRlne Th:ulL

Acce|eratlon 5

(Grm|) , Upper $_ruc_ure

_201

_ _

0 -20 20 _0 60 80 100 8anSe TIJse (Jec) 120 11,0 160 180

,, -20 0 20 _,0 60 80 100 Xanl_e Time (role) 120 140 160 180

,D

.ZOO

Acceleration

(Grins)

Distributor

12A1

--SA-201

0 -20 20 40 60 Range 80 Time 100 (see) 120 140 160 180

Acceleration

(Grms)

Distributor

9A3

li
/SA- 8 SA - I0

IIt

_._..

0-2(

20

40

60 Range

80 Time

100 (sec)

120

140

160

180

FICUI_

17-7

VIBRATION ENVELOPES OF S-IB

DISTRIBUTORS

201

The

fin

tip

measurements

were

new

measurements of of

which

responded

at 17 Grm s at ignition and reached a peak were approximately 2 Grms during the rest

14 Grm s at max Q. Levels flight. One measurement

had a i0 Grm s reading at ignition, then stabilized to 3 Grm s throughout the rest of powered flight. One measurement did not respond at max Q (Figure 17-8). 17.3.3 H-I The in Figure ENGINE VIBRATIONS environment obtained on the H-1 engines is summarized

vibration 17-9. Chamber

Thrust

Dome

(lateral

direction)

measurements, 6 to than

which

were

invalid on SA-8, SA-9, and SA-IO, SA-20[ during the entire flight. SA-6 and SA-7. Thrust invalid Chamber on all

recorded levels of This level is less

7 Grm s on levels on

were

Dome (longitudinal direction) of the Block II vehicles gave 6 to 7 Grins throughout with the lateral dome measurements indicated

measurements, _hich levels on SA-201 in These

the expected range of levels compare closely Turbine Gear

powered flight. measurements. an envelope than the vehicles. thrust and of

Case

from

18

to 24 Grm s. These levels are 2 to 3 Grm s higher environment established on the Saturn I Block II levels are likely due to the increase in engine considered 17.4 17.4.1 S-IVB a problem. STAGE ANALYSIS

past history These higher are not

S-IVB

VIBRATIONS structural stage. Of and component vibration measurements were these 28 measurements, the gimbal point a noisy data at the field

made

Twenty-eight on the S-IVB

pitch measurement was channel. Measurements

only partially successful because of on the basic structure included five

splice between Fins I and II, three at the engine gimbal block, and two at the pitch and yaw actuator attach points on the thrust structure. Component measurements included three on each of the pitch and yaw actuator serve valves, five at the input to the sequencer and switch selector panel mounted on the aft skirt, five at the input to the TM and PU Panel mounted on the forward skirt, and one each on the sequencer and PU Panels. Only the aft skirt electronics panet measurement indicated vibrations greater than those expected. The unexpected vibration levels occurred during S-IB powered flight; vibration levels during the S-19-B powered portion of the flight were negligible. The greater vibration levels during S-IB powered flight were at the actuator serve valves.

Acceleration 28

(Grms) _

24

20

4
0 -20 0 20 40 60 Range FIGURE 17-8 VIBRATION 80 Time (sec) ENVELOPE OF S-IB FIN TIP lO0 120 140 160 180

Z03.

204

None

of

the

measured

vibration

levels

indicated

any

structural

weakening or failure. The range of vibrations on the basic structure and components is presented in Figure [7-10. Table 17-II presents a summary of the vibration measurements on the S-IVB stage. 17.4.2 J-2 Four the LOX ENGINE vibration and VIBRATIONS measurements two at the were LH 2 made at the J-2 engine, at two at

turbopump

turbopump.

Vibrations

these

two points was negligible during S-IB powered flight. engine start transient, vibration at the LH 2 turbopump until near the end of S-IVB powered flight when there decrease. LOX turboprop vibration varied over a wide changes in the coincided with satisfactory; 17.4.3 S-IVB

Following S-IVB was uniform was a slight range due to and they were 17-10.

PU valve position; these variations were normal static firing results. All J-2 engine vibrations the engine vibration history is shown in Figure

INTERNAL

ACOUSTICS were made on the S-IVB forward skirt sound pressure level of 143 db, occurred with external levels, skirt. Internal sound indicated pressure a noise levels

near

Two acoustic measurements Fin II. A maximum internal level, at the compared forward

at liftoff. This reduction of 8 db due to aerodynamic at 88 seconds. As

pressure is shown during i and

fluctuations were 132 db at in Figure 17-11 the internal

63 sec and 133 db acoustic environ-

ment reached two peaks the occurrence of Mach however, internal system 17.5 17.5.1 no explanation sound pressure after 120

flight. The first peak coincides with the expected peak in external acoustic data,

has yet been found for the second peak. The level was below the range of the meas,_rement

seconds. UNIT ANALYSIS VIBRATION was the first to fly with an IU structure made

INSTRUMENT INSTRUMENT The AS-20I

UNIT Vehicle

of honeycomb sandwich construction. The diameter of the IU was 6.60 m (260 in). The last three Saturn I vehicles (SA-8, SA-9, and SA-IO) had a 3.05 m (120 in) diameter IU made of skin stringer construction. Components in the AS-201 IU were mounted either to thermal panels or directly to tile honeycomb structure. Components on previous instrument units were mounted either to the upper and lower IU interface rings or to panels v'hich in turn Due to these differences IU should flights; provide not necessarily however, data some basis of were mounted in design, be expected is presented to stringers the vibration to be similar from previous in the levels structure. on the AS-201

to those of previous flights in order to

comparison.

205.

Basic Structure Vibration Acceleration (Crms) L0

Static

Firin_ Levels

F'P'2TJ _/_Actual

0 -25 25 50 75 I00 125 150 175 200 Range Time (sec) 225 250 500 550 h00 6_o

Component Acceleration 15

Vihrat ion (Grms) v

10

_////_/////

"////" "/////_'_'_

0 -25 O 25 50 75 lO0 125 150 175 Range Time (sec) 200 225 250 500 550 600 6_,0

J-2 Engine Vibration Acceleration (Grms) 25

_o
_ LH 2 Turbopump

I
Turbopump _

I _5
10 i00 150 200 250

I I '_1 l_ (-II .... II _

300 350 Range FIGURE 17-10 Time 400 (see)

I I ,

I I

i"_"

Iii( II

_---" _

450

500

550

bOO

b50

S-IVB

VIBRATION

ENVELOPES

2O6
TABLE [?-If $-l_rB VIBRAICION SUI_L_RY

Hax. Area Monitored

Lex'el

Range

Time

Remarks

(G_s)

(sec)

Gimbat ;Lmbal ;imbal _ltch _lteh STRUCTURE Field Field Fxe!d Field Field

Block BLock Block Act. Act.

Thrust Fitch yaw Point Point - Axial - Axial

3.7 4.4 3.9 2.5 2,5

160 593 I67 161 167

Vibration powered flight Vibration powered levels

negligible during S-IB flight. S-IVB powered levels _ere constant.

Attach Attach

negligible d_ring S-IR flight. S-IV_ powered flight wece comstant.

Spli:e Splice Sph.e Splice Splice

- Thrust - Hadtal Tang. = Thrust Radial

3.2 9.3 1.l O.7 2.8

0 0 81 -I -1

Vibration negligible during S-IVB powered flight. Slight increase near end Lo_ Low of S-I_ po_red [light. _ to 5 re 33C 330 Hertz. Hertz.

L.F. L.F.

frequency frequency

measurement measurement

Log

Turbopmap

Radial

23.0

304

Vibration powered changes flight.

has negligible durin_ S-IB flight. Vibration ,.aries with in P_ vaIve position d_ri_ S-I_

LOX Turboprop _IGIRE

L.F.

Radial

O._

300

Lo_ frequency measuceme_t Vibration did not va[v sideband measurt_ent.

as

_ _o much

330 Hertz. as sin_Ie-

LH2 _urbop_p

Radial

21.8

IS4

Vibratio_ pouered levels Lo_

_as negligible during $-IB Ilight. S-IVB powered flight _ere _-onstant at 17 Gym s. measurement _ to 330 Hertz.

LH2 yurbopump

LF.

- Radial

3.9

lh2

frequency

Actuator yaw yaw Actuator Actuator

Serve

Valves Axial - Radial Tang. - Radial Tang, Axial 3.1 3.5 2.1 2.8 3.9 S.9 599 165 157 163 158 1_9 Vibration Amplitude after 5-I_ lo_ dr,ring modulation ESC and S-IB powered flight. (beatiag) o_curred 10 se_ prior to E(!O.

_aw Actuator Pitch Actuator Pitch _itch Aft AcLtmtor Actuator Skirt

Sequencer Sequencer Sequencer Switch _D_ONENTg $_lt_h S_i_cb For_ar__d PU Panel PU Assembly PU Panel

Panel panel panel Selector Selector Selector Skirt Thrust -

- Thrust Radial

6.9 9.5 1_.9 - Thrust 1_o3 9.2 14.2

O 3 6 O -1 -I

Vibyation Vibration Vibration lnp_t Input Input to to to

input input input panel. unit panel.

to to to

panel. panel. panel.

- Tang. Panel Unit Panel -

Radial Radial

mounted

on

panel.

_.7 6.3 5.0

1 O 6

Input Input

to to

panel. am_embly mounted This that sharing, on panel.

Radial

- Radial

Input to panel. tha_ the maximum because of to to time

level was lower occurred at liftoff

'elemetry Telemetry Telemetry

Rack Rack Rack

_hrtmc Radial

4.5 5,1 3.9

0 3 93

Input Input Input

panel. panel.

- Tang.

co panel.

Forward Skirt Sound Pressure Levels (db) 160

Predicted

140

z!!_

130

iii

"

.........
_"--' Internal

__er_ol

120 -2 0 25

J 50 75 Range Time 100 (sec)

i 125 150 175 200

FIGURE 17-11

S-IVB STAGE INTERNAL ACOUSTICS

208

17.5. i.1

STRUCTURAL

MEASUREMENTS

There were eight accelerometers lo_-ated on the upper (Apollo) and lower (S-IVB) interface mounting rings. Data from seven of these eight measurements appears to be valid. No data was obtained from one measurement. All vibration levels on the structure were well within the design criteria for the Instrument Unit. As seen in Figure 17-[2, tile maximum vibration occurred during liftoff as a result of maximum acoustical excitation. A deviation from what was anticipated is indicated by the maximum inflight vibration occurring at 85 to 88 sec after liftoff, approximately l0 sec after max Q, instead of during the max Q condition. The acoustic measurement monitored during this flight period indicated that these high vibration levels do not correlate in time witl] maximum external acoustic excitation, g similar, but not quite as pronounced condition did exist on some previous Saturn flights; however, no explanation for it has been proved to date. The IU vibration levels during stage separation and S-IVB powered flight were below the threshold sensitivity of monitoring instrumentation. 17.5.1.2 COMPONENT MEASUREMENTS

There were eighteen accelerometers located on various component bracketry and on thermal panels. All telemetered data appeared valid. As shown in Figure 17-12, the maximum component vibration characteristics are similar to those of the structural measurements and, therefore, the same commments apply.

209.

_ Acceleration 8 (O rms) Structural

AS-201 SA-10

6 _

__!A

0 0

V//TT=_

_ 20 AO 60 Range 80 Time (sec) I00 120

,_

__.. ..... I40

...j

., 160

Acceleration 8

(Grms)

Componont

i
_,,7 .. . . .

20

40

60 Range FIGURE 17-12

80 Time (sec)

I00

120

140

160

IU VIBRATION

LEVELS

210

18.0 18. 1 SUMMARY

(U)

PRESSURE

AND

THERMAL

ENVIRONMENT

No abnormal pressure or thermal environments were indicated for the AS-201 flight vehicle. In most cases the data compared well with Saturn I Block II and/or predicted data. The trajectory flown by AS-201 yielded lower heating rates during the early portion of the flight than Saturn I Block IX, but the total ir_tegrated heat flux was about the same level. Significant deviations noted for this flight were the lower than predicted protuberance temperatures; a lower boudary layer temperature due to the cold S-IVB LH 2 tank walls and possible mass injection into the boudary layer from the frost buildup; and the presence of a strong, oscillating shock wave in the vicinity of the instrument unit acoustic microphone. The expected high heating rates due to protuberande interference with the fluid flow field were not experienced and this is presently unexplained. 18.2 18.2.1 VEHICLE PRESSURE SURFACE measured AND ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT

EXTERNAL Pressures

PRESSURES on the S-IB LOX tank 03 forward skirt and the

fuel tank F1 aft skirt are presented 18-1 as pressure coefficients versus based on wind tunnel data and flight

in the upper portion of Figure Mach number. Predictions were angles of attack. The LOX tank

03 pressures agreed very well with the predicted data. However, fuel tank F1 pressures were generally greater than predicted with significant deviations at Maeh numbers from 0.7 to 0.95. This difference is attributed to the fact that the fuel tank fill of the pressure tap, _as not simulated on The measured differential pressure pipe, which is 12.7 cm aft the _ind tunnel model. the 60 deg tank fairing

across

and the external surface pressure, including a prediction based on wind tunnel data, are shown in the lower portion of Figure 18-1. The maximum measured differential pressure of 0.35 N/cm 2 was well below the design value of 2.07 N/cm 2. The external pressure on the 60 deg fairing was determined from the shear panel compartment pressure and the measured differential pressure. These data, expressed as pressure coefficients versus Mach number, were in good agreement with the Kind tunnel data. 18.2.2 EXTERNAL ACOUSTICS

A total of four external acoustic measurements were flown on AS-201, two on the S-IB stage, one on the S-IVB forward skirt, and one on the Instrument Unit. The measurements on the forward skirt and IU gave

211

qs Measured Predicted

Pressure 0.2

Coefficient

(C_)

LOX Tank

03 Forward

Skirt

-0.2 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Mach 2.0 Number 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.

Pressure 0.6

Coefficient

(C_)

Fuel Tank

FI Aft

Skirt

o4
0.2

\ .j__/. _
/ _'-

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Maeh Pressure 0.4 Coefficient (C)) 2.0 Number 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

60 Fairing

o.2
0 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Mach FIGU_ 18-I S-IB STAGE 2.0 N_ber 2.5 .0 3.5 4.0

_TE_AL

PRESSU_

COEFFICIE_S

212

excellent data throughout the flight; measurements failed to give reliable of flight. Data from overall and one-third _idth analyses. The results of

however, data after

the the

two S-IB first i0

stage to 20

sec

these measurements were obtained octave band rms time histories,

in the form of and narrow band-

the

narrow

bandwidth

and

continuous

rms

time

histories

are presented in Figures 18-2 and 18-3. The rms converted to Overall Sound Pressure Level (OASPL) decibels increased accurate

time histories were values expressed in

(db) from strip charts and, as a consequence, the reading error as the db level decreased. However, they do provide a more picture of the buildup in OASPL than the narrow bandwidth data. time history for measurements located and LOX tank 01. The maximum OASPL's were 160 db and 156.5 db, respeclevels. skirt skirt are shown in Figure occurred at liftoff 18-3. and

on at

Figure 18-2 presents the OASPL the S-IB stage lower tail shroud liftoff for these two measurements which were well below and the the

tively,

design forward forward

The

OASPL's maximum

at the IU OASPL's at

S-IVB S-IVB

63.5 sec (Mach 0.9L). These values were tively, which were well below the design OASPL's measured on the IU were 149.7 db

153.5 db and 150.8 db, respeclevel of 158.5 dh. Maximum at liftoff and 156.4 db at

61 sec (Mach 0.87). These values approach the design level of 158 db. A comparison of the predicted S-IB on-pad sound levels due to rocket engine exha_st noise is also shown in Figure 18-3. The measured levels were slightly higher than predicted, but well within the acceptable limits. A region of sound pressure amplitude buildup was observed in the IU at 61 sec (approximately Mach 0.87) and is shorn in Figure 18-4. Analysis of the IU data indicated the presence of a strong, oscillating shock wave which had a duration of approximately one second. A spark shadow-graph of a wind tunnel model of the AS-201 vehicle at Mach 0.85 shows a shock wave on the IU at vehicle Sta. 42.80 m. A region of sound pressure amplitude buildup on the forward skirt of the S-IVB stage occurred approximately 2 sec later, because the S-IVB stage measurement was further do_nstream at Sta. 41.91 m. A second wind tunnel shadowgraph at Mach 0.90 shows a shock wave at the S-IVB forward skirt. The amplitude buildups at 61 and 63 sec approach or exceeed the sound pressure levels at liftoff, and are representative of unsteady shock wave motion. Predicted sound pressure levels at Sta. 42.29 m are in close agreement location. observed with the measured data, considering the mismatch in station However, these data do not adequately predict the sharp peak in the IU OASPL time history. liftoff (IU and (S-IB S-IVB tail

shroud

Figure 18-5 presents selected spectrum shapes at anu LOX tank 01) and at transonic Macb numbers skirt). The Power Spectral foe iample bandwidth. All Densities data were (PSD) within

forward adjusted

shown have been the design spectrum

213

Sta.

23.57

m Sta. 1.60 m

E o\
OASPL 165 LOX Tank O1 (db)

Tank

O1

o
S-IB Tail Shroud (db) Telemetry J Dropoutj

Actual .... Extrapolated Q Ooverall RMS Time History ONarrow Band Analysis OASPL 165

160 155 150

_ Ji 1 I i

160 155 150 I i I

_ I

i ,A
r

145

140

'L
i I I I
t I i ! I I i Design OASPL 16." db

145

140

I I I !
I ' ! Design OASPL 170 db i ! | i |

135

135

130

130

'
125 I I m ! -I0 0 Range l0 Time 20 (sec) 18-2 S-IB STAGE 30 125

I
L 120 -i0

120

0 Range

I0 Time

20 (sec)

30

FIGURE

ACOUSTICS

214

_IU F S-IVB

Flight

Overall 160

Sound

Pressure

Level

(db)

ZSt a 42.80

_- Sta. m m rms Band 41.91m

41.91

IU, Sta. 42.80 _ Overall Z O k Narrow

150

S-IVB, Sta.

Narrow

140

'_
I I

..
I I I 0

n J/ _
ii I /

^
_... \

Band

130

I I

I J

I _,

"I_. l ) ..

'
I

b
_
\\0

"
0 0
/ / 20
/

"o,
_0 C
60 (see) 80 i00 120

'
120 I

I I

/
40 Range

Time

OASPL

Due

to Rocket

Engine

Exhaust

Noise

(db)

\
165 X

155

_" _'_

Measured (i iftff)

145
S-IVB Skirt Forward_

135 0 10 20 Vehicle FIGURE 18-3 ROCKET 30 Station (m) AND 40 50 60

SIIVBAND IU ACOUSTIC LEVELS ENGINE _BAUST NOISE LEVELS

Oscillogram

Record

I-- Mach No.

0.87

Math No. 0.95

0.9 to

IIIIli I_llll IsrIil,_l_ftl I t,, itl,ll,ll_ ,ll

t
58

i
t I
63

i ii t _. _,_
I
6_

I
59

I
60

t
65

61 62 Range Time (sec)

Wind Tunnel Shadow Graphs

Mach 0.85 FIGURE 18-4

c_ = 0

Mach 0.90

O_ = 0 SHOCK WAVES
Ln

SOUND PRESSURE AMPLITUDE BUILDUP DUE TO OSCILLATING

216

*PSD *PSD (db/Hz) 140 ....

Power Spectral Actual Design

Density

LOX Tank O1 Slice Time = -0.99 to 0 sec RT OASPL (db) Math No. - 0 Design - 163.0 db Predicted - 152.2 db Measured - 156.5 db I_

120 ii0 i00

_i__

_ |_. "V_,

i0 *PSD 150 140 i_ _---_-_-_---" 130 120 i0 *PSD (db/Rz) 140 _-db/Hz)

I00

I000

3000 (Hz) S-IB Tail Shroud

Frequency

--I-- _

---_

_ _ _

Slice Time = -0.99 to 0 sec RT Mach No. _ 0 OASPL (db)

__ I00

_'_L.,) \ --"_ I000 3000 Frequency (Hz)

Predicted - [63.3 Design - 170.0 db db Measured - 159.7 dh

130

A r_.llA .... _--_ ,_l_ _

Instrument Unit Slice Time = 60.7 to 61.3 sec RT Mach No. ~ 0.87 OASPL (db) 158.0 db Design Predicted - 149.0 db Measured - 156.4 dh

120

Ii0 i00 I0 i00 i000 3000 Frequency (Hz)

*PSD 140

db/Hz)

......... 130

A__ _ _".A

"_ ""

S-IVB Forward Skirt Slice Time - 63 to 64 sec RT Mach No. - 0.95 Design - 158.5 db Predicted - 149.0 db Measured - 150.8 dh OASPL (db) 3000 (Hz) FOR

120 ii0 I0 __ 100

I000

Frequency FIGURE

18-5 SELECTED SPECTRUM SHAPES EXTERNAL ACOUSTIC MICROPHONES

217

levels except at the IU. The IU spectrum corresponds to the shock wave formation mentioned previously and exceeds the design levels by a maximum 15 dh/Hz in the range from 50 to 200 _z. The noise observed in the telemetered control accelerometer and EDS Rate Gyro package during transonic flight Mach numbers has been attributed to this phenomenon (i.e., the shock wave). 18.2.3 S-IB STAGE INTERNAL PRESSURES

The differential pressures across the S-IB/S-IVB interstage compartment sidewall were within both predicted and design envelopes, and indicated a maximum bursting pressure of 0.47 N/cm 2 and a maximum crushing pressure of 0.08 N/c m2. These values were obtained by subtracting the local external pressures from the aft compartment pressure_ The local external pressures were based on the postflight trajectory and local external pressure coefficients obtained from wind tunnel data. No indication of detonation was indicated in the interstage. Pressures measured in the fuel tank F2 instrument compartment were lower than the predicted values, indicating that the compartment vented faster than predicted. The pressure at S-IB stage burnout (4.01N/cm 2) was well above the design minimum pressure of 0.689 N/cm 2. Measured shear panel compartment pressure and the _redicted values are shown in the upper portion of Figure 18-6. The measured pressure was greater than the maximum predicted value up to 20 km altitude (96 sec), after which it was slightly lower than predicted. However, the measured pressures are considered reasonable. Evaluation of the leakage area around the ice shield indicates that the actual leakage area was 2 to 3 times larger than predicted. A larger leakage area would give a higher compartment pressure, since a high pressure region exists forward of the ice shield and vents into rather than out of the compartment. 18.2.4 S-IB STAGE BASE PRESSURES

The measured and predicted differential pressures across the heat shield are shown in the lower portion of Figure 18-6. There is good agreement between the measured value and the predicted maximum and minimum values. The higher than predicted pressure in the shear panel compartment, which is vented to the engine compartment, is not reflected in the measured differential pressure across the heat shield because the heat shield pressures are also higher than predicted during the same time period. Comparison of the measured and predicted base pressure coefficients indicated a higher than predicted base pressure up to a Much number of about 2.5 (89 sec_. Beyond Mach 2.5 the base pressure was lower than predicted. The difference between predicted and measured base pressures is probably the result of the change in the S-IB engine thrust level. Resulting effects on the base pressure due to changes in engine thrust are difficult to predict.

218

Predic ed
_Measured Shear Panel (Pcom-artment
_Jo .

Compartment Pressure - Pambient)(N/cm )

(psi)

f_

%L:![:::/,.<_ f:-

(,?...>!,-ii_i:.. Y "%::.f> ;?;il! i:: ! J

-0._

1
0 !0 20 -(] Altitude ;.O (km) fO <0 Pressure - Pbase) Across Heat Shield (_si)

Differential (Pcompartment 1.2

(N/cm2)

_..'::

_r/"
O. 8 ":!;q_ |'-Tb!%

Z<i<_s.-!i ...

--0.

_.

i0

20

_.,0 Altitude (km)

:_0

50

FIGURE

18-6

S-IB

STAGE

1NTERNAL

AND

BASE

PRESSURES

_k

219

One

pressure

measurement

was

provided

near

the

center

of

the

flame

shield. Comparison of the measured pressures with predicted values showed very good agreement. The steady state pressure referenced to local ambient reached a value of about 1.8 N/cm2 at shout 30 km and remained constant tent with Saturn 18.2.5 S-IVB until inboard engine cutoff. This value was consisI, Block II vehicles which ranged from 1.72 to 2.2 N/cm 2. INTERNAL PRESSURE pressure remained less than 0.07 N/cm 2

STAGE

The common bulkhead throughout the flight as

internal expected.

The forward compartment sidewall pressure differential was determined by subtracting the local external surface pressure from the forward skirt compartment pressure. The local external surface pressure was based upon the postflight trajectory in conjunction with local external pressure coefficients from wind tunnel data. The differential pressures across the forward compartment sidewall fell within the design limits and within the predicted maximum and bursting pressure was 1.29 N/cm 2 and portion of Figure 18-7). 18.2.6 INSTRUMENT UNIT PRESSURES minimum differentials. the minimum was 0.07 The maximum N/cm 2 (upper

The IU ambient compartment pressure was obtained from a measurement located in the S-IVB forward skirt (middle portion of Figure 18-7). Compartment pressure differentials fell within the design The maximum compartment pressure measured was 0.75 N/cm Z ambient at 85 seconds. The maximum bursting load on the was 2.3 N/cm 2 differential (3.3 psid) at 60 sec which was design limits. Component pressures are presented in the of Figure 18-7. Ambient pressures in the Flight Control Control Signal Processor remained constant throughout the 18.3 18.3.1 VEHICLE S-IB THERMAL STAGE ENVIRONMENT HEATING predictions. (i.I psi) above compartment within the lower portion Computer and flight.

AERODYNAMIC

A total of ten aerodynamic heating skin temperature thermocouples were flown on S*IB stage. These included one on the upper tail shroud, one on the lower tail shroud, and eight on the side panels of Fins 5 and 7. All ten of these instruments functioned properly and yielded satisfactory data. The four thermocouples located on Fin 7 experienced a more severe thermal environment than those located on Fin 5. Due to the fin configuration change, Block ture data have not been compared. II and S-IB fin side panel tempera-

22O

Format d Oom_ar tment Differenrlsl Pressure

(N/cm 2)

Pressure _Predicted

(psi)

0 50 60

"" :'-I _ 70 Range Time

80 (see)

tua 1 i 90

0 lO0

Forward

Skirt

and Admpter

Com,artment

Pressure

(Proem

- Pambient)

(N/croP)

// /J_2/ + + " ++/+++ "

-+: "..'+'+ _ _

,._._..-2<.,.

-0.5 0 20 40 60 Ronge Time 80 (see) i00 120 140

C_ponent

Pressures

(N/_

t0
14 __-----,-_ ....................... --_ _" ------a .... --'_

I
No Telemetr

fl
d_---l_---"----Ip=*'_ e--_e Control Signal Processor

10

_ _

Flight _-I24

Controlj C_puter[ Internal Pressure

o-----6 200 400 600 800 I000 1200 1400

_
1600

Range Time _GURE 18-7 S-I_ STAGE AND

(sec) IU I_E_AL P_SSO_S

221

The aerodynamic environment differed from Saturn I Block II environments due to differences in trajectory. Heating rates during the early portion of flight were lower than for Saturn I Block II, although the total integrated heat flux was approximately the same. The upper portion of Figure aerodynamic heating rates. stage heating rate histories aluminum Patrick 18-8 presents a comparison Both the Saturn I Block II were computed for a 0.152 of analytical and the S-IB cm (0.06 in) Reference and the S-IB

skin, assuming flat plate Atmosphere. Actual Saturn

flow properties for the I Block II trajectories comparison. 95 sec than at I00

preflight trajectory were used for the heating rates were lower for the first Block II vehicles, and reached a peak

The S_IB aerodynamic those of Saturn I

seconds.

Upper and lower tail shroud temperatures were recorded by two internally mounted thermocouples. Data from similar instrumentation flown on Saturn I Block II vehicles was available for comparison. Skin thickness vehicles was of the upper tail at 0.102 cm (0.040 from 0.203 cm shroud remained unchanged from Block II in), however the lower tail shroud thickness in) to 0.160 cm (0.063 in).

changed

(0.080

tion

The upper tail shroud of the S-IB aerodynamic

temperature heating.

history presents a good indicaThe middle portion of Figure

18-8 compares this temperature with Block II data and the preflight prediction. A maximum temperature of 368K was measured at cutoff. The lower tail shroud temperature history exhibited closer agreement with Block II data than the upper shroud. The reduction in skin thickness on the lower shroud partially offset the lower S-IB stage aerodynamic heating rate. The side panels on Fins 5 and 7 were instrumented identically with respect to fin and vehicle stations. Thermocouples were located on opposite sides of the two fins, facing towards Fin 6. Preflight temperature made for history each of predictions, including exhaust the four instrument locations. plume radiation, The aerodynamic were environ-

ment was obtained using flow properties based on model tests along with the AS-201 predicted trajectory. Saturn I Block II data was used to obtain heating rates from the exhaust plumes. The data generally showed good correlation with preflight predictions. Fins first 20 5 and sec of 7 both flight exhibited than had slightly been greater heating The during case th_ was

predicted.

extreme

the aft edge of the Fin side panel which reached 512K at about 20 sec (lower portion of Figure 18-8). Both fins experienced secondary radiation and recirculation of hot gases, as indicated by the rapid increases in temperatures. This could not be accounted Fin 7 sensor, located on the 0.102 cm (0.040 to the fin trailing edge, yielded the highest maximum of 667K after 140 seconds. for analytically. The in) thick skin adjacent temperatures with a

222

Typical --

Aerodynamic Initial

Heat

Flux

(_tts/l_ ffi 300K--_,

2) ._. i

Temperature

0.7

._1_Thick ..... o.1_c. s_io. No.- 3.05_

!J :i" '.i_ __

o._ --__
0.3 - -- _
/ Analytic_tZ

-,
i 1-- i -\

, _j /
,t.4 /

--_::_,
_:-_ 7_'_ \

_ __ _ _2:: '_-_. _?'-.-._i' ",--._s-2ol ,,?|. ::_._ \

o __._._--:: 20

_o

6o
R_nge Time

-_ -so
(sac)

]oo

[ -- _ 12o t4o

Upper

Tell

Shroud

Temperature

(OK)

450

--!1
i__ azb";-_= ......=..; .... =.,_ _.,,,,,,_
_-250 0 20 40 Block 11 I 80 T_,e (se_)

_y'CL

I. "- :: .,, _, ,_-_

.-"
D_ta Band I lOO 12o Z_0

hO Range

Fins 7OO

and --X

7 Temperature "III---"

(OK) --

o_ m--Z_ _t _

Fin5

_Fin

600

-.._." I

/-5_ I

T i :Y

"

I
Predicted

'
.l

/ / 3oo i zs

200 20 40 60 Range FIGURE 18-8 S-IB Time 80 (sac) SURFACE ENVlROWI_NT tO0 120 140

STAGE THERt_L

223

The S-IB/S-IVB

interstage

external

temperature

was measured

by two

sensors mounted midway between stringers. Theheating rate to the interstage, from retro rocket plume impingement, was measured by a single calorimeter. A second calorimeter failed to provide useful data. The temperature sensors were coated with Korotherm, which was used to protect the interstage from retro rocket plume impingement. The calorimeter data indicated the maximum heating rate was 72 watts/cml; the design heating rate was I13 watts/cm 2. Mass injection into the boundary layer (Korotherm ablation) tends to lower the heating rates. The interstage compartment internal gas temperature was measured by two probes located on the S-IVB thrust structure. Compartment gas temperatures ranged from 217 to 228K at launch and showed a minimum temperature of 208K at I00 seconds. This was within the expected temperature range. 18.3.2 18.3.2.1 S-IVB STAGE AERODYNAMIC EXTERNAL HEATING

SKIN TEMPERATURES

Forward skirt temperatures were measured by eight sensors mounted externally on the skin midway between stringers and by two mounted on the stringer caps. Measured temperatures compared with temperature simulations performed with the postflight trajectory and three-dimensional heat transfer models of typical sensor installations. The maximum temperatures of the stringer (Figure 18-9), resulting from aerodynamic heating, were 9 to 49K lower than the simulations. The inability to accurately simulate the cooling trend during subsonic flight accounts for much of the difference between the simulated temperatures and the flight temperatures. The rate of temperature rise during the period of significant aerodynamic heating (90 to 140 sec) was simulated adequately. Measured temperatures were less than design temperatures. The temperature rise that occurred following retro rocket ignition was apparently caused by the retro rocket plume heating the structure, and was not accounted for in the temperature simulations. It should be noted, however, that the heating rates required to produce this temperature rise are greater than would be predicted from flat plate theory. Further investigations of this descrepancy are being conducted. Hydrogen tank external surface temperatures were measured by seven sensors, one of which failed at liftoff. The tank surface temperature at liftoff varied from 148 to 200K due to variations in the frost thickness on the tank (prior to liftoff, significant frost formation on the tank had been observed). The measured temperature histories during flight compared well with the simulation temperature trend. The maximum measured temperatures, however, were 25 to 40K lower than the simulation maximum of 284K.

224

FQr_rd Skirt Stringer Temperature (oK)

Typical

Stringer

Sensor

350

]o0

Station qx -O t_2.1 m

2511 50 100 Range 150 Time 2O0 (see) 250 I00

Aft

SKin

_emperature

(oK)

_ypical

Skfn

Sensoc

q_

t'_

--

_0.3m

50

100 Range

t_O Time (sec)

200

250

_OO

32.2 31.5

m m

Skin Temperat,Jre o( APS Module 380

V'_c lnity (elK) Shuulation - N(nd _nnel Data

| 31D.4 m

I
_-Simulation

r
- Undistuzbe_ Flow

Z60 0 50 tOO _r_e Skin Wtth Temperature Yaw . Roll in Line Motors (_I() itS0 Tme (8_'C) 200 25Q 300

"
300

o/\7

I
s,,,,o
-11.i m

_PS

50

IO0

150 l_nge T_

20fl (see)

5OO

riO0

700

FIGURE

IS- S

S-IV_

SICIN AND _RI_ER

TI_I_EIIATITRE$

225

15K with bance tance

Maximum'temperatures measured at the forward end of the tank were cooler than those measured at the aft end. This is in agreement wind tunnel data which indicated that a greater flow field disturexists aft of the circumferential ring than exists the same disforward of it.

Aft skirt temperatures were measured by 16 sensors mounted externally on the skin, midway between stringers, and by two sensors mounted on stringer caps (two other sensors failed to provide valid data). The maximum temperatures of the skin and stringer were 22 to 28K lower than predicted. A comparison tures is shown in Figure between 18-9. the measured and predicted skin tempera-

Three sensors were located on the aft to APS Module I to determine the degree of

skirt skin in close proximity flow disturbance created by

the module. As expected from consideration of shock wave position, the protuberance induced flow field disturbance was detected; ho_ever, it had minimal effects on structural temperature. Data from these sensors the simulation based on undisturbed flow heat transfer coefficients are shown caused in Figure 18-9.. The low temperature indicated by sensor C222 by the close proximity of the cold LH 2 tank mating flange. was

and

Eight sensors were located on the aft skirt skin, midway between stringers and in line with the APS yaw and roll motors, to detect the effects of plume impingement and protuberance heating. Little or no temperature rise resulted from plume impingement heating during S-IVB powered flight because the powered roll duty cycle of the motors was less than expected. Temperature / rises as great as 10K occurred during S-IVB stabilization, following S-IVB engine cutoff (see Figure 18-_). Subsequent to of flight, of the APS frame near should also from sensors the significant aerodynamic heating portion (90 to 140 sec) a temperature differential was measured between opposite sides modules, due to the heat sink effect of the internal ring the aft set of sensors at Sta. 30.6 m (APS Module II). It be noted that these temperatures compare well with those at Sta. 31.5 m (AYS Module I) during the aerodynamic heating heating effects of wind tunnel a temperature the heating

phase of flight; hence, the expected protuberance induced at this location were absent, which is contrary to results tests. All the sensors located on the aft skirt indicated increase of 6 to 15I< following retro rocket ignition, but rates were Aft not great enough to data require obtained insulation. during stage

skirt

calorimeter

separation

was flow the the flux

compared to field models

theoretical heat flux (see Figure 18-10). flow field (plume compared favorably the the

histories The heat

based on two different flux history based upon the presence of data. The heat (flow unaffected comparison.

perturbed plume aft interstage) history by the

flow affected by with the flight

based upon presence of

unperturbed plume flow field aft interstage) is shown for

226

I Pos Aft Skirt Heat Flux III 2) I

O_ Poe IV

Sta. 30.4

(watts/cm i

Heat

Flux

(Btu/ft2-s)

Unperturbed

Plume

_ Perturbed t 147.8 148.0 Pl_e , 148.2 148.4 Range Time L48.6 (see) 148.8 l&9.0 149.2

APS

Module

I Temperature

(OK)

400

I
_ _31.7 m -_ u

ooj
250 50 100 Range [50 Time 200 (see) Main 380 Tunnel Temperature (OK)

o
O

Simulated

250

300

.
.

..._
Simulated

_il- _''l
32.4 m

220 50 lO0 Range FIGURE 18-iO S-IVB AF_ SKIRT 1 SO Time (see) THERMAL ENVIROI@tEI_ 200 250 3 O0

PROT1JBERAI_CE

227

18.3.2.2

PROTUBERANCE

TEMPERATURES which to tempera-

Three protuberances were instrumented to obtain data with verify protuberance heating analysis techniques. Protuberance

tures were measured on the LH 2 feedline fairing, on one APS fairing and, on the main tunnel. The protuberances were uninsulated except for the forebody section of the main tunnel which was coated with 0.152 cm of Korotherm (an ablative material). The LH 2 feedline fairing temperature sensor was bonded to the interior surface of the fairing forebody section at Sta. 32.0 m. A maximum temperature of 365K occurred between 160 to 190 seconds. The maximum simulation temperature was 370Kbetween 190 to 200 seconds. The temperature rise rate of the postflight.simulation and the flight data were in agreement between i00 sec and 140 sec, after which time a flow transistion from turbulent to laminar flow occurred (Re = 3 X 106). This phenomenon has been attributed to boundary layer cooling as the flow passes over the cold LH 2 tank surface. Tests have shown that the cold walls have a stabilizing effect which contributes to a laminar flow condition and that a transistion Reynolds number of 3 X 106 is reasonable. Two APS fairing sensors were bonded to the internal surface of the fairing forebody section (Figure 18-I_). One sensor was located on the forebody center-line near the top of the fairing at Sta. 31.5 m essentially outside the boundary layer) and the other sensor was located 15 cm outside the stage surface at Sta. 31.7 m on the forebody section within the boundray layer. The location of the sensors accounted for the measured temperature differences. When compared with the temperature simulations, the APS sensors exhibited the same trends as that of the LH 2 feedline fairing sensor data. The measured APS fairing temperatures had a more rapid cooling rate after 160 sec than the simulation. There were five main tunnel temperature sensors; two failed to provide useful data. The tunnel constant section temperatures exhibited a strange trend after 50 sec (see Figure 18-10). This anomaly has no definite explanation, although partial debonding of the sensors is suspected. As expected_ the initial temperature of the tunnel constant section was 42 to 61K cooler than the forebody section at liftoff, due to the presence of the cold purge gas. The forebody section was filled with foam, which prevented the presence of the purge gas. The data from the sensor at 40.4 m compared with the temperature simulation until 160 sec, after which it indicated more rapid cooling than was predicted.

228

18.3.3

S-IB Data

STAGE

BASE by

THERMAL

ENVIRONMENT located in the base region of the

recorded

instrumentation

S-IB able

stage were generally as expected , agreeing favorably with comparSaturn I Block II data and/or SA-201 predictions, where available. region of the anticipated. fin trailing Twenty-seven edge were major changes measurements were flown in in the the

Only in the environment

base region, all but two of which recorded usable data for the duration of flight. A total calorimeter located on the aspirator surface of Engine 3, and a gas temperature themocouple located on the flame shield, failed to yield valid or continuous data to S-IB stage engine cutoff. On the Saturn I, Block II calorimeters were flown in the on S-lB. Due to the difference membrane type ments recorded quently, regarded data. vehicles, both slug and membrane type base region; only the latter were flown in wall temperat:ire between slug and portion of the environbe different. Conse-

total calorimeters, the convective by the two instrument types will the Saturn l,Block II total approximately comparable to

much of as only

calorimeter data can be the S-IB total calorimeter

As in the past, the heat shield has been analyzed as two separate regions of assumed uniform heating denoted as the outer region and the inner region. Outer region radiation heating rates were measured by t_o membrane type calorimeters (upper portion of Figure 18-11). The outer region radiation environment was as expected. The S-IB total heating rates in the outer region are compared with the Saturn I, Block II slug calorimeter data in the middle portion of Figure 18-11. At flight altitudes above 40 km, there was an increase in total heating rate recorded by the calorimeter between engines 3 and 7. A comparable increase in gas temperature in the same area also occurred. One total calorimeter, was flown in the inner region on S-IB (bottom portion of Figure 18-11). The data obtained agreed favorably with corresponding Saturn I, Block II data recorded by a membrane calorimeter.

Gas temperature thermocouples were flown in both the inner and outer regions of the heat shield. The data recorded by these gauges are compared with corresponding Saturn I, Block II data in the upper portion of Figure 18-12. Data correlation in both regions was excellent with the exception of the outer region data above an altitude of 40 kilometers. As was mentioned previously, this increase was accompanied by a comparable increase in the outer region total in the inner region were in good agreement I, Block II data. heating rate. Gas temperatures with the corrsponding Saturn

ZZC,

I
aj z _lv

C _ ._-_-_
Heat 40 Shield Outer Region Radiation Heatin

-,%
Rates (watts/cm 2)

_,

..

predicted

$-IB

2o
10

Blo k*I r.Z . '

_ I_ta Band V

0 l0 20 _0 Altitude 40 (km) 50 60 70

Heat

Shield

Outer

Region

Total

Beating

Rates

(watts/cm

2)

3O

q_
20 i_E] /--

Block Imta

II Band

O 0

lO

20

30 Altitude

60 (Itm)

50

60

?O

Beat 30

Shield

Inner

Region

Total

][eaing

Rates

(uatts/_m

2)

Block '-Data

I1 Band

io_
0 0

k_ /I-.... -.,-.=.

10

20

30 A ttitode

&O (kal)

50

60

70

FIGURE

18-11

S-IB

S'fAGE

BASE BF.ATII_G R_I'I S

230

ffeat Shield 1500

Outer

Region

Gee Temperature

(el()

12s0 I r
i

\ o \

e ;:'_-' .... f _A

/
D :;

_="

O
IV

s=_4:
0 10 20

""""
_[I Altitude 40 (I_) 50 60 70

Por_ard

Side

_eet

Shleld

Skin

Temgerature

[K)

Wate_ Saturation

Slock

II

2oo
20 60

I
60 _nge SO Ttme _sec) [00 120 l/"0

FI_ 1511

Shield

TotQt

Hemtlng Bates

(watcsl_

2)

Block

Z_[

[]
_o

)_
t

"_ _'_'_T ........... _ _--. - .... -._.::9-1

_i ' '

.....

._

2_

(D

[]

o 0 10 20 30 Altitude S-lB &O (_) 50 60 70

F1GLrI_ IS-_2

BASE T_EB41_L [_IVIBJD_4]_

231

side

Three skin temperature the rmocouples were of the heat shield. In the middle portion with a typical Saturn I, Block temperature curve based on the

flown on the forward of Figure 18-12, these II data band and a engine compartment

data are compred water saturation

pressure. Like the Saturn I, Block II data (excluding SA-10), temperatures recorded by these thermocouples indicated the presence of water on the forward side of the heat shield. Saturn I, Block II data were generally higher than the SA-201 data because of an installation change. The thermocouples on the Saturn I, Block II vehicles were bolted to the heat shield so that the bolt was exposed to the base region environment. The influence of this more direct conduction path was reflected in the slightly The higher S-IB measured flame shield temperatures was early in flight. a total calorimeter,

instrumented

with

a gas temperature thermocouple and a skin temperature Data obtained from the total calorimeter are presented portion of Figure 18-12. These data from previously flown instrumentation: followed by a peak at an altitude of

tbermocouple. in the lower

indicate the same trends as data an initial drop in heating, 6 km indicating possible burning

in

the flame shield area, and eventually leveling off at altitudes above 15 km. However, the magnitude of the S-IB heating rates was considerably below predictions throughout flight. Installation of the instrument exposed the calorimeter heat sink to the severe flame shield environment. The resulting high heat sink temperature increased the error in the calorimeter reading and may have accounted for these unexpectedly low heating rates. It is also possible that high heating rates in the flame shield area may have caused a change in the surface absorptivity of the calorimeter, a phenomenon which was observed on both Saturn I, Block and Block II vehicles. The flame shield gas temperature gauge operated as anticipated until approximately 65 sec of flight, at which time it recorded a temperature of about 2023K. The thermocouple wire, composed of platinum-platinum with I0_ rhodium, appears to have melted at this point, and the thermocouple ceased to operate properly. Similar malfunctions have occurred on previous flights thus resulting in a request for a 273 to 2273K (0 to 2000C) range instrument. Skin temperatures measured on the forward side of the flame shield were slightly lower than those recorded on the Saturn in the I, Block II vehicles. CT-301 insulation on The Block II the aft surface thermocouples of the flame were embedded shield. The

SA-201 gauge was attached to the forward side of the flame shield backup plate, approximately 1.65 cm further removed from the heated surface. A nearly constant temperature of 285K was recorded throughout the entire flight.

232

A skin temperature thermocouple was located on the engine shroud, and on a structural member between the inner and outer shroud skins. Data from the first thermocouple were in good agreement with Saturn I Block II data recorded by similarly positioned gauges. A maximum temits perature of environment 525K was experienced reached at 50 km altitude. by the second thermocouple which reached a maximum The less severe was reflected in of 380K at the

lower temperature altitude.

trace,

same

Two membrane type calorimeter located on

total calorimeters were flown on Engine 3. The the aspirator surface failed to record usable

data, and appears to have had an insufficient range (0 to 50 watts/cm2). An increase in range to 75 watts/cm 2 will be required for future f_ghts. The total heating rates recorded by the aspirator neck calorimeter were below the S-IB predicted heating rates and somewhat greater than Saturn Block II data up to 30 km altitude. Maximum indicated heating rates were 25 watts/cm 2 at liftoff and 17 watts/cm 2 at 25 km altitude. One total calorimeter was flown on the nozzle of engine 5. Heating I

rates were below a maximum heating with the predicted a maximum heating

the predicted level until 25 km altitude. At 25 km rate of 13.7 watts/cm was reached, and compared well value at this altitude. SA-9 and SA-IO data indicated rate of 6.7 watts/cm 2 at the same altitude.

Radiant heating to the trailing edge of Fin 5 (vehicle position III) was measured by two instruments installed at radial stations 4.88 and 5.77 m (192 and 227 in). As anticipated, the data obtained at the outer radial station exceeded that recorded at the inner radial station. The upper portion were in good installation of Figure 18-13 shows that agreement with predictions. at the outer radial station, the data frum both calorimeters A photograph of the calorimeter however, indicated the presence This fact may account for calorimeter during the initial

of water in the housing of the calorimeter. the unusually low values recorded by this phase of Fin perature located flight I was up to 4.5 km altitude. with two total

instrumented

calorimeters

and

two

gas

tem-

thermocouples. Heating at radial station 5.77 m

rates obtained (277 in) were station watts/cm

from the total calorimeter higher than those recorded m,

by the calorimeter located heat rates at liftoff were respectively. The predicted limit. The middle data

at radial i0 and 30 both

4.88 m (192 in). Maximum 2 at stations 4.88 and 5.77 were well below the upper

from

calorimeters

portion

of

Figure

18-13

shows

that

the

fin

trailing

edge

gas temperatures were considerably lower than the Saturn I, Block II data band. The Saturn I, Block II flight data were greatly affected by the reversing of H-i engine exhaust gases beginning at an altitude of i0 km. The SA-201 fin trailing edge thermal environment was, however, not influenced to as great an extent by this flow phenomenon.

Z33

Fin Tr;b11_n_ E.l_e Ra.si_tionHeatlng Rate;

_ott_/c_ 2)

o-i _

o LO 20 ]0 kl_ t tu,le 40 k_ _0 6(, 70

Fin Tc,,ili,_g

F"_., C_a_ Tcmpt.r.*tur_

(g)

230

LO

20

30

40

50

60

7o

FICUILE 18-L_J S-IB

Fllg TRATLIH_ E_gE "_RE!_4d_L ENVIRO_IHENT

234

SA-201 thermocouples

fin

trailing at

edge radial

skin

temperatures 4.88

were and

recorded

by and

two 227 in),

located

stations

5.77m(192

respectively, on Fin 7 (Fin Line IV). These temperatures are shown in the lower portion of Figure 18-13 along with a proposed maximum S-IB fin trailing edge temperature trace based on predicted heating rates. It is obvious from the predicted curve that the fin trailing edge skin temperatures as rapidly 18.3.4 The as at radial station the flight data STAGE BASE to 5.77 m were indicate. ENVIRONMENT structure region at S-IB/S-IVB not expected to rise at liftoff

S-IVB

THERMAL the

heating

rates

thrust

separation and during 8-1VB powered flight were measured by one total calorimeter on the engine primary instrumentation package, two total calorimeters mounted on the thrust structure, and one radiometer located on the thrust structure. The instrumentation package calorimeter measured a maximum rimeters heating rate on the thrust at separation of 0.50 watts/cm 2. structure exceeded the measurement The two scale, caloindicat-

ing a total burn (147.8 watts/cm 2. flux more

heating rate in excess of I.i watts/cm 2. During retro rocket sec) the radiometer indicated a peak heating rate of 0.18 Following 149.4 sec the radiometer data indicated a radiative (measurement accuracy precludes a

of approximately 0.03 watts/cm 2 definite radiative flux level). Two thrust structure temperature

sensors

were

located

on

the

thrust

structure skin, midway between stringers. Following retro rocket ignition, a temperature increase of 16 to 21K occurred as a result of retro rocket plume impingement on the thrust structure; the predicted temperature increases from plume impingement o was 14K. The gas temperature probes 18.3 . 5 recorded a temperature UNIT of 294 K at this time.

INSTRUMENT

TEMI_ERATURES

IU compartment environmental temperature measurements included eight thermocouples bonded to the inner skin of the honeycomb and one internal gas temperature probe (one skin sensor failed prior to launch). Figure 18-14 shows a maximum inner skin temperature of 329K, which is in agreement with both the predicted and simulated values based on the postflight trajectory. This is well below the maximum calculated external surface temperature of 339K. The internal ambient temperature dropped 283.5K to a for low the of value of remainder the eight 266K at 80 sec of the flight. thermocouples sec of exhaust and then leveled off at

Several temperature of radiation

indicated

a slight

rise

in

during the first 30 heating due to the corresponds and maximum

flight, indicating plume at liftoff.

a possiblity This time lag

in temperature rise of maximum external

to the time lag between the occurrence internal surface temperatures. Of the

IU Inner Skin and Ambient

Temperatures

(OK) Outer Skin

Inner Skin Simulation I Relative Skin Sensor Locations 320

Inner Skin Flight Data 300 SA-10 IOAmbient

280

AS-Z01 260 0 20 40 60 80 Range Time FIGURE 18-14 100 (sec) 120 140

IU Ambient

160

180

IO COMPAR_IENT

THERMAL

ENVIROI_4ENT

236

six thermocouples which were in a position to measure any radiation heat flux, only three recorded any significant temperature rise. In addition, one sensor which was not in the view of the exhaust plume, indicated a slight temperature rise. However, the maximum rise was only 2.8K and should not cause any hardware problems. Figure 18-15 indicates the thermal environment of typical IU components. The measured temperatures were all within the range experienced on SA-10 during the same period of flight (0 to 1700 seconds). 18.4 18.4.1 INSTRL_ENT THERMAL UNIT ENVIRONMENTAL SYST_4 CONTROL SYST_4S

CONDITIONING

The IU thermal conditioning system was designed to maintain a stable acceptable temperature for the IU electrical components during preflight and flight operation. The cooling system, diagramed in Figure 18-16, included a methanol/water accumulator, a coolant pump, 32 cold piates, two heat exchangers, a water GN 2 accumulator, and a sublimator. methanol/40% water (by weight) _oolant solution was used to fill closed loop cooling system. A 60% the

The methanol/water control temperatures presented in Figure 18-16 indicated that the system maintained the required temperatures, during O flight stabilizing in the design range of 288.1) + 0.56 K, and at no time exceeded the redline values of 283.8 to 293.8K. At liftoff the methanol/water preflight heat exchanger terminated operation as expected.

After liftoff a gradual methanol/water temperature rise, indicated by the dashed line in Figure 18-16, was expected to occur. Between 160 and 185 sec, the sublimator was expected to begin operation. Actual flight data showed a cooling trend after launch. The coolant shutoff valve opened at 161.4 sec, and allowed coolant to prime the sublimator; however, cooling was not required immediately. As heating from the vehicle skin and electrical components overbalanced the cooling effects, a warming trend followed. This caused the primed sublimator to operate and stabilize the increasing methanol/water temperature to the desired range. The cold conditions at liftoff were not anticipated and temperatures during ascent were considerably lower than predicted. It is possible that the bulkhead these low temperatures. 18.4.2 AIR BEARING SUPPLY on top of the S-IVB LH 2 propellant tank caused

SYSTEM

The Air Bearing Supply System (ABS) supplies regulated GN 2 to the ST-124M stabilized platform air bearings for preflight and flight operation. The system, diagramed in Figure 18-17, included a storage sphere, a heat exchanger and associated plumbing. During preflight operations, GN 2 is supplied from a ground source to fill the storage

237

Navigation 32O

Subsystem

Temperature

(OK) O m----O ST-124M Internal Gimbal

_-------------_ D:_t_ A_ap_er 315 ----__ --w-Qqr_ -_------o 310 --.v A----------_ Guld. Comp. O--O Data A_apter X...... _O x x _ Control (Logic Pase _

Computer

Control Co_p.ter Guid. Comp. (Hemory) _ ST-[24H Elect. Box Flight C_trol C_p.

305 C_,ressed Scale

.......

No

Telemetr

_-'--D--_ ;.,#. x ",...

I'_'-O-----

I---_I3------

V----"tD-----

P----CI_'_

k--'-t3

.o*

..[,.

[.

285 0 200 400 600 Range ComponenL 3G5 Temperatures (OK) 800 _me [000 (Set) 1200 1400 1600

295

_No Telemetr_ Data 290 _

a_l

280 _ _t _ -_ _

250

VA

l_verteT Assy. 1-&, PI Typical Surface Assy., RF Assy. Internal Surface Surface, Typical

Batteries pCH/RF T_pe TH

Recorder Assy. and

_?s o

200

400
FIGURE

600
18-IS TIIE_AL

800
l_nge Time ENVlRO_E_

I looo
{set) OF TYPIGAL

I 12oo
IU COH_ONENTS

I . ]400

16oo

18oo

Z38

Z ,
_

_/ _rl I
16 Cold

U _ - Heat .ger _ IUI

Plates

{{ C_idan_eJ { II Compoter /

Water/CN GN2 _ II

2 Accumulator Diaphragm

11 Surce

Methanol/Water

IN

Diaphragm

Control

ublimato_

_t_

Thermistor

Disconnect III _. T._- _o-_-_ _c_

Quick

Controller

--

4 Cold Plates Each Place 7

Electr_Tc_

S-IVB Fwd

I i

Thermal Temperature 29t (OK)

Conditioning

System

Diagram Methanol/Water

I
Predicted "

289

287

285 0 200 400 600 Range 18-16 800 1000 Time (sec) CONDITIONING 1200 1400 600

FIGURE

IU THEI_AL

SYST_

239

Switch

Low Pressure Switch Pressur_

High for Thermal Conditioning System

GN 2 Pressure

I
Fill Valve GN 2 Fill Coupling

Pressure

Filter

_ _ \ t-Heat

_ _-Filter 2

Storage Sphere Air Bearing GN 2 Supply Diagram

Exchanger

Temperature 291

(OK)

Temperature of GN 2 @ ST-124_ Inlet

287 283 0 200 400 60( Range 800 Time

.-_" I000 (sec)

1200

1400

1600

Pressure Pressure 18 ..fN/cm2_ ST-124M ST-124M

Differential

Between

ON 2 Inlet and Internal Ambient

_ Design 10 0 ................................. 200

Limit

Band

400

600 Range 18-17 AIR

800 Time BEARING

1000 (sec) GN 2 SUPPLY

1200

1400

1600

FIGURE

SYSTEM

240

sphere. Should the storage sphere pressure drop below 830 N/cm 2 gauge (1200 psig) during prelaunch system operation, the low pressure switch would deactuate and supply a signal to shutoff electrical Rower to the ST-124M. During normal system operation, GN 2 at 2100 N/cm z gauge (3000 psig) flows from the storage sphere to the air hearings in the ST-124M. The ABS in general, performed without major malfunction during the AS-201 launch operations and flight. Heat exchanger temperature data indicates that the heat exchanger worked properly, warmed the cool inlet gas to the temperature level of the water/methanol solution. After the GN 2 left the heat exchanger it passed through a 1.8 m (6 ft) long tube before reaching the ST-124M inlet. During this passage, the GN 2 temperature dropped below the 283 to 298K design limit. This temperature problem, shown in Figure 18-17, was anticipated. The relocation of the heat exchanger, planned prior to the AS-201 flight for AS-203 and subsequent vehicles will reduce thermal influences on the GN 2 by shortening the 1.8 m (6 ft) long tube to approximately 0.6 m (2 ft). The sure and ferential pressures. limit of ABS pressure regulator uses the ST-124M internal ambient pres-

the GN 2 system pressure to maintain a constant pressure difbetween the ST-124M GN 2 inlet and the ST-124M internal ambient As shown in Figure 18-17, the differential pressure design 10.34 + 0.34 N/cm 2 differential (15 + 0.5 psid) was apparently however, this internal ambient differential pressure pressure transducer, was deterwhich is

exceeded during--flight; mined from the ST-124M

direct measuring, and the GN 2 inlet transducer, a differential unit having a reference pressure port. For this flight, the reference port was capped off with approximately a 10.14 N/cm 2 (14.7 psi) pressure. Also, data from the direct measuring transducer shows that during flight the ST-124M internal ambient pressure remained within its design limits. Considering these two points, nominal internal ambient pressure and the capped off reference port, the data trends indicate that the reference port of the differential unit was affected by temperature sufficiently to cause the computed differential pressure shown in Figure 18-17 to be invalid. This conclusion follows since a decrease in the reference port temperature would cause a decrease in reference pressure thus making it appear that the GN 2 inlet pressure had increased. the nominal internal ambient pressure from the increased GN yielded the apparent increased differential values. Thus, differential transducer arrangement, not the system pressure is suspect. This problem will not occur on future flights differential transducer reference port is co6nected to the internal GN 2 ambient pressure ambient line and thi_ transducer pressure will inlet/internal differential directly. Subtracting 2 pressure the GN 2 inlet regulator, since the ST-124M ST-124M

measure

241

19.0 19.1 SU_nqARY

(U)

AERODYNAMICS

Differential generally agreed

pressures measured at with predictions based

four locations on wind tunnel

on Fins 5 and 7 data. The base

drag coefficient was lower than predicted during the early portion of S-IB flight and higher than predicted during the latter portion of flight. The total aerodynamic axial force coefficient was in excellent agreement with the revised S-IB predictions based on Saturn I Block II data. 19.2 FIN SURFACE PRESSURE

Differential pressures were measured at four identical locations on Fins 5 and 7. Data from Fin 5 (located at Fos. llI in the yaw plane) and from Fin 7 (located at Pos. IV in the pitch plane) are presented as differential pressure coefficients in Figures 19-1 and 19-2 respectively. generally 19.3 Comparison of the measured in good agreement. data _ith predicted values were

DRAG

The base drag coefficient, calculated from pressures measured on the S-IB heat and flame shield, is presented in the upper portion of Figure 19-3, along with the predicted drag. The base drag was lo_er than predicted up to Mach 1.9 but was greater than predicted thereafter. After Mach 1.55 thrust force. the drag coefficient was negative, resulting in a Io_

The axial force coefficient (obtained from the propulsion system performance evaluation) was in excellent agreement with the revised S-IB predicted data (lower portion of Figure 19-3). The axial force coefficient was higher than predicted during the subsonic regime and somewhat lower than predicted at Mach 3 and beyond. The base drag curve indicates that flow reversal occurred at Mach 1.55 and from that point on the vehicle base pressure field. beyond Mach 4.75 the the thrust force. experienced a positive thrust force due to the The axial force coefficient curve shots that total axial force was in the same direction as

242

I_SIJRED

.... "_Ic_D
D5fferer.tial C. 2 !:ressure Cvefficient,_Cp

I P'.... kj
-0,.2 a 0.5 1.O 1.5 _iach

2.0 N,ambe r

2.5

3.0

3.5

_.0

D!fferen_iai Pressure C,efflcLen_,_:2i _ (_.

0.2

_I

C.',

1.C

1.5

2.0

2.5

"_.c

3-_

4.0

Dif{, :'.i.'! 7ress;Ir_ Cceff:c:_._ta&C_ ! 9.2

-0.2 _eh _l'_TX,er

["SffeI_nti:il ?ress,_r-: _ ffle],_nl,_.C C.

'-3
-C.2 '2 0._ 1.0 1._ 2.,9 Mack D:_2,:,er 2.5 "_.0 %: 4.0 FICDRZ 19-1 FIN 5 DIFF_ENTIAL PRJESStII_ECO_'FFICIEI_r

243

_Heasured ,Predicted D_.fferent 0.2 [al Fressure Coefficient, &Cp

0_

-0.2 O O._ 1.0 1-5 Rach 2.0 Number 2.5 3.O 3.5 _.0

D_fferentiaI 0.2

Pressu_

Coefficient,

ACp

'

.2nc._-

-"

]
-O,A

J
0.5 1.O 1,5 Math 2.0 Humber 2.6 3.0 _.5 ".0

_j

-o6i

Differentb_l Pressure Cuefficient, _Cp 0.2

o
-0.2

_v

-_:___ ._/ _ :>,<____

0,5 1.O 1.5 2.0 Mach Number 2.5 ?.0

3.5

"-

/,.O

D_ferential Pressure Coeffic_ent, ACl. 0.2

-0.1, 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Math tJumbe r 2.5 3.0 3.5 _.0

FICORIE 19-2

FIN 7 DIFFNIAL

PRESSURE COEFFICIENT

245

20.0 20.1 SI)I__RY

(U)

INSTRUMENTATION

At AS-201 liftoff, there were 1213 telemetered measurements active on the launch vehicle. Of this total, 20 failed in flight, resulting in an overall measuring system reliability of 98.4 percent. The RF systems performed satisfactorily during the flight except for IU telemetry antenna breakdown at retro rocket burn and lack of continuous coverage from downrange instrumentation sites on Azusa/CLOTRAC. No data was lost except for 2.5 sec during retro rocket burn. The Secure Range Safety Command System operated satisfactorily. startat

Only 12 of the 75 active engineering sequential cameras had stop capability and the first launch attempt, which was terminated about T-4 sec, resulted in film depletion by 60 of these cameras. Tracking exhausted out Both camera film revealed that an unidentified the edge of the S-IB Stage plume at long, slender 72 seconds.

object

one 20.2

parachutes of the onboard cameras capsule was recovered. Film from MEASURING ANALYSIS

failed to open and only this camera was excellent.

VEHICLE

At AS-201 liftoff, there were 483 telemetered measurements active on the S-IB stage, 432 active on the S-IVB stage, and 298 active on the Instrument Unit. Of this 1213 total, 20 failed in flight, resulting in an overall ments were measuring scrubbed system reliability prior to launch, 52 special data measurements of 98.4 percent. were classified Eleven partially measuresuccessthe

ful and 14 required usable data. These

processing techniques to extract are identified in Table 20-1.

The number of inflight measurements that failed completely was less than expected. The data lost due to the failures and other measurement malfunctions had no serious effect on the vehicle postflight evaluation. 20.2.1 S-IB STAGE MEASURING ANALYSIS were scheduled completely, two

for

Four hundred and the S-IB stage.

eighty-three flight measurements Of these, 7 measurements failed

were partially successful and 12 required special data processing techniques to extract the usable data. Based on 7 measurement failures out of 483 expected to produce useful data, the resulting reliability is 98.6 percent.

246

TABLE 20-1 (C) NT.ASL_I91EK_ HALFUII(_IONS

Scrubbed Stage 5-]V3 Meas. C_6-406 C79-_09 C148-_01 C15_-404 E_-&O_ E2-_04 E18[-404 K95-40L L5-_06 I_ C[7-603 C_-602 C71-601 go. yemp-l_DX Healurement Tank Ulla$ External Valve B/P Title Gas - 5 WaLl Line _all 20_

prior

co Launch Remarks Off Off Off Off sca|e scale scale sca|e high high high high a_ri_ed arrived arrived arr_v_d Prohhited durin too too _oo too |ate la_e late la_e for for for for iustallatLo_ lnsta|[atLo_ ln*tai|atio_ _n_t_lla_to_ acc|o_ before Test flight

Temp-LX 2 Tan_ Temp.LH 2 Bleed

TempLH 2 Prevalve VlbNatura[ VlbNa_ura[ Vib*ga_ral Event Bending Bending Bending

Aft-ya_ Aft-PLtch Aft-LougiLudinal T_p OK PosiLtou Coolant 2

Transducer Transducer Transducer Transducer _ocat_ou _ai|red

I.H 2 Injector

Leve|-LlquidLOX Temp-ST-12_N Temp-IU ]nner

Tank Shroud $ki_

corrective

E_it #3

8 Countdown

_emoustraL_on

Te_p-GN 2 Bottle

Outlet

(T

$ystem) Failures

S-]B

_Z338-9 WE339-|1 _E342-|6 CZ5i-_0_ D501-7 E12-8 I_3-_3

Vib. rib. Vt_. Temp. pre*s. Vlb_ Fuel

Tank Tank

02 02

Support, Support, Po_nL, Skin

Lougt. l_ngt. Long|. T. Cal.

Excesslve|y ExcessiveLy _xces_|_ely _u_e_l_eu_ Rea_ing htgh

noisy noisy n_isy op_ _u|_ reJ_ricte_ sensing port)

Ho|ddo_ ]n_ers_age Base T_Tbi_e Le_e|

Tail G_ar Bo_

(?ar_talIy

Open Circuit Ope_ C|rcuit Erra_l_ Oil Off scale _cale and higher t_a_ posBtb|e rea_ing

C_n[zn_ous Tank-2 Tank-3 Tank-4 Skir_-2 Skirt-2 5kirk-8

$-IV3

C4|-406 C42-_0fi C_3-_06 C_6-427 C82-_26 C1|1-427 C117-_27 C|_340[ C2_1-_0_ C2_2605 $17-42b S18_26

Temp-LOX Temp-LOX Temp-LOX Tmp-Af_

low lo_ low rosponse, too unlike _o_ _oli_g tnsCead o_ hea_ng _ther m_asurement_

U_expected Unexpected _uexp_cted Unexpected Supply Line Ma|l Higher than

Tem_.por_ard Temp-For_ard _emp-Aft _emp-].O$

respomse, r_sponse, respor_se possible response, _espo_se, too too low a_d 1o_ _nd

ind_ted

Skirt-9 Main

reading _dicated lnd]ca_d _rend _rend uo_ uot coo|lug ooltn& as as test at at wrong _rong _me _ime

Tm_-Electri_a| Tem_.ElectflcaL Strain-Axial Strata-AxiaL Vlb-Upper Htg. i_d

Tu_ne|-3 Tu_n_-_ Skirt-2

Unexpected Unexpecte_ Bead|rig Beading _o ou_pu_ Special Data P_o_essin_ Read_ng $w_t_h lo_

expected expected

Pwd $ktr_-3 Ring _or_t.

]V

[|&-60_

during

CaIIhr_tou

$I_

C_8-8 VIC138-_ _hr_ VlC14_-_ L_2-p2 L4_-0C 1.48-0_

Temp. Engine

Fl_ae Thru_

_held OK Pre_ore

Sy_chrouizatiou

p_oblem

Fuel

Level

Contiuuo_ Co_t|nuous Continuous $eart_$ I_|et_

_r_ng _ron$ Wroug

ca_bratio_ c_l_br_tio_ cal_bratio_ Prets. changed duTin$ f|tght

LOX Level LOX l,e_el

IU

VXD|I-60]

Pre_s*S_-124NAir Range 0-3_ pBl Attt_ude Error

Refereuce

VHTO-b02

S$na1,

Ang.

Po_.,

Yaw

Cons|derable

_o_e

247

248

Table

Measurements that failed and their failure modes are tabulated in 20-1. Vibration levels recorded by E12-8 were too high, and are on seven other engines or the

not verified by similar measurements related engine system performance. The partially successful tabulated in Table 20-I.

are

measurements As observed

in

and their previous

malfunction modes flights, the

melting temperature of the sensing element of measurement C67-7, located on the flame shield, was reached after 62 sec of flight. All data from the engine aspirator surface calorimeter, measurement C516-3, is usable except for the interval from 120 to 140 seconds. Measurements that required special data processing are tabulated in Table 20-I. Usable data with lower readings than predicted values resulted on the flame shield total calorimeter, measurement C78-8, because the heat sink portion of the calorimeter was not fully protected by thermal insulation. Due to a "synchronization problem", neither tabulated data nor plotted data is available that correctly reflects Remote Digital Sub-Multiplexer (RDSM) data immediately following outboard engine cutoff and therefore, manual data extraction was required to obtain the time of occurrence of the engine thrust OK pressure switches, measurements measurements, recting the 20.2.2 VKI38-1 through VK145-4. L48-0C, Data can from be the fully continuous utilized level by cor-

L42-F2, L45-0C and calibration curves. ANALYSIS

S-IVBMEASURING The

flight.

S-IVB stage instrumentation total of 441 measurements

performed satisfactorily during were scheduled for the flight. deleted, due to the desired data known

Prior to launchj9 measurements instrumentation discrepancies

had been officially which would prevent

acquisition. Of the remaining 432, twelve measurements failed completely and 40 were partially successful. Based on 12 measurement failures out of 432 expected to produce useful data, the resulting reliability is 97.2_. No instrumentation problems other than transducer system malfunction occurred during flight. Measurement malfunctions are summarized in Table 20-I. 20.2.3 IU MEASURING There Of these_ were 301 ANALYSIS total inflight scheduled prior measurements to launch_ on the IU.

3 measurements

were

scrubbed

1 measurement

failed, I0 measurements were partially successful and 2 measurements required special data processing. Based on 1 measurement failure out of 298 expected to produce useful data, the resulting reliability is 99.7 percent.

249

The

measurement

that

failed

and

its

failure

mode

is

tabulated

in

Table 20-I. Vibration measurements E14-603 and E22-602 gave no output during calibration test and a waiver _as obtained on both measurements. Subsequently, the outputs were checked and found to be correct. Then in flight, E14-603 gave no vibration data, but E22-602 responded vith Rood vibration data. The partially successful measurements and those that required special data processing are tabulated in Table 20-1. The 7 temperature and 2 telemetry power measurements were off scale for part of the flight and investigations are being made in each case to determine if new measuring ranges are required or if the respective systems need modifications. The reference side of measurement VXDII-603, Pressure ST-124M Air Bearing Inlet, is normally vented to the atmosphere, but during this flight was capped so that the reference pressure was one atmosphere on the ground. However, due to temperature effect, the reference pressure changed during the course of the flight. Within this limitation, the measurement performed satisfactorily. Measurement VH70-602, Attitude Error Signal, Angular Position Yaw, appeared to have considerable noise. The signal for this measurement is taken from the output of the servo driven amplifier that is fed by VH55-603 (Attitude Yaw Ladder 20.3 20.3.1 Output, AIRBORNE S-IB-I Guidance TEL}_dETRY STAGE systems were The systems used on utilized the S-IB stage for transare presented in Table 20-II Computer), SYSTEMS which was not noisy.

mitting

Four telemetry flight data.

All telemetry systems functioned satisfactorily except for a premature synchronization problem which occurred immediately after outboard engine cutoff. When using normal computer programs to obtain data, the output from the AI, A2, PI and RDSM multiplexers are transposed from 146.910 sec until 147.885 seconds. During this time interval, the data should be disregarded except for those measurements on continuous FM/FM channels. Data presentation subsequent to 147.885 sec is properly formatted. All critical events monitored by the RDSM have been established using computer "dumps" and manual data reduction techniques. Preflight and inflight calibration for all telemetry (TM) links was successfully accomplished. Using range zero as the reference, the inflight calibration cycles commenced as tabulated below. The GS-I link does not calibrate inflight. On receiving the calibrate command, the TM links calibrate immediately, but the multiplexers (GFIAI and GF2A2) delay the calibrate command until current master frame completion.

250

TABLE 20-II AS-201 LAUNCH VEHICLE TELEMETRY SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

Llnk No. GF- 1 GF-2 GS- i GP- I CF- I CF-2 CF-3 CS- 1 CP- I DF-I DF-2 DS- 1 DP- I

Frequency 240.2 244.3 252.4 256.2 258.5 246.3 253.8 226.2 232.9 250.7 245.3 259.7 255 .1

(mHz)

Modulation FM/FM PM/FM SS/FM POI/FM PM/FM FM/FM FM/PM SS/FM PCM/FM FM/RM & FM/FM/PM FM/FM & FM/FM/FM SS/FM P(_I/PM

Location S-IB S-IB S-IB S-IB S-IVB S-IVB S-IVB S-IVB S-IVB IU IU IU IU

251

Calibration

Command

GF2 26.20 121.02

GP1 26.91 121.71

GFI 27.60 122.42

GFIAI 27.68 122.50

GF2A2 26.22 121.04

Ist Cal. (sec) 2nd Cal. 20.3.2 (sec)

S-IVB STAGE of S-IVB TH links are presented in

The number and modulation Table 20-11.

Transmission of data from all five SIVB links was good throughout flight except for a 2.2 sec period, at approximately 147.9 sec, when transmission from all links was lost due to flame attenuation. The data during the 2.2 sec loss of transmission, from CF-I, CF-2, and CF-3, was recorded and played back by the S-IVB tape recorder. Otherwise, all transmitters, multiplexers, and Vehicle Carrier Oscillators (VCO) were operational until S-IVB flight termination. Calibration of the Sub Carrier Oscillators (SCO) and the Single Side Band (SSB) system was satisfactorily conducted three times during flight and once on the ground. Each ground calibration step (all channels) was approximately 5 sec, to allow an adequate sample for data reduction. Flight calibration consisted of regular and special calibration. When both regular and special calibration commands were transmitted, all FM and SSB channels were calibrated; when only the regular command was sent, only SSB and the FM parameters E-26 thru E-31 were calibrated. The time and type of ealihratlons were as follows: Calibration Ground Regular Regular Regular 20.3.3 INSTRUMENT UNIT Command Range Time (sec)

and Special and Special

-3014.00 128.07 354.72 626.32

Data transmission from the Instrument Unit was accomplished by 4 radio telemetry system links. Table 20-11 lists the TM links used in the IU for this flight. Approximately two seconds of data dropout occurred due to retro fire.
i

Minor difficulties were experienced in the reduction of digital data processed by the RDSM and inserted into the Link P1 Ff24 bit train. No other problems were encountered.

252

Inflight calibration of the Single Side Band link was accompl_shed by the Calibrator Controller Assembly. All inflight calibrations were satisfactory. There were eight inflight calibrations which occurred at 27.4, 20.4 90.6, 167.5, TAPE 350.7, 500.7, 645.3, 946.0 and 1576.3 seconds.

AIRBORNE

RECORDERS

The airborne tape recorders record and store, for future transmission, portions of data that would otherwise be lost due to atmospheric ionization during retro fire, other transmission blackouts, or when out of range of receiving stations. 20.4. i S-IB RECORDER

The S-IB tape recorder successfully recorded GF-I and GF-2 telemeter outputs. Noise was present on playback that was not recorded on oscillographs during the direct transmission. This occurred at 15.28 sec after playback began and had a duration of approximately 0.07 sec on channel GFI-02. Noise of a similar duration occurred on channels GFI-02, 03, 04, recorder playback 20.4.2 06, 07, 08, 12, and 13 at 25.45 sec after playback began. was turned on at approximately 39.38 seconds. The record then occurred according to a preselected time sequence. S-IVB RECORDER The and

During the 2.2 sec blackout period of all transmission links, the S-IVB recorder recorded the data _rom CF-I, CF-2, and CF-3 and later played it back, thus filling in the data lost during the blackout. The tape recorder recorded data from 141.2 sec to 169.4 sec, a total of 28.2 seconds. Recorder playback was started at 781 sec and was completed at 810 sec; satisfactory data was obtained. Data from Antigua and Grand Turk was reduced from the airborne tape recorder. Reduction difficulties were experienced in compensating the data for tape speed variations. A 120 kHz speedlock signal was mixed with each composite FM signal recorder. During reduction it was found that the signal was practically obscured by noise and did not provide a usable compensation signal. Special filtering techniques were used to recover this signal and successful compensation was obtained. The pensation eliminate throughout amount signal this the of transmitter deviation assigned to will be increased on future flights, problem. The entire period tape recorder performed of its operation. the 120 kHz comin an attempt to

satisfactorily

253

20.4.3

INSTRUMENT

UNIT RECORDER

During flight, the IU tape recorder recorded the outputs of the DF-I and DF-2 telemeters. The legible portion of the playback contained the real time data which occurred from 141.1 sec to 167.0 seconds. Tape recorder playback was initiated at 781.2 sec and playback speed was attained at 782.3 seconds. Playback was terminated at 808.2 sec with real time modulation being reapplied at 811.4 seconds. Twenty-six seconds of legible data was contained in the playback. Operation of the tape recorder was satisfactory was free of retro and flame attenuation. 20.5 RF SYSTEM ANALYSIS and recorded data

The S-IB Stage RF system performed within expected operating limits. Signal strengths were well above threshold level for adequate reception. No significant signal "drop-outs" occurred during powered flight. The Automatic Gain Control (AGC) measurements on the DRW-13 Range Safety Command System indicated a state of readiness throughout powered flight. The S-IVB Stage telemetry forward power was normal for the entire duration of the f_ght except during the 2.2 sec blackout at stage separation. The nominal transmitter output was 25 watts (at 675 sec). The effects of the change in reflected impedance at the antenna during separation were evident in the tape recorder data. The design limits for Visual Standing Wave Ratio (VSWR) are 1.7 to 1. Values for antenna system I and 2 VSWR were slightly higher than the design limits, however, no degradation in performance was noted due to this condition. Values for each antenna were as follows: Antenna i 2 3 4 VSWR 2.0 1.9 1.6 1.5 Power Loss 6.3 6.0 4.5 5.1 (db)

The IU RF Systems included VHF Telemetry, Azusa/GLOTRAC, C-Band Radar, and a "passenger" Command Unit. All systems performed satisfactorily and provided good data throughout the flight, but not without problems. The telemetry AGC records indicate a loss of signal for approximately two sec at retro rocket ignition, but the PCM link recorded up to 50?= of the transmitted data during this period. The plasma from the retro rockets caused the IU telemetry antenna to break down. This

254

condition lasted for approximately 24.3 seconds. Two C-Band radar stations had acquisition problems, but the IU beacon operation was satisfactory. The Azusa Mark II station recorded a sharp antenna null which led to an early handover to the Grand Turk transmitter at 277 seconds. The telemetry system experienced degradation of signal due to main engine flame attenuation, but the C-Band and Azusa/GLOTRAC signals were modulated only a slight amount with no loss of data. 20.5.1 TEL_ETRY

The RF telemetry performance of the AS-201 launch vehicle was satisfactory throughout the entire flight. The performance was degraded by main engine flame attenuation, retro rocket ignition attenuation, and IU stage antenna breakdown from retro rocket ignition to Launch Escape Tower (LET) jettison. The retro rocket ignition ionization medium was sufficient to cause the IU VHF antenna breakdown. This condition was maintained until the antenna reached an altitude which would not sustain breakdown or it was shocked out of the breakdown condition at LET jettison. This problem is presently being investigated. During the antenna breakdown period all IU telemetered data were received. Main engine flame attenuation during this launch was similar to that experienced on past Saturn launches. A 15 to 25 db drop occurred at maximum flame attenuation for all Cape stations. The major attenuation effects ceased at 140 sec at an altitude of approximately 55 km. This altitude is within the 54 to 60 km region where the flame attenuaion has ended on all previous Saturn flights. The S-IB links at Cape Tel 2, Cape Tel 3, CIF, and New Smyrna Beach experienced a I0 to 20 db drop at S-IVB engine ignition with the signal well above threshold. The S-IVB and IU links at these stations had a 55 to 65 db drop at retro to threshold or beyond. Figure 20-1 illustrates reception during the flight. 20.5.2 TRACKING rocket ignition with the signal going

the length and quality

of the telemetry

Tracking requirements were met by the C-Band radar system. The ODOP system tracking requirements were met, except during the time period of 65 to 71 seconds. An apparent up-link problem prevented metric data from being received during this time. The Secure Range Safety Command System operated satisfactorily. The tracking systems for the different are tabulated in Table 20-111. stage of the launch vehicle

Good Weak

Signal Signal Attenuation

I '
Cape 1 _

Telemetry

Flame

Re t rorocke ts

Cap e Telemetry

] I I I I

no,: 1 ____:
Ant igua

I,

J Ascension

r_3

200

400

600

800 Range 20-I TEL_ETRY

Time

I000 (sec)

1200

1400

1600

1800

_"

FIGURE

RECEPTION

256

TABLE ELECTRONIC

20-111 EQUIPMENT (mHz)

DATA ACQUISITION

Frequencies Location S-IB IU IU ODOP C-Band Azusa Radar (GLOTRAC) System Receiving 890 5690 5060.194

Transmitting 960 5765 5000.00

Overall coverage from Azusa/GLOTRAC was fair as reflected by available data. Station i produced good data from 0 to 250 sac with the signal strength level at least 37 db above threshold from 0 to 188 seconds. Station 42 produced data from 30 to 248 sec with the signal strength level 30 db or greater above threshold from 36 to 246 seconds. Antigua obtained good data from 430 to 950 seconds. Signal strength levels greater than 30 db above threshold were produced between 460 to 850 seconds. Following an interval of noisy data, final dropout occurred at 943 seconds. Eleuthera produced poor coverage and recorded data from 630 to 740 sac only. Early handover from Station i to Grand Turk Island occurred at 277 sac because of low signal levels. Postflight look angles, not available at the present time, will be required to determine if an antenna pattern null caused the decline in signal level. Tracking coverage given by the various tracking stations is shown in Figure 20-2. Excellent data was obtained on the IU C-Band radar from KSC, PAFB, and GBI during the interval from liftoff to 466 seconds. Some difficulty was reported from GBI in maintaining acquisition at 300 sec, however, all data is good. KSC provided beacon coverage from 0 to 210 seconds. PAFB obtained skin track from 14 to 145 sec, at which time automatic beacon was utilized to 466 sec with the signal 25 db above threshold. GBI provided automatic beacon coverage from 105 to 313 sec during this time. The signal was 40 db above threshold. Good coverage for the command module C-Band radar was obtained from MILA, GBI, GTI, and Antigua during the interval from liftoff through 1141 seconds. Retro ignition produced an attenuation of 2 to 5 db maximum on C-Band radar, wlt_ no data degradation. The C-Band radar coverage by the various ground stations is shown in Figure 20-2. The ODOP tracking system fulfilled its mission requirements, except for a time frame from 65 to 71 seconds. During this period, no metric data was receivedpossibly because of an apparent up-link problem. The onboard measurements (static phase error, phase lock indicator, and AGC)

257

E
200 I oDoP -'.OO I 600 I Range Time (s.c) 80P, I 1000 I 1200 I [40C I 1600 I

Margo

(1.20) (L,21) ]

Har, d'IlSC Tango

(I.II)

Motl, (1._0)
Metro (1.10)

II
]

I I

....

Cactu_ pl,,to AZUSA:GLOTRAC Azusa Cartc.r

{l.

L6) I _1 I

11.17)

Mark

II ]

-_ V/.//.///Z///J_//_//Y_'//'/'/_ _/Y/'/'/'//A _//////////--////_//'//_///_.////////_//--///////////)_ [ _'//_

Car

E I eL,t he r a

ch_*-,,poi.t
Grand Turk

I_1 !
[

I
_'_

Be_,,aa

[_

C-BAND I_I_R -Cape P.trick GBI (3.16) (1.t6) lO.18) _:i:': l_ " D'.'F_'..|t!!_'_:II.ltl

I-::.N::::,::.(;_::.!

! 200

I :)00

I 600 Range FIGURE 20-2

l 800 Time

l 1000 (see)

1 21 00

l 1:_00

I 1_00

GROUND ST_TIOM COVERAGE

258

for the ODOP transponder indicated that the transponder functioned correctly and the signal strengths at the various ground stations were above threshold during this time frame. Downrange site recordings indicate a maximum attenuation due to flame of II db. Retro effects produced a maximum attenuation of 17 db at 148.8 seconds. At this point, the ODOP signal was well above threshold. The ODOP station coverage is shown in Figure 20-2. 20.6 OPTICAL GROUND INSTRUMENTATION CAMERAS cameras scheduled to cover the launch

20.6. i

There was a total of 85 fixed

operations. Ten cameras were scrubbed prior to launch, leaving 75 cameras active to cover the launch. Of the 75 cameras, 12 had startstop capability and had good coverage. Of the 63 remaining cameras, only 3 covered the launch and 60 had depleted their film by launch time. The first launch attempt which was terminated at about T-4 sec resulted in the film depletion. When the count was recycled to T-15 minutes the cameras could not be reloaded. Based on coverage by 15 cameras out of 75 expected, the resulting reliability _,as 20 percent. The 19 tracking obtained. cameras all operated and excellent coverage was

An unidentified long, slender object, as shown in Figure 20-3, was noted to exhaust out the edge of the S-IB plume at 72 seconds. The Melbourne Beach tracking coverage was the best coverage of that type ever obtained from the Saturn program. 20.6.2 ONBOARD CAMERAS

Both of the onboard cameras located on top of the S-IB stage were ejected successfully. Rowever, both parachutes failed to open. One camera capsule sank and the other was recovered and usable. The reason the parachute failed to deploy is attributed to insufficient air pressure in the drogue chute to develop the 44.5 N (10 Ib) pull required for deployment. The cause for the low pressure is attributed to the stabilized 0.058 m (20 in) diameter floatation bag shielding the drogue chute from the main air stream. The main parachute retaining system is being modified for future flights to use the same hold-in technique and force, 8.0 to 13.3 N (2 to 3 ib) pull, that was used on the shrouds, all of which did deploy. A low altitude test is being planned to check the new technique. Camera 2, located at Fin 6, was recovered and the filmed sequence was of very good quality. Events viewed were S-IB/S-IVB Separation, S-IB Retro Rocket Ignition, S-IVB Ullage Rocket Ignition, S-TVB Engine Ignition and Apollo Escape Tower Jettison.

FIGURE

20-3 OPTICAL

OBSERVATION

OF OBJECT

EXHAUSTED

FROM PLUME

260

21.0 21.1 SLaVeRY

(U)

SPACECRAFT

Apollo Spacecraft 009 was launched by launch vehicle AS-201. This spacecraft was complete except for three major subsystems. These were the Guidance and Navigation (G&N) systems, the S-Band transmission system, and the astronauts. The spacecraft flight was nominal and all test objectives were met, although a higher heat rate on reentry was desired. No damage was incurred by the spacecraft on entry into the water. 21.2 SPACECRAFT PERFORMANCE

Mission events occurred as indicated in Table 21-1. The events of tower jettison, control programmer start, onboard recorders off, and S-IVB/CSM separation were accomplished as planned. The Service Module (SM) Reaction Control Subsystem (RCS) +X translation at 846.7 see and all subsequent SM RCS were below nominal because the oxidizer isolation valve for quad A did not open. Preflight test experience had indicated seizure because of incompatible materials. a tendency toward valve

Although the was lower than nominal, the first Service Propulsion Subsystem (SPS) ignition occurred at 1211.2 sec and performance was nominal for the first 80 sec of the 180 sec burn. However, performance was less than nominal for the last I00 sec of the first burn and total duration of the second burn, primarily because of helium ingestion indicated during from a zero g can standpipe preflight tests. leak which had been

The first pitch maneuver, Command Module/Service Module (C_/SM) Separation, second pitch maneuver, and roll maneuver were accomplished. The spacecraft remained in the communication blackout from 1580 sec to 1695 seconds. The maximum reentry heating rate and maximum reentry g load were calculated, from radar data, to have occurred at 1631.7 and 1639.7 sec, respectively. At reentry (121.9 km altitude), the velocity was 237 m/s low and the flight path angle was 0.44 deg high. This resulted in a lower heating rate and less max g than expected. At the time of peak heating, the calculated rates were approximately 186 watts/cm 2 (164 Btu/ft2-s), which was approximately 27.6 watts/cm 2 (24.3 Btu/ft2-s) less than the preflight prediction. The max g was 14.3 g, compared to a predicted of 16.0 g.

TABLE

21-1

MISSION

EVENTS

261

Range Event Liftoff LET Jettlson Control Onboard Programmer Recorders Start Off Command Actual 0.37 172.64 663.1 665.2 843.2 844.9 I On I Off 2 On 1 2 Off 846.7 864.6 1181.2 1211.2 1212.2 1321.9 I 3 On 1395.2 1395.7 1410.7 1420.7 1420.7 Initiate Terminate 1424.1 1442.0 1454.2 (0.25 ft) Initiate Terminate 1455.0 1462.6 1479.1 1479.1 1515.1 1853.9 1905.7 2239.7

Time

(sec) Act-Pred 0.07 0.37 10.4 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.4 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.7 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.4 10.3 10.5 ii.I 10.4 10.4 10.4 10.4 100.2 -89.2 -120.9

Predicted 0.31 172.27 652.7 654.7 832.7 834.4 836.2 854.2 1170.7 1200.7 1201.7 1311.2 1384.9 1385.3 1400.2 1410.2 1410.2 1413.7 1431.7 1443.7 1443.9 1452.2 1468.7 1468.7 1504.7 1954.1 1994.9 2360.6

S-IVB/CSM S-IVB/CSM

Separation Separation

RCS +X Translation RCS +X Translation RCS +X Translation SPS Thrust on Burn

RCS +X Translation Tape Recorders SPS Thrust On

Off Burn

RCS +X Translation SPS Thrust

on Burn 2 3 Off 2

RCS +X Translation SPS Thrust Pitch Rate Pitch Rate Off Burn

(-5 deg/s) (-5 deg/s)

(_/SH Separation CH/S_ Separation CM Pitch Pitch Rate Rate

Command Physical

(-5 deg/s) (-5 deg/s) (5 deg/s)

_ Roll Rate Roll Rate Drogue

Initiate

(5 deg/s) Terminate Deployed Deployed

Parachute

Main Parachute Toachdown

i

"'o

_ -

262

"" _

"

-_-

:'

At 1635 sec, a circuit breaker opened, resulting in a loss of power to the _ RCS A and B systems and to the Earth Landing System (ELS) H system. As a result of two wires in the RCS propellant isolation main bus B lines shorting to the Ground Support Equipment (GSE) reset line, was lost to the stabilization and control subsystem (SCS) system 1691 sec and to system B at 1649 seconds. Data from the two low conmmutators were lost from 1652 sec until power was returned at sec, after all affected circuit breakers had opened.

A and power A at level 2121

The loss of power to the SCS systems A and B resulted in loss of con_mand capability to the CM RCS systems A and B which, in turn, resulted in a rolling reentry instead of the planned lifting reentry. Apex cover jettison, drogue parachute deployment, and main parachute deployment occurred in sequence. The _ landed upright, in the stable Y attitude. Upon landing, the recovery aids deployed, including the HF antenna; however signals from the HF transceiver were not received. The main parachute disconnect on system A was accomplished but the system B leg remained attached because of the opening of the circuit breaker at 1635 seconds. The main parachutes were cut loose from the CM by the recovery forces, and the CM was recovered and returned to the contractor's Downey facility for postflig_t testing.

; __

'_...,'

, :,.:

UNCLASSIFIED
263 22.0 22.1 _I_Y (C) St_24ARY OF MALFUNCTIONS AND DEVIATIONS

Evaluation of the launch vehicle performance, durin E the AS-201 flight test, did not reveal-any malfunctions or deviations which could be considered a serious system failure for this flight. However, certain minor modifications are planned for future flights to improve system operations. 22.2 SYST_4SMALFUNC/IONS AND DEVIATIONS

The system having malfunctions (abnormal operation) or significant deviations (actual operation deviated from expected operation) and the nature of the malfunction or deviation are summarized in Table 22-I. A more complete discussion of each problem area is included in the paragraphs of this report that are referenced. 22.3 R_ENDATIONS FOR CORKECTIVE ACTION

The recommended corrective actions, sumaaarized in Table 22-I, are to be applied to, or are bein E considered for, future vehicle or ground support systems in order to prevent recurrence of the corresponding malfunction or deviation.

UNCLASSIFI

F:[7,

Z
. TABLE 22-I (C) SDI_ OF MALFUNCTIONS AND D_TIONS Vehicle System

Malfunction

or Deviation

I
f

Most Probable Malfunctions

Cause

Recommended

Corrective

Action

iJ
Para. ii 120'6'i_1 _ _,_.j 5.6.7

"iq
_ $ L'_ Instr'entatin

the two onboard failed

cameras

enough

pull

to release

main

main with

chute

retaining

string Ib) para-

to open; only one

chute because

the flotation

a Ii.i N (2.5

camera was recovered, The parachute fr each

bag shielded the drogue chute from air stream. Drguethe main did nt develp chute Deviations

chute packing Replace 44"5N

rubber band. (lO Ib) pull

Launch Operations

Low S-IB Stage Nitrogen Control pressure

Insufficient replenishing rate from ground supply when vehicle purges were initiated in countdown. Probably due to terminal draining characteristics. Localized voids or bubbles were sensed by depletion probes giving an erroneous indication of fuel depletion. Slower operation of main LOX valve due to colder engine enviro_ent than expected.

Install brass around GN 2 filling orifice. Increase initial pressure from 2068 to 2175 N/cm 2 (3000 to 3150 psi). Increase fuel bias from 454 to 816 kg (i000 to 1800 ib). Raise fuel level sensors 3.8 cm (1 in). Group TOPS independent of aming level sensors. Inereasei TM sample rate to 120 samples/sec Incorporate a 75 ms delay in the GG oxidizer poppet valve on SA-203, SA-202 and subs. (mod. planned prior to AS-201 launch). Include tank geometry changes and CG offset effects on propellant levels in future predictions

S-IB Propulsion

Premature fuel depletion outboard engine cutoff,

8.3

S-IVB propulsion

J-2 Engine start,

"Cold"

(slow)

9.2.2

Earlier mixture

than expected PU ratio step change

Tank geometry changes, due to dynamics, and CG offset effects on propellant levels not considered in predictions.

9.3.2

TABLE

22-I

(C)

SI_MARY Most

OF MALFUNCTIONS Probable Cause

AND

DEVIATIONS

(CONT) Corrective Action

Vehicle

System

Malfunction

or Deviation

Recommended

Pare.

Deviations S-IVB propulsion (Cont) S-IVB Stage performance (thrust) lower than expected after mixture ratio cutback,

(Cont) Adjust Bridge Gain Ratio to include two additional factors; (i) effects of tank geometry changes due to flight dynamics; and (2) effects of CG offset. 9.3.1

Lower than expected Reference Mixture Ratio (RMR).

J-2 Engine cutoff impulse higher than expected

Slow closing of main LOX valve due to cold engine environment

Improve cutoff impulse predictions by monitoring MOV closing control llne temperature. This trend has been observed during acceptance firings. Future acceptance firings and future flights will be Monitoted and upgraded. effect of decay are prediction techniques Diffuser design and sloshing on pressure being investigated.

9.2.4

. ,

The LH 2 tank ullage pressure began a more rapid decline than expected and reached a lower level than expected after S-IVB engine start command, when the control and step pressurization orifices were closed, I Guidance Control and Analysis of the LVDC/LVDA system revealed numerous error time words (ETW) in plexer data. the digital output multi-

Predicted performance high. Present simulations do not fully reflect this system characteristic. NPSP at the LH_ pump inlet, the controlling criteria, did not drop below minimum,

9.4.1

Noise either in the IU, in the data transmission, or in the data processing is adding telemetry word empty bit the spurious bits into the positions. The noise is picked up in the cables connecting the LVDA to the flight control dc amplifier computer, introduced in the between the telemetry monitor points, or telemetry intro-

Evaluation of the ETW problem is continuing.

12.4.3.1 r P%

UJ
Monitor several points out the flight control throughcomputer 12.3,2 ]-_ -!
o

The rot1, pitch and yaw attitude error signals from PQ4 telemetry with noise in had the yaw all channels channel reaching a peak of 5 v peak-to.peak,

_" "_

and related Inter-connect the cables in order to trace noise to its origin.

l'l

....

Z
_ --F_, .. i CO" '" "' [ Vehicle '" Guidance (Cont) and Contro_ System J Malfunction

TABLE

22-I

(C)

SI_4_ARY OF MALFUNCTIONS

AND DEVIATIONS

(CONT)

or Deviation

Host

Probable

Cause

[ Recommended

Corrective

Action

[Pars.

I _

Deviations An error of into m/s was 2.3 the lateral introduced velocity component by the

(Cont) Hake improvements flight simulations in pre-to used establish the limits for 12.4.2 CI 12.4.2

Z Accelerometer reasonableness test failed due to not considering effect of wind shears in

LVDC sec. Gross betweenof 78 and 82 naviloss orbital gation accuracy at approxi-

defining test binary scaling of limits, Insufficient the integral of the X component

this test. Further analysis of this problem is required.

Z
'

"--" 7

. _.,Vehicle _Electrical _ystem ,Emergency Detection System Structures

Voltage fluctuations mately 1400 sec. 56 vdc power bus.

on the

Reactive feedback from the of gravitational guidance servo loops to the bus.

Electrical filtering in telemetry to eliminate noise caused by reactive loads. Electrical filtering on inputs of the switching circuits in the EDS The measured vibration levels did not indicate structural weakening or failure; predicted levels will be further investigated. Under investigation

14.4

High noise level on EDS rate gyros; max - 5 deg/s pitch, 5.2 deg/$ roll. Higher than expected vlbration levels at the S-IVB stage aft electronic equipment panels,

_xternal

acoustic

enviromnent

16.6

Low predicted

levels

17.4.1

Bending response peak in the command module between 85 to ii0 sec does not cotrelate with any significant flight event. IU Pressure and Thermal Conditioning System The air bearing GN 2 inlet temperature dropped below its design limit

Under

investigation

17.2.3

_7 r_

Long tube length from beat exchanger to the platform and subsequent cooling tank bulkhead, by the LH 2

Hove beat exchanger to reduce the tube length from 1.83 to 0.6Z m (6 to 2 rE) for SA-203 end subs. For AS-202 and subs, increase TM measuring range to 273-303K.

18.4.2

TABLE

22-I

(C)

SUF_4ARY OF MALFUNCTIONS

AND DEVIATIONS

(CONC)

I
Deviations IU Pressure and Thermal Conditioning System Indicated differential pressure between ST-124M GN 2 inlet and ST-124H internal ambient exceeded its design limit, Film depletion by 75 launch support 60 of the cameras, Measuring system _Cont) problem Modification to the measurement arrangement, planned prior to the AS-201 flight, will prevent occurrence of this problem on future flights. New cameras with stop-start feature or incorporation of stopstart capability on present cameras is ideal solution. Larger film load, reduced data intervals_ and a manual start ! Object exhausted out of the edge of the S-IB stage plume at approximately 72 seconds. Under investigation capability Under _s being considered. 20.6.1 18.4.2

Instrumentation

The launch attempt which terminated at T-4 sec triggered the cameras; film depletion occurred due to lack of stopstart capability.

20.6.1

'

investigation

breakdown during The IU telemetry

retro fire antenna

zation medium. Retro rocket ignition

ioni-

Under

investigation

20.6.1 w-_

20 sec, until LET Jettison. extended, for approximately

N N
[77

'U

268

_. _,. _ ......

APPENDIX (U) A.I SUMMARY VEHICLE

DESCRIPTION

The flight of AS-201 was the first to qualify and to flight tesL the Saturn IB vehicle. It was also the first flight to demonstrate the Apollo Spacecraft and Saturn IB launch vehicle physical and flight compatibility. AS-201 measured approximately 68 m (223 ft) in length and consisted of the following four major units: S-IB Stage, S-IVB Stage, Instrument Unit, and Payload. A pictorial description of the vehicle is presented in Figure A-I. A.2 S-IB STAGE

The S-IB stage had nominal dimensions of 24.5 m (80.3 ft) in length and 6.5 m (21.4 ft) in diameter. A cluster of eight uprated H-I engines powered the S-IB stage (Figure A-2) and produced a total sea level thrust of 7.12 million newtons (1.6 million ibf). Each of the four outboard engines gimballed in a + 8 deg square pattern to provide pitch, yaw, and roll control. Inboard and outboard engines were canted 3 deg and 6 deg outwards respectively from the vehicle longitudinal axis to minimize the disturbing moments that would be induced by an engine failure at critical dynamic pressure.

Propellants were supplied to the engines through suction lines from the clustered arrangement of nine propellant tanks. These tanks consisted of four 1.78 m (70 in) diameter RP-I (fuel) tanks, four 1.78 m (70 in) diameter LOX (oxidizer) tanks and a 2.67 m (105 in) diameter center LOX tank. Each outboard tank (LOX and RP-I) supplied propellants to one inboard and one outboard engine. The center LOX tank supplied the outboard tanks through the LOX interchange system. Thrust and longitudinal loads were carried by the pressurized LOX tanks. The propellant tanks were structurally retained at the forward end of the S-IB stage by the spider beam. LOX and ground fuel tank pressurization modules regulated operations and S-IB flight. The control tank pressures pressure system

during

used GN 2 to actuate various valves for such purposes as vent relief, fill, and drain. The propellant utilization system consisted of LOX mass sensors, fuel mass sensors, and electronic assemblies. It was an open loop system which initiated signals to cutoff the engines at appropriate times. Nominal stage propellant loading capacity was 398,866 kg (880,550 ibm).

269

St_ 68.1 m (2680

in)

MK

Separation

Plane

Payload

1-_3.9 m (15_ in) Dia

Sta 43.2 m (1699

in)

Ins_mentUnit

----[ .--_ _

Sta 42.2

m (1663

in)

Motors

(3)_

6.6 m (260 in) Dia.

Retro Motors ( )

"'"
,_ __Sta

22

(1086

in) (Gimbal)

24.4 m (962 in)

Sta -0,03m m(I00 in)in) (-I.0 St_ 2.5 (Gimbal)

FIGURE

A-I

AS-201

CONFIGURATION

.,.j 0

i 271

Four 155,057 N (34,860 Ibf) thrust solid propellant retro motors, mounted circumferentially on the S-IVB aft interstage (canted at 9.5 deg), decelerated the S-IB stage and S-IVB aft interstage to accomplish separation from the S-IVB stage. Eight equally sized fins were attached to the base of the S-IB stage to provide vehicle support and holddown points prior to launch and to provide inflight stability. Each fin projected an area of approximately 4.95 m 2 (53.5 ft2) and extended radially about 2.74 m (9 ft) from the outer surface of the thrust structure. Additional systems on the S-IB stage included: (a) the flight control system, (b) the hydraulic systems which gimballed the outboard engines, (c) the electrical system which destributed and controlled the stage electrical power, (d) the environmental control system which thermally conditioned the aft compartment of instrument canisters FI and F2, (e) the data acquisition system which acquired and transmitted data for the evaluation of stage performance and environment, and (f) a range safety system. Guidance and control commands were received from the Instrument Unit. A.3 S-IVB STAGE

The S-IVB stage (Figure A-3) had nominal dimensions of 17.98 m (59 ft) in length and 6.60 m (260 in) in diameter. A single gimbal mounted J-2 engine, providing 877,000 N (200,000 lbf) total thrust at vacuum, powered the vehicle during the S-IVB stage portion of powered flight. The engine was mounted on the thrust structure and gimballed in + 7 deg square pattern. The thrust structure provided engine thrust transfer to the LH 2 (fuel) and LOX (oxidizer) containers. The tanks, LH 2 forward and LOX aft, were separated by a common bulkhead. The LH 2 system consisted of a cylindrical container with a bulkhead at each end. The LOX system consisted of the common bulkhead connected to another bulkhead. LOX and LH 2 tank pressurization modules regulated tank pressures during ground operations, S-IB boost phase, and S-19-B burn phase. The pneumatic control system used ambient helium to operate various valves for such purposes as vent relief, fill, and drain. The propellant utilization system consisted of a LOX mass sensor, a LH 2 mass sensor, electronics assembly, and a valve positioner. The system controlled the propellant mixture ratio into the J-2 engine to optimize consumption. Nominal propellant loading capacity was 103,510 kg (228,500 Ibm). A skirt assembly was attached to the aft end of the cylindrical portion of the propellant container. The S-IVB aft interstage and fairing was connected to the aft skirt assembly. Another skirt assembly was attached to the forward end of the cylindrical portion of the propellant container to support the Instrument Unit and Payload.

272

FORWARD SKIRT ASSEMBLY

I

,_

, ..

LH2 PROPE LLANT TANK ASSEMBLY LOX _<. _; : liE LIUM SPHERES (8 PLACES)

/
APS MODULE C2 PLACES

/ /

/ :
BULKHEAD

.I

SKI RT" ASSEMBLY

,F, I
": ."-_ j-_ULLAGE _ ROCKETS (3 PLACES) : SEPARAT ION PLANE

AFT ASSEMBLY NTERSTAGE.

HEL ILIM SPHERE

i

I ! J2 ENGINE _'_

THRUST STRUCTURE ASSEMBLer

RETRO-ROCKETS (4 PLACES)

FIGURE

A-3

S-IVB

STAGE

I 273

Three 15,130 N (3,400 ibf) thrust solid propellant ullage motors, mounted circumferentially on theS-IVB aft skirt (canted outwards at 35 deg), accelerated the S-II/B stage to provide proper positioning of the propellants prior to S-IVB stage ignition. Attitude control of the S-IVB stage within + 0.5 deg was provided by two Auxiliary Propulsion System (APS) modules--during S-IVB powered flight and coast. The modules were mounted on opposite sides of the S-IVB aft skirt at fin positions I and III. Each module was a selfcontained unit composed of four basic systems: the oxidizer system, fuel system, helium pressurization system, and three 667 N (150 ibf) thrust engines. Each APS module was a positive expulsion system with the hypergolic propellants contained in separate metal bellows, which in turn, were contained in helium pressurized ullage tanks. A high pressure helium sphere contained in the module supplied helium to the ullage tanks at regulated pressure. This pressure was exerted on the bellows to pressurize the propellants. Monomethyl-Hydrozine (MMH) and nitrogen tetroxide (N204) were used as fuel and oxidizer respectively. Each module contained two motors to provide roll control during S-IVB powered flight, and yaw and roll control after S-IVB engine cutoff. A third motor in each module was oriented perpendicular to the S-IVB longitudinal axis to provide pitch control. Additional systems on the S-IVB stage included: (a) the flight control system which included an auxiliary attitude control subsystem and a thrust vector control subsystem, (b) the hydraulic system which gimballed the J-2 engine, (c) the electrical system which distributed and controlled the stage electrical power, (d) the thermoconditioning system which thermally conditioned the electrical/electronic modules in the stage aft compartment and forward skirt area, (e) the data acquisition system which acquired and transmitted data for the evaluation of stage performance and environment, (f) and a set of ordnance systems used for rocket ignition, stage separation, retro rocket ignition, ullage zocket jettison, and range safety. Guidance and control commands were received from the Instrument Unit. A.4 INSTRUMENT UNIT

The Instrument Unit was located just forward of the S-IVB stage. It was a three segment, cylindrical, unpressurized structure having a diamater of 6.60 m (260 in) and a length of 0,91 m (36 in). The cylinder forms a part of the vehicle load-bearing structure and interfaces with the S-IVB stage and payload. The Instr_waent Unit contains the guidance, control, electrical, measuring, telemetry, radio frequency, and environmental control systems. Figure A-4 shows the Instrument Unit layout and antenna orientation. Figure A-5 shows the components located in each of the three segments.

FB

ATTERY

CONTROL ACC( LIROM(

Tl I_

(PITCH)

/UNIT 601

uumuc,_

""
il&l

//i/..e_

,,'-*--/ /- O:"' / - -/ ;:"-_ouRc_ OLLOW. ._ ,o*_R F

i

'

\'._

..,.
FiT O_i

,,ooR
Rill

. ,,l,<R,, ", _,. _ _, IJ ,..o,<, _-,:oo,.,,.o ,,,.,,<. <.-co...,,,,.c,.,

\.._
&IT

,,

' \

__

"-..,

-.._,_._o%,,,,,,.,, /c - ,,.<,, ._,__<l<>R

l,,_ll

_'_[LICTRONIC

CONIRO_

7_''- '"""" r'" 7'" :'"_r"

I"'/r""_"<' _.,,,o--

,, ',_.l,, .i_ \.,., \,,.,<i,\\\ _

Cl 'el illllll /lIlJSA ll&l,_ \_ l li C I,.R yAW

\l.,..,,
lIlliSLv 0 MOO i tl li VOLT llcv

_,.,,.. x_,..,,.,, :,,,..,,,x,_,...,,<o,.,< , _ '

\\ POS 13 LA_H VIHICLE CONTROL llMOl{ OlGIl_

.f

.( .(

(I

(f"

ll(_c'eo_.i_"

UNIT6O3Cc

"*

""

"

'

_\

;>oj,,,. \
\ _

t_l

I. _a "L

__.o,,

\<.o,,,<,.,,,,.,\ \

_\

_
%_

_,,,<_.<.o,\\ ,,,<< .-..:, ,,.R

_ Ir

pL I'll OHi

"--,.
FIGURE A-5

,,...

".-.:--,o.,,,.

,,0-<:o.0,,,o,_. '--_o_._,Wfl, _-o,..,,o..< o , <oo.,.

,,_,,\

SA-201 INSTRUMENT UNIT LAYOUT

276

A.5

PAYIA3AD (Apollo Spacecraft) was 16.0 m System. The maximum diameter the payload subdivided into the Excursion Module Adapter Section, Escape System, 1016 cm(400 in) (26 in), was jettisoned shortly Excursion Module will not become

The overall length of the Payload (632 in), excluding the Launch Escape was 6.6 m (260 in). Figure A-6 shows Command Module, Service Module, Lunar and Launch Escape System. The Launch long with a maximum diameter of 66 cm after S-XVB stage ignition. The Lunar active until the AS-206 flight. A.5.1 CO}_4AND MODULE

The Command Module was a cone shaped structure 340 cm (134 in) long and 391 cm (154 in) in diameter. The inner pressure structure and an outer heat shield structure were designed to limit the inside temperature to 366I< during re-entry. The structure consisted of (i) a forward heat shield covering the apex, (2) a crew compartment heat shield, which forms the remainder of the cone, and (3) an aft heat shield which covers the blunt portion of the Command Module. Each of the four reaction control engines in the Command Module, used for attitude orientation, had the capability to develop 423 N (95 Ibf) thrust for 230 sec, and could operate on a pulsed or continuous basis. The propellants were Monomethyl-Hydrazine (I_IH) and nitrogen tetroxide (N204) , used as fuel and oxidizer respectively. A.5.2 SERVICE MODULE

The Service Module consisted basically of a cylindrical shell 61 cm (155 in) long and a Kimballed engine attached to the aft portion of the shell. The overall dimensions of the Service Module was 673 cm (265 in) in length and 391 c_n (154 in) in diameter. The internal shell structure consisted of a forward and aft bulkhead connected by six radial beams. These beams divided the shell into two sets of bays, each with 50, 60 and 70 deg sectors (six sectors total)Four propellant tanks were located in the 60 and 70 deg bays with the environmental control system radiators located on the outer skin of 4 sectors. The Service Module was propelled by a single gimballed engine and was controlled by four clusters (4 chambers per cluster) of reaction control engines. The gimballed engine developed a thrust of 94,876 N (21,330 Ibf) and used a 50/50 blend of unsymmetrical Dimethyl Hydrazine/ Hydrazine oxidizer. (_/N2H4) for fuel and nitrogen tetroxide It had the capability for 30 restarts. (N204) as the

277

15

Sta. 68.1 m

LES
t_ Sta. 59.2 m

Co_m,4 medulc LES-C_4 Separation (8ta. 57.9 m) Plane

278

Each reaction control engine cluster had the capability to develop a thrust of 4430N (996 Ibf) for i000 sec and to operate on a pulsed or continuous basis. A.5.3 LUNAR EXCURSION MODULE ADAPTER

The Lunar Excursion Module Adapter was a simple truncated cone 853 cm (336 in) long and had a forward and aft diameter of 391 cm (154 in) and 660 cm (260 in) respectively. The adapter aerodynamic fairing provided the mating requirements for the Service Module and Instrument Unit. The upper portion of the adapter was composed of four panels which were strap-hinged to the lower portion of the adapter. At separation the panels were separated by a shaped charge. The adapter remained attached to the Instrument Unit after spacecraft separation.

279

APPENDIX (U) B. 1 INTRODUCTION ATMOSPHERIC

B SUI_IARY

This appendix presents a summary of the atmospheric environment at time of the launch of AS-201. The format of the data is similar to that presented in launches of the Saturn I vehicles to allow be made. Surface and upper air winds and thermodynamic launch time are given. B.2 GENERAL ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS AT LAUNCH TIME comparisons to data near the

A large high pressure ridge, with the moved into the Cape Kennedy, Florida area At higher altitudes, near 13 km, there was core almost directly over the cape launch B.3 SURFACE OBSERVATIONS AT LAUNCH TIME

center over Lake Michigan, the evening before launch. a well developed jet stream area.

At the time of launch, the sky was clear with visibility 16 kilometers (I0 miles). Table B-I gives a tabulation of the surface observations near launch time. Wind Records on Launch Pad

Surface winds were measured near launch time with aerovane anemometers located on the service structure, umbilical tower, pad light pole, and the blockhouse. The north pad light pole wind speed was 6.5 m/s from 330 direction at launch time. Values from the other anemometers are given in Table B-I. B.4 UPPER AIR MEASUREMENTS Wind Data

Five different wind systems were used to obtain upper air wind data. A summary of the release times and times of data used is given in Table B-If. Wind Speed

The wind speed increased from the surface, reaching a maximum speed of 70 m/s at 14 km and then decreased to about i0 m/s from 24 km to 32 km. Above 32 km there was another increase in speeds with the winds about 30 m/s up to 47.75 km. (See Figure B-I). Wind Direction The wind direction backed from the north direction at the surface to

west at about 1.5 km. The wind direction was approximately west up to 22.5 km, although between II km and 13.5 km there was a shift in direction from 270 to 245 . Between 22.5 km and 26 km there was an erratic change in the wind direction, through nearly 360 of azimuth that may be caused by the difficulty of the rawinsonde to follow the balloon at a great distance from the receiver. The winds were generally west above 26 km. (See Figure B-2).

t_ OO

TABLE (U) Location Time SURFACE PressOBSERVATIONS Temperature (K) Rel. Hum (%)

B-I AT AS-201 VisiLAUNCH TIME Wind Height Speed of base (m/s) Dir (deg)

Sky Cover Type

after ure 2 T-O i(N/cm )

bility Amount (kin) (tenths)

(rain)
Cape Kennedy Rawinsonde Station Cape Kennedy Rawinsonde Release Measurements Pad Light Pole N (19.5 m) S (19.5 m) T - 0 10.217 16.1 48 16 None

(m)
10 030

T + 38

10.210

16.0

46

None

010

T - 0 T - 0

6.5 5.4

330 208

Service Structure SE (58.5 m) NW (58.5 m)

T - 0 T - 0 T - 0

6.3 4.5 6.7

342 345 358

SW (96.3 m)

TABLE (U) SYSTEMS USED

B-II WIND DATA

TO MEASURE

Release Type of Data

Time Time after T-0

Portion Start Altitude (m) Time

of Data

Used End Remarks Time after T-O (min)

Altitude (m)

UT

(mln)

after T-O (min)

Double

Theodolite

1615

1,000

FPS-16

1619

1,250

i0

16,000

60

Rawinaonde

1650

38

16,250

103

30,250

160

Data poor elevation

because of low angles of balloon.

Arcasonde

1712

60

47,500

74

30,500

64

Cajun-Dart

1812

120

77,000

123

71,000

129

Data not used in Meteorological tape because of gap in elevation between arcasonde data.

_J OO

283

Altitude (kin) 55

Range Time (sec)

140 50

45 40

130

_ ,D o
a.J i

35

I20

_ _

25 ' _20

-""

""

_ oo _
0 "_

I00 _ _m

'

,-4

10

_l......--n__ a 11

_ 6o

rI

00
Q_ ,-4

--

180

270

360 Wind Direction AS-201 LAUNCH

90 (deg)

FIGURE

B-2

TIME WIND DIRECTION

284

Pitch Wind Component The pitch wind component winds increased with height to 14 km reaching a maximum of 57 m/s , and then decreased to almost zero around 24 km. These were tail winds that were only slightly greater than the bias wind used for control. (See Figure B-3). Yaw Wind Component The yaw wind component was from the right and less than 20 m/s up to ii km. The shift of wind direction and increase of wind speed above ii km resulted in a rapid increase of the wind speed from the right that reached a maximum at 13 km of 43 m/s. Above 13 km the wind magnitude decreased to near zero at 21 km. The rapid increase and decrease of the yaw wind controls Component component between ii km and 15 km was reflected of the vehicle. (See Figure B-4). Wind Shears of in the guidance

Component wind shears shown in Figure B-5 were of low magnitude. Shears were only shown to 16 km because of the questionable accuracy the rawinsonde data. Rawinsonde Data

The rawinsonde balloon path on release was southerly for about i km and then to the east. By the time the balloon had reached I0 km, it was 40 km east of the release point. Table B-Ill shows distance of the balloon at other altitudes. TABLE B-Ill Altitude of Balloon Distance from release point RAWINSONDE DATA Approximate angle of Balloon above

Time from release

i0 16 25 30

40 126 170 175

39 64 i00 120

14.5 7.2 8.5 9.8

At any time the rawinsonde balloon is below a I0 angle above the horizon, the wind data is considered to be of poor quality. Based on the angles given in Table B-Ill, comments were made in previous sections that the rawinsonde data was of poor quality.

285

Altitude

Range

Time

(ks)
55'

(sec)
140

5O

130 45 40 1
_r_-

35

120 "_ _

25

_oo
O

% 20 kx x

i, /+3 _ 57 m/s o

mu'_

ts
I0

-3

o_ _
r_

Feb. Bias-.. /2

._
0

70 _ "= , , ._Z_ o 0'3

Head 0 Wind -40

/ _ -20
j j._"

._J 60 80 I00

20 40 Wind Speed (m/s) I.&DNCIt TIME PITCH

FIGURE B-3

AS-201

WIND COMPONENT (Wx)

286

Altitude

Range

Time

(kin)
55

(see)

50

k
130 40 or',-

45

_J Q; 0 ,v

30

--

"

25

+3 o_ Feb. \

"

/- -3e Feb

to

From Right

)
Wind From Left -20 Speed 0 (m/s) COMPONENT (Wz) 20 40 60

_ _

60_

_!
o

_ -40 Wind

0 - I00

-80

-60

FIGURE B-4

AS-201

LAUNCH

TIME YAW WIND

287

Altitude

Range

Time

(kin)
55

(sec)

5O

45

Probability Non--Direction Wind -Shear Envelope _

99Percentile / 99Percen /
Probability NonDirection Wind -Shea Enveb_pe / / o r,_,,o _
,-=1 t-oo "_ 0--_

40 35

30

25

20

_ ,--'_ .-_ 0

ear .00 0.01 0.02

,_=lO00

ear&h=lO00

(Sx) Pitch

0.03 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 Aw I Wind Shear A-h " sec-I (Sz) Yaw Wind Shear ,_-_ . secAw

FIGURE

B-5

AS-201

LAUNCH TIME

PITCH AND YAW COMPONENT

WIND SHEARS

288

Cajun-Dart

Wind

Data

Because there was a gap of more than 20 km between the highest altitude reached by the Arcasonde rocketsonde and the lowest altitude of data from the Cajun-Dart rocket system, the Cajun-Dart wind data was not used. A tabulation of the data is presented in Table B-IV. TABLE WINDS MEASURED Altitude (km) 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 Comparison of Wind Data With B-IV ROCKET SYSTEM Wind Direction (deg) 254 220 159 122 156 168 172 189 Saturn Launch Wind Data

BY CAJUN-DART Wind Speed (m/s) 649 296 19 1 113 22 1 30 2 25 7 17.4 Previous

Table B-V shows the maximum wind speeds and components for the Saturn I launch vehicles, compared to AS-201, in the high dynamic pressure region. Table B-Vl compares the wind shears for the same vehicles. B.5 THERMODYNAMIC DATA

Comparisons of the thermodynamic data from this launch with the Patrick Reference Atmosphere (1963) for pressure, temperature, density, and index of refraction are shown in Figures B-6 and B-7. Temperature Temperatures were from 2 to 3 percent below the Patrick Reference Atmosphere (1963) up to 12.5 km. Above 12.5 km it varied about 2 percent above and below the Patrick Reference Atmosphere (1963).

The density at the surface was about 5 percent higher than the Patrick Reference Atmosphere (1963), but the percentage deviation

I 289

TABLE (U) MAXIMUM DYNAMIC

B-V

WIND SPEED IN HIGH PRESSURE REGION

Maximum Space Vehicle Speed (m/s)

Wind Alt (kin)

Maximum Pitch(W ) (m/s) x

Wind Alt (kin)

Components Yaw(W ) (m/s_ Alt (ks)

Dir (deg)

SA-I SA-2 SA-3 SA-4 SA-5 SA-6 SA-7 SA-9 SA-8 SA-10 AS-201

47.0 33.6 31.3 51.8 42.1 15.0 17.3 34.3 16.0 15.0 70.0

242 261 269 253 268 96 47 243 351 306 250

12.25 13.50 13.75 13.00 10.75 12.50 11.75 13.00 15.25 14.75 13.75

36.8 31.8 30.7 46.2 41.1 -14.8 -Ii.I 27.5 12.0 12.9 57.3

13.00 13.50 13.75 13.00 10.75 12.50 12.75 10.75 Ii.00 14.75 13.75

-29.2 -13.3 11.2 -23.4 -11.5 12.2 14.8 23.6 14.6 10.8 -43.3

12.25 12.25 12.00 13.00 11.25 17.00 12.00 13.25 15.25 15.45 13.25

290

TABLE (U) HIGH EXTREME DYNAMIC

B-VI WIND SHEAR PRESSURE REGION

IN

1000 Pitch Space Vehicle Shear (sec -I)

m Interval Plane Yaw Plane

Altitude (km)

Shear (sec -I)

Altitude (km)

SA-I SA-2 SA-3 SA-4 SA-5 SA-6 SA-7 SA-9 SA-8 SA-IO AS-201

0.0145 O.0144 0.0105 O.0155 0.0162 0.0121 0.0078 0.0096 0.0065 0.0130 0.0206

14.75 15.00 13.75 13.00 17.00 12.25 14.25 10.50 i0.00 14.75 16.00

0.0168 0.0083 0.0157 0.0144 0.0086 0.0113 0.0068 0.O184 0.0073 0.0090 0.0205

16.00 16.00 13.25 II.00 I0.OO 12.50 11.25 10.75 17.00 15.00 12.00

291

Altitude

Range Time

(k_)

(sec)

140

-r
o

45

13o
40

_
0

,.-._ o_

35

120

30

15

_
0

/
5 (7o)

40

0 -I0 -5 0 Relative Deviation 5 of Density I0 (%)

-5 0 Rel. Dev. of Temp.

FIGURE B-6 RELATIVE DEVIATION OF AS-201 TE_IPERATURE AND DENSITY FROM PAFB (63) REFERENCE ATMOSPHERE

292

Altitude

Range Time

(kin)

(sec)

_s
50

--I.-_
i

45

-.1-

40

O "

35

30 25 20
15

_
-2 o

jr
o G

_ ,
_

I
o
0 0

to
5

0
O -i0 Relative 0 -5 Deviation O 5 of Pressure I0 (7o) -60 _

_
-40 -20 0 20 Absolute Deviation of Index of Refraction the Optical (n-l) 106

FIGURE B-7 RELATIVE DEVIATION OF PRESSURE AND ABSOLUTE DEVIATION OF THE INDEX OF REFRACTION FROM THE PAFB (63) REFERENCE ATMOSPHERE

293

decreased until it was zero around I0 km. Above i0 km the density was less than the Patrick Reference Atmosphere (1963) reaching a deviation of -5 percent at 14.5 km. Above 14.5 km the density deviation varied between -2 and -6 percent. Pressure The pressure was below normal (had negative deviations from the Patrick Reference Atmosphere) above I km, reaching a maximum value of -4 percent at 31 km. Index of Refraction The surface index of refraction had the greatest departure (below the Patrick Reference Atmosphere (1963) by -57 (n-i) I0 units) at the surface. The departures decreased rapidly with altitude. B.6 FAR-FIELD SOUND INTENSITY LEVELS

Sound intensity levels were derived from the T-O rawinsonde virtual temperature and FPS-16 wind data. The theoritlcal acoustic model used assumes the vehicle to be stationary on the launch pad. In Figure B-8, focal areas are indicated where the sound intensity levels are greater than 120 db. No sound rays were refracted over land areas. In the areas outside the analyzed area in Figure B-8, the sound pressure level should not have exceeded that predicted by the inverse square law for far-field sound propagation. The focal area will move toward the launch site as the vehicle approaches the velocity of sound inversion which causes the focusing and then disappears as the vehicle passes through the inversion.

VIVO 0-1

ONIM 91-Sd=l QNV _ln/Vi:13dlAG/ -IVI'I/Ul^ 3ONOSNh'V,.VN NO_I.'I Q3I:P'I3.-INI SV [qP] $73A37 A.LISN:ILNI (]NrtOS 8-9

3_1N91.:1

IALklQN *09G

'I_6_

295

(U) I. NASA TM X-53381, January Vehicle Flight Mechanical P. Pack, and J. Weiler.

REFERENCES

25, 1966, (Confidential) (AS-201 Launch Summary", by O. M. Rardage, G. Wittenstein,

2.

Memo R-P&VE-VAW-65-132, "Saturn Characteristics", dated October

IB, AS-201, 28, 1965.

Final Predicted

Mass

3.

MPR-SAT-FE-65-11, July ii, 1965, (Confidential), "Results of the Ninth Saturn I Launch Vehicle Test Flight SA-8" by the Saturn Flight Evaluation Working Group. M_R-SAT-FE-65-14, September 24, 1965, (Confidential), "Results of the Tenth Saturn I Launch Vehicle Test Flight SA-IO" by the Saturn Flight Evaluation Working Group. "AS-201 Saturn Vehicle by Technical Handbooks Data Book", January 15, 1965, and Manuals Section, R-P&VE. (Confidential),

4.

5.

296

APPROVAL

MPR-SAT-FE-66-8

RESULTS

OF THE FIRST

SATURN IB LAUNCH AS-201 Evaluation

VEHICLE

TEST

FLIGHT

By Saturn

Flight

Working

Group

The information in this report has been reviewed for security classification. Review of any information concerning Department of Defense or Atomic Energy Commission programs has been made by the MSFC Security Classification Officer. The highest classification has been determined to be Confidential. This report has been reviewed and approved for technical accuracy.

C_irman,

Saturn

Fli_ht

Evaluation

Working

Group

Hermann

K. Weidner Research and Development Operations

Director,

297
DISTRIBUTION Dr. Dr. Hr. : R-ASTR _Cont) Hr. R. Smith, R-ASTR-E Hr. Stroud, R-ASTR-EA Hr. Robinson, R-ASTR-ESA Mr. Hosenthien, R-ASTR-F Mr. Blackstone, R-ASTR-F Hr. Handel, R-ASTR-C Hr. Ferrell, R-ASTR-CSA Hr. Hoberg, R-ASTR-I Hr. powell, R-ASTR-I Hr. Price, R-ASTR-IE Mr. Avery, R-ASTR-IMD Mr. Ely, R-ASTR-IRD Hr. Threlkeld, R-ASTR-ITP Hr. Boehm, R-ASTR-H Hr. Hoore, R-ASTR-N Hr. Krume, R-ASTR-NFE Hr. Lominick, R-ASTR-NFS Mr. Nicaise, R-ASTR-NGI Hr. Taylor, R-ASTR-R Mr. Hack, R-ASTR-S Mr. Noel, R-ASTRoS Hr. Wolfe, R-ASTR-S R-CO_ Dr. Hoelzer, R-COHP-DIR Hr. Fortenberry, R-CO_-A Hr. Prince, R-COHP-R Hr. Cochran, R-CC84P-RR R-HE Hr.----'---Kuers, R-ME-DIR Hr. CrumpCon, R-HE-A (4) Hr. Eisenhardt, R-ME-D Hr. Orr, R-HE-H Hr. Franklin, R-HE-T Hr. Wuenscher, R-HE-X R-P&VE Dr. Lucas, R-P&VE-DIR Mr. Hellebrand, R-P&VE-DIR Hr. Pataoro, R-P&VE-DIR Hr. Goerner, R-P&VE-A Hr. Stein, R-P&VE-A Hr. Kingsbury, R-P&VE-M Mr. Brooksbank, R-P&VE-N Mr. Paul, R-P&VE-P (2) Hr. Thompson, R-P&VE-PA Hr. Fuhrmann, R-P&VE-PM Mr. Igou, R-P&VE-PPE Mr, HcKay, R-P&VE-PPE (2) Hr. Black, R-P&VE-PPE Mr, Nelson, R-P&VE-PPE Hr. Wood, R-P&VE-PT Mr. HeAnelly, R-P&VE-PTD Mr, Platt, R-P&VE-PTF Mr. Kroll, R-P&VE-S Hr. Hunt, R-P&VE-S Hr. Blumrich, R-P&VE-SA Mr. Gsrrett, R-PbVE-SE Mr. Katz, R-P&VE-SER Hr. Sho_ers, R-P&VE-SL Hr. Frederick, R-P&VE-SS Mr. Farrow, R-P&VE-SV (4) Hr. Green, R-P&VE-S%_4 R-P&VE (Cont) Mr. Aberg, Rop&VE-V Mr, Clover, R-P&VE-VA Hr. Harmann, R-P&VE-VAW Hr. Devenish, R-P&VE-VNH (2) Hr. Sells, R-P&VE-VOI Mr. Schulze, R-P&VE-VS (2) Hr. Rothe, R-P&VE-XF Mr. Criner, R-P&VE-XJ Mr. Boone, R-P&VE-XK R-QVAL Mr. Grau, R-QUAL-DIR Mr, Henrit2e, R-QUAL-A Hr. Corder, R-QUAL-DIE Hr. Klauss, R-QUAL-J Mr. Brooks, R-QUAL-P Hr. Peck, R-QUAL-QVS Mr. Chandler, R-QUAL-R Mr. Brien, R-QUAL-R Mr. Smith, B-QI_L-R Hr. Wittmann, R-QUAL-T R-RP Dr. Stuhlinger , R-RP-DIR Hr. Heller, R-I_P-T R-TEST Hr. Helmburg, R-TEST-DIR Hr. Tessmann, R-TEST-DIR Mr. Grafton, R-TEST-C Dr. Sieber, R-TEST-I Hr. Edwards, R-TEST-M Mr Driscoll, R-TEST-S Hr. Reilmann, R-TEST-SB MS HS-R MS-I MS-IP (4) MS-IPL (15) HS-D CC-P Mr. Wofford,

yon Braun, DIR Rees, DEP-T Corman, DEP-A

E-S Hr---_ Haus, E-DIR Hr. Rhodes, E*D Mr. Smith, E-S I _en. O'Connor, I-DIR Dr. Hueter, I-DIR Dr. Hrazek, I-DIR Col. James, I-I/IB-MGR (5) Hr. Johnson, I-I/IB-C Hr. Vruels, I-I/IB-E Hr. Fikes, I-I/IB-T Hr. Thompson, I-I/IB-S-I/IB Dr. Rudolph, I-V-MGR Hr. Peters, I-V-S-IVB Hr. Galey, I-V-IU Hr. HcCulloch, I-I/IB-S-IVB Hr. Simmons, I-I/IB-H Hr. Ferrell, I-E-J Hr. Schmidt, I-K-Q Dr. Speer, I-MO-HGR (4) Hr. Wood, I-SC-C (3) Dr. Constan, I-MICH-MGR Hr. Riemer, I-HICH-QP Hr. Balch, I-MT-HGR Mr. Auter, I-HT-H R&D Hr. Dr. Dr. Hr. Mr. Mr. Hr.

Weidner, R-DIR HcCall, R-DIR Johnson, R-DIR Williams, R-AS-DIR (2) Dannenberg, R-SA-DIR (2) Davidson, R-SA Richard, R-TO-DIR

R-AERO Dr. Ceissler, R-AEP_-DIR Hr. Jean, R-AERO-DIR Hr. Dahm, R-AERO-A (2) Mr. Holderer, R-AERO-A Hr. Wilson, R-AERO-AT Mr. Horn, R-AERD-D Hr. Deaton, R-AERO-DA Hr. Ryan, R-AERO-DD Dr. HcDonough, R-AERO-DDS Hr. Lindberg, R-AERO-F (33) Mr. Baker, R-AERO-G Hr. McNair, R-AERO-P (3) Hr. Teague, R-AERO-P Mr. C_ings, R-AERO-T Hr. Vaughan, R-AERO-y Hr. ScoggLns , R-AERO-Y Mr. O. E. Smith, R-AERO-y Mr. Daniels, R-AERO-Y RASTR Dr. Haeussermann, R-ASTR-DIR Hr. Digesu, R-ASTR-A Mr. Fichtner, R-ASTR-E

CC-P

KS___C Dr. Debus, DIN Col. Bagnula, EDV Mr. Poppel, EDV-I Hr. Sparks, Elrq-17 Mr. Darby, EDV-162 Mr. Sendler, INS (4) Dr. Bruns, INS-I Mr. Collins, INS-4 Hr. Jelen, INS-13 Lt. Col. Petrone, PFR Hr. Mathews, PPB-4 Hr. Body, PPR-6 Dr. Knothe, TEC LVO Dr. Gruene, LVO-DIR Hr. RigelI, LVO-2 Mr. Plckett, LVO3 Hr. O'Hara, LVO-7 Hr. G. Williams, LVO-I

(3)

298
EXTERNAL Headquarters, National Aeronautics washington, D. C. 20546 Mr. Hllburn, AAD Mr. Shapley, ADA Mr. Kerr, E Mr. Condon, KR Dr. Mueller, M Gen. Phillips, MA Capt. Nolcomb, HAG Mr. Lemke, MAR Mr. Thompson, MAS (3 copies) Mr. Savage, MAT (5 copies) Mr. White, HAT Mr. King, MAT & Space Administration Office of the Asst. and Engineeriog Room 3E1065 Sec. of Defense for Research

Capt. Freitag, MC Mr. Disher, MLD Dr. Adams, R Mr. Tischler, I_ Mr. U.der_ood, RVA Dr. Newell, S Dr. Tepper, SAD Mr. Garbarini, SE Mr. Johnson, SV (tO Mr. Kerr, U Mr. Day, US

The pentagon Washington, D. C. 20301 Attn: Tech Library Director of Guided Missiles Office of the Secretary of Defense Room 3El31 The Pentagon Washington, D. C. 20301 Central Intelligence Agency 2430 E. Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20037 Attn: Liaison Div. OCD (2 copies)

copies)

Director, Ames Research Center: Dr. H. Julian National Aeronautics & Space Administration Moffett Field, California 94035

Allen

Director, National Security Agency Ft. George Mead, Maryland 20755 Attn: C3/TDL Energy Commission, Sandia Lab. Corp.

Director, Flight Research Center: paul F. Bikie National Aeronautics & Space Administration P. O. Box 273 Edwards, California 93523 Center & Space Administration 2077l Code 300

U. S. Atomic

University of California Radiation Technical Information Division F.O. Box 808 Livermore, California Attn: Clovis Craig U. S. Atomic Energy 94551

Goddard Space Flight National Aeronautics Greenbelt, Maryland Attn: Hetmaan LaGow,

Co_a_Ission,

Sandia

Corp.

John F. Kennedy Space Center National Aeronaotics & Space A<_inistration Kennedy Space Center, Florida 32899 Attn: Technical Library, Code ASO 3B Mrs. L. B. Russell Director, Langley Research Center: Floyd L. Thompson National Aeronautics & Space Administration Langley Station Hampton, Virginia 23365

Livermore Br, P. O. Box 969 Livermore, California 94551 Attn: Tech Library Commander, Armed Services Arlington Hall Station Technical Inf. Agency

Arlington, Virginia 22212 Attn: TIPCR (Transmittal per Cognizant Security Commanding Instruction) General (5 copies)

Act

Director. Lewis Research Center: Dr. Abe Silverstein National Aeronautics & Space Administration 210OO Brookpark Road Cleveland, Ohio 44135 Lewis Research Center National Aeronautics & Space Administration 21000 Brookpark Road Cleveland, Ohio 44[35 Attn: Robert Washko, Mail Stop 86-I Manned Spacecraft Center Nations[ Aeronautics & Space Administration Houston, Texas 77058 Attn: Director: Dr. Robert R. Gilruth Robert Smith, Code EC5 (5 copies) Robert E. McKanns Code PH6 (3 copies) John D. Lobb, PH6 (3 copies) Charles H. Grant, Code _1 (2 copies) Director, Wallops Station: R. i. Krieger National Aeronautics & Space Administration Wallops Island, Virginia 23337 W. Kamm

White Sands proving Ground New Mexico 88002 Attn: ORD BS-O_IO-TL (3 copies) Chief of Staff, U. S. Air The pentagon Washington, D. C. 20330 I Cpy marked for DCS/D i Cpy marked for DCS/D Commander-in-Chief Strategic Air Cofmlland Offutt AFB, Nebraska 6gi]3 Attn: Director of Operations, Force

AFDRD AFDRD-EX

Missile

Division

Com_aander Arnold Engineering Development Center Arnold Air Force Station, Tennessee 37389 Attn: Tech Library (2 copies) Commander Air Force

Flight

Test

Center 93523

Edwards AFB, Attn: FTOTL

California

Director, Western Operations Office: Robert National Aeronautics & Space Administration [50 Pico Blvd. Santa Moults, California 90406 Scientific P. O. Box and 5700 Technical Information Facility

Co_nder Air Force Missile Development Hoiloumn Air Force Base New Mexico 88330 Attn: Tech Library (SRLT)

Center

Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Attn: NASA Representative Jet Propulsion 4800 Oak Grove Laboratory Drive

(S-AK/RKT)

(25

copies)

Commander, AF Missile Test Center patrick AI_, Florida 32925 Attn: Technical Info_nmation Intelligence N_GH (3 copies)

Office,

Pasadena, California 91103 Attn: Irl Neulan, Reports Group (Mail 111-122) H. Levy, COffA (Mail 179-203) (4 copies)

Commander Def. iI, 4th Weather Code; ETQImd patrick AFB, Florida

Group 32925

299

_rr m_sA L (CONC) Headquarters 657Oth Aerospace Medical Division U. S. Air Force Wright Patternson Air Force Base, Attn: H. E. Vongierke Systems Engineering Attn: SEPIR WrightPatternson Director U. S. Naval Washington, ArCh: Code Group AFB, (RTD) 45433 Chrysler Corporation Space Division Huntsville Operations 1312 N. Meridian St. Huntsville, Alabama 35807 Attn: H. D. Dader, Dept. 4800 (3 copies) M.L. Bell, Dept. 4830 (2 copies) C. Martin, Dept. 4820 (2 copies) Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc. Marshall Space Flight Center Bldg. 4481, Room 58 Huntsville, Alabama 35812 Attn: J. A. Tobias (40 copies) Greumsan Aircraft Engineering Corp. Apollo Space Program Office Bethpage, Long Island, N. Y. 11714 Attn: Jack Small (3 copies) International Business System Design, Dept. 150 Sparkman Dr. NW Huntsville, Alabama Attn: R. E. Poupard Martin Company Space Systems Division Balitmore, Maryland Attn: W. P. Sommers Hachine 229 35808 (2 copies) Chrysler Corporation Space Division Michoud Operations Dept. 2712, Bldg. 350 P.O. Box 29200 New Orleans, La. 70129 Attn: Mr. Leroy Smith (5 copies)

(AFSC) Ohio 45433

Ohio

Research Laboratory D. C. 20390 2027 (2 copies)

Chief of Naval Research Department of Navy Washington, D. C. 20390 Attn: Code 463 Chief, Bureau of Neapons Department of Navy Washington, D. C. 20390 I Cpy to RESI, I Cpy to SP, 1Cpy to AD3, 1Cpy to REW3 Commander U. S. Naval Point Mugu,

Air Missile California (3

Test 93041

Center

AMSMI-RBLD; RSIC Bldg. 4484 Redstone Arsenal,

copies)

Alabama Motors Corporation

AC Spark Plug Division, General Attn: Hr. Martin Caserio Vice President - General Hanager Flint, Michigan 48556 Aerospace Corporation 2400 East E1Segundo E1 Segundn, California Attn: D. C. Bakeman Aerospace Corporation Reiiab1ity Dept. P, O. Box 95085 Los Angeles, California Attn: Don Herzstein Bellcomm, Inc. 1100 Seventeenth St. N.W. Washington, D. C. 20036 Attn: Miss Scott, Librarian The Boeing P. O. Box Company 1680

21203

90245

North American Aviation Space & Information Division 12214 S. Lake_ood Blvd. DoWney, California 902AI Attn: A. Shimizu (2 copies) W.F. Parker (1 copy) Radio Corporation of America Defense Electronic products Data Systems Division 8500 Balboa Blvd. Van Nuys, California 91406 Rocketdyne 6633 Canoga Avenue Canoga Park, California ACtn: O. I. Thorsen T. L. Johnson

Systems

90045

(2

91303 copies)

Huntsville, Alabama 35807 Attn: J. E. Scott, Mail Stop AF-67 K. H. Hagenau, Mail Stop AF-67 The Boeing P. O. Box New Orleans, Attn: R. S. T. Company 29100 Louisiana 70129 H. Nelson, Rail Stop LA-42 (3 Johnson, Mail Stop LP-36 M. Davldson, Mail Stop LS-55

copies)