8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
1/233
( N A S A - C 9) L A U N C H V E H I C L E NO. 8 FLI GHTE V A L U A T I O N (C.artin Co.) 290 p N75-75421'
Unclas00/98 23575
71 '
P R E P A R E D IY
(ACCESSION NUMBER) (THRU)
CR OR TMX OR AD NUMBER) (CATEGORY)
AUNCHVEHICLE NO. 8
FLIGHTEVALUATION (U)
U . S . GovEngineer!Issued as Supplement^to: Gemini ProgramGemini VIIIMSC-G-R-66-U
y: Gemini VIII Mission Evaluation TeamNational Aeronautics and Space AdministratioManned Spacecraft CenterHouston, Texas A p r i l 1966
Los Angeles, California
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
2/233
ies Only
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
3/233
E R 13227-8 A p r i l 1966N A S A - M S C - G - R - 6 6 - USupplemental Report 2
L A U N C HV E H I C L E
LAUNCH VEHICLE NO. 8FLIGHT
EVALUATION (U)
Approved byyear
als,- declassified1 2 year
< L. J. R o s eAssistant Technical Director0"'61^
S T ,L A v V S , MILETRANSMISSIIN AN Y C . C o r i a n d e r
Technical DirectorT e s t EvaluationIssued as Supplemental Report 2to: Gem ini Program Mission ReportG e m i n i VIIIM3C-G-R-66-1*
by: Gemini VIII Mission Evaluation TeamNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationManned Spacecraft CenterHouston, Texas
Prepared byMARTIN COMPANY, B A L T I M O R E DIVISION
Baltimore, Maryland 21203Under C O N T R A C T A F 04(695)-394PRI O RI T Y DX-A2
Fo rS P A C E S Y S T E M S DIVISIONA IR FO R CE S Y S T E M S COMMAND
UNIT ED S T A T E S A IR FO R C ELot Angeles, California
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
4/233
ii
FOREWORDThis report has been prepared by the Gemini Launch Vehicle Pro-gram Test Evaluation Section of the Martin Company, Baltimore Divi-sion. It is submitted to the Space Systems Division, Air Force SystemsCommand, in compliance with Contract AF04(695)-394.
ER 13227-8
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
5/233
iii
C O N T E N T SPage
Foreword iiSummary vii
I. Introduction 1-1 . System Performance II- l
A. Trajectory Analysis - 1B. Payload Capability 11-39C. Staging 11-39D . Weight Statement 11-41
HI. Propulsion System - 1A. Engine Subsystem - 1B. Propellant Subsystem - 22C. Pressurization Subsystem - 66D . Environmental Control - 77
IV. Flight Control System . IV- 1A. Stage I Flight , . . IV- 1B. Stage Flight IV- 8C. Post- SECO Flight IV- 12
V. Hydraulic System V- lA. Stage I V- lB. Stage ' V- 5
VI. Guidance Systems VI- 1
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
6/233
IV
C O N T E N T S (continued)Page
A, Radio Guidance System Performance V-1B. Spacecraft Inertial Guidance System AscentPerformance vi-7
VII. Electrical System Analysis VI-1A. Configuration VI-1B. Countdown and Plight Performance VI-1
VIII. Instrumentation System ; Vni-1A. Airborne Instrumentation . VIII- 1B. Landline Instrumentation Vn-1
IX. Range Safety and Ordnance .................. IX1A. Command Control Receivers IX1B. M I S T R A M IX1C. Ordnance .IX2
X. M alfunc t ion Detection System X- lA. Configuration X- lB. System Performance X- 2
XI. Crew Safety X-1A. Prelaunch Winds Operations X-1B. Slow Malfunction Monitoring X-7
XII. Airframe System XI-1A. Structural Loads -1B. POGO -13
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
7/233
C O N T E N T S (continued)Page
. AGE and Facilities - 1A. Mechanical AGE - 1B. Electrical AGE - 1C. Master Operations Control Set - 1D . Facilities - 1
XIV. Reliability XIV- 1XV. Range Data XV- 1
A. Launch Data Distribution XV- 1B. Film Coverage XV- 6
XVI. Prelaunch and Coun tdown Operations XVI- 1A. Prelaunch XVI- 1B. Launch Countdown XVI- 2
XVII. Configuration Summary XVII- 1A. Launch Vehicle Systems Description . XVn- 1B. Major Components XVII- 3References X V I H - 1Appendix A: Summary of Gemini Launches A- l
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
8/233
Page intentionally left blank
Page intentionally left blank
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
9/233
Vll
SUMMARYOn 16 March 1966 Gemini-Titan No. 8 (GT-8) was launched suc-
cessfully and on schedule from Complex 19, Cape Kennedy, Florida.Launch vehicle/spacecraft separation was completed 366 seconds afterliftoff. Spacecraft re-entry was accomplished after completion of 6orbits.The 240-minute countdown was picked up at 0735 EST on 16 Marchand progressed smoothly, with astronaut ingress at approximatelyT-120 minutes. The Atlas-Agena was successfully launched at T-95minutes (1000 EST). The countdown continued normally, and the pro-grammed hold was initiated automatically at T-3 minutes for 5. 9minutes to adjust for proper liftoff time. The countdown resumed atT-3 minutes (1138 EST), and liftoff occurred on schedule at 1141 EST.The spacecraft was inserted into an elliptical orbit with a perigee of86. 9 nautical miles and an apogee of 148. 2 nautical miles, all test ob-jectives for the launch and flight were achieved.Stages I and II engines operated satisfactorily throughout poweredflight. Stage I burning time was 157.9 seconds, with shutdown initiatedby fuel exhaustion. Stage II engine operation was terminated by aguidance command after 182.9 seconds of burning.The flight control system (FCS) maintained satisfactory vehiclestability during Stages I and II flight. The primary FCS was in com-mand throughout the flight. Vehicle rates during Stage I flight did notexceed 2. 5 deg/sec, and the maximum attitude error was 1.89 degrees.The maximum rate and attitude error that occurred during staging didnot exceed 4.2 deg/sec and 1.8 degrees, respectively.Performance of the radio guidance system (RGS) was satisfactory.Pitch and yaw steering signals and SECOdiscrete commands wereproperly executed; ^-^ - ^_^_ _ . - _ -_ _ -_ _ .IGS pitch, yaw and roll performance for the entire flight appearednormal. The dispersions between IGS and primary system attitudeerrors remained within acceptable limits during powered flight.The hydraulic system operated satisfactorily during the 240-minutecountdown and both stages of flight. There were no significant pres -sure perturbations at liftoff or during flight.The electrical system functioned as designed throughout the launchcountdown and flight. Power transfer to vehicle batteries was smooth.
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
10/233
via
All channels of the PCM instrumentation system funct ioned satis-factorily throughout the flight. The landline instrumentation systemalso funct i oned satisfactorily prior to and up to l i f tof f . All airborneinstrumentation hold functions monitored in the blockhouse remainedwithin specification throughout the countdown.
The ordnance system umbilical drop weight release, propulsionsystem prevalves, explosive launch nuts and stage separation nutsoperated as designed.The performances of the command control receivers and theM I S T R A M transponder were satisfactory.Malfunct ion detection system (MDS) performance during preflight
checkout and f l ight was satisfactory. There were no switchover com-mands during the flight.The flight environment encountered by GT-8 was within design re-quirements. Flight loads were well within the structural capabilitieso f the launch vehicle. The most .critical loading (which occurred atpre-BECO, af t o f Station 320) reached 103% o f design limit load incompression. _The longitudinal oscillation (POGO) on GT-8 reached a maximumvalue at spacecraft-launch vehicle interface of 0.215 g zero-to-peak
at a frequency of 12.4 cps at LO + 135.4 seconds. Just prior to BECO,another peak of 0 . 295 g zero-to-peak w a s noted f o r 0 . 0 7 second ( 1 o r2 cycles).C r e w safety monitoring, which w a s conducted a t N A S A - M S C , w a sactive during prelaunch and the launch. All guidance monitor param-eters were nominal, and no corrective action was required during theflight.D u r i n g precount operations, propellant loading was delayed approxi-mately tw o hours due to troubleshooting o f heater a n d communication
circuits in the spacecraft. Propellant loading was completed within thescheduled time span and to the specified load and temperature limit.A momentary malfunctionwhich occurred a t T-360 minutes preventedpressurization of the Stage I primary hydraulic system during a rategain test. This did not cause a c o u n t d o w n delay, since the problemcleared up, did not recur and involved components that are used forg r o u n d test only. The T-240 minute countdown was completed onschedule. Acalibration problem with the CP 2650 recorder was.quicklyovercome without delaying the count.All electrical umbilicals disconnected in the planned sequence and
within 0. 825 second. Engine blast and heat damage to the launch standw a s minor.
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
11/233
IX
GLV- 8 Test Obiectives and ResultsObjective Results
PrimaryP- l Demonstrate satisfactoryboost by the Geminilaunch vehicle system ofa manned Gemini space-craft into the prescribedorbital insertion condi-tions.
P- l Orbit insertion was with-in the predicted toler-ances for V, h and .
P- 2 D emonstrate perform-ance of GLV subsystemsduring powered flight,relative to mission suc-cess and crew safety.
P- 2 All systems performedsatisfactorily throughoutflight. The POGO oscil-lation was 0. 215 g zero-to peak at a frequency of12.4 cps at spacecraft-launch vehicle interface.Secondary
S- l Evaluate trajectory per-formance of the launchvehicle system for re-fining capability andpredictions for futuremissions.
S- l Vehicle night was withinthe 3- sigma predictedtrajectory.
S- 2 Demonstrate ability to_ :load propellants^toweight and temperaturelimits imposed by pay-load and vehicle re-quirements.
S- 2 Tanks were loaded withinthe required tolerances"~= =of- weight and- tempera- ture.
S- 3 Demonstrate effective-ness of combined GLVand G A A T V countdownand launch operations,including necessaryground/ range supportsystems to achieve pre-scribed rendezvous mis-sion launch requirements.
S- 3 Atlas- Agena was suc-cessfully launched atT- 95 minutes, followedby the GT-8 l i f toff onschedule. Only a 5. 9minute hold to adjust forproper l i ftoff time wasrequired.
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
12/233
1-1
I. I N T RO D U C T I O NThis report presents an engineering evaluation of Gemini LaunchVehicle No. 8 ( G L V - 8 ) systems performance during the c ou n td own ,launch a nd powered flight phase o f the Gemini 8 mission.The Gemini-Titan No. 8 ( G T - 8 ) vehicle was launched on schedulef r o m Complex 19, Cape Kennedy, Florida at 1141 hours EST on16 March 1966.Gemini 8 was the eighth mission and the sixth manned flight of theprogram, with astronauts Neil A. Armstrong and David R. Scott aboardthe spacecraft. The mission, which included a rendezvous with theAg e n a Target Vehicle ( A T V ) , wa s completed o n 1 6 March 1966.The GT-,8 vehicle was comprised of the two-stage GLV-8 (similarto G L V - 7 ) and the Gemini 8 spacecraft. T he spacecraft w a s injectedinto an elliptical orbit having a perigee of 86. 9 nautical miles and anapogee of 148.2 nautical miles.Signi f icant events and tests for G L V - 8 at ETR are summarized inFig. 1-1.
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
13/233
uary"W
-.1
E+GLV- 8 on dock, ETRErection of G bV- 8Subsystem revenficati ^
U^tQQJM|
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
14/233
I I - 1
. SYST E M P E R F O R M A N C EA . T R A J E C T O R Y A N A L Y S I S
1. Orbit InsertionGemin i Launch Vehicle No. 8 ( G L V - 8 ) performed as predicted andinserted the G e m i n i 8 spacecraft into earth orbit well with in the allow-able tolerance limits to permit rendezvous with the A g e na target ve-hicle ( A T V) .G T - 8 was steered in the lateral plane during Stage II flight to aset of ephemeris data referenced to the time of insertion (or targeting).
The values of these targeting parameters are given in Table - l; thereare no observed values of these parameters. The targeted and observedinclination angles were 28.868 and 28.92 degrees, respectively. Thetargeted wedge angle at liftoff was - 0. 1245 degree. The observed resi-dual wedge angle at insertion was 0. 0563 degree, which meant t h a t thetotal wedge angle steered was - 0. 0682 degree.TABLE - l
Agena Target Vehicle Ephemeris D a t aG M T L OTR*inVF
60,062.375 sec147, 563.437528.868177 deg- 0.18775463 x 10"525,728.19 fp s rad/ sec
A comparison of the predicted and observed insertion_conditiojis isgiven in Table - 2. In this table and in all succeeding references toa predicted (nominal) trajectory, the data were obtained f rom the G L V - 845- day prelaunch report (Ref. 11), upda ted to reflect the actual space-craft weight (8351 pounds) , guidance constants, T- 0 hour wind and at-mospheric data, and the - 1.34% pitch programmer bias. The observedtrajectory parameters are those derived by the Martin C o m p a n y fromth e Final G E M o d - G 2 pps data. These data have been smoothed an dcorrected for both refraction errors and systematic biases by the Gen-eral Electric Corporation before submittal to the Martin Company.
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
15/233
I I - 2
TABLE - 2Comparison of Insertion Condi t ions at SECO + 20 Seconds
Al t i tude (naut m i)Inertial velocity (fps)Inertial flight pathangle (deg)
PredictedN o m i n a l86.7342 5 , 7 2 90.001
G E M O D - G86.6672 5 , 7 3 6- 0.020
ObservedM in u sPlanned- 0.067+ 7- 0.021
PreliminaryTolerance 0.394 29.7 Q . 134
2. Derivation of Tralectory UncertaintiesT h e expected ma x i mu m vehicle dispersions and RGS dispersions atBECO and a t S E C O + 20 seconds were obtained f rom Refs. 12 and 13,respectively. A root sum square (RSS) of these dispersions is termedthe preliminary tolerance. After determination of the preliminarytolerance, the total tolerance may be computed by the arithmetic addi-t ion of the preliminary tolerance to the 3- sigma data error of the in-strumentation source being considered. Thus,
/ 2 2Preliminary tolerance = ^[(vehicle dispersions) + (RGS dispersions)Total tolerance = preliminary tolerance + 3- sigma data error.T h e resulting preliminary tolerance is shown in Table II- 3. Becausethe actual insertion conditions were within the preliminary tolerance,th e data error estimates are not needed and, therefore, have been ex-c luded f rom this report.
3. Flight PlanT h e primary objective for G L V - 8 was to place the Ge m in i 8 space-craft into an elliptical earth orbit with an 87-nautical mile perigee*
an d 146- nautical mile apogee. * Having achieved orbital insertion at25, 730 fps, ** the spacecraft t h e n separates f rom Stage II (adding 10 fpsto spacecraft velocity in the process) and coasts to the desired apogee.The following flight plan was employed to attain the desired conditions.A vertical rise is planned for the first 23.04 seconds following l iftoff,during which time a programmed roll rate of 1.25 deg/ sec is initiatedto roll the vehicle f rom a pad orientation of 84. 933 degrees to the flightazimuth of 99. 9 degrees.
Relative to Complex 19.**Does not include the separation velocity imparted by the spacecraft.
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
16/233
w+aQ
f^SQ#^*0_Q(1j*&erforman
0
1
>n
.
.
1
)
i
1
'S
'w
***
S*a-J
^25
ig1111S
gee3
gSES
W
f
C
-1
-e
.
^
trH-
-
+-+++++
>
00
^
~).
>
1
*
?
1SS25&
*^*
i-
DDJ3
-3
53a
0h>
SH
"S?1
gSe12
Jg
3
SSS222S
C
z
U
^
IS-S
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
17/233
II -4
At this time, an open- loop pitch program is begun (via a three- steprate command) which terminates at 162. 56 seconds. The nominal com-manded pitch rates and their times,of application are shown in Table II- 4.Guidance commands from the radio guidance system (RGS) areinitiated at LO + 168. 35 seconds and continue until two seconds priorto SECO, however, velocity cutoff computations continue to SECO.Between SECO and SECO + 20 seconds, the engine shutdown impulsecontinues to add velocity to the vehicle (approximately 81 fps), and thespacecraft is separated from the sustainer after SECO + 20 seconds.
TABLE II -4Planned GLV Pitch Program
ProgramStep 1Step 2Step 3
Rate(deg/ sec)- 0. 709- 0.516- 0.235
Time from Liftoff(sec)23. 04 to 88. 3288.32 to 119.04
119.04 to 162.56 .A comparison of the planned and actual sequences of events is con-
tained in Table II- 5, and a profile of the G TA- 8 flight superimposedon the range planningmap appears in Fig. II- 1.4. Trajectory Results
Analysis of the range data and Mod -G radar data indicates thatthe performance of G LV- 8 was normal and the vehicle flew close tothe prescribed ascent trajectory throughout Stages I and II.Table II- 6 shows a reconstruction of the BECO condition by con-sidering the actual engine data, weather conditions, propellant loading,
engine misalignments, wind and guidance errors. This table is com-prised of those items which can be measured and those which can onlybe estimated due to lack of suitable instrumentation. The primaryfactors contributing to the pitch and yaw plane trajectory dispersionsat BECO are listed and the effect of each is summarized.A Y_ coordinate displacement at BECO results in an approximate
amplification of five on the YF coordinate displacement at SECO + 20seconds. The differences shown in the apparent and measured incre-ments of Table II- 6 are well within the allowable tolerance limits pre-sented in Table II- 3.
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
18/233
- 5
S/ c separation (526 ,075) j
Fig. Il- l. GT- 8 Boost Plight Path Profile
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
19/233
- 6
TABLE - 5G T - 8 Flight Events Summary
Measurement0800/0801FCB-10210403560357210101694421442244230734073407320732073207280732073207350741035603570032050201690855073207400755/ 075607390777051905220521079908550699
EventPower TransferMOCS T-087FS (T-0)Stage I S/ A- 1 MDTCPS MakeStage I S/ A- 2 MDTCPS MakeTCPS S/A- 1 & S/ A- 2Launch NutsFirst Motion 'Shutdown Lockout (backup)Liftoff 'Start Roll ProgramEnd Roll ProgramStart Pitch Program No. 1
- Stop Pitch Program No. 1Start Pitch Program No. 2PCS Gain Change No. 1Stop Pitch Program No. 2Start Pitch Program No. 3Staging Enable (TARS discrete)IPS Staging Arm TimerStage 1S/ A- 1 MDTCPSBreakStage I S/ A- 2 MDTCPS Break87FS,/ 91FSX (BECO)Start PC- RiseStage .SeparationStage II MDFJPS MakeStop Pitch Program No. 3R G S EnableFirst Guidance CommandStage E Shutdown EnableGuidance SECO91FS2Shutdown Valve RelayShutdown SquibASCOStage MDFJPS BreakSpacecraft Separation
G M T(hr- min- sec)1639:33.41640.59.037
59. 0881641.00.030
:00. 021:00. 098:02. 206:02. 280:02. 29002. 389.10. 87
, - 22.8625. 43
1642 30. 63:30. 63.47. 151643 01.2601.2626.8026.96:36. 969 36. 98037.00437. 650
37. 68837. 661
.44. 1 144.0450.79
1646:18.68.39. 90539. 925
.39.96:39.9539.97:40. 065
1647 08.048
Time from Liftoff (sec)Actual- 89.0- 3. 352- 3.301- 2. 359- 2. 368- 2.291- 0. 183- 0. 109- 0. 099
08.48
20.4723.0488.2488.24
104. 76118.87118.87144.41144. 57154. 580154.591154.615155.261155.299155.272161.72161.65168.40316.293371516337.536337. 57337. 56337.58337. 676365. 659
Planned- 89
- 3.46- 3.37- 2. 27- 2.27- 2.20- 0.20- 0.10- 0.10
08.48
20.4823.04
,88.3288.32
104. 96119.04119.04144. 64145.00153. 79153.79153.85154.50154.58154.75162.56162.56168.35317.44336.73336. 75336.77336.77336. 78337.07356. 75
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
20/233
iH)
I
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
21/233
II-8Table II-7 presents the trajectory parameters computed from theGE Mod III-G, MISTRAM I and MISTRAM I and II data. At BECO andinsertion, the two data sources yielded comparable results with theexception of the crossrange position (YF) and the crossrange velocity(Y_,) parameters as both flight events,
The actual, as well as the predicted, nom inal trajectory is pre-sented in graphical form in Figs. II- 2 through 11- 24. On these graphs,the nominal trajectory is that documented in Ref. 11, updated to reflectthe actual spacecraft weight (8351 pounds), guidance constants, T- 0hour wind and atmospheric data, and the - 1. 34%pitch programmer bias.The observed flight data were obtained from the Mod III-G 2- pps data,smoothed and corrected for refraction errors an d systematic biases.A list of the primary tracking sources with the tra jectory time inter-val covered by each is contained in Table II- 8.
5. G eodetic and Weather ParametersSignificant geodetic and weather parameters are shown in Table II- 9.The atmospheric pressure an d temperatu re variation with altitude isdepicted in Fig. 11- 25,"the pressure arid temperature were essentiallystandard. F igure 11- 26 presents the altitude history of the magnitudeand direction of the wind. "At low altitudes the winds were light, in-creasing to a peak of 125 knots at 37, 500 feet. The wind was nearly aside wind up to approximately 7,000 feet then shifted to essentially atail wind.
6. Look AnglesThe maximum look angle in pitch (LAP) occurred at LO + 336 sec-onds, when it attained a value of 20. 7 degrees. This maximum valuewas within the boundary existing at that time, as shown in Fig. 11-27.,T,he corresponding look angle in yaw (LAY)was also within the estab-lished limitation, as shown in Fig. 11-28. The maximum value of LAYwas 4.8 degrees, which occurred 159 seconds after liftoff.
TABLE - 8Data Available for Trajectory Analysis
SourceAFETR
GE
NASA- MSC
TypeMISTRAM posi-tion, velocityand accelerationMod III-G radar
"position, velocitySpacecraft IG Sascent param-eters
StationValkaria IEleuthera II
Cape Kennedy
Flight Coverage(sec from range 0)65 to 374. 8132. 4 to 374.8
LO to + 424
LO to + 380
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
22/233
- 9
TABLE II-7Comparison of GT- 8 Predicted and Observed Performanceat BECO and at SECO + 20 secon ds
(sec)veloc i t y (fps )(f t )f l ight p ath angle (deg)r ange ( n a u t mi)
radius (f t )position X (f t)
YF (ft)pos i t ion, Zp (ft)
veloc i t y, (fps)YF (fps)
, Z_ (fps)Vy (fps)
steering veloc i t y, Vy (fps )seconds
LO sec)veloc i t y (fps )(f t )f l ight p ath angle (deg)r ange (n au t mi)
radius (f t )position, X_ (f t )position, Y_ (ft)
position, Zf (f t )ve loc i t y , (fps )
YF (fps )velocity, Z p (fps )
ve loc i t y , Vy (fps )steering velocity, Vy (fps)
Predi c t edN o m i n a lTraj ec t ory(R ef . 11)*
153. 8479970. 8207.556.19. 17350. 93821,117,565.31 2,7 7 0.2695.205,211.8128.25. 13151.-- --- -
356.48625 ,729 . 1527,005.0. 0005538. 33021,438 ,572 .3 .340 ,309 .77,938 .265 ,329 .24,045.942.0-3 ,805 .3. 26- 1 . 2 6
Tracki ng Fac i li t yGE Mod I I I - G(2 pps)
154.6159917.4209 ,005.19 .3450.9321,119 ,011.312 ,690 .37 64 .206,660.8067 .56.83161.213.-- -
357.53625 ,736526.600.-0 .0200538 .6821,438 ,152 .3 ,342 ,304.84, 05T.264.585 .24,049 .960.2-3,818.-16 .0
MIS T R AM I
154.6159906.7209,081.19.3450.93121.119 ,085 .312 ,7094278.2 0 6 , 7 3 78056.69 .831 59.......357. 53625,735526,951-0 0110538. 5921,438 ,488 .3,342,158.89,811.264,937.24 , 04 7996.9-3 ,814....-- -
MIS T R AM Iand II
154.6159910.209 ,06619.3450.93421,119 ,070.31 2,7 20.4 286.206.720.8057.703158....-- -
357. 53625,7 37526,248-0 . 0448538.712 1 , 4 3 7 , 7 8 73,342 ,217.89 ,878 .264,218 .24 .04 6997.-3 ,829 .-- -...
BET
154.6159918 .2 0 9 , 0 7 419.3550.93321, 119 ,078 .312,7164282.206,728806770.3163.-- --- -
357,53625,7365 2 6 , 4 7 2-0 .0330538 .8821,438 ,0083 , 3 4 2 , 2 0 089 ,8182 6 4 , 4 4 624.046.997.- 3 8 2 4 .-- -
weight (8351 pounds), gui dance cons t ant s , T -0 houra t mospher i c da t a , and t he -1 . 34% p itch programmer bias.
ER 13227-8
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
23/233
8. 6
! 4
,"| | 11 |ER 13227- 8
Predicted n o m i n a l wi nd ru n 80 -GT-6 ( f in al )*G. E. M o d III -G f in al f l ig h t data*
:*Include si R a w i n s o n d e balloon d ata! Cape K en n ed yi 1011 EST, 16 March 1966
P r e d i c t e d B E C O '_/(15 3 .847 sec) ft/ .. . :BECO(154.615 sec) j
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Time f rom Li f t o f f (sec)
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Fig. II-2. Inertial Velocity Versus Time: Stage I Flight
[ A L
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
24/233
*
/I-IL - 11
44
40
36
32
QJa
24gdb-2-- :
20
h0 161
( Predicted nominal wind run 80-GT-6 (final)*3.E. Mod III-G final flight data*
*
...'.' - - .
1
. i'
-. . -is; -
,
1
:;:
Si***..BECO(154.615 sec)
: :|~-
:
\ r\
. . . . . _ .
*IncludesR a w i n s o n d e balloon data .C a p e K e n n e d y1011 EST, 16 March 1966;
* 'f ! 4.. 'I iJ**-". * LJsn_.--"-. ; -. " - - /
** / :.." I"** ; /.* : : I ! . - ! ( : ' ! ! \ 1 ! 'I j p j 1 j ' '[ Predicted BECOL/.jj(153.847 sec) !: ' . - j M . - : ( ; 1 ; . | : : i i . 1 .:.j ; 1 '
i ' '. . _j__j.__j.i : ' . i . : i ; 1 i1 , l , _j ^ 4_j _ J f ~ - 4 -\ f-,
'
\ ' I j '1 ' f ! j - :
: ' i 'j :.'. !;:, ' ' " ' "j |" ";|. "^ ]
Predic ted nomina l wind nn 80~GT' \~8 ( f ina l)*1 Q g Mod II'G final flight data*; ! : . ; ! ! . j - , . . j i
; : _ _ i _ _ J - _ ^ . ; [_ i_Li'. i 1 i. ; j ' : j ! ' ! ' .
: '1 [ ! . . - i
;- i| |' : ' . : fc i tuij ' ' ! - - ! , - i : ;
:..
: :; '|'I1
...
j
11 H
::
'':'.
;
:; riI
;' '. :~~
:','-j
__ J10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 120 130 140 150Time from Li f t o f f (sec)
Ib U 170 180
'Fig. II-6. Cross-Range Position Coordinate (Y_) Versus Time: Stage I Flight
ER 13227-8
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
28/233
**V. ^ 1 1[-15
MnVcPoCdneZx1)
1
tO
tO
tO
4
0
tO
0
0
oo
ooo
'
rreaici
.
ed nominal wind run 80-GT-6 (final)*I I I - G final flight data*
" Inc l ude sR a w i n s o n d e balloon dataCape Kennedy1011 EST, 16 March
20 30 40 50
1966
">..
t'X
vg
Predicted n o m i n a l w i n d run 8 0 -G TA - 8 ( f i na l ) *G . E . Mod I I I -G f i na l night data*
R a w i n s o n d e balloon dataC a p e K e n n e d y1011 EST, 16 March 1966;!: .I".
BECO' (154.615 sec) i
10 40 50 60 70 80 90Time from Li f t o f f (sec)
100 110 120 130 14 0 150 160
Fig. 1110 Axial Force Versus Time: Stage I Flight
ER 13227-8
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
32/233
90
~ 70 50
,.
40
30
3V< 20
10
/9 - / lauaeJb. IDUIIHL NTIALI J - 1 9
*Includes
:
Predicted nominal wind run 80-GTA-8 (final)*G .E . Mod III-G final night data*
e balloon dataedy16 March 1966
-p p ;~r
X*f '
.. * * '
.' 1
.
11I 1
V
/A1/
JL,1P r e d i c t e d B E C O( 1 5 3 . 8 4 7 sec)
'.*
.
Y - : - ,
B E CO( 154. 615
-. -
Bl )
//. ,
.
0
!
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140Time from Liftoff (sec)
Fig. 1111 Aerodynamic Hea ting Indicator Versus Time:
150 16
Stage I Fligh
IDC ER 13227-8
J_
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
33/233
- 20
3 10
-
-40
_....
10
P r e d i c t e d n o m i n a l w in d ru n 80- G T A- 8 ( f ina l) *G . E . M o d III -G f ina l n ight data*
[
* Inc ludesR a w i n s o n d e ba l loon da taCape Kennedy1011 EST, 16 M arch 1966P redic ted B E CO= ( 153 . 847 sec)
..- r ,...** * * % * .
B E CO( 154. 615 sec)
70 80 90 Time from Liftoff (sec)
120 130 140 150 160 170
Fig. 1112. Stage I Angle of Attack History
1ER 13227-8
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
34/233
- 21
4'tl'l20
LO Predicted BECO(153.847 sec)
. *%. ;
Predicted nominal wind run 80-GTA-8 (final)*G.E. Mod III-G final night data*
-40 ^IncludesRawinsonde balloon dataCape Kennedy1011 EST, 16 March 1966
-60 . . I , 51 80 90 100Time from Liftoff (sec)
Fig. 11-13. Stage I Angle of Sideslip History
ER 13227-8
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
35/233
11-2228
26
5|gd1
Predicted SECO + 20 (356.486 sec)
SECO + 20 (357. 536 ) . iMii:IncludesR a w i n a o n d e balloonCape Kennedy1011 EST, 16 March
140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320Time from Liftoff (sec)
340 360 38 0 400 4? 0 440 460
Fig. 1114. Resultant Inertial Velocity (V ) Versus Time: Stage II Flight
ER 13227-8
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
36/233
*!2
20h \
N
r
:
-
12
'/
Predicted nominal wind run 80-G TA-8 (final)*G.E. Mod III-G final flight data*
:
' 1 '
- t L ; ! , ;
:
I *1 (R a 10'
Rawinsonde balloon dataCape Kennedy1011 EST, 16 Marc h 1B66
r j_
SECO + 20 (357. 536 sec)
; !Pred icted SECO + 20 (356.486 sec)
I ! 211?0 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 44 0 460Time from Li f t o f f (sec)
Fig. 11-15- Inertial Flight Path Angle (y.) Versus T i m e: Stage II Flight 1
I I - 23-z
ER 13227-8
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
37/233
Predicted SE CO + 20 ( 356 . 486 sec)"1P redic ted nomina l wind run 80 - G T A- 8 ( f ina l )*G . E . M o d I H - G f in a l night data*
!
* Inc ludeaR a w i n s o n d e balloon dataCape Kennedy SE CO + 20 (357. 536 sec)1011 EST, 16 March 1966
l . ' . i f - ; t ; - i : m " liajt
160
1 '
:120 140 180 200 22 0 240 260 280
Time f rom Li f t o f f (sec)300 320 340 360 380
Fig. II- 16. Altitude Versus Time: Stage II Flight
CONFIDENTIALER 13227-8
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
38/233
4.0
3.6
~ 3.2IB
Xi lTJU
2. 8
2. 4
2. 0
1.6
Predicted S ECO + 2 0 (3 5 6 .486 sec)
S ECO + 2 0 (3 5 7 .5 3 6 sec)
fl*In eludesR aw in so n d e ballo o n d ataC a p e K e n n e d y10 11 ES T, 16 M arch 19 66
P r e d i c t e d n o m i n a l w i n d r u n 8 0 - G T A - 8 ( f i n a l ) *G . E . M od I I I - G f i n a l night data*
320 340 360 380 400 420 440Time from Lif to ff ( sec)
Pig. 11-17. Downrange Position Coordinate (X.,) Versus Time: Stage Flight
11-25
* ER 13227-8
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
39/233
160,
140
120
2
4j 80 ~i_L_
20
-20:
P r e d i c t e d n o m i n a l w i n d r u n 8 0 - G T A - 8 ( f i n a l )*G . E . M o d I I I - G f i n a l night data*
J * I n c l u d e sI R a w i n s o n d e b a l lo o n d a t aI C a p e K e n n e d y1011 EST, 16 M arch 1966h i S E C O + 2 0 ( 3 5 7. 5 36 sec)
; :
IrfM f^; :
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
40/233
.. ' /TIAL
52 0
48 0
440~400
360
\I " : :; 1 I - ' : ! ' '
;: I320
280
24 0
200
160
120
Predicted n o min al w in d ru n 8 0 - G T A - 8 (final)*G . E . Mod III -G f ina l night data*
.R a w i n s o n d e ba l loon dataCape K en n ed y1011 EST, 16 March 1966
SE CO + 20 (357. 536 sec)
Predicted S ECO + 2 0 ( 356 . 486 sec)
.'
200 220 240 260 28 0 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480Time f rom Liftoff (sec)140 160 180
. Fig. 11-19- Vertical Position Coordinate (ZF) V ersus Time: Stage Plight
F l13227-8
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
41/233
11-28 - IDENTIC
: ! ,| ! Predicted n o min al w in d ru n 8 0 - G T A - 8 ( f i n a l) *G . E . M od I I I - G f i n a l night data*HT
S ECO + 2 0 (3 5 7 . 5 3 6 sec)
J . - L - -iH
ffli : : i : jPredicted S E C O + 20 (356.486 sec) imcludesR a w i n s o n d e balloon dataC a p e K e n n e d y1011 EST, 16 M ar ch 19 66 - - + - 1
- -- --
160 180 200; - ;260 280 300 320
Time f ro m L i f to ff ( sec)440
Wg. H-20. Stage II ngle of ttack History
CONFIDENTIALER 13227-8
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
42/233
- 29
S ECO + 2 0 (3 5 7 .53 6 sec)
Predicted S ECO + 20 (3 5 6 .486 sec)
P r e d i c t e d n o m i n a l w in d r u n 8 0 - G T A - 8 ( f i n a l ) *G . E . M od I I I - G f i n a l night data*
- 16 *In clu d esR aw in so n d e 'bal lo o n d ataC a p e K e n n e d y1011 EST, 16 March 1966220 240 260 280
Time f ro m L i f to ff ( sec)320 340 360
Fig. 11-21. Angle of Sideslip Versus Time: Stage II Flight
ER 13227-8 lAL
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
43/233
IT- 30- I 11-30-
1UU
50
~_iX5 to
*
214.3
1.0
0.5
aII- 1 ? .
h4) -0.5
-1.0
25. 85
25. 80p
1tf0
X 25.75!-x ....-2V> ah )
25. 70
25.65 -3
334 336
Cross-ran ge velocity
Cross rangeilnertial velocity1
Inertial flight path angle
,- -i"V\ .Ground range
SECO + 20sec\,S E C O '338 - -340 344 346 348
Time from Liftoff (sec)350 352 354 356 358 360
rUJFig. -22. GE Mod III-G Flight Data from SECO to SECO + 20 Seconds
CONFtDENftAkER 13227-8
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
44/233
^ 11-31
1000
P redic ted SE CO + 20 ( 356 . 486 sec )P r e d i c t e d n o m i n a l w in d ru n 80- GT A- 8 ( f ina l ) *G . E . M od I I I -G f ina l n ight da ta*
.* Inc ludesR a w i n s o n d e ba l loon da taCape K e n n e d y, 1011 E ST , 16 M a r c h 1 9 6 6 :
S E C O + 20 (357.53 6 sec)
- f !
i_
120 140 160 180 200Time from Liftoff (sec)
220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360
Fig. 11-23. Cross-Bange Velocity (Y.-J Versus Time
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
45/233
'
800
11-32 ^CONFIDENTIAL
:
700
600
.-i__iU
500
f r i '- b400
75 300
-T-j-1 1..; . ......
~[ ;200
i U100
.j
;
E.
: - -
- - 1.. .
~ i . ] ' -
H is
- -. -
- : . . ! - .*
.~r
: :
Z E
:;r:::
... :....!.-. ',.;:
-
11
-~ ~
"""""" *i
:i:t . ; . . . .
l ; l ! l l ' ! l !I H M r i fr ' ,./
7Tj~ 1- 1
| . : : ' l : ;-
:; 1 > v'i ': ,h_. 1: :(:"I ! ' ! - ' : ' - ! ' . - ' . -i - - i : : : : |::::f:::' ' ' ' . ' . . . : - 1-\: : : i . . -P r e d i c t e d n o m i n a l w in d run 80 - GT A- 8 ( fina l ) *G. E . M od I I I - G f ina l f l ight data*
I"0*
* Inc ludesR a w i n s o n d e ba l loon da taC a p e K e n n e d y1 0 1 1 EST, 16 March 1966I/"
ss. . i :
J~r ^ - . ~ "~
f~::.J_.
-i ;: ) | "*^-o ," - - - ,
:-]_
.
: '[' -': i
|' " " - ' " :
"
.
: : ( ; - ; . .
: ,! .: :
\ -.J : : '
i
'
"|. ' . 4 ~
~1~' / : ] . 4~] 11.; { : ! : *~ !f~
: !.' .-..: : 'j -
f" '.;; j: :;
:-|- : . i : :' .
;. !: : ; ;.;^: r - i ; . r
~"
fa-- ". : . :
~^-~' - - : ' - 1
:. :i : . .:: -:|...
.. .
--
_
4 J H -U 'j; ':::::.];::.
1, .' : . '' ' ! : ' : ::
~ . ' \ ' -~: ( : . .a ii rtrgr:': ':. i: ':;::!: '
| Predicted SE CO + 20 ( 356 . 486sec){ ' - I " - 1 : "iil - - : : [ .
*( i| * -
tabhL
!^~**
|
^ ^
, . - _ L ilX^
-'
? *sS b ^ ~ -
1 !
. - : .
-::
.-:; ;:
-
:.. 1 .'
-. . .
.-||-: :: ; '. : -::t- : . : . [ . -.: -.... .:-;: - -\iHEii- - J - f H - - :1. .. . -}-'...1_. ' " I : : . ' : ; ! .::;;{ .ijrfc: : . 'I;V1 1-. : 1 . !^ r , f :.-"'}Si* 4-
-100 fr
i- 2 0 0 20 40 b U 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
T ime f rom Liftoff (sec)
SE CO+ 20 ( 357. 536 )
26 0 280 300 320 340 360
Fig. 11-24. Yav Steering Velocity (Vy) Versus Time
IDENTIE R 13227-8Q
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
46/233
-
G eographic and Weather Conditions at LaunchLocation
SiteSite coordinates:
Latitude (deg)Longitude (deg)Pad orientation (deg)
Complex 19
28.507 N80.554 W84. 933 true azimuth
WeatherAmbient pressure (psi)Ambient temperature (P)Dew point (F)Relative humidity (%)Surface wind:
Speed (fps)D irection (deg)
Winds aloft (max):Altitude (ft)Speed (fps)D irection (deg)
Cloud cover
14.76705969
30350
37,500211268 true azimuth0. 3 strato- cumulus
Reference Coordinate SystemTypeOriginPositive X- axisPositive Y- axisPositive Z- axisReference ellipsoid
Martin reference coordinate systemCenter of launch ring, Complex 19Downrange along flight azimuthtangent to ellipsoidTo left of flight azimuth tangent toellipsoid and J_ X- axisForms a right- handed orthogonalsystemFischer
LaunchInitial flight azimuth (deg)Roll program (deg)
99. 9 true azimuth15. 0 ccw
S
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
47/233
-34 COMF1
100
*IncludesR a w i n s o n d e balloon dataCape K e n n e d y1011 EST, 16 March 1966
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 320 360 320 280 240 200 160 120 80W in d Speed (kn) WndAzimuth(degfromnorth)
Fig. 11-25. Wind Speed and Azimuth Versus Altitude
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
48/233
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
49/233
;U-a
'- 1.->I
ER18
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
50/233
t
FDN
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
51/233
- 38 CONFIDENTIAL
7. Maximum Dynamic PressureThe maximum dynamic pressure for the GTA-8 trajectory was lessthan design limits. Table - 10 compares the predicted and observedconditions associated with the maximum dynamic pressure. The pre-dominantly tail wind environment for this flight in itself reduces themaximum dynamic pressure. A predicted t rajecto ry computation fora no- wind condition showed that the maximum dynamic pressure wouldbe 743. 4 psi, and the predicted trajectory with T- 0 winds, from Table11-10, shows a value of 681. 3 psi, verifying the effect of a tail wind.
TABLE - 10Trajectory Parameters at Maximum Dynamic Pressure
Dynamic pressure (psf)Time from liftoff (sec)Mach numberAltitude (ft)Relative flight path angle (deg)Relative wind velocity ( fps)Wind velocity (fps)Wind azimuth (deg from north)Angle of attack (deg)Angle of sideslip (deg)
Predicted*(nominal)681.379.621.7345,00047.521665.1352660.35
- 0.09
Observed**678.380. 121.7445,30647.4516731362670.65
- 0.35
*Ref. 11, updated (see footnote to Table II- 7)**Mod III-G 2 pps radar data
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
52/233
II-39
8. Angles of Attack and SideslipPredicted and observed histories of angles of attack and sideslip dur-ing the ascent are shown in Figs. 11-12, 11-13, 11-20 and 11-21. Thepredicted values were obtained from a digital run utilizing wind andatmospheric information obtained from the 1011EST Rawinsonde sound-ing. Observed angles of attack and sideslip were derived using the ModIII-G position and velocity information, IGSattitude data and the afore-mentioned weather data.
B. PAYLOAD CAPABILITYPropellants remaining onboard after Stage II low level sensor un-cover indicated that a burning time margin (BTM)of 1. 327 secondsexisted to a command shutdown. The total propellant weight marginwas 437pounds, and the corresponding GLVpayload capability was8826 pounds. These values and the predicted nominal and minimumvalues appear in Fig. 11-29. The predicted capability curves were ob-tained from the real-time propellant temperature monitoring digitalprogram (Run 14) adjusted to reflect the pre-liftoff temperature changesand the actual Agena ephemeris data used in the guidance equations atlaunch. The predicted propellant weight and burning time margins arebased on the difference between these curves and the 8351-pound
spacecraft weight.The last payload prediction indicated that the minimum payloadcapability was 215 pounds less than the spacecraft weight, and thenominal payload capability was 393 pounds greater than the spacecraftweight at the predicted launch time. The actual (postflight reconstructed)GLV capability was 475 pounds greater than the spacecraft weight.
C. STAGINGThe staging sequence was normal and physical stage separation oc-curred as planned. The time interval from staging signal (87FS9/91FS1)
to start of Stage II engine chamber pressure (P ) rise was 0. 646 second.C3This compares favorably with the nominal expected time of 0. 70 - 0. 08second. Stage separation occurred 0. 029 second following start ofP rise.C3.
.
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
53/233
II-40
A"a
M
c d > gI's
G T - 8 Flight Test Value
200- 3 0 0- 4 0 0 1400300200100
- 100- 200- 300
- 40021
- I
i b i : 7 l ; . ; : ; . - Nominal -r t f
ight = 8351 lb'
: < - I > 1
' : -: . ! : . : 1 ' ' Minimum I ff
: : !" - L
:::: -! ^B p i
_.- - ..
: : :, .
G T - 8 F l i g h t Test V a l u e |Nomnal _~ , - ^ = T ; ,] M in im u m
Phase pane - H - i : : : : ; i20 40 60 80 100 120
Time i n L a u n c h W i ndow (min)Fig. 11-29. Payload Capability
140
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
54/233
- 41
D. WEIGHT STATEMENTTable 11- 11 shows the G T- 8 weight history from laun ch to orbitalinsertion.The postflight weight report (Ref. 12) provides the background datafor this summary. The report includes a list of dry weight emptychanges at ETR and shows a derivation of weight empty from the actualvehicle weighing. Other items covered include the derivation of burn-out, BECO, SECO and shutdown weights; weight comparisons with theBLH data; and the center of gravity travel envelope as a function ofburn time for the horizontal, vertical and lateral planes.
TABLE II- 11G T - 8 Weight Summary
Loaded weightStart and grain lossesTrajectory LO weightPropellant consumedto BECOCoolant waterWeight at BECOShutdown propellantWeight Stage I burno utStage II engine startStage II LOPropellant consumedto SECOAblative, covers an dcoolant waterStage II at SECOShutdown propellantWeight at SECO+ 20 seconds
Weight (Ib)Step I
271,366- 3,688(1)267,678256,384
011,294
35310,941(3)10,941
Step II65,642
65,642110
65,631
65,631(3)192
65,43959,422
42
5,975136
5,839
Step III8.351(2)
8,351
08,351
8,351
8,351
8,351
8,351
Stage Total345,359
341,671
85,276
84,923
73,790
14,326(4)
14. 190(4)
NOTES:(1) Event: TCPS + 2 seconds (launch bolts blown)(2) Information from N ASA- H ouston (3/ 15/66)(3) Includes outage: 252- lb Stage I, 261- lb Stage II(4) Includes 437 Ib of burning margin
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
55/233
ENTIAL- . P R O P U L S I O N SYSTEM
A. E N G I N E SUBSYSTEMThe Stages I and engines operated satisfactorily t h r o u g h o u t theflight, an d all l a u n c h objectives were met. Stage I burn ing time was157. 918 seconds, and shutdown was initiated by fue l exhaustion. StageI I operation was terminated by a guidance command at 91 PS. + 182. 921seconds. Several anomalies occurred during the flight, n on e of w h i c h adverselyaffec ted engine performance. These were:
(1) The Stage I oxidizer pressurant pressure switch (OPPS)cycled o n c e prior to f i na l actuation at + 1. 674 seconds.Approximately 7. 5 milliseconds after initial actuation theswitch deactuated for 7. 5 milliseconds before f i na l "make. "Pressure fluctuations were not observed in the oxidizerpressurant orifice inlet pressure (POPOI), although thelo w sampling rate may have obscured a perturbation. It isassumed that the OPPS chattering on G L V - 8 was a randomevent. Chattering of OPPS c a n n o t i n f lu e n c e an engine shut-d o w n prior t o t he interrogation time o f + 2 . 2 seconds.(2) The Stage II thrust chamber pressure start transient indicatedan abnormally slow rise rate. The most probable cause wasa temporary obstruction in the sensing line or transducercavity.(3) Stage I I engine performance began to decay an d exhibited anunusual time- dependent characteristic after 91FS. + 90 seconds.
The u n u s u a l operation was predominant in oxidizer flow rate,mixture ratio and thrust. Examination of flight data indicatesabnormal oxidizer p u m p operation.(4) Five disturbances were no ted in accelerometer data afterSECO and before spacecraft separation. The disturbanceswere not characteristic of the post- SECO disturbances ob-served on previous GLV and Titan II flights. A correlationof the disturbances wi th thrust chamber pressures c a n n o t beestablished. A post- SECO disturbance, characteristic ofprevious flights, was observed after spacecraft separation.
The only significant configuration change a f fec t ing performance wasthe incorporation of the Stage Gemini Stability Improvement Program( G E M S I P ) th rust chamber injector. Analysis of the flight data indicated
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
56/233
Ill- 2
satisfactory performance of this injector. Although several anomaliesoccurred during Stage operation, n o n e appeared related to injectorperformance.1. Stage I Engine ( Y L R 8 7 - A J - 7 . S / N 1008)
a. C onf ig u r a t i on and special proceduresT h e G LV- 8 Stage I engine di f fe red from that o f G L V - 7 by the retro-fi t replacement of the rigid tube between th e lubricating o il heat ex-changer a n d t h e fue l p ump with a flexible line in order to minimize ex-cessive vibration and tube failures (Aerojet ECP- 076).T h e th rust- chamber valve through- bolts were torqued to only 100i n c h - p o u n d s a t M a rtin- Baltimore, then retorqued t o t h e final 300 to 320i n c h - p o u n d s at ETR . This procedure was invoked to preclude a possiblestress corrosion problem.All propulsion system breaks of integrity were reviewed to verifyt h a t procedures were adequate t o ensure that closures h a d n o t inad-vertently been left in t h e engine during reassembly.T h e pressure sequen ce valve (PSV) drain line engine attachm entconf igura t ion was modified to prevent a recurrence of the prematureseparation of the drain lines from th e vehicle w h i c h occurred during th e
G T - 6 s h u t d o w n . O n t h e G T - 6 l aunch attempt, th e resultant fire i n thef l ame pit area created a hazard and delayed astronaut egress. The slip-fi t polyethylene tube to the engine drain line as previously used wasreplaced with a clamped configuration incorporat ing a weak link V - n o t c hin th e polyethylene tube.b. Start transientT h e S / A 1 a n d S / A 2 thrust chamber pressure start transients werenormal and are presented in Figs. - l and III-2. The ignition spikesi n d i c a t e d 88% (687 psia) and 81% (634 psia) o f rated thrust fo r S /A 1
an d S/A 2, respectively, which are above the engine model specificationallowable (75%). However, the GLVengine chamber pressure instru-m e n t a t i o n h a s characteristically shown u n d a m p e d oscillations which o b -scure the true transient performance and prevent accurate determi-nation of the ignition spikes.Significant start events are presented in Table - 1.
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
57/233
1000
800
/ " FIDENTIAL
M D TC PS (M eas 0 3 5 6)|
+ 2 . 5 +3.0
Fig. III-l. S/A1 Start TransientTime from 87FS. (sec)
ER 13227-8
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
58/233
1000 - 4 - TWPFNTIA
800
-I\600
400
200 -
*fyJVWt^
In u - - ^ .- . ; .' .! ;. ,, ,- . - - ! t
MDTCPS (Meas 0357) -:
. , 1 1 , I I H f ' )
+ 2 . 0 + 3 . 0Time f rom 87FS (sec)
an 11Fig. IH-2. S/A 2 Start Transient
ER 13227-8
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
59/233
CONFIDENT - 5
T A B L E III-1Stage I Engine Start Parameters
ParameterF S X to initial P rise (sec)P ignition spike (psia)P step- - approximate (psia)P overshoot (psia)
S / A 10 . 7 7 3687455N o n e
S / A 20 . 7 6 6634440N o n e
c. Steady- state performan ceStage I engine flight performance agreed closely wi th th e preflightprediction. Flight integrated average performance parameters werewith in 0. 8% of th e preflight predictions.From measured flight data, engine performance was calculatedwith th e Martin- Baltimore PRESTO computer program, using th eStage I thrust coef f ic ien t relationship as modif ied by Martin- Baltimore.T h e modi f i ca t ion increased thrust an d specific impulse by approximately3400 p o u n d s a n d 2 .0 seconds, respectively, above t h e values calculated
u s i n g t h e Aerojet thrust coeff ic ient relationship. T h e Martin- Baltimoremodi f i ed thrust coeff ic ient w a s also used fo r preflight predictions.T h e Stage I engine average flight performance, integrated f romliftoff to 87FS2 is compared with the preflight prediction in Table - 2.
T A B L E - 2Predicted an d Flight Performance Comparison- - Stage I Engine
ParameterThrust, engine (Ib)Specific impulse,engine (sec)M ixt u r e ratio, engineOxidizer flow rate,overboard (Ib/ sec)Fuel flow rate, over-board (Ib/ sec)
PreflightPredicted Average*462, 508278.141.94431097.78565.11
FlightAverage*4 6 1 , 2 3 3278.511.92901090.33565.74
D i f f e r en c e(%)- 0.28+0 .13- 0.79- 0.68+0.11
*Martin- Baltimore modified thrust coefficient relationship used.
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
60/233
Ill-6
T h e eng ine pe r fo rm an ce ca lcu la t ed th ro ugho u t the Stage I f l ight ispresen ted in F ig. - 3. The prefl ight prediction is shown for compari-son .O n G L V - 8 , t h e t h r u s t c h am b e r pressure t r a n s d u c e r s w e r e w r a p p e dwith t w i c e th e n o r m a l a m o u n t o f t he rmal i n su l a t i on in order to m i n i m i z eP i n s tr u m e n t a t i o n d r i ft . R e c o n s t r u c t e d fli gh t d a ta sh o w e d t h a t t h e
d r i f t was de l ayed f rom the p rev ious average t ime o f approx imate ly 87FS ,+75 s e c o n d s to a p p r o x i m a t e l y 87FS1 + 90 seconds . A l t ho u gh P dr i f t fo rth e Stage I engine subassemblies r e a c h e d - 2 . 8 % o n this f l ight as com-p a r e d to a prev ious average of - 1. 5%, it is r e c o m m e n d e d th a t the add i -t io n a l w r a p be c o n t i n u e d fo r the r emain ing f l i gh t s .T h e pre f li gh t p r ed ic t ion fo r G L V- 8 was the first to use the f ina la c c e p t a n c e test t i m e - d e p e n d e n t biases directly rather t ha n to app ly thea c c e p t a n c e - t o - f l i g h t f ami ly co r r ec t i on (de r ived f rom T i t an I I da ta ) .G L V f l i gh t exper i ence has shown better c o r r e la t io n w i t h a c c e p t a n c ebiases. Figure 1- 3 sh o w s th e close t im e - d e p e n d e n t a gr e e m e n t o f t h ef l ight results wi th th e p re f l igh t p r ed ic t i on .
Stage I eng ine f l i gh t pe r fo rmance ca l cu l a t ed a t the 87FS . + 5 5 - s e c o n dt i m e slice and c o r r e c t e d to s t andard in l e t cond i t i ons is sho w n in Table 1- 3. T h i s is c o m p a r e d w i t h the a c c e p t a n c e test and the pred ic t ed f l i gh tp e r f o r m a n c e , at s tandard in le t condi t ions , and the n o m i n a l t im e as usedin th e pre f l i gh t p r ed ic t i on . T h e pred ic t ed f l i gh t pe r fo rmance a t s t andardc o n d i t i o n s was ob ta ined by m odi f y ing t h e n o m i n a l a c c e p t a n c e test da tafor a 4 8 5 0 - p o u n d a c c e p t a n c e - t o - fl ig h t t h r u s t g r o w th o b t a in e d f r o m a n a l y-sis of prev ious T i t an II and GLV f l ights. The 5 5 - s e c o n d t i m e slice p e r -f o r m a n c e c o r r e c t e d to s t andard in l e t cond i t i ons is not r e p r e s e n t a t i v eof t h e total a c c e p t a n c e o r fl ig h t p e r fo r m a n c e ; h o w e v e r , i t is t h e n o m -ina l t ime used fo r quo t ing r a t ed pe r fo rm an ce . T he da t a , t h e r e fo re ,a r e i nd ica t ive o f t he co r r ec t ed pe r fo rm an ce a t 55 secon ds on ly becauseof variations in the t i m e - d e p e n d e n t biases an d eng ine in l e t cond i t i onst h rou ghou t f l i gh t .d . Shutdown t r a n s i e n t
Stage I engine sh u tdow n was in i t iated by fue l exhaus t ion . Figures - 4 an d 1- 5 sh ow t h e S / A 1 a n d S / A 2 c h a m b e r pressure decays.All engine parameters w e r e n o r m a l for a fue l exhaus t ion shu tdown .T h e eng ine th rus t at staging was approx imate ly 57, 000 pounds. S ign i f i -can t events dur ing shu tdown are presented in Table - 4.
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
61/233
7' / '
-600 S ) Cl0 '!
58560
540
1', 1120
42 1100*1080 1060 1040
X
tT 290
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
62/233
1000III-8
800
go 600
Es: 400
200
-
:
rrr-
I ".
' i
.
:
"
' .. '.
! '
.
t
* '
, . , , , . ... : i . _.
.
*
t L -*
' " '.
-
1
. , .
** ) '**
; :
i
. .
Ml
Pc-- -
.;
'
( M eas 0003)1i
:~*
.
O T C P S (Me.
:
1
. ; ' ; 1 ' '
.
!
. >
_ ~is 03 5
- -
..
6)" 1
!_
. . ! .
' : ; _j
... ..
.
:. .~.
f
'
.1V
.
:
!
- --:..V
: .
\.t'>
+.\
__ L
.*i
*
'
'.1
..
.
i
.
h
iS, ,t
^ *fc
.
1
. i.
'
>4l_t V f\f .. . < ^
: . . ' : ' ..
;
. .
. L i
-~
.. i:
r
|,..
:
.
~~
v*
/
.
_
....
.
1
'
. i.
-..
1
- -
..
1
i
'""
._..
.
'* "
.
j V
" -
' ,.t -;
i
- 2 . 0 - 1 . 0Time f rom 87FS (sec)
087FS, +1.0
Fig. IH-4. S/A Shutdown Transient
ER 13227-8
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
63/233
-~IX439
1000
800
600
400
200
02
:
- .
- . 1 -
i.
*
.. -.
^
~~~.
.
*Vs
, ,
.
t
,0
- V !
_
"*
-
Ml
Pc
(2 Me
D T C P S (I
as 1)00*4>
Vleas 0357)
-1 .0
, Vrt -J
fabft
'
rime f
.1rom 87FS9 (sec)
Vv
u..
*s ;
I.I.IIMI
>:.' -1
!!
4' . -^
' x*
""""
\
-
" V
087FS
.'.4f n ,"
M4 "
*J
~
1>V
. . . .
*+ \ - 1
.
.
.
' ' +1.0
- 9Z
Fig. III-5. S/A 2 Shutdown Transient
CONFIDENTIER 13227-8
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
64/233
III-10
T AB LE - 3Stage I Engine Performance Corrected to Standard InletConditions at 87FS. + 55 Seconds
ParameterThrust, engine (Ib)Specific impuse,engine (sec)Mixture ratio, engineOxidizer flow rate,overboard (Ib/ sec)Fuel flow rate,overboard (Ib/ sec)
AcceptanceTest*432,603261.421.95191093.87560.94
Predicted Flight(including 4850-lbthrust growth)*437,453261.421.95191106. 13567.22
FlightPerformance*434,328261.451.94211096.26564.97
*Martin~Baltimore modified thrust coefficient relationship used.TABLE III-4
Stage I Engine Shutdown ParametersParameter
Time from P decay to 87FS0 (sec) 2PC at 87FS2 (psia)Time from FS 9 to data dropout (sec)P at data dropout (psia)
S/ A 10.134400. 7145
S/A 20. 175250. 7105
e. Engine malfunction detection system (MDS)The Stage I engine MD S operat ed satisfactorily and within specifiedlimits throughout the flight. Figures - 1 and III -2 illustrate responsetimes and actuation pressure levels of the malfunction detection thrustchamber pressure switches (MDTCPS) during engine start for S/ A 1and S/A 2, respectively. F igures III-4 and III- 5 show deactuationtimes and pressure levels during shutdown for S/ A 1 and S/A 2, r e-spectively.A summary of the operating characteristics of the switches is tabu-lated in T ab le - 5 .
1 1 1 I l l i l ^ ,ER 13227-8
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
65/233
Ill-11TABLE - 5
Stage I MDTCPS Operation
1
ActuationTime (sec)FSX + 0. 945FS . +0.935
Pressure*(psia)600580
DeactuationTime (sec)FS - 0.035FS 2 - 0.025
Specification RequirementsActuation 540 to 600 psiaDeactuation 585 to 515 psia
Pressure' tpsia)585535
g rate of the MDTCPS actuation times precludes accuratepressure.f. Engine prelaun ch malfunction detection system (PMDS)All PMDS switches actuated within the specified times and pressuresshown in Table ~ 6 . Ho we ve r, the oxidizer pressurant pressure
(OPPS) cycled once, prior to final actuation at MOCS TQ + 1. 67487FS, + 1.623 seconds) at a pressure of 414 psia. Approxi-7. 5 milliseconds after initial actuation, the switch was deactivatedmilliseconds before final "make, " as shown in Fig. III-6. Th e"make" pressure (414 psia) agreed closely with the prefiight"make" pressure (410 psia).
TABLE III-6Stage I PMDS Operation
timeMeasured time from 87FS. (sec)Measured time from Tn (sec)Required time (sec)*
pressureMeasur ed (psia)Required (psia)
TCPS
1.0121.063T0+ 2. 2
**600 to 640
OPPS
1.6231.674TQ+ 2. 2
414360 to 445
FPDSP
0.9020.953T Q +2 . 2
j j c s f e46 to 79psidshutdown timers start from TQ; 87FSt is 70 to 100 milli-seconds after TQ.
Not instrumented.
ER 13227-8 HH.
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
66/233
t600
450
I
8
300
hI(CJN 150
:
I' |]|i
'~- -:
; i - -
'
..
-
i
.. ' . . : -Oxid
'
ize p
-..;.
il L
:;;:J :iressui
'
.
'ant pi,"7TfT T,]_
-essur ..
ftswitch (OPPS)(Meas 2102) ,
.'
: != ! : ;
*.. ..
-
: - : ::
". : ' ' i . ;
..
'
'
:
POPOI (Meas 002
. . .
i: :
.
' ]
OPPSpressrange
/ :' .
6 )
.
i::;
: ; .!:;r
"make" i
. i- * * '
.4
i
..
; ! :.
" 1
i. t . -
;
:. :
z!Open
i -
~
#1H L[lil|!-- hY. liL.
;
I I
~
'"
... 4 -
0.0075 s e c f -
I ] os d 1 10.0075 seci1
:,
i
- ) ' : ; :
:
' ' .
-*"
1- .I
I [ _
'- -
- I - : -
.." '.
1 J
OPPS interrogation rj
: :
: , ,
. . ' ' : .
- : ; j j n :
+ -
.
_ .
L _ :
1
: r: -
; : ; :
ftI
. |
. . . - .L4
.
+ 0. 5 + 1.087FS,
+ 1.5Time from T- 0 (sec)
+ 2. 0 + 2.5 + 3.0
Pig. II1-6. S/A 2 Start Transient
ER 13227-8 ! i
-w
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
67/233
CONFIDENTIAL - uA review of oxidizer pressurant orifice inlet pressure (POPOI)failed to disclose f l uc tua t i o ns which may have contributed to the cycling
of the switch. The slow sampling rate of POPOI (40 samples/second)makes observation of such pressure fluctuations di f f icu l t . There is nohistory o f pressure f luctuat ions during POPOI bu i ldup o n previous G L Vflights or during engine acceptance tests. It is highly improbable,therefore, that switch cycling resulted f rom pressure changes.A n o t h e r possible cause of switch oscillations may be sensitivity ofthe switch to the vibrational environment w h e n pressure is held steadyat or near the actuation level of the switch. A test history for thissituation does not exist; therefore, a firm evaluation of this cause isn o t possible at the present time. Implementation of a test program to
verify the validity of this assumption is u n d e r consideration.An indication o f switch oscillation could be the result of the genera-t ion of a spurious electrical signal in the landline circuit. However,this assumption does not appear valid since the instrumentation systemshows n o evidence o f a transient.Prior to the start of the interrogation period, at M O C S Tn + 2. 2
seconds, chattering of the OPPS has no ef fec t upon engine operationan d c a n n o t p r o d u c e an engine s h u t d o w n . OPPS chatter after initiationof interrogation can result in an engine shu tdown if the duration o fs w i t c h d ro p o u t exceeds 40 milliseconds. This time interval is neces-sary for "make" and latching of the holdfire monitoringrelay ( H F M R ) ,which wou ld then initiate a s h u t d o w n .T h e very short duration o f OPPS d r o po u t (7. 5 milliseconds) o nG L V - 8 and its occurrence prior to M O C S Tn + 2. 2 seconds precludedan inadvertent engine s h u t d o w n .
2. Stage I I E n g i n e ( Y L R 9 1 - A J - 7 S / N 2009)a. C o n f i g u r a t i o n and special proceduresT h e G L V - 8 Stage engine was d i f f e r en t f rom that o f G L V - 7 in twoareas. The lockwire on the turbine rotor retaining bolts was replacedwi th a lockring for increased bolt security (ECP- 059). Secondly, theconf igura t ion of the thrust chamber injector was changed (ECP- 157).T h e new G E M S I P injector (effect ive for G L V - 8 and up) is less susceptiblet o combus t ion instability and provides essentially the same performanceas the replaced pr o d u c t i o n q ua d l e t injector.T h e propulsion system break- of- integrity review showed that the
r e d u n d a n t engine shu tdown valve had been removed at Martin- Baltimorean d that retest procedures were not adequate to verify that closures
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
68/233
I I I - 1 4
w e r e n o t inadver tent ly le f t in d u r i n g reassembly. T h e valve was re-moved a t ETR fo r inspect ion an d closures we r e n o t found in the un i t .As on Stage I , the th rus t cham ber valve th rough - bo lt s were re to rqu edto th e f inal 300 to 320 i n c h - p o u n d s at E T R .b. Start t r ans ien tT h e engine start t r a ns i e n t , as i l lustrated by the t h r u s t c h a m b erpressure his to ry in Fig. I I I -7 , showed an abnormally slow P rise rate
f rom th rus t ch am ber ign i t ion t ime to stagin g blackou t . F ol lowing te lem -etry b l a c ko u t , no r ma l P opera t ion w as observed. T h e slow P riserate i s no t indicat ive of engine operat ion , since th e p u m p dischargepressures, turbine speed, an d M D F JP S a c tua t io n e xh i b it e d n o r m a lcharacteristics. A similar phenomenon was observed o n G L V - 5 . T h emo s t likely cau se o f the G L V - 5 an d G L V - 8 occurrences was moisturef r e e z i n g in the P sen sing l ine or t ran sdu ce r cavity d u rin g Stage I fl ight .Othe r possibilities inc lude con taminat ion or an improper ly sized trans-ducer or i f ice .
Significant engine start e ve n t s are presented in Table I I I -7 .TABLE - 7
Stage Engine Star t ParametersParameter
F S* to ini t ial P rise (sec)C3P ignition spike (psia)C3P step (psia)C3P overshoot (psia)C3
S / A 30 . 6 5InvalidInvalidN ot available*
*Staging blackout period,c . Steady- st a te pe r fo rm an ceStage en gin e s teady- s ta te fl ight p e r f o r m a n c e was sat is factoryt h r o u g h o u t f l ight . T h e average Stage I I engine pe r fo rmance in tegra tedover steady- state operat ion (from F S . + 1.2 seconds to 91FS2) agreedclosely with pref l ight predic t ion s. Average f ligh t perfor m an ce isc o mp a r e d in Table III-8.
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
69/233
1000CONFIDENTIAL
- '
M D F J P S ( M e a s 0 8 5 5) ,
t
Ill -15
+3.0
Fig. III-7. s/A 3 Start Transient
CONFIDENTIER 13227-8
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
70/233
- 16
TABLE III- 8Predicted and Flight Performance Comparison- -Stage II Engine
ParameterThrust, chamber (Ib)Specific impulse, engine (sec)Mixture ratio, engineOxidizer flow rate,overboard (Ib/sec)Fuel f low rate, overboard(Ib/sec)
PreflightPredictedAverage101,750311.841.7680208.57117.72
FlightAverage101,820311.381.7901209.96117.04
Difference (%)+0.07-0. 15+ 1.25+0.67-0.58
The engine flight performance calculated with the Martin- BaltimorePRESTO computer program is shown in Fig. - 8 as a function of timefrom 91FS.. The preflight prediction is presented for comparison.Flight performance (Fig. -8) shows unusual operation of theStage II engine beginning at appr oximately 91FS, + 90 seconds. A
decay in performance and an unusual time- dependent characteristicare predominant in oxidizer flow rate, mixture ratio, and thrust,amination of the data indicat es that th e oxidizer pump performance wasabnormal after 91FS* +90 seconds. After this time, oxidizer and fuelpump discharge pressures, thrust chamber pressure, and turbinespeed are normally expected to increase. At approximately 91FS9+ 90 seconds, P and P started to decline. The pressure declineod 3 c3lasted approximately 30 seconds and then erratically followed the ex-pected trend (increase) but at the lower level. Turbine speed and P f.ta3remained essentially constant during this period; however, P- H showedsome respon se to the fluctuations in P and Pod 3 c3
Thrust chamber pressure also indicated larger pressure oscillationsthan noted on previous GLV flights, beginn ing at approximately 91FS1+ 140 seconds and continuing until the end of Stage flight. Prior tothis time, the P pressure fluctuations were approximately+15 psi,C3increasing to a maximum of approximately +40 psi near 91FS. + 150seconds. These steady-state abnormalities are under investigation.
E R 13227-8
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
71/233
III -17
" 104I-X. 102 OOoOGOooOoOO
-I
JS load (Stage I I
R e s u m eloadLo a d jc o m p i
M e a s 4432(Stage I I f l o w m e t e r ) |M e a s 4431(Stage I f l o w m e t e r )M e a s 4425 ( R S V ) -
0300 0400Eastern Standard T ime (hr)
Load ing i jcomplete I j
Fig. HI-12. Fuel Temperature D uring Loading
ER 13227- 8
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
87/233
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
88/233
- 34 C O F | I T I A L
5I-N
3c q
F - 4 5 days p r e d i c t e dl a u n c h w i n d o w
Actuall _R e c o n s t r u c t e d j
30 40 45 50Bulk Fuel Temperature (" F)
Fig. H X - l A . Propellent Bulk Temperatures at Liftoff, Stage II
CONFIDENTIALE R 13227 -8
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
89/233
IaCODNA*
E18
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
90/233
- 36
4 5
ti=haI
-ActualReconstructed
4 0
3 5 '
3 0
- F - l day prediction
25 0400 "0800 1200Eastern Standard Time
Fig. 111-16. Stage I Fuel Tank Bottom Probe Temperature (Meas
QjliiriPn III'IER 13227- 8
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
91/233
- 37
h< u
45
40
, ActualReconstructedF- l dav
35
30
25
0400 0800Eastern Standard Time (hr)
1200
Fig. 111-17- Stage Oxidlzer Tank Bottom Probe Temperature (Meas 4604)
NFIDENTIALER 13227- 8
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
92/233
- 38
45
I
ActualReconstructedF- l day prediction
0400 0800Eastern Standard Time (hr)
1200
Fig. m-18. Stage II Fuel Tank Bottom Probe Temperature (Meas 4601)
CONFIDENTIALE R 13227- 8
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
93/233
.CONFIDENTIAL m - 3 9opened. I t is indicated that higher- than - predicted heat t ran sfer coef-ficients are incurred in the Stage II fuel tank when the curtains areopened. Changes to the propellant temp erature p rediction p rogramwill be made to cover this situation, thereby making erector curtaindeployment a more predictable variable when forecasting propellanttemperatures.
The lack of correlation of the tank bottom probe readings with pre-dictions after the curtains were opened was also similar to the G L V- 1experience. Analysis of previous flights shows that the thermalstratification experienced on G L V - 1an d G LV- 8 was as much as 15%greater than predicted. Table - 20 shows the predicted an d actualstratification for G LV- 1, G LV- 5 and G LV- 8; G LV- 5 is typical of the"no curtains opened" operation.TABLE III- 20
Thermal Stratification- - Predicted and ActualSystem
Stage IOxidizerFuelStage IIOxidizerFuel
Predicted
25%5%10%15%
G L V - 1
31%18%19%32%
G LV- 5
23%5%10%19%
G LV- 8
39%15%17%30%
It is believed that a large increase in stratification occurred whenthe Stages I and oxidizer curtains were opened at 0700 EST. Thiswould explain why the probe tem perature rise rate failed to respon dto the wind increase which occurred coincident with the curtain open-ing. Changes in the rise rate program to cover this situation will alsobe made for G LV- 9 and up.d. Suction temperaturesThe actual pump inlet temperatures were in good agreement withthe predicted temperature profiles. These data are shown in Figs.Ill- 19 through - 22. The trends of the actual temperature curvesare in fair agreement with those predicted. D eviations may beascribed to differences in predicted and actual weather and the dif-ferences between predicted and actual thermal stratification . Thermalstratification differences (predicted versus actual), while large forpropellant temperature monitoring uses, are not reflected as large ona propellant temperature profile basis.
ONFIDENTIAL .ER 13227- 8
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
94/233
- 40
! F-45 day predicted- -: M eas 0024 j Tank bot tom probe ABest es t ima te
80 100 120 140 160Time from 87 FS1 (sec)
Fig. 111-19. Stage I Oxidizer Pump Inlet Temperature (Meas 0023 and 002 )
13227-8
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
95/233
CONFIDENTIAL - 41
60 \ .
55
50 >|1g 45
].--;_|\
ST I FuelP u m p Inlet Temp
F-45 dayprediction - - -Meas 0013 T a n k bottom probe ABest est i>rnat<
* _/_ . - < . ^)Js I
* "
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
96/233
|I
ILeX1
"
:
'1
\
H
I.
!i-
\-
\\\'."-,-\
.
~B
1
!
t
^
'J 5\
>S
0S
|
TwS
90"
.!
-
9.
VNii,-1
,!,_--
in
r
r
0
?
0>011^ (eH>nsor(S0*H1fr*
(N
^C
.
t*
tHiH
i-
r1
~*~^
cS
S
4
^e
ce
De
00
8S
"3"3
*B
L11
ffH
'''
^
^
)VOe>VOe)Vt)>(Ue>
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
106/233
- 52
TABLE III- 25Best Estimate Average Sensor Uncover Time
QuadrantII/IV / II I II III I IIVI / I VI I / I I IIII IIVI IIV
Meas00560058005900540052005300500060054205480549054005460547054505500544
0551
SystemStage I oxidizerStage I fuelStage II oxidizerStage II fuel
SensorStage I oxidizer highStage I oxidizer outagesStage I oxidizer ou tage/Stage I fuel highStage I fuel outage - jStage I fuel outage /Stage I fuel shutdown )Stage I fuel shutdown /Stage II oxidizer highStage II oxidizer outage )Stage II oxidizer ou tage/Stage II fuel highStage II f u e l outage )Stage II fuel outage /Stage II oxidizer shutdown)Stage II oxidizer shutdown/Stage II fuel shutdown
Stage II fuel shutdown
Integrated AverageTemperature(between uncoverings) ( F)42.843.444. 142. 1
AverageUncoverTime ( G M T )1641:13. 214)1643:34.338)1641:15.314)1643:30. 388 )
1643:36. 1881644:35. 563)1646:31. 489)1643:54.013)1646:35.014)
1646:38.989Did notuncoverDid notuncover
At(sec)
141. 124
135.074
115.920
161.001
Corresponding D ensity(lb/ ft 3)92. 17057.34192.06857.220
IDENT IALER 13227- 8
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
107/233
NFIDENTIAL - 53
4. Propellant Utilizationa. Level sensor uncoverFigures - 27 and 111-28 show the predicted, actual and reconstructedlevel sensor uncover times for Stages I and II. Measured level sensoruncover times are tabulated in Table 111- 24.Slosh, as indicated by on and off signals at the time of level sensoruncovering, was minimal on this flight. All sensor uncoverings wereclean.b. Best estimate level sensor uncover timesTable 111-25 contains the best estimate average level sensor uncovertimes for the G T - 8 flight. Also shown are the integrated averagetemperatures between level sensor uncoverings and the correspondingdensities. The measured average uncover times shown in Table 111-24were dec reased by 0. 058 second to allow for the built- in level sensordelay of 0. 033 second and for the PCM digital sampling rate of 0. 05second.Table >26 contains the level sensor volumes and delta volum esused in the level sensor flow rate analysis. The Stages I and IIoxidizer and fuel high level sensor volumes were reconstructed toreflect the volumes which were determined by calibration at CapeKennedy using the propellant t ran sfer and pressurization system.The Stages I and II outages and shutdown level sensor volumes werecalculated using the actual counts of flowmeter pulses during thespecial loading.
TABLE III- 26Averaged Volumes at Level Sensor Locations
TankStage IoxidizerStage IfuelStage IIoxidizerStage IIfuel
SensorH igh- levelOutageH igh- levelOutageH igh- levelOutageH igh- levelOutage
Averaged Volumes(stretch included)(ft 3)
1710.0737.80
1403.0066.02
286.342 2 . ( i ! j
349.3217.76
DeltaVolumes(ft 3)
1672.27
1336.98
263.65
331. 56
NFIDENTIAUER 13227- 8
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
108/233
DO
|11T0-a g
$
-t1;O
-CU
>:.*0-rk
:0:X
i
1
.I2
8!5tO
CODNA
E18
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
109/233
.$ffls&-Ih-0>0( u- :riif - :18-xr:
:~'f03 |oI
-aLOCOH3 -of1 ."r*LiCoverede oxidizer (Meas 0549].--I M
*
'"
1overed
: -CDin~0--S6 Hj*:ii;1 c-ID'50:3 iIISoveredI--.N.=':-5 ':..; |^
.:"ihf:::"Covered
' ; d o w n oxidizer (Meas 05f^
.;'
jii.Covered0."0aD"33V3fc
.:':wovered:I0.csiP c1 ^.1
CO01rCD-H
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
110/233
- 56
. Flow ratesTable - 27 presents the predicted and the actual volumetric f l ow
rates between level sensors.TABLE III - 27
Propellant Volumetric Flow Rate
T a n kStage I oxidizerStage I f u e lStage II oxidizerStage I I f u e l
Predicted(ft3 / sec)10. 52910. 067
2. 0972. 115
Actual( ft 3/ sec)11. 8509. 898
2 . 2742. 059
d . Mixture ratioTable - 28 shows the Stages I and II predicted and actual in- flightaverage engine mixture ratios for G LV- 8.
TABLE III - 28Engine Mixture Ratio
SystemStage IStage I I
Mixture RatioPredicted1. 94431. 7680
Actual1 . 9 2 9 01. 7901
Sensitivity coefficien ts applied to the delta between the predicteda n d actual variations in average suction pressure and temperaturebetween sensor uncoverings yield the information shown in Table 111- 29.TABLE I I I - 2 9
Mixture Ratio Pressure and Temperature
SystemStage IOxidizerFuel
APressure(psi)
. + 1. 8Total Stage I
AMixtureR a t i o(press. )
- 0. 0- 0.006336- 0. 006336
ATemper-ature ( F)
- 1. 3- 0 . 7
A M i xt u r eR a t i o( t e m p )+ 0. 003013- 0.001139+ 0. 001874
AMixtureRatio(total)
+ 0. 003013- 0. 007475- 0. 0 0 4 4 6 2
'NFIDEN1IAIE R 1 3 2 2 - 7 - 8
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
111/233
IFIDENTIAL - 57TABLE 1- 29 (continued)
SystemStage IIOxidize Fuel
APressure(psi)
0.0- 2. 0Total Stage II
AMixtureRatio(press. )
+0.0+0. 008850+0. 008850
-ature ( F)- 2.0+1.9
MixtureRatio(temp)
+0. 005230+0.003162+0.008392
AMixtureRatio(total)
+0.005230+0. 012012+0.017242
By applying the delta mixture ratio (total) shown in Table - 29 tothe predicted (F - 45 day) between- sensors mixture ratios, the run- to-run variation can be calculated. The mixture ratio deviation alongwith the allowable run- to- run dispersions is shown in Table - 30.TABLE III-30
Mixture R atio D eviation
SystemStage IStage II
PredictedM ixture Ratio*1.93981.7852
ActualMixtureRatio1.92901.7901
D eviation
- 0.56+0.27
AllowableRun - to -RunD ispersion
+1.38+2.28
Corrected for pressure and temperature variations.e. Outage and trapped propellantTable 111-31 shows the mean and maximum (99%) outages predictedfor G LV- 8. Also shown are the actual outages as calculated using theinformation contained in the reconstructed propellant inventories ofTables 111-37 and - 38.
TABLE - 31Outage Prediction
SystemStage I
Predicted (F - 45 day)Mean
0.220%566 Ib
Max (99%)0.643%1652 Ib
Predicted (F - 0 day)Mean
0.315%810 Ib
Max (99%)0.744%1910 Ib
Actual0.098%oxidizer252 Ib
CONFIDENTIALER 13227- 8
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
112/233
- 58 CONFIDENTIAL
TABLE - 31 (continued)
SystemStage I I
Predicted (F- 45 day)M e a n
0. 344%206 IbM ax (99%)
1 .026%615 Ib
Predicted (F- 0 day)M e a n
0. 517%310 IbM ax (99%)
1.217%730 IbActual0. 436%fuel261 Ib
All outages are presented as percent of total steady- state propellants(taken from Ref. 11) and in pounds. The values used for total steady-state propellants are: 256,737 pounds for Stage I and 59,966 poundsfo r Stage II.T h e trapped propellants for Stages I and II are given in Table - 32.
T A B L E 111-32Trapped Propellants
SystemStage IAbove interfaceBelow interfaceStage IIAbove interface
Below interface
Oxidizer (Ib)0235020
Fuel (Ib)20309
014f. Start and propellant consumptionsT h e predicted and actual propellant consumptions during the Stage Istart period are sh own in Table III- 33.
TABLE - 33Stage I Ignition and Propellant Consumption
Stage IStart consumption( 8 7 F S J to TCPS)Holddown consumption( T C P S to liftoff)
Oxidizer (Ib)Predicted
2092157
Actual209
2218
Fuel (Ib)Predicted
441128
Actual44
1184
CONFIDENTIALE R 13227- 8
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
113/233
CONFIDENTIAL - 59T h e predicted and actual start consumptions listed in Table 111-33were selected from Ref. 15 and were modi f i ed to allow for the d i f f e r e n cebe t w e e n propellant out of the tanks (as listed in the report) and pro-pellant overboard. The predicted holddown consumption was derivedf rom the engine analytical model and previous flight test data, whilethe actual value was derived from the Post- test Rocke t Engine System
Total Operation (PRESTO) engine performance reconstruction program.The Stage propellant consumptions between 91FS. and 91FS1
+ 1.2 seconds are listed in Table -34.T A B L E - 34
Stage II Start Propellant Consumption
Start consumption(91FS to 91FS + 1 . 2 sec)
Oxidizer (Ib)
135
Fuel (Ib)
53T h e consumptions were obtained from Ref. 15 and modified as on theStage I start consumption.
g. Vapor retainedT h e predicted and actual values of vapor retained in the tanks as aresult of pressurization gases and propellant vaporization during flightare shown in Table - 35.
T A B L E - 35Pressurization Gas Inventory
SystemStage IVapor retained:
Oxidize r tankFuel tankVaporizedStage IIPressurization
Fuel tankVaporization
Oxidizer tank
Oxidizer (Ib)Predicted
31886
5
9
Actual*
32286
4
9
Fuel (Ib)Predicted
0900
50
-
Actual*
0910
49
-*Actual values were obtained from reconstructed flight pressure profileof pressurization computer program runs.
CONFIDENTIAL.ER 13227- 8
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
114/233
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
115/233
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
116/233
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
117/233
CONFIDENTIAL - 63
TABLE III- 39Prevalve Identification
D escriptionStage I oxidizer S/ A 1(fill and drain)Stage I oxidizer S/ A 2(drain)Stage II oxidizer S/ A 3(fill and drain)Stage I fuel S/A 1(fill and drain)Stage I fuel S/A 2(drain)Stage II fuel S/A 3(fill and drain)
Part N o.PS47510007- 139PS47510007- 159PS47510005- 199PS47510005- 159
PS47510005- 169PS47510006- 059
Serial N o.0700025070002906000220600023
06000990400013
b. Level sensorsG LV- 8 incorporated 18 Bendix optical type propellant level sensors.These are identified in Table III - 40. All sensors performed satisfactorilyduring propellant loadings and in flight.c. Oxidizer standpipeThe oxidizer suct ion line standpipes were charged with the remotecharge system at - 59 minutes. N o problems were encountered duringthe charging operation. F light data obtained from pressure Meas 0033and 0034, located in the standpipes, show surge chamber performanceto be normal and consistent with the low longitudinal oscillatory levelsexperienced on this flight.d. Fuel accumulatorsAccumulator piston response on this flight was similar to that ofother flights utilizing the same configuration (G LV- 3 through G LV- 6).This response is presented in Fig. HI-29.Dynamic friction levels for dry accumulators were measuredprior to installation of accumulator assemblies at M artin- Baltimoreand again prior to flight at ETR. A summary of these friction meas-urements is presented in Table 111-41 as peak- to- peak values (twicethe equivalent friction force in one direction).
CONFIDENTIALER 13227- 8
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
118/233
f
a>'na" *H'"uadrant1a'o38*I1ocation
to
>>
1TI
0
I
0
I
tC
>
^
">IIg
C
s*1
.2U|33
.
5
o
C~
to
11I
)
-31 ^fcuD4)
6 Q.(yaw-right _error)
Primary system yaw error (Meas 0767)EHIG S yaw error (Meas 0744)
- 2 . 0 - (yaw-left!_rate)
Primary system roll error (Meas 0768)... ;:! U i
IG S roll error (Meas 0 7 4 5 )
(roll-CCWerror)155 165 175 185Time from Liftoff (sec)
Fig. VI-3. Stage II IGS Ya w / R o l l Flight History
ER 13227-b
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 8 Flight Evaluation
158/233
V I - 7
The data s h o w n in Table VI-2 indicate that the S E C O time delay f r o mg r o u n d station issuance to 91FS9 was 52 8 milliseconds. The timedelay b e t ween 91FS2 a n d A S C O reception wa s 4 4 3 0 milliseconds.
B . S P A C E C R A F T I N E R T I A L G U I D A N C ES Y S TE M A S C E N T P E R F OR M A N C E1. Prelaunch Nulls
The prelaunch IGSattitude error null signals were as follows:Pitch -0. 031 degreeYaw -0 . 149 degreeRoll +0. 079 degree
These signals were well within the specification values of 0 . 37 degreein pitch and yaw and 0 . 2 5 degree in roll.2 . Stage I Performance
IG S performance during Stage I flight correlated well with the primarysystem, as s how n by a comparison of IGS and corresponding primarysystem attitude errors in Figs. IV-2 through IV-4. The dispersionsb e t ween IGS and primary system attitude errors at BECOare discussedin Chapter IV .The IGS Stage I gain change discrete was issued at LO + 105.031seconds 0 . 025 second, which w a s well within th e specification time o f104. 96 seconds, 1%.
3. Stage II PerformanceIG S pitch, yaw and roll performance during Stage II Flight was normal.The attitude error dispersions which had built up between the IGS andprimary system during Stage I flight in pitch, yaw and roll were apparentin the early portion of Stage II flight, as s how n in Figs. VI-2 and VI-3.a. Stage II pitchIG S Stage II pitch attitude error appears in Fig. VI-2. Primary systempitch attitude error and RGS pitch steering commands are s h
Top Related