GDC-66-042

LITTLE II TEST JOE LAUNCH VEHICLE NASA PROJECT APOLLO FINAL REPORT

VOLUME II TECHNICAL SUMMARY

MAY1966
,/ jj-"

NASACONTRACT NAS-9-492

Prepared CONVAIR DIVISION

By DYNAMICS

OF GENERAL For

National

Aeronautics Manned

and Space Spacecraft Texas

Administration Center

Houston,

FOREWORD

The and the the The

Little

Joe II Program, by National Center was, vehicle report and the Division program

a part

of the Apollo and

Spacecraft was with

Program awarded on the 17 launch to May of

identified Convair The last

Aeronautics as Contract in essence, on 20 January is to describe principles report of the The Dynamics

Space

Administration,

Manned 1962.

Spacecraft

NAS 9-492, Corporation 1966. the vehicles employed is issued of the completed

of General

scheduled of this tests

purpose of the the

evolved, volumes

the the to the

results program simplify managerial II contains

to accomplish in two program; I contains portions.

requirements. presentation and the other design,

material. aspects and launch

Volume operations

nontechnical technical

Volume

_j Milton Program NASAA. Silveira, L. J. II, Convair General Division Dynamics of

II,

Manager MSC

at,

he

INTRODUCTION

The sign, Module. gram. Flight Subsequent hardware, program. The this porting end sections erences t o flight

primary test This the

purpose provide launch volume

of the Little support escape describes for the and system

Joe for

II program suborbital the Apollo aspects

was to deboosters Command of the pro-

fabricate,

launch

technical

performance sections

of the outline

launch services

vehicles and required

is

presented

first. of the this

the development

description to accomplish

o p e r a t i o n s and

bibliography material wherein appear

lists

publications in those and a reference is

pertinent sections list keyed has to

to the wherein been the

material added

in supto the

volume. of its

In addition, is extensive, section, specific directly respective

specific text.

In those ref-

supporting in the text.

material

is not extensive,

ooo 111

VOLUME

II

CONTENTS

Page I. FLIGHT A. B. C. E. F. PERFORMANCE ........ 12-50-1 12-50-2 12-51-1 12-51-2 12-51-3 (QTV) (Mission (Mission (Mission (Mission A-001) A-002) A-003) A-004) CRITERIA 2-1 2-1 Design Criteria 2-8 2-11 2-19 Control 2-26 2-34 2-37 and i-i 1-2 1-13 1-18 1-26 1-33

Summary Vehicle Vehicle Vehicle Vehicle

D. Vehicle

2. TECHNICAL A. C. D. E. F. G. Scope Structural Dynamics.

ANALYSIS

AND DESIGN

B. Aerodynamics

Thermodynamics Stability Design Section Environment 2 References SYSTEMS .... .

3. VEHICLE
Ao

General Structure

3-1 3-3 3-11 3-20 3-49 3-53 3-55 3-64 3-69

B. C. E. F. G. I.

Pr opu Is ion D. Attitude Control Electrical System Radar Beacon Systems Instrumentation Instrumentation SUPPORT 36 Test ..... Facility (CSTF). (GSE)

Command H. Airborne Landline

4. LAUNCH

A. Launch Complex B. Launcher ....... C. Control D. Ground System Support

4-1 4-5 4-8 4-8

Equipment

CONTENTS

(CONTINUED)
Page

5. LAUNCH
Ao

OPERAT_NS 5-1 5-3 Acceptance Test. Checkout Operations. Station Assist Testing 5-3 5-4 5-15 5-18 5-19 5-21 5-26 5-26 5-33 5-33

Organization.

B. Planning C. Predelivery D. Assembly. E. Functional F. Fin Checkout G. Vehicle H. Integrated I. Telemetry

J. Recovery . K. Refurbishment L. Material 6. RELIABILITY A. General Plan. Analysis and Control Burn-In Program Limited Summary. Stress Testing Summary Support

6-1 6-1 6-2 6-3 6-4 6-4

B. Reliability C. Failure D. Functional E. F. Component Supplier

RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations CONCLUSIONS Conclusions BIBLIOGRAPHY Bibliography . 9-1 8-1 7-1

vi

VOLUME

II

ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure
1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 1-7 1-8 1-9 1-10 Little Joe II/Apollo Abort Flight Test

Title Program Regions. Summary Mission Objectives . 1-3 1-5 1-6 1-7 1-8 12-50 Without Vs. Destruct Dynamic QTV Pressure Mission - With 1-14 Thrust Mission Mission (A-001) 12-51-1 Mission (A-002) Termination/Spacecraft A-001 A-001 Mach for Number Vs. Dynamic A-002 Pressure ...... BP-23. Pressure. 12-51-1/Apollo 1-23 and Yaw ..... - Time History of Angular Velocities, 1-25 Attitude Vs. Time for Mission 1-24 Abort 1-15 1-17 1-18 1-19 1-21 1-22 1-9 1-10 1-11 1-12

LJ-H/Apollo Launch Launch Little Launch QTV Vehicle Pitch, Apollo Vehicle Vehicle Data Joe

Configuration Digest ......

II Trajectory - Convair Profile

Summary Model

Vehicle Mission 12-50-1 Yaw,

- Trajectory Mach Attitude, BP-12

(QTV)

Number Vehicle Test

and Roll A-001

12-50-1

Mission 12-50-2

Vehicle

Configuration

1-11

Pre-Launch Sequence

Through - BP-12 of Apollo 12-50-2 Vehicle of Apollo 12-51-1

1-12 1-13 1-14 1-15 1-16 1-17

Profile Vehicle Launch Profile Vehicle Axial BP-23

Apollo

Mission

A-002 Mach Vs. ......

- Vehicle Number Vs.

12-51-1/Apollo Dynamic for Vehicle

Force

Coefficient

Mach

Number

1-18

Launch A-002

Vehicle .

Pitch,

Roll, .

1-19

Vehicle Elevon

12-51-1/Apollo Deflection,

BP-23 and Hydraulic

Pressure

vii

ILLUSTRATIONS

(CONTINUED)

F re
1-20 1-21 Launch Sequence Vehicle 12-51-2Events for and

Title Mission Mission A-003. A-003 Profile - Vehicle 1-28 Mach Apollo Vs. Range for Number Mission Time Vs. A-003. During Mission Mission A-003 A-003. Dynamic Pressure 1-30 1-31 1-31 1-32 1-34 1-36 A-004 Boundary Abort Mach 1-38 Number Yaw Attitude Vs. Time, Apollo 1-40 Configurations Tunnel Tunnel Model Model - LJ-II/Apollo Installation - 7 Foot X 10 Foot, 300 MPH Wind 2-5 BP Test BP Test SC Test Schedule Schedule Schedule - 8 Foot LRC - LRC Transonic Plan Plan Pressure Wind Wind Tunnel. Tunnel Tunnel 2-5 2-6 Boilerplate Vehicle .2-2 .2-3 2-4 1-39 1-37 1-27

of Major

12-51-2/Apollo 1-22 1-23 1-24 1-25 1-26 1-27 1-28 1-29 Vehicle Altitude Vehicle Altitude Test Apollo Sequence Vehicle Number 1-30 1-31 Axial Launch Mission 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 Little 12-51-2 Vs.

BP- 22 (A-003) for

Time

12-51-2 Plotted

Attitudes Against

for Apollo Apollo

Vehicle Mission

Configuration A-004 RTDS

Mission B

A-004

Plotboard Apollo

of Major 12-51-3 Vs.

Events, (A-004)

Mission Tumbling .

Power-On Pressure Vs. Roll, Mach and

Dynamic Coefficient Pitch,

Force

Vehicle A-004. Joe

II Design Wind Wind

0. 030 Scale LJ-II/Apollo LJ-II/Apollo Tunnel LJ-II/Apollo LJ-II/Apollo LJ-II/Apollo (Low Leg)

BP Test

Schedules

2-5 2-6 2-7

Unitary Unitary

2-8 2-9 2-10 2-11

0. 030 Scale LJ-II/LEM Design Stress Winds

Wind Shroud for

Tunnel Test Little Testing

Model Schedule Joe II

- LJ-II/LEM - 8 Foot

Shroud Transonic Pressure Tunnel 2-7 .2-9

Analysis

of 1/10

Scale

Model

Thrust

Bulkhead

.2-10

viii

ILLUSTRATIONS

(CONTINUED)

Figure 2-12 Structural Structural 2-13 2-14 2-15 2-16 2-17 2-18 Vibration Acoustic Fixed Fixed LJ-II Fin Fin Load Test Test Test Test of Vehicle

Title 12-51 Attitude Control Fin in Convair

Page

Laboratory. Levels Levels Envelope Vibration Fin Test Ground Fin Models) Mission ...... E ..... - 12-51 F Version E Setup Vibration Test Flutter Setup Boundaries (Using

2-10 2-12 2-13 2-14 2-15 2-16

Flutter Ground

Attitude

Control Controllable Test

Cantilevered Ground

Calculated

Vibration

2-17 2-19 2-20 2-21 2-22 2-23 2-25 LJ-H/Apollo 2-27 2-28 2-29 ...... Response Setup for Aerodynamic Control Subsystem 2-32 2-29 2-31

2-19 2-20 2-21 2-22 2-23 2-24 2-25 2-26 2-27 2-28 2-29 2-30

Aerodynamic Rocket Base Base LJ-II Exhaust Heat

HeatingInteraction - Mission Protection Base Edge for

Flux

Thermal (12-50)

Installation - Mission . and Dynamic .....

Heating Temperature

Fin Trailing Axis Block Block Control System Diagram Diagram

Orientation - Vehicle - Autopilot Simulation Frequency Fin in Test

Motion,

Simulation

Subsystem Filter

Combination Attitude Checkout CW and trol

Control ....... CCW Test

2-31

Assembly

(One Control

Fin

Set)

in Prototype - H20 2 Fueling

Reaction in Test

ConCell . 2-33 . 2-35 2-36 3-2

Subsystem for

of Attitude Design

System Joe ....... II

2-32 2-33 3-1 3-2

Environment Wind Launch Launch Profile Vehicle Vehicle

of Little

- Gust

Spectrum

Configuration Structural

Summary Arrangement, Fixed Fin (version 12-50)

3-4

ix

ILLUSTRATIONS

(CONTINUED)

Figure 3-3 Launch 12-51) 3-4 3-5 3-6 3-7 3-8 3-9 3-10 3-11 3-12 3-13 3-14 3-15 3-16 3-17 3-18 3-19 3-20 3-21 3-22 3-23 3-24 3-25 3-26 3-27 3-28 Structural Design Details Vehicle Structural

Title

Arrangement,

Controllable

Fin

(Version 3-5 3-7 3-8 3-9 3-9 3-10 3-12 3-13 3-14

L J-If/Apollo Fin Layout Typical Typical Motor

Interface

Structure.

Short-Column Long-Column Configuration Details

Failed Failed - View

Specimen Specimen Looking Up

Algol Motor Algol Thrust Recruit Recruit Block Block Launch Recruit

Motor Thrust Diagram Diagram,

Details

3-15 3-16

- Ignition System Two-Stage Timer

- Single Stage

3-17 3-18 3-19 3-21 3-22 3-23 3-24 3-25 3-26 3-28 3-29 3-30 3-34 3-34 3-36

Ignition System

Sequence

- Internal Assembly

Initiation .

Attitude Control Block Diagram - Autopilot Diagram Subsystem Subsystem .

Autopilot

Command Control

Aerodynamic Reaction Blockhouse RCS

Control

Subsystem - Attitude Control System System Parameters

Console

Parameters

Attitude Control Logic Logic and

Control

Amplifier Amplifier System Oven ....... Assembly

and Control Control

Reaction

ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 3-29 3-30 3-31 3-32 3-33 3-34 3-35 3-36 3-37 3-38 3-39 3-40 3-41 3-42 3-43 3-44 3-45 3-46 3-47 3-48 3-49 3-50 4-1 4-2 4-3
Actuator Actuator Attitude Autopilot Rate Attitude X-Ray Power Expendable Skirt . Expendable and Launcher Vehicle Block Block Thrust Charges Radio Block Block Gyro Gyro of Failed Distribution Harness and Vehicle Package Resistor Assembly Shaft Control Vibration Scoring Fin Test Test Setup Setup Title

(CONTINUED)

3-39 3-40 3-41 3-42 3-44 3-45 3-47 3-50 Grounding Connections at Vehicle 3-51

Harnesses

and

Vehicle

Grounding

Connections

Vehicle 3-52

Battery Diagram Diagram Termination . Receiver Diagram Diagram

Summary - Radar - RF

. Beacon System System Test Module After Detonation of Explosive (All Parts GFE) .

3-54 3-54 3-57

Command System

3-58 AN/DRW-11 - Range Safety System . 3-60 3-62 3-65 3-67 3-68 - Landline Instrumentation 3-70 3-71 3-72 4-2 Looking East 4-2 4-3

- Airborne

Instrumentation

Airborne

Measurements

Parameters. Block Diagram

Landline Real Time

Recorded

Measurements Measurements .

Monitoring Under

Launch Cable Launch

Pad Trench

Construction

Interior Details - View

Complex

xi

ILLUSTRATIONS

(CONTINUED)

Figure 4-4 4-5 4-6 4-7 4-8 Vehicle Launcher Launcher Launcher Assembly 12-60-1 Loaded Building Assembled on Trailers

Title 4-4 Pad at WSMR 4-6 .4-7 4-9 Azimuth Indicator by Use of Rail Targets and 4-11 Support Arms and Umbilical . 4-11 4-12 4-13 Retract Systems - Schematic 4-14 4-15 Launcher Missions Mast A-003 and A-004 Umbilical Retracting Mechanism 4-17 System Test Facility at CSTF . Measurements 4-17 4-18 4-18 4-19 4-20 4-22 Configuration Configuration. 4-23 4-24 4-24 in Pneumatic Trailer 4-25 4-26 Cart Test Manifold, and Fin Filter Units 4-27 4-28 4-16

on Launch for Shipment

to WSMR

Positioning

Calibrating Launcher Remote Controller Console Payload Support Support Parameters Test Setup, Controls Umbilical Arms Arms for

4-9 4-10 4-11 4-12 4-13 4-14 4-15

Mechanisms .

Mechanism and Umbilical

Spacecraft Test Control Fin Test Fin Test

4-16 4-17 4-18 4-19 4-20 4-21 4-22 4-23 4-24 4-25 4-26 4-27 4-28

Equipment Console Stand

Fin Test Blockhouse Equipment Air Air

Consoles. Racks . - Original - Final Trailer

Conditioning Conditioning Peroxide Drying Trailer Corps Cart,

Hydrogen Vacuum Pneumatic Ordnance Rucker's

Equipment . Hydraulic Hydraulic

xii

ILLUSTRATIONS
F igu re 4-29 4-30 4-31 4-32 5-1 5-2 5-3 5-4 5-5 5-6 5-7 5-8 5-9 5-10 5-11 5-12 5-13 5-14 5-15 5-16 5-17 Environmental Sling Four Configuration Fins on Work Vehicle Operations Arriving Vehicle Vehicle Fin from Tent for for Title RCS Assembly Handling Vehicle

(CONTINUED)

Page and Test 4-29 4-30 4-30

Body

Stand Conditioned Management Air Cover Responsibility

Checking Launch Vehicle Removing Separating Removing Algol

4-32 5-2 5-4

at WSMR. Body from Trailer from Afterbody After Mating Check

5-5 5-6 5-7

Forebody Van and

Motor

with Igniter and

Nozzle in Algol Installing ....... Installing for

T/C .

Leadout

Installed

5-7 5-8

Installing Transferring Motor

Motor

Afterbody

5-9 5-10

Installation and Fin

Positioning Positioning Small Attitude Attitude Rate

Forebody. .... Bench Aerosmith Rotary-Tilt Rate Table Scoresby Table ...... . Table

5-13 5-14 5-16 5-16 5-17 5-17 5-22 Equipment Used for LJ-II 12-51 5-24

Installation Checkout

Components Gyro Gyro

Checkout Checkout

on Ideal on P-W

Gyro

Checkout Operations and Launch

on Genisco Procedures Control

Integrated Checkout Operations

System

5-18 5-19 5-20 5-21 5-22

Blockhouse Trailer Service Monitoring Receiving

Operations Complex Area Equipment Antenna - Manually Tracked

5-25 5-27 5-27 5-28 5-28

xiii

ILLUSTRATIONS

(CONTINUED}

Figure 5-23 5-24 5-25 5-26 5-27 5-28 5-29 5-30 Recording Data Vehicle Vehicle Vehicle Postlaunch Launcher Launcher Environment 5-31 5-32 6-1 6-2 6-3 Property Parts Storage Storage at WSMR Rack Rack After After Fins Impact. Impact. After

Title

Page 5-29 5-29 5-31 5-32

Acquisition 12-50-1 12-50-2 12-51-1

Impact

5-32 5-34

Examination Structure Elevation After Jack

of Launcher Exposure Boot and to Lift-Off Wiring After Environment Exposure to Lift-Off

5-35

5-36 5-37 5-37 . Made During Program 6-2 6-4 6-5

at WSMR. Failure Summary Tests

Component Results Summary

of All Component of Failures

xiv

I FLIGHT

PERFORMANCE

FLIGHT

PERFORMANCE

A.

SUMMARY Of the five launches the of Little tests. (LEV) satisfied acceptable the need. The A-001 Joe II in the Apollo program, and served The this were the 1-2 the first to boost objectives 1-1. was was the designed for the Apollo of the case, more last

to demonstrate Apollo four these either than launch-escape missions, objectives the one The maneuver sometimes Mach which point test severe fourth of the results test

flightworthiness

of the remaining through directly

launch four of test A-004,

vehicle launches conditions. are or the given

its suitability

launch-escape vehicle

to a variety

designated were were satisfied intent critical

in Figure

In general, from

and explicitly.

Where composite no tests

not the

as obtained

of results repeated.

As a consequence, of tests Saturn - are was launch depicted

general in the referred

of the

ensemble of the windows

to perform corridor. in Figure

launch-escape regions as functions of at third the abort

regions

These

to as test

number and dynamic pressure. each abort was achieved. For - or its occurred than launch LEV The test locus, planned, failed turned this in the hence to reach launch for case of the the somewhat outside

Displayed for comparison the first two launches and first launch however, of the mission. is summarized test mission WSMR figures detailed launch in Figure descriptions and results. Planned part vehicle however, - was the the within test structural window; the region;

is the test point the fifth, the test the window. were Only automatic design. The conditions

more

proving the test into each both at the were above section

adequacy

successful

a productive launch the

configuration illustrating is presented profile of 4036 reports flight

vehicle total of each included. from level. most if more the results.

in Figure and the missions and Little from Little

1-3. Joe

In II, the

addition, less of the Little results reports. Figure launch trajectory

a figure mission Joe

mission

payload,

beginning is also accomplished mean were sea

discussion. Launch

An illustration utilizing Joe Complex 36 (LC-36) II flight

accomplished vehicle feet

All five

II launch

at an altitude

The

discussed These 1-4, conditions, parameters

in this

for the employing

extracted vehicle,

postlaunch is desired. the pertinent achieved

should events and events

be consulted and general

information versus 1-5. of the five

a digest

of the

missions are

summarizes

summarized section contain

Paragraphs objectives,

B through configurations,

F of this events,

missions:

performance

1-1

B.

VEHICLE 12-50-1
MISSION The first and was SUMMARY launch

(QTV)

vehicle, escape

stabilized system Spacecraft; 1963, The

by fixed (LES) see purpose Figure

fins, 1-6. test

was

equipped the

with

a dummy shape, Test to the the

pay-

load weight

and

an inert

launch

to simulate

aerodynamic Qualification months prior to demonstrate

cg of an Apollo launched availability.

This seven was

Vehicle first capa-

(QTV) Apollo

on 28 August

approximately of the

Spacecraft

bility of the launch A-001; see Figure Flight Convair TEST The achieve Algol eration during seconds. pellant lift-off than passed test and planned, through region; and Report, Report

vehicle to adequately perform the launch 1-1. A complete report on this mission Project Apollo, Little Joe 1963. II Qualification 28 October

phase of Apollo Mission is given in Launch Vehicle Test Vehicle 12-50-1,

NASA

GD/C-63-193A,

DESCRIPTION vehicle was

AND RESULTS at an elevation in the the first angle of 82 48', of the which was required The axial one accelthrust poundsproat vehicle A-001 region. to

launched test

the and web grain

desired Recruit

trajectory motors 105,000 was was the flight. test vehicle in the also 5g for was

presence 1-1/2

existing providing of flight. impulse than The

winds. a high Average predicted.

six

rocket time

ignited pounds, less The than flight profile

as planned, seconds with 6.6% predicted. path presented a number illustration of meeting of the a total less

of approximately burning The total

Algol Algol stable but the the

of 4,127,000 was lower

impulse

approximately

temperature throughout as shown the 1) launch

vehicle a slightly

trajectory flight

mission window.

(Figure the fixed planned fins

1-7), Apollo in the

planned

Among

of objectives,

demonstrated:

capability characteristics

Mission

2) flutter-free

transonic

the for

The only test objective not achieved WSMR command destruct subsystem this mission, as later was to an apogee in Figure Trajectory 1-7. - The are Mach trajectory for in Figure (M) vs. selected Vehicle 1-5 other adapted than for to test the its thrust feet

was the Algol in the vehicle. capability termination for (msl) launch

motor The future

thrust system range Algol The The

termination via was not required safety test motor mission requirements vehicle burnout. profile is con-

and also tinued Impact shown

subsystem. after point.

of approximately 28,400

27,600 from

feet the

approximately

for this together

qualification Mission flight (q) curve with the

test

vehicle

was Planned Figure

the 1-8
q

same mission

as initially events the

planned given

12-50-2 dynamic

on Apollo pressure

A-001. results. in the

illustrates

number

test

region.

It is significant that time. This indicated as by using sure can to a more a real-time rapid be attributed

the flight conditions that a successful display partly of the of M vs. to the base vehicle;

were in the M-q test window abort could be made by timer q. drag see The higher-than-expected lower 1-9, than curve predicted a. being Figure

at the predicted control, as well dynamic and prespartly

pitch-over

1-2

I
w _0_ w

o==

<

>
_o

_g
0

_<_

(.

_._

0 0

_ =<
_z

o_

.2
-_ o _ << _o r/l

=o_g_ _Z
0 _00

4
bdO 0
m L > L_J x_ :I:P}'-FLL <;[U]

Z_-C_m__ Or")--

,,=, _,,=,

=,
(..)

_< _<_
o_ z_ _z _ L_I (.._

_,8'-

I.->

(%1

,%0 o_.; _
0

L_J

F--z

,_
_z _ F--F--

<
<PP-.'gO

_oz I_LLI
_J :lz _z_ I-- Z

_u_m 3

_o_

-_

-_

i . W_

,4
i uJ

>

_Z_z _ z _ 0 _

uJ (n

o Lq p_g o_.
tOO

O_Lu-O_-L,j i-Q_< >.UJ l_-J

_
_0

I ,el

o_O

Cxl ::1_

_,m _o_ _

_ !_

_-e _-_ oX_

C__. _z _ w _,
_0 _0_ zz_ __Uz_ _ Z r_ UA _I.L 0 C_ I-_ --I <f _ 'J) _X_ _ (/) Ld I.LI 7"I_ ..J _'(,,9 > 0 Ld<[ lad ._1F-I'-F" m

o_

_o _z_

-=_

-_o

p.- (.3

_N_
o

o> ,_" _o_=

U.l,-

,,=, ,,=,
-n _-

--to-

_oo_

o uJ

Z_

_o

ul_> _z z_

__o < _ _=

<_ _..) ____ ,:_

u') oz

o_

bJ_
E_(.)

NZ _c

>-

__. _>
> raw <.J p-

_z p-

>-

o>_,
I--- i-.0_ w ouJ ILl C:

LLI_-_-.)Z ZI4J UJ> _L:J

z _J _ch_ zk-r_ oouJ >u_c_

_J

z_z_

_<

'

'

0 LL

,.o

CO o -,< o>.

,,,,
--c.) "0

g _ g.W o

h-

>

o
IF-o

._<
->0--

_ ____
I--I-UJO g,

L_ _

...
o

g
_

OOB

=_
_J.J F.- L4j u9 :-.>--

,,1 (.3 z <E 0 IJ.

>" Ih, P-

5N

,,Q.

_z

>

1"4 Z

_<
i,.I-v 0 l.l.J I.I--

,,

C:I O

++P--

N.t

2
0

+
+;/ '_, "-' _\l

O O CO

.-,4

O bl0

p_

g
N I'--

O ,D O o

N :_+,.::",_.+_,/
._/2+++_ i _.4,_>'..,
_l g_
I_

--I I 0"

2Z
\

"/i
"_
Q

v'1 LI.I O:: O_ I

Z >-

X'

q_ f,.-I

.+

'

g
N

O O

a38mnNH:)Vlfll

1-5

APOLLO MISSION

- NUMBER - LAUNCH WEIGHT (LBS)

QTV 57,165 DUMMY CSM MOCKUP LES 24,225

A-DO1 57,930 BP-12 25,335

A-D02 94,331 BP-23 27,692

A-OO3 177,189 BP-22 27,836

A-O04 139,751 SC-OO2

PAYLOAD

- NUMBER - WEIGHT (LBS) - BALLAST (LBS)

23,185
9,361

LAUNCH VEHICLE SYSTEM AIRFRAME

- NUMBER

12-50-1

12-50-2

12-51-1

12-51-2

12-51-3

CONFIGURATION -WEIGHT INC. MOTORS (LBS) - BALLAST (LBS) - FIXED FIN - CONTROLLABLE FIN 6 1 32,941 X 32,595 X X 58,030 8,609 144,309 5,044 101,328 5,867

PROPULSION

- 1ST STAGE RECRUIT - 1ST STAGE ALGOL -2ND STAGE ALGOL PROGRAMMER CAPABILITY FILTER-2ND ORDER FILTER-NOTCH CONTROL CONTROL

ATTITUDE

CONTROL

-PITCH -SIGNAL -SIGNAL

X X X X X S I NGLE X X X X DUAL X DUAL

-PITCH-UP

-REACTION

-AERODYNAMIC

- ELEVON ACTUATOR HYD. SUPPLY RF COMMAND -RANGE -THRUST -PITCH-UP -ABORT ELECTRICAL SAFETY DESTRUCT

X X X X LOCATED IN PAYLOAD 3 24 X X X LOCATED IN PAYLOAD 13 45 X X

TERM & ABORT & ABORT

- PRIMARY - INSTRUMENTATION

INSTRUMENTATION

-RF

TRANSMITTERS

3 66 24 X

2 58 37

1 39 36

- TM MEASUREMENTS - LL MEASUREMENTS RADAR BEACON -LAUNCH -PAYLOAD VEHICLE

C-6062-10

Figure

1-3.

Launch

Vehicle

Configuration

Summary

1-6

O0

m_ _ o ,,,

(.J

_o=_
_ _Jo

,0

(.3 W

i--h-

E_N
W

z_
J

0 en

P-t 0

U_

O_

O+ O0

O0 Z Z

T
IE

_<___g==g

_o_

r/l 0

_I
_" ..0

,3

_w
0 b. -_ (.3

i
;.0

oO_

, o=_,.,,=
0 0

14. 0

Zh-

_z

Z bd

o_

_ o

t_ ILl -J

W -J

I-"I"

bJ nrU b_

_z
0 _ l--_0

o.

b_

0 bJ -rn _t3 (J ILl

o_
<,,,i-e_

o
T
F-

Wl--

___

,-,m_
F-z o e'_

z 0

m "-r U.I I._

l--_ e_Ld O_..-

_d d_
W

: hE=

oo
OU.

0 z

1-7

0 .o** O0 .. _ _ __o _ _

O0

....

_._
i

?z
.

O0

I _A

(J O_

. N

O0 00_ ..0 O. Z ._.._..

_J

O0

o o_ S(J

__

__o_

{d

0 O0 D..

O0 _00_

z
Z 0 (.9 uJ ,y p0 4-) 0 O_

-J o_0_ _0 I.iJ Z 0 Z 0

O0 0 _0_ ....

z_bJ Z 0 Z O0 0 Z ._._ _0_0 Or,, _'- I.U I--Z

E_

S-_,z
0_0_ .,. O.

_J

-J

_o

LO Z 0 Z

_'

oZ
Z _ Z 0 Z

,_

LO..O

I UJ'r X

Of

,or--

&
Ln Z .J O. Z 0 Z _ Z 0 Z _0 0 _0 ....0_ _0_

_.J L_J_ Z tLbJ

_tn

On

CJ

UJ

b.

o-.0-

NEo
_ _lid

__

_>-o_ _=_ _
-J

--_
__ dN-

_.J,_

__ _
A3-1

CD Z

O0 Z(J

I _lOi]

i-8

w e,a ,-I I,--

r,.) ..a

.,.:_,_ _/'
I
x 4t i

-g
>,
e,l

r,.)
I e_

_>

Z_ .-I _rt

i
,,o o o

'4' _

o,

_.-i

1-9

IJ

000I

- 39NVa

SS0_3

{
/ / /

/
f
f

O O

f r_

f /

U3 et

o o

,O

I--" h 0 0 0 p I laJ Z

/ I I I
0

O_

\ \ \ \ \

r_

D_

_>

\
\ \
I

,3 _=__ _,_,
i I

u_

++On.-

I
,,0 _ _ 03

I
CO eq _1" 0 .,O Oa

(ISm) 1_-I 000I

- 3(]131117V

1-10

1.1

35

REGION
r.....

7 I

I
I I
I PREDICTED I NOMINAL [TEST I POINT I _ 28.3 SEC

I
I

I I
L .....

26.1

SEC

400

_00

600
C-6062-55

7OO

DYNAMIC PRESSURE,

q - LBS/FT 2

Figure

1-8.

Vehicle

12-50-1

(QTV)

Mach

Number

Vs.

Dynamic

Pressure

i-ii

80 _

60

.._..._ -, 5o-1TEST ,N W,NDOW 'I "_'X_

I PREDICTED

U') IaJ laJ

40
20

hJ ! IJJ

\ ACTUAL /

I-I-I'-.-

-r (J I--

-20

-4O

\
"%
0 10 2O 30 40 50 60 70 80 - SECONDS 90 1;O110 ELAPSED TIME FROM LIFT-OFF (a) PITCH ATTITUDE

-60

-8O

t._ a F.-

>.

,,-_

o/
-100

I I I I I

NOTE:

ROLL ATTITUDE & SPACECRAFT ABORT POINT (*) FROM MISSION A-O01 SHOWN FOR COMPARISON-OF RESULTS BETWEEN THE TWO FIXED FIN VEHICLES FLOWN.

ILl

F-

-200

_W

-300
OUJ n,t-_

12-50-2 -400

(MISSION

A-O01)

-5OO 10 20 30 40 ELAPSED 50 60 70 80 - SECONDS 90 100 TIME FROM LIFT-OFF

1
]tO
C-6062-56

(b) YAW AND ROLL ATTITUDE

Figure

1-9.

Pitch,

Yaw,

and Roll

Attitude,

Vehicle

12-50-1

QTV

Mission

1-12

The test

vehicle the

rolled time

90 to the as the histories result

left of roll

(counterclockwise) thrust Yaw and yaw.

by the asymmetry. varied

time

it reached Figure five degrees 1-9,

the curve at

region,

probably

of fin and/or

b, illustrates "test" time. Command properly the case. destruct that split were the the cluded destruct destruct in the

only

Destruct block

Subsystem

- The to the

command However, off the separated into from the

electronic the the

portion

of the seconds connections

system to detonate inserted motor at the operations This preto needed

functioned block

in response pyrotechnic analysis had to insert portion case. - Base and and been

ground

command shaped that

at T + 32.4 primacord charges RDX primacord block the

boosters. to set tests

did not ignite

on the Algol grains and trim collets. train

Post-flight connections required

indicated

apparently the primacord of system

by the flexing destruct

pyrotechnic motor Loads

propagating

ignition

Algol

Structure data for similar dynamic regardless Thermal in the for equipment calorimeter indicated C.

pressures indicated gave

were a base on the

generally drag the

consistent pounds pressure vehicle essentially same

with

experimental readings,

bodies, varied

of 35,100 of the were base

at maximum

pressure. of their

All pick-ups locations

essentially surface

base. constant, occurred. was except Base

Environment compartment, confirmed seven-Recruit was data

- Internal where the

temperatures a 30F that is,

air-temperature insulation However,

drop

analysis; motor

not necessary

a one-Algol,

configuration. as predicted.

fin temperatures

fin insulation 12-50-2 SUMMARY A-001

necessary, A-001)

VEHICLE MISSION The

(MISSION

Mission

test

vehicle launch to the

(Figure vehicle high 1-11.

1-10) successfully

was

launched carried region. first

on 13 May 1964. the BP-12 There, to the Apollo thrust vehicle. Apollo the launch

This Space-

second craft escape subsystem, the istics

fixed-fin-stabilized in a ballistic vehicle abort trajectory was Apollo A-001 launch dynamic Joe mission

q transonic radio BP-12 the (LEV)

test was the

initiated in Figure lunar was escape

by a ground program

command from

termination in The characterspeed was to achieved.

as illustrated Project of Mission Apollo and high the of this

spacecraft

overall of the

to be tested during

a launch

purpose conditions demonstrate The A-001

to determine vehicle

aerodynamic second-order Both Report 1964

and operational at transonic test purposes for (LJ-II Apollo 12-50-2). objectives were

an abort

pressure. H - spacecraft are contained

One of the

Little

compatibility. in Postlaunch 28 May

details

Mission

(BP-12),

NASA Report

MSC-R-A-64-1,

1-13

"--LAUNCH-ESCAPE SUBSYSTEM

BOILERPLATE COMMAND MODULE

1032.1"

158.6" "'--STA, 0.00 154" ----BOILERPLATE SERVICE MODULE

I]

F]

"'---" LITTLE LAUNCH 399 33"

JOE II VEHICLE

NOTE: SEE FIG. 1-6 FOR 12-50-2 AIRFRAME DETAILS

C-6002-57

Figure

i-i0.

Apollo With

Mission Vehicle 12-

A-001 502

BP-12

Test

Vehicle

Configuration

1-14

----4
1-15

TEST The and thrust within net greater pounds tion Real-time Officer onds). explosion module were spacecraft

DESCRIPTION launcher was

AND positioned 340,000 that was Thrust the

RESULTS to set pounds ignited was thrust experienced. increased abort via motor vehicle the was test vehicle at an elevation SE surface by one by the motor just the Algol The single thrust prior NASA motor of the and Algol. was to the were Flight thrust. and caused abort ignited "hot the from angle winds. six were of 81 19' The Recruit expended a At lift-off 5 to 7 percent 105,000 terminaat the secresulting service " which initiated escape thrust Dynamics (T + 28.4 The the lines, launch rated ! J I

346 20'

in azimuth motors seconds; expected. When System the of 5 g's

to compensate were

for predominantly provided provided The with 122,000 test board casing forebody Algol altitude, pounds conditions station, termination to terminate and severing subsystem's line" simultaneously.

of approximately two

solid-propellant acceleration than

Recruits

thereafter,

as expected, of M-q

(at 6 seconds) Data initiated This destroyed pressure wrapped abort. around

to approximately optimum signal Algol to fail. of the launch (RTDS) the the plotting

command.

displayed

abort

the thrust

command

ruptured

afterbody,

bulkhead Severance

As planned, termination "hot

the thrust

primacord,

properly

simultaneously

and pitch control motors and separated on the launch vehicle; see Figure 1-12 Mission A-001 profile. A-001 flight first-order was of Mission was the

the command module from the service module for the resulting sequence of events, in the

All Mission Apollo phase spacecraft and the

objectives satisfactorily A-001 similar made actual

were

satisfied. proven during

The

launch the

vehicle ground

and testing

compatibility phase

both

operations. to that dynamic of the QTV, simulate and vehicle, on the thrust) thrust 1964 Report (LJ-II rather taken predicted have pressure allowing the Mach the QTV. and Saturn number for minor trajecexceeded was in flight is that

Trajectory changes tory. in the Again,

- The test as with

trajectory (Figure QTV, the

window

1-1),

to better For this obtained average Algol 28 May

the predictions; revised to take performance results discussed A-001 the Figure actual and (BP-12), time 1-13).

however, the reasons differ. into account the measurements the nominal in greater was abort three (zero wind, in equal measure, detail seconds been that the to high

drag estimate The disparity value effect. and This Mission Note 1-5 and

between illustrated of abort

predicted wind for

is attributed,

in Postlaunch earlier based abort than would

Apollo 12-50-2).

NASA Report Had the q,

MSC-R-A-64-1, command

(Figure than place

on time,

on a real-time outside the

display of M versus "window." Aerodynamics problems winds by a small 135 degrees during as predicted: thrust CCW

it is certain

- The boost vector (looking

launch the

vehicle roll

encountered The rate the test was

no adverse vehicle was roll base).

loading

or structural to caused probably

phase At abort

of flight.

stable -9 /sec,

and responded was approximately

approximate the

and/or forward

fin misalignment; from missile

attitude

1-16

MAJOR EVENTS

TIME FROM LIFT-OFF, SEC 6 #

1. 2 2.

LIFT-OFF THRUST TERMINATION & ABORT LAUNCH-ESCAPESUBSYSTEM MOTOR BURNOUT & COAST TOWER & FORWARD HEATSHIELD SEPARATION DROGUE PARACHUTE DEPLOYMENT PILOT PARACHUTE DEPLOYMENT MAIN PARACHUTE FULL INFLATION COMMAND MODULE LANDING

0 28.5

<

3.

"c,e

4.

44.0

5.

48.0

6.

116.0

7.

121.0

8.

350.3

C--6062-58

Figure

1-12.

Profile

of Apollo

Mission

A-001

1-17

1.0

0.9

t_ -m z -r L) 25.0 0.8

i SEC 0"700 L 500 DYNAMIC PRESSURE, 600 q (LBS/FT 2) 700 C-,6062-59

Figure

1-13.

Vehicle

12-50-2

(A-001)

Mach

Number

Vs.

Dynamic

Pressure

D.

VEHICLE MISSION

12-51-1 SUMMARY

(MISSION

A-002)

Launch Vehicle 12-51-1, with the Apollo BP-23 on 8 December 1964.

spacecraft payload, was launched satisfactory and (EDS)

The first-order test objective was to demonstrate

Apollo launch escape vehicle (LEV) performance

utilizingthe canard subsystem detection subsystem

boost protective cover, and to verify the abort capability in the maximum pressure region with conditions approximating emergency

dynamic

angle-of-attack limits. A third-order test objective to demonstrate satisfactory performance of the launch vehicle attitudecontrol subsystem was achieved. It was the first of three attitude-controlledlaunch vehicles used in the program. control system programmed The attitude

(ACS) maintained the launch attitude in y&w and roll, and a preupon command from the ground, performed Detection Subsystem a to sinmlate the Saturn Emergency (EDS) anglerelay to

pitch attitude. The ACS,

pitch-up maneuver

of-attack limits at abort initiation. The pitch-up signal activated a time-delay provide an abort signal to the launch escape vehicle (LEV). the arrangement of the complete test vehicle. Figure 1-3 summarizes

Figure 1-14 illustrates the launch (BP-23), NASA

vehicle configuration. Postlaunch Report for Apollo Mission A-002 Report MSC-R-A-65-1, on the mission.

22 January 1965 (LJ-II 12-51-1), provides a complete report

1-18

u_

1-19

TEST

DESCRIPTION

AND

RESULTS

The Mission A-002 test vehicle was positioned to 8402 ' in elevation and 0 in azimuth prior to takeoff. At countdown T - 0 seconds, the ignitioncurrents were simultaneously applied to the four Recruit and two Algol solid-propellant rocket motors. A launch thrust of approximately Recruit rocket motors, the was Recruit displayed Officer later. of the motors on the Responding Shortly sequence - The pressure in Figure the the pitch-up mission q at abort thrust dropped to 206,000 pounds, burned out. down at a rate of 0.52 deg/sec, Real-Time 358,000 pounds, provided by the two Algol and four longitudinal acceleration of 2.8 g's. The as of the (RTDS) via the flight vehicle vehicle When relayed broke plotting was the programmed desired board, radio abort up. was See M-q the to pitch test point Flight 2.1 1-15 for a NASA 0.4 percent below predicted at T + 1.5 seconds attitude System maneuver aboard the over abort launch the at lift-off. produced a maximum The Data

starting

Dynamic seconds). seconds summary

initiated

the pitch-up to a time-delay after abort, of events and

command initiated Figure

(T + 33.6

vehicle, profile. are with

Trajectory 1-16 higher predicted, RTDS sulted shows dynamic shown in a higher computer,

pitch-up

conditions

given the

in Figure to the drag data to near-limit

1-5. being error early.

Figure The less This loads than rewithin the

the comparison

of flight experienced 1-17. than was

performance in flight As a result was

predicted

performance.

is attributed transmitted 2.4 the

of a meteorological seconds LEV

command planned,

subjecting

out failure.

Thus

deemed

to be successful. autopilot (with constant rate pitch elevons to maintain proper test vehicle The vehicle attitude was six-degree roll which mod-

Attitude Control Subsystem programming)

(ACS) - The ACS

provided proper corrective signals to the hydraulic-powered motors the pitch-up maneuver. The pronounced

and fin-mounted reaction control subsystem attitude (Figure 1-18), and perform well controlled from lift-off pitch-up. to

occurred just after lift-off was wholly predictable for launch with the No. 1 RCS ule inactive. This subject is discussed in more In regard to the aerodynamic detail in following paragraphs.

control subsystem, pressure

no instabilities were encountered reached a sufficientlyhigh level.

by the launch vehicle during the overall flight, although limit cycle oscillations of body bending were generated when the dynamic a and b.

The gyros revealed a frequency of about 3.4 cps, as illustrated in Figure 1-19, curves In following this signal, the unexpected oscillationof the hydraulic actuators hinge moment surface (Figures 1-19, curve c) prematurely depleted the hydraulic fluid with accompanying produced less than normal

pressure drop (Figure 1-19, curve d). As a result of the reduced available, and the high q, the pitch-up command

travel. Instead of the predicted 8.3 angle of attack, only 4.3 was achieved at abort initiation. Also, the resultant imbalance in elevon effectiveness among the four quadrants produced the sudden roll and yaw during pitch-up. fere with the LEV abort. These motions did not inter-

1-20

TIME FROM MAJOR EVENTS LIFT-OFF, SEC

1.

LIFT-OFF & PITCH PROGRAMMING PITCH-UP ABORT

2. 3.

33.6 35.7

4. COAST 5. CANARD DEPLOYMENT & TURNAROUND 2 6. JETTISON 7. TOWER 46.6

121.3 123.3

DROGUE PARACHUTE DEPLOYMENT PILOT PARACHUTE DEPLOYMENT MAIN PARACHUTE INFLATION COMMAND MODULE LANDING

8.

160.4

9.

161.3

10.

443.4

10

C-6062-61

Figure

1-15.

Profile

of Apollo

Mission

A-002

- Vehicle

12-51-1/Apolio

BP-23 1-21

2.0

1.8

....

REGION /_]__sj,

I l I
I I L_ I I I
. _

1.6

ABORT _35.7 PITCH-UP

--,.-.,_

3s.ss-)
37.55 1.4 I

PITCH-UP 33.6

I
LU nn

I I
! L ......

II

30 .'

Z -r <C

1.2

/j
1.0
JJ

"2/0__

SIGNIFY TIME FROM LIFT-OFF IN SEC. NUMBERS

0.8

0.6

0.4 iO0 " 600 700 800 900 q - LBS/FT 2 1000 1100
C-6062-62

DYNAMIC PRESSURE,

Figure 1-22

1-16.

Vehicle

12-51-1

(A-002)

Mach

Number

Vs.

Dynamic

Pressure

2.0

DERIVED

FROM

FLIGHT DATA

PERFORMANCE ESTIMATED

1.5

z w (.9 LL LL _J 0 D L_ 0 L_--J

MAXIMUM

/ NOMINAL

1.0

TAIL-OFF

0.5
INIMUM

0.5

1.0 MACH

1.5 NUMBER

2.0

2.5

3.0

C-6062-63

Figure

1-17.

Axial

Force

Coefficient BY- 23

Vs.

Mach

Number

for

Vehicle

12- 51-1/Apollo

In the seconds preset from and check tently the complete on, the

reaction continued The

control data

subsystem until that rate recorded the pitch When

the pitch the thruster,

thrusters acting to operate operation.

fired when the with again During

initially RCS the was

at T - 1.5 turned was off by a forces almost

and timer. fins, the applied

to operate

T + 8 seconds,

aerodynamic recovery

corrected

by T + 4 seconds. cyclic

Attitude

by T + 8 seconds. thrusters to the period. exhibited H202 following a component

programmed

from (600 psi) This

T + 11 seconds systems inadverlate but in was

normal replacement, in Fin as the

a pre-launch occurred

excessive 1, rupturing RCS was the decision

pressure one bladder. not required was made

tanks

operations

Inasmuch

for

vehicle

control the vehicle

was on board only for its qualification, with the Fin 1 RCS inactive. Range the mission. unused abort. Safety Subsystem material - There signal sent aboard,

to launch

was was

no requirement ineffective due

for

destruct

action to expend break-up

during the following

A destruct

at T + 136 seconds,

in an effort to vehicle

pyrotechnic

Structure As separation end 2 psi, of the ultimate,

- The occurred,

launch

vehicle total The

encountered failed of the therefore, strength

no design the the blast failure bulkhead

limit was was

loads estimated

prior

to abort. in the aft

pressure

pressure

bulkhead not unexpected.

service

module.

to be about

in an aft direction;

1-23

LIFT-OFF

& PITCH PROGRAM

INITIATION ,, INITIATION _

OF SPACECRAFT

ABORT (T+35.7

SEC)\ SEC) \

INITIATION(T+O) I

/RCSON' PER,O0\
F -#

OF PITCH-UP

MANEUVER (T +33.6

\\
_ :

\ _ :

85,

_ THRU ABORT

(-9 UJ E3

I I
-I

I I I
I

w" 80

: ! !

"_?__

I-<

,,
I
|

:
I I
"/SEC
:

i
i

-r 75
p-

PITCH PROGRAMM|I G AT 0.52

I
70

I I I I I I I I I I I I
I

65

I I I i I I

10,

0 IM

Ld
D

_
p< _.J _J 0 n,, -5

! I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I !
10 ELAPSED 15 TIME, 20 SEC 25 30

i
i {
i

-10

I I
10,
I

(__ W r_

w"
r-,, pI-I--

I I I I I I I I
0 ,I I

i
o

_:
>-

-5 -I0

I I I
-5 5

35 c-6o62-64

4u

Figure

1-18.

Launch Time

Vehicle for Mission

Pitch, A-002

Ro11, and Yaw

Attitude

Vs.

1-24

SPACECRAFT ABORT INITIATION (+35,70 SEC) LIFT-OFF & INITIATION PITCH PROGRAMMING OF PITCH-UP MANEUVER INITIATION (T+33.6 SEC) \

"=-"1
10
<_UJ _ ,.J QS --JLAJ Or'_ 0

__._RCS

_T.ROUG.

MOTORS OPERATIVE

ABORT
i
:

'
5

I I
I

""

-10

_I0
< LJ (J3

i
i,"

e_ _o
(3_

.'

' I
I

"

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

-..........""........ ,'"'-'" _.-+I .... ' -"..... ....:

+..._I.

=l&ll_

IJlu+

IL=I

lj llllll

LAIUI=+

ilm_

" A/i
A+-

-lO

LIJ

z"
0 Y--

10

J_
_0

2oZ 0 > LJ -J hl

"--_

_--.-- A,,,w.,_,. ^AJ_.n ...... _,

"'U_'" ,v,Ivv
rV _rv v,_ Vv

-10
Z

eY

83o0o
ku tw 0.. CD

"_2000G
<Z ,... a >.'-1-

_Pi000 z_ -4
I.L

-2

10

12

14

16

18 SEC

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

ELAPSED TIME,

c-6o62.-(,5

Figure

1-19.

Vehicle Velocities,

12-51-1/Apollo Elevon

BP-23 Deflection,

- Time and

History

of Angular Pressure 1-25

Hydraulic

Following the bulkheadfailure, the launch vehicle was exposedto an estimated bursting pressure of 10psi; as the strength of the vehicle was estimated to be approximately 5 psi, ultimate, the ensuingvehicle disintegration was considered normal. E. VEHICLE 12-51-2 (MISSIONA-003)
MISSION SUMMARY

The Apollo Mission A-003 test vehicle, consisting of Apollo Boilerplate Spacecraft BP-22 and Launch Vehicle 12-51-2 (Figure 1-20), was launched on 19 May the performance 1965. The

purpose of the test was to demonstrate

of the Apollo launch escape

vehicle (LEV) in the high altituderegion of the Saturn IB and V launch trajectories, approximating the upper limit for the canard subsystems, and to demonstrate the orientation of the LEV to a main-heat-shield-forward attitudeafter abort. The launch configuration is shown in Figure 1-20. As noted in Figure 1-3, new filterswere added

to the control system pitch and yaw channels.

The new filtersblocked the gyro signals pallet.

at the vehicle firstbending frequency, to prevent the signals from feeding into the ACS. Also, the hydraulic fluid supply was doubled by the addition of a hydraulic system Due to a launch vehicle malfunction and subsequent vehicle break-up, an emergency

low-altitude abort was automatically initiated26.3 seconds after lift-off. A satisfactory abort sequence took place, culminating in a successful landing of the command module at T + 302.8 seconds. The abort was initiatedat a roll rate which far exceeded the limit of the Saturn emergency R-65-2, From detection subsystem (EDS). For postlauneh details, Report MSC-A-

refer to Postlaunch Report for Apollo Mission A-003 28 June 1965 (LJ-II 12-51-2).

(BP-22), NASA

coordinated analysis of flightsimulations, preflight data, flightdata and post(ACS) caused a maximum position from Break-up deflecthe

flightresults, itwas concluded that a malfunction in the launch vehicle quadrant IV servo loop portion of the attitudecontrol subsystem tion of fin 4 elevon. The elevon remained seconds after takeoff to vehicle break-up in the hard-over at 26.3 seconds. about 2.5

resulted from

centrifugal forces produced by rolling at nearly one revolution per second. this malfunction (the second-stage craft subsystems is shown LittleJoe II Algol motor their functions. abort events were precluded by vehicle break-up), correctly performed Because

Except for

ignitionand radio command

all other launch vehicle and spaceThe mission profile achieved itwas

in Figure 1-21.

of the sparse instrumentation on the ACS,

not possible to positively identifythe cause of failure. (The elevon position of the Nos. 3 and 4 fins were not instrumented for flight,nor were any portions of their control system servo loops.) A complete report on the subject is given in Postflight InvestiFlight, Convair Report GD/C-65-143, 23 June 1965

gation, Apollo Mission A-003 (LJ-II 12-51-2). TEST DESCRIPTION AND

RESULTS

The Mission A-004 vehicle was launched at an elevation angle of 84 and at an azimuth angle of 356 . The aximuth angle was a deviation of 4 from the nominal North firing direction to avoid impact in the main area of the White Sands National

1-26

_
_ /

/o_ \
_ >
C_ 0 0 I C 0

e,3

I
oo
o _n

I l'--t I

%._,< >
0 C

,_ N
uJ

N _

_o

_-o o-w

_j_

1
I

?=
<3

\
_D

"I, d:,
i /

,_

'!,

._

1-27

%
TIME FROM MAJOR EVENTS LIFT-OFF, SEC

1.
J

LIFT-OFF & PITCH PROGRAMMING ABORT INITIATION CANARD DEPLOYMENT TOWER JETTISON APEX COVER JETTISON DROGUE PARACHUTE DEPLOYMENT PILOT PARACHUTE DEPLOYMENT MAIN PARACHUTE FULL INFLATION COMMAND MODULE LANDING

2. .3. 4. 5. 6.

26.3 37.3 40.4 40.8 42.5

7.

84.8

8.

106.0 8

9.

302.8

Figure

1-21.

Sequence Vehicle

of

Major

Events

and BP-22

Mission

A-003

Profile

12-51-2/Apollo

1-28

Monument. craft, and all fin position

During meters

countdown, fulfilled indicated Surveillance

no holds their of these motors (approximate) streamlined

were

caused

by the following

launch hydraulic did not by the was

vehicle

or spaceconsole any fin drift.

subsystems

specified elevons, meters were Lift-off

functions. until lift-off ignited physical vehicle occurred initiated

All blockhouse reveal signal normal.

pressurization

at T - 8 seconds. The from vehicle the three umbilical

first-stage plugs

Algol at the

properly and the 4-inch

initiated of the launch At about

blockhouse

at T - 0 seconds.

pull-out

rise

2.5 seconds spacecraft between standing escape case all LEV could the

after lift-off, the fin 4 elevon anomaly abort at T + 26.3 seconds. Abort was launch vehicle failure Under the and spacecraft such was was of the (LEV). operated in Figure - The environment module leading that

and caused the premature when the abort "hot line" break-up. the attitude. on the command escape module The launch rocket However, landing, out-

severed the

at vehicle canards forward

effect vehicle systems

of "spin-stabilizing" shield

a circumstance, to a heat

not orient

command correctly, 1-21.

to a satisfactory

as illustrated Trajectory the abort grating pressure altitude The nominal BP-22

high

altitude and

(120,000

foot)

test

point

was

not achieved; (335 /sec) and

however, foot) disinteof

spacecraft vehicle. 1- 23). conditions

demonstrated seconds followed During the the

a successful from limited flight,

emergency a rapidly-rolling the Mach 1-22)

low altitude number as did the versus time

(12,400

at T - 26.3 launch (Figure abort launch generally

recovered predictions

dynamic variation

(Figure

(see

Figures

1-1

and

1-5)

were

reasonably

close

to Saturn

trajectory. Control attitude occurred Subsystem exceeded (ACS) the range - Various of the I, II and deflection control overcome forces large attitude The fact that the in Figure For III. analyses ACS gyros, The of elevon pitch, (RCS) correct produced vehicle the flight angle of its moment No. indicate proper failure roll, was that, control from lift-off IV servo seconds.

Attitude until and control Elevons commands. post-launch rections elevon. creased Roll gyros. when vehicle the could Thus, the roll loop 1, responses 2,

commands

in quadrants in a maximum responded reaction a high excursion, centrifugal

in the 4 at about

quadrant T + 2.5

resulted and Although analysis not, the point beyond is clearly angle 1-25) rate. no longer

3 properly the indicated

to autopilot subsystem the beginning broke 1-24, departure flight probability

and yaw operation. by the

correction These hard-over inseconds. attitude rapidly of the intended at an the cor-

not instrumented,

in any event, roll-rate where

at T + 4 seconds, up the wherein of the path cross-coupling effects yaw path was

continually by T + 26.3 in the diverges 85 , from

to the This roll would

attitudes

45 would illustrated reaches illustrates

introduce

70 . the

deviations

exceeding

control

be possible.

track (Figure above-normal Aerodynamics A-003 65-2,

diminishing

- According Report 1965, LJ-II

to information Mission the axial

in the A-003 force

postlaunch (BP-22), coefficient,

report C A, was

for

Mission MSC-A-Rless

(Postlaunch 28 June

for Apollo 12-51-2)

NASA Report

much

1-29

k I I \x

TEST REGION

f--

I
\ 3.5

oi
\89.0 \

I
I

\
\

\
\

\
\ 3.0

tO O(3

Z -r

1,5

1.0

0.5

/
0 200 400 DYNAMIC 600 PRESSURE, qLBS/FT 2 tOO0 II00 C_2_8

Figure 1-30

1-22.

Vehicle

12-51-2

(A-003)

Mach

Number

Vs.

Dynamic

Pressure

16

ABORT INITIATION (T,+26.5 12 SEC) _. /,

LL 0 0

8,
I hl

pp-,J

4 -_T+2.5 SEC FIN IV AT HARD-OVER POSITION

0 0 8 12 TIME, SEC 16 20 24
C =6062 -6 9

28

Figure

1-23.

Altitude

Vs.

Time

for

Apollo

Mission

A-003

80 GYRO GIMBAL ANGLES DERIVED i FROM BODY

RATES _1

I
I I
, ,

6O t i i
LAJ t_

4O
! ' N/

/
i

i,,,[

,El _'I El
I o i

2O

t i I
I I

L I

i YAwl I , ! .......... _-=........... ............... t.............._ _...... ---_...., ......... ' PROGRA_ PITCH
..;T. _
--''" [ ..............

-20 0

I
2 4 6 8 TIME, IO SEC 12 14 16 C-6062-70 18

Figure

1-24.

Vehicle

12-51-2

Attitudes

Vs.

Time

During

Mission

A-003 1-31

2O PREDICTED ' l 7 TRAJECTORY,.=.DEPLOYMENT,_/ / CAhlARDI 16

J';,
r
/

i/

CM _ LES-._)
TOWER JETTISON

e
biJ. O O
p4 I tlJ

12

A ,,

/x

ABORT (T +26.3

SEC)

I
PILOT PARACHUTE

I
DEPLOYMENT

pp-

_J

/4 Altitude

MALFUNCTION

IN FIN

12

16

20
C-6062-71

TOTAL RANGE- 1000 FT Figure 1- 25. Plotted Against Range for Apollo Mission A-003

than

the

minimum drag the value

estimated envelope of when

at

low abort from

subsonic was flight

Mach initiated. data is

numbers, In view of

but of the

was low

approaching drag at low Hence,

the

estimated speed, the

CA derived C A at the low

questionable be minimized. on the

accuracy.

importance Structure

of this - When strength

Math

number centrifugal

should force

roll-induced upper of external time on the the Algol only was

Algols launch

exceeded vehicle occurred transverse the

the resulted. at

structural The T first + 24.4

of their evidence at which

supports, failure, roll rate

destruction from was reached g's design (on by limit

of the tracking

visible seconds,

film

data, The

335

deg/sec. four g's. loaded motor load was

(centrifugal) upper mined bulkhead. ture was supports part

acceleration were of the The designed launch

motors two

Although motor), attachment 1.5. The

Algol

designed vehicle

for moment

a fully the

an undeterat the Apollo thrust struc-

resulting

reacted

structural all Algol due expected motor

to withstand - First-stage

environmental ignition break-up. signal was was was

conditions. normal; Lift-off transmitted as programmed (4-inch to the vehicle three secondrise) firstAfter burning the the

Propulsion stage occurred stage launch for some ignition 0. 443 motors. vehicle

did

notoccur, after

tovehicle ignition delivered

seconds The total

the

impulse and

approximately the first-stage ground motors

predicted. continued At ignited

break-up and

spacecraft nearly three

abort, expended second-stage

motors impact. was

20 seconds grain

were of the

before Algol

impact by

propellant

in each

1-32

shock-sensitive throwing burning each motor. CONC The vehicle vehicle. severe the this repeat is, point F. ten

ignitors in each motor. and unburned propellant

These motors were observed to ignite violently, within a radius of several hundred feet around

LUSIONS purpose of the objective test the mission was were success A-003 Saturn to obtain was safe to demonstrate but different either following altitude abort, satisfactory abort lower planned. it was The a successful from at a much from Mission abort recovery, V launch those A-004, Apollo from altitude launch the and basis. unnecessary premature, mission; a low altitude escape under of to but that test For

operations This (and test the other) objectives plus attempt Mission to the

to provide

recovery quite

in an emergency

launch

accomplished, fulfilled, of the a high abort Apollo

conditions

All but one

directly

or on a modified

reason,

demonstration. constituted trajectories. and landing

acceptable, produced close

demonstration

a satisfactory

IB and Saturn (MISSION A-004)

VEHICLE MISSION Launch

12-51-3 SUMMARY Vehicle test

12-51-3 purposes integrity The region forces to its of this in the from

(Figure

1-26),

the

last

Little Spacecraft

Joe

II to be launched (SC-002) satisfactory LEV the would

in the perfortumbling combiload

Apollo 1966. mance boundary nation the

LEV The and

series,

boosted

a production-type of the test of the is defined were by the escape LEV airframe

on 20 January

primary structural region.

to demonstrate for attitude motor and plume

an abort velocity

in the power-on at which

of aerodynamic module

and design third

launch limit.

impingement

command The

configuration significant motors of ballast

controllable from reduction

launch from

vehicle launch three from

is summarized vehicle were: to the time to two Algols

in Figure addition in each of stage;

1-3. five

Some Recruit

differences first the top

the previous 0) of the programming

stage;

relocation

(Station pitch

launch

vehicle lift-off

outer

(aft) face

of the thrust bulkhead; seconds; and deletion The cluding abort Apollo Spacecraft a pitch-up sequence. Mission

delay of the of the RCS. was successfully tumbling of Mission (CSM-002),

to T + 20

boosted of the A-004 are

to the LEV

desired the

M-q

test

conditions, phase Report 12-51-3). of the for

in-

to assure Details A-004

during

power-on (LJ-II

contained

in Postlaunch

NASA Report

MSC-A-R-66-3

TEST The angle initiated including

DESCRIPTION test vehicle The was

AND RESULTS positioned was wind ignition the at an elevation selected conditions of all five angle of 84 and of the prior motors at an azimuth impact Lift-off area, was rocket

of 348 29'. with the

azimuth for

on the basis existing Recruit

desired

compensation

to launch.

first-stage

and two Algol

1-33

1-34

motors. of the matically

The vehicle

attitude until

control pitch

subsystem start (one the

(ACS) correctly time. second later

maintained than planned) Algol

the

launch was were

attitude autorate ignited

programmer seconds,

Pitch-down

programming motors

initiated

at T + 21 seconds At T + 36.4 timer. of information the launch was based vehicle upon the (approximately

at a constant

of 1.0 deg/sec. via an on-board On the Officer tail-off). "action seconds pitch-up motor module T + 70.81 basis seconds This line" after burning.

two second-stage

presented pitch-up one time

by the second

range

RTDS, by radio

the

Flight motor

Dynamics at thrust the 2.8 The

initiated

maneuver, prior the

command, q crossed

to start trace

of Algol of M vs.

at which

on Plotboard pitch-up the was The M-q

B (Figure 1-27). The action line was so derived that vehicle would be at the correct conditions for abort. to ensure of 11.1 that (+1.5) the were psi. (T + 73.73 initiated of events deployment mission some seconds), the of the profile, 60 yards abort drogue Figure away through LES the signal canard and from 1-28). time LEV also tumbled planned during launch-escape the conditions at abort to subject

maneuver

planned pressure

command

to a differential seconds launch and after

At 2.9 circuit LEV. ployment, parachutes Apollo CM recovery Abort,

the

initiation RF and

of pitch-up subsystem and (see the sequence

delay de-

in the

vehicle apex

command jettisoning, accomplished

to the main The the

power-on were

tumbling cover landed

tower Spacecraft

satisfactorily safely

in the upright

position

team. the The up, LEV high tearing continued Analysis abort, dynamic off the its the launch vehicle acting vehicle-SM intact, vehicle and service module angle ring (SM) continued caused 0. The the ground. lift-off to the

Following to pitch launch up. vehicle Trajectory SM to break

pressure, launch path flight

at a large interface to a tail-first was well

of attack, at Station with from

impact

- The

launch

controlled

abort. Based upon the M-q plotboard of the RTDS, the radio command for the pitch-up maneuver was so executed that the LEV abort 2.9 seconds later took place well within the ber used was onds the tions. closely test vs. window. dynamic one-half the (Figure date It is worth pressure percent estimates 1-5). The that noting, was and (Figure of the on Figure no wind. 1-30), 1-29, that from and pitch-up 25,000 the the the the axial point feet) Report actual overall force was used for Also, path of Mach situation thrust five density predicA-004 Mission secon coefficient reached in flight numwhich

significantly

different value, the (below standard

predicted

WSMR within early launch This

standard

atmosphere

Although

average

of the predicted low altitude WSMR detail

matched

atmospheric Apollo the

exceeded

atmosphere

is discussed NASA Report

in more

in Postlaunch (LJ-II

(CSM-002), more steeply conditions. pressure The the resulted

MSC-A-R-66-3

12-51-3).

vehicle

climbed of the test in dynamic

than predicted. These two facts led to the earlier Because the thrust had not markedly decayed, the occur the in the abort RTDS manner of the very aid; on the predicted close abort to the M-q plot.

attainment abrupt drop

did not fact that

occurred as a test loading

desired

M-q time

conditions basis would

stresses have

usefulness

of the

on an elapsed module.

in a low-pressure

command

1-35

9OO
8OO 700 600
IX

-_
LIJ

500 400

z
>Q

300 200 lOO o

,o.4

0.8

1.2 1.6 2.0 MACH NUMBER,M

2.4

2.8
C-6062-73

Figure

1-27.

Apollo

Mission

A-004

RTDS

Plotboard

Ignition functioned of the times, Little lant Algol mance

and Propulsion properly during ignition and was

- All Recruit firstindicated This also the and launch first data based (ACS) in the the of each

and Algol

motor ignition. variation the ignition

initiators Fixed first of the general from in Recruit

and camera

ignitors coverage burn-out on a PropelExamination of all perforignition motor

second-stage accomplished in-flight Algol indicated motors on average - Some previous test attitude pitch-down and being and yaw was

first-stage Joe grain II flight average was

no appreciable

and no hang-fires. temperature

two-stage Algol of launch.

motor.

70 F at time that the thrust. deviated

of telemetered motors by + 0.5 Attitude used in this capability command stant were programmed increased was was

chamber to - 1.0

pressure percent,

performance the predicted

satisfactory.

Individual

Control flight and included

Subsystem that used to meet 2) the from

significant flight condition error signal, on; and are:

differences requirements, degrees 3) the set

between and the with

the pitch-up

ACS

1) RF command

abort

pitch-up congains was

equivalent seconds; to function

to a vehicle constant pitch was

of 29.5

a time roll

of 0.52

at + 1 deg/see, autoptlot

T + 20 seconds

by one-third,

unchanged. the mission. the elevation The maximum as expected, Pitch-up angle excursions during was initi-

The ACS performance ated from by RF command 36 degrees occurred

excellent seconds, Figure see

throughout causing 1-31.

at T + 70.81 the first

to increase of yaw the build-up

to 53 degrees; during

and roll

10 seconds

of flight,

1-36

MAJOR EVENTS

TIME FROM LIFT-OFF, SEC

1. 2.

LIFT-OFF PITCH PROGRAMMING INITIATION

0 21.0

3. SECOND-STAGE IGNITION 4. PITCH-UP 5. 6. INITIATION

36.4

70.81 73.78

POWER-ON TUMBLING ABORT SERVICE MODULE BREAK-UP CANARD DEPLOYMENT TOWER JETTISON DROGUE PARACHUTE DEPLOYMENT MAIN PARACHUTE DEPLOYMENT COMMAND MODULE LANDING & MAIN PARACHUTE DISCONNECT LITTLE JOE II IMPACT

7. 8. 9.

84.8 1':)3.8 195.8 10

10.

237.6

11.

310.0

12.

I 2

12

C-6062-74

Figure

1- 28.

Sequence

of Major

Events,

Apollo

Mission

A-004 1-37

2.8

2.6 I I I I I 2.4 ABO t I I t t t 2.2

Z "1" .)

t NOMINAL ABORT POINT t I

ACTUAL ABORT 73.7 POINT SEC,

I I \

% SEC

78.7

I P,TC.-UP _ i\

W n

/
2.0 I --

/
1.8

/ /
! I

1.6

1.4 450 500 550 DYNAMIC 600 PRESSURE, q (psf) 650

/
700 750 C,-6062-75

Figure

1-29.

Vehicle Mach

12-51-3 Number

(A-004) Vs.

Power-On Pressure

Tumbling

Boundary

Abort

Dynamic

1-38

2.0 "----'---2 ALGOLS_4

,I ALGOLSII =
I

(3 2 ALGOLS = --

DERIVED FROM FLIGHT PERFORMANCE DATA PREDICTED

I
i

I 2ND STAGE---.-.---I

I
IGNITION _

\
Z (._ h bI,I O (.9 hi C9 O b_ --J

_,_IST I

STAGE

BURN-OUT L,_PITCH-UP

MAXIMUM 1.0 (3

i I

<_
X

0.5

(3

I 0.5

I 1.0

I 1.5 MACH NUMBER

I 2.0

I 2.5

3.0 c-6o62-76

Figure

1-30.

Axial

Force

Coefficient

Vs.

Math

Number

of elevon error by pitch-up That ter

control one time, the actual

effectiveness. degree as shown angle - without location. were the effective in yaw

The and in Figure

oscillations in roll. 1-31. This

damped was

out well reduced

to a steady-state to near-zero errors

of about

of attack proof

fell

short

of the predicted and/or

value

by several

degrees in the cen-

can be attributed of pressure The from filters

- to wind

disparities

to uncertainty

in preventing system mounted modes. from

any

structural

feedback,

or other

noise,

destabilizing Structure

vehicle-control

combination. forward from was module and these and Except time aft bulkheads accelerometers, LES, after ring showed The abort, the from that launch when launch impact. were the vehicle the used together

- Accelerometers of body-bending data adequate disintegrated vehicle fundamental

on the Data modes the

to detect . with proved service vehicle, the amplitude

excitation accelerometer of the structurally module the launch

the command

body-bending throughout and remained removed intact

insignificant.

mission. the up to the

top interface

of tail-first

ground

1-39

LIFT-OFF (T+O)\ +150

INITIATION OF PITCH PROGRAMMING (T+21 SEC)

SECOND-STAGE ALGOL IGNITION (T +36.4 SEC).

SPACECRAFT PITCH-UP

ABORT INITIATION (T+70.81

(T +73.73 SEC)

SEC)

INITIATION

"\ I I

M?
I I I I
I t

C_ W

_+I00
I pz

I I
I

I
+50

It II It I.
I I It I ,

h'-

+5

+2.5
uJ

I I I I

II

I I I

II It II
II

It I
I II

u_
I-I-i--

-2.5

I I I I I I

II II I.I It II II

-5 +10

!
I I

I I

1
+5
I.iJ c:3

I I

I I I I I

tl II It
II

II

I-I-I..J .J 0 J.w

o_

I
-5

t II II

-10 -10

It
0 10 20 30 40 SEC 50 60 7O
C-6062-77

8O

ELASPED TIME,

Figure

1-31.

Launch Apollo

Vehicle Mission

Pitch, A-004.

Roll,

and

Yaw

Attitude

Vs.

Time,

1-40

TECHNICAL

ANALYSIS

AND

DESIGN

CRITERIA

I TECHNICAL

ANALYSIS

AND

DESIGN

CRITERIA

A.

SCOPE Simplicity was fundamental of design areas, by making given, more to the was not Little used Joe II design philosophy. tests; analysis, e.g., tests simulation saving. in any of the necessary Little to add Joe II e.g., it was of thermal of vehicle without Where design it was of the protection base

possible, body to keep materials. heating any real the

conservatism In other tests For would benefits simple the been in terms

to supplant

proof

structure.

amenable them a relatively

to accurate precise or weight factor

possible

conservative; by an order cost

example

have

expensive

of magnitude

providing

of manufacturing that weight test the desired which missions 2-1, large set was

It is of significance vehicles ballast The most ditions The Section B. part are launch 1. used in order critical outlined vehicle in the to obtain conditions with

not a limiting In fact,

Apollo

program.

it was

often

performance. the design includes margins limits planned the for for but the Little never Apollo Joe flown. flown, tests 1I were These for described for the conin

associated

originally which design

in Figure possessed

missions

comparison.

AERODYNAMICS The basic 2-2 aerodynamic tests was and 2-3) coefficients conducted scaled for the Little at the Langley Joe H/Apollo Center. boilerplate vehicle The payloads were model on Little deter-

mined (Figures Joe II.

by wind tunnel

Research

to represent

the Apollo

The launch Figures dynamic were (References

washer escape 2-4, 2-5,

(or flow system and

separator) as flown. Although data

on the escape The 2-1), extent it was the design (References

rocket of these was 2-2,

was

deleted based when and 2-4)

from

the

full-scale in aerodata

(LES) 2-6.

tests

is summarized on estimated such and estimates flight

initially 2-3,

characteristics superseded 2-5, the by wind 2-6, wind

(Reference tunnel 2-7). tests and tunnel

re-examined

Because exhaust forces motor had

did not permit motor drag exhaust, 2-3, of the

simulation the which launch effects deals vehicle.

of the with

rocket gas the

motor flows and were of Algol

or of the exhaust

reaction

control on the base

of these These

to be estimated. patterns

See Reference

effects estimates

2-1

MISSION DESIGNATION

O 1 2 1

E 2 HIGH

I
HIGH MAX. DYNAMIC AT VERSION PRESSURE -50 17,60028,856 ALTITUDE AND MACH NO. -51 17,60028,856 -51 53,05080,000

F QTV & (AO01)

J (A-O02)

N (A-O03) HIGH

Q (A-O04)

APOLLO

LEV

SM ENGINE TEST AT VERY HIGH ALTITUDE -51 53,05080,000

ALTITUDE AND MACH NO. -51 14,50029,000

HIGH Q TRANSONIC -50 25,000

MAX. DYNAMIC PRESSURE -51 27,750

ALTITUDE CANARD BOUNDARY -51 28,200

POWER-ON TUMBLING BOUNDARY -51 32,667

ABORT TEST MODEL 12,

PAYLOAD WEIGHT (INCL PAYLOAD BALLAST) LITTLE MAIN JOE II BALLAST PROPULSION

8610 2 ALGOLS ZD ONE STAGE ;7RECRUITS TE-29 6 ALGOLS ID 7 ALGOLS ZD 2A 7 ALGOLS ZD 2A 7 ALGOLS 1D 4-3 3-3 4-2-1 4-3 OVERLAPPED 1 ALGOL ZD ONE STAGE 6RECRUITS TE-29 2 ALGOLS 1D ONE STAGE 4RECRUITS TE-29

5140 6 ALGOLS ZD

9100 4 ALGOLS 1D 2-2

MOTOR

STAGING

3-3

OVERLAPPED 5RECRUITS TE-29

BOO STER S DESIGN CONDITIONS: MACH NUMBER DYNAMIC PRESSURE, _q, DEGopSF THRUST/WEIGHT LEV TEST POINT: FT (ra$1)

q, PSF

1.75 1010 2180 6.50

1.55 960 6750 3.27

1.35 1073, 10,130 4.17

1.76 1236 10,215 4.85

2.24 1640 7580 6.48

1.16 690 2070 3.06

1.5 860 11,600 3.91

(2)

2.3 600 15,000

ALTITUDE,

45,000 1.6 730-800

170,000 5.5 10-50 65-85

MACH NUMBER DYNAMIC PRESSURE, PSF FLIGHT PATH ANGLE, OEG ANGLE OF ATTACK, e, DEG

130,000180,000 2.0-2.5 <10 85

130,000200,000 3.0-3.5 <10 85

150,000190,000 4.5-5.3 10-30 85

18,00020,000 0.94 535-635 55-60

30,00039,000 1.25-1.75 680-880 65-85 8.3

100,000120,000 3.2.-4.2 100-230 35-45

60,00070,000 2.2-2.7 490-650 30-40 15-25

NOTE:

1. 2.

THE VALUES GIVEN WERE USED FOR DESIGN; THEY MAY NOT BE IDENTICALWITH THIS IS COVERED BY CONDITIONS FOR B AND OTHER MISSIONS.

THE FLIGHT

RESULTS.

C-6062-79

Figure

2-1.

Little

Joe

II Design

Configurations

modified the drag obtained 12-51-1 Vehicle The plumes no flights

to reflect estimate on Vehicle provided 12-51-3. potential were

the

data

obtained 12-50-2 which data,

from

subsequent A-001)

vehicle was

launches. based on flight Similarly,

For

example, Vehicle of

for Vehicle 12-50-1, 2-Algol drag

(Mission had the same

data

configuration. for predicting

up to M = 1.5,

performance

effect made

on vehicle was 65,000

stability feet,

of the highly-expanded A of Reference of the study

Algol 2-3). were

exhaust Inasmuch as

at high altitude

investigated

(Appendix the results

above

not directly

substantiated. Mission Additional References (see Note Tests by Little engine A-004 wind-tunnel 2-2, 1 on were Joe 2-3 Figure proposed called tests and 2-4. 2-2). whereby high altitudes zero-g the lunar excursion The module feet) configurations (LEM) to test would the of the be launched Little Joe for pitch-up (Figure The to a high 2-7) service were angle run was of attack data lengthened at a high Mach number. from SC-002

to obtain

not available to represent

module

1I to very

(180, 000 - 200,000

descent

in a near-vacuum,

environment.

II/LEM, using two versions of a shroud for the payload, are 2-9. As a result of wind tunnel tests (Figure 2-9) conducted Center desirable by analysis, 2-2 (Reference normal 2-9) force the N5 configuration were discarded was Although in favor selected mission characteristics.

illustrated in Figure at the Langley Research of its more established feasibility was tests.

because

the test

plans

of Saturn-boosted

A
TOP

ESCAPE TOWER 13.86" WASH ER _ NOTE 2

n

==

FIN 4

4|

i,

1
COMMAND MODULE SECONDARY PITCH PLANE

\
4.80" NC TE I 4,620
1

SERVICE MODULE & ADAPTER FIN 1 'l

TOP FIN 2

LITTLE

JOE II FIN 4 PRIMARY PITCH PLANE

FIN 3

REACTION CONTROL FAIRINGS

"AC1 _HINGE

UATOR FAIRING LINE

NOTES; 1, FOR SC-002 IS 5.935 2. IN. ONLY FOR THIS DIMENSION

WASHER INSTALLED SELECTED TESTS.

C-606240

Figure

2-2.

0. 030 Scale

Wind

Tunnel

Model

-- LJ-II/Apollo

Boilerplate

Vehicle

2-3

2-4

RUN NOS.

LES (WITH WASHER) ON OFF

RCS FAIRING

ELEVON DEFLECTION (DEGREES)

!No.
TAIL OFF - BODY ONLY 0 0 0 O -5 -10 -20 -5 -10 -20 -30 -5 -10 O -5 -10 =20 -30 -5 -10 0 -5 -I0 -2'0 =30 +5 +10 O

ANGLE OF ATTACK RANGE

DYNAMIC PRESSURE (psf) 5.75 & 14.95

I

1-2 3-4 5-6 7-B 9-10 11-12

-2 o TO +95

ON
ON ,

13-14
15-16 I 17-19 20-21 22 -23 24
Ir 1r

-30 +5 +10 0

Ir

28,60
C,-6062 -B2

ALL RUNS MADE IN PRIMARY PITCH PLANE. NO HINGE MOMENIS RECORDED. RUNS 17 AND 18 ARE AT IDENTICAL CONDITIONS. Figure 2-4. LJ-II/Apollo 300 MPH Wind BP Test Schedules -7 Foot x 10 Foot,

Tunnel

RUN NOS.

MACH NUMBER SCHEDULE

LES WASHER

RCS FAIR ING

HINGE MOM. NO. I NO. 2 NO. 3 NO. 4 RECORD. 0 0 0 0 YES

ELEVON DEFLECTION (DEGREES)

PITCH PLANE

ANGLE OF ATTACK RANGE -II TO +14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
s,,,4

OFF _
0',

ON

PRIMARY

ON OFF OFF ON -10 +10 -10 -10 -20 -10 -10 -20 -10 +10 -20
'r

dm .Z -_
oO Oh

NO YES

-20

-30
-5 +5

-so -30
-5 -5 -5 -5

-3o
-5 +5 NO

9 I0 ii 12

d_
II

TAIL OFF - BODY ONLY ON 0 0 0 0 SECONDARY ALL RUNS MADE WITH LES ON.
C-6062-83

Figure

2-5.

LJ-II/Apollo Transonic

BP Pressure

Test

Schedule Tunnel

--

8 Foot

2-5

ELEVON RUN NOS. TUNNEL LEG MACH NUMBER SCHEDULE LES WASHER NO.I I-3 4-7 8-ii 12-15 16-19 20-24 25-28 29-50 31-52 33-34 35-36 37-58 59-40 ALL RUNS MADE IN PRIMARY PITCH PLANE, NO HINGE MOMENTS WERE RECORDED. Figure 2-6. LJ-II/Apollo Plan Wind BP Tunnel Test WITH HIGH 2.80, 1.57, 1.57, 1.80, 1.80, 2.16 2.16, 2.80 LOW
i

DEFLECTION

(DEGREES) NO.5 0 NO. 2 0 NO. 4 0

ANGLE OF ATTACK RANGE -14" TO +15"

1.57, 1.57,

1.80, 2.16 2, 16, 2.80

ON OFF

1.80,

-5 -I0 -20 =30 +5 0 -5 -10 -20 -30

-5 -10 -20 -50 -5 0 -5 -10 -20 -50 -5

-5 -I0 -20 -30 -5 0 -5 -10 -20 -50 -5

-5 -i0 -20 -30 +5 0 -5 -10 -20 -30 +5 ON.

C-6062-84

1.80, 2.16, 1.80, 1.57, 2.80 2.80, 1.57, 1.80, 2.16 5.86, 4.65

LES & RCS FAIRINGS

Schedule

LRC

Unitary

RUN NOS.

APOLLO PAYLOAD

MACH NUMBER SCHEDULE

ELEVATOR DEFLECTION (ALL ELEVONS SAME) 2.86

O"

ANGLE

OF

ATTACK RANGE -2" TO + 40"

1-4 5-8 9-10 1.1-12 13-16 17-18 19-22

BP-4.8" SC-5.955"
I

SM SM

1.80,

2.16,

2.50,

1
-10 -15" -20" -25"

1.80,

2.16, 2.30,

2.50, 2.86 2.30,

2.86

2.80,

2.16,

2.86

-30" AND
C-6062-85

ALL RUNS MADE IN PRIMARY PITCH PLANE, WITH LES (LESS WASHER) RCS FAIRINGS ON. HINGE MOMENTS WERE MEASURED ON ONEELEVON.

Figure

2-7.

LJ-II/Apollo Wind Tunnel

SC (Low

Test Leg)

Schedule

--

LRC

Unitary

Plan

2-6

N6 NOSE 2.208" _

LEM SHROUD _15

LITTLE JOE II

=i

2,385" SPHER. RAD.

--.__

6.36"

1-: -Scale Wind

,.!2,,

7
_]

FI

TOP

l'-3.28"_ "---5.05" : -5.75" I0.50" =

_,N 4

1
PITCH PLANE
C-6062-86

_,N 3

Figure

2-8.

0.030

Tunnel

Model

--

LJ-II/LEM

Shroud

RUN NOS.

NOSE SHAPE

MACH NUMBER SCHEDULE

ELEVON DEFLECTION (DEGREES) NO. 1 NO.2 NO. 3 NO. 4

HINGE MOMENT RECORDED YES

ANGLE OF ATTACK RANGE -12 TO +15

TRANSITION STRIP NO

N6

2 3-4

N5
Or.-_

10

10

10

10

O0

N6 6-7

L
N5 N6

_00"N
OOr-I II

TAIL OFF
!

NO

I
INCOMPLETE YES

RUN9 DATA WERE INCOMPLETE. ALL RUNS MADE IN PRIMARY PITCH PLANE, WITH RCS FAIRINGS ON 50 FT 2 FINS (FULL-SCALE).
C-6062-87

Figure

2-9.

LJ-II/LEM l>res sure

Shroud Tunnel

Test

Schedule

-- 8 Foot

Transonic

2-7

C.

STRUCTURAL The original

DESIGN design

CRITERIA for Little Joe H were weight, test based a set upon three missions With some design the

requirements Project type Apollo and staging

described permutations criteria original seldom to satisfy The forms Vehicle analysis the

in the NASA of motor was assembled

Statement

of Work Apollo

(Reference missions

2-10).

and of payload As new criteria launch were missions of Little resulted. vehicle considered Joe 2-13, using CPF 9,

of structural replaced the

(Referenee

2-11).

ones, some abandoned. all of the of loads basis

changes in design Thus, the resulting test missions stress which various analyses for these launcher mission essentially peak data the this gradient pressure. for

Old requirements design possessed during the the life in Reference dummy and 2-15). computer

were strength program. which

of the 2-12, for

is reported 2-14

for the

payload

12-50-1, each the wind wind, upon 2-10. attain based most

and the design adverse was the

(References was simulated, of wind

Briefly, including critical" or higher would were The which

a digital (cumulative altitude given design

program, The "loadsvehicle 2-16. is shown of was shear frequency) the

combination

and thrust set at the Base

misalignment. percent at which

profile with maximum faired

a 99 percent (shear) The Air scalar given assumed in

dynamic through

initial Force

loads

(quasi-steady) points the

the wind Within load,

Patrick

in Reference shape

envelope was

maximum shears for the due

veloeity-vs-altitude a typical presence wind profile, 2-16. includes Reference (which

in Figure

envelope

is shown

determined on the

by the wind to account normal load

An incremental gust, the wind

angle-of-attack superimposed effect).

of a sharp-edged

to angle

of attack

The aeroelastic of the vehicle the dynamic greatest for loading

loading several - was

was

determined

by calculating The response gust

the free-free of the vehicle which

bending - and produced

modes the

configurations. determined

therefore

for that

wavelength

response. to the selection of White suitable White Sands Missile were Range made Spacecraft Range, the vehicle percent jet) shown (WSMR) available Center N.M. design 2-10, is here as the launch in MSFC (MSC) was ," 15 October frequency MemoLittle 1962, required winds. together included for

Subsequent site Joe for Little II Launch randum

Joe H/Apollo, Vehicle 2-17. of 99 percent design are profile. envelope. quite Studies, imposed

wind data Sands

M-AERO-G-33-62,

'_vVind Data As directed CPF winds that

for Manned Missile

and by Reference to meet The envelope

by NASA/MSC, at WSMR the gust is

the conditions

by 99 percent Note With

cumulative

in Figure

with a typical within PAFB

(or imbedded of the gust,

the velocity and WSMR The airload

the exception

the wind

shears

similar. for the missions on the WSMR with on the than one actually flown by the the attitude gust the controlled The wind of for

analyses were based less conditions wind shear design.

launch use gust highly 2-8

vehicles

wind profile, of the dynamic

with

included. superposition made

of stringent and peak

a low probability percent maximum

of occurrence time), pressure plus

(the design condition,

parameters

will occur

conservative

7O

6O

5O
phi LD h

=='_;

_c_'s

_Sc4,

40
O m I LU

__

= ,TYPICAL WSMR-'_'I'-......_ _>--DESIGN WIND PROFILE _ _ (INCL. GUSTs)....--.-"----

..

"_-_. "-

U___q__LS G T 1 _-" --"'_ I... ---- -.

-_ 30
I-F-J

r-"

.... TYPICAL PAFB DESIGN WIND PROFILE (NO GUST) --

_"

I I
/

2O

10

iI

0o

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400
C-6062-88

500

WIND VELOCITY - FT/SEC

Figure

2-10.

Design

Winds

for

Little

Joe

II

It was, conservatism laboratory stress test

in fact, in order tests was were made

the

general to obviate

philosophy the such model setup need

of the for of the

Little thrust

Joe

II design

to rely

on such

structural thrust

testing. bulkhead. bulkhead 2-11;

Certain to verify the the

subscale adequacy are

conducted, of a plastic test

as on the is illustrated

A photoelastic results

of the design concept. The given in Reference 2-18. With II or its subjected Consider experienced specific stage) of the certain vehicle ipated remaining Algol rapidly was for one exception, subassemblies. to structural the failure launches structural in the increasing even of the pitched any intact motors

in Figure

full-scale The proof of the failure lateral tests Little prior restraint under particular angle missions. to earth

static (Figure Joe

load was

tests

were

not conducted control fourth test fin, in Reference vehicle,

on Little was 2-19. 12-51-2, The

Joe

exception

the 2-12)

attitude The the

which

as reported Apollo the twice some

II vehicles. at the upper

to achieving conditions caused member of attack, The impact.

conditions. limit. strong. highest maneuver,

end of the by a hard-over

fully-loaded design as elevon,

(secondBecause failure The loads was fifth antic-

occurred rolling if the to a high design way

exceeding had been

velocity,

to occur

inducing vehicle

of the this

withstood

_ll the

2-9

C-6062 -89

Figure 2-11.

Stress Analysis Testing of 1/10 Scale Model Thrust Bulkhead

Figure 2-12.

Structural Load Test of Vehicle 12-51 Attitude Control Fin in Convair Structural Test Laboratory

2- 10

D.

DYNAMICS
VIBRATION The original 2-14 AND ACOUSTICS design For vibration test applicable criteria and levels for Little adapted Joe testing for II were Little based Joe largely on

environmental 2-20. the illustrate

the 2-13

data and

in Reference

acoustics

of equipment,

Figures

IT as described

in Reference 2-21. These test levels were considered design, to be replaced if and when better criteria were certainty another, retained. The the however, environment. is unknown. FLUTTER Fixed (Reference envelope the analysis Fin than - Analysis indicated called carried The was was flutter. of the that fixed-fin flutter version stability proposed sea (12-50) existed missions. level dynamic of obtaining flight better criteria were by extrapolation not taken; the measurements original

to be suitable for preliminary available. Because of the unfrom one design flight configuration were to criteria

flight there

results Note was The

indicated should extent no conclusive of the

that

the vehicles of the elevon relating

and their control this for

equipment failure to the more vibratory severe

were

equal

to

demands.

be taken

on Vehicle

12-51-2; or acoustic

evidence design safety

margins

environments

of the over As

launch greater

vehicle flight in Figure 2-15, without is given

2-22)

a far

for by the line

illustrated q = 1800

out to M = 3 from of constant

to 40, 000 feet pressure,

altitude psf,

encountering as reference. A vibration vibratory flutter parison analysis. was

test

of the cantilevered damping, 2-16 and shows the

fin was mode test

performed for

to determine of the A very

the

natural com-

frequencies, Figure found

shapes

verification

calculated in Refer-

arrangement. and experiment,

favorable

to exist

between

analysis

as reported at q = 780 psf

ence 2-27. the stability

The flight of Vehicle 12-50-1 to sonic speed of the fins in the critical transonic region. Fin - The added problems of a movable

demonstrated

Controllable

elevon

plus

the

degrees

of

freedom in actuator bearing play, etc., were added ments of higher Mach number and dynamic pressure. necessary for the fixed structure, necessary flight such were flutter mandatory to conduct fin. of the testing to provide a more thorough of the flutter flutter and to the program Sensitivity elevon was the such stability by test launch design hinge

to the increased These factors for the to variations (Reference of an Apollo margins.

mission requiremade it fin than of the made Because it was of play, bolts, it no

controllable in stiffness attachments 2-23). payload, Sources

actuator possible highest

assembly prior practical

of the fin-body

to determine

characteristics

flutter bearings,

as actuator rod end bearings, elevon held to minimum workable tolerances.

and fin attachment

2-11

1.0

(a) SINUSOIDAL VIBRAT'ION

I
I
0.1

,,,,[

,9

u"} -r rO Z ! LO I.--

2!

,o! \

o-' 0.01
FIN MTD. EQUrPMENT
W ..J m :D 0

EQUIP. AT STA. 34.750

0 THIS CURVE MAY BE USED IN LIEU 01_ WHEN GROSS THRUST <.500,000 LBF

0.001 1'0
! J I I | I I I I J I I I I I

100
I I

U_ 0. .)

(b) RANDOM VIBRATION 0.3 DB/OCTAVE

I )I-Z UJ .J

12 DB/OCTAVE O.1

12

0.06
.) UJ L I,,n Z 0 I'-UJ --I UJ t) ,

O.Ol

1 I I

i |

50

100 FREQUENCY - CPS

1000

20_OO

Figure

2-13.

Vibration

Test

Levels

2-12

0
r_ i ,.,.I

OVERALL SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL:

160 DB REFERENCED

TO 0.0002

p BAR

LEVELS TO BE MAINTAINED -10

-20

>
-3

)
-3o

==

Z 0

-40 37,5 75,0 75 150 1.50 .300 300 600 600 1200 1200 2400 2400 4800 4800 9600 c-6o6_-92

STD, OCTAVE FREQUENCY BANDS - CPS

Figure

2-14.

Acoustic

Test

Levels

The shapes, program. it proved and test tests. analysis, mounting fixture, efforts leading was reduce bearings, beneficial vehicles. conducted to deeouple design stand

objective frequencies Although

of the the

ground test was

vibration ratios, initially control control failed rerun, in the from setup. changes assembly; installed.

testing planned system. system to correlate

was

to determine as inputs and

the

natural

mode analysis

and damping more to the was clear The test the tests

to be used and expensive,

to the flutter multiple setup and to the with system the rigidity more the

to be simple involving original The

straightforward, test setups a fin employed theoretical of the rigid fixture of the fin, the series to a strong, rod-end to have production and thus of tests These which

to be much changes which making fixture. but without its the with free did disclose to third this vibration

complicated elevon for results were

designed

development acceptably response a larger, Attempts of the representing

integration

The

sensitivity

of vibratory using results. those The see were e.g., and

apparently to stiffen the

improvement frequency importance final Joe test the and setup,

resonant

fin were mounted 2-17. to the changes

unsuccessful. fixity to an afterbody During hydraulic tolerance proved for the system

of correctly

fin was Figure made These

assembled play

on a Little in the on the

II launcher;

design were

actuator flutter

extra-close were made

bushings effect

and bolts

characteristics

2-13

401

II
FLUTTER ANALYSIS BOUNDARY J 1

I
I
I

i i i i
30 QTV (12-50-1) MAXIMUM

//

o.I

i i
I-'.1.0 I.IJ O. ) 0 0 i-I I UJ

i i i i
2O

i i i i

1-I-_1

10

/
0

/
l

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
i
2
C-.6062-93

MACH NUMBER

Figure

2-15.

Fixed

Fin Flutter

Envelope

2-14

i
c

"I

2- 15

c -6 nf, 2 -9 5

Figure 2-17.
2- 16

LJ-IT Attitude Control Fin Ground Vibration Test Setup

As several vibration

a result additional

of the tests

problems were the fin tip,

encountered conducted: closing link actuator rib

and the 1) measurement and the

lessons trailing

learned edge, of the

therefrom, influence 2) a 3) actuator; respectively;

of deflection elevon

coefficients, test determination Using it was methods supersonic was was provided bolstered 2-18 the were

loading of the

fin with

a rigid

installed dynamic

in place spring flutter was both method, Note sea

of the hydraulic results that regions by use determined covered employed. of the of the

constant. analysis available. in the while level. from the greatest in the high the 2-18 Mission in Figure (Reference Three subsonic subsonic supersonic that the "E" 2-24), and

foregoing flutter theory Kernel methods the

tests was Added Theory. are

in the margin applied

shown

adequate

stability

analytical (M < 0.95) analysis analysis flutter is plotted standpoint. value of

Strip MIT

(1.2 < M < 3.5). of Piston

confidence

Function

by application as representing dynamic

boundaries in Figure The 1600 analysis psf. The controllable region, tunnel ground

by these

below beyond

most

severe well

mission

a fin flutter expected

pressures

flights fin. where

of Vehicles This analytical testing was flight

12-51-1 experience are methods conducted

and

-3 confirmed was especially wanting. design.

the

flutter

stability in the that placed

of the transonic no wind on other

significant It is noteworthy reliance being

most

flutter tests

for

this vehicle,

and

analysis

and on conservative

5 X 103----T N OTE:I

STABLE REGIONS ARE BELOW AND TO THE RIGHT OF THE BOUNDARY CURVES
F-O Z V i IJJ LIJ Q.

T
M.I.T. KERNEL FUNCTION THEORY

PISTON THEORY

eY I ,

LD -J

,
_> m Of bJ

STRIP THEORY"

0 0 1 2 MACH NUMBER 3 4 c-6o62-96

Figure

2-18.

Cantilevered (Using Ground

Controllable Vibration

Fin Calculated Test Models)

Flutter

Boundaries

2-17

PANEL References stability The there Joe was

"FLUTTER" 2-25 that and panel 2-26 contain conservative, panel unlikely fins flutter was was albeit imprecise, launch the analyses vehicle series by flight of the fins. experience; of Little

of panels

in vibration of panel

- so-called failure

- of the corroborated

conclusion II launches. BODY Requisite

instability

no evidence

on the

recovered

from

BENDING to the stability were analysis. the fin analyses calculated, Although modes, the of the the Little Joe with was of body H/Apollo of the several negligible bending and higher to the autopilot as first control

synthesis bending a part body system The cps. cps. The

(discussed modes. of the These fin flutter mode

in paragraph

F) was

determination

lowest

frequency of the

together there effect

harmonics,

coupling

bending was

with

on the vehicle

important. bending was due escape was frequency proved primarily launch tower. improved ground The launch along this for to the excape Two among Vehicle use, 12-51-1 the in the were the test was and at the was actual modal predicted frequency analysis, to the to prevent American conducted the was case The to be 5.25 was 3.5 of incorrect estimated a recurrence Aviation/S&ID, of repeating prior by manually transverse repeated - that the for pitch in confirmed, vehicle prointerto exciting

fundamental disparity of mass of the situation: errors, the vehicle launch

Flight

measurements for the

to be too high; system, steps Convair, to reduce vibration test ground

distribution stiffness of this and face launch the

secondarily taken North was

(1) communication personnel and (2) a simple in its

NASA/MSC data to check

possibility performed recording The test of the yaw

calculations. points launcher

assembled

configuration the structure. taken invalidated

accelerations and yaw. pitch could

at several Displacement of the closely

measurements trucks represented

base the body.

booster

- movement be very

as a cantilevered

measurements

vided the frequency and damping ratio for the lations and test were carried out for Vehicles mass diction measured the was free-free given by the distribution for the and stiffness case frequency The the With between was was base the good. 1.60 restraint bending cantilevered vehicle.

fundamental cantilever 12-51-2 and -3 because Correlation 12-51-3, with for the for 1.65 On Vehicle

mode. The calcuof differences in of test example, cps with the for of the confidence were confirmed pre-

two vehicles. cps, was modes compared removed in mind, for

fundamental modes. flight

calculated

cantilevered

calculation

cantilever free-free

comparisons

considerable These

to the predicted measurements.

flight.

2-18

E.

THERMODYNAMICS
AERODYNAMIC HEATING portions of the The critical mission called stages. pressure The 1/8 point being exceeded inch calculations for a sevenThis of any (Referfin leading the from as a back

The booster: from Algol Little ence edge latter the

extent of aerodynamic heating was analyzed for various fin leading edge, fin skin, body skin and RCS fairing. standpoint in a 4-3 which high mission; 2-19, edge combination was no deleterious temperatures however, detail of the after on the was Mission with The were the below The was well region number results design extended the body "E," overlap which fired severe that arrangement of Mach studied. effects (above this fin was member. 65 seconds vehicle a) and was of the of the limit only melting skin as below

an aerothermodynamic configuration the Joe 2-28) would leading rather temperature b. At this most

produced

and dynamic to be expected.

H configuration indicated experience of the the than edge (Figure leading only point

of 250 F) during of aluminum. designed the limit. design 2-19,

seconds

Furthermore, fairing limit detail

not highly of flight,

stressed, shown

as a load-carrying slightly the load

in Figure

the design

--._0.1 FT_"---740 0.01 F'I_ A 1400 1300

Z

(b) SKIN TEMP.

i

720 m B C EDGE z 680 660 ',' '700 (a)FIN LEADING

] I/ - - "F'--F/- .... 1 il

;'

....
-'-'_ LIMIT TEMPERATURE BODY STA. 348 _" "" FROM L.E. I---0.25 FT FROM L.E.

ll/--

z w
W

1200 liO0

/
A, /

==o o It'
620 f

1000
I

1
B._.. / ,..-.----C _,,_]"_ DESIGN' LIMIT TEMPERATURE

900 800 700 m

i---

600
580 560

l[ I/
MELT POINT OF FIN L..(2024ALUM) IS i3 c, 40 60 80 I00 140
C--6062L97

_ U.I _-

540

600

ooo 22o !oJ

FLIGHT TIME - SECONDS

_1_" "r"-_

520 _,,.]_ 5000 20

.640R

FLIGHT

TIME - SECONDS

Figure

2-19.

Aerodynamic

Heating

- Mission

2-19

BASE The for

HEATING of the to high rocket when in the base with time design launch heat exhaust. region; vehicles fluxes. and the The first trailing source source plumes 2-20. mission. established; evaluated and heating edges was was of the fins heating heating producing 2-29 on the Figure presents foregoing, 2-21. of suitable motor a scale exhaust were model were from designed the occurred a disflux which both

base

exposure

radiant convective

incandescent at high altitude of hot gas cussion variation servative

The second exhaust Figure critical in base see involved

the expanded

interacted, Reference Based see

recirculation

of the mechanisms value

and predictions

of the heat

for the most of heat

a con-

flux was were body

Thermal insulation gases. evaluated for

insulating protection rates,

materials of vehicle temperature

to enable structure

selection from from

fin base

Erosion after

rise,

and bonding to exhaust

adhesive gases

qualities

20 to 120 seconds

of exposure

Rp-1/GD 2 rocket engine. Acrylonitrile compound, and a Bonding the were were Cement lowest exhibited adhesives problems erosion

Five silicone rubber base compounds, a Butadiene (GenGard V44), a Concrete-Asbestos compound (Transite), were heat. reduced evaluated. had the Although its The Transite erosion had and DC-6510 rate. the best The heat with (uncured) bonding resistance, surfaces. more rate; by the regarding also EC-1293 highest Transite and bonding desirability

(EC-1293)

not affected anticipated (brittleness)

fabricating

it to irregular as compared

Shock sensitivity flexible materials.

PROFI LE

ING ICK VALVES

C-b062-98

Figure 2-20

2-20.

Rocket

Exhaust

Interaction

160

LU

120 ",_4

MOTORS_

_.._3

MOTORS'---'_

8o

__
o o

<-I
20 2-21. rubber adhesion tests was made most and

RADIATION...,,,.,,,

RECIRCULATION + RADIATION

40 60 TIME - SECONDS Base Heat Flux

80 c-bo62-99 -- Mission E

Figure

Dow-Corning heat details Reference (Reference of DC-6510, large struetural was subjected of temperature protection, of the

DC-6510 erosion

silicone

was

selected

for

base

insulation 2-30 the

on the contains test

basis the

of

characteristics. and the results thickness heating would the tests

Reference obtained. required conditions, Using for the

aforementioned a study For shown

results layer inches against a

of

2-30, 2-29). as

of the severe 2-22,

protective of 0.5

the

application aluminum 2-30 coating having a flux It is

in Figure

protect

the

structure demonstrated (0.562

increase. rise seconds

Indeed, of only to

of Reference the DC-6510 blast to 2 F. of the used in flight

temperature for 150 20

7 F when

inches

thick) (70 F)

a high-velocity Sixty seconds backplate significant heat

rocket exposure of only erosion source flow

a cold-wall BTU/ft2-sec noteworthy coating. was far

heat-flux produced the

BTU/ft2-see. rise tests high dynamic be highly short heating convective purely indicated than the

of 75 also

a temperature

in the

that The more

aforementioned

produced pressure, base

protective tests

high-velocity, erosive test than results Low produced exhaust the heating

in the

would were

recirculation

at high

altitude.

Thus,

the

conservative. duration of the heating radiant that flights, base. exemplified Without base the or fin by the QTV and Mission A-001, of the not occur; mission would see with Figure its 2-21

altitude, far plume, was 2-31) less The less

high-altitude trailing of the edges fixed-fin

expansion could booster plate burnout; of the fins,

of the

in nature. the

Analysis thick by the

(Reference experience 2-23.

0. 375-inch rise on the

aluminum time trailing of motor edge

base

70 F temperature thick aluminum

0.10-inch

swept

uJ

z 0 I--

en

_,_--

L_I v

r/l

d
I

2-22

700

V7
ABSORPTIVITY = 0.5 = EMISSIVITY

6OO

500

0,375"

ALUMINUM

45 SWEPT
LL e

TRAILING 400

EDGE

'

LLI

I'-

0hi I--

300

200

i00

0 0 10 20 TIME SECONDS
C-6062-101

30

40

50

Figure

2-23.

LJ-II

(12-50)

Base

Heating

- Mission

F 2-23

greater above protection a 1/8-inch areas. aluminum GenGard ature abort, series easier good

view the

factor

with

respect design edges

to the incandescent limit, was as shown considered the

exhaust, in the same necessary.

could figure;

be heated thus, 12-50 however, beneath for The because

well thermal vehicles the the

250 F structural of the fin trailing layer of GenGard

On the was applied

(Aerojet-General revealed by heat. 12-50-1 than

Corporation) GenGard (Figure Thermocouples 2-24) after stiffer

to the fin

Postflight structure

examination was fins than

to be blistered; installed indicated

undamaged of Vehicle was 50F rise thickness

on all four and was of vehicles to install less

that the tempertime payload 12-51 it was of the

rise

in the structure

not more

11 F at the nominal motor in Figure GenGard,

at 65 seconds than the

ignition. 2-22,

had DC-6510 in half-inch

on the fins, properties

as shown

and because

adhesion

and insulation

of the DC-6510. thermal thick the flight protection l_yer showed was provided cured material for the base at no a from change of

In the interest Vehicle 250 F. evidence mounted 24F nature Vehicle For area fired, altitude. imbedded trailing and 12-50-1. Measurements plate;

of conservatism, This was made a 1/8-inch during examination

of DC-6510 negligible protective

on the body showed

temperature

in the base

postflight

of the base

of any physical changes. Using the data obtained on the base, it was calculated that an uninsulated rise by the time of payload abort. base insulation This was of the design 12-50-2: Vehicles of the fins was analysis. As a result, fin trailing-edge and -2, with thermal

from two calorimeters base would experience confirmed protection provided the was omitted

temperature

conservative

however, 12-51-1 edges revealed

as before. (one-half The and effect last inch vehicle was thick) base

DC-6510

on the body base postlannch inspection heating. heating and tail

and fin trailing 12-51-3,

(one-eighth subjected

inch thick), to the longest

of the body

no indications

of excessive period There intact was

of base

at the highest on the fin

As the vehicle in the ground edges, however.

body struck

the ground

first,

the base

and not examined.

no observed

THRUST

MISALIGNMENT flightat very high altitude (i. e., very low air density) the disturbance of the Algol motors. was the design criterion for the reacwas the result of several sources

For powered

torque on the vehicle was due solely to the net thrust misalignment The magnitude of the transverse thrust component tion control system thrust. The total misalignment

of error: production tolerance in lateral position of the nozzle centerline; 2) production tolerance in angular position of the nozzle centerline; 3) installationtolerance in angular position of the nozzle; and 4) uncertainty in the displacement center from the geometric center of the nozzle. Manufacturing able for the Algols for items i) and 2). A reasonable on the accuracy of measurements quantity;the variabilityof gas flow in a rocket nozzle. purposes was obtained by extrapolating some of the gas flow for 3), based for design tolerances were avail-

allowance was made The value assumed

available in the field. Item 4) representa a nebulous statisticaldata on a small air-to-ground

rocket (Reference 2-32). Adding the four contributing errors on a root-sum-square basis gave the design thrust misalignment 2-24 for each mission. (References 2-33, 2-34, and 2-35 are for Vehicles 12-51-1, -2 and -3 respectively.)

C) THERMOCOUPLES /

TC USED ON FINS 1 & 3

TC USED ON FINS 2 & 4

140

120
Lt. o I W r,,," D t.-

...... ....

FIN FIN FIN FIN

1 2 .3 4

ROOT TIP ROOT TIP

,#, s _ sS

i/"i

I
100

.JY

sS

wv" ILl Q. hi I--"

8O

Dr

60 -10

10 ELAPSED

20

30

40 - SECONDS

5O

60

TIME FROM LIFT-OFF

C-6

062

-102

Figure

2-24.

Fin Trailing

Edge

Temperature 2-25

ALGOL Accurate uniform range Studies the stalled. ditioning grain was

TEMPERATURE prediction temperature temperatures transfer required of heating studies

REGULATION of the ballistic be maintained at White requirements properties within Sands were of the the range Missile within made for Algol motors required With air that a confor in2-38 air a

of 70 to 90 F.

of ambient of the heat These

Range in order 2-36

of 8 to 108 F, to provide vehicle and 2-37. with removal

to maintain and cooling

the propellant equipment

5 F of the desired

temperature. criteria motors of the

selection

the launch

are documented

by References

Reference

presents the time variation of propellant conditioner and launch timer, for various F. STABILITY Within a flight during of this attitude The this AND CONTROL section system phase system In short, are for summarized Little the end Joe missions results

temperatures between the ambient initial conditions.

those and

activities of the analysis

which total of the 3.

involve Little stability the Joe

the

synthesis H/Apollo

of

control the boost system. control reference

II simulation of these

of various

characteristics criteria for the

activities in Section

were

(ACS) which for

is described the launch

coordinates with their Positive and down motions the fins

vehicle

were

a set

of orthogonal,

right-

hand coordinates vehicle as flown. the Astronauts direction), Linear Positive origin. forces Positive down) coordinate The attitude to the to-fin system dual right, displacements angular Because hinge when

origin at the center directions of the X, position (toward time mounted were root as the in the Little about between downward surface the a right-hand positive derivatives

of gravity (mass center) of the total Y, and Z axes were taken relative to module: positive and X-Z fin viewed were Figure forward tower), along axes, the (in the respectively. positive from positive wing. edge the (trailing illustrates axes. the flight Joe the with II launcher were the X-Y the wing. directions. NAS 9-492 the Apollo sizes was a study of the A, B up positive

in their

launch and their were are

command

clockwise

as viewed planes,

on a fin taken moment viewed system initial control LEV area was system abort ratios, selected. made task

by itself from and the

as a right-hand 2-25

and control summarizes

deflection

clockwise

carried

out under for were Little

NASA Contract Joe II boosting

requirements 2-1) which point. the After concept The possible with system gyros the only (RCS) The with combined this until

on Missions trajectories and

and C (Figure

conceived a study

as constant of a variety study fin are size

elevation of fins given for

angle

control-surfacecontrol 2-39. which such were of three attitude. integrators upon four Logic into readily degrees This could as a rejected

of a combined of this use alone, proposed the and error reaction would the of a single

aerodynamic-plus-reaction in Reference all Algol unit the missions, approaches exhaust, consisted vehicle and Based within

results

not be accomplished reaction after due orthogonal and control commands available of the 2-26 launch control rate to the consideration. circuitry components, attitude

aerodynamic

controls. autopilot sensing from the

Other in the

or jet vanes integrators signals control hold

electronic

to determine gyros subsystems. vehicle

aerodynamic

system at least

attitude

end of powered

flight.

+X

_J

LAUNCH-ESCAPE

SUBSYSTEM

/O_IF

_r1_

COM MAN D M ODU LE

/__--_+Z

_w,._

SERVICE MODULE MAIN HATCH

,_

i'_0

..-,-=_-LAUNCH VEHICLE

-ZIRECTION

OF

LAUNCH

DIRECTION LONGITUDINAL LATERAL VERTICAL

AXIS X Y Z

MOMENT L M N

POSITIVE DIRECTION Y TO Z Z TO X X TO Y

SPACECRAFT MANEUVER & SYMBOL ROLL _

LINEAR VELOCITY u v w

ANGULAR VELOCITY P q
r c-6o62-1o3

PITCH _) YAW _/,

Figure

2-25.

Axis

System

for Orientation

and

Motion,

LJ-II/Apollo 2-27

Early reducing

in 1963 the

a major error

change These

was more

made

in the requirements in elevation, changes pertains requirements other

for guidance bank

accuracy,

allowable

at burnout sensing The

to two degrees stringent plus 12-51

and azimuth system system

(for elevations of the integrators parameters gyro system, A control using the

up to 85). by attitude (Reference which system was

led to the replacement in control Joe just H. described, system, to the attitude

gyros following in the

2-40).

discussion version

the one used synthesized, Computer

of Little scheme vehicle,

was

having to simulate

the general the launch Figure diagram are given six

Convair

Analog

the control

the gravity field, of these elements. configuration. depicts the the simulation

and atmospheric Figure 2-27 The details of the

environment. is a schematic simulation and

2-26 depicts the relationship of the autopilot in its final in Reference 2-41. It is worth of rigid-body Figure noting freedom 2-28 that

simulation

of aerodynamic dynamics

control

subsystems. degrees Fin modes the control

of the vehicle

included

plus the first body bending mode in pitch and in yaw. se, because they were too high in frequency to affect steady aeroelastic 2-3, effects Appendix were C. manifest in the in Reference

were not included per system. The quasias discussed

aerodynamic

coefficients,

FORCES MOMENTS 1'AERD FORCES J 2 PROPULS,ON MOMENTS ] EQUATIONS 3 FINONTROL LOADMOTION C CONTROL I OF , REACT,ON
BODY AERO.

I_
I" TRANSLATIONAL I 1 VELOCITIES

I
LI POSITIONS COSINES ] DIRECTION

RELATIVE VELOCITY MACH NUMBER DYNAMIC PRESSURE MASS & INERTIA

C.go_

INERTIA

! FLIGHT

TABLE

,3' m1,2,3 TRANSLATIONAL LOAD

, n1,2f3 VELOC

2. I 1. ATTITUDE ERRORS

RATE GYROS ATTITUDE GYROS ] J. ERRORS

c.P.

Ts.L"

V w

,8

HINGE MOMENT FIN

FIN DEFLECTIONS

AERODYNAMIC CONTROLS REACTION CONTROLS COMMANDS

LOGIC & CONTROL UNIT & PITCH PROGRAMMER

FORCES

C-6062-104

Figure

2-26.

Block

Diagram

-- Vehicle

Dynamic

Simulation

2-28

qoYRO ,,LOW-PASS H
_r

'i I_'_:,_-----_----_LOW-P'SSU-_a--lO_MOO. r't-"'_ _ _--1 F--L_LF_rtl-FILTER

I [ 2-AXIS FREE GYRO I i

'(" _
q

I 'IFILTER I _

,oY,......._'l....... O , I_".-"_FU._ ...........', , I I_"_'_s i " -I

COMBIN. -DEMOD .... FILTER , , GYRO DYNAMICS

-J

P,TCH , _ i

_...',...i...! ..... @,_

I!..-I ._.. _

r --

'
--

DRIFT = fit)

DEMOD.

COMBIN. FILTER

k-F
a

__

t....

8 4

FREE IGYRO _ _

'...... C-6062-105

Figure

2-27.

Block

Diagram

-- Autopilot

HM

_ HM =f(a,6, q)

s/_,_
" I I GAIN HYSTERESIS RATE LIMIT FIN DEFLECTION (a) AERODYNAMIC CONTROL

_1_
POSITION LIMIT

, iort l
;

-= -t

oocoq
0.035 SEC (OFF)

FR h O. O08S+I

FR.

(b) REACTION CONTROL

C-6062-106

Figure

2-28.

Control

Subsystem

Simulation 2-29

Once the
stability pilot critical linear locus 2-44. contain gains, "time theory These the

control

system

had been

synthesized, vehicle noise, i.e.,

analyses were

were

made

to ascertain of autoat various fixed so that root did not

of subsystems dead zones, slices" would stability restrictions variations;

and the overall hysteresis, in the trajectory; apply. function analyses of fixed e.g., The results diagrams, mass shift 2-43

system. and the like the velocity analyses, the analog break point. aimed modes 2-29. filter

Parametric and mass in the form

effects were 2-42

investigated

of such

of Bode, (which

and describing

are contained or velocity), in filter

in References simulations pointing

through

complemented

explicitly

out the results

of parametric The analysis filter was three going to block as experienced degrees analysis.

of Reference the coupling on Vehicle shown With the For second of freedom

was

primarily bending passive

toward with the types was

the

selection control the

of a new system, choice having the forewere order,

of structural 12-51-1. schematically plus fundamental filter filters system analyses were selected three order),

attitude studied,

Of four

the RCL filter

in Figure in the (first

An analog no problems underdamped

simulation of instability second

body bending system, order,

set up to check

encountered. critically

the other

damped

oscillations were valid, such

were

exhibited. of simplifications To answer was the question performed were conThe effects of nonlinearities were

The nature were made as to whether

of the such

stability

that a number system. analysis

by linear

representation simplifications

of elements

of the

a nonlinear

(Reference 2-44). Nonlinearities sidered in the elevon positioning, each were calculated limit cycle as having attitude were by describing oscillations, a negligible control inserted and did create evaluated

of deadband, saturation and hysteresis hydraulic servovalve and the gyros. function the effect low on the techniques. level, vehicle Although and its control these low frequency

oscillations system.

As the components tions, simulation hydraulic noise-induced this

system into the checked

design analog the the

was

translated 2-26.

into This

hardware, their analog

the physical representarealistic of the to a more

system, accuracy

supplanting of prior valve

as indicated servovalve,

by the bold blocks the actual than was electrical unit

in Figure made

provided less in all

of missions instability the

analysis.

In the case susceptible 2-45).

the system

markedly (Reference was used

simulated

Following

discovery,

portion

of a servovalve

succeeding

simulations. The and FIN block shown set in Figure 2-26 represents The for single six a single fin degrees aerodynamic fin-elevon were sufficient the remaining case had - excepting the

one quadrant

of reaction

controls.

and RCS unit of freedom,

for three-degree-of-freedom

simulations;

control quadrants had to be simulated. demonstrated the close check between servovalve freedom - simulation work. of all four

In practice, once the simpler simulated and actual controls was satisfactory for

quadrants

six-degree-of-

2-30

o3a - 319NY 3SYHd

0

------r

,F,,

o,_

*-4 0 0 0

+ qP - OllV_ 301"lll-ldl/_V

2-31

The RCS was not mounted on the fin root (Figure 2-30), as on the vehicle, but w a s located in a test cell (Figure 2-31) for reasons of safety. Functionally, however, the two controls were connected into the autopilot (located with the analog computer at a third location) by electrical cables in the same scheme as in the vehicle. The gyros were mounted on a two-axis flight table adjacent to the analog computer laboratory. A closed-circuit television system permitted visual monitoring of the gyros, fin and RCS at the analog control station. The limitations of the flight table were two-fold. First, having only two degrees of freedom restricted the scope of the overall simulation. The second limitation w a s more severe: the large phase lags in the table response and the wave distortion of small amplitude signals made it impossible to obtain meaningful results with actual gyros in the test system. Simulated gyros were not known to represent accurately the response of the sensors. Because of this restriction, the simulation and hardware verification efforts were thereafter conducted largely at the Manned Spacecraft Center where a new, highly accurate three-axis flight table had just been received. Reference 2-41 contains a detailed comparison of the setups at Convair and MSC. The test fin system at Convair w a s duplicated at MSC; the RCS was not. Because the RCS unit, a s tested, confirmed very closely the analog representation, transfer of the hardware to MSC w a s unnecessary.

C-6062-108

Figure 2-30.

Attitude Control Fin in T e s t Setup For Aerodynamic Control Subsystem Checkout

2-32

1 .

r; . C-6062-109 ,

Figure 2-31.

CW and CCW Test Assembly (One Fin Set) in Prototype Reaction Control Subsystem of Attitude Control System - H 0 Fueling in 2 2 Test C e l l

Integrated attitude control system tests were completed prior to the launch of the first controlled vehicle (12-51-1), the results being reported in References 2-41 and 2-46. Two design changes and a change in operating procedure resulted from the tests. A s reported in Reference 2-47, a failure mode analysis was performed for Mission E (seven-Algol configuration) using the six-degree-of-freedom analog simulation (Convair). Prior to each launch of a 12-51 version launch vehicle, a failure mode study was made, using the analog-plug-hardware simulation of the mission. A s a practical example, Vehicle 12-51-1 (Mission A-002) was launched with the No. 1RCS unit deactivated. Prelaunch analysis reported by Reference 2-48, showed that even a full-on RCS motor failure would not jeopardize this mission. RCS was not required for the A-002 mission but was being flight tested to qualify it for Mission A-003. The detailed failure analysis (Reference 2-49) considered single and multiple failures of elements of the sensing, logic, control and propulsion subsystem. Similar studies were carried out for Vehicles 12-51-2 (Reference 2-50) and 12-51-3 (Reference 2-51); however, the study for Vehicle 12-51-3 was conducted with a digital simulation. Following the in-flight failure of Vehicle 12-51-2, intensive efforts were made to simulate the flight history as an aid to failure analysis. A resonably good match of tlie vehicle dynamics was achieved with the six degree-of-freedom digital simulation, considering the meager flight data obtained on Vehicle 12-51-2. The results of the

2-33

simulation over Mission G.

indicated A-003 is

that of No. available

an active 4 elevon.

failure The

of No. detailed 2-52.

4 RCS did not accompany post-flight analysis

the hard-

displacement

of the Apollo

in Reference

DESIGN

ENVIRONMENTS to the design environments systems for and environments were Little specified Joe previously to guide II and design discussed, the design e.g., vibration Figure and 2-32 is

In addition acoustics, of components a summary For For ature other

and type

qualification

supporting criteria. Reference

equipment.

of the principal the most part, the

environmental criteria Joe more

are taken II, limits severe

from

2-17, Sands

with

modifications Range. with temper(which

for conditions example, margin limit any suitable is below There winds exceed as shown

peculiar the flight of -15F expected

to Little

its missions, were based missions. predictable PMR example,

and White

Missile missions, operating

acceleration

on the design The ground temperature Station).

for conceivably reflects temperature areas 2-10.

the minimum

at WSMR

for AMR, For

or Wallops

are some in'Figure

of overlap. CPF For value trajectory

the 99 percent feet studies,

CPF

surface at WSMR),

the 99 percent

for wind analysis

at 4,000

(the elevation

and control the maximum aimed. The 2-33, with

the wind

velocity at launch was assumed down cables could be removed entire shown altitude in detail range b. is shown

never to exceed and the launcher in detail

velocity at which the tiewind envelope over the the design gust spectrum

a of Figure

With difficulties

the exception of design

of the vibratory were imposed

environment

previously

discussed,

no great

by the environments.

2-34

PRESSURE 1. 2. IN-FLIGHT GROUND NONOPERATING OPERATING 3, AIR TRANSPORT 9.5 11.0 3.0 TO 15.5 TO 15.5 TO 15.5 PSI PSI PSI 1.5.5 TO 0.003 PSI IN TWO (2) MIN.

TEMPERATURE 1. IN-FLIGHT INTERNAL STA MOTOR CASE) FIN - MORE ELEVON HYDRAULIC 0-34.75 6" AFT L.E. 35" TO 160"F IN 60 IN 60 SEC SEC O* TO 352eF -1.5" TO 300eF -15 TO 160"F -15" TO 160F "LESS THAN 1050"F -15 TO 250F IN 60 SEC

THAN

ACTUATOR

COMPARTMENT

ACCUMULATOR NOZZLES

COMPARTMENT) REACTION CONTROL EXTERNAL 2. GROUND REACTION ALL ACCELERATION 1. IN-FLIGHT LONGITUDINAL TRANSVERSE PITCH VIBRATION 1. 2. IN-FLIGHT (SEE FIGURE OR YAW - C.G. - LOCAL OTHER SKIN

CONTROL

- FUELED

40 TO 160"F -15" TO 160*F

NONOPERATING) COMPONENTS

+8, +IG

-2 G

+2G +1 RAD/SEC

2-13) 5-27.5 +1.56 +1.30 1.04 CPS G G G 27.5-52 .043" .036" .029" CPS D.A. D.A. D.A. 52-500 *-6.0 CPS G

GROUND (NONOPERATING) WT < 50 LBS 50 1000 LBS < WT LBS <WT FIGURE < 1000 LBS

5.0 G 3.33 G

ACOUSTICS SHOCK 1.

(SEE

2-14)

GROUND

(NONOPERATING) WT < 250 LBS LBS LBS 30G, 24G, 21G, 18 11(1) 11(1) 11(+1) G, 11 MSEC MSEC MSEC

250 500 1000 HUMIDITY ZERO SALT

LBS _ WT < 500 LBS _, WT < LBS _ WT .1000

(I)MSEC

TO 100%

RELATIVE

HUMIDITY.

SPRAY TO 20% SALT SOLUTION FOR 50 HOURS.

EQUIVALENT OTHERS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. SUNLIGHT

360 RAIN

BTU/FT2/HR

FOR SIX WEEKS

RAIN & FREEZING SNOW FUNGUS OZONE SAND & DUST

4 IN./HR 1 IN./HR

FOR ONE HOUR FOR ONE HOUR AREAS FOR TWO YEARS SILICA FLOUR FPM

AS IN TROPICAL 0.05 PPM

CONCENTRATION TO 140 MESH

EQUIVALENT WITH

PARTICLE

VELOCITY

UP TO 500

7.

WINDS A. ALOFT (SEE FIGURES 2-10 & 2-33) HEIGHT 8. SURFACE ABOVE GROUND (FEET) 10 30 60 100 150 99%(CPF) STEADY (KTS) 27.9 34.8 40.1 44.3 48.0

PEAK (KTS) 39.5 49.3 56.7 62.7 68.0 C-6062-11O

Figure

2-32.

Environment

for

Design

of Little

Joe

II 2-35

200

160
i, 0

=
...r

120
0 'lp! W Cl Ira I---I ,, q

/
/

CPF - CUMULATIVE

c
i--

80

"o._
500 0 20

40

/
40

/
60 80 - FT/SEC
_.-6062-111

oh; _
O 100 200 300 400 WIND SPEED - FT/SEC

100

GUST AMPLITUDE

Figure

2-33.

Wind

Profile

--

Gust Spectrum

2-36

REFERENCES

2-1

Aerodynamic Fins, Convair Tunnel

Data Aero Test

for

Little

Joe

II with

316-Inch

Service

Module

and

50 Ft 2

Document

LJ-004,

25 September Little Joe

1962. II-Apollo Force Model,

2-2

Wind Convair

Data

of an 0.03-Scale 19 February for 1963; Little Joe 7,

Report

GDC-63-025, Coefficients 24 June

1963. H-Apollo 5 March Based 1965. Little Fins, Joe NASA II-Apollo Project Apollo on Wind Tunnel Tests,

2-3

Aerodynamic GDC-63-137,

Revision

2-4

Static Working

Longitudinal with No. Paper Vehicle Vehicle

Characteristics Control 1079, Surfaces 2 July

of the on the 1963.

Production Booster

Configuration

2-5

Launch Test

Flight 12-50-1,

Report, Convair Apollo 1964.

NASA Project Report Mission

Apollo,

Little

Joe

II Qualification 1963.

GD/C-63-193A, A-001 (BP-12),

28 October NASA Report

2-6

Postlaunch MSC-R-A-64-1,

Report

for

28 May Report for

2-7

Postlaunch MSC-R-A-65-1,

Apollo

Mission 1965. of the

A-002

(BP-23),

NASA

Report

22 January Characteristics 1966.

2-8

Longitudinal Angles 28 January

Little

Joe Number

II - Apollo 1.80

Configuration NASA,

at

of Attack

Up to 40 and at Mach

to 2.86,

2-9

Data

and

Analysis 8-Foot

of an 0.3 Transonic

Scale Pressure

Model

of a Little Test

Joe No.

H/LEM 288)

Configuration Report

(Langley

Tunnel

Convair

GDC-63-243, 2-10 Interim Launcher, 1962. 2-11 Air May 2-12 Stress 28 June Loads 1963; for

December Design Joe

1963. and Loads Criteria for Test Launch Vehicles and

Structural Little

II Project,

Convair

Report

GD/C-62-278A,

25 September

Structural

Design

of Little 1965.

Joe

II,

Convair

Report

GD/C-63-102,

Revision

5, 30 November Joe

Analysis 1963.

of Little

II Stabilizing

Fins,

Convair

Report

GD/C-63-036,

2-37

2-13

Stress Analysis GD/C-63-037, Installation

of Little Joe II Attitude Revision A, 7 December 12-51-3, Joe

Control Fins, Convair 1965, and Addendum 1965. Convair Report

Report I, Ballast

for Vehicle of Little

15 October

2-14
2-15

Stress 7 June Little 1965,

Analysis 1963. Joe

II Launcher,

GD/C-63-038,

II Launch 1963, and

Vehicle Addenda

Stress I-IH

Analysis, (15 February,

Convair

Report

GD/C-63-039, and 15 October

19 August

12 March

respectively). and Annual Base, NASA Wind Distribution July 1961. Atmosphere (Part I), IRIG Document as a Function Florida, by J. W. of Attitude Smith for Patrick W.

2-16

Monthly Air Force Vaughan,

Cape

Canaveral,

and W.

TN D-610, Range

2-17

White 104-63.

Sands

Missile

Reference

2-18

Convair

Report

SL-62-028.

2-19

Little

Joe

II Attitude Addendum

Control 1,

Fin

Static

Proof 1963.

Test

Results,

Convair

Report

SL-63-024, 2-20 MIL-STD-810. Equipment, 2-21 Vibration Little and 12-50, 2-22 Little Report 2-23 Results Little 1964. 2-24 Little Test 2-25 Little Joe Modes, Joe Joe

15 October Test

Environmental June 1962.

Methods

for

Aerospace

and

Ground

and Acoustic II Vehicle, 1963.

Qualification Convair Memo Environment

Tests Report for

for

Equipment

Installed Rev. II, Joe II,

in the 23 June Version 1964,

DF-12-101, Design

Addendum 12 June Joe

I, Vibration

of Little

If/Apollo

Vehicle, 19 October Vibration Control

Fixed 1962. Test Fin,

Fin

Flutter

Analysis,

Convair

Memo

DF-12-102, of the Joe Ground

and

Associated Report

Stiffness GD/C-64-023,

Tests

of the

II Attitude

Convair

10 January

II Attitude Convair If/Apollo

Control Memo Vehicle

Fin Report Panel

Flutter

Analysis

Using

Ground 1964.

Vibration

DF-12-120, Flutter Analysis, 4-10), Convair

29 January Convair

Memo 1962.

Report

DF-12-102A 2-26 Little Joe

(Addendum H Panel 1963. If/Apollo

A to Reference Analysis,

18 December Memo Report

Vibration

DF-12-106,

3 January 2-27 Little Convair Joe

Cantilevered

Fixed 19 March

Fin

Ground

Vibration

Test

Results,

Report

GDC-63-055,

1963.

2-38

2-28 2-29 2-30 2-31 2-32 2-33 2-34 2-35 2-36 2-37 2-38 2-39 2-40
2-41

Aerodynamic 20 May 1963. Missile figuration, Base

Heating-Little

Joe

II Booster,

Convair

Memo

Report

T-12-25,

Heating-Little Convair Memo

Joe Report

II Mission T-12-20, Joe 1I Base 1962. "F,"

"E, " Seven 10 April Thermal

Algol 1963.

Rocket

Con-

Materials Evaluation Report RT-62-040, Base Heating-Little 13 November 1962. Davis, Inc., Little A-002), Little A-003), Little A-004), Little Joe November Little Memo Little Joe Joe Joe Follin 1958). Joe II Design Convair

for Little 15 October Joe

Protection,

Convair

II Mission

Convair

Memo

Report

T-12-17,

& Blitzer,

Exterior

Ballistics

of Rockets

(D.

Van

Nostrand

Co.,

Thrust

Misalignment DC-12-023,

for

Mission 29 June

"J" 1964. "N"

(NASA

Mission

Memo

Report

II Design Convair

Thrust

Misalignment D-65-15,

for Mission 13 April for

(NASA

Mission

Memo

Report

1965. "Q" 1965. Report T-12-10, 15 (NASA Mission

II Design Convair

Thrust

Misalignment D-65-40,

Mission

Memo Air

Report

1 November Convair Memo

H Ground 1962.

Conditioning,

II - Summary T-12-14,

of Ground 22 October

Air

Conditioning

Requirements,

Convair

Report Joe

1962. Temperature Report Variation T-12-26, Apollo 2 July Accuracy Test 1962. Study of the Little Joe with Air 1963. Vehicle -

II Rocket Removed,

Propellant Convair Study Report

Grain Memo

Conditioning Attitude Little Convair II Vehicle, Integrated Convair 2-42 Convair 23 July 2-43 Stability Apollo 2-44 Little 1965. 2-45 Convair

12 June Launch

Control Joe II, Memo

System Convair Report

- NASA Project GD/C-62-190, Guidance 5 July Tests,

DC-12-005, 1963 (Revised System

7 March Attitude Report Memo 1963. Analysis

1963). Little 1964. Analysis - Little Joe II, Joe II, NASA Apollo Project,

Control

GD/C-64-332, Report DC-12-011,

30 November Stability

of Apollo Convair

Mission Report

A-003

(Little

Joe 3 March

H Vehicle 1965. A-003 D-65-16,

12-51-2/

BP-22), Joe

Memo Stability

D-65-9,

II Nonlinear 12-51-2/Apollo

Analysis Convair

of Apollo Memo

Mission Report

(Little

Joe

II Vehicle

BP-22),

5 April

Memo

Report

DC-12-020,

Little

Joe

II Autopilot

Noise,

7 April

1964.

2-39

2-46

Integrated Apollo

Attitude

Control Convair

System Memo

Tests,

Little

Joe

II Vehicle 1965. Analysis,

51-2,

NASA

Project, Memo

Report

D-65-18, Joe

19 April II Failure

2-47

Convair 1963. Convair

Report

DC-12-009,

Little

1 October

2-48

Memo

Report

DC-12-025, Joe II Mission

The

Effect

of Reaction A-002), J,

Control

System 1964. Report

Malfunction 2-49 Little Joe DC-12-029, Little Memo 2-51 Little Memo 2-52 Post Joe

on Little

J (NASA Mission

14 September Memo

II/BP-23 Failure Analysis, 12 November 1964. II Vehicle D-65-17, 51-2, Apollo

Convair

2-50

Mission 1965. Mission 1965. Mission

A-003,

Failure

Analysis,

Convair

Report Joe

23 April 51-3, Apollo

II Vehicle D-65-39,

A-004,

Failure

Analysis,

Convair

Report Flight

29 October Apollo 1965.

Investigation, 23 June

A-003

Flight,

Convair

Report

GD/C-65-143,

2-40

VEHICLE

SYSTEMS

[VEHICLE

SYSTEMS

A.

GENERAL The vehicle systems purpose and testing developed, are summarized requirements, of components, specifications designed design are and assembled 3-1. description, listed Each and to meet vehicle systems, the Little and Joe discuschanges, I. II

Program sion and problems

requirements and fixes,

in Figure

system

includes

development in Appendix

subassemblies

conclusions

recommendations. DEVELOPMENT Wherever possible reduced

System TESTS vehicle which costs had

A of Volume

systems already saved was and

were been time. held

designed developed

for

use the

of readily necessary

available developtests

off-

the-shelf This

components

and proven

on other

programs. are

procedure

As a result, to a minimum.

ment testing by Convair and vendors included in system discussions. QUALIFIC ATION TESTS

Development

The qualification testing performed on Little Joe II falls into three basic types: 1) purchased components requiring partial or complete testing to the Little Joe II requirements, 2} newly developed Convair ponents developed for Little Joe II. The total number of new components used, due components, and 3} subcontracted com-

was to the

actually extensive

quite use

small

compared

to the

total number articles. A listing The major SYSTEM

of components

of previously

qualified

of the qualification

environmental testing

levels is included

for

Little

Joe system

II is presented section.

in Section

2.

in each

EVALUATION Interference to evaluate reviewed and tested for possible during EMI (EMI) support and systems design offered. Wiring both phases. specifications. installations at San Diego initial solutions was provided for Potential throughout the Little All areas electronic were system and and

Electromagnetic Joe were also II program were identified was tested systems equipment performance

components

EMI compatibility. EMI problem electrical Other were checked components

Convair-built

to applicable

to ensure monitored

compatibility. on all vehicles,

and WSMR. 3-1

APOLLO MISSION

- NUMBER - LAUNCH WEIGHT (LBS)

QTV 57,165 DUMMY CSM MOCKUP LES (LBS) (LBS) 12-50-1 24,225

A-O01 57,930 BP-12 25,335

A-OO2 94,331 BP-23 27,692

A-D03 177,189 BP-22 27,836

A-O04 139,73i SC-002 23,185 9,361

PAYLOAD

- NUMBER - WEIGHT - BALLAST

LAUNCH VEHICLE SYSTEM AIRFRAME

- NUMBER

12-50-2

12-51-1

12-51-2

12-51-3

CONFIGURATION -WEIGHT INC. MOTORS - BALLAST (LBS) - FIXED FIN FIN - CONTROLLABLE (LBS) 32,941 X . 32,595 X 6 1 58,030 8,609 X 4 2 144,309 5,044 X 3 3 ORDER X X X X X SINGLE HYD. X X X X DUAL X DUAL X 101,328 5,867 X 5 2 2 X X X X

PROPULSION

- 1ST STAGE RECRUIT -1ST -2ND STAGE ALGOL STAGE ALGOL PROGRAMMER CAPABILITY FILTER-2ND FILTER-NOTCH CONTROL CONTROL ACTUATOR

ATTITUDE

CONTROL

-PITCH -SIGNAL -SIGNAL

- PITCH-UP

-REACTION -ELEVON SUPPLY RF COMMAND -RANGE -THRUST -PITCH-UP - ABORT ELECTRICAL - PRIMARY

-AERODYNAMIC

SAFETY

DESTRUCT

X -

X X

X X

X X X X X

TERM & ABORT & ABORT

LOCATED IN PAYLOAD 3 24

X X

- INSTRUMENTATION

INSTRUMENTATION

- RF TRANSMITTERS - TM MEASUREMENTS - LL MEASUREMENTS

3 66 24 X

2 58 37

LOCATED IN PAYLOAD 13 45

1 39 36

RADAR BEACON

-LAUNCH -PAYLOAD

VEHICLE

X
C-6062-10

Figure

3-1.

Launch

Vehicle

Configuration

Summary

3-2

Military

specifications

were

used

as guides

for

the

EMI support. - Aeronautical Requirements

These

were:

MIL-I-26600 MIL-STD-826 MSC-ASPOEMIMilitary ment sients was were 10

Interference Electromagnetic Methods. Addendum

Control

Requirements Test

Equipment and Test

Interference

to MIL-I-26600 was the initial MIL-STD-826 of equipment Specification specification (upon request) MIL-I-26600 to which MIL-I-26600. the equip-

Specification applied

MIL-I-26600 1965, articles Military

designed;

in January to several since

superseded

Tran-

per MSC-ASPOhas no provision

EMI-10 or MIL-STD-826, for transient tests. All completion to modified test faces. Convair of each All systems were given

a Manufacturing phase. MAE and enabled of parameters harnessing, 0-09001. also checked

Acceptance testing complete were

Evaluation by Engineering harness checked

(MAE) was

at the performed functional interto Check-

of the manufacturing checkout system, installations, procedures adjustment including Specification

ring-out,

and verification The parameters

of inter-system for conformance of the Operational

Installation

out Procedures The phase reviewed Such areas Requests were for Design

(OCPWs) were Engineering cycle.

during

MAE. the design and manufacturing vehicle. and formal All RFC's change. shipped it was

Inspection NASA

(DEI) concluded the system design

of the vehicle the mission as design, Change

representatives, procedures, submitted met and immediate customer

both technical and safety action were was

and management, discussed on each

requirements, operations, (RFC's) vehicle were fully

and the completed

by the DEI representatives. taken requirements before

dispositioned

by a DEI board

In this way, the launch from the factory. B. STRUCTURE

The motors, and loads. Section The and site. from 3-3. stalled. side

structure loads The 2.

was

designed loads

to take

the body

axial and

loads other

produced asymmetric

by the rocket drag defined in aerodynamic

body bending caused airframe Maximum launch Either body vehicle fixed

produced designed load

by wind shears displacement, to withstand

and pitching

maneuvers,

by fin elevon was design

the vibration +8, -2 axial

environment

factors consisted with

were

and +2 transverse. fins; see Figures could 3-2 be in-

airframe fins or fins were made

of the body and four control surfaces for alloy convenience construction sheets stabilized

movable

(elevons) and were by ring

The body was Both sections truncated-form

in two sections aluminum

of assembly

at the launch fabricated frames.

of semi-monocoque

corrugated

3-3

SUPPORT HOOK (2)

SKIN (TYPICAL) STATION 34.75 MOTOR SUPPORT BU LKH EAD

t
TYPICAL ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION q i

;:_,
_'l _' | | _1

ACCESS (,) O00R

VEHICLE STATION O INTERFACE FRAME_ | AREAt 1._ '

Ii
VEHIC LE FOREBODY'-_ _.i _ _ _'_"_ ,_ 'P'J_

,!

_--"J_'_--EQUIPMENT

BODY FRAME (TYPICAL)

EXTERNAL
LONGERON (6)_

IL]
II' !i;

' ,:
j
STATION H _ 227.0

SPLICE BHD. (FOREBODY)

"--

FIN (4) ALGOL MOTOR -------_

VEHICLE

AFTERBODY

I MOTOR NOZZLE (TYPICAL)

RECRUT"OTOR<')--_i
ADAPTER (6).__ _-_t _. ._ =: _) _ _ ;!,=_p" STATION 227.0 /SPLICE BHD. (AFTERBODY)

suPPORT _ I TUBE(6)

\
__1 FIN RIB (TYPICAL) _ J FIN SKIN

VZ,,_ suPPORT "11IIIII TUBE

_,

FIN (4)

C'-6062-112

Figure

3-2.

Launch

Vehicle

Structural

Arrangement,

Fixed

Fin

(Version

12-50)

3-4

0
SUPPORT HOOK(2) I_------/_ TYPICAL ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION VEHICLE STATION INTERFACE 0 EQUIP ACCESS M ENT DOOR AREA (3) SKIN (TYPICAL)

FRAME,_ f

t1111 ,,,,,

VEHICLE

FOREBOOY

-....
STATION 34.75 SUPPORT BULKHEAD

b_ b_ b_

MOTOR

-=_-BODY

FRAME (TYPICAL)

b_

A'TERBooyVEH'CLE_X_;_O_(6 _#1 ' _1 '

REACTION SYSTEM CO FAIRING (4 SPLICE BHD. (FOREBODY) STATION 227.0 j

b_ b_

b_

i
I
I
, r i i i i i i

_AC_T04) R ELEVON
MOTOR

7_ L_
ALGOL MOTOR (4)_._

L Z II_

,"_z_,_L
VEHICLE BODY-ATTITUDE

ELEVON ,,,
CONTROL

.------

RECRUIT

MOTOR

(5)

=.2
STATION SPLICE 227.0 BHD.

(AFTERBODY)

0
AIR DOOR

SUPORTTOB
CONDITIONING (2). \'_. II1_ I_IIIIITII CENTER SUPPORT TUBE _""_' STATION MAIN 347.0 VEHICLE BULKHEAD

_OUTER MOTO.

\ _._.|HIlII,',I

(TYPICA__

FIN

(4) C-6062-113

Figure

3-3.

Launch i2-5i)

Vehicle

Structural

Arrangement,

Controllable

Fin (Version

3-5

The while

afterbody

contained bay

the thrust mounting test

bulkhead structure payload;

structure (see see from Figure Figure

and the fin mounting end of the and the The interface afterbody bulkhead main 3-4) 3-5. The interface

structure rocket strucapproxi(Vehicle of the For

the forebody equipment mounting 19 feet long, long for

provided the Apollo

structure

to stabilize

the upper

motors, ture mately Station 10 feet vehicle additional

forebody was

was

and formed Station from 350). of vehicle

the section 227 splice the Vehicle Both body structure;

the payload 227 splice were Launch

frame

0) to the Vehicle extending Station (Vehicle

bulkhead. Station sections see

approximately

to the base in diameter.

154 inches Vehicle

description

Description

Manuals

GD/C-63-034A

and GD/C-64-356.

The four Each fixed fin portion

fin assemblies whether The fins and was 3-6. of the controllable

were fixed

equi-spaced or controllable,

around was Station 35 square

the

afterbody; feet

see

Figure

3-6. the 399 center-

assembly, feet. leading elevon

50 square feet

in area: Station

fin measured from swept Vehicle back control tests, chiefly vehicle. edges

and the elevon

measured

15 square with the line. shown phase mounting Each

extended

262 to Vehicle relative were during structural on each the side there

trailing peroxide Design were of the

45 degrees Also, system to prove

to the body provisions

operated

hydraulically. reaction verification

for as

a hydrogen program,

of the fin root, the development and dynamic

in Figure of the

performed

conducted proposed

capability For 12-inch the a typical The column sion.

and integrity Short-Column wide sections short-column

Buckling of the failed Buckling for strength

Compression skin loads for

Tests, were

varying loaded in

lengths body

of 24-inch panels.

and of

corrugated buckling specimen

in compression Figure 3-7. the allowable panels

to establish A photo

allowable

representative

short-column Long-Column buckling The ultimate A photo vehicle basic This however, loads

is presented Test panels multi-bay,

Compression body

established by tests

longwas 3-8. release mission as to sub-

representative of long-column, panel

to failure

in compresin Figure

corrugated is presented from design

determined. The sequent

of a failed structure Minor these

in its test virtually changes

fixture

remained structural cannot II airframe

unchanged that were its initial made

its first

manufacturing. requirements; the five launches, intended.

can be attributed

to the fact be considered proved

encompassed Throughout

requirements.

to accommodate changes. to perform

as growth capability

the Little

Joe

3-6

SUPPORT

BULKHEAD

STATION

34.75

SERRATED

PLATE

ARM HOOK (2) HOOK SUPPORT DETAILS MOTOR SUPPORT PAD DETAILS

CENTER SUPPORT CENTER SUPPORT MOTOR TUBE

TUBE (6) OUT- ER MOTOR SUPPORT TUBE I6)

FIN

_.._

FIN FWD

ATTACHe/"r_'- J_ __L_=(4)"_"I_ "_" _'_ uFITTING___._r,

_'_.J-_J,

_'J_"

,v
FIN
.. SUPPORT BULKHEAD STATION 278.80

,,
" SUPPORT BULKHEAD FIN AFT STATION ATTACH 347.0 FITTINGS (41

C-6062-114

Figure

3-4.

Structural

Design

Details

3-7

STRUCTURE EXT V17-328002 ADAPTER

O0 DIA (REF) 2" DIA ACCESS HOLE

NAS625-14

PAYLOAD / /

STRUCTURE

AN960-516 WASHER

MS20002C5 WASHER 120 .180

BALLAST

SPLICE POINT STA. C LJ-II STRUCTURE .250

PLATENUT 154.25 DIA (REF) 151.416 DIA(REF)

C-.6062-115

Figure 3-8

3-5.

LJ-II/Apollo

Interface

Structure

AUTOPILOT SUBSYSTEM ACCESS (SENSING, LOGIC &CONTROL)

RCS MOTORS ( 8 )

AERODYNAMIC CONTROL SUBSYSTEM (4

VIEW LOOKING UP
CONTROL SUBSYSTEM ( 4 ) C-6062-116

Figure 3-6.

Fin Layout

Figure 3-7.

Typical Short-Column Failed Specimen

C-6062-117

3- 9

C-6062 18 -1

FAgure3-8. 3-10

Typical Long-Column Failed SpecLmen

fin. e.g., C.

The fin attachment fittings The extent of such increase maneuvering PROPULSION The propulsion to provide for Two each sizes thrust. mission systems rocket motors. specific are for loads.

on the afterbody can accommodate the loads of a larger depends on the particular mission requirements;

the

Little

Joe

II launch size, for each

vehicle type, mission.

consisted and sequence Motor

of multiple were configura-

solid-propellant selected tions

Motor

quantity, 3-9. were Recruits, at launch.

thrust shown

requirements in Figure motors motors,

of solid-propellant The smaller

supplied

by NASA. provided the

The

larger

motors, or Chemical ignition

Algols, sustaining

manufactured

by Aerojet-General

Corporation,

primary, powered

manufactured An electrically

by Thiokol

Corporation, subsystem ALGOL Two MOD details nozzle

provided high-boost-thrust for all motors initiated thrust. MOTORS Algol configurations nozzle; the Algol were ID, are of the

basic

used

on the in Figure

launch 3-10. adverse

vehicle; Each weather,

the

Algol The

ID, design motor the gases

II had exit

a fixed was

MOD I had canted from

an adjustable nozzle by a boot,

nozzle.

of these

two configurations covered by a seal, interior

given motor

second-stage to protect exhaust

and the

nozzle assembly and the and reflected heat. In preparation borescoped entire temperature When flanges was enabled The were see first Algol Staging period, Figure stage motors was to verify was was installed thrust laterally assembly for

installation integrity

and usage, of the and checked +30 and the support

each for

motor The leakage.

was igniter

carefully was

inspected installed storage

and and the stress.

the

propellant. +100F Algol afterbody. pads

pressurized

Pre-installation temperature bolted end

maintained in the

between launch

to minimize were The upper permitted

vehicle, of the vehicle

motors which

to mounting of each motor and

on the

bulkhead

restrained alignment. first

by adjustable

expansion

three on the

launch launch The last

vehicles pad with

required

single-stage thrust for sustained the stage 12-51-3.

propulsion approximately thrust desired was for ignited

only. forty for performance;

Motors seconds; the The

ignited

and provided staged motors pad, the

3-11. was

two vehicles, launch

requiring second

a longer in flight. flights.

and were were

equipped ignited consistent

to give

on the

in operation

and

performance

all five

successfully

accomplished

on Vehicle

3-11

,/_ +Z FIN II ALGOL ID, MOD II "_

FIN I FIN II _

+Z

/._

FIN I

ALGOL ID, MOD I

50-1

51-1

_FIN FIN IIIX FIN Ills FIN IV

IV

ALGOL ID, MOD II

+_ALGOL

ID, MOD I

50-2

+Z

ALGOL ID, MOD I 51-3 50-3 /

NOT FLOWN

+z

1ST STAGE ALGOLS Z = YAW AXIS RECRUITS 2ND STAGE IST STAGE

c -6062 -119

Figure

3-9.

Motor

Configuration

- View

Looking

Up

3-12

THE

IGNITER

ASSEMBLY,

INSTALLED OF

IN THE FORWARD A THERMOCOUPLE INSTALLATION ON THE MOTOR PROVIDED A MEANS OF MEASURING PROPELLANT GRAIN TEMPERATURE. COUPLES WERE TWO THERMOLOCATED ON THE

END OR DOME

THE MOTOR, WAS APPROXIMATELY 31 INCHES LONG AND WEIGHED APPROXIMATELY 35 POUNDS. THE IGNITER WAS ACTUATED BY TWO ELECTRIC INITIATORS.

INSIDE BORE OF THE GRAIN AND TWO OTHERS WERE ATTACHED TO THE OUTSIDE OF THE CHAMBER. THE THERMOCOUPLE LEADS TERMINATED IN A CONNECTOR ATTACHED TO THE OUTSIDE OF THE NOZZLE.

THE CHAMBER ASSEMBLY CONSISTED OF A WELDED CYLINDRICAL CASE FABRICATED OF HEATTREATED STEEL A CASE-BONDED AND LOADED WITH POLYURETHANE

PROPELLANT GRAIN. THE PROPELLANT WEIGHED APPROXIMATELY 19, ODD POUNDS AND HAD AN INTERNAL CONFIGURATION RESEMBLING AN EIGHT POINT STAR.

THE ALGOL ID, MOD II NOZZLE ASSEMBLY CONSISTED OF A STEEL HOUSING WITH A GRAPHITE INSERT THE ASSEMBLED MOTOR WAS 358 INCHES LONG, 40 INCHES IN DIAMETER, AND WEIGHED APPROXIMATELY 22,000 POUNDS. THE MOTOR CHARACTERISTICS AT SEA LEVEL AND 70F PROPELLANT GRAIN TEMPERATURE FOLLOWS: TOTAL AVERAGE ARE AS AT THE THROAT. THE MAXIMUM DIAMETER OF THE NOZZLE WAS APPROXIMATELY 32 INCHES, WHICH PROVIDED AN EXPANSION RATIO OF 4.64:1. THE ALGOL ID, MOTORS WERE MOD I ROCKET BASICALLY IDENT-

ICAL TO THE MOD II, EXCEPT THAT THE EXHAUST NOZZLE WAS A CANTED TYPE WHEREIN THE EXHAUST DISCHARGE ANGLE COULD BE VARIED BY MEANS FROM 0 TO 14 DEGREES OF A MICROMETER AS[

THRUST, =96,530 =4,068,000 TIME, = 42.1 = 214.6 =.3,80

LBF TOTAL IMPULSE, LBF-SEC TOTAL SEC BURNING

SEMBLY ADJUSTMENT. THE MAXIMUM DIAMETER AND EXPANSION RATIO WAS IDENTICAL TO THE FIXED NOZZLE.

SPECIFIC IMPULSE, LBF-S EC/L BM AVERAGE TOTAL PRESSURE, PSIA

J c-6o62-12o

Figure

3-10.

Algol

Motor

Details 3-13

120

lO0

%
PERFORMANCE BOUNDARIES FOR ALL LITTLE JOE II MISSIONS

8O
t_ en -1 O O O

60
b-

4O

2O

i0

20

30 TIME - SECONDS

40

50

60

70 C-6O62-121

Figure

3-11.

Algol

Thrust

RECRUIT Recruit motor stalled mounted figuration Prior The adapter properly maintained temperature The enabled thrust motors

MOTORS motors were used in the l_mnch vehicle to augment lift-off thrust. The

configuration through the igniters are given

for Vehicle 12-50-1 nozzle. The motors dual initiators; 3-12. motor and the + 100 F, the in Figure each were angle,

included used for details

an igniter-initiator Vehicle 12-50-2 of the Vehicle

assembly inand on had head12-50-2 motor con-

with

to installation, and nozzle cant the between than Recruit one, installed

was for igniter

inspected, fit and was the

indexed installed. Recruit

and

partially integrity

assembled. and was to

checked

indexed

to ensure Storage was less

temperature sensitive

+30 and Algol. were adapter seven

although

motors The of the

installed concept the

in the enabled

launch

vehicle in the main

on special mounting was were only of either

adapters flanges at the

which on the aft on

two or three

Recruits motor

to be installed positions. pre-indexed Motor adapter

bulkhead. in any

installation and

Recruit

or Algol

attachment nozzle

flanges. After the motor.

installation,

assembled

3-14

A PYROGEN-TYPE IGNITER WAS INSTALLED TO THE IGNITER PORT ON THE MOTOR HEAD. THE IGNITER WAS INITIATED BY TWO MODIFIED APOLLO STANDARD INITIATORS. THE PYROTECHNIC TRAIN CONSISTED OF THE TWO INITIATORS, THREE GRAMS OF BORON PELLETS AND 0.8 POUNDS OF PROPELLANT.

THE MOTOR CASE ASSEMBLY CONSISTED OF A WELDED, CYLINDRICAL CHAMBER FABRICATED OF 4130 HEAT-TREATED STEEL AND LOADED WITH A CASE-BONDED SOLID PROPELLANT. THE PROPELLANT HAD A FIVE-POINT STAR INTERNAL CONFIGURATION.

/
uI
THE CANTED ADAPTER, MADE OF STEEL, WAS INSTALLED BETWEEN THE CASE AND NOZZLE, BUT WAS ONLY SUPPLIED WITH THE MOTOR WHEN ANGULAR THRUST WAS REQUIRED. THE UNIT WAS APPROXIMATELY 3.5 INCHES LONG, 8 INCHES IN DIAMETER, WEIGHED APPROXIMATELY 9 POUNDS AND HAD A 6-1/2-DEGREE CANT ANGLE FOR DEFLECTION OF THE EXHAUST GAS F LOW.

"",-4

THE EXHAUST NOZZLE ASSEMBLY WAS A MACHINED STEEL ASSEMBLY INCORPORATING A GRAPHITE THROAT. THE NOZZLE WAS APPROXIMATELY 11 INCHES LONG, 9 INCH_'S IN DIAMETER AND WEIGHED APPROXIMATELY 20 POUNDS. THE EXPANSION RATIO WAS 4.28 TO 1. THE ASSEMBLED MOTOR WAS 104.8 INCHES LONG, 9 INCHES IN DIAMETER AND WEIGHED 367 POUNDS. THE MOTORS WERE RATED AS FOLLOWS WHEN FIRED AT 60F NOMINAL PROPELLANT GRAIN TEMPERATURE: THE NOZZLE CLOSURE, MADE OF STYROFOAM HAD A CONICAL SHAPE, AND WAS INSTALLED IN THE NOZZLE EXIT CONE FOR PROTECTION OF THE MOTOR. AVERAGE THRUST POUNDS TOTAL IMPULSE, LBF-SEC BURNING TIME, SECONDS PROPELLANT SPECIFIC IMPULSE, LB-SEC/LB PROPELLANT WEIGHT, POUNDS I AVERAGE PRESSURE, PSI = 37,100 = 57,000 = 1.536 = 213.9 = 267 =1748
C-6062-122

Figure

3-12.

Recruit

Motor

Details

3-15

A total vehicles. (No Recruits

of twenty-one These were motors installed

Recruit provided

motors

performed thrust ) 12-51-2.

satisfactorily source

on four see

launch Figure 3-13.

a reliable

for lift-off;

in Vehicle

IGNITION The ignitionsubsystem arming initiatedAlgol and Recruit motor thrust. For single-stage

operation, isolated ignitionbatteries in the power building supplied dc current via the and control relays to dual head-mounted pyrotechnic initiatorson each motor; see Figure 3-14. Ignitionbattery voltage was adjusted to supply at least five amperes circuit. For two-stage operation, first-stage current current was supplied by

to each initiator bridgewire

was supplied from the power building batteries. Second-stage two isolated ignitionbatteries in the vehicle; see Figure 3-15. The development of the ignition subsystem

took fulladvantage of the experience Firing current batteries were

gained on earlier solid-propellant propulsion systems. isolated from allother voltage sources. separated from other circuits and protected as much

Firing lines were physically and electrically as possible from radiation by shielding, and physical

use of separate metal junction boxes, conduit, magnetic cables in the facility. Multiple firing lines were highly reliable operation.

separation; twisted-shielded wire pairs were used in the vehicle and double-shielded routed to each motor to maintain a A remote arming and final

In the vehicle, separate firing lines were routed to each of building. Firing line resistance measurements

the four bridgewire circuits in the two initiatorsin each motor. box was located in the power arming could be made with fullpersonnel protection.

4O

3O

U_ rn ..J O O

20
I p-

tv -t-

l0

-0.4

0.4

0.8

1.2 $EC

TIME FROM LIFT-OFF,

Figure 3-16

3-13.

Recruit

Thrust

ARMING AND FIRING CONTROLS, TIMER COUNT AND MONITORING OF ALL RELAYS WAS ACCOMPLISHED ON THE IGNITION PANEL.

THE CONTROL ASSEMBLY CONTAINED ARMING AND FIRING RELAYS. AT LEAST TWO RELAY FAILURES WERE REQUIRED TO CAUSE A MALFUNCTION OF IGNITION. THE LAUNCH SEQUENCE TIMER WAS MANUALLY STARTED AT T-16 SECONDS, THEN AUTOMATIC STEPPING OCCURRED ONCE EACH SECOND. PRELAUNCH FUNCTIONS WERE ISOLATED FROM IGNITION CONTROL.

| | _, | | | "

HEAVY DUTY TRUCK BATTERASSEMBLY CONTROL BATT. IGN. IES SUPPLIED UP TO 150 AMPERES AT 34 VOLTS DC FOR IGNITION. A BATTERY CHARGER MAINTAINED THE BATTERY VOLTAGE.

TI

ER

I /

I ARM'NG I

FINAL ARMING WAS ACCOMPUSHED IN THE SAFETY OF | THE POWER BUILDING. PRIOR TO ARMING, ALL INITIATORS f WERE SHORTED AT THIS | POINT. J

BUILDING

ISOLATED,

SHIELDED

ELEC-

I I I I I
I

TRICAL CABLES SUPPLIED POWER TO THE VEHICLE INITIATORS.

TWO BRIDGEWIRES IN EACH OF THE TWO INITIATORS IN EACH MOTOR PROVIDED FOUR SEPARATE FIRING PATHS FOR EVERY MOTOR (12-50-2 & ON).

C-6062-124

Figure

3-14.

Block

Diagram

- Ignition

System

- Single

Stage

3-17

ALL GROUND

CON-

"_ CONTROLS __BLOCKHOUSE__

TROLS WERE SIMILAR | TO THOSE USED FOR SINGLE STAGE FIRING. I_ SEQUENCE TIMERS I _ WERE IN THE VEHICLE.J I

1ST STAGE I BATT I

I
' STSTAGE CONTROL _--

Ii =,.0 I t
POWER BLDG. DUEl VEHICLECJRCUI I R_ PREVENTED LOSS c)R PREMATURE IGNllION DUE TO ANY SINGLE FAILURE.

_I

'I

MOTOR DRIVEN

"_

SWITCHES PROVIDED | POSITIVE CONTROL | FOR SECOND STAGE ARMING. BOTH STAGES| WERE ARMED PRIOR | TO LIFT-OFF. j

-0,i, _J _,,orAo_ !A s /
/ CONTROL I'-

#1 TIMER

TIMER

#1

'- r'k_.)-_,,,,,,_ J'-b

v

CONTROL ___2NOII STAGE #2 , ,.._ 15 A/H, 28 BATTERIES SUPPLIED POWER FOR SECOND STAGE IGNITION.

ALGOL MOTORS VEHICLEj

C-6062-125

Figure 3-18

3-15.

Block

Diagram,

Two-Stage

Ignition

System

Controls and monitors for the ignition circuits were in the blockhouse console, The controls enabled arming of the firing lines and control of the launch sequence timer which initiated firing. Console lights were used to monitor all relays and timer operation. The timer, arming relays, and firing relays were located in a power building equipment rack. A launch sequence timer was developed to perform the primary function of ignition and the secondary function of sequencing events required just prior to ignition; see Figure 3-16. The timer employed a temperature-controlled, solid state oscillator to trigger rotary stepping switches. One- second pulses were provided by the timer for ignition, pre-lift-off functions and console lights. Output pulse times for the various functions could be changed by selection of external connections. Throughout the program, the timer was started sixteen seconds prior to lift-off (T - 16) and provided three-second pulses for ignition. The timer design was improved gradually throughout the program. The initial model w a s installed in the power building and was qualified to GSE requirements. Qualification tests for flight usage resulted in improved sealing techniques and addition of shock mounts for vehicle usage. With the introduction of new EM1 requirements, transient suppression circuitry was added. This version was flown in Vehicle 12-51-1 as a backup for RF command. Additional circuitry was added to prevent early, o r fast, timing. This final version was used for ignition in Vehicles 12-51-2 and 12-51-3.

C-6062-126

Figure 3-16.

Launch Sequence Timer

- Internal Assembly
3- 19

Minor For Vehicle switch vehicle house, operation 12-51-2,

changes 12-50-2, hold.

were the Test

made recruit

to the

ignition Console

subsystem were changed stop was would two-stage ignition first circuits stage

throughout (Figure the timer completely ignition revised

the program. 3-17) in the dual. and a HOLD event of a in the and 12-51-1,

initiators required to monitor Firing-line

added to the initiated instruments of the and 12-51-3

Conductors 12-51-2 added timer.

countdown

Vehicle both second were

propulsion;

dual timers battery voltage

stages;

second-stage

In the block-

were

on Vehicles

to accommodate were minimal;

the motor site

configuration. affected and exacting vehicles. resistance task. readings The ignition

Checkout subsystem D.

problems

temperature was a slow launch

and the line-by-line performed

verification satisfactorily

of circuits

on all five

ATTITUDE The attitude during

CONTROL control flight system maintained the the pitch launch attitude attitude for of the vehicle flight in yaw trajec-

and roll tory.

and programmed

the desired

DESIGN General - The system was composed control subsystem, monitor components, and subassemblies; of an autopilot subsystem, associated power, see Figure 3-18. an aerodynamic control and

a reaction control subsystem,

The autopilot subsystem program

(Figure 3-19) sensed vehicle motion and provided a pitch command error signals from the see and reaction control subsystems;

to obtain the desired trajectory. Computed

autopilot provided control to the aerodynamic Figure 3-20. The aerodynamic of the movable control subsystem

controlled vehicle motion by the movement

surfaces (elevons) on the four fins; see Figure 3-21. supplemented the aerodynamic the aerodynamic control subsystem, forces were low

The reaction control subsystem

providing attitudecontrol for the launch vehicle during the initial low-velocity phase of flightand during very-high-altitude flight,where or nonexistent; see Figure 3-22. subsystem The general arrangement of the reaction control with each module located

consisted of four independent reaction modules,

within fairlngs at the root of each fin. Operating controls and monitors were located at the blockhouse dual console; see Figure 3-23. All attitudecontrol functions were located on the left console.

Parameters

- The obtainable errors in the vehicle flighttrajectory can be and The maximum drift rates for the three axes were as

attributed dtrectly to the glmbal drift rate of the free gyros used for pitch, yaw, roll attitudeinformation. follows: pitch 0.50 /min; yaw 0.09 /min; and roll 0.50 /min.

3-20

BLOCKHOUSE POWER BUILDING

t
I

VEHICLE

BATT. I
EQUIP. RACK TIMER & CONTROLS

I I

IGNITION CONTROL PANEL

11i
12-50-1

II
ARM BOX (REF)

I
I I

I I I

12-50-2

I
Figure 3-17. Recruit Initiation

C-b002-127

3-21

FIN II

A
LOGIC AND CONTROL AMPLIFIER GYRO CONTROL RELAY OX

/
SIGNAL NOISE/ /

_,

/ /MAST

LAUNCHER (REF)

SIGNALNOIS

ATTITUDE REFERENCE PACKAGE AXIS \

t +Z AXIS (YAW)

/
RATE GYRO PACKAGE

PITCH PROGRAMMER

FIN III FIN I

/ / -Z AXIS

/ \ +Y AXIS (PITCH)

VIEW

LOOKING AFT

ATTITUDE CONTROL RELAY

VVERTER (REF)

FIN IV

I
VEHICLE STATION 0.00 ---.-q-VEHIC LE STATION 34.75

ACS GN2 FILL PORT

\
RCS VACUUM DRY REACTION CONTROL SYSTEM FAIRING (4) ACS HYDRAULIC SERVICE PANEL RCS GN2 FILL QUICK-DISCONNECT S PANEL (4) (ACCUMU LATOR-HYD FILTER) QUICK-DISCONNECT STATION 227.0

ELEVON ACTUATOR CYLINDER FAIRIN( FIN (4I

RCS H202 _VON (4)

FIN Ill

RCS H202 FILL QUICK-DISC(

FIN IV

MOTOR JET NOZZLE (8)

FIN I C--6062-128

Figure 3-22

3-18.

Attitude

Control

Z 0 m I--

o
UJ_J

b. ,--, '< Q:IzJ z _nh U_

o
rsl

r/1 r_

<
I

m=l

o 0

I o

e,-I

o
<<w_o_
_0_

_
<J
_

_>_?<

=_=

<_

__

_o_

3-23

THE AERODYNAMIC SERVO LOOP CONSISTED OF THE AERODYNAMIC CONTROL SUBSYSTEM AND THE POWER AMPLIFIER STAGE IN THE LOGIC AND CONTROL AMPLIFIER. SINCE ALL OF THE SIGNAL ERROR SHAPING WAS ACCOMPLISHED PRIOR TO THIS POINT IN THE SYSTEM, ALL FOUR OF THE SERVO LOOPS WERE IDENTICAL. /
r---

I I

LOGIC & CONTROL AMPLIFIER

I I I

FIN

I / /
/

I I :
I
ACTUATOR 11.25/SEC/ma SERVO VALVEt

I I \ \ I I
I

I
I I I
SURFACE I

I I
I I I I
POTENTIOMETER FEEDBACK .388 VOLTS/DEG

I I
I

I
I
_i _

/
I

I I I I \ I / I I I

I
1 OVERALL LOOP GAIN - 20/SEC

REACTION MOTORS

\
REACTION CONTROL THRESHOLD - THE LOGIC AND CONTROL AMPLIFIER WAS DESIGNED WITH THRESHOLD OR DEADBAND CIRCUITS FOR ACTUATING THE REACTION CONTROL MOTORS AS A FUNCTION OF COMMAND ERROR SIGNAL AMPLITUDE. EACH OF THE FOUR COMMAND ERROR SIGNALS WAS FED TO A SEPARATE PAIR OF AMPLIFIER STAGES WHICH OPERATED AS POLARITYSENSITIVE SWITCHES. WHEN THE COMMAND SIGNAL AMPLITUDE WAS EQUIVALENT TO 0.7 DEGREE OF SURFACE, ONE OF THE POLARITY-SENSITIVE ELECTRONIC SWITCHES WAS TRIGGERED, DEPENDING UPON SIGNAL POLARITY. THE SWITCHES CLOSED INDIVIDUAL RELAY CONTACTS WHICH THEN APPLIED 2B-VOLT DC POWER FROM THE REACTION CONTROL TIMING BUS TO THE APPROPRIATE MOTOR SOLENOIDS. REACTION CONTROL ON-OFF TIMING - THE 28-VOLT DC REACTION CONTROL TIMING BUS OBTAINED ITS POWER FROM THE VEHICLE POWER BUS. THE ON-OFF TIMING OF THE BUS WAS ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH THE USE OF TIME DELAY RELAYS. ON THE TWO VEHICLES IN WHICH THE REACTION CONTROL SUBSYSTEM WAS USED (VEHICLES 12-51-1 AND -2), THE BUS WAS ACTIVATED PRIOR TO LIFT-OFF, DE-ACTIVATED AND AGAIN ACTIVATED DURING THE COURSE OF THE FLIGHT.
C-6062=130

Figure 3-24

3-20.

Autopilot

Command

Diagram

LEGEND ==:,= HIGH PRESSURE GN 2 am= REGULATED PRESSURE GN2 HYDRAULIC CONTROL FLOW HYDRAULIC DISCHARGE "" SYSTEM FLOW .... ELECTRICAL CIRCUIT

NITROGEN NITROGEN NITROGEN NITROGEN

FILLER CHECK VALVE " ......................... BLEED VALVE :[ RELIEF VALVE PRESS. SWITCH

] ""=,.-_._

PALLET MOUNTED RCS FAIRING

NITROGEN PRESSURE (3000 PSi) SOLENOID CONTROL i_

, N,TROGEN (GN2) BOTTLE

(5000 PSi)400 CU. IN. i
|

AIR-OIL (GN 2) BOTTLE PSI) 400 CU. IN. FILLER CHECK VALVE BLEED VALVE RELIEF VALVE PRESS. SWITCH FILTER HYDRAULIC FILLER /'_ IT R OGEN" CHECK VALVES;VENT_N ////;"ii IRE REGULATOR (3000 SERVICE CHECK MANIFOLD_ _ll_
: =-------------_-..-------:_:

(5000

NITROGEN NITROGEN NITROGEN

' i

PSI)

SOLENOID VALVE HYDRAULIC HYDRAULIC PRESSURE AIR-OIL DISCHARGE HYDRAULIC SWITCHES

I

CONTROL

ACCUMULATOR PRESSURE

HYDRAULIC ACTUATOR ASSE_

SERVO VALV( ::::..

J_
CONTROL SUBSYSTEM WAS POWERED (GN 2) BY A FIXED CHARGE ACCUMULATOR HYDRAULIC BY GASEOUS NITROGEN

THE HYDRAULIC ACTUATOR ASSEMBLY CONSISTED OF A CONTROL SURFACE ACTUATING CYLINDER, SPECIFICALLY TAILORED FOR THE VEHICLE, AND A CONVENTIONAL SERVO VALVE AND FEEDBACK POTENTIOMETER. THE AERODYNAMIC SYSTEM

PRESSURIZED

THE SYSTEM HELD THE HYDRAULIC FLUID AND HIGH PRESSURE GAS FOR EXTENDED PERIODS OF TIME PRIOR TO ACTIVATION; HOWEVER, ONCE THE SUPPLY WAS ACTIVATED, HOLDING TIME WAS LIMITED. DURING AN ACTUAL LAUNCH OPERATION, THE SUPPLY WAS ACTIVATED DURING THE COUNTDOWN AT T-B SECONDS BY THE LAUNCH SEQUENCE TIMER. THE PORTION OF THE SCHEMATIC NOT IN PHANTOM REPRESENTS ONE-HALF OF THE TOTAL SYSTEM SUPPLY AND FORMED A COMPLETE SYSTEM. THIS CONFIGURATION WAS ORIGINAL DESIGN ANDWAS

USED

IN VEHICLE 12-51=1; DUE TO THE STRUCTURAL BENDING PROBLEM ENCOUNTERED DURING THAT MISSION, THE HYDRAULIC CAPACITY IN LATER VEHICLES WAS DOUBLED BY ADDING AN IDENTICAL SYSTEM IN PARALLEL TO THE ORIGINAL SYSTEM. THE ADDED COMPONENTS WERE PALLET-MOUNTED AND LOCATED ON THE AFT BODY SECTION ABOVE THE FIN LEADING EDGE, IN THE RCS FAIRINGS.

C-6062-131

Figure

3-21.

Aerodynamic

Control

Subsystem

3-25

CW AND

CCW ASSEMBLY

TYPICAL

FOR EACH

12-51

FIN

17 /

,,20

,_ 19

ELECTRICAL HARNESS AND DISCONNECT _

.-. j--_

,11 i0 12 13

ECTRICAL HARNESS INTERCONNECTS BETWEEN RH & LH FIN FAIRINGS

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

386

CU. IN.

GN2

STORAGE

BOTTLE

GN2 PRESSURE SWITCH GN2 FILLER QUICK DISCONNECT GN 2 PRESS. CONTROL VALVE AND VENT GN2 REG. PRESS. TRANSDUCER LOW-PRESSURE N2 RUPTURE DISK 850 CO. IN. (USABLE FUEL) TANKS (40 LB. USABLE H202) CHAMBER PRESSURE TRANSDUCER FUEL-FILL QUICK-DISCONNECT H202 H202 FUEL OVERFLOW: OVERFLOW: HI-PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE (GSE) QUICK-DISCONNECT RELIEF VALVE (4)

13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

OVERBD. THRUST

DECOMPOSITION MOTOR CONTROL

CHAMBER

MOUNTING RACK MOTOR SOLENOID

VALVE (GSE)

HIGH-PRESS. N2 RELIEF VALVE FUEL PRESSURE TRANSDUCER VACUUM DRYING SERVICE PORT ELECTRICAL SEQUENCER

HARNESS FROM LAUNCH TIMER FOR PRESSURIZA-

21. 22.

TION SIGNAL ELECTRICAL HARNESS FROM AUTOPILOT FOR MOTOR OPERATION BLADDER (4)

LEGEND: i_r"r'r_ I_'--'_[_ HIGH PRESSURE GN2 REGULATED PRESSURE SERVO PRESSURE GN 2 H202 OVERFLOW 90'/oH202 GN 2

C-6062-132-1

Figure

3-22.

Reaction

Control

Subsystem

(Sheet

1 of 2)

3-26

OPERATION: THE NITROGEN STORAGE TANKS WERE CHARGED TO 3600PSIG. THE FUEL TANKS WERE THEN SERVICED WITH 90/ STRENGTH HYDROGEN-PEROXIDE UNTIL COMPLETELY FILLED WITH LIQUID; THEN 5PERCENT WITHDRAWN TO ASSURE ADEQUATE ULLAGE, THE ULLAGE PRESSURE WAS MONITORED TO 08SERVE THE STABILITY OF THE FUEL. THE SYSTEM WAS MADE OPERATIONAL BY ENERGIZING THE PRESSURE CONTROL VALVE (PCV) TO PRESSURIZE THE SYSTEM AT T-4 SECONDS DURING COUNTDOWN. THIS PUT REGULATED NITROGEN PRESSURE BEHIND THE BLADDERS IN THE FUEL TANKS AND INCREASED THE FUEL PRESSURE TO THE OPERATIONAL LEVEL. FUEL PRESSURE WAS MONITORED ON THE LAUNCH CONSOLE. THE REACTION MOTORS WERE FIRED BY ELECTRICAL SIGNALS TO THE MOTOR VALVES; THRUST LEVEL AND RESPONSE WAS MEASURED BY RECORDING MOTOR CHAMBER PRESSURE ON A VISICORDER FOR RAPID EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE_ (SEE LANDLINES). EACH REACTION MODULE CONTAINED AN INDEPENDENT MONOPROPELLANT SYSTEM CONSISTING OF TWO NEAR-IDENTICAL SUPPLEMENTARY ASSEMBLIES. THE UNITIZED ASSEMBLY ON EACH FIN HAD A 386-CUBIC-INCH NITROGEN STORAGE TANK, TWO 40-POUND HYDROGEN-PEROXIDE POSITIVE-EXPULSION FUEL TANKS AND A REACTION MOTOR POSITIONED TO PROVIDE A 600POUND THRUST VECTOR NORMAL TO THE FIN SURFACE. APRESSURE REGULATOR, RELIEF VALVES, NITROGEN AND HYDROGEN-PEROXIDE SERVICING PORTS WERE DIVIDED BETWEEN THE ASSEMBLIES AND HAD INTERCONNECTING HOSES, TO FORM COMPLETELY INTEGRATED MONOPROPELLANT REACTION THRUST SUBSYSTEM. (SEE SUBSYSTEM SPECIFICATION 12-02603 FOR DETAILS.)

PRODUCTS OF REACTION: SUPERHEATED STEAM IXYGEN

H202 DECOMPOSITION NICKEL-SILVER PREHEAT SIGNAL HARNESS FROM AUTOPILOT OR SCROLL SCREEN CATALYST CATALYST

CHAMBER

DISTRIBUTION PLATE RADIAL INJECTOR GN 2 PILOT PRESSl .E

SOLENOID CONTROL VALVE

:HAMBER PRESSURE TRANSDUCER

RCS THRUST MOTOR

VIEW A (ROTATED) - REACTION CONTROL THRUST MOTOR AND VALVE ASSEMBLY

(TYPICAL)

C-0062-132 -2

Figure

3-22.

Reaction

Control

Subsystem

(Sheet

2 of 2) 3-27

VIOAR

510

M_W_[ . MONITOR RCS RATE (4) GYRO SPIN l (3)L ) I'_ . RATEGYRO FOR ALL _ .

CAUtmATE M(*m

VOLTAGE NpUT rl,oN,

I FREQUENCY _AT_ I,U* _PU'_w.,.i,_,,

III

INDIVIDUAL _._u,_ ,._..u,_ ,,.._,_ ACTION MOTOR SPIN MONITOR

RE-

CONTROL ON EACH FIN)

(DIGITAL ROTATIONS MOTOR READOUT PROVIDED ACCURACY) HIGH

_%_ o_f ,OLL

,v

MANUAL OF THE SYSTEMS

ACTIVATION HYDRAULIC

NITROGEN

PRESSURE

MONITOR

RCS CONTROL

HYDRAULIC

CONTROL

ARM HYDRAULIC SYSTEMS FOR

,.o_, MONITOR FOR ALL HYDRAULIC (8) AND

o,

HYDRAULIC (GO-NO-GO READOUT)

_E_u.,zt

m__',,_J._,,_ .vo= ._o=-, '

._o_ ._D, 'v'._t

"" "_'(_E_)" fist ,u':s( o_, vll_ (/_

._o, ....... ._o,, oI ,

o, o, 'L_ o, C'

PRESSURIZE VENT

AND

THE RCS THE THE RCS

PREPULSE ACTIVATE

NORMAL ACS TEST AND MONITOR TIMING

ACTIVATION BUS FOR

YAWATTITUDEGYROH'-"-

\R

.... i//

\_

..... I//

\\

........ "//

\\

.....

"//

_'\

......

'_"

_IISIGNALS(4)

"

......

,.........

, ,Pos, ,o

I ....

:::

<.o

ATTITUDE

GYROS.

......

['_)"_'_.

,,F-';;*"-lo...,(_ ':'_'_'-I

....

"I PROGRAMMER

"_TORQUE GIMBALS

ATTITUDE

GYRO

(4) IN TWO DIRECTIONS

TORQUE RATE GYROS (3) IN TWO DIRECTIONS

C-6062-133

Figure

3-23.

Blockhouse

Console

- Attitude

Control

System

3-28

The system had

of pitching the time constant. vehicle

the up

capability with an

of pitching exponential

the

vehicle

over having

at

a specific

rate

and and

command

a preset

amplitude

see

Major aerodynamic DIB 12- I. 014: Elevon Surface Hinge Regulated Nitrogen Reaction deflection rate moment (per

control

subsystem

limits

were

as

follows;

for

further

details

..... ....... surface) pressure. pressure subsystem .... parameters were . . . . .

+24

degrees. (nominal).

45 /sec. 7750 3000 5000 as ft-lbs. psi. psi. shown

hydraulic storage control

on

Figure

3-24.

A timer-controlled reaction through were time; period extent relays listed control various energized, the second flight. the employed 3-25, subsystem relays one relay

voltage was and of the closed The timing

bus

which

provided initially switch. immediately and

programmed from When and the the launch the then bus and 12-51-2 which two

operation sequence time delay after the

of the timer relays a finite second to time are a large delay

activated

a motor-driven relays after closed a delay used made of two. with for

opened during -2

powered

of the because were in

circuits was

Vehicles

12-51-1

differed and four differed, each

redundant The

on Vehicle on-off of other times,

instead along

also for

Figure

variations

parameters

vehicle.

SPEC LIMITS THRUST: - SEA LEVEL ......... - lOO,O00 FT. ALT ....... (HOT): - FROM VALVE SIGNAL APPLIED: - TO 10% RATED THRUST - TO 90% RATED THRUST - FROM VALVE SIGNAL REMOVED: - TO 90% RATED THRUST - TO 10% RATED THRUST SPECIFIC IMPULSE (Isp): TOTAL IMPULSE (IT) (PER FIN): EXPENDABLE FUEL (PER FIN): SYSTEM WEIGHT: FUEL: PRESSURIZATION GAS: - DRY - WET ........... ....... - STEADY STATE - CYCLIC ..........

432 (32) POUNDS 600 (i-45) POUNDS

RESPONSE

75 MILLISECONDS 85 MILLISECONDS

MAX. MAX.

45 MILLISECONDS 90 MILLISECONDS 140 LB-SEC/LB 130 LB-SEC/LB

MAX. MAX.

.......

20,800 LB-SECS (@ 100,000 FT. ALT.) 160 POUNDS 175 POUNDS (PER FIN) 350 POUNDS (PER FIN) 90% HYDROGEN PEROXIDE (MIL-H-16005C) GASEOUS NITROGEN (MIL-P-27401) AT 3600 PSIG

.....

C-6062-134

Figure

3-24.

RCS

Parameters

3-29

0-1

(.3

q.) (1)

,-4

(..J

o o r_
q,)

.<

C',,1 I CO q3

_,,,=_

I.IJ < 14.

3-30

DEVELOPMENT Since tion meet was the Although the most launch of the vehicle concepts needs was a new design, the designed much attitude of the control this hardware system specific was configuraairframe. to developed

a unique particular - The

assemblage

of components were standard, of the program. and were package firing, pick-off required

to control

Sensors error prior sisted sensing to using Qualification production

two gyro of the of the package without of the

packages autopilot, rate for gyro the first knowledge

the pitch designed was

programmer, and qualified were successfully of Convair. deletion of the requalification

which completed; incorporated These foam

make

up the vendor. the coninside prior

portion testing the

by a single into changes potting of the unit

however,

changes and

design

the

or consent partial

of a redesign

microsyn

the package assembly. to the Vehicle 12-51-1 Notch filters packages. trolled hydraulic frequency the vehicle during any due to lack other vehicle, systems of the body Filters than During

The changes mission. original

- The the the it was were fins completing

autopilot accomplished checkout

was

designed

without

the

use

of signal in the attitude when 22 cps), occurred system, gyro conthe with resonant

filtering autopilot found coincided

in the of Vehicle surfaces due rate was of the loop. the

demodulator 12-51-1, went fact gyros to the into that

sections the first oscillation

that

the control This that

activated. with

the natural had not and

(approximately stand

the feedback

This

phenomena

of the laboratory of the structural RCL,

testing involving feedback. passive filter

fin test

an autopilot

A second-order, the following

developed

for the

system

by Convair

had

characteristics:

- Natural - Damping - Attenuation

frequency (_n) = 80 rad./sec. ratio (5) = 0.4. at 22 cps T 8 db.

tw

\
FREQ c-6062-136

The relationship Vehicle correct the below caused respond; the Apollo

filter 12-51-1 payload

was between and

installed the rate proved

in all

attitude

and rate signals. for used

channels This attenuating

to maintain 22 cps. the first sensed too high The

the was

phase flown on inmode cps was and to of

and attitude to be satisfactory had the cps). rate trajectory been The in-flight

configuration

However, bending 3.5 gyros

mass escape

distribution tower; (5.25 The flight value the

to calculate was was

launch predicted therefore,

frequency oscillation motion

of approximately by the for hydraulic

elevon

movement.

of elevon was

the vehicle supplies,

not impaired.

3-31

however, clusion filter tion both deflections. was

were

depleted

to the this

extent bending

that during of vehicle mode notch with good circuit roll

the pitch-up was induced

maneuver

at the

confin to on

of the flight developed

a large

amount

by asymmetric in addition infinite The

To overcome low-pass

feedback, circuit extremely shift (notch phase

a parallel-tee, channels, virtually sharp offered

notch-type attenuaoverall

for the pitch filter. (3.4 frequency

and yaw rate The cps), filter

and attitude

the second-order at one discrete sides function

amplitude

roll-offs

of the notch, for

and relatively

characteristics. + second-order)

transfer

the combined

is as follows:

AIR

FREQ

C-6062-137

E
O

0.224 x 10-282 + 1 0.600 x I0-684 + 0.586 x 10-483 + 0.500 x I0-282 + 0.175 S + 1

E.
1

The flight mance;

notch however,

filter

configuration of Vehicle 12-51-2

was

flown records

on Vehicles adequate of Vehicle

12-51-2 analysis 12-51-3

and -3. showed

Premature perforof no trace

termination

did not allow on control of both filter package potting was The

of filter

analysis being

of the flight superimposed testing (RTV)

the bending Packaging by an outside Room RTV offered imbedded

frequency

surface

commands. were using large The were packaging accomplished epoxy were with design and

and qualification source. The and were Vulcanizing

configurations solid-potted, The components

production

both

Temperature in epoxy no problems and could

material. other the assembly.

inductors potted

nonremovable. without scrapping testing.

be changed

in qualification

Logic and Control amplifier circuits was control amplifier integrating, PP 65 and amplifier gain program, that could

Amplifier - The design and development accomplished by Convair. In the early was made of the commercial market for the task of amplification,

of the logic and control phases of the attitude for a dc operational subtraction, amplifiers A breadboard such as

a survey be used

summing, Research application.

etc. From the results of the survey, Philbrick PP 66 were selected as the most suitable for the package was built and tested to determine threshold,

operational resolution, unit was the used

parameters, and hysteresis. integrated open and -060). with

adjustment Subsequent

capability, to component aerodynamic response tests test Attitude with the

summing, testing, control program other Control

the breadboard (Reference

a test loop the

stand

fin and

subsystem system

to perform and

and closed

fin frequency unit was control 3-32 system

ZZC-63-011 Integrated,

Finally, attitude

integrated

hardware

in integrated

System,

Tests,

GD/C-64-332.

the

The unit,

production packaging, and the qualification manufacturer. was these seven that to the individual the unit

design of the production testing were accomplished One major test stages design problem not meet the encountered desired would

15-volt dc power by C. E.S. Inc., during null module drift was and flown this

supply within a local phase of the when to hold - at a

electronics development it was To meet the first

requirements designed logic stages

subjected

qualification amplifier

temperature - the axis

of a 40 F to summing was

160 F environment.

requirements,

a temperature-controlled configuration

temperature 12-51-1 and During the the stability command in the types should The loop system. and Prior package while that the that were all with solder The expanding components board number the this location see loose. electronic assembly RTV numerous frequency It was stages various newer back stages. a first-order closed of the stages limitations existing

of 150 F. This original -2; see Figure 3-26. the checkout of Vehicle package when the

on Vehicles

12-51-3 was

at San Diego, encountered.

a problem Low in the amplitude,

associated high observed were was power

with on

of the error

amplifier signals from

- approximately determined

50 mv at 4.0 extensive vehicle

megacycles package and bench

- oscillations testing that the

amplifier

vehicle

energized. amplifier subjected to that their

amplifier package were of loading. Collaboration had a higher around gain each were a break was stages also in those be added frequency function servo

susceptible to self-oscillation with Philbrick Research than those originally stages used, amplifier power to ensure capacitive stage (3.2 affect cps), the feedback 1300 was the

when indicated and that stability.

amplifiers amplifier

capacitive All

feed-

of the modified of the only

packages with

to incorporate amplifier of approximately

feedback thereby frequency to the cps. spare axis Because

to all limited to the response summing

response

frequency

25 cps. overall

response amplifier The change response flight being was of the 3-27. joints module was

20 radians/sec capacitive

of the limited to the at WSMR, unit was of all Figure discrepancy

did not materially incorporated stages

characteristics

to approximately while command signal. was module circuit employed the aluminum end with assembly components. action each completely units, bench-checking error including inside from boards

of Vehicle noted subjected common intermittent

12-51-3, that some to other

the

amplifier showed and revealed module with filled A the that

it was

signals

were

intermittent

to an input connections of this two printed technique between

Further the the

investigation the flight spare article, unit

temperature-controlled in the

module;

A tear-down on the mounted and resistors associated packaging

solder The

contained The

a sandwich tube, aluminum which

construction completed was the end-plates. boards; circuit then

components potting material were were contracting

two boards.

installed

in a rectangular sealed on each with caused potting feedback these in the sandwich

of the joint

summing

spanned

failures

failures and

apparently of the modules capacitive

by a working material had with been

of the thermal

two boards cycle. The with original

due

to

temperature-controlled due to the

in all units

rebuilt the

all new modules

modification;

however,

3-33

*-y:
C-6062-138

Figure 3-26.

Logic and Control Amplifier

Figure 3-27.
3- 34

Logic and Control Amplifier Oven Assembly

had been
while allow the the

cured new and potting boards.

at an elevated modules material separate cycle unit was In this had from

temperature cured

(150 F - module temperature. temperature surface could stresses

operating The when of the expand into the first

temperature) method was would deand with

been the

at room at room

to contract configuration

the unit and

energized fiberglass each

relatively

smooth the potting

components contract assembly. switch (Due to the

temperature The flight in the

and not induce resoldered module launch

abnormal

and repackaged. instead area, isolators of the of the the 75F in the isolators, potting

A 75 F thermal original 150 F switch, material.

was environwas test well article re-

installed the mental above the unit identical

completed and contraction in the

to alleviate

expansion

excursions

temperatures any temperature was mounted flight to the

stabilization vehicle. to the to assure

temperature be subjected.) A qualification qualification the validity

environment on vibration unit was mounted

to which

the unit would

In addition, vibration of the

constructed

and tested

environment while packaged module. In a parallel

on vibration

effort,

a new

packaging

design

was

initiated

for

the

temperatureof

controlled module. The new design provided the resistors and capacitors into two identical modules, operational encapsulated amplifiers. circuit in epoxy, The board, were similar two subassemblies installed

for the subassembly three-dimensional in construction and in the the same other and

of practically all modules. These size to the were and then PP 65 components tube,

mounted on a single foam potted. A module last for for vehicle the build-up future use. Reaction subsystem Applicable costs and built launch.

rectangular

to the

new design three logic new

was

not completed and the amplifiers

soon other were

enough

to support and

the stored

However,

modules and control

subassemblies fabricated

required

of three

Control started with components

System the were

- Thedevelopment second the The adapted from

of the stage Scout fuel

Little

Joe

II reaction by Walter was taken

control Kidde. from the

NASA Scout reliability.

RCS produced system tank design Little motor were see Figure

to minimize

development

gain

the

existing

large

Asset program. performance and designed racks with for the

Minimum changes were made to meet the environment requirements. The reaction higher thrust requirement. to complete All components the system; checkout hoses

Joe H envelope, nozzle was remounted 3-28. on two This at the factory

interconnecting

concept permitted complete and simplified installation The simultaneous components of 2 cps The level complete, while Little Joe engine of the cps,

system operation and on the launch vehicle. environment a more 10 minutes was vibrated requalified for was severe the and

by the vendor

H operational firing system created were for system

similar vibration Little major

to the Joe

Scout

except

that

the

environment. II vibration axis (refer qualified

All operating requirements to DF-12-101). to the 20-G

to 2000 firing.

to 30-(]

on each

assembled

successfully

3-35

I__

RCS FAIRING

ACS GN2 VENT O O ACSGN2 F'LL ACS HYDRAULIC _TI II "-"-" _ ACS GN2 F,LTER_W_,_/_ PALLET_ "_1 / --_ _'_l _'-' _..._ !_ I _ _CS GN2_ ACS ACS GN 2 PRESSURE GN2 ANIFOLD IJ I___..._ I_, _ _'-_1_ _ {_ _ I, BOTTLE PALLET - FiN _. _ J ,L_ J ACCUMULAToRACS A'R-OIL ACS GN2 RELIEF VALVE

ACS GN2 E_OTTLE

BLEEDVALVE _"_" ACS GN2

SWITCH

PRESSURE R EG U LAT OR ------"--_ ACS CONTROL VALVE_ GN2 II_L.J ACS GN 2 v

I_.L_

;ICSTGN2 ACS GN2 PRESSURE REGULATOR

BLEEDVALVEAcsGN 2___ FI LL PORT ACS GN2 RELIEF VALVE ACS GN 2 CONTROL

_ _r_

TUBEBRACKET

RCS GN2 BOTTLE

VALVE VACUUM DRY

RCS

QUICK-DISCONNECT

HIGH PRESSURE GN2 SUPPLY INTERCONNECT

HOSE RCS GN2 PRESSURE SWITCH

REGULATED PRESSURE SUPPLY INTERCONNECT

GN2

H202 BOTTLE

HYDRAULIC SERVICE MANIFOLD C ULIC FLUID FILTER PRESSURE SWITCH - PALLET

H2O 2 FUEL PRESSURE TRANSDUCER

H202

SUPPLY HOSE_

HYDRAULIC

PRESSURE

SWITCH

- FIN

INTERCONNECT

ACS AIR-OIL ACCUMULATOR

FUEL MANIFOLD FIN RCS CONTROL ., ;_ RCS MOTOR '/,' HYDRAULIC PRESSURE POTENTIOMETER

:I'"
ACS GN 2 MOTOR CHAMBER PRESSURE TRANSDUCER

'!?
..::..:

H20: OVERFLOW (VENT UNIT

H202 FILL QUICK-DISCONNECT

ACS RCS CW CCW GN 2 H2 02

AERODYNAMIC CONTROL SYSTEM REACTION CONTROL SYSTEM CLOCKWISE COUNTERCLOCKWISE GASEOUS NITROGEN HYDROGEN PEROXIDE

TO ELEVON INBD

ACTUATOR E LEVON HINGE

ONE FIN SHOWN - TYPICAL

ELEVON

HINGE (4)

Figure 3-36

3-28.

Reaction

Control

System

(Sheet

1 of 2)

c_o62-z40-_

ACS RCS CW CCW GN2 H202

AERODYNAMIC CONTROL SYSTEM REACTION CONTROL SYSTEM CLOCKWISE COUNTERCLOCKWISE GASEOUS HYDROGEN NITROGEN PEROXIDE

ACS GN2 BOTTLE INBD BOTTLE BLEED PLUG

RCS GN2 FILL QUICK-DISCONNECT

BOTTLE

MANIFOLD AND BURST DISC ASSEMBLY

RCSGN 2 PRESSURE OL VALVE

ADS HYDRAULIC

HIGH PRESSURE GN2 SUPPLY INTERCONNECT HOSE

REGULATED GN 2 SERVO PRESSURE LINE GN 2 SUPPLY INTERCONNECT

PRESSURE HOSE

ACS HYDRAULIC OVERBOARD RETURN PORT ACS ACTUATOR CYLINDER ACS SERVO VALVE

1202 BOTTLE

(2)

H202 SUPPLY INTERCONNECT HOSE

FUEL ELEVON HINGE(4)

MANIFOLD

ROL VALVE

MOTOR

CCW ASSEMBLY MOTOR CHAMBER PRESSURE TRANSDUCER IMOTORJETNOZZLE

ELEVON ACCESS

HINGE (TYP)

ACS FEEDBACK POTENTIOMETER CYLINDER DAMPER ELEVON HORN ." ELEVON

ONE

FIN SHOWN-TYPICAL C"6062-140 -2

Figure

3-28.

Reaction

Control

System

(Sheet

2 of 2)

3-37

The bed. ture. with 30-G modified vibration

major tests because

problem showed

in component that the Scout was produced

qualification catalyst essentially mesh requirements test initial test of tanks and used

was with performance in a plastic pre-catalyst. and nickel

the reaction deteriorated state

motor under

catalyst

Initial

the material program silvermet throughout vibration successfully

at operating catalyst motor The

temperapack the the with

A development a compressed catalyst vibration The system

a silver-plate

screen

and nickel-knit a double-length test presented

all performance

satisfactorily

withstood level.

to establish

a confidence

difficulty fixtures; modifications in saddles a more

in locating however,

satisfactory the test heavier maximum control

test

equipment was

and in developing saddles,

resonant-free with potting

program seating valve

completed

the following

incorporated: (to provide pressure

tank mounting contact bracket.

silicone bonding units

tank-to-tank

and damping),

rigid

All production Actuator

had the qualification - The hydraulic

modifications actuator The sand loading

incorporated. was designed configlife cycle, The in turn test reis as areas.

Hydraulic

Assembly

assembly

and flight-qualified uration successfully temperature, series Failures quired follows:

by Convair; passed the proof was during

see Figure 3-29. dynamic cycling, pressure, test column repeated required listing

unit in its final flight and dust, salt spray, and burst times redesigns failures tests. which due to problem and redesign

vibration, of the assembly

for qualification repetition

partially

several several of these

of the testing.

A brief

The actuator rod end fractured Examination of the rod end disclosed and bending instituted The but, as a result lubricating to lubricate hydraulic for of bearing the bearings of not properly

during the initial life cycle test (10,000 that the rod fractured under combined seizure. prior periods was The The bearing to start of storage a closed loop body, Joe II. seizure of testing. and prior system was The several was a direct

cycles). tension result was

specimen after

A procedure to launch. employing

control surface

subsystem feedback. of the unit levels

a linear item; were of of the were coupling. conrod at the

potentiometer required

potentiometer

an off-the-shelf modifications original

due to the mounting to sustain

on the actuator of Little

the vibration

configuration

the potentiometer had a flexible contacts under vibration. This tested; The sisted a rubber of a solid coupling rod with The in lieu the self results of both modifications wiper

wire portion arrangement of wire, were aligning were and

of the shaft to allow failed and two other a combination The final supplied to make

self alignment configurations and wire configuration stronger. mounted points tube this

of rubber qualified them were vibration the

negative. provisions

by a slip-joint

end attachment. Both actuator, contain actuator the the

contacts valve body. were was

redesigned

servocontrol actuator changes input to these

and the feedback Consequently, was to the and made removed were

potentiometer at resonant high. design: to dampen

directly of the effect, used of to

onto the hydraulic two configuration

components

extremely original

To minimize mounting hard-mounted the large

the potentiometer body; vibration

the potentiometer

to the

isolators

developed

extrusions

3-38

C-6062.141

Figure 3-29.

Actuator Assembly
3-39

the actuator under vibration. These isolators were attached to the aft end cap on the actuator and to the fin skin surface. Previously, the only attachment points for the actuator were the two rod ends; with the introduction of this third point, which was preloaded to snub the actuator to the fin surface, scratching and galling of the actuator rod developed; see Figure 3-30. This galling was traced to improper quality control in breaking the edges of the glands of the actuator. When the units were reworked to the drawing, the galling did not occur. All units were reworked and the supplier was changed. Considerable additional vibration testing was accomplished on the actuator assembly. The assembly was originally qualified to the 2043 level (later qualified to 30 G's) specified for fin-mounted assemblies. The assembly also passed off-limit testing at 40 G's and 50 GIs. System Tests - An integrated attitude control system test program was conducted to establish optimum gains, verify hardware compatibility and demonstrate that the Little Joe It attitude control system was capable of controlling the vehicle. The test configuration consisted of the autopilot electronic logic, the rate and attitude gyros mounted on a three degree of freedom servo table, a hydraulic aerodynamic control surface, and reaction control motors, all tied in with the analog computer simulating vehicle dynamics. The capability of the system was demonstrated, and knowledge derived from the testing resulted in two design changes and one procedural change; refer to Section 2. F.

.
C-hOh2-142

Figure 3-30.
3- 40

Actuator Shaft Scoring

This was the largest test series undertaken on the Little Joe II project in t e r m s of physical size and number of tests. Simultaneously, H202 reaction control motors were fired in one location, and a pneumatic/hydraulic operated fin and elevon was controlled in another location (Figure 3-31), the gyro packages were operated on the servo table in a third location, and the other autopilot components in a fourth location, all being controlled by the analog computer. Several tests were performed in different configurations, both at Convair and at NASA/MSC, Houston. Aerodynamic control subsystem testing was also accomplished at this time. The pneumaticallyhydraulically controlled fin was exercised extensively to obtain information on duration of the hydraulic fluid supply; linearity, frequency response, etc

The aerodynamic control and autopilot subsystems were tested under qualification s t r e s s e s to prove operation a s subsystems. The aerodynamic control vibration test consisted of vibration of an aerodynamic fin minus elevon but with a complete, operating pneurnatic/hydraulic system. The test was performed in three axes with a combined sinusoidal and random input to qualification levels. The unit successfully operated in all three axes during vibration. During testing, two failures of mounting brackets occurred. One of the brackets was a pneumatic line clamp and the other attached the GN2 bottle to the fin. Both brackets were replaced with phenolic clamps and the test continued. The change was then effected on all production fins.

C-6062-143

Figure 3-31.

Attitude Control Fin Test Setup

3-41

The autopilot vibration test demonstrated proper operation under vibration of a complete autopilot system consisting of an attitude gyro package, a rate gyro package, a logic and control amplifier, a static inverter, a pitch programmer, and two filters. These specimens were mounted on two vibration exciters and subjected to a combined sinusoidal and random vibration inthe three orthogonal axes; see Figure 3-32. Overall operation of the system under vibration was acceptable, with the following two anomalies: 1) the pitch programmer would not function in one axis and operated slowly in another axis, and 2) the drift rate of the yaw attitude gyro was excessive in the pitch axis. It was determined that the magnetic field produced by these large shakers was adequate to cause these anomalies when the field was up and the shakers not vibrating. This test was performed at Wyle Laboratory because it required two synchronized vibration exciters of 32,000 force pound output. Refer to Autopilot System Little Joe II 12-51 Vehicle, Vibration Qualification Test Report for, GD/C-64340, for test details. An aerodynamic fin structural response test was performed to determine the frequency and amplitude characteristics of a Little Joe 1 fin assembly when subjected 1 to limited mechanical excitation. Multiple accelerometers recorded fin response to different frequency and amplitude input to the fin at two locations. From this information it was possible to plot the transmissibility ratios over a selected bandwidth. The results of the test were used to better determine the vibratory input to different hydraulic components mounted on the fin.

.
C-6062-144

Figure 3-32.
3-42

Autopilot Vibration T e s t Setup

FAILURES Design system significant of the

AND FIXES engineers during resulting only the from in-flight worked Little the not previously joint failure roll after closely together in solving A summary follows with attitude of the control more

and reliability problems action failures

hardware corrective

Joe II program. mentioned investigations. of the after attitude

and problems

a description

Vehicle on Vehicle deflecting continued increased due to the tation flight surface and could The IV elevon after the broad effect area

12-51-2 12-51-2.

-- The

control Elevon up,

system

occurred

Approximately to cause condition

one second a clockwise existed; 25 seconds

lift-off, built

fin IV elevon the vehicle

started displacement roll rate failed

in a direction until until, a hardover

of the vehicle. lift-off, other there

as q forces

at approximately forces behavior

the vehicle was only

structure

centrifugal

generated. of the vehicle. data the components correctly;

No forces Although along indicated autopilot deflected was the and with

than the hard-over minimum and the for optimum behavior

fin account instrumenand the postother three control

for the observed testing

on the vehicle, controls

the measured

the observed was designed

of recovered operated

that the autopilot elevon.

not compensate exact cause

for a fully

of the malfunction loop. forces Because testing,

never exact

isolated, cause could action

but was and

confined

to the fin even of a

servocontrol of external and

not be determined NASA/MSC, over was initiated system

exhaustive

simulation, included:

study, changes

by both Convair to the hydraulic potentiometer with

on the vehicle, 1) configuration 2) design changes positive amplifier testing test

corrective

to reduce possibility more 4) rod

possibility clearance improvement in functional tamination; of X-ray to preclude trical ment

of contamination; 3) mounting of logic test 6) change requirement damaged stringent procedures; and and to provide

changes locking

to hydraulic method

GSE to reduce coupling loop

of contamination;

to the feedback to obtain

to allow stability;

a more control

hardware;

additional stress test

5) changes of conand addition O-rings for elec12) revision

and limited

stress

of hardware 7) change

to reduce

probability accumulator

in functional O-ring causing quality and

and limited

instructions of more clips

for potentiometers; control

in hydraulic 8) addition 11) revision classes

contamination;

harness; of more

9) increased

requirements of training

on vendors;

10) establishcleanliness

dust-free

and clean-rooms; 13) initiation

of OCP's; in revised

of cleanliness procedures. Autopilot against indicated ripple during

Subsystem gyro

-- A total package were lost

of twelve

Failure see

Analysis Figure were during

Reports 3-33. reported

were cycle

written

the rate

(American by solder pitch with high

Gyro); balls;

Six of the reports oscillation; high shift and to have

that the nulls voltages; test. One one unit

out of tolerance. channel

One unit two units damping found

had a limit

one urrit had a short

caused

and one unit had high phase qualification testing

of the units

null was

3-43

C-6062-145

Figure 3-33.

Rate Gyro

was reworked at the vendor's facility. The second unit was opened for trimpot adjustment and the null drift was apparently caused by mechanical shift after calibration and testing. The procedure was changed to include a vibration sweep to seat mechanical components prior to the final sealing. Null drift in the third unit was caused by aging of electronic components in the demodulator. Aging was normal and w a s compensated for in the amplifiers, o r by shimming. The fourth unit had a portion of the coil turns shorted in the microsyn. The problem was corrected by replacing the microsyn and instituting higher quality control during manufacture. The unit with the short, caused by solder balls, was cleaned and reassembled. The oil filler closure was changed to prevent recurrence and the manufacturing process instructions were revised for disassembly and resealing. The limit cycle oscillation was caused by excessive capacitance in the system, resulting in a phase lag and by excessive damping ratio. The filter and damping ratios were revised. The high phase lag was corrected by a capacitance change in the demodulator. The excessive drift during vibration was caused in one case by excessive frame amplification and in the other by spin motor bearings roughened from repeated vibration testing (exceeding vibration life expectancy) at component, subassembly and assembly levels. The frame was redesigned and the unit requalified. The broken lead wire was corrected by an engineering change, wherein the new parts in the wiper assembly had the lead wires potted. The unit that caged inconsistently was found to have intermittent amplifiers and the inner gimbal stops damaged. The damage was caused by high angular rate input from improper operation of the servo table; the probable cause of the amplifier 3-44

1 .

problem was gyro action after the stop damage. New operating procedures for the servo table were instituted and limit switches installed to prevent recurrence. The failure of the unit that would not torque o r cage was caused by an open lead wire which supplied power to the torquer fixed phase. A procedure was initiated to limit-stresstest all units, to detect marginal o r incipient failures. Manufacturing e r r o r was the cause of malfunction of the unit with reversed polarity in the pitch channel. The unit was repaired and a phasing check included in the system test. The excessive drift of the unit rejected in Receiving Inspection was caused by an incorrect location of NORTH in the lab. The lab was resurveyed and the correct location of NORTH verified for future testing. No damage was found in the unit that had been torqued while caged. Personnel involved were cautioned about the possible results of this action.
A total of eight Failure Analysis Reports were written against the attitude gyro package (American Gyro); see Figure 3-34. Failures included: loss of output during the vibration, failure to start, excessive drift, broken lead wires, gimbal oscillation, torquing, and reversed polarity. One unit had the torquing switch inadvertently turned on while the gyro was caged. The package was removed f o r checkout.

The short was caused by a bent wiper resulting in marginal seating on the slip ring. An inspection opening was provided in the wiper assembly to permit visual inspection of the wiper to slip ring mating prior to closing of the unit.

C-6062-146

Figure 3-34.

Attitude Gyro Package

3-45

Twice in SanDiego and several

Gyro) gyro yaw would and/or start value, pitch/roll when for requiring gyros momentarily starting. gyro problems of limited unit had caused resealed threads operation migrated the with stripped stress output was into The start

times failed caged.

at WSMR, to spin The adequate gyro

the start

attitude initially circuit a gyro quality programmer

sensor energized. was cage start.

(American The as to in critical

up when

capacitance all procedures Pitch temperature a unit potting ground, output. and the WSMR, pot cover seconds. magnesium a new used trimpot for

addition was

of the

momentary

instructions

to ensure and

programmer cycle the When which The

were after

due

to design of the seconds Teardown area the the

control.

During

the Gyro) the

testing normal.

pitch

(American At ambient revealed expand and was the that

indicated material

full voltage

a few

of operation. inspection would scheduled checkout

temperature compound.

an electronic from

due to a breakdown voltage

of a sealing lift the to full changed at rate trimbelow 65 with The gasket

subjected

to temperature, output to jump which case process a different out of the

compound normal the During attempting

manufacturing

allowed while

potting

to migrate to remove

units the

compound.

operations

screw. When the Teardown revealed particles installed, in lieu and one

unit was retested, the rate could not be adjusted the interior of the case was heavily contaminated end of the unit steel rate was cover trim cleaned, screws sealant for pot was the shorted casting the cover with plugged and screws.

particles. and

magnesium-particle-contaminated stainless of the OCP epoxy sealing

retapped,

installed,

a rubber

cement

During various PAT excessive and inconsistent. cases, servo porate effects amplifier found the amplifiers signals amplifier drifted

runs at San Diego, the pitch Units were found which failed to function. attitude Failure sensor. rise. analysis Also, after

programmer the megger revealed extended

run time was test and in some capacitive operations coupling the

failed from the

on the input

due to temperature

The unit was

redesigned

to incor-

an isolation transformer of temperature on the overcame a failed the megger capacitor filter to have

and to use an unpotted servo amplifier, to reduce the amplifier. Additional mica insulation in the base of the problem. The amplifiers that failed to operate were in the primary (Genistron) of the interstage composition drift precision proved change remained with transformer. resistors after original All film metal in the three receipt. carbon resistors. stable. by

The channel

autopilot output

signal

carbon

bridges response

underwent in the filter used in other wired

an excessive generally replaced properly the parts were

negative

The frequency composition Metal After This film unit rework, was

of the filters

in tolerance.

resistors resistors one unit incorrectly

of the filters resistor

to be extremely and was repaired

did not attenuate during

at 3.5

C PS in the pitch

channel.

correcting During power shooting. Failure photo

the wiring. vehicle The power analysis resistor, checkout at WSMR, Fluctuations board revealed erratic was voltages and were present on the +15 vdc troublenormal. X-ray 3-35.

supply

in the unit.

of 300 mv were replaced an intermittent

measured operation resistor;

during became

regulation showing

in San Diego

a magnified in Figure

of this

the discontinuity,

is presented

3-46

C-6062-147

Figure 3-35.

X-Ray of Failed Resistor

Insp ction of the vendor's facility and manufacturing methods revealel this to be a basic deficiency. The fine wire that connects the resistor lead to the wire wound coil was completely unsupported through a cavity, which made it extremely susceptible to mechanical stresses.
During autopilot OCP's at San Diego and WSMR, transients were noted on command, r a t e and attitude signals in the data station and in the vehicle (12-51-3). These transients occurred during switching operations a t the blockhouse console, primarily during operations of the cage/uncage and inner gimbal yaw torque switches. The transients were generated by relay operations and were coupled from the relay power lines into the autopilot signal leads. The vehicle wire routing was revised to provide separation of power and signal leads, and twisting of ac power wires. This reduced the transients considerably but did not elimiinate them completely due to the common routing of power and signal wires in the umbilical cables.

Actuator Assembly - During a MAE OCP run, a Moog servo valve exhibited an excessive drift rate. Several servo valves were returned to the vendor because of suspected exposure to contaminated hydraulic fluid. Teardown of the valve revealed that the excessive drift was caused by a particle lodged in the No. 2 inlet orifice from the poroloy filter. This particle partially blocked the orifice, causing pressure unbalance i n the first stage. The resulting increase in null current was responsible f o r the excessive drift. Teardown of the suspected contaminated valves revealed no problems.

3-47

Directives were
that all valve current sive established Feedback - Rough shift degradation assembly

issued would

specifying ma could performance. a procedure (Markite)

that filter be expected A field for checking

elements in laminar-flow in service limit the null.

were

not to be reused air cabinets.

and exces-

be accomplished

A null ma was

of up to 0.20 of valve with together

and did not indicate current of 0.20

for null

potentiometers

had rejections

as follows:

spot - midpoint one side

- not repeatable. - not repeatable. lead - cracked time. ramp showed in X-ray.

- Intermittent - High resistance

- orange

- Cut lead wires - Low resistance - Low resistance were

- personnel error. - normal drift with - normal reworked drift

with time. factory condition including to an acceptable of alignment. monitoring condition. Four spare of resistance Five units

Six units were were limited Five failed X-rayed X-rayed stress

at the tested,

in place vibration.

to determine

potentiometers during

and functionally

of the pressure WSMR

switch

(TAVCO) Two

units units

on Vehicle leaked were

12-51-2

developed hole,

problems one

at San Diego

and NASA/MSC.

through

the vent

to actuate, Closer quality

and two out-of-tolerance control was initiated procedures

conditions to minimize reduced

not confirmed. of the switch. Im-

overtravel the

proved leaking

filtering

and cleanliness

contamination

and resultant

of the switches. Circuits -- The The RCS time delay was relays was suppressed with relay One were initially to the Zener no effect was was to the coil. defective three revealed circuit, initiated as during susceptible Zener on the regulating relay. one to bus circuit. This set of records shipped. the relays sharp to of renot the unit

Co_rol voltage voltage The change contacts During remained edge remain checking such timing punctured

transients. was tested

pulsing

capacitor levels

reconnected

regulated

so that any incoming was incorporated together plant (Eagle it was

transient

by the

relay

at transient and

of 75 volts units.

on all Convair Signal) position. position. after

found to have Inspection when cycles, that the

shorted inspection

a set of contacts showed that insulation Vendor procedures This and was after

shorted

at the vendor's

that the unit inspection input control as well

discovered

approximately

in the energized in the energized recorder around cycles data

Teardown

of a resistor

had punctured

in the quality of a test relay

causing

a procedure the test was until

completion One dropout

to prevent several source

occurrences,

and initiated any unit. completed.

to ensure would problem subsequently could

that the

insulation

not de-energize not be repeated isolated

had been

in either

Convair or vendor laboratories used on initial test.

to the power

3-48

CONCLUSIONS The 12-51-3. 12-51-2 Other detailed during E. attitude A failure caused than

AND control within

RECOMMENDATIONS system the performed aerodynamic condition associated as designed servo loop and ultimately with the were due on Vehicles on fin No. resulted 12-51-1 4 elevon in vehicle of the system and test and of Vehicle destruction. that aids were used

a fin hardover the problems

development to test

previously, the main problems autopilot system checkout. SYSTEM system installation, scope of the control provided control system. cables

equipment

ELECTRICAL The electrical and within

electrical

power

for operation during system and checkout. of electronic operation 3) bonding

of ground General equipment three

control, features were general 2) of in-

monitors, having cluded areas:

certain the

vehicle

systems,

as required and monitoring The electrical

to do with 1) electrical

covered

and distribution

for checkout,

and launch; and grounding

general routing installations. CONTROL

of electrical

for all systems;

AND

DISTRIBUTION the control, distribution and monitoring of electrical

Figure 3-36 summarizes power. Facility power

return lines were routed to ground at the power building source to vehicle structure near the power source.

only; the complete power distribution system was otherwise isolated from ground. Vehicle power return lines were common

The basic electrical system concept was developed for Vehicle 12-50-1 and remained fairly constant throughout the program. accommodate exception mentation bility. all planned system changes. first vehicle, required on which bleed circuit of the a battery Growth capability was built in to in the adapter instrucompati-

This capability proved adequate with the substitution to provide additions operational

subsystem

Monitoring selected stant out quired of all monitors. surveillance

of voltage of all could

and power

current this was

in the the

blockhouse number For instruments

was future

accomplished vehicles,

by constand

switchconreadre-

Although parameters

reduced by separate to allow

of read-out

instruments, The

not possible. smaller,

monitored

is recommended. expensive meters.

accuracy ELECTRICAL Routing

be reduced

less

CABLES cables cables were 3) enable access were was designed with to: 1) provide this from isolation isolation); the between 2) permit launcher-to(large provided strips systems ease of

of electrical (multiple (consoles and gave

as required maintenance vehicle junction flexibility

used

to implement connectors, in the in design

equipped flexibility to all

as were mission facility

cables); boxes

to mission

connections

- terminal

in the vehicle).

3-49

FACILITY POWER IS USED FOR ALL GROUND MONITOR AND CONTROL FUNCTIONS AND MAY BE USED TO POWER VEHICLE SYSTEMS.

EMERGENCY FACILITY POWER SERVES AS A BACK-UP TO NORMAL POWER SUPPLY LOSS. THE BATTERIES ARE LOCATED IN THE POWER BUILDING BATTERY ROOM AND COME ON THE LINE AUTOMATICALLY WHEN NORMAL POWER IS LOST.

POWER IS DISTRI'BUTED FROM EQUIPMENT RACK #1 IN THE POWER BUILDING.

% , i

J'NORMAL FAC;I.ITY POWER IS J DERIVED FROM A 28 VDC POWER /]SUPPLY OPERATING FROM THE J / L60CYCLE LINE.

/ /
I
E/R #1

FACILITY

POWER

CONTROLS & MONITOR3

fl ' owER' i
INSTRUMENT SYSTEM I I

CHANGEOVER

_
"VEHICLE

PRIMARY SYSTEM

I \ \
i J

POWER IS PROVIDED BY TWO IDENTICAL

BATTERY SUBSYSTEMS. ONE SET OF BATTERIES SUPPLIES POWER TO INSTRUMENTATION, THE OTHER SET SUPPLIES POWER TO THE ATTITUDE CONTROL SYSTEM AND OTHER VEHICLE CIRCUITS. (SECOND STAGE IGNITION BATTERIES AND THE THREE COMMAND SYSTEM BATTERIES ARE NOT INCLUDED.) SEE TABLEI. EACH BATTERY SUBSYSTEM CONSISTS OF TWO 15 A/H, 28 VDC YARDNEY BATTERIES WITH DIODE ISOLATION AND RETURN LINE SHUNTS FOR CURRENT MONITORING.

CHANGEOVER IS ACCOMPLISHED BY MEANS OF A MOTOR DRIVEN SWITCH INSTALLED IN THE VEHICLE.

CONTROL AND MONITORING ARE DONE AT THE BLOCKHOUSE CONTROL PANEL. BATTERIES CAN BE MONITORED BEFORE AND DURING APPLICATION OF LOAD. THE VOLTAGE FROM EACH POWER SOURCE CAN BE READ ON THE CONSOLE METER. A SERIES SENSING CIRCUIT IN THE VEHICLE PROVIDES RED LIGHT WARNING IF ANY VEHICLE BATTERY VOLTAGE FALLS BELOW SPECIFICATION. CONTROLS INCLUDE FACILITY POWER ON/OFF, EXTERNAL POWER TO VEHICLE ON/OFF, AND CHANGEOVER FROM FACILITY TO VEHICLE POWER.
C-6062-148

Figure

3-36.

Power

Distribution

3-50

The basic concept of using standard parts was closely followed, a good example being the launch vehicle umbilicals, which provided control and monitor connections to all vehicle systems and to some spacecraft systems; see Figure 3-37. A s many as seven connectors were used, the maximum connector size having 72 pins. A l l connectors were standard lanyard disconnect types which separated upon lift-off. The use of several standard connectors precluded the cost of large special-order umbilicals and resulted in versatility at low cost. The launch vehicle provided an internal interface with NAA circuitry at Station 0.
*

In addition to the normal abort function performed by the launch vehicle (see RF command), a number of redundant monitor and control functions from the spacecraft were routed through the launch vehicle to permit monitoring until lift-off. (The
external spacecraft umbilical was ejected at T

- 8 seconds.)

NAA junction boxes and umbilical functions were added for Vehicle 12-50-2. A redundant umbilical was added to the vehicle base approximately 180" from the normal umbilical location. Lanyard lengths were adjusted to ensure that the power side of the dc supply voltages would be broken by lift-off prior to separation of the return lines; see Figure 3-38. Adjustments were made to the NAA interface configuration on each subsequent vehicle.

t
I

1;\!

jt

C-6062-149

Figure 3-37.

Expendable Harness and Vehicle Grounding Connections at Vehicle Skirt

3- 51

SEPARATION

TABLE UMBILICAL DISCONNECT

(4)

POWER UMBILICALS: IGNITION UMBILICAL:

4" 10"

_,

t_

POWER RETURN UMBILICAL: BONDING JUMPERS: 16"

12"

ROD ] ,-

EXPENDABLE

HARNESS

(4)

BONDING .._ _ JUMPER (2)

VEHICLE

SUPPORT

JACK SHIELDING

MOTOR

C-6062-150

Figure

3-38.

Expendable Connections

Harnesses -- Vehicle

and Vehicle and Launcher

Grounding

3-52

On Vehicle placed monitor the by Deutsch and

12-51-1

the

Cannon

umbilical

connectors addition

(48 pin

capability) the growth control.

were of

re-

connectors functions been

(72 pin capability) occasioned made amount. in the Deutsch this on all spring stated pins clips. by the for growth,

to accommodate of attitude subsequent

control

Although

an allowance systems During loose push pushed together satisfactory. their difficult special reasons inserts. The together mate for mating plant from test; stallation. loose with

had initially an extraordinary checkout, the this insert. test at less was than Manufacturer

changes

had expanded

two pins

umbilical while the pins that

connectors bending should

were withstand procedure

found

pulled in-

Apparently, information performed 25 pounds. of the holes the pin. it was

happened

the harness connectors and

during a 25-pound several was

in all

umbilical were that inserts,

A revised discovered to be punched The plugs push test. were

pin installation All pins by Deutsch in the

initiated, at by a

replacement Subsequently, incorrect seat and and

retested incorrect which rejected by connectors

and were tooling made were for seated other with new it very

caused

to properly technique at WSMR,

on the

vehicle replaced

at WSMR

subjected all units

to the

Connectors

at Convair,

engagement with

and the revealed plugs the design

locking of the excessive

mechanism plugs. wear prior was made One of the of mating

caused plug was internal

problems came apart

on while

Vehicle The

12-51-1, to procedure of reliable

cross-threading and the

attempting

it; teardown these and

mechanism. changed. initiated locking tolerances.

frequency change

A method to ensure

cleaning separation. changing

lubricating A vendor from

connectors

to flight to the

was

integral

mechanism,

material

alumintun

to steel,

and increasing

BONDING All beneath was given The problems was F. the installations the launch sufficient vehicle after most time and hardware pad and blockhouse. to break system were task; after slack electrical initial consuming were bonded The separation properly 3-39. to the copper grounding bonding see grids connection Figure Checkout of batteries 3-38.

launcher-to-vehicle

of all umbilicals; during

functioned practically see Figure

all flights. Preparation

proofing

nonexistent.

RADAR The radar

BEACON beacon transponder facilitated precise tracking of the vehicle by range

radar. The out by the vehicle battery. received system radar White Three performed beacon Sands antennas, system Missile The radar spaced energy used in Vehicle 12-50-1 was around transponder. See Diagram (QTV) was were the installed made by a 9-volt, vehicle, The radar in Figure coupled, beacon 3-40. and checked launch 40 A/H

Range. beacon

Mounting transponder the

provisions

in the

by Convair. and transmitted

powered

at 120 intervals to and from during flight.

satisfactorily

3-53

PRIMARY POWER 12-50-1

INSTRUMENT POWER (2) 28V 60 A/H (1) 28V 15 A/H

RF COMMAND

RANGE SAFETY (2) 26V 3 A/H

2NDSTAGE IGNITION -

RADAR BEACON (1) 9V 40 A/H

12 -50-2

(4) 28V 1 A/H

12-51-1

(2)28V 15 A/H

(2) 28V 15 A/H -

(2) 28V 1 A/H (2) 28V 1 A/H

(I) 26V 80 ma/H (I) 26V 80 ma/H (I) 26V 80 ma/H (2) 26V 15 A/H (2) 26V 15 A/H
C-6062-151

12-51-2

(2) 28V 15 A/H

12-51-3

(2) 28V 15 A/H

(2)28V 15 A/H

(2) 28V 1 A/H

Figure

3-39.

Vehicle

Battery

Summary

(3)

_--_

ANTE_NNA COUPLER

ANTENNAS

BATTERY

TRANSPONDER

I I I I
GROUNDCONTROLS AND MONITORS

C-6062-152

Figure

3-40.

Block

Diagram

-- Radar

Beacon

System

(All

Parts

GFE)

3-54

G.

COMMAND Two vehicle

SYSTEMS command events systems evolved forward The range. Surveillance in the thrust range Office At WSMR, course safety this of the system system program: command was was flight the system installed under functions. the system The command range for to

safety initiating meet

system the

(RSS) for terminating of the test Flight

and the RF

in-flight

or sequences.

requirements of the Missile

cognizance

(MFSO). certain

The RF

was designed to NASA specifications for accomplishing following indicates system usage in the launch vehicles. Vehicle 12-50-1 12-50-2 12-51-1 The the three type signals. Vehicle antenna antenna was used range & On safety system was were systems, commands Range Safety System

RF Command None Thrust

System

Command None Range

Destruct

Termination System designs: (up to receiver command

Safety

System system and launch shared vehicle), sharing

RF Command many but common

and RF command identical in design in the as follows: Safety installed which were Range Tones

subsystem subsystems for both

frequency

not in location and the same available

necessitated

of the

By vehicle,

System Function Rcvr Test

RF Command Tones ...... ...... 1, 3 S/A S/A Arm Fire & Function

12-50-1 (Dual System)

3 1, 5

Destruct -----

12-50-2 (Dual System)

-----

1, 5

Abort 12-51-1 (Three Systems) 3 3, 5 Rcvr Test 3 1, 3 Rcvr Test

Destruct

Pitch up, then Abort Rcvr Abort Rcvr Test Test

12-51-2 (Three 12-51-3 (Three Systems} Systems)

3 3, 3 3, 5 5

Rcvr Destruct Rcvr

Test

3 1, 3

Test

3 1, 3

Destruct

Pitch up, than Abort Abort only

1, 7

3-55

These commondesign elements permitted a reduced

design time and shortened learning span. RF COMMAND The by means initiate The sisted RF command of a coded payload abort. system subsystem, was completely a command dual RF Console dual; receiver see system command enabled signal actuation from the of critical ground.

parts

inventory,

a shortened

in-flight The primary

events action

or

sequences to

was

RF command antenna

Figure operated

3-41.

Each

half

con-

of the

at 309 mc,

a battery, test and emphasis no

and a control relay box. The checkout on the RF Command was single placed failure The on reliability would cause

command system was monitored located in the blockhouse. The The abort dual or fail system was so arranged abort. termination

during design that

of operation. premature

to enable

functional

and operational of tests. first bed The charges test firings during were of the

performance

of two thrust

systems

was

demonstrated Three were body; program expended, the see

by a series firings Figure with one that although of the in a test 3-42. anomaly; all

series,

using the upper

the

Vehicle 96 inches

12-50-2 of the the

configuration, Little purpose and Joe II foreof the test was testing not led to

performed

simulating the

successfully second detonated. primacord

accomplished firing was one piece Later

of primacord after two inches

investigation

conclusion

detonation or handling received the from

stopped,

of travel,

by a manufacturing The handling cedures, benefits

irregularity. these the tests abort installed included signal the and training proofing of personnel of operation in pro-

and operating and testing

system,

establishment

of two payload system design was

techniques. 12-50-1 this (refer to Range Safety

No RF command System). The was cal S/A added base was However, thrust

in Vehicle with

philosophy system than rather indications. These control circuits, relay and safety arranged

originated installed

vehicle. can be considered termination used provided measured on/off battery were receiver firing depth accomplished an

termination system for rather abort

in Vehicle safety system The

12-50-2 because S/A units (4), was (This parameters

RF command arming unit

a range than

of thrust electrior (2), was at the

a requirement and condition of the vehicle

safety.

ARM/SAFE (2), after with relays the and all

All possible included initiator were system. to provide ) battery (2). complete. position

indicated

in the blockhouse. to each dual

voltage

A separate

monitoring

of the

installations

of monitoring

not possible The control

range

were

simultaneous

initiation - by relay The abort Thrust

of thrust opening of lines were

termination the hot wire also and wrapped abort

- by power abort lines around the

application from the primacord

to the initiators; and abort NAA interface at Station 0. to back up relay opening.

termination

were

successfully

initiated.

3-56

9
U

Q_

r0 p_

o_ 0

J_ _Q

l
00

_p
_ll

m_ -

r,,_n
_,>m

l-

o_

3-57

I"

I
't

3- 58

Thrust Vehicle revised Due ment, that

termination since

was it was

deleted

from

the RF command for followed abort. for later The successful by abort

system control after

for relay

firing

of delay.

12-51-1 to provide a dual

not required of pitch-up

box was accomplish-

initiation nature system

a two-second mission and had abort

to the critical timer

of pitch-up was during flight.

and abort It was and timer

installed

for backup. backup

Pitch-up deduced from circuits

functions data

performed properly. Due timer backed command when

successfully

telemetered performed

all functions

in the RF command

to the

added was

confidence deleted from

gained the also was

from system deleted. )

the

flight (Timers

of Vehicle in Vehicle located system the

12-51-1, 12-51-2. was

the backup The abort by

circuitry up the the vehicle For Vehicle

installed However,

wire/primacord on this

wrap-around commanded flight. broke 12-51-3 due changes either was added was pitch-up abort Abort apart. the

in the Spacecraft not activated of the hot line

function. was

successfully

initiated

by breaking

command also

receiver of the The made.

was

replaced relay abort,

by a new used receiver and from pitch-up or only box

unit

(Advanced (REPCO). were The

Communications) Minor designed abort-only flight delayed path monitoring to provide mode and the abort

to the unavailability were pitch-up maneuver commanded followed could

previously control began

receiver abort. the and

by a delayed not be initiated. and

in the event

the vehicle in flight

to stray The

allowed

function Analysis was due

performed

properly.

Failure One failure other caused which was the burrs two

Reports were to the resistance to signal

written against three Aerojet Safe and Arm Units. of the detonator being out of tolerance. The condition. The high resistance reading was of 5 ma was drawn by the tester, The resistance tolerance was changed The was failure caused strict to obtain the armed of the control rotor of the signal shaft squib in and by preloading quality

units

failed

the armed

by the caused

test values used the out-of-tolerance value for The the test preloading was proper Reports 3-43. Three of a detent,

where a current resistance. current caused of the routing. written would would which during used. by burrs shaft by initiating

to a realistic due safe

to binding position. The

by the routing

wiring.

problem

corrected wire were

to eliminate

and to provide Failure Analysis see vibration Test very crystal caused with Functional units Figure

against not pass had met to require was

four the

REPCO Tone sensitivity up the The

command 3 relay

destruct upon had units Also, quality units. command of a were one

receivers; during the This retested The cracked Function

One unit units The fixture and was

not pick

up the

testing. Inspection. caused high Test had a low-pass

requirements 3 relay three filter. stringent reliable amplification.

unit that did not pick testing. the

Tone other

by a test G levels filter a bad were

a resonance-G sensitivity the low-pass More more

in the unit revised

successfully which

requirements.

Inspection

of the three control

transistor, imposed

replaced. to ensure

requirements

on the vendor

3-59

C-6062-155

Figure 3-43.

Radio Receiver AN/DRW-11

Three REPCO command destruct receivers were rejected at Convair due t o frequency deviation sensitivity being out of tolerance. In two units, the failure was not confirmed and the third unit w a s adjusted into specification. One unit was rejected for failure of the Channel 3 relay. This problem was caused by a cracked crystal in the Channel 3 oscillator. The cracked crystal was replaced and the unit checked out satisfactorily. The crystal failure was probably caused by mishandling during checkout. One unit w a s rejected for faulty operation of a relay. When the unit was opened, a shorted wire to the relay coil was found. The w i r e was crushed due to harness routing. The crushed wire w a s replaced and the wiring rerouted in all units to preclude recurrence of the problem. Two units would not produce an output. When the units were opened, it was found that relays were crushed by the relay harness during closing of the cases. The harness to the relays w a s rerouted, allowing the units to b e closed without damage to the relays. A l l units were opened, inspected and reworked to bring the units into an acceptable flight configuration. Since more satisfactory units were desired, steps were initiated to replace the REPCO receiver with those from another manufacturer.

3-60

The RF
missions; The high REPCO voltage. the

command only receiver The from

system had the many

performed checkout quality drain test

satisfactorily problems control were problems was the battery

in flight associated and bleeding also insufficient

for

all applicable components. sensitive to the Although performed

significant low current during

with was

of the therefore, and

system

to remove required. system

peroxide

voltage

battery;

was

such problems occurred reliably in flight. RANGE SAFETY

checkout,

RF command

lance from

The range safety system (RSS) (Figure 3-44) enabled the Missile Flight Office (MFSO) to terminate vehicle thrust in the event of a hazardous the planned flight path. signal receiver initiators Algol from the ground 28-volt Upon station was trains detected to two which of the by the safe and were shaped motor

Surveildeviation

A coded mand units shaped receiver. and the charges

command The S/A unit on the

vehicle arm routed charges, chamber to

com(S/A) the

channeled ignited motor cases.

dc power detonation

the primacord

motor cases would split (generally breaking pressure, which would result in a cessation The and S/A design units was were with dictated supplied mounting by MFSO by MFSO. provisions

apart), and thus relieve of forward thrust. The provided The command the antenna major

requirements. Convair for all parts.

receiver, parameters

battery were

and primacord

systems along as follows:

Parameters Receiver - Frequency - Tone Safe & Arm (S/A) Channels Unit - No-Fire - All-Fire Primacord - PETN - RDX Shaped Charge

-- Range

Safety

System

309 mc 2 required Current Current 80 ma. 150 ma. - 100 grains/foot - 100 grains/foot of 200 grain/foot 180 on each motor. RDX charges as a RDX

(Pentaerythritetetronitrate) (Cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine) Algol ID MOD II) - 93 inches spaced

- (For

- (For

Algol

ID MOD I)

- 93 inches Raceway with

of 200 grain/foot installation separation installation). (parallel

5-inch

provided

detachable

3-61

_
_

_o
O_ tO U-

u_>.

Z I,'-" _ OOL_i

0 Ld>=" --

o_o

t_
u,.I ...I zO OLO t.O'_

3C ,-_ UJ ._1 _.1UJ

II

.J u,.= u.t I--. t

=,9<o

,_

u.l u'l

#-.E_
_ ._

gefg

3-62

Reliable operation of proven components primacord vided trains additional backup. and

of the pyrotechnic and dual routing. shaped charges S/A installation methods;

portion of the system Two initiators in each on each included motor. covers, and primacord these routing

was ensured by the S/A block fired two networks conduit, incorporated splitters, several

use

to the two isolation

Crossover

proand

blast protection separation. During was checked

development for output

testing, functions

a breadboard for abort

power,

signal, current

and

arming Report

control

unit over-

and destruct,

measurements,

load capabilities, and continuity. dated 8 April 1963 contains details A Beckman as intended The test, during ment. destructor, sand entered rotation; causing by shipping The oped of the featured was the by MFSO. use physical blown for Convair. and the the unit and the The the under failed test; and Whitley the expected properly test, the was unit used due to arm humidity when lacquer and was dust, rotor rotor and basic Vehicle Although vehicle, electrical to use At the revised the a slight

The unit performed of the tests. was tested

as required;

VC & I - 73,

destructor following to the cooled, only when tests causing action

to verify

that prior

the test,

unit the

would sand rotor units

operate a launch. and dust

environmental lacquer the actual due the rotor rotation.

conditions, the high-temperature on the

to and during detonators

cross-train prior place. sealing. the

melting movein the failed preventing also alleviated the

lacquer

hardened, coating took against exposure of these bags. destruct between flight

preventing The Sand bore,

as a protective installation to lack

to installation

removed

and humidity housing, corrosive to bind storing range the safety a safety system arming an arming request

of adequate to bind during Both

and dust

thus humidity, were

occurred

to high problems

and prevent destructors system by means system was of one

in plastic (called was

command not required to permit by means to the failed

at that NASA, due

time) WSMR to the The

was limited This along

develand range design concept with

12-50-1

of coordination

(MFSO)

by MFSO proofing. of an inertia launcher, system to function and

installed S/A the lanyard

original was

unit

switch. which was units; in flight added

attached second system

preferred to the RDX was

of NASA, This between the

complete

of RDX from

primacord.

dual

due the

incompatibility the blocks installation prior which the which short

RDX primacord

the S/A

and did not ignite. involved into flexing the the primacord blocks. shock of the primacord and This wave. conduit stripping allowed and the entry into back the bottom the the RDX protective grains to condidestruct block

Final covering separate, tion was block, collets.

to insertion precluded distance flexing

destruct

propagation between of the

Contributing

to this of the destruct

the top of the

required

to allow

A Range A single controllable, to accommodate range

Safety safety the

System system

was was

not installed added system was

in Vehicle mandatory. replaced

12-50-2 Primacord the RDX

(refer the

to RF Command). vehicle was was revised S/A

in Vehicle

12-51-1.

Since

range

safety

routing connection

two Algol

motors,

and PETN

to the

3-63

units.

The

MFSO-furnished tests in flight. S/A revised A new This unit was time to bring

parts

(receiver,

battery, levels

S/A

unit)

were

subjected This system

to was

environmental not required A second routing was required. installation. The motors, was used

the qualification

up to standard.

added along was was

to the six with assembly,

system Algol

in Vehicle motors. "tees,

12-51-2. The primacord

Primacord ring concept been

to accommodate shaped-charge system routing

for the first

primacord tested

" which

had not hitherto allowed easier

and installed,

not required revised was

in flight. 12-51-3 from These necessity. to accommodate three-channel were system This was changes four required not Algol

primacord

in Vehicle changed model.

and the command availability

receiver rather

a REPCO

model

to an advanced due to hardware used in flight. During units tests, deep-cut result further action flowed lacquer and test, analysis wire. matter four

communications

four-channel

than functional

the qualification & Whitley of the eight units

test Safe

program and Arm)

at Beckman exhibited Two

& Whitley, After

seven

of fourteen were due to

(Beckman threads problems. was onto

failures. would items,

high-temperature as a direct to preclude corrective on one viscous cooled, to the end of and the sand

could

not be armed. two Improved quality

of the failures not arm was further painted initiated

on the detent tests. these Since

screw; were

of the units

of the temperature the responsibility

control

WSlVfR-furnished agency. during two units conditions;

of the procuring of the primer The the test. against of failure rejected on Vehicle Since with the problems; high temperature and housing. following to bind cause were rotor

Lacquer installation when were which were

the primer

to aid in positioning the rotor failed caused under to arm the burned, the probable the rotor

became subjected the

the unit was found

bonded which

dust test

The units the housing. the booster was in X-ray 12-50-1, system

to contain Preliminary

foreign

During charge. bead bead

locked-rotor on the bridge

one bridgewire indicated Two Aside

but did not ignite

a light

charge

of a lot of 60 units from exists been the initial to operate concerning resolved

for light

charge. system that was existed

proofing in flight. checkout more easily

the range was checked

safety problems

never could H.

required have

by MFSO,

no docu-

mentation

the engineering method

a different

of coordination.

AIRBORNE The airborne

INSTRUMENTATION instrumentation and subsystem evaluation was 3-45. Abloek of mission diagram PAM/FM/FM system sensed performance. sharing airborne and transmitted to telemetry The measurements ground telemetry stations, concept and FM/FM system to utilized for is of

vehicle enable

environments post-flight data.

parameters for time of a typical

for the vehicles continuous shown in Figure

measurements

instrumentation

3-64

_
(/1 (/) ::).J

oon,. 1i
v I(JZ O0 --If..) rn

o_

O_ r/l

(.J O_ bd Fh.

o I_
Z n, i

I I

o_

oz
t"-

o
iJ

oe_
_l--m n N

I I

L_

1
nO

_-

>,v ._I 0 -'_ _In," 0

go

,-I 0 iI'l "1"

L_J LIJ

I.-

3-65

The number andtype of measurements would

objectives The for ments. stresses The verifying pressure of each airborne data the The from mission would dictate system environment included of the for closures. measurements to the The system for were control designed system, included vehicle different instrumentation of vehicle base

vary

with

each

vehicle

because

the

measurement 12-50-1 temperatures, tower. for This Vehicle was

requirements. was designed to the pressures primarily environand

for Vehicle and

acquiring

the vehicle's

reaction

measurements

accelerations, to the service

requirements Algol and propulsion relay 12-51-1 system. and control requirements verification

airborne and "abort"

instrumentation command.

12-50-2

were

that

of

accomplished

by measuring

Vehicle system, pressures The was RF command

to monitor vehicle accelerations,

the

attitude relay

control propulsion, closures, and

vehicle

response

environment,

measurements voltages.

airborne and limited

instrumentation monitoring pressures and control instrumentation vehicle was

for of the

Vehicle attitude system system RF

12-51-2 control voltages. was

were system.

reduced This

to propulsion

accomplished For Vehicle the

by measuring 12-51-3, control system, and eliminated. closures summarizes system vehicle. to the for the

airborne

designed system,

to and

monitor problem pressures,

attitude ignition

system, This control the every

propulsion, that the body

command mode

second-stage

and to verify system

bending

coupling accelerations,

had been relay 3-46

accomplished voltages.

by measuring

body

Figure

measurement vehicle and

requirements presents the

of each total amount

airborne of measure-

instrumentation ments for each In addition vehicle changes are were peculiar The from missile for the DC-DC unit the wave prior facturer's testing. ratios corrected damaged 3-66 that

changes

in instrumentation in mission of other art, objectives,

that

took there

place were

from

vehicle changes,

to system i.e., there

as a result occurred in the

of changes state and

instrumentation requirements, Also, problems

as a result of the 3-47

conditions. and differences

Some range between due

of these support vehicles. to various

advancements reflected hardware

experience, design

in Figure changes vehicle.

as parameter significant

variations

to each airborne programs. transmitters converter. design The

instrumentation components and which subcarrier on the and for Due to the A considerable changes quality used vendor the

system had been unavailability

for

Vehicle of the

12-50-1 proven vehicle

was

assembled aircraft power

mostly and a this by for standing which was manuneeded with

standard

previously

on various regulated

oscillators, number vehicle. Most

it was of problems of the the found The problems displayed other

necessary were were

to incorporate encountered resolved resolved procedures voltage tuned inadvertently

to installation

problems were operation

few remaining and correcting 12-50-1 was

by improving

manufacturer's (VSWR). by closer

control

antennas

Vehicle antenna

excessive antenna was

All but one quality

to be improperly

control.

on installation.

ATTITUDE

CONTROL

SYSTEM

50-1 .... .... .... .... .... .... .... -.... ....

50-2

51-1 1 1 2 5 4 4 4

51-2 ---5 -2 2 .... .... ....

51-5 1 1 2 5 4 4 4

1. PITCH ATTITUDE 2. SUM PITCH ATTITUDE & PITCH 3. ATTITUDE: ROLL, YAW 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

PROGRAMMER

RATE: ROLL, PITCH, YAW QUAD COMMAND ERROR FIN ACTUATOR HYDRAULIC PRESSURE FIN CONTROL SURFACE POSITION FIN REACTION FIN RCS REG. FIN REACTION CONTROL VALVE SIGNAL NITROGEN PRESSURE MOTOR CHAMBER PRESSURE

--

8 4 8

AERODYNAMIC 1. BODY BASE PRESSURE 2. ACCELERATION PROPULSION 1. ALGOL MOTOR CHAMBER PRESSURE 2. RECRUIT MOTOR BODY TEMPERATURE STRUCTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL 4 2 1 4 1 2 1 PRESSURE 4 ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 1 6 1 2 ........ 6 4 12 1 ........ ........

1. THRUST STRUCTURE DIAGONAL STRESS 2. BODY BASE CALORIMETER 3. BODY BASE STRUCTURE TEMPERATURE 4. 5. 6. 7. FIN TE CHORD TEMPERATURE EQUIPMENT TEMPERATURE COMPARTMENT TEMPERATURE BODY INTERNAL PRESSURE MODULE VIBRATORY INTERNAL RESPONSE

8. SERVICE MODAL AND

1. FIN FLUTTER 2. ACCELERATION 3. ACCELERATION, 4. ACCELERATION, 5. ALGOL MOTOR BODY SERVICE MODULE TOWER OSC. CHAMBER PRESSURE

4 4 6 2 ....

........ -........ ........ 2 .... 2 -4

RF COMMAND SYSTEM, THRUST TERMINATION AND/OR PITCH-UP ABORT SEQUENCE 1. 2. 3. 4. RELAY CLOSURES TIMER BATTERY VOLTAGE RECEIVING SIGNAL STAGE IGNITION 2 2 .... .......... .......... 4 2 -.... 4

STRENGTH SYSTEM

SECOND

1. SECOND 2. ALGOL

STAGE SQUIB

RELAYS FIRING CURRENTS

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

MISCELLANEOUS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. INSTRUMENTATION BATTERY, LJ-II INSTRUMENTATION BATTERY, SERVICE INSTRUMENTATION SYSTEM VOLTAGE REFERENCE BATTERY VOLTAGE CALIBRATE 0 VOLTS CALIBRATE 5 VOLTS LIFTOFF, CONTINUOUS CHANNEL LIFTOFF, COMMUTATED VEHICLE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM VOLTAGE INVERTER BUS VOLTAGE TOTAL MEASUREMENTS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .... .... 66 ........ ........ -------

MODULE

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

----.... --.... 13

1 1 1 1 1 1

59

59 C-6062-158

Figure

3-46.

Airborne

Measurements

3-67

ANTENNA VEHICLE 12-50-1

SUBSYSTEM T/M 3 BLADE A TYPE T/M 3 BLADE B TYPE T/M 2 BLADE AT141 C TYPE A/ARC

DM AK 3 INTO DIVIDER SMAMI 120" APART 12-,51-1 12-51-3 CARRIER VEHICLE 12-50-1 12-51-1 12-51-3 IRIG BANDS VEHICLE 12-50-1 12-51-1 12-51-3 COMMUTATOR VEHICLE 12-50-1 12-51-1 12-51-3 _, T/M E E E A T/M A E FREQUENCY T/M 229.9 225.7 225.7 A MC MC MC SAME SAME AS ABOVE AS ABOVE

DM AK 3 INTO DIVIDER DMAMI 120 APART SAME AS ABOVE ....

180 APART --

T/M 237.8 229.9 ....

B MC MC

T/M 258.5 --

C MC

T/M 8-10, 7-15,

T/M 10-18 --

7 THRU 16, 7-15, E 7-15, E

12-14 E

90

x 10 T/M

PAM SOLID B

STATE. T/M C

........ E ........

....

C-6062-159

Figure

3-47.

Parameters

The the NAA experienced.

three

measurements system via

that

were

required

for

Vehicle

12-50-2

were

routed

to

telemetry

an interface

connector;

no operational

problems

were

On Vehicle type require of subcarrier regulated

12-51-1, oscillator, power and reduced in the

the most to operate.

significant This

design design

change

was

the

use

of a different which did not DC to system. of a calibrate of the

transmitter, the warm-up oscillator excessive however, relays

and transducer change requirement change drift. during the was of the the This

subsystem, enabled removal instrumentation

DC converter Included relay. redundant thus The manufacturer's preventing The ever, the assembly. to prevent A major change factory into 3-68 the in the

subcarrier units displayed change; calibrate analysis. for found design

incorporation problem and article The was

initial subcarrier's

corrected one was

by a of the

design a failure system was

countdown

in flight,

malfunctioned.

not recovered,

antenna trouble future

Vehicle change

12-51-1 to the cable

also

displayed that was

an excessive had been incorporated

VSWR; at the

howfield

to be in a small

connector assembly

damaged

during

A minor

occurrences. in instrumentation procedures. the time test Other for evaluation It was essentially system testing tests and at WSMR were was inaugurated with for breaking by a of the

change checkout

an end-to-end integrated the alleviate

verification necessity

checkout system

and calibrations. to expedite with simulation

instrumentation

equipment.

On Vehicle 12-51-2, ten measurements were routed to

commutator equipped requirements in flight significant (12-51-2). For the same significant brator more wires During the two types compatible it was though design there change The following resolved was Vehicle as for 12-51-3, Vehicle This the 12-51-1. in potential condition system. test with system. one type system the autopilot used for After system was system design and checkout it was was with of the for design CSM telemetry only the were evaluating of the changes system. two were fin control fins. incorporated Even selected system. with though all transducers, not one as typical

unused four

segments fins were the the

of the fully minimum failed no

to meet

Unfortunately, were instrumentation

fin that and vehicle

monitored

No problems

encountered on this

procedures observed signal design ground change

were

essentially was a

During between corrected

checkout,

that there

difference

the transducer by a minor

and the caliof adding

ground.

to the ground an integrated of Raweo with the to use

it was system high change the well

discovered isolation integration required

that

one of was not even

amplifiers only

instrumentation a careful for This

system impedance

autopilot

evaluation, a minor problem. flights. The

of amplifier of sensitivity. which

isolation,

a small

sacrifice

to the electrical instrumentation the high

corrected

incompatibility during all five

airborne summarizes Vehicle 12-50-1 12-50-2 12-51-1 12-51-2 12-51-3

system degree

performed

of success of Measurements 62 3 58 13 39

achieved: No. of Failures 2 0 2 0 0 4

Number

Totals I. LANDLINE The permanent ments typical The and landline analog subsystem landline data INSTRUMENTATION instrumentation recordings parameters instrumentation obtained from the

175

required on oscillographs on a real system recorders

for

the that

launch would on Figure basis.

vehicles present A block 3-48. surveillance

consisted vehicle diagram

of environof a

time

is shown were

used

for

of the

solid-

propellant rocket motors and failure analysis of subsystems. measurements varied with each vehicle because the mission with vehicle configuration, dictated different landline recording Figure 3-49 summarizes the measurement requirements the total amount of recorded landline measurements for

The number and type of objectives of flight, along requirements. and presents

of each vehicle each vehicle.

3-69

A 8

.O

)
0 !

3-70

LANDLINE VEHICLE MEASUREMENTS

RECORDED INSTRUMENTATION 50-1 4 3 1 6 4 1 12 4 1 8 8 1 1 1 1 8 37 12 1 1 1 1 8 45 10 8 1 1 1 36

C-6062-161

50-2 6 3

51-1 6 3

51-2 18 3

51-3 12 3

ALGOL TEMP. AIR CONDITIONING TEMP. MODULE BATTERY RECRUIT TEMP.

FIRING CURRENTS

ALGOL FIRING CURRENTS LIFTOFF IGNITION TIMER RANGE TIMING RCS PRE-PULSE RCS PRESSURE TOTALS TIMER

19 26

Figure

3-49.

Landline

Recorded

Measurements

In addition measurements measurements monitoring not vary For was Throughout maintained measurements data for Satisfactory Also the

to the recorded that were provided launcher back-up from

measurements, by either and support power 12-50-1

there to other status. version,

were

many

real-time systems

monitoring These with did 3-50. system and which along

displayed

dial indicators These are

or light

indicators.

recording

and electrical the Vehicle

measurements, listed in Figure recording supplied operated eight

significantly Vehicle

12-50-1, from

the temperature components There

and ignition - the recorders

monitoring being was with the thus flights.

assembled

standard personnel. were

by WSMR.

checkout by WSMR which data was on Vehicle that flight.

of the vehicle never

the temperature were completely resolved,

recorder

problems

temperature inconclusive

producing

A new recorder received 12-50-1, for the the

was obtained subsequent current

and operated four

by NASA personnel.

ignition

recorder

did not provide

for

complete failure analysis lines, but did not provide firing sequences. data These was obtaining Satisfactory a new recorder

information. It recorded current delivery to the firing accurate current amplitudes or positive assurance of proper problems with were revolved sensitivity for Vehicle and vehicles. response 12-50-2 and on by adequate characteristics.

received

on all subsequent

3-71

LANDLINE MEASUREMENT LIFTOFF DESTRUCT UMBILICAL SUPPORT SUPPORT LAUNCH LAUNCHER GROUND VEHICLE VEHICLE BATTERY GROUND CONVERTER RECORDER FIRING COMMIT IGNITION LINE TIME SIGNALS SYSTEM ARM ARM SYSTEM RETRACT (3)

INDICATOR

INSTRUMENTATION METER X LIGHT

PRESSURE PRESSURE PRESSURE

AZIMUTH

POSITION POSITION

ELEVATION POWER POWER POWER SOURCE SOURCE STATUS

VOLTAGES POWER

(2)

VOLTAGE

VOLTAGE STATUS STATUS (2) {7)

C-6O62-162

Figure

3-50.

Real

Time

Monitoring

Measurements

For was the chamber removed

Vehicles

12-51-1

and -2,

the

major

design

change

to landlines

instrumentation

addition of a blockhouse oscillograph for the pressures. No problems were encountered. for Vehicle 12-51-3, which did not have

purpose of monitoring H202 motor The blockhouse recorder was system.

an RCS

3-72

LAUNCH

SUPPORT

LAUNCH

SUPPORT

A.

LAUNCH Launch

COMPLEX Complex and program, ARPAT to the

36 originally designed pad The II and the (Figure a cable station, referred Little 4-1), trench and launch Joe constructed for and Apollo Joe service firing east abort H effort between transfer half tower with blockhouse, missiles. bisected half of the erecting After blockhouse gantry comwere

36 was launch the Little

(service pletion assigned were

tower) of that to the assigned

pad

of Redstone of the and west

program.

blockhouse

programs. included tracks the pad and power Building," a new to move and the room launch the near contained pad service the pad. junction 1,150 tower (Figure The

Requirements feet 4-2), transfer west new of the launch and power to the

to support blockhouse pad area, transformer room,

permanent

blockhouse

a facility

to as the "Power and monitoring of the service

boxes, regulated ment for extensive Little 63 feet 4-3. Joe II and in lieu high. the pad),

power supplies modification Apollo vehicle of the of a Redstone

equipment. There tower to enlarge its and launch 98 feet, complex was 5 feet, 10 inches

was also a requireenvelope for a high (above and in Figure in diameter shown

13 feet missile, and

in diameter which enlarged

4 inches are

Details

altered

Convair Engineers, American During Convair face design "users" contributed

participated Gordon Aviation the

in the

facility LeHap extended

design

meetings (the and

with NASA.

the

Army

Corps

of

Herkenhoff Corporation, which

& Associates

architectural

designers),

North

Industries, over

meetings, its and The the

approximately facilities, problem provided areas

a six-month the which phases required

period, interfurther the facilities

established activity. during

requirements assisted participation design, to the Convair coordination during area, beneath the the adequacy

for the

necessary i.e.,

coordination,

in pin-pointing construction of the

active

of launch

operations

personnel, of the

entire

and activation complex. engineer "action" and separate complete and high

significantly 1962, for problem room because located

In December permanent The only transfer 1) two tunnel basis, major and power rooms, - rejected

assigned

a liaison design three pad, time

to NASA/WSMR, on unexpected period were

on a problems. was in the

and to expedite Complex launch for which

construction designs with costs;

considered: type

a 100 foot entrance 2) a "Butler"

of construction

4-1

AREA
e_
~

-*r

C -6 062 - 163

Figure 4-1.

Launch Pad Under Construction

11111%.

lh4

Figure 4-2. 4-2

Cable Trench Interior Details

View Looking East

t
I

**

c
Figure 4-3.
Launch Complex

C-6062-165

building adjacent to the pad and protected by a sandbag barricade - rejected because of probability of damage during launch; and 3) a reinforced concrete structure at the south edge of the pad, with three individual rooms. The third was finally selected, but major revisions to the original form were required. These revisions involved i? complete re-layout of the junction boxes, equipment racks, power supplies and associated areato-area wiring. In addition, there was the extra burden to the launch operations activation task of design and procurement of such items as structural attach brackets, conduits, and rack supports. Some of the decisions made, which later proved very beneficial, included the following minimum requirements: 1) all conduits between the pad and the transfer and power room were to have a minimum four-inch diameter; 2) all electrical cables were t o have a minimum of 15% spare wires; 3) pad dimensions w e r e to be adequate, but not extravagantly so, for equipment movement with such vehicles as Algol motor transport erectors and low-boy tractor-trailers; and 4) there must be compatibility between the service tower and the Convair-provided launcher. These decisions resulted in limiting the modification required for the pad, service tower, power building and launch complex. The NASA Vehicle Assembly Building (Figure 4-4) was completed in time to support the launch of Launch Vehicle 12-50-2 on 13 May 1964. Convair used this building to unload the vehicle upon its arrival from San Diego and occasionally to store an Algol motor overnight. Later, a portable "clean room" was added in the building to permit 4-3

C-6062-166

Figure 4-4. Vehicle Assembly Building final installation of the reaction control and hydraulic actuation systems in each fin, under controlled environment. In general, the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) served its purpose well. There were minor interferences between Convair and NAA, which w e r e quickly resolved at the working level. There were a few specific areas which warrant comment: because of narrow doors, no more than two Algol motors could be stored in the area provided, while the intent had been to store as many as seven. The special 15-ton capacity hoist, provided for use with the Algol motors, w a s never used for that purpose due t o incompatibility of the Algol hoisting beam and the hoist hook height. However, the room was used to good advantage by NAA to prepare the launch escape motors and towers for installation on the command module. Also, the hoists in both the low and high bays would have been much more useful had they been capable of lateral motion as well as motion along the longitudinal centerline of the building. Permanent office space for operations personnel was not constructed because of the relatively short duration of the program. Therefore, mobile office trailers were provided during vehicle assembly and checkout activity; ultimately, four 10-foot by 50-foot trailers were occupied by Convair personnel: two at the launch pad for operations engineering quality control and for support personnel; one at the CSTF t o support test activity in that area; and one at t h e blockhouse to provide quarters for personnel associated with instrumentation, data, and preparation of integrated operations procedures.

4-4

The trailers at the launch pad were

final systems checks and were returned entirely adequate "office" space advantage for efficient operations. A pyrotechnic 12-51-1, launched checkout 8 December trailer 1964,

moved following

to a safe each adjacent

area launch.

just prior The work area

to initiating to have a distinct was

the

ability

immediately

to the

was

moved

to the

Complex vehicles.

to support Pyrotechnic

Vehicle devices with

and

subsequent

up to 1/8 pound of explosives could be checked out in this and cooling of the trailer were excellent. Unfortunately, heating, B. making cold weather working conditions less than

trailer. Lighting, grounding, there were no provisions for optimum.

LAUNCHER The launcher was a mechanical It was structure, structure fabricated which designed for the final assembly and heavy

launching I-beams between The azimuth pad

of seven vehicles. forming the major launches. launcher position. for support swiveled Two elevation arms view was

from structural steel shapes, with necessitated minimum refurbishment

on electric motor positioning. and the

motor driven

driven, screwjacks

crane-type pivoted

trucks the

to achieve support

electric

vehicle

structure Vehicle

payload

umbilical

were

mounted 4-5.

on the

launcher's

mast. The trailers; vation remote controls pneumatic The ical the lists

An overall launcher see motor unit; Figure

of the a portable

launcher structure launcher

is shown capable positioning

in Figure of being systems

transported included (Figure valve umbilical provided

on three azimuth 4-7) and and elein a

4-6.

The 4-8.

controls see Figure

and position

indicators support

in the console arms

blockhouse panel and payload

A blockhouse vehicle 4-9. to the 4-10) initial

and pressure retracting

and indication for the systems; see Figure launcher during diagram major mast, assembly build-up for attached (Figure and design support capability 4-14.

support and the

platform, two (Figure arms support 4-11).

supported arms used systems. Figure

the payload for 4-12 presents Figure

umbila 4-13

retracting vehicle the

stabilizing

lift-off and

schematic

the umbilical

support

retract

launcher mast release Figure

parameters. arm test was static conducted mast loads to demonstrate assembly were are sustained under the without structural loading damage or

& launcher integrity conditions; excessive ditions. and see

of the Critical

launcher

critical

distortion A detailed

and the unit operated successfully test description and test results materials the Materials engine erosion were were and tested structure exposed 5200F for

during simulated launching concontained in Report SL-62-065. of one as a suitable rocket exit motor of a scale - and the exhaust model then measurSix V44) 4-5 material. (GenGard matetem-

Thermal rial for perature Rp-1/GDZ ing the silicone

protection lagging

selection from the exhaust nozzle rise

thermally environment. rocket amount rubber

launcher

to the at the

- approximately

of surface based

the temperature

through

compounds,

a Butadiene

Acrylonitrile

compound

C-6062-167

Figure 4-5.
4- 6

Launcher 12-60-1 Assembled on Launch Pad at WSMR

~-6062-168

Figure 4-6.

Launcher Loaded on T r a i l e r s for Shipment to WSMR

and a concrete-asbestos compound (Transite) were tested. The GenGard V44 and Transite had the lowest erosion rate and temperature rise. All materials tested exhibited effective heat blockage characteristics. The GenGard V44 was most effective with the grain of the material parallel to the exhaust gas centerline. Bonding of t h e materials was not affected. Factors such as fabrication techniques and ease of maintenance were not evaluated; Report R T 62-039 dated 19 October 1962 gives detailed results. Transite and Flameastic were selected for use on the exposed launcher surfaces.

During engineering proofing inspection prior to the first launch and after the original design, a number of minor changes were made. The vehicle support a r m s were redesigned, mechanically and electrically, to simplify the original design and improve reliability; covers were added over limit switches to protect from rain and other environmental elements; and the electrical junction box was revised to provide greater physical separation of 480-volt ac and 115-volt ac terminations.
Based on the operating experience of the first launch, a light was added to the console to indicate when the support a r m pneumatic system valve was in the "vent'! configuration. The support a r m pneumatic cylinder pressure switch was revised after a failure occurred due to corrosion. One pressure switch (P/N 98-62805-022) was rejected in Receiving Inspection for e r r a t i c contact resistance; two units operating out of tolerance were found to contain 4- 7

metal slivers andcorrosion. The unit with erratic contact resistance had a thin oxide film on the contacts which was dissipated when rated current was passed through the contacts; the switches with metal slivers and corrosion contaminants were cleaned. The shoe andspring were removed from all units, which eliminated wear on the Mylar diaphragm. The switches could then be adjusted to pressure tolerances. For Vehicle 12-51-2, the payload umbilical system was redesigned to accommodate the repositioned umbilical of the Apollo spacecraft; see Figures 4-10 and 4-15. For Vehicle 12-51-3, a launcher mast extension was incorporated dueto the more forward location of the spacecraft umbilical. The launcher performed as designed for all five launches. All mechanisms performed smoothly both before and after each launch; refurbishment was held to a minimum. Actual launcher positioning accuracy was better than 6 minutes in azimuth and 1.5 minutes in elevation. C. CONTROLSYSTEMTEST FACILITY (CSTF)

The control system test facility (CSTF) was an isolated site for functional test of the attitude control fin systems; see Figure 4-16. The CSTF had all the equipment required to test and service the reaction control system and the hydraulic-powered aerodynamic control system. Environmental and safety provisions associated with hydrogen peroxide handling were included. The permanent site consisted of a 30-foot by 30-foot concrete test pad with a 16-foot by 32-foot prefabricated steel building. The building and pad were separated by a distance of 45 feet for operator safety. The building was designed to withstand 42 lbs/ft 2 overpressure, equivalent to all four RCStanks exploding simultaneously. The pad included floodlights for night operations, showers and water flushing for H202 safety, tie-downs for the fin stand, and electrical power outlets. The GSEused for fin servicing was placed on a paved area of the facility; see Figure 4-17. The hydrogen peroxide trailer could be placed in the building, which was environmentally controlled to 70 (5) F, for H202 surveillance. Fin testing was controlled and monitored from the attitude control fin test console; see Figure 4-18. Portable recording equipment was used to monitor fin system performance; see Figure 4-19. Equipment andwork space were available in the building to enable componenttest andrepair. Complete specifications are provided in Invitation for Bids INV No. ENG (NASA)-29-005-64-9, issued by the Corps of Engineers of Albuquerque, N.M.
D. GROUND GSE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT (GSE)

was provided for handling, servicing, testing and maintaining the launch I_artsand subassemblies. In general, the GSE performed

vehicles and their component

well and was used efficiently.

4-8

.o
o
0 0

@
_Pt I

,,i /'" L:,

i.-. 0 ,Y

i-. 0 0

__>
i,i I-I--

N,._

Z _'_N

%
0
n-r_

--m_o

_o_

o_

A PLUG-IN, PORTABLE REMOTE CONTROLLER WITH POWER ON INDICATOR LIGHTS AND PUSHBUTTON CONTROL SWITCHES PROVIDES BI-DIRECTIONAL CONTROL OF LAUNCHER AZIMUTH AND ELEVATION POSITIONING AT THE LAUNCH PAD. THE UNIT PLUGS INTO A RECEPTACLE LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE MAIN JUNCTION BOX ON THE VEHICLE SUPPORT PLATFORM CAN BE OPERATED FROM ANY POSITION ON THE LAUNCH PAD ACCESSIBLE WITH THE 50-FOOT CABLE LENGTH. THE PORTABLE REMOTE CONTROLLER W I L L OVERRIDE THE CONTROL CONSOLE IN THE BLOCKHOUSE WHEN THE UNIT I S PLUGGED INTO THE LAUNCHER RECEPTACLE.
C-6062-170

Figure 4-8.

Calibrating Launcher Azimuth Indicator by U s e of Rail Targets and Remote Controller

CYLINDER VENT UMBILICAL

SUPPORT ARM

UMB PLUG

UMB MAST

SUPPORT ARM

I
Figure 4-9. Console Controls for Support Arms and Umbilical

I
C-6062-171

4-11

UM BI L ICAL ARM UM BlLlCAL ARM PIVOT ACTUATING CYLINDER BLAST SHIELD UM BlLlCAL

THE SUPPORT ARM FOR THE PAYLOAD UMBILICAL HARNESS WAS P I V O T - M O U N T E D T O T H E T O P O F T H E L A U N C H E R M A S T . THE ARM WAS FABRICATED FROM 3-INCH TUBING APPROXIMATELY 10 FEET LONG. A PNEUMATIC ACTUATING CYLINDERANDCONTROLVALVEOPERATEDTHEARMTHROUGH A 20-DEGREE ARC AWAY FROM THE PAYLOAD. FOR VEHICLE 1 2 - 5 0 - 1 LAUNCHING, THE UMBILICAL ARM ACTUATING CYLINDER WAS MECHANICALLY LOCKED IN THE F U L L Y EXTENDED POSITION BY A LOCKING SLEEVE TO PREVENT ACTUATION.

CYLINDER
4

PAYLOAD UMBILICAL RETRACT ASSEMBLY (VEHICLES 1 2 - 5 0 - 2 AND 1 2 - 5 1 - 1 )

PAYLOAD UMBILICAL RETRACT ASSEMBLY ( 1 2 - 5 1 - 2 AND 1 2 - 5 1 - 3 )

THE RETRACTION SYSTEM IS MOUNTED ON THE TOP OF THE LAUNCHER MAST AND INCLUDES ARECTANGULAR SUPPORT FRAME, LEVERS, CABLES AND ACTUATING CYLINDER. LEVERS PIVOTED BY THE CYLINDER ACTUATE CABLES AND PULLEYS TO RETRACT THE DISCONNECT BLOCK; ADDITIONAL CABLES W I L L UNLOCK THE DISCONNECT BLOCK IF THE PRIMARY SYSTEM FAILS. THE PNEUMATIC SEPARATION SYSTEM INCLUDES A THREEWAY, TWO-POSITION SOLENOID VALVE, A RESERVOIR AND CHARGING PANEL WITH TUBING, GAUGES AND VALVES. THE UMBILICAL SEPARATION AND RETRACTION IS ACCOMPLISHED BY TWO SEPARATE BUT INTERCONNECTED SYSTEMS; (1) PNEUMATIC SEPARATION SYSTEM WHICH ACTA UATES PLUNGERS IN THE DISCONNECT BLOCKAND FORCES THE BLOCK AWAY FROM THE VEHICLE PANEL, ( 2 ) A RETRACTION SYSTEM WHICH PULLS THE DISCONNECT BLOCK OUT OF THE WAY OF THE VEHICLE. THIS SYSTEM ALSO CONTAINS BACKUP SEPARATION LEVERS AND CABLES WHICH ASSURE DISCONNECT.
C-6062-172

Figure 4-10. 4-12

Payload Umbilical Mechanisms

EACH OF THE ARMS WAS " SUPPORTED ON THE MAST BY TWO RECIRCUI_ATING, BALL-TYPE TRUNNION BEARINGS.

SUPPORT ARMS PNEUMATIC CONTROL SYSTEM WAS ACTIVATED PRIOR TO VEHICLE LIFT-OFF BY DEPRESSING THE UNLOCK PUSHBUTTON ON THE BLOCKHOUSE CONTROL CONSOLE. ATENSION LOAD THEN APPLIED ON THE SUPPORT ARMS; AS THE VEHICLE LIFTED OFF THE LAUNCHER AND THE VEHICLE HOOKS CLEARED THE ARMS, THE ARMS RETRACTED A MINIMUM OF 10 INCHES IN APPROXIMATELY 0.6 SECONDS, CONTINUING TO 20 INCHES AT 1.4 SECONDS TO PREVENT INTERFERENCE WITH THE VEHICLE.

TWO RETRACTING VEHICLE SUPPORT WERE MOUNTED ON EACH SIDE OF THE LAUNCHER MAST AT APPROXIMATELY THE 30-FOOT LEVEL AND ATTACHED TO HOOKS ON THE lAUNCH VEHICLE FOREBODY. THESE ARMS SUPPORTED THE LAUNCH VEHICLE WHEN THE SUPPORT PLATFORM WAS TILTED TO AN ANGLE WHERE THE C.G OF THE VEHICLE/PAYLOAD FELL OUTSIDE THE VEHICLE BASE FOOT PRINT AND RESISTED LOADS DUE TO WINDS AND SEISMIC DISTURBANCES.

THE VEHICLE SUPPORT ARMS RETRACTED STRAIGHT BACK FROM THE VEHICLE. THE SUPPORT ARMS WERE SPRING LOADED TO ACCEPT VERTICAL CHANGES IN THE VEHICLE DUE TO TEMPERATURE AND DISTORTION DUE TO C.G. SHIFT IN INCLINATION. THIS FEATURE ALSO PERMITTED THE ARMS TO FOLLOW THE VEHICLE APPROXIMATELY ONE (1) INCH AT RISE OFF ASSURING THAT THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT FALL IF THRUST BUILT UP SLOWLY. THE SUPPORT ARM DESIGN ALSO PERMITTED ADJUSTMENT FOR VEHICLE MISALIGNMENT IN ALL AXES.
C-6062-173

Figure

4-11.

Support

Arms

Mechanism

Since GSE was obtained GSE cial Joe

vehicle conducted. from

systems Every

varied effort surplus, The

from was Hardware

mission made

to mission, available purchase, and

continuous equipment. or was vehicle itemizes

surveillance GSE was or 248 items and commeritems for the purchased checkout 70 were

of

to use NASA

government by Convair. the Test

through used

manufactured itemized chased

List, Of this were

GD/C-62-170V, total, approximately commercial

of

not including in OCP by Convair. standard H program. The major the and air items

190 test Tools,

tools 12-86009.

for component and 50 were

purchased The

by NASA, items

standard specifically

purLittle

remaining

manufactured

GSE servicing single-

areas

were for

the

consoles the

and motor

equipment grain tent, used

racks temperature, handling for test

used

for

system and

control, ACS test

conditioning and

maintaining items

the RCS and equipment and checkout.

equipment, multi-use

environmental generally

miscellaneous CONSOLES The rack and receptacle counters concerned control panel were with

consoles modular all the standard several

were units Control

designed and connected switches, items. systems

as free-standing to the circuit Each facility breakers, console

units, wiring face

employing by means zoned indicators, was

standard of plug meters to group and and items

connectors.

catalog basic

or subsystems.

4-13

o_-,I

r_ I r/l

_j o ,_ .._ n,_

.J

t/l

z ..I-

I
_,-I

4-14

ADJUSTMENT E LEVATI ON AZIMUTH FOR BUILD-UP FOR LAUNCHING POINTING ACCURACY ELEVATION AZIMUTH LOAD CAPACITY STABILITY IN WIND (ANY LJ-II-S/C COMBINATION) 30 MPH 60 MPH 100 MPH SPEC. +15' +30' VARIABLE FROM 90 TO 75

90 TRUE .315 TO 45 TRUE MANUAL INFINITE INFINITE 270,000 REMOTE +i0' :_ 6' LBS SPEED 5/MIN 18/MIN

AT 75 o AT 90 AT 90" (GUYS AND RAIL CLAMPS) ELEVATION JACK TEST

PAIR - STATIC PAIR - DYNAMIC EACH - DYNAMIC PROCEDURE - TALLEY WEIGHT SHIPPING

400,000 300,000 170,000 CORP. REPORT # 897104 _I00,000

LBS LBS LBS

LBS

NUMBER OF TRAILER LOADS MAXIMUM MODULE WEIGHT PRINCIPAL STRUCTURAL ALLOWABLE STRESS FOR DESIGN MATERIAL

3 33,000

LBS

ASTM A-7 STEEL LESSER OF YIELD OR .66 ULT.

BLAST CONE OVER-PRESSURE ALGOL RECRUIT THERMAL LAGGING

147 PSl 225 PSl

PLANAR AND SINGLE CURVATURE IRREGULAR SHAPES SUPPORT ARMS ENGAGEMENT AFTER LAUNCH TIME TO 10 INCH CLEARANCE FROM VEHICLE TIME TO 20 INCH CLEARANCE FROM VEHICLE MATERIAL TEST REPORTS UMBILICAL RETRACTING SYSTEM

TRANSITE FLAMEAST!C

700

--_-1"

0.6 SEC 1.4 SEC SAE 9.310 SL-62-065 & DC-12-004

NOT APPLICABLE ON ON + X AXIS OFF + Z AXIS TEST REPORT - A-O01 & A-O02 TEST REPORT - A-O03 & A-O04

QTV A-001 & A-002 A-003 & Z-004 SL-63-033 SL-64-140-I

C-6062-175

Figure

4-13.

Parameters

4-15

"_I

...

4-16

C-6062-177

Figure 4-15.
_----I_

Spacecraft Missions A-003 and A-004 Umbilical Retracting Mechanism Test

- - - -I

"_

_ _ -

C-6 062 -178

Figure 4-16.

Control System Test Facility

4-17

Figure 4-17.

Fin T e s t Equipment at CSTF

C-6mz-180

Figure 4-18.

Fin Test Console

4-18

NO.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

MEASUREMENT FIN REACTION MOTOR CHAMBER PRESSURE REACTION CONTROL VALVE INPUT SIGNAL REACTION MOTOR FUEL PRESSURE HYDRAULIC VALVE INPUT SIGNAL AIR TEMPERATURE FUEL MANIFOLD TEMPERATURE FUEL TANK TEMPERATURE MOTOR FUEL TUBE TEMPERATURE FIN CONTROL SURFACE POSITION

12-51-1 2 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 1

12-51-2

12-5-3

2 1

1 1

1 1
C-6062-181

FIN HYDRAULIC PRESSURE

Figure

4-19.

Fin

Test

Stand

Measurements

Four modifications or facility used; auxiliary was also for

basic

console were made 12-50-2,

designs between For this only subsequent

were Vehicle console with

used

throughout (QTV) again used

the only

program. detail one

As required, changes in vehicle console by an console was

missions was the

to accommodate

configuration. Vehicle console used with with concerned each

12-50-1

blockhouse supplemented The extra

but was system.

RF command

vehicle. and continuing through Vehicle 12-51-3, a "dual" RF

Beginning blockhouse command

Vehicle

12-51-1

control console.

console was used. Figure The left-hand module was and vehicle systems were

4-20 shows the dual console with the devoted to attitude control and instrucontrolled and monitored by the right-

mentation; launcher hand module. For was control With One tance set operations systems; the was see

involving the Figure of the test and

testing exercising 4-18. CSTF base

at the

CSTF

for

the

last

three the

vehicles, hydraulic

a console and reaction

provided

to permit

and monitoring

of both

exception used at the (MAE)

console, and the other

two units at the

of each factory Testing

type for (PAT).

were

manufactured. Accep-

Manufacturing

Evaluation

Predelivery

Acceptance

4-19

Figure 4-20.

Blockhouse Consoles

4-20

EQUIPMENT The pad used. cuit delivery building. The following where a single power

(POWER building rack were shelf circuit

BUILDING) structure) could items for for the other was the nearest For location the first two to the racks launch were and was cirthe

(a barricaded racks was and standard mounting protection. used;

equipment equipment racks and for and

equipment catalog

be housed. of the with it was 4-21

two vehicles,

remainder components.

vehicles,

These breakers point

panel-mounted As the power also for used the for

switches building equipment

facility-furnished

dc power, See Figure

containin the power

ing switching

arrangement

summarizes

the

functions 12-50-1

performed & 2
X

in the 12-51-1
X

equipment 12-51-2
X

racks: 12-51-3
X

Function DC Power control and distribution

1st stage ignitioncontrol 1st stage ignitioncurrent monitors Launch RCS sequence timing

prepulse timing AIR CONDITIONING The air conditioning Engineers, in a trailer or 229,000 was the 34% relative concept the since was the for see and van, BTU unit was

a recirculating (*). The New Mexico. to deliver heating air and module 7480

system was The cfm cold

built air of air the day

in accordance and Paxton,

with

Corps housed cooling, a 108F original

of Engineers

Specifications Albuquerque, was per rated hour the

designer

Bridgers 338,000

Consulting

conditioning Algols with

equipment, BTU per hour on and unwhen to it was was The tower plan was

to maintain

at 70 (+5) F based 20 mph This Joe wind. service H control

humidity to mount command and for QTV interfered for 4-23. Missions use Short, ducting

hot day

and an 8F conditioning launch vehicle control

equipment range to retain the see vehicle, and air air Figure

on the Little

to integrate satisfactory ment the Little found servicing designated tower; ducting were tower Joe that

command

module

requirements. conditioning

require-

incompatible, removed. used ducting II was required Figure from

it was and

desirable ducting Mission

in service equipment However, ducting of increased on the

Flexible

to connect A-001; the

conditioning 4-22. and the used flexible was for in view

with A-002,

servicing A-003,

and A-004, insulated were trailer.

emergency tower

and permanent flexible to the air

ducting

installed

connections conditioning

vehicle-to-tower

*ENG-(NASA)-29-005-63-1, Little Joe II Ground

dated 28 January 1963, and GD/Convair 1962.

Report T-12-10,

Air Conditioning, dated 15 November

4-21

-Figure 4-21.
4-22

l,,lt,,'

I!' I

Equipment Racks

C-6062-184

Figure 4-22.

Air Conditioning

Original Configuration

REACTION CONTROL SYSTEM EQUIPMENT

Initial planning for support of the reaction control system anticipated that Redstone o r Project Mercury GSE would be suitable, but the vehicle system required larger and different equipment. Some vessels and components from the Project Mercury trailer were used on the hydrogen peroxide servicing trailer and the pneumatic trailer. The principal changes in the hydrogen peroxide trailer, shown in Figure 4-24, were installation of a scale and 80-gallon capacity scale tank to weigh the hydrogen peroxide instead of measuring from a calibrated sight glass. The scale weighed the feed peroxide, the overboard return, and the fuel removed to provide ullage, thus eliminating sources of e r r o r in reading several gauges, as experienced on other programs. The peroxide transfer to the reaction control systems was accomplished by nitrogen pressure; however, the transfer from the shipping drums t o the trailer was successfully accomplished with a positive displacement pump.
Other GSE t o service the reaction control system included Teflon-lined servicing hoses , emergency showers , vent and defueling adapters , dump tank, maintenance tools , a high pressure nitrogen trailer, a dust-free enclosure for conditioning peroxide components, and a vacuum drying system. The vacuum drying system, shown in Figure 4-25, used a Kinney vacuum pump and liquid nitrogen cold traps to reduce pressure inside the reaction control systems to 1 millimeter of mercury absolute press u r e , s o that all peroxide would evaporate and be removed from the system between checkout, servicing, and launch.
4-23

C-6062.185

Figure 4-23.

Air Conditioning

Final Configuration

C-6062-186

Figure 4-24. 4-24

Hydrogen Peroxide Trailer

C-6062-187

Figure 4- 25.

Vacuum Drying Equipment in Pneumatic Trailer

AERODYNAMIC CONTROL SYSTEM EQUIPMENT The pneumatic trailer (Figure 4- 26) provided nitrogen for the aerodynamic control system as well as for the reaction control system. The trailer had four, 6OOO-psi, one-cubic-foot nitrogen bottles and four dispensing systems furnishing nitrogen at nominal pressures of 25, 450, 3000, and 5000 psi. The bottles and many of the valves, regulators, and gauges were salvaged from the original trailer. Wet gas posed a problem on Vehicle 12-51-1 in spite of an existing drier system used in charging the storage bottles; therefore, an additional dryer was installed on the pneumatic trailer between the storage bottles and the regulators, to eliminate freezing of the regulators. Increased size of the aerodynamic control system in Vehicle 12-51-2 made it nece s s a r y to supplement the pneumatic trailer gas supply with large high-pressure storage bottles. Two bottles with a capacity of 1 2 cubic feet each at 8500 psi were furnished, to reduce the number of times it was necessary to call upon the WSMR Propellant Service Section to recharge the storage bottles. These bottles were connected to the pneumatic trailer by flexible hoses to utilize its pressure reduction and drying facilities. Servicing hoses were provided with the trailer. High pressure nitrogen of -100" F dew point was obtained by use of a Sprague S-3600 WB-100 booster, which was used to pump nitrogen from a 2000-psi tube trailer to a pressure of 6000 psi for the pneumatic trailer and 8500 psi for the high pressure storage bottles. The booster was 4-25

C-6062-188

Figure 4-26.

Pneumatic Trailer

powered by compressed air. The air compressor, nitrogen tube trailer and gas dryer were furnished and operated by WSMR personnel. Two hydraulic service units were provided. The first unit was an Ordnance Corps unit originally furnished for the Nike program; see Figure 4-27. This unit had a capacity of 3 gpm at 3000 psi and was used to test individual ACS at the CSTF and for servicing the ACS for launch. When performing vehicle integrated Operational Checkout Procedures a larger Ruckers hydraulic unit was used; see Figure 4-28. This Convair-furnished unit had a capacity adjustable between 40 gpm at 0 psi to 10 gpm at 3000 psi. The necessary servicing hoses and test manifold were furnished as GSE. Since there was a possibility that oil contamination could have caused failure of Mission A-003 the cleanness requirements for hydraulic oil were made more stringent. As a consequence: 1) a new test manifold was furnished for the integrated testing, and indiuidual system GSE filters were installed at the factory and remained in place until launch preparations were complete; 2) the GSE Military Standard type hydraulic hoses were replaced with Teflon tube hoses and new sampling p a r t s were provided for u s e of Millipore Bomb Sampling; 3) the hydraulic c a r t s were dismantled, cleaned, filtration rearranged and Bomb Sampling parts were provided - NASA furnished Bomb Samplers; and 4) hydraulic oil cleanness requirements w e r e increased along with education and surveillance.

4-26

i
I
I

I i
c

i
k f

ta

C-6062-189

Figure 4-27.

Ordnance Corps Hydraulic Cart

A plastic shelter was set up at the Control System Test Facility (CSTF) r preparation of the Millipore Bomb monitors and for quick microscopic examination of the exposed monitors. Official analyses of the monitors and bomb samples w e r e made by the Chemistry-Metallurgical Laboratory of the Army Missile Test and Evaluation Directorate. These contamination control efforts were very effective. OTHER GSE A dust-free, controlled area was required at White Sands for installation of reaction control systems on the fin structures. As no suitable facilities were available, Convair furnished a 15-fOOt diameter by 15-foot high air-supported vinyl fabric tent which would accommodate a complete fin mounted on a fin test stand, and the necessary work platforms; see Figure 4-29. The tent was designed for use inside a factory building and was assembled with Velcro zippers. The tent could be readily dismantled and folded for storage o r shipping. Convair furnished slings and handling dollies for handling the vehicle airframe and all components except Algol engines; see Figures 4-30 and 4-31. (All handling equipment for Algols was furnished by Aerojet through NASA.) Stress analysis and design margins f o r handling equipment a r e given in Stress Analysis, Ground Handling Equipment, Little Joe II Vehicle, GD/C-63-041. Special work platforms were used for installation of the destruct system and for servicing the ACS and RCS on the launcher.

4-27

Figure 4-28.
4-28

Rucker's Cart, Hydraulic Test Manifold, and Fin Filter Units

C - 6 0 4 2 -19 1

Figure 4-29.

Environmental Tent for RCS Assembly and Test

4-29

Figure 4-30.

Sling Configuration for Handling Vehicle Body

C-6062-193

Figure 4-31.
4-30

Four Fins on Work Stand

One novel Chain charges. ship's

application ladder

for for

Vehicle access

12-51-2 in the

was

the

adaptation

of a Coast primacords

Guard and

Standard shaped

vehicle

to the destruct

Noteworthy 4-32} hicle winds and plastic erection of over

among and

the

miscellaneous plugs A set various and to seal kits

GSE was

a supported air provided tools, boxes high and

canvas at various to support pressure

cover phases the

(Figure of vevehicle hose, were in

corrugation checkout. also electric

in conditioned was test

of guy cables instrument

60 mph; standard

of alignment

safety test boxes

special tools, furnished.

special

GSE DOCUMENTATION One field and of the most significant for improvements Standard each to commercial items. military item standard Early in the program was required requirement were taken implemented a Performance caused to avoid unnecessary these highin the

of GSE Interface

documentation. Specification when applied costs

procedures This efforts equipment,

of GSE.

duplication documentation cost traps; as vehicle the material documentation, NASA mum cost, Directive

and unreasonable

for low-cost test rather costs. permitted studied issued GSE

low-dollar test items receiving but and then 12-L-9

tools (jumpers, switches, lights, etc.) were categorized than GSE; component test aids were considered part of These a loss the efforts of cost problem produced accountability. of providing for the GSE following support new equipment Program at miniManual the equipment without high-cost

Convair redefined was

the requirements to implement - This category

accordingly.

requirements: drawings, of design individual time, and

Convair-Pecttliar Interface acceptance Standard standard description. Specification. Non-Standard test This harnesses category drawing 6 receptacles, included and was GSE of more items and Performance testing. GSE The

required more than

detail 8 hours

Specifications,

Portable required category

Test was

Equipment acceptance covered

- This testing

category and could Interface

consisted be defined and

of manufactured by catalog Performance

which

by a blanket

Portable than used

Test

Equipment and a black

- This Test

category more

consisted than (FTI)

of simple 6 switches, which

25 wires by a blanket

box having Instruction and

6 lights covered

in Functional Interface

performance. Specification

Performance

requirements. Low-Cost tool, This GSE - This work was category or test was covered box, consisted where of a simple configuration and the Interface design and conversion control task was was less

Non-Standard of a manufacturer's simple, than and where 8 manhours.

mechanism, category

close-tolerance

not required by a blanket

Performance

Specification.

4-31

FTI Tools - This category consisted of test harnesses of less than 25 wires and a black box having no more than 6 switches, 6 receptacles and 6 lights used in FTI performance. No specification covered this category. These tasks were not charged to the GSE budget.

Figure 4-32.

Checking Vehicle Conditioned A i r Cover

C - 6 Ob2 - 194

4-32

LAUNCH

OPERATIONS

LAUNCH

OPERATIONS

A.

ORGANIZATION The Convair Launch Operations Predelivery Launch managerial of whom were carried Range one Missile The Organization Acceptance Vehicle concept had the out Operation, applied responsibility at the New factory Mexico. at the checkout there Off-Site test crew would launch site anticipated be used was that that for about factory of the organized continuity operations. Engineermaintained Instrucand on Little at the Factory, and other to this for Joe II performed Assembly activities launch the at Launch of Convair for see launch at Deputy

functions Site, WSMR Program Figure site, White The one would final facility month be for

of Planning, Checkout, NASA. Managers, 5-1. Activities Sands

Vehicle

program

provided operations; and

in San Diego

at the

(WSMR),

early

concept

of the

launch for that the

operations and same basis the the

would at close

be required intervals, launches. group and Administration reporting Support,

assembly

of the vehicle, would be little crews, to direct were:

launchings

operations the

checkout between

and launch

operations, On this maintain Deputy to the to support

and that

modification initially provide these Operations were

Department

as an administrative of operations custody. Other ing, tions functions Operations the were A Site

temporary was

at WSMR,

NASA equipment appointed Manager These of operations, Program

and material

in Convair's

Supervisor Quality Control.

to the and Prior as

organizations of the various

throughout procedures As the As this were was

program.

initiation

Departmental personnel

established

guidelines

of responsibilities

to be followed. program recognized, crew; used for and developed, the during as permanent the support the amount and last of activity at WSMR. year of the material between supervisors, Later, program control, launchings with a permanent facility two engineers increased. crew, added of were crew

inspection

a small

established was modification basic of the for

personnel

to the permanent twenty-five facility The period reference to accomplish

administration, telemetry station

refurbishment,

maintenance. procedures were used large throughout variations the provide entire a good

organization contract. future infrequent The similar

and operating final off-site issue

of the operations

Departmental requiring

Instructions

of manpower

operations.

5-1

LITTLE JOE II PROGRAM MANAGER

DEPUTY PROGRAM MANAGER LAUNCH OPERATIONS

SAN DIEGO WSMR

I
LAUNCH OPERATIONS I DEPUTY PROGRAM MANAGER

1
I

l
SITE ADMIN ISTRATION OPERATIONS

I
ENGINEERING

I I OPERATIONS SUPPORT l
Figure 5-1. Launch Operations

I I
Management

QUALITY CONTROL 1 c_oo62_.,

Responsibility

During Sands (GOM). modified The Detailed prior and issue gram Control Test

the program, Facility these to agree

the

NASA

Operations operations,

at WSMR, a set the

later Department

identified

as White Methods were

(WSTF), covered the with contract were

developed all WSTF GOM required

and issued

of General Joe

Operating Instructions

Since

as applicable schedule and used Flight weekly Launch I,

to Little

]1 operations. primarily early in the section devoted program. of NASA a full details time to PERT. Just requested Program and pro-

original networks

documentation for reporting Operation crew 4 for and daily Operations Section Test

developed

to the authorized

QTV operation the addition was added

the WSMR of detailed to the

schedules; more

Specialist these control

to develop,

maintain concerning

schedules. activity. arrangement, test supply

Refer

to Volume

By NASA assists nance tainers; analysis; components for the project specialized to the items;

the

US Army These

organizations included: assist

at WSMR storage in charging

provided and handling project

specialized of ordcon-

operations.

assists GN 2 and

of high-pressure

storage

storage and analysis of H202; performance of hydraulic and assist to the contractor in the functional test and requiring nature. specialized equipment test equipment. and staff for This to provide moderately-used

fluid contamination checkout of electronic obviated functions the need of a very

arrangement

5-2

All post-launch reports, with the exceptionof the QTV Post-Launch Report, were prepared and edited by NASA personnel, with Contractor liaison. The QTV PostLaunch Report was prepared by Convair. B. PLANNING

A Facilities Plan defined the support neededfrom or through NASA for the conduct of the launch vehicle portion of the program. Requirements for the five launch vehicles were contained in the Facilities Plan, Report GD/C 62-166, changesA thru C, and SupplementsI andII. The material for eachvehicle was presented in the format required by WSMR. NASA integrated the launch vehicle requirements into a project level Operations Requirement for implementation. A planning activity was carried out at SanDiego on a continuousbasis. Launch crews reviewed the details of the configuration changeson the next vehicle andplans were developed and scheduledfor the tasks indicated for both facility modifications andthe assembly and checkout of the vehicle. Requirements for new or revised test equipment and spares, plus vehicle expendablesand spares, were determined. The objectives of upcoming missions were reviewed and measurement requirements for both airborne and ground instrumentation were established andcoordinated with
NASA/MSC. C. PREDELIVERY Shortly Acceptance to verify assigned which nance. did that before Testing the functions. not require Secondary ACCEPTANCE factory (PAT) vehicle This objectives completion was was introduced were effected were those subsystems TESTING of Vehicle into the 12-51-1, program. capable payload field the concept The all facility procedures of Predelivery of PAT their OCPs of orddeveloping exeron this stand. was

purpose

completely with the

of performing and vehicle and or the handling

by accomplishing of proofing

integrated

operations

field test personnel proficiency representatives monitored the cised vehicle PAT yard and equipment 36 at WSMR used directly, the covered, in their was for and tasks conducted Vehicles and launch with during in the 12-51-2 spare complex only minor revised

in execution of the tests. NASA field operations program and exercised controls similar to those launch operations yard, was in the using field. PAT vehicle factory activity support experimental and 12-51-3 a special in the employed field

actual

conducted to that the to use procedural

experimental support Complex be discould were

employed were

launcher circuitry as practicable; deviations.

to accommodate equivalent as When a result prior

the vehicle.

Ground at Launch

provided

procedures field.

deficiencies in the

OC Ps were

and reissued

5-3

D.

ASSEMBLY

The vehicle was transported by low-boy truck from San Diego to WSMR a s an assembled unit, less fins and specified components; see Figure 5-2. The structure was enclosed in a protective cover and supported at the ends by cradles. Off-loading (Figure 5-3) and de-mating (Figure 5-4) were accomplished in the VAB, using overhead cranes for all vehicles except 12-50-1; this vehicle was offloaded and de-mated at Building 1540, using mobile cranes, since the VAB was not ready for occupancy. The fins were transported on storage cradles in a covered van, and the off-loading was accomplished by fork lift; see Figure 5-5. The fins were then removed from the cradles and installed on work stands. PRE-ASSEMBLY BUILD-UP The only vehicle pre-assembly build-up required was installation of primacord in the forebody for vehicles with motor configurations which limited accessibility to routing areas. Fins for Vehicle 12-50-1 and -2 and 12-51-3 did not require pre-installation buildup. For Vehicles 12-51-1 and 12-51-2 the RCS systems were installed on the fins at the VAB, in an environment-control test. A spare attitude control fin w a s maintained at WSMR and modified to the proper configuration for each vehicle.

Figure 5-2. 5-4

Vehicle Arriving at WSMR

C -6 062 -2 1 0

Figure 5-3.

Removing Vehicle Body from Trailer

The motors w e r e stored in bunkers at the WSMR Ammo Area prior to installation. Algol motors were stored in the horizontal position on storage dollies; Recruit Motors were retained in their shipping crates. Build-up of the motors was accomplished at the WSMR Ammo Area except for the Vehicle 12-50-1 and 12-50-2 Algol motors, which were built up in a mobile environmental shroud temporarily located adjacent to the launch pad. Algol motor pre-installation assembly included: 1) bore-scoping of propellant burn surface; 2) pressure check of motors with canted nozzles; 3) igniter installation; 4) bracketry installation; and 5) thermocouple plug mounting and checkout; see Figures 5-6 and 5-7. Shaped charges were also installed for motors using adhesive bonding instead of bracket mounting. Recruit motor igniters were fit-checked and the nozzle installation and alignment indexing verified. VEHICLE ASSEMBLY

The afterbody was the first vehicle structure installed on the launcher. This section was transported to the launch pad by truck and positioned for off-loading, then hoisted with the service tower crane up and over the launcher mast, rotated f o r proper position, and lowered to the launcher support pads; s e e Figure 5-8. The support pads, pre-set for preliminary body level, were readjusted for final leveling. During installation of Vehicle 12-50-1 it was found that the service tower sealing,skirts interfered with the vehicle during the lowering operation. The skirts were subsequently sectioned to eliminate contact with the vehicle.
5-5

C-6062-211

Figure 5-4.
5-6

Separating Vehicle Forebody from Afterbody After Mating Check

C-6062-212

Figure 5-5.

Removing Fin from Van

C-6062-213

Figure 5-6.

Algol Motor with Nozzle and T/C Leadout Installed

5-7

Figure 5-7.

Installing Igniter in Algol Motor

C-6062-214

The motors were installed after the afterbody was positioned on the launcher; s e e Figure 5-9. The Algol motors were moved to the launch pad on transport erectors or storage cradles via flat-bed trucks. Motors on the transport erector required only the service structure crane f o r installation but motors on the storage dollies required use of an additional mobile crane for an interim transfer to the transport erectors. A Hydra-Set, connected as part of the hoisting train t o permit precise movement of the motor, w a s helpful but not mandatory. Recruit motors were moved in their shipping crates and hoisted into position by the service structure crane. The sequence of installation and motor positioning was predetermined to provide the best weight and balance relationship and maximum work space inside the afterbody. Generally the recruit motors were inserted first and all motors mounted with the minimum required attach bolts to permit all motors to be positioned and the forebody mated on the same day. The installations were completed after all motors were in place. The motor installation was completed by torquing the mounting bolts, securing firing lines to the motor cases, mounting shaped charges and connecting and routing primacord not previously installed, installing recruit motor nozzles and igniters, canting and pressure testing Algol nozzles, installing Algol nozzle boots and covers and installing Algol motor chamber pressure transducers. Algol nozzle canting and pressure testing boots and covers were applicable only to multiple-motor Vehicles 12-51-1, -2, and -3. Motor initiators were installed and connected to the firing lines as part of the countdown.
5- 8

'

1. MOVING FROM VAB TO LAUNCH PAD

2. AFTERBODY IN POSITION AT LAUNCHER FOR OFF-LOADING AND INSTALLATION

3 . LIFTING FOR INSTALLATION ON

LAUNCHER

4. LOWERING THROUGH SERVICE TOWER STRUCTURE

.
Figure 5-8.

5 . POSITIONING ON LAUNCHER SUPPORT PADS

C-6062-2 15

Transferring and Installing Afterbody

5-9

/-

1. TRANSFERRING ALGOL MOTOR FROM CRADLE TO ERECTOR

2 . RAISING ALGOL MOTOR TO VERTICAL POSITION FROM TRANSPORT/ERECTOR

P
I'
r

3. RAISING ALGOL MOTOR T O V E H l C L i FOR MOUNTING

C-6062-218 -1

Figure 5-9.
5-10

Motor Installation (Sheet 1 of 2)

4 . LIFTING RECRUIT MOTOR FROM SHIPPING CRATE

5 . RECRUIT MOTORS INSTALLED IN AFTERBODY

6 . ALGOL AND RECRUIT MOTORS INSTALLED IN AFTE R BODY

7 . INSTALLING RECRUIT MOTOR NOZZLE

C-6062 -2 18 -2

Figure 5-9.

Motor Installation (Sheet 2 of 2) 5-11

After

the motors for over see

were the

installed The The from

the then

vehicle lowered

forebody was raised the around installed

was with

moved the

to the and stand the

launch tower mated for

pad crane to the standby

and positioned and positioned the afterbody; was positioning forebody pad deck. forebody Fixed

installation. launcher, 5-10. of the directly were and to aid Figure

forebody forebody, was truck top during further the

service motors

Algol

on a wheeled by truck. off-loading motors of the Attitude

at the base hoisted Fixtures contact fins

launcher, to the

moved bed of the

to the pad without Algol

Generally stand motor-

to the

attached

to prevent forebody. control fins

in alignment without

lowering checkout.

were

installed

and

hy-

draulic pallets for Vehic!es checkout at the CSTF. The pad. removed hoist fairings Movement from was mounted by Hyster the work on the service stand

12-51-2 and -3 were installed following fins were installed on work stands and was found to be the see most practical vehicle 5-11. for flight. The at the motor and positioned structure; after system for attitude vehicle ballast, case with a fabricated mounted the 12-51-3 Recruit manufacture launcher. at the Figure attach Final

applicable system moved to the launch The fins were a chain of the points, using

method.

installation

accomplished was was required different Vehicle Algol The ballast 12-51-2 The

servicing control and was installed

Ballast the ballast during sisted nozzle. plates body below visions added for mating. the after

only for

vehicles. installed during plate Station

location appropriate

and form time conof the after

of

each 12-51-1 motor

assembly. of an expended Vehicle ballast. base

installation, in lieu with cone

a circular steel, consisted motor at Vehicle

assembly 0 and

employed cone for was Vehicle around

truncated of plate nozzles. and the Ballast

attaching foreprowere in mounted

installed The

assemblies primary plates

of the vehicle, installed as part was area the and

were

of vehicle placed were

remaining provisions

the afterbody RCS system performed modules for assembly

on the not used. of the Vehicle

on the fins

the vacated Convair and command responsible Vehicle ment body was

stacking LES) for

entire

test Vehicle the

package For all Station

(launch other 0. operation. pads

vehicle, missions

service NAA was

12-50-1.

of components was verified

above

alignment accomplished After

throughout the launcher installation

assembly level of the

Primary prior to after-

alignsplice

by leveling afterbody

and the the

support

positioning.

afterbody/forebody

surface (Station 227) was checked. from level at Vehicle Station 0 was fied the for fixed-fin vehicles; Additional vertical alignment relationship procedures of the

Prior to mating determined and check the vehicle. test

of the service module, recorded. Fin alignment control center-line fins was on the

deviation was verinot required. launcher and

an alignment established entire

on attitude vehicle

5-12

--

P&w.

1. POSITIONING FOR OFF-LOADING AT LAUNCHER

2 . LIFTING FOR INSTALLATION

3. LOWERING OVER ALGOL M O T O R S FOR MATING WITH AFTER BODY

C-6062-216

Figure 5-10.

Positioning and Installing Forebody

5- 13

1. MOVING FIN TO VEHICLE

2 . HOISTING INTO POSITION FOR ATTACHMENT TO VEHICLE

3 . POSITIONING A T ATTACHMENT FITTINGS

C-6062-217

Figure 5-11.
5- 14

Positioning Fin for Installation

Vehicle support andtie-down equipmentconsisted of forebody support arms mounted on the launcher mast, andtie-down cables. The support arms, rigged to the vehicle when the forebody was installed, were pneumatically retractable, but were maintained in an unpressurized/mechanically-locked condition until the countdown. The afterbody tie-down cables were installed to secure the vehicle to the launcher, but weather conditions never required their use. Six tie-down cables secured the vehicle to pad deadmen, but only the north and south cables were generally required. The cables were installed at the vehicle attach fittings below Station 0 after the forebody and afterbody were mated. Following forebody installation the vehicle was prepared for
ture covers nected, conditioning were and the and monitoring. the was GSE air temperature Vent seals, system air conditioning installed, system platforms work below installed of shaped conditioning ducts activated. temperatures were installed equipment access Algol motor were of the the GSE prescribed temperaconair limits. adapters and weather

and thermocouples Operation within in the and for

recording initiated

conditioning Access section platforms connection

to maintain covers vehicle area

and motor-hole areas the for equipment

forebody personnel. installation

equipment Work and

to provide

checkout

permitted not previously reinstalled components Vehicle

charges for

and primacord shipment system were OCP.

accomplished. as required and to support were the was connected

Components checkout accomplished when the plan, per afterbody base

removed and the the was

connection applicable installed.

of electrical

umbilical jumpers

harnesses

ground

Vehicle fairings E. were

and fin trailing

edge

heat

insulation basis

was during

completed vehicle

and

the

umbilical

reinstalled TEST

on a noninterference

checkout.

FUNCTIONAL The receiving all performance

inspection incoming and visualized, checkout by NASA at WSMR

section used

at WSMR on the

was Little

established Joe

to inspect

and

test, satis-

as

applicable, factory

material mission the was was upon

II Program,

to ensure

accomplishment. functional defined, receipt check it was of equipment prior decided 90 days that removed to shipment; all of installation from as the the level be would in the

As originally vehicle after of reliability functionally vehicle. The ence project) with the schedules, to do all do only Figures those 5-13

factory desired checked

to be accomplished and within

equipment

WSMR

laboratories that the

performed work load

these was

tests

for and

the

first

two vehicles. of high priority

Experi(to the

demonstrated

sporadic,

often

and could not always be accomplished desired schedule. To minimize the a Convair-staffed routine and less tests through requiring 5-15. checkout sophisticated specialized area testing.

by the WSMR load on WSMR (Figure 5-12) Thereafter,

laboratories and better established WSMR was to the

in accordance serve project and called project; equipped upon see 5-15 to

was

equipment

not available

i
C-6062-205

Figure 5-12.

Small Components Checkout Bench

I
C - 6 0 h 2 .Ob

Figure 5-13.
5- 16

Attitude Gyro Checkout on Ideal A e r o s m i t h Scorsby Table

C-6062-207

Figure 5-14. r
I

Attitude Gyro Checkout on P-W Rotary-Tilt Table

-~

C-6062-208

Figure 5-15.

Rate Gyro Checkout on Genisco Rate Table

5- 17

Standard Department with Test established

(normal} Instructions.

receiving Test

was

performed test

per (FTI}; Convair as gyros,

instructions was all testing

in NASA-approved performed was systems in accordance by the engineers. etc., Test was witauthorized

Functional (TPS), functional system future signed items

of components

Functional Sheet

Instructions by both such and

Preparation Testing

and NASA programmers,

of critical applicable for

nessed were

by the documented

engineers

and

NASA Quality

Assurance.

results

evaluation inspector, testing.

comparison. by Convair, from shop had the capability was of perrequired

One full-time forming during all Wpes the peak

receiving of fl,_uctiona! load GSE, periods. and Joe

assigned Assistance

technicians

All spares, those tested components during the

flight from

hardware, each vehicle

amounting delivered listed The

to approximately to WSMR, items are were typical

2100 of those

items tested

plus and

removed Little

received

II Program.

by Convair Item Switches Relays Resistors Diodes Voltage

at WSMR: Type All types All types All types All types Regulators A/C A/C inspection level & D/C & D/C program and Item Gyros Gyros Autopilot Autopilot Type Rate Attitude Logic & Control

Amplifiers Amplifiers Transducers Potentiometers at WSMR thereby was

Telemetry Pressure Fin Position Gages effective the in detecting compo-

Voltage Sensors Convair's nent discrepancies components F. receiving

at the bench

improving

reliability

of installed

FIN CHECKOUT Integrated functional 4.C. safety fins The testing control CSTF of the system was reaction was located control away from system for the other and the first time structures hydraulic at the and porCSTF; roadways

tion refer

of the

aerodynamic

performed

to Section of H202 assembled

because The Assembly space test for stand

requirements. and RCS modules This build-up were tent each testing. for received the the within fin was and built first VAB up at the of the a clean Vehicle fin and work

Building making and

(VAB). plumbing to the

represented

mating provided mounted

RCS modules.

A controlled-environment connections; CSTF moved

separately

on a special

5-18

The RCSandhydraulic systems were

philosophy more was was to give and time with the RCS system than to the of the complex encountered the consuming respect to cause phases for

essentially the hydraulic

independent. since system. on the the

The Thus, hydraulic The

operating was a hold could sumwhen system following

testing

precedence, testing

RCS testing

RCS system, impact tests:

be readily marizes

introduced, principle RCS

a minimum

on schedules.

Hydraulic Check Check Check Verify

System

GN 2 Leak

or Rig Actuator & GN 2 Leak Functional Tests Check

Instrumentation Bladder Leak

Hydraulic System

Check

H202 Servicing, Conditioning, and Surveillance Motor Vacuum Bladder Routine Troubleshooting Sheets (TPS's). ing compressed sion of these G. VEHICLE Little 2) Motor 5) Vehicle checked was cedure tingencies. The (OCP). letter quirements 4) Safety data sheets. and and basic The document OCP and was used for checkout Joe tests or were Performance Drying Leak Check controlled tests Tests

Fin Response

De-Fueling

by Operational were conducted provided

Checkout under close the

Procedures control support

(OCPs). Preparation of supplyconclu-

special

of Test in the form

The WSMR

laboratories

GN 2 and performing hydraulic fluid tests the fins were ready for installation CHECKOUT H Launch Vehicle Checkout was

sample analysis. on the launch

At the vehicle.

categorized Facility

as:

1) Launch (CSTF); the facilities Motor checkouts after schedule and the

Facility; were installation were test support promodified conwas

Assembly Checkout; out and the

and Installation; and 6) Integrated motors during assembled vehicle was launch Integrated

3) Fin Checkout Operations. prior and The to vehicle

4) Fin Checkout;

In general, assembly. initiated test plan fin and vehicle were basic

accomplished for the last

assembly, completed. schedules

accomplished as required

concurrently. vehicle to maintain

operations and account

for operational

was

the

Operational - that is,

Checkout controlled

Procedure by change ReSet-Up; and

an engineering-issued - which and defined: 3) Preaccomplished Assignments; Instructions, testing was

document 1) Test and

release Special

procedures Station

Equipment; Test

2) Personnel including (TPS).

Post-Test

Configuration Instructions, Sheet

5) Step-by-Step by Test

Special

Preparation

5-19

Field were, format. with test vidualized facility at WSMR. cedures Each WSMR mance

checkout This

of the

first

two vehicles during and format factory field available

was revision

accomplished nor of the

by procedures prepared for Vehicle and the and

which

in general, the WSMR NASA The were OCP

not proofed launch complex was factory

checkout equipment,

to a standard compatibility with 12-51-1 same vehicle. by NASA/ the perforindithe procompliance identical

resulted

in extensive

procedures and for with format

engineering procedures for

requirements. to a configuration to NASA checkout field was

Starting Apollo

at San Diego used

modified were and field

functionally launch facility and

to that

prepared

of the

to be accomplished and NASA/MSC OCP. to the approved

at the Subsystem

reviewed

approved authorized

personnel of the

Managers.

A TPS

Deviations

OC P were

specified changes, operations were

on Document

Deviation

Sheets.

Deviation usually resulted and deletion of power-up next nent. OCP The and review Change permanent

from equipment and power-down The were

additional engineering monitoring, to conserve time in starting the classified into the as Temporary issued document or by Perma-

proofing. deviations Notice

changes

incorporated

Engineering

(ECN). configuration original was TPS. eliminated Convair solutions, event changes Originally, maintained associated a separate all a Daily and with TPS an OCP was associated Record configurawere required test

Troubleshooting delineated for each for activities (DOR) tion by Mod operation detailing

and resultant Sheets but this problems to the method In addition, and

so as to maintain correlation

as a package.

Operation component

histories. Pre-test briefings and status of additional procedures personnel, was were under of results, were review. held for OCP familiarization, the OCP another incorporation briefing was of known held results, for genand

deviations, eral evaluation clarification The inspection the testing

Following

explanation procedural accomplished the by the test

of problems deviations. by technicians

and troubleshooting

and

mechanics

and verified Overall control

by of

supervision test results engineer. was

of system

engineers.

maintained of the inspection OCP

Acceptance approval Prior cabling, ing, A typical and

identified

by Engineering

signature

stamp-off. of each vehicle (including The power preparation the the fins as applicable} included and OCP's: control, the launcher launch facil-

to checkout were equipment facilities

ity and CSTF console

verified ground checkout

operational. bonding, recorder included

verification and landline

checks

of long-run positioncalibration.

distribution following

validation,

instrumentation

5-20

- Fin Test - CSTF - Dual - RF

Console

- Launcher - Integrated - Landline

Validation Facility Instrumentation Plug Pull Test followed by a com-

Checkout Console Console

Command

- Recorders - Umbilical was basically a subsystem

- Facility The

Checkout vehicle test. ready checkout

verification

plete system was verified control fins An example

Following individual system checkout the overall for integrated operation by an integrated vehicle out at the checkout CSTF OCP's

vehicle/facility OCP. The attitude on the vehicle.

were separately checked of attitude control vehicle

before installation is as follows:

- Instrumentation - Algol Motor Chamber and Pressure Transducers - Signal Complex - RF Link - RF Command Safety - Lanyard - System System System Pull Test Checkout Accelerometers

- Ignition System - Resistance - Firing - Attitude - Logic - Autopilot and Integration - Integrated - Pneumatic - Electrical - Integrated

Measurements

Currents System Sensors Control with System Leak Check System Unit Fins

Control

- Range

Power Vehicle

H.

INTEGRATED Upon satisfactory considered interface connection contractor,

OPERATIONS completion basically with test of initiators, the proofing of the ready the range that etc., above integrated for was and flight. conducted NASA. vehicle The OC P the testing of flight as Integrated During Vehicle this Test period launch vehicle which with station staffed installatest were

proper included tion the and

was

further

required, Operations the

payload,

installation

batteries,

payload

assignments organizationally by NASA personnel. The format viding launch the and for test procedures used of Apollo of Electronic

of Launch

Engineer

for

the

integrated Processing of the after issue base;

launch Procedure was

operations Number chosen was with the

were 2. made

based option quick at the the

on the prothe of was were reaction time

requirements the use was changes. vehicle support shortly

Documentation Data test field, a revised release

The

to permit monitoring detail while

to procedural vehicle launch range

An initial to the in the the start

documents carefully incorporating

shipped checkout before

progress contractor changes

and coordinating test

spacecraft Any late

organizations,

refinement

published

of integrated

operations.

occurring before the start accommodated by the use

of the tests, of document

or changes developed deviation sheets.

on-station,

5-21

For used rated

the

Interface document, into procedure of the launch the

and Integrated documents, material give the would

Systems except from document. authorization the

Tests, in the launch When for During

the

spacecraft of the procedure execution provided

procedures QTV. When was document of select

were used the Final spacecraft and the as incorpo-

as operating directly

or control

case vehicle

an operating spacecraft sequences Systems contractor spacecraft program for

spacecraft vehicle

used the

as a control Simulated

the direct document the

procedure. the

Countdown, by the vehicle used launch

Checks, controlled detail

and Countdown, and sequenced procedures. testing. progressed, refined. to summarize on the progressed. is given

a coordinating application 5-16 Figure

of separate

identifies

procedures

during

integrated program were of the section been

As the test ational the best purpose emphasis Notation achieved phase techniques model of this has is made of the

test Thus, the of the

philosophy last intended phases operations significant of the 5-16.

procedure operational of the of the various last

organization 12-51-3) field concept. overall of this

and It being activities,

operthe

operation

(on Vehicle

became

plans

and goals

the latter

placed

integrated

test

series. in this

as necessary

to illustrate in Figure

improvements

and developments used

as the program program

A listing

procedures

FINAL SYSTEM VEHICLE 12-50-1 12-50-2 INTERFACE N/A OCP-A-1099-BP12 INTEG N_/A OCP-A-0008-BP12 SYSTEM SIMCOUNT GD/C GD/C 63-072 63-085A B CHECK N/A N/A N/A COUNTDOWN GD/C GD/C 63-072B 63-085A

OCP-A-0059-1-BP12

OCP-A-0010-1-BP12 0CP-I-12-08901

Z2-51-1

OCP-A-1099-BP23

0CP-12-86019(51-1) OCP-A-0008-BP23

_ _
Z

o
Z O O

OCP-A-0010-BP23 0CP-I-12-08902 OCP-A-00 IO-BP22/TD

12-51-2

0CP-I-12-86025 OCP-A-1099-BP22/TD

N/A

_ (3
(J

m LLI N/A

m LIJ

12-51-3 OCP-A-1099-SCOO2/TD

0CP-I-12-08903 0CP-A-0010-SCO02/TD c-6o62-198

Figure

5-16.

Integrated

Operations

Procedures

5-22

INTERFACE

TESTING test operations for each vehicle (except for the checkout. These Interface Tests demonstrated vehicle vehicle. concluding in the and spacecraft with and verified with circuit simulated configuration. spacecraft ring-out, mission, Flight Starting QTV) was a suitable isocircuitry progressing these with tests of these connection through

The initial integrated launch vehicle/spacecraft lation routed power-up verified between through systems the the launch launch and operation

Beginning fully-assembled

conditions

a modified

the umbilicals tests, headset

was made and verified positions were manned SYSTEMS

in the process of this test. by the countdown crew.

INTEGRATED The the and Interface spacecraft of demonstrating payload. and mission,

with means hicle

Tests used with the first two vehicles (12-50-2 and 12-51-1} did not include satisfactory To fulfill that provided amount the heart was simultaneous requirement, the of test of the required effort test. the overall

involving integrated a simulated mission operation Systems - this the configuration of eliminating the of the Test test

operations as a vedea simuwas

launch required for

Integrated

veloped the lated

satisfactorily of a modest which

demonstration to achieve In the interest

repetition

redundant Interface

testing, later in the program a simulated Test and the Integrated Systems Test was SIMULATED By this vehicle/spacecraft testing of the range minimal substitution simulated ficiency had final was stage COUNTDOWN of the operation, was adequate

mission was incorporated into eliminated from the series.

assurance

had been status.

gained

that

the proofing time test launch were of a pro-

combination

in flight-ready

Nominally,

all previous

been conducted system checks between significant; with minor concerned of a gas the the

on a non-time-sensitive and Countdown procedure operations Countdown, filled for reaction that as deletion Simulated items

basis. There remained the to be used for launch where and the essentially support a copy These installation operation, provided of the final deviations provision

sequencing procedures and

two contractors' deviations, such

by the

requirement. of ordnance control system

and connection,

blow-down

lift-off signal in lieu of pulling umbilicals, etc. In each case, crew was increased and minor refinements for the procedure established. CHECKS AND COUNTDOWN required the countdown; of the hydraulic, The system, of other flight stray for launching Figures checks, and each 5-17 system and proper reaction vehicle and initiator provided checks, control for were the Final simulated installation. systems final final

FINAL The checks checks (using serviced ing final

terminal (or precount) included

operations and connection ignition system checks,

systems

see

5-18.

systems ignition Followwere arming and

batteries, pneumatic countdown validation, systems. test

fuses}, systems for

voltage

flight

as applicable.

close-out of the plus operational launch in each

range safety verification case.

and arming of the ignition system, The countdown resulted in a successful results is presented in Section 1.

A summary

of flight

5-23

I
v

r_ 0

0 ,=

_,_

5-24

I.

TELEMETRY The telemetry 5-20), 5-21}. (Figure Other recorders pen

STATION station The station, part and

ASSIST (Figure 5-19) for with consisted office, five IRIG the and 5-24) PAM/PDM back two equipment of two telemetry workshop FM receivers, standard capability included: bargraph telemetered and had of electric displays; data; two vans the and data capability from speed tape four r_uL-u_r_; ........... calibrators and an anteroom displays of detwo compen-

(Figure (Figure modulating RF links sation. telemetry tape recorders channel

which

furnished of the (Figures systems;

space equipped

real-time signals

all or any 5-22}

eighteen 5-23 two

subcarrier

simultaneously,

equipment for recorders; units;

two complete

PAM/PDM magnetic tape four and calibration of 8-

documentation for voice

recording one and

and playing 36-channel test

magentic

communications:

36-charon.e! required

oscillograph two telemetry for maintenance

Visicorder;

spectrum display the station. The Sands support

two telemetry Range. Apollo data of the

vans The Launch

originally vans were Escape and

used System recordings

at Cape and testing. were personnel

Kennedy new

were

shipped was

to White added for the

Missile

modified,

equipment

All real-time and were spacecraft fication flight were NASA. flight pen calibrated checkout tapes verification copied Also tape recorders after were

displays

set

up in the during all

telemetry launch tape for

station, vehicle and veriand tapes and the and also re-

and operated and launching played back by NAA and each flight, by NASA

by Convair procedures. in the NASA. telemetry After

All NAA on-board station each flight, personnel extracted recorded telemetry by Convair all on-board for the

recorder analysis flight data this data from was by NAA

in the telemetry recorded

station

by Convair personnel station and and

analysis data

Convair at WSMR

all flight cases

at the telemetry tapes recorded recorders.

on oscillograph and those tapes

for use

Houston.

In some stations

accomplished by using corded on the on-board J. RECOVERY Recovery flight of the sonnel. the tools preservation salvage hardware. launch and Customer teams The vehicle, and equipment

by WSMR

were team and

assigned included in the case

to rapidly two Convair also of attitude

locate, control

inspect

and assigned

recover to the three were and

all Convair

required area perand

personnel

impact furnished conduct

vehicles, The inspections,

range

personnel data, and of flight members positions

participated. on-the-scene all recovered

teams

necessary event team The

to make

evaluation

of engineering in the the

to return anomalies. were were for

hardware

operations to launch impact wind of the

Prior expected latest is a review

positioned selected

downrange based access into the

in the areas.

vicinity safety,

of the the

area.

on personnel

and trajectory recovery

information, operations

and existing each

Following

vehicle:

5-26

C-6062-199

Figure 5-19.

Trailer Complex

Figure 5-20.

Service Area

C-6062-200

5-27

<

C-6 062 -20 1

Figure 5-21.

Monitoring Equipment

Figure 5-22.
5-2 8

Receiving Antenna

Manually Tracked

C-6062 -203

Figure 5-23.

Recording Rack

C-6062-204

Figure 5-24.

Data Acquisition Rack 5-29

Vehicle downrange

12-50-1, and 2700

QTV, feet

Launched

28 August to the left

1963 of the

- Impact launch

occurred heading.

48,300 The

feet 5-25. hooks. thrust

cross-range

vehicle

impacted nose Items recovered A visual termination associated Vehicle

first and the wreckage was were fin accelerometers, was made of the base recovery necessitated system. Apollo Mission A-001

confined to a small base calorimeters insulation. and analysis

area; see Figure and support arm anomaly

evaluation system with the

An in-flight

of the

of components

and pyrotechnics

12-50-2,

(BP-12),

Launched

13 May

1964

- Earth

impact for the vehicle base of the vehicle were scattered hardware, Recovered batteries Vehicle main to the area; were almost mand launch predicted see Figure deactivated all the destruct Vehicle vehicle feet was from impact downrange. formed their Upon burned impact. System pilot ered ingful which was declared were: components and two relay 12-51-1, vehicle recovery

occurred 11,592 feet downrmnge; see over an estimated seven-square-mile to have one a post-flight one engineering antenna coupler, antenna,

F_"_rc 5-26. Pieces area. All flight value, was returned. two one S&A unit,

boxes. Apollo Mission area location; was A-002 however, fins were A search most (BP-23), the debris Launched 20,000 was feet 8 December downrange, over 1964 very a large - The close

impact

approximately

scattered

5-27. The four and recovered. required module items assembly. Apollo over to the stations. second-stage propellant located, (CSTF) for

located and the reaction control subsystems of the area resulted in the recovery of of the boost protective cover and the com-

except

12-51-2, occurred

Mission a large recovery impact

A-003 area plans area

(BP-22), with debris were

Launched scattered and team

19 May from a second and

1965 2000

- Launch to 20,000 team returned

Therefore,

revised original

recovery

and routed downrange impact the

and the

equipment

Algol extended purged of the During post-flight

motors of hydrogen

ignited

violently of 50 yards and

and

great the

amounts point to the and were noted of

of

and unburned All fins were Test Facility

to a distance analysis.

from returned

peroxide The

Control autorecovthat

instrumentation

systems, with the exception and returned for analysis. damage analysis Vehicle and contamination difficult. 12-51-3, intact Apollo

pitch programmer and a relay box, the post-flight investigations it was during recovery operations

shipping

occurring

made

mean-

Mission 92,120 vehicle Explosive

A-004, feet ignited

Launched downrange. upon

20 January Maximum delaying (EOD)

1966

- The

launch was approx-

vehicle imately injured closed launch mer

fell

aft end first, The An Army

dispersion recovery man was

approximately

100 yards.

impact, Disposal

two hours.

Ordnance

slightly

by the explosion of a destruct no anomalies and the following sequence and fin timer, RF command servovalve.

charge. Inspection items were salvaged receiver, logic

of the launch vehicle disfor post-flight analysis: unit, pitch program-

and control

5-30

rl I

0
I

I n

cy

%I -

5-31

Figure 5-26.

Vehicle 12-50-2 After Impact

l/+,ilt>''

ii

>

Figure 5-27. 5-32

Vehicle 12-51-1 Fins A f t e r Impact

K.

REFURBISHMENT The blast damage items was some number, Damage to the are launcher classed size as a result severe, these under from of vehicle major, categories to launch, motors for: for exposed arm actuators; ignition - refer probably ignited the and lift-off Typical by the (Figure and expan-

5-28) fairly sion. variation

may There

be categorized

in three variation

classes: launch

and routine. influenced

consistent in the Blast jack

to following at lift-off. six expendable - see cable launcher Figure assemblies,

and position

of rocket was necessary

Severe miscellaneous elevation flex conduit

- Replacement (thermal 5-30; mast Figure

cables; 5-29; or and

pieces bellows the near

of transite - see top of the as that

insulation any hose

structure on the

assemblies,

or otherwise support

- including jumpers;

any exposed wiring such fire brick (miscellaneous). Major the vendor, or Blast Damage actuator

on the

grounding

- The for

two vehicle extensive tear

support

arms,

support and repair).

arm

actuators, return to

and

NAA umbilical

required detailed - The covered,

refurnishment inspection from and were the and protected It was repaint

(involving

equivalent, Blast very merely The Algol transmission Damage heavily

down, cables

Minor boxes cables, blastape. around the were and

electrical wrapped with

pad to launcher secured with with by the necessary according

]unction the messenger bag barrier the additional

in blastape, alcohol wires

required motor post

cleaning thermocouple and were

rewrapping

sand

serviceable.

to sandblast to the

entire launcher, repair Launcher Maintenance L. MATERIAL

the flameastic, and prime and and Repair Manual, CS-65-007.

SUPPORT

A material function was maintained at the test site as a part of the administrative task. The areas covered included the following:

Shipping/Receiving - Packaging and manifesting was accomplished at Building 1540 in the WSMR Technical Area. Vehicular schedules were maintained to the terminal points for the several commercial procurement carries was used in the program's for logistic certain net. items

Procurement and special items

- Local when

accomplished schedule

standard

necessary

to meet of routine vehicle

commitments. were company maintained. was policy; see Storage accomplished Figures 5-31 of

Stocking/Storing government within the and 5-32. property, framework

- Stocks including

expendables and equipment and

spares,

of government

regulations

5 -33

I '

%$' . _.
A
b

e
J1.Y

.
C-6062-224

,.Pl*l-

Figure 5-28.
5-34

Postlaunch Examination of Launcher

C-6062.225

Figure 5-29.

Launcher Structure After Exposure to Lift-off Environment

The off-site launch operations activities required efficient and timely logistics support from the factory in order to meet the desired schedules. A Test Base office was established at San Diego to support the field logistics requirements. Operations of this office, while within the framework of company standard procedures, w e r e on an expedited basis and covered the several aspects of shipping, receiving, procurement and dispatching. Telegraphic documentation was used to authorize logistic action. The following a r e typical of the actions expedited o r monitored to support field schedules: procurement of spares; follow-up and shipping--critical shortages; repair of Convair-rejected equipment; shipment of facility and ground support equipment; shipment of parts and material per planning card specification; shipment of engineering releases; procurement and forwarding of operating and office supplies; maintenance of mail bag service via air freight; maintenance of centralized area for receipt and shipping of Convair parts, material, mail and documentation; direction and manifesting of special shipments via expeditious methods; performance of coordinating activities as requested between test site and all factory departments; and scheduling of OCP test tools to support field operations.

5-35

L-OUbL-Llh

Figurc 5-30.
5-36

Lmncher Eleva ion Jack Boot and Wiring A f t e r Exposurc to LiftOff Environment

. . -_. __.

-. .

Figure 5-31.

Property Storage at WSMR

C-6062-197

Figure 5-32.

Parts Storage at WSMR

5-37

RELIABILITY

RELIABILITY

A.

GENERAL Reliability was was the prime The extensive engineering. backing and directing consideration through program One from was in the a Reliability in the major management execution Specialist field of the by a group of design for given program. reasons the Little Joe II prodirectly test and in

gram. oriented the field achieved Specialist B.

This

accomplished manager. with

who reported and/or level

to the program engineers

implemented

of hardwareof reliability

experience of the

of reliability was in coordinating

the unqualified

to the Reliability

the reliability

RELIABILITY A reliability

PLAN program was features planning Office of each reliability selection, included review reliability of failure; with planned active of this to achieve participation plan were: the specific reliability testing upon contact and goal reliability with the for in MSC 3) estab4) detailed on the program in all and phases at predetermined maintainability - this system cause and to 8) collection status to of subefforts to of the inte-

Little gration. program Little lishment

Joe

II program The principle management,

through

in design, 1) emphasis 2) frequent to NASA system each

and vehicle

and engineering; responsiveness for objectives

Joe

II Project of realistic analysis of all modes achieved

to assure component the

requirements; component; the effects

reliability mission compare design points

and subsystem, reliability objective; design and trouble engineering,

including

5) a continuous including human analysis

measurement participation provisions control system

6) active review value

and

component

- design

considerations;

7) an effective

correction

analyzed every failure insure that immediate and analysis of reliability and vendors project contractors requirements; the earliest ability training management

or functional performance degradation corrective action was taken to preclude data - all and reporting reliability monitoring specifications and NASA; 9) continual procurement of the possible actions

to determine recurrence; and their specific reliability reliability and costs;

problems contained

reliability

10) a test program designed to expose moment, which thereby reduced redesign and indoctrination in all critical areas.

problems at and 11) reli-

6-1

C.

FAILURE

ANALYSIS

PROGRAM

SUMMARY reliabilitycan be improved To implement by analyzing the this premise an

It is a Convair premise causes of component obviate them as problem

that hardware

and system failures that occur on a program causes on a future program.

and taking action to

active failure reporting and analysis system was institutedon this program. During the LittleJoe II program, prepared. a total of 311 Failure Analysis Reports were or system functional failures which

These reports covered 332 component

have been grouped into 8 general categories; see Figure 6-1. Quality Control Discrepancies - Thirty percent of the functional failures were directly attributedto a lack of satisfactory quality of workmanship. Component Design Discrepancies - Thirty percent of the component up to an acceptable level. rejections resulted rejections re-

quired a design change to bring the component Procedural from

Discrepancies - Fourteen percent of component

inadequate or incorrect procedures

used during receiving inspection, component

test or system checkout. Mishandling - Ten percent of the rejections were because of shipping damage, faulty installation,faultytest setup or human Unconfirmed or Cause Unknown error.

- Six percent of the failures were of the type

where the exact cause of failure could not be determined. Contamination - Five percent of the failures were due to foreign material contam-

inating hydraulic, electrical or mechanical components.

PERCENTAGE FAILURE CAUSE QUALITY CONTROL DESIGN PROCEDURAL PROBLEMS MISHANDLING UNDETERMINED CONTAMINATION ADJUSTMENT WEAR 10
I

OF TOTAL FAILURES 40
I

20
i

30
!

50
I

60
i

m BB

C..6062-207

Figure

6-1.

Component

Failure

Summary

6-2

Adjustment tolerance

Failures that

- Four could - One

percent be corrected

of the

component

failures

were

due to out-of-

conditions Failures

by adjustment were life.

or recalibration. considered Corrective normal action wear was out replace-

Wear-Out where ment D.

percent

of failures its expected

component operation of the component. FUNCTIONAL AND

exceeded

LIMITED

STRESS

TESTING

SUMMARY was sub-

Beginning with Vehicle 12-51-1, all mission significantflighthardware jected to a limited stress test program. tion, temperature, This program

consisted of low-level vibra-

and altitudetests which went beyond a standard functional check but reliabilitywould not be degraded.

were less severe than a qualificationtest. Care was exercised in selecting environmental levels to ensure that the inherent component The purpose by uncovering those component's accomplished and as deemed checks were operation. of these tests was to provide increased confidence in the flightcomponents having manufacturing or quality defects such as tests were Functional

deficient solder joints, loose connections, intermittent shorts, etc. These necessary following repair or modification of components. made

following successful completion of the functional test instructions (FTI's) also accomplished following the limited stress tests to assure proper a portion of the did not potted or hermetically sealed components

In some

instances the construction of components For example, were

tests unnecessary.

receive the altitudetest. The components tests to be accomplished approval. Limited stress test procedures

to be tested, the stress levels, and specific for LittleJoe II components FTI's. during the program specific tests were not be determined they are are listed in Figure not performed, which noted test with the they rejecare defined in

specified by the Reliabilitygroup, subject to NASA's

DIB 12-1.027 and in the applicable component The results of all component 6-2. are tion noted resulted as NA (not from resulted of all the applicable); tests made when temperature it could

In reading the data in the figure: where (vibration,

or altitude) discovered Where the applicable

an (*) - this following the failure

situation completion was known As 7.4% in the the fore program,

when the failure was limited stress tests. are 6-2, These nature, The the were More shown

during functional checks environment which caused columns. tested, the were because tests monitoring 47 were expense vibration function which rejected, and effort until

quantities in Figure rate. by their from

in the

shown since flight

out of 632 components results only altitude discovered functional more these than justify would tests only the and failures tests. basis during checks confidence

for of the placed during and

rejection

not have

occurred

environment. resulted was some the for accomplished failures test. increased

productive

and temperature. monitoring costs. bewould

No failures testing or after However, be desirable

Component

on a limited

of difficulties were during programs.

not evident the tests

component

on future

6-3

P/N 12-03100-3 12-03101-1, 12-03102-1, 12-04101-1 12-04102-3 12-04103-3 12-04104-1, 12-32044-1 12-61325-3, 90-03500-003, 90-15075-004, 93-78000-009, 93-783.04-002, 94-43002-001 95-10501-001 96-47701-015 97-36606-001 97-37001-023 97-37008-010 97-37042-003, 97-37225-012 97-53050-005 97-54002-025, -044, -046 97-95511-001 98-62775-002, 99-00502-013 99-04807-003 99-34914-003 -004, -005

NAME ALTITUDE GYRO L/C AMPLIFIER PITCH PROGRAMMER SERVO VALVE PRESS REG. VALVE CONTROL VALVE SOLENOID PRESS. SWITCH RECEIVER TIMER ACCUMULATOR DC AMPLIFIER FILTER, HYDRAULIC AND PNEUMATIC 004 FILTER AUDIO RATE GYRO STATIC INVERTER OSCILLATOR VOLT REGULATOR RELAY RELAY RELAY RELAY POTENTIOMETER POTENTIOMETER MULTICORDER SWITCH-POWER TRANSDUCER TRANSMITTER RELIEF VALVE TOTALS

TOTAL TESTED 4 8 8 19 29 32 63 9 i0 27 41 42 20 5 6 21 4 2 111 37 28 32 9 2 16 14 1 32 632

TOTAL REJECTED 1 1 1 6 2 0 5 0 0 1 9 0 0 2 1 O 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 5 0 8 47

VIB. 0 0 0 * * 0 * 0 0 NA 1 0 0 * 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 * 1 * 0 * 6*

TEMP. 1 1 1 * * 0 * 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 O 0 NA NA NA NA 0 NA * 0 * 0 * 6*

ALT. 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA NA 0 * NA NA NA 0 C-6062-208

-3 -3

4.

-5 -801 005 -005 -010 -003,

THRU-024

-004, -006 THRU-021 -043,

NA *

NOT APPLICABLE TOTAL QUANTITY UNKNOWN

Figure

6-2.

Results

of All Component

Tests

Made

During

PrOgram

E.

COMPONENT During

BURN-IN the failure were occurring failures the first time expended. analysis when occurred 50 hours. history available A study reporting very little of component during Results might 12-51-3. a burn-in results failures five study hours indicated was hours are time was that usable made most life which in somefor of of

the program failures had been during on the

the

component

of the predicted

the component indicated Figure what; autopilot F. and 95% occurred 6-3. however, system

75% of component A more

the first of this

of operation presented history instituted

complete

alter

the failure of fifty

information

components CONTROL

for Vehicle

SUPPLIER

One of the major design problems purchased specifically to vendor's designed. specifications, In the future,

involved the use of off-the-shelf parts, in an application to limit for which the part was and not early the development problems

6-4

failures needed. application. ponents Vendor Liaison solutions Prior

arising The

from There

this, must

a more should also

detailed call

component with the the test

specification parameters vendor critical and and application based while and nature

to the

vendor

is com-

specification that vendor

out realistic liaison involving to stress during of the a thorough the stages

on the selecting flight of their

component

be closer are known be held

to assure orientation with the

all facts should a better

environments. product. problem to speed

classes

should

be maintained understanding

production his

and to obtain to acceptance and reliability supplier's stage, to the for the

vendor

product. supplier testing should by quality

of components, throughout and design engineers.

surveillance of manufacturing

of each and

be conducted assurance, The At this relating excuse

maintained

facility During parts program

should contractor Proprietary

be inspected strict must rights have

to verify adherence access of the

capability to detail to all should

to meet should

program be demanded. an

specifications.

fabrication,

pertinent

information

component;

vendor

not constitute

withholding

information.

TIME

OF FAILURE (HOURS) 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 71-75 76-80 81-85 86-90 91-95 96-100 101-105 106-110 TOTAL

NUMBER FAILURES 48 2 1 3 2 3 0 1 1 0 1

OF 7 75.0 3.1 1.6 4.6 3.1 4.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 CUMULATIVE 75.0 78.1 79.7 84.3 87.4 92.0 93.6 95.2 96.8 %

1.6

98.4

1 64

1.6 100.0

100.0
C-6062-209

Figure Preacceptance and environmental modes test and failure tests to a level article inspection include that must

6-3.

Summary

of Failures determination, performance tailored tailored. testing. and design verification to check The A complete

parametric each test provide

compatibility; will should

must adequate

be realistically safety unit, not custom

margins.

qualification disassembly

be a production be a part

of preacceptance

6-5

prerequisite Vendor Elapsed

to production and time contractor

testing test time

is a thorough should equipment counters to be kept logs

review should should

of the component identical, throughout

test with no the

procedures. parameters locations. tests

procedures or event

be basically be used

left unchecked. accurate

Similar indicators operating

be specified component.

in all test

to enable

on each

6-6

]RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATIONS

Knowlege

gained

through

experiences of a similar

realized nature.

during The

the

Little

Joe

II program

can

possibly be applied to programs some specific recommendations. Customer's key for a clear action, change tions. Technical communications minimizes the

following

paragraphs

outline

Direction link.

- Single Clear

source

direction efficient

in this ensures and

field rapid

provides response opera-

the to

communication

fog factor

and promotes

economical

Design Base criteria for results specific e.g., margin reduced servicing the ground increased

Criteria rules

- Establish and that dynamic specifications the

design

criteria on this chosen

so that hypothesis. provide can where best waivers proof

over-design Continually a design giving be determined on customer benefits have testing could and

is the product. review maximum by reviewing requirements the program; excessive significantly in the been margin the latitude test for

to assure - static, Little

parameters and flight.

growth.

Requirement areas. !I structure

changes Request require

nonapplicable Joe of safety.

Over-design, did not the H202

possible, time

due to the

Conversely, provided

servicing pressure

had the design equipment. Systems to verify each system

for greater

volume

Functional patibility organization thrust Bench the count Convair factory. systems and testing and

Tests system has was further

- Thorough repeatability numerous initially confidence. Test conducted during the final

testing opportunities checked The at the vehicle proof the

of systems

to assure

interface Through For example,

comproper the

is highly for

recommended. to be checked. integrity during Acceptance facilities

termination

system Acceptance Field countdown the practice procedure

mock-up Tests

testing. and the sim-

provided

Manufacture contractor's of the crew program buildup

Predelivery integrity. final adopted This

reaffirmed during at the familito

testing provided obviously

and finally systems in terms and quick check out the

testing acceptability. vehicle

of having

the field

benefited recognition

of system response

arity, rapid changes and AGE costs H202

checkout, fixes.

immediate

of problems

Design

- Recurring the has been

usage approach

costs

rather

than

the

nonrecurring time should

initial for be given

design to the

should systems

determine

to AGE design. mentioned.

Servicing

the vehicle's

previously

Consideration

7-1

use of automated checkoutequipment. Automatic checkout equipment would shorten ignition system checkout time significantly.
Component with quality gram this mance same the and made Control - Vendor liaison. so-called to provide soon repeatability integration From cannot has been treated standpoint, components. credibility "off-the-shelf" item. control change surveillance Quality control procedure. in component in the circuitry incompatible extend must Changes performance or internal with the sysbeyond include must of the in Volume component The Early components Little in the I and Joe deals II properforrequired the philosophy functional use tended It was surveillance recommends supplier supplier's documented. find that the of this and and of the that of the a technical reliability, program

be over-emphasized.

of many

"off-the-shelf" unwarranted that developed and suppliers including has had can make noted made

terminology standard. reliability Convair

components'

recognized as a newly reliability his

quality his

the

component

include procedures

as well. changes a change

evaluation be controlled only

Convair supplier nature

to eventually

component. A change tem's function. Vendor verify further cludes that and buyer all parameters assurance

a component

test

procedures are covered stress of components

and

equipment test

should areas.

be completely When parts are program

compatible; received, which in-

in both testing and

quality limited

can be achieved component

by a test burn-in.

environmental Control

Centralized testing was vested cognizance

of Testing efficiency

Activities Group. engineers

- Control By combining were assures

of qualification all testing The realized. an ideal

and activity

system under charthe for the

in the Reliability of reliability

of one group,

and economy

inherent

acter and philosophy testing activities. Customer terms NASA

guardianship

Specification and Documentation

Requirements whether

- The contractor should in the imposed requirements

frequently review Customer-imposed of program are warranted

specifications and contractual requirements cost and schedule effect. For example, In many

application. He should determine

in relation to the program

GSE specificationMSC-GSE-IA

requires a separate specification and formal cases the time involved in

drawing for each individual piece of equipment.

preparing specifications and drawings and obtaining approval of them far outweighs the cost of the individual piece of GSE. Waivers to specifications and the use of blanket specifications can materially reduce end item cost and realization time. Joe II resolution of this problem GSE Documentation, is discussed in detail in Volume of this report. The Little If, Section 4. D,

Configuration Status - A configuration audit was required upon completion of each vehicle manufactured by NASA at WSMR. and checked out at San Diego, and again at the time of acceptance This configuration audit was maintained by a manual For future programs method of that and

individual recording and filingof each shop task as reflected on the completed approved planning card. of this nature, it is recommended the configuration status be maintained through a system 7-2

in which the complete task

from

original

design a master Control,

and tape data

including file from these times

subsequent historical during report configuration

change records production as well

activity are should and This

be computer completed also and

processed accepted tape these an accustatus. proin coop-

to establish by Quality recorded tapes rate, could timely Use grams particular, erative

record.

As factory

tasks

be computer completion provide schedule

so that and

at specified less laborious

at vehicle would

be compared

to provide final

status.

as a continuous accomplish versatile,

of WSMR at WSMR. the

- Convair The facilities

recommends are

that

NASA the level,

more

of its test and, and

excellent, is of a high

management

is efficient dedicated

resident

NASA crew a task

in accomplishing

efficiently

and to schedule.

,fi

7-3

[ CONCLUSIONS

I CONCLUSIONS

O _

The to a wide proved vehicle

Little range capability; the

Joe

II program of the thus, for the the

provided Apollo creation Apollo launch

a low-cost The escape Joe but of Little

launch test system established

vehicle series used only

which which a part

was

adaptable launch

of mission

requirements.

recent

successfully of the

capability milestone programs.

II not only

enabled a capability

accomplishment for future

of a major sub-orbital

program

8-1

I BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aerodynamic GDC-63-137, Aerodynamic Convair Aero

Coefficients 24 June Data for 1963; Little

for

Little

Joe 7,

H-Apollo 5 March 316-Inch

Based 1965. Service 1962.

on Wind

Tunnel

Tests,

Revision Joe

H with

Module

and 50 Ft 2 Fins,

Document Heating-Little

LJ-004, Joe

25 September II Booster,

Aerodynamic 1963. Air Loads for 1963; Revision Attitude Joe II,

Convair

Memo

Report

T-12-25,

20 May

Structural Design 5, 30 November System Report Joe Study

of Little 1965. - NASA

Joe

II,

Convair

Report

GD/C-63-102,

May

Control Convair

Project 2 July

Apollo 1962. Memo

Test

Launch

Vehicle

- Little

GD/C-62-190, II Mission "F,"

Base Heating-Little 1962. Convair Convair Vehicle, Convair Convair Convair Convair on Little Convair Corps Data Installation Memo Report

Convair

Report

T-12-17,

13 November

Specification DC-12-005, (Revised DC-12-009, DC-12-011, DC-12-020, DC-12-025, J (NASA

0-09001. Guidance 5 July Little Stability Little The A-002), Joe Effect 1963). Joe II Failure Analysis Analysis, - Little Joe 1 October H, 23 July 1964. Malfunction 1963. 1963. Accuracy Study of the Little Joe II

7 March Memo Memo Memo Memo Joe Report of Engineers

1963

Report Report Report Report II Mission

II Autopilot of Reaction

Noise, Control 1964.

7 April System

14 September

SL-62-028. Specifications of an 0.3 Transonic December & Blitzer, Scale Pressure 1963. Exterior Ballistics of Rockets (D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., ENG-(NASA)-29-005-63-1, Model of a Little Test Joe No. II/LEM 288) dated 28 January 1963.

and

Analysis 8-Foot

Configuration Report

(Langley GDC-63-243, Davis, 1958).

Tunnel

Convair

Follin

9-1

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(CONTINUED)

Facilities Integrated Report Integrated Project, Interim Little

Plan, Attitude

Report

GD/C

62-166,

Changes Little

A through Joe

C and

Supplements Project,

I and

II.

Control

System

Tests, 1964. Tests,

If, NASA

Apollo

Convair

GD/C-64-332, Attitude Convair Structural Joe II Project, for Bids N.

30 November Contrn! Memo Design System. Report and

Little 19 April for

Joe

IT Vehicle

51-2,

NASA

Apollo

D-65-18, Loads Report

1965. Test Launch Vehicles and 1962. Corps of Engineers Launcher,

Criteria

Convair INV No. M.

GD/C-62-278A,

25 September issued by the

Invitation

ENG

(NASA)-29-005-64-9,

of Albuquerque, Launch Launch Launch Vehicle Launcher Little Joe Vehicle Vehicle Vehicle 12-50-1,

Description Description Flight Report,

Manual Manual NASA

GD/C-63-034A. GD/C-64-356. Project Apollo, Little Joe II Qualification Test

Convair

Report and Repair

GD/C-63-193A, Manual, Fin

28 October

1963.

Maintenance If/Apollo

CS-65-007. Analysis, Convair Memo Report

Vehicle, 1962.

Fixed

Flutter

DF-12-102, Little Report Little Convair Little Joe Joe

19 October If/Apollo

Cantilevered 19 March Control Fin

Fixed 1963. Flutter

Fin

Ground

Vibration

Test

Results,

Convair

GDC-63-055, Joe II Attitude Memo Report

Analysis

Using

Ground

Vibration

Test

Modes,

DF-12-120, Vehicle Panel 4-10), Fin

29 January Flutter

1964. Convair Memo Report DF-12-102A

II/Apollo

Analysis, 1962. Test

(Addendum Little Joe

A to Reference II Attitude 1, Control

18 December Static Proof

Results,

Convair

Report

SL-63-024,

Addendum Little Joe

15 October Failure

1963. Analysis, Mission J, Convair Memo Report DC-12-029,

II/BP-23 1964. II Design Memo Report

12 November Little Convair Little Convair Little Convair 9-2 Joe Joe

Thrust

Misalignment 29 June

for

Mission

"J"

(NASA

Mission

A-002),

DC-12-023, Thrust

1964. for Mission "N" (NASA Mission A-003),

II Design Memo Report

Misalignment 13 April

D-65-15, Thrust

1965. for Mission 1965. "Q" (NASA Mission A-004),

Joe

II Design Report

Misalignment 1 November

Memo

D-65-40,

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(CONTINUED)

Little 1962. Little

Joe

II Ground

Air

Conditioning,

Convair

Memo

Report

T-12-10,

15 November

Joe

II Nonlinear BP-22),

Stability Convair

Analysis Memo

of Apollo Report

Mission

A-003 5 April

(Little 1965.

Joe

II Vehicle

12-51-2/Apollo Little 1963, Little 1963. Little 1962. Little Joe and Joe

D-65-16, Convair and Memo

II Launch Addenda II Panel

Vehicle I-III

Stress

Analysis,

Report 15 October Report

GD/C-63-039, 1965, DF-12-106,

19 August

(15 February, Analysis,

12 March Convair

respectively). 3 January

Vibration

Joe

II Ground

Air

Conditioning,

GD/Convair

Report

T-12-10,

dated

15 November

Joe

II Rocket Convair

Propellant Memo Report

Grain

Temperature 12 June

Variation 1963.

with

Air

Conditioning

Removed, Little Report Little Report Little Report Joe

T-12-26, Air

II - Summary

of Ground 1962. Apollo 1965. Apollo 1965. of the

Conditioning

Requirements,

Convair

Memo

T-12-14, Joe

22 October 51-2,

II Vehicle

Mission

A-003,

Failure

_na,y_,l .....

Convair

_-_ .......

D-65-17, Joe

23 April 51-3,

II Vehicle

Mission

A-004,

Failure

Analysis,

Convair

Memo

D-65-39,

29 October

Longitudinal Attack Materials RT-62-040, MIL-STD-810. June 1962. Military Military Missile Convair Monthly Base, July 1961.

Characteristics at Mach for Little 1962.

Little 1.80 II Base

Joe

II - Apollo

Configuration 28 January Convair

at Angles 1966. Report

of

Up to 40 and Evaluation 15 October

Number Joe

to 2.86, Thermal

NASA,

Protection,

Environmental

Test

Methods

for

Aerospace

and

Ground

Equipment,

Specification Specification Base Memo and Cape

MIL-I-26600 MIL-STD-826. Joe

and MSC-ASPO-EMI-10

Addendum.

Heating-Little Report

II Mission 10 April

"E, " Seven 1963.

Algol

Rocket

Configuration,

T-12-20, Wind

Annual Canaveral,

Distribution Florida, by J.

as a Function W. Smith

of Attitude and Wo W.

for Vaughan,

Patrick

Air

Force

NASA TN D-610,

9-3

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(CONTINUED)

Postlaunch 28 June

Report

for Apollo

Mission

A-003

(BP-22),

NASA

Report

MSC-A-R-65-2,

1965 (LJ-II 12-51-2). Apollo Mission A-003 Flight, Convair Report GD/C-65-143,

Post Flight Investigation, 23 June

1965 (LJ-II 12-51-2). Report 1965. Report for Apollo Mission A-001 (BP-12), NASA Repo_L MSC-R-A-64-1, for Apollo Mission A-002 (BP-23), NASA Report MSC-R-A-65-1,

Postlaunch 22 January Postlaunch 28 May

1964

(LJ-II 12-50-2). for Apollo Mission A-004 (CSM-002), NASA Report MSC-A-R-66-3

Postlaunch

Report

(LJ-II 12-51-3). Results Attitude of the Ground Control Fin, Vibration Convair Test and Associated GD/C-64-023, A-003 Stiffness Tests i0 January of the Little Joe II

Report

1964. 12-51-2/Apollo BP-22),

Stability Analysis Convair Memo

of Apollo

Mission

(Little Joe II Vehicle

Report

D-65-9,

3 March

1965. Little Joe Apollo If-Apollo Working Configuration Paper No.

Static Longitudinal with Control 1079, Stress Revision 12-51-3, Stress Stress 28 June Vibration Vehicle, Vibration White Wind Report

Characteristics on the Booster

of the Production Fins, NASA

Surfaces

Project

2 July 1963. Analysis A, of Little Joe II Attitude Control and Addendum Fins, Convair Report GD/C-63-037,

7 December

1965,

I, Ballast

Installation for Vehicle

15 October

1965. Convair Report Convair GD/C-63-038, Report 7 June 1963.

Analysis Analysis 1963.

of Little Joe II Launcher,

of Little Joe II Stabilizing Fins,

GD/C-63-036,

and Acoustic Convair Memo

Qualification Report

Tests

for Equipment Rev.

Installed in the Little Joe 1964, and Addendum 1963. 104-63. Convair

II I,

DF-12-101,

If, 23 June

Environment Missile

for Design Range

of Little Joe Atmosphere

If, Version (Part

12-50,

12 June Document Model,

Sands Tunnel

Reference

I), IRIG Force

Test Data of an 0.03-Scale 19 February 1963.

Little Joe

If-Apollo

GDC-63-025,

C-6062-II 9-4

(200)