Download - Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
1/253
N A S A - M S C - G - R - 6 5 - 5an d M S C - G - R - 6 6 - 2S u p p l e m e n t a l R e p o r t 23 3 3
as S u p p l e m e n t a lG e m i n i Program $$ssionG e m i n i VI and G e m i n j #$M S C - G - R - 6 5 - 5M S C - G - R - 6 6 - 2G e m i n i V I and VI- AM i ss io n E v a l u a t i o n T e a mN a t i o n a l Aeronautics an d Space A d m i n i s t r a t i o nM a n n e d S p a c e c r a f t C e n t e rH o u s t o n , Texas
.
P R E P A R E D B Y
X67- U 13 5(ACCESSION NUMBER)
LAU NCHVEHICLE NO. 6
FLIGHTEVALU AT I ON (U )
U . S . G o v e r n m e n t A g e n c i e s On l y
Engineering Rep or t 13227- 6
(THRU)
fiL ' . .(NASA CR ORT-MXOR AD NUMbrftRJ( N A S A - C R - 8 3 0 9 0 ) L A U N C HE V A L U A T I O N ( M a r t i nCo.)
F e b r u a r y1966N O . 6 F L I G H T N 7 5 - 7 5 6 2 3
Unclas00/98 23571
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
2/253
e N a t i o n a lthe me aning of theU . S . C . , Sections 7 9 3 a n d 794,th e 'transmission or revelttjgn of w h i c h in any manner toan u n au tho r ized person is pr^Bkted by law.
C o p y No.
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
3/253
I'
U. S. G o v e r n m e n t A g e n c i e s Only
, . "" < -1 "'
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
4/253
ER 13227 -6 N A S A - M S C - G - R - 6 5 - 5an d MSC-G-R-66-2Supplemental Report 2
F e b r u a r y 1966
Published as Supplemental Report 2to: G e m i n i Program Mission ReportsG e m i n i V I a n d Gemini VI- AMSC-G-R-65-5 an dMSC-G-R-66-2by: G e m i n i VI and VI- A Mission Evaluation TeamNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationM a n n e d Spacecraft CenterH o u s t o n , Texas
LAU NCH VEHICLE NO. 6FLIGHT
EVALU AT I ON (U )
Approved by
oUL. J. Rose
Assi st ant Technical DirectorT e s t Evaluation
CurlanderDirector
IN ANr WM'ilEftPROHiBlTtO B Y
.V ,V IIS'C C O f F N T SP E R S O N i3
Prepared byMARTIN COMPANY, BALTIMORE DIVISION
Baltimore, Maryland 21203Under CONTRACT AF 04(695)-394
PRIORITY DX-A2
ForSPACE SYSTEMS DIVISION
AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMANDUNITED STATES AIR FORCE
Lot Angele, California
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
5/253
ii
FOREWORD
This 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 13227-6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
6/253
I ll
CONTENTSPage
Foreword nSummary . . . vii
I Introduction . .. I ~lII. System Performance - 1
A. Trajectory Analysis . . . . II- 1B. Payload Capability 11- 40C. Staging - 40D . Weight Statement 11-41
III. Propulsion System - 1A. Launch Attempt (12 December 1965) - 1B. Engine Subsystem I I I - 2C. Propellant Subsystem - 24D . Pressunzation Su bsystem - 70E. Environm ental Contro l Ill- 81
IV. Flight Control System IV- 1A. Stage I Flight IV- 1B. Stage II Flight . . IV- 9C. Post- SECO Flight IV- 9
V. Hydrau lic System . V- lA. Stage I . . . . V- lB. Stage V- 5
VI. Guidance Systems VI - 1
ER 13227- 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
7/253
IV
C O N T E N T S ( c o n t i n u e d )Page
A . R a d i o G u i d a n c e S y s te m P e r f o r m a n c e V I - 1B . S p a c e c r a f t Inertial G u i d a n c e S y s te m A s c e n tP e r f o r m a n c e V I - 6
VII. Electrical S ystem A na lys i s VII -1A . C o n f i g u ra t i o n V I I - 1B. C o u n t d o w n an d Flight P e r f o r m a n c e V I I - 1
VIII. I n s t ru m e n t a t i o n S y ste m V I I I- 1A . A i rb o rn e I n st ru m e n t a t i o n V I I I- 1B . La n d l m e I n s t ru m e n t a t i o n V I I I- 3
IX . R a n g e S a f e ty and O r d n a n c e I X - 1A . C o m m a n d C o n tr o l R e c e i v e r s IX - 1B. M I S T R A M I X - 1C . O r d na n c e I X - 2
X . Ma lfunc t io n Detec t ion S ys tem X - lA . C o n f i g u r a t i o n X - lB . S y st em Pe r f o rm a n c e X - 2
X I. C r e w S a fe ty X I - 1A . G T - 6 A L a u n c h A t te m p t X I - 1B . P r e l a u n c h W i n d s O p e r at io n s X I - 1C . Slow M al fu n c t i on M o n i t o r i n g X I - 1 2
XII. A i r f ram e S ys tem XII-1A . S t ruc tu ra l Loads XII -1
E R 1 3 2 2 7 - 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
8/253
C O N T E N T S ( c o n t i n u e d )
PageB. P O G O XII- 19
. A G E a n d Facilities 1 - 1A . Mechanical A G E XIII- 1B. Master Operations Control Set - 2C. Facilities XIII-3
XIV. Reliability XI V- 1XV. Range Data XV- 1
A. L a u n c h Attempt Data and Film Distribution . . . XV- 1B. Launch Data Distr ibut ion XV- 2C. Launch Film Coverage XV- 7
XVI. Prelaunch a n d C o u n t d o w n Operations XVI - 1A. Prelaunch XVI- 1B. Launch Att em pt C o u n t d o w n Summary XVI - 1C. Recycle and Prelaunch Activity X V I - 2D . C o u n t d o w n Summary X V I - 2
X V I I . Configurat ion Summary X V I I - 1A. Launch Vehicle Systems Description X V I I - 1B. Major C o m p o n e n t s X V I I - 3
XVin. References X V I I I - 1A p p e n d i x A : Summary o f G e m i n i Launches A - l
E R 13227- 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
9/253
Vl lRECEDING PAGE BLANK NOT FILMED.
S U M M A R YThe scheduled launch of G T- 6A on 12 December 1965 was terminatedd u e to a premature disconnection of tail plug 3D1M. Engine s h u t d o w n
was automatically initiated 1.24 seconds after MOCS T n by holdfireC- 4 (programmer reset monitor), w h e n the pro gramm er in the three-axis reference system (TARS), having been initiated by th e inad ver tentdisconnect of 3D1M, started prematurely. Engine s h u t d o w n was pre-ceded by a normal start transient in S/ A 1, whereas S/ A 2 exhibiteda n abnormal pressure buildup. Investigation of the abnormality led toa n inspection of the gas generator, which revealed that a plastic dustcover had been left in the S/ A 2 gas generat or assembly. All othersystems performed properly during the launch attempt.
O n 15 December 1965, G em ini- Titan 6A ( G T - 6 A ) was launched suc-cessfully and on schedule from Complex 19, Cape Kennedy, Florida.Launch vehicle / spa ce cr aft separation was completed 361 seconds afterl i f t o f f . Spacecraft r e - en t ry was accomplished after completion of 17. 1orbits.
The 240- m inut e c o u n t d o w n was picked up at 0529 EST on 15 Decem-ber and c o n t i n u e d without incident thr ough l i f t o f f at 0837 EST. Thespa cecr aft was inserte d into an elliptical orbit with a perigee of 87nautical miles and an apogee of 140. 4 nautical miles; all test objectivesfor the launch were achieved.Stages I and engines operated satisfactorily throu ghout p oweredflight. Stage I burning time was 160.4 seconds, with shutdown initiatedby oxidizer exhaustion. Stage II engine operation was terminated by aguidance com ma nd after 181.6 seconds of operation.The flight control system (FCS) m aintained satisfactory vehiclestability during Stages I and II flight . The primary FCS was in co m-mand throughout the flight. Vehicle ra tes during Stage I flight neverexceeded 1. 9 deg/ sec, and the maximum attitude error was 1. 7 degrees.The maximum rate and attitude error that occurred during staging didnot exceed 3. 7 deg/ sec and 2.8 degrees, respectively.P erformance of the radio guidance system (RGS) was satisfactory.Pitch and yaw steering signals and SECO discrete commands wereproperly executed.I G S pitch, yaw and roll performance for the entire flight appearednormal. The dispersions between IG S and pr imar y system attitudee r ro r s remained within acceptable limits during powered flight.
E R 13227- 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
10/253
Vlll
The hydraulic system operated satisfactorily during launch opera-tions and both stages of flight. There were no significant pressureperturbations at l i f t o f f or duri ng flight.The electrical system f u n c t i o n e d as designed throughout the launchc o u n t d o w n and flight. Power transfer to vehicle batteries was smooth.All channels of the PCM instrumentation system f u n c t i o n e d satis-factorily throughout the fright. The landlme ins trumenta tion systemalso f u n c t i o n e d satisfactorily prior to and up to l i f t o f f . All airborneinstrumentation hold functions monitored in the blockhouse remainedw i t h i n specification throughout the c o u n t d o w n .The ordnance system umbilical drop weight release, explosive launchnuts and stage separation nuts operated as designed. The prevalveswere not replaced after the 12 December 1965 launch attempt, therefore,
the valves were open prior to propellant loading. The performanceso f the command control receivers and the M I S T R A M transponder weresatisfactory.Malfunction detection system (MDS) performance during preflightcheckout and flight was satisfactory. There were no switchover com-mands during the flight.The flight environment encountered by GT-6A was within design re-quirements. Flight loads were well w i t h i n the structural capabilitieso f the launch vehicle. The most critical loading ( w h i c h occurred at pre-BECO, aft of Station 320) reached 103. 6% of design limit load in com-
pression.The longitudinal oscillation (POGO) on GT-6A reached a maximumvalue at Station 280 of 0. 115 g zero-to-peak at frequencies of 13. 7 cpsat LO + 146. 8 seconds and 16. 8 cps at LO + 153. 9 seconds. This wasthe lowest POGO experienced on any Gemini f l i g h t to date.Crew safety monitoring, which was c o n d u c t e d at N A S A - M S C , wasactive during prelaunch and the launch. All guidance monitor parameterswere nominal and no corrective action was required during the flight.The precount operation progressed without problems. All AGE and
facilities operated without incident during the countdown. Propellantloading was completed within the scheduled time span and to the specifiedload and temperature limits.All electrical umbilicals disconnected in the planned sequence andwithin 0. 854 second. Engine blast and heat damage to the launch standwas minor.
ER 13227-6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
11/253
IX
G LV- 6 Test Objectives and ResultsObjective Results
PrimaryP - l
P - 2
P - 3
Demonstrate satisfactoryboost by the Geminilaunch vehicle system ofa manned Gemini space-cra ft into the prescribedorbital insertion condi-tions.
P - l Orbit insertion waswithin the predictedtolerances for V, hand .
Evaluat e lau nch vehiclesubsystem performanceduring powered flightfor mission success andcrew safety.
P - 2
Demonstrate the effec-tiveness of launch op-erations including prop-er operations of neces-sary ground/ range sup-port systems to achievethe prescribed rendez-vous mission launchrequirements.
-
All systems performedsatisfactorily through-out flight. The POGOoscillation (0. 115 gzero- to- peak) was thelowest encou ntered .G T - 6 A was erectedand ready for launchcountdown seven daysafter the launch ofG T - 7 from the samelaunch pad.
Secondarys - i
S- 2
Evaluate trajectory per-formance of the launchvehicle system for re-fining capability andpredictions fo r futuremissions.
s- i Vehicle flight waswithin the 3- sigm apredicted trajectory.
Demonstrate ability toload propellants toweight and t emperaturelimits imposed by pay-load and vehicle re-quirements.
S- 2 Tanks were loadedwithin the requiredtolerances of weightand t emperature .
ER 13227- 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
12/253
1-1
I. INTRODUCTIONThis report presents an engineering evaluation of Gemini LaunchVehicle No. 6 ( G L V ~ 6 ) systems performance during the 15 December1 9 6 5 c o u n t d o w n , launch and boost phase of the Gemini 6A mission.Discussion of pertinent aspects of the 12 December launch attempt hasalso been included.The GT-6A vehicle was launched from Complex 19, Cape K e n n e d y ,Florida at 0 8 3 7 hours EST on 15 December 1965, 12 days after the launcho f GT-7 from the same pad. A successful flight was achieved, and thespacecraft was inserted into an elliptical orbit with a perigee of 87nautical miles and an apogee of 140. 4 nautical miles. Gemini 6A was
the seventh mission and the f i f th manned flight in the Gemini program,with Astronauts Walter Schirra and Thomas Stafford aboard the Gemini6 spacecraft. The one-day mission, with its objective of rendezvousw i t h the Gemini 7 spacecraft, was completed successfully on 16 Decem-ber 1965.GLV-6 was delivered to Cape Kennedy on 2 August 1965 in prepara-tion for the Gemini 6 mission, a rendezvous and docking exercise withan Agena Target Vehicle (ATV), scheduled to begin on 25 October 1965.On that day, the GLV c o u n t d o w n and the mission were terminated shortlyafter the Atlas-Agena l i f t o f f w h e n the ATV failed to achieve orbit.Subsequently, the Gemini 6 mission plan was changed to that of arendezvous with the Gemini 7 spacecraft and redesignated as the Gemini6 A mission. For the redefined 6A mission, it was required to launchGT-6A from Complex 19 within eight to twelve days f o l l o w i n g the GT-7flight. Following the successful G T ~ 7 operation on 4 December 1965,the GT-6A vehicle was erected on Complex 19, and both vehicle andlaunch complex were readied for a 12 December flight. On this datethe c o u n t d o w n proceeded on schedule through T~0 and engine ignition,but an automatic shutdown occurred due to inadvertent release of a tailplug. The GT-6A vehicle was recycled to permit a 15 December launch,which was accomplished on time and without incident and which wasf o l l o w e d by the Gemini 6 rendezvous with the Gemini 7 spacecraft.Significant events and tests accomplished for GLV-6 at ETR appearin Table 1-1.
ER 13227-6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
13/253
X3VENTS
UGLV- 6 on dock, ETRErection of GLV- 6Subsystem revenfication (SSRT)Prespacecraft mate verification ( 1140M1cSpacecraft mechanical mateElectrical integrated interface va
CM^->
CM
CM
_HJoint guidance and control ( J G & C )Joint combined systems test (JCS
04CM_PJ1JPropellant tanking testFlight configuration mode test (F
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
14/253
I I - 1
II. SYSTEM PERFORMANCEA. TRAJECTORY ANALYSIS
1. Orbit InsertionGemini Launch Vehicle No. 6 (GLV- 6) performed as predicted andinserted the Gemini 6 spacecraft into earth orbit well within the allow-able tolerance limits to permit rendezvous with the G T- 7 spacecraft .G LV- 6 was steered in the lateral plane during Stage I I flight to aset of ephemeris data referenced to the time of insertion (or targeting).The values of two of these targeting parameters = ~0. 18719584 x
10 r a d / se c and T~ = 53 , 741.21 875 seconds) are given here for record;there are no observed values of these parameters. The targeted and ob-served inclination angles were 28. 895 and 28. 97 degrees, respectively.The targeted wedge angle of 0.2002 degree was exceeded. The observedre sidual wedge angle was - 0.075 degree, which meant that the total wedgeangle steered was - 0.275 degree.
A comparison of the predicted and observed insertion conditions isgiven in Table II-1. In this table and in all succeeding references to apredicted (nominal) trajectory, the data wer e obtained from the G LV- 645- day pre launch rep or t (Ref. 10), updated to reflect the actual space-craft weight (7821 pounds), guidance constants, T- l hour wind and at-mospheric data, and the - 1.07% pitch and - 1 .4% roll programmerbiases. Th e observed trajecto ry para m eters are tho se der ived by theMartin Company from the Final GE Mod III-G 10 pps data. These datahave been smoothed and corrected for both refraction errors and sys-tematic biases by the General Electric Corporation before submittal tothe Martin Company.
TABLE II -1Comparison of Insertion Conditions a t SECO + 20 Seconds
Altitude (naut mi)Inert ial veloc ity (fps)Inertial flight pathangle (deg)
PredictedNominal87. 12825,7310.002
G E M o dIII-G87.26025, 728- 0.054
ObservedMinusPlanned+ 0. 132- 3- 0.056
PreliminaryTolerance0.346+30. 3iO.' 125
ER 13227- 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
15/253
G'H-- 1^-J0P
00rhk2QJp._"1W*sS
27gr
j
+
TJo>cos
^5g
1ag
>a" a
L*_.
1g11+
g1gg
WW
PQ
w
iCM
1
IH
*
+-11+++++
^
TCM
+++++++
~
^
"
.H~CM.
.
1
"1
1
.
'1"* M
~0~gS0
--
Ni
1
S""5SnSN
0
-
~
I
S>0
S
22N~S
fmN
N
S5
0
0
-
"0"S0
in0003M-WCOOMU5a>1,0^
^
""">
"*
[>
~">1?
1!!1!!!11
sSaa,g8.s,s:s|
2uSb3g2S>
P
5m*^
>>>
r
-eoeoco
*S~.15tocMo^
^27?
JH
_-9~s6S>xx&>?
.1111!1N$!N
1f41SIII!f18
9
*0n
Q^"b.J
^QsSa
>
00****QU>
V
JCa0CDST0JCac0"1"1^^
g
g
5
cd
*-S00
32*
S
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
22/253
inertial flight path angle, and geoc entric radius agreed very closelywith values derived from the Bermuda tracking data. BET data (whichare derived from M I S T R A M data) are presented in Table II- 6Table II - 6 pre sents a comparison of the GE Mod III-G 10 pps andthe 2 pps data. Starting with G T- 8, only the GE Mod - G 2 pps datawill be available.' Com pa ring the two sets of data on Table II- 6, it isconcluded that the GE Mod III-G 2 pps data are satisfactory.The actual, as well as the predicted, nominal trajectory is pre-sented in graphical form in Figs. I I -2 through 11-24. On these graphs,the nominal traject or y is that documented in Ref. 10, updated to re-flect the actua l spa cec raft weight (7821 pounds), guidance constants,T- l hour wind and atmospheric data, and the - 1.07% pitch and - 1. 4%roll programmer biases. Th e observed flight da ta wer e obtained fromthe Mod III-G 10 pps data, smoothed and corrected for refraction errors
and systematic biases.A list of the p rimar y tr acking sources with the tra ject or y tim e inter-val covered by each is contained in Table II- 7.
5. G eodetic and Weat he r ParametersSignificant geodetic and weather parameters are shown in Table II-8.The atmospheric pressure and temperature variation with altitude isdepicted in Fig. - 25. The pressure was essentially standard, whilethe temperature was slightly warmer than stand ard. Figure 11- 26 pr e-sents the altitude history of the magnitude and direction of the wind.
At low altitudes the winds were light, increasing to a peak of 86 knotsat 42, 500 feet. The wind was essentially a tail wind with a small com-ponent from the left of the trajectory.6. Look Angles
A n initial decoder pitch- down command of about 0. 10 deg/ sec ,lasting approximately 0. 5 second, was issued at LO + 168. 21 seconds.Following this, a 0. 56 deg/ sec pitch- down command was issued for ap-proximately 0. 3 second. Thereafter, the pitch steering command de-creased to appro xim ately 0.25 deg/ sec within 2 seconds.During this period, the maneuver resulted in decreasing angles ofattack as shown in Fig. - 20. The m axim um look angle in pitch (LAP )occurred at LO + 335 seconds, when it attained a value of 22.2 degrees.This maximum value was within the boundary existing at tha t time, asshown in Fig. 11-27. The corresponding look angle in yaw (LAY) wasalso within the established limitation (20 degrees), as shown in Fig.11-28. The m axim um value of LAY was 6. 3 degrees which occurred160 seconds after liftoff.
ER 13227- 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
23/253
-
TABLE II - 7Data Available for Trajectory Analysis
SourceAFETR
GE
NASA- MSC
TypeM I S T R A M posi-tion, velocityand accelerationFPQ-6 radarposition, veloc-ity and accelera-tionFPS-16 radarposition, veloc-ity and accelera-tionBETM o d III-G radarposition, veloc-i t ySpacecraft IGSaspect param-eters
StationValkaria IEleuthera II
MILA 19.18GBI 3.18Grand Turk 7. 18Patrick 0.183.16
(composite)Cape Kennedy
Flight Coverage(sec from r ange- 0)+ 65 to 383+ 65 to 383
+ 13 to +380+ 147.6 to + 379.1+ 329.1 to 491. 190 to 379+ 147.6 to +379.1
+ 6 6 to + 3 7 9LO to + 381
LO to +367.9
ER 13227- 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
24/253
II-11TABLE II-8
Geographic and Weather Conditions at LaunchLocation
SiteSite coordinates-
Latitude (deg)Longitude (deg)Pad orientation (deg)
Complex 19
28.507 N80.554 W84.903 true azimuth
WeatherAmbient pressure (psi)Ambient temperature (F)Dew point (F)Relative humidity (%)Surface w i n d -
Speed (fps)Direction (deg)
Winds aloft (max):Altitude (ft)Speed (fps)Direction (deg)
Cloud cover
14.71686797720 042,50014729 2 true azimuth0. 2 alt o-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 toellipsoidand_LX-axisForms a right-handed orthogonalsystemFischer
LaunchInitial flight azimuth (deg)Roll program (deg)
81. 4 true azimuth3. 5 cw
ER 13227-6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
25/253
FIDENTIAL
I9!
BECO(157. 162 sec)"
- :?u
a- 4
1
1
Predicted nominal wind run 80-GT-6 (final)*G E Mod I I I - G final flight data*
^IncludesRawinsonde balloon dataCape Kennedy0739 EST, 15 December 1965
\J Predicted BECO(156.578 sec)
.
...
_.
I 10 .. .30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110Time from Liftoff (sec)
,120 130 140 150 160 170 180
ER 13227- 6
Fig. II-2. Inertial Velocity Versus T i m e : Stage I Flight
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
26/253
P r e d i c t e d n o m i n a l w i n d ru n 8 Q - G T - 6 ( f ina l ) *G E M o d I I I - G f i n a l f l i g h t d a t a *
B E C O( 1 5 7 . 1 6 2 s ec)
I n c l u d e sR a w i n s o n d e ba l l oon d a t aCape K e n n e d y0 7 3 9 E S T , 15 D e c e m b e r 1 9 6 5 Pre d i c t e d B E CO( 1 5 6 . 57 8 s ec)
'
50 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 3 0T i m e f r o m Li f to f f ( s e c )
140 150 160 170 180
F i g . I I - 3 . Inertial Flight Pat h An g l e Ve r sus T ime : Stage I Flight
n n j 4^^!U[.li I I H L ALE R 1 3 2 2 7 - 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
27/253
240> - 14 - 'NFIDENTIAL
220
200
180
160
140- -
1 20:
100
80
!
Predicted nominal w i n d run 80-GT- 6 (final)*G E Mod I I I - G f i n a l flight data*
- 6 (final)* BECO( 1 5 7 . 162 sec)
i//./ /
130 140 150 160 170 180Time from L i f t o f f (sec)
^ fl?
Fig. II- k. Altitude (h) Versus T i m e : Stage I Flight
CONFIDENTIALE R 1 3 2 2 7 - 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
28/253
400
Predicted nominal w i n d run 80-GT-6 ( f in a l ) *GE Mod III-G f in a l f l ig h t data*
"IncludesR a w i n s o n d e balloon dataCape K e n n e d y0 7 3 9 EST, 15 December 1965
'"
10 20
BECO( 1 57 . 162 sec)
Predicted BECO( 1 5 6 . 5 7 8 sec)i '
70 8 0 9 0Time from Lif to f f (sec)
160
II-15
Fig. II-5. Downrange Position Coordinate (XF) Versus Time: Stage I Flight
M T l A iER 13227-6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
29/253
- 16 CONFIDENTIAL5
'f
.\
^1/ i/
Predicted BECO /(156.578 sec) '
j ; __ .20 30 10 50 60 70 80 90 100 120 130 140 150 160 " 170 180Time from L i f t o f f (sec)
Fig. II-6. Cross-Range Position Coordinate (Y ) Versus Time: Stage I Flight
fj 1* CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
30/253
320
280
* 240
% 200- 160 -
-
I
..
!
'
Pred i c ted nomir
*IncludesRawinsonde balloonCape Kennedy0739 EST, 15 Dece
120
BECO(157. 162 sec)
Pred icted BECO( 1 5 6 .5 7 8 sec)
Ti me fro m Liftoff (sec)100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170
Fig. II-T. Vertical Position Coordinate (ZF) Versus Time: Stage I Flight
_ 1 1A NFIDENTIAWE R 1 3 2 2 7 - 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
31/253
11-18 " CONFIDENTIAL
, . . - 1
P r e d i c t e d n o m i n a l w i n d ru n 8 0 - G T - 6 ( f in a l ) *GE Mo d I I I -G f in a l f l i g ht da t a*
.
P r e d i c t e d B E C O( 1 5 6 . 5 7 8 sec )* I n c l u d e sR a w i n s o n d e b a l lo o n da taC a p e K e n n e d y0 7 3 9 E S T , 15 Dec em b er 1965
70 8 0 9 0Tim e f ro m Lif to f f ( s e c )10 0 110 120 130 140 150 160 170
Fig . H-8 . Mach Number (M ) Versus Time: Stag e I Flight
CON FIDENER 1 3 2 2 7 - 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
32/253
^FIDENT!"MTIftlIUUIIIHL
1000
-1' 500
300
200
100
.
V
/,
//X/.//// '/'/ '
// .>
///./ // /// .'
- - * ^ \ .\- I n c l u d e sR a w i n s o n d e balloon dataC a p e K e n n e d y0 7 3 9 EST, 15 December 1965
V VV .\\ v .\ c\.\ \ *VV\ v\ V.V.V BECOX!- (157. 162 sec)x/ .X*.XN.Predicted BECO " v.( 1 5 6 . 578 sec) "7" ""
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
33/253
pj*i
1 1 - 2 0 CONFIDEN1
30
v\ .1
6 0 7 0 8 0Time f r o m Li f to f f ( s e c )
90
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 - 6 ( f in a l ) *G E M o d I I I - G f i n a l f l i g h t d a t a *
- ' I n c l u d e sR a w i n s o n d e b a l lo o n da taC a p e K e n n e d y0 7 3 9 E S T , 1 5 D e c e m b e r 1 9 6 5
B E C O( 1 5 7 . 1 6 2 s ec)
:
P r e d i c t e d B E C O :( 1 5 6 . 5 7 8 s ec)
100 110 120 130 140 150 160
F i g . 11-10. A x ia l Fo r ce V er s u s T ime : Stage I Flight
W 1 D E N T I A LCONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
34/253
60
P r e d i c t e d n o m i n a l w i n d ru n 8 Q - G T - 6 ( f i n a l ) *GE M od I I I - G f in a l f l ig h t data*
- I n c l u d e sR a w i n s o n d e b a l lo o n da taC a p e K e n n e d y0 7 3 9 EST, 15 D e c e m b e r 1965
IDEN7W II-21-2-B EC O( 15 7 . 162 sec)"
P r e d i c t e d B EC O( 1 5 6 . 5 7 8 sec)
60 70 8 0 9 0Time f ro m Liftoff (sec)
100 110 120 130 140 150 16 0
Fig. II-11. Aerodynamic Heating Indicator Versus Time: Stage I Flight
HUM?!!ER 1 3 2 2 7 - 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
35/253
1 1 - 2 2
II Pred i c ted n o m i n a l w i n d run 8 0 - G T - 6 ( f i n al ) *G E Mod I I I - G f i n a l f l i g h t data*
- ,-.
:.
20
10
- 10
- I n c l u d e sR a w i n s o n d e balloon dataC a p e K e n n e d y0 7 3 9 E S T , 15 December 1 9 6 5
BECO( 1 5 7 . 162 se c ) "
Predicted BECO( 1 5 6 . 578 se c )
-20
-3 0
-4 0 10 20 30 40 50 6 0 70 80 90 100Time from Liftoff (sec)
120 130 140 150 160 170
F i g . 11-12. Stage I Angle of Attack History
ER 13227-6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
36/253
W^^^^WP*^"23
Predicted nominal w i n d ru n 80-GT- 6 ( f i n a l ) *G E M od IH-G final f l i gh t data*
-
ato1
.-* -- -
-30
-40
.
-50
-60 30 50
''IncludesRawinsonde balloon dataCape Kennedy0739 EST, 15 Dece mber 1965
BECO( 1 5 7 . 162 sec)"
60 70 80 9C 100Time from Liftoff (sec)
110
Predicted BECO(156. 578 sec)
120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Fig. 11-13 Stage I Angle of Sideslip History
E R 1 3 2 2 7 - 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
37/253
2
11-24 -
26
24
22
Pred i c ted nominal wind run 8 0-GT-6 (final)5G E Mod III-G final flight d ata*
^I n clu desRawinsonde balloon dataCape Kennedy0739 EST, 15 December 1965
SECO + 20 (358. 737 sec)
Pred i c ted SECO + 20 (356. 894 sec)
140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340T i m e f r o m Li f to f f (sec)
360 380 400 420 440 460
-_^k 'TiM Fig . II- lA. Resultant Inertia! Velocity (V ) V er s u s Time: Stage II FlightER 13227-6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
38/253
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 - 6 ( f i n al ) *G E M od I I I - G f ina l f l igh t data*
..
R a w i n s o n d e b a l l o o n d a t aC a p e K e n n e d y0 7 3 9 EST, 1 5 D e c e m b e r 1965
S E C O + 2 0 (358. 737 sec)
Predicted S E C O + 2 0 ( 3 5 6 . 8 9 4 sec)
140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320Time f r o m L if to f f (sec)
340 360 380 400 420 440 460
Fig . II-15. Inertial Flight P a th A ngle ( ) V er s u s T ime : Stage II Flight
J G 8 N F I D E N T I A L ER 1 3 2 2 7 - 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
39/253
- 26
--
6 0 0 ,
56 0
5 2 0
48 0
44 0
40 0
2 360 !
320
280
; d n o m i n a l w in d r u n 8 0 - G T - 6 ( f i n a l )*I I I - G f i n a l f l i g h t data*
.
.
SE
"
SECO+ 20 (358.737 sec)
* I n c l u d e sR a w i n s o n d e b a l lo o n da taC a p e K e n n e d y0 7 3 9 EST, 1 5 D e c e m b e r 1965 Predicted SECO+ 20 (356. 894 sec)
140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280Time from L i f t o f f (sec)
30 0 320 340 3 6 0 3 8 0
Fig. II-16. Altitude Versus T i m e : Stage II Flight
(HIULNI HLER 13227- 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
40/253
4.0,
_ 3CD
0
Q
ir ' S E C O + 20 (358 73 7 sec)
; . . _ . ; _ L-
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 - 6 ( f in a l ) *GEMIn"Gflnafllht daa*
_, '_ i J i L_ V ' ~ i P r e d i c t e d S E C O + 20 (356. 894 sec)[- - . - ..1 ' t^ ' . > ,. I n c l u d e s_'_L' ,'-_ _t R a w i n s o n d e b a l lo o n d a t a !' r ' "' ' ' C a p e K e n n e d y 0 7 3 9 EST, 15 D e c e m b e r 1965 \ '~
~ Jr - - , f - - . "Lb"T '" J _l ! j - i 1-- - I W- ;~ ! - V - - ! :i - ' - : ; ' t i - > . -' - : 1_,4_;__
.*Li : _ i-4lt.--L: i L'. "-_u-J " .J LJ_J_ ' i i..'. ' ._ L ' 'i ' ' '_ ! _ _ _ . . -> . ! . i " " ' ~ i
- - ; I z l t - -, . _ - - -240 260 280 300 320 340 360 38040 160 180 200 220 ' - u _ ' - j i .!;_^i'4 0 0 4 2 0 4 4 0
Time f r o m Li f to f f (sec)
Fig. 11-17- Dovnrange Position Coordinate (X_)V er s u s T ime: Stage II flight
ER 13227- 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
41/253
- 28 40 >
-:.
-
;.n--rt.I.- -'
-120
-140
-160l
Predicted nominal wind run80-GT- 6 (final)* |GE Mod III-G final flight data*
] ^IncludesRawinsonde balloon dataCape Kennedy0739 EST, 15 December 1965 h ;!
;"~1-liS EC O + 20 ( 3 5 8 . 7 3 7 sec)
-$$
r*:t:fc
i-. . . . . . , . { . - : [ '"-^u- ;- -
*, I\
**
... , -i i ; . . i . j :.!.:.ISf-
--T" - :; - ' ; - _ , i ' i" I
Predicted S E C O + 2 0 (356. 894 sec)
-200120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 36 0 380 400Time f r o m Li f to f f (sec) 480
Fig. 11-18. Cross-Range Position Coordinate (Y )Versus Time: Stage Plight
ER 13227-6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
42/253
520
Pred i c ted no mi nal wind run 80-GT- 6 (final)*GE Mod III-G final flight data*
'
Rawinsonde balloon dataCape Kennedy0739 EST, 15 December 1965
SECO + 20 (358.737 sec)
Predicted SECO + 20 (356.894 sec)
4-,
140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340Time from L i f t o f f (sec)
38 0 400 420 440 46 0 480
Fig. 11-19. Vertical Position Coordinate (Zp) Versus Time: Stage Flight
* E R 1 3 2 2 7 - 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
43/253
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
44/253
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
45/253
- 32 - 650
50
aIX
-50
60 0
550nj
500
-100 450
-200
-250
- ~ - 'V
DQ -350-
-4001-
214. 7r
214.6
214.53>1 214.4
1.0
0.5
;II
5-kV
0.0
-0.5
214.3 -1.0
2 ,
: Cross -range velocity
\ Inertia! f l i gh t p a t h angleJLIiei L lc L i 1- *
! Cross range
i G r o u n d rang
SECO+ 20 sec334 33 6
SEC338 340 I342 3 44 34 6 3 48 3 50 35 2 3 54 35 6 35 8
Time from L i f t o f f (sec)360
Pig. H-22. GE Mod III-G Flight Data from SECO to SECO + 20 Seconds
ER 13227-6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
46/253
, ^B iCONFIDENTIAL
-400-500-600- 7 0 0-800-900
-1000-1100-1200-1300-1400
-1500-1600-1700-1800-1900-2000
Predicted nominal wind run 8 Q - G T - 6 (final)*GE Mod III- G final flight data*
*IncludesR a w i n s o n d e balloon dataCape K e n n e d y0739 EST, 15 December 1965
\ \\ \\ \
-SECO+ 20 (358.737 sec)
'
100
Predicted SECO + 20 (356. 894 sec)-120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320
Time from L i f t o f f (sec)
340 360
Fig. 11-23- Cross-Bange Velocity (Yp) Versus 1
' -
NFIDENTIER 13227-6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
47/253
200
100
- 1 0 0
.-
-200
-300
-400
-500
-600
-700
- 34 L
SECO + 20 (358.737 sec)
Predicted nominal wind run 80-GT- 6 (final)*GE Mod III-G final flight data*
100
IncludesRawinsonde balloon dataCape Kennedy0739 EST, 15 December 1965
Predicted SECO + 20 (356. 894 sec)
;
120 140 160 180 200 220Time from Liftoff (sec)
240 260 280 300 320 340 360
Fig. II-2k. YawSteering Velocity (VY) Versus Time
ER 13227-6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
48/253
- 35
110
100 -
Rawinsonde balloon dataCape Kennedy0739 EST, 15 December 1965
~ 60 -< L >
40
20 40W i n d Speed (kn)
- 300 280 260 240W i n d A z i m u t h (deg f r o m n o r t h )
Fig. 11-25. Wind Sp eed a n d A z i mut h V e r s u s Altitude
ER 13227- 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
49/253
I I - 3 6
110
100
Rawinsonde balloon dataCape Kennedy0739 EST, 15 December 1965
I Temperature
Pressure (psi)-80 -60 -40 -20
Temperature ( C )Fig. 11-26. A m b i e n t Temperature and Pressure Versus Altitude
+20
ER 1 3 2 2 7 - 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
50/253
^
FDNA
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
51/253
COE1376
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
52/253
7 . l l a s i m u m D yn am ic P r e s s u r e- - - -T h e m a x i m u m d y na m ic p r e s s u r e f o r t he G T - 6 t r a j e c t o r y \vas l e s st h a n d e s i g n l i m i t s . T a b l e 11-9 c o m p a r e s t he p r e d i c te d a n d o b s e r v e d
c o nd i ti o ns a s s o c i a t e d w i th t h e m a x i m u m d y n a m i c p r e s s u r e . The p r e -d o m i n a n t l y ta i l -m i n d e n v i r o n m e n t f o r t h i s f l ig h t i n i t s e l f r e d u c e s t h em a x i m u m d y na mi c p r e s s u r e . A p r e d i c t e d t r a j e c t o r y c o m p u t a ti o n f o ra no wind condi t ion showed tha t the max im um dynam ic p r es su re lvouldbe 737 . 5 p s i , a n d t h e p r e d i c t e d t r a j e c t o r y w it h T - 1 w i nd s , f r o m T a b le11-9, sho ws a va lue of 729. 7 ps i , ver i fying the effec t of a ta i l wind.H o w e v e r , t h e o b s e r v e d m a x i m u m d y n am i c p r e s s u r e w a s t h e s a m e a st h e p r e d i c t e d n o win d v a l u e . T h e r e f o r e , o t h e r f a c t o r s su c h as enginep e r f o r m a n c e a n d t he TARS p i tc h p r o g r a m m i n g c o m bi n e d to i n c r e a s et h e m a x i m u m d y n am i c p r e s s u r e s l i g ht l y c o m p a r e d t o t h e p re d i ct i on .
T A B L E 11-9T r a j e c t o r y P a r a m e t e r s a t M a xi m um Dy n am i c P r e s s u r e
I D y n am i c p r e s s u r e ( p sf )T i m e f r o m l if to ff ( s e c )Predicted:k(nomina l ) Obse rved**
Rela t ive wind veloci ty ( fps)Wind veloci ty ( fps)
I
Ma c h n u m b e rAlti tude (ft)Rela t ive f l ig ht pa th angl e (deg)
I W in d a z i m u t h ( d e g f r o m n o r t h ) 2 81Angle of a t t ack (deg) 0 .611.8947, 65046.28
Angle of s id es l ip (deg)*Ref. 10, u pdated ( see footnote to Tab le 11-7)**Mod 111-G 10 pps r ad a r da ta
0 . 8 6 -0 .24
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
53/253
I I - 40
8. Angles of Attack and SideslipP red icted 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 and atmo-sph eric infor m at ion obtained fro m the 0739 EST Rawinsonde sounding.Observed angles of attack and sideslip were derived using the Mod III-Gposition and velocity information, IG S attitude data and the aforemen-tioned weather data.
. PAYLOAD CAPABILITYP rop ellants rem aining onboa rd afte r Stage II low level sensor un-cover indicat ed tha t a bu rning tim e m argin (BTM) of 2. 348 seconds
existed to a com ma nd shut do wn. The tot al pro pellant weight ma rginwas 767 pounds, and the corresponding G LV payload capability was8655 pounds. These values and the predicted nominal and minimumvalues appear in Fig. 11- 29. The predicted capability curves weretaken from the G LV- 6 preflight report (Ref. 13), updated to incorporatethe 81.4- de gree launch azim ut h, yaw steering to correct for the 0. 2002-degree wedge angle, revised guidance consta nts, and the - 1.07% pitchand - 1 .4% roll programmer biases. The predicted propellant weightand burning time margins are based on the differe nce between thesecurves and the 7821- pou nd spacecraft weight.Real- time payload predictions differed from the predictions shown
in Fig. 11- 29 because extr apo late d actual propellant tem pe rat ur es wereused instead of preflight p redicted propellant t em pera tu res. The lastpayload prediction indicated that th e minimu m payload c ap ability was275 pounds more than the spacecraft weight, and the nominal payloadca pa bility was 878 pounds greater than the spac ecr aft weight at the pre-dicted launch tim e. The act ua l (postflight re co nstr u ct ed ) G LV capa bilitywas 834 po und s greater than the spac ecr aft weight.
C. STAGINGThe staging sequence was normal and physical stage separation oc-
curred as planned. The time interval from staging signal (87FS 9/ 91FS1)to start of Stage I I engine chamber pressure (P ) rise was 0. 667 sec-C3ond. This co m pa res'favora bly with the nominal expected time of 0. 70*0.08 second. Stage separation occurred 0.015 second following startof P rise.
C3
ER 13227- 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
54/253
>ENTIAL - 41
D. WEIGHT STATEMENTTable 11-10 shows the G T- 6 weight history from launch to orbitalinsertion.The postflight weight report (Ref. 11) provides the background datafor this summary. The report includes a list of dry weight emptych anges a t ETR and shows a derivation of weight em pt y fro m th e a ctu alvehicle weighing. Other i tems covered include the derivation of burn-out, BECO, SECO and shutd own weight s; weight co m par isons with theBLH data; and the center of gravity travel envelope as a function ofburn time for the horizontal, vertical and lateral planes.
TABLE 11-10G T - 6 Weight Summary
Loaded weightStart and grain lossesTrajectory LO weightPropellant consumedto BECOCoolant waterFuel bleedWeight at BECOShutdown propellantStage I burnoutStage II engine startGrain lossStage II LOPropellant consumedto SECOAblative, covers andcoolant waterStage II at SECO
Weight (Ib)Step I
272,9253,617(3)
269,308257, 533
0
11, 775164
11,611(2)11,611
Step II65,343
65,343
1165,332
65, 332188
365,14158,754
206,367
Step III7, 821
7 , 821
7,821
7,821
7,821
7,821
Stage Total346,089
342,472
84,928
84,764
72, 962
14,188(4)
CONFIDENTIALER 13227- 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
55/253
II-42
TABLE II-10 (continued)
Shutdown propellantWeight at SECO + 20seconds
Weight (Ib)Step I Step II
13 66 , 2 3 1
Step I I I
7,821
S ta g e Total
14,052 ( 4 )
( 1) Information f r o m N A S A - H o u s t o n(2) Includes outage: 834-lb Stage I; 255-lb Stage II(3 ) Event: launch bolts blown(4) Includes 76 7 I b o f usable propellant
ER 13227-6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
56/253
II-43
G T- 6A Flight Test Values
L
Spacecraft weight = 7821 I b
Y, Phase pane / ' / 20 40 80 100
Time i n L a u n c h W i n d o w ( n i i n )Fig. 11-29. Payload Capability
Targe t ing ;change120 1 4 0
E R 1 3 2 2 7 - 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
57/253
- 1
III. PROPULSION SYSTEMA. LAUNCH ATTEMPT ( 12 DECEMBER 1965)
Th e launch of GLV-6 on 12 December 1965 was automatically ter-minated at 87FS + 1. 158 seconds due to premature separation of theelectrical tail plug disconnect 3D1M.
GLV-6 Stage I engine experienced a normal start transient throughthru st cham ber ignition and into secondary rise until start cartridgeburnout and gas generator ignition. S/ A 1 s ta r t transient appearednominal and nearly reached equilibrium conditions at the time the shut-down comm and was initiated. S/A 2 thru st chamber pressure rise wasnormal th rough the completion of start cartridge burning, but the sub-assembly failed to achieve satisfacto ry bo otstr app ing and all parameterss ta r ted to decay abnormally at 87FS. + 1. 05 seconds. S/A 2 datashowed that sufficient energy was generated by the start cartridge toprovide proper bootstr apping operat ion. Gas generator c ombust ion inS/ A 2 apparently was not sustained, and a restric tion in propellantflow to the gas generator was the suspect ed cause.
To determine th e exact cause of engine perfo rma nce decay, t he S/A2 gas generator, fuel and oxidizer bootstrap lines, fuel and oxidizercheck valves and s t ra in ers were removed for inspection. A smal lplastic dust cap was found lodged in the gas generator oxidizer injectorinlet, which prevented oxidizer flow to the gas generat or.
As sho wn in Figs. I I I - l and III -2, both S/A 1 MDTCPS and S/A 2MDTCPS actuated and de-actu ated during the flight attempt. S/A 1chamber p r e s s u r e exceeded the TCPS actuation tolerance band (600 to640 psia); there fore, it is conc luded that S/A 1 TCPS had actu ated .As shown in Fig. III- l, S/A 2 chamber pressure reached th e TCPSactuation limits only mom entarily. Both subassem bly switch es mustactua te before TCPS make signal is given, and because this signal wasnot given for GLV-6 a t t e m pt , it was assumed that S/A 2 TCPS did notmake.It was concluded that, had the disconnect malfunction not initiatedshutdown, the engine would have received a shutdown c o m m a nd a t +2. 2 seconds due to TCPS not being actuated.The fuel autogenous system was functioning normally, which is in-dicated by the fuel pressuran t differential pressure switch (FP DPS)actuation at 87FS + 0. 98 second as shown in Fig. I I I -3. The oxidizer
pressuran t orifice inlet pressure (POPOJ) also shown in Fig. III- 3 didnot reach the OPPS actu ation l imits of 300 to 445 psia; hence, OPPS didnot actuate. POPOI reached a maximum of only 212 psia.
ER 13227-6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
58/253
' . t - -1000
900
--.':
.
-
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
P (Meas 0003)
M D T C P S (Meas 0356)
: *
0. 5Time from 87FS1 (sec)
Fig. III-l. Launch Attempt S/A 1 Start Transient 1
^ BW1*J l~ *
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
59/253
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
100
M D T C P S ( M e a s 0 3 5 7)
-I J L_
III-3
200
0. 5 1.0 1.5Time f r o m 8 7 F S . (sec)
2. 0 2. 5 3.0Fig. III-2. Launch Attempt S/A2 Start Transient
ER 13227-6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
60/253
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
61/253
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
62/253
1000
800
--
60 0
-I 400
2 0 0 ;
1 1 1
87FS
j^
V S .. MDTCPS (Meas 0356)
_
1I + 0 . 5 + 1.0 + 1. 5
Time from 87FS. (sec)+2.0 +2.5 + 3 . 0
>NFIDENTIAL Fig. IH-k. S/ A1 Start TransientER 13227-6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
63/253
I l l -7
P transducer was wrapped with additional thermal insulation toC levaluate the effects of thermal environment on transducer dri ft.
Following the 25 October 1965 countdown and during the time ofGLV-6 bonded s torage , al l prevalves were removed. New prevalveswere installed prior to the 12 December 1965 launch a t t e m pt .b. Start transientTh e S/A 1 and S/A 2 thrust chambe r s ta r t transients were normalas shown in Figs. III- 4 and I I I -5. The ignition spikes indicated 89%of ra ted thru st for both S/ A 1 and S/A 2, which is above the enginemodel specification allowable (75%). However, the Gemini P instru-
mentation has charact eristically shown undamped oscillations whichobscure the true transient performance and prevent accurate deter-mination of the ignition spikes. Significant start events are presentedin Table III- l.
TABLE III- lStage I Engine Star t Parameters
ParameterFS , to initial P rise (sec)1 P ignition spike (psia)P step (psia)P overshoot (psia)
S/ A 10.736692465None
S / A 20. 751696445None
c. Steady- state perform anceStage I engine flight performa nce agreed c losely with the preflightpredict ion. Flight integrated average performance parameters werewithin 1. 0% of t he preflight predicted.Engine performance was calculated from measured flight data withth e Martin-Baltimore P RESTO program and used th e Stage I th rus tcoefficient relationship as modified by Mart in. Th e modification in-creased thru st and specific impu lse app roximat ely 3400 pounds and2. 0 seconds, respectively, above th e values calculated with th e Aerojetth rus t coefficient re lationship. The Martin-modified thrust coefficientalso was used in the preflight pr edictions.
)NFIDE J T I A j f cER 13227-6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
64/253
CONFIDENTIAL 1 1
I_--
-- -
L U O U
800
60 0
400
200
0,
NF
'
,
''
"...-..~.
t
f %i !
IDENTIAL 13227 -6
"..~~
* 11V+0.5
I
:~f.Jsi
i
/p*
. J/ *r
/1i f wif;.
.
Aif
.,;
+1.0
.:
tflW*fy*\*sr
i
.
J . . '
^nA*
.....
W4f** Y*V
.
.
P (Meas 0004)C2
lyxV*"4*
-
+ 1.5Tme from 87FS (sec)
7*~MDTC..........
.
nA*%JWf*-
:PS(Mea-
\
1 '
s 0357)
/w
+ 2.0
-WfDENTIAL
vvwvWW
i .
+ 2.5
Fg. III-5
1
WuVrfV... . :
;
- .
.- i
.
w _
'
+ 3.0
S A 2 Start Transent
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
65/253
Ill-9
The Stage I engine average flight performance, integrated froml i f to f f to 87F S, is compared with the preflight prediction in Table III-2.
TABLE III-2Predicted and Flight Performanc e Compari son--St age I Engine
ParameterThrust, engine (Ib)Specific impulse, engine (sec)Mixture ratio, engineOxidizer f l o w rate,overboard (Ib/sec)Fuel flow rate, overboard(Ib/sec)
Preflight*Average455,7422 7 6 . 851.9248
1 0 8 2 . 97
5 6 3 . 17
Flight*Average453,7932 7 7 . 271 93811079 295 5 7 3 8
D i f f e r e n c e(% )- 0 . 4 3+0. 15+0. 69-0. 34
-1 03*Martm-Baltimore modified thrust coefficient relationship used
Engine perform ance calculated throughout the Stage I flight is pre-sented in Fig. Ill-6. The preflight prediction is also shown forcomparison.The S/A 1 thrust chamber pressure transducer was wrapped withfour times the normal amount of thermal insulatio n. The extra i nsula-tion was used on the transducer to verify that the P transd ucer drift
was due to thermal effects and to confine the drift to acceptable limitsRecons tructed data showed that the P tran sduce r, which had normalC2insulation, began to drift at approximately 87FS + 80 seconds anddrifted approxim ately -2% (normal for S/A 2 as established from pre-vious Gemini flights) P data showed no negative drift, verifying thecltheory that P drift was due to the excessive thermal environment.
Stage I engine flight performance calculated at the 87FS.. + 55 secondtime slice and corrected to standard inlet conditions is shown in TableIII-3. This is compared to the acceptance test and the predicted flightperformance at standard inlet conditions and the nominal time as used
ER 1 3 2 2 7 - 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
66/253
CONFIDENTIAL
|-600 580|2560 >>
aj 540 n)
U(p f.-DO
U1DO
:-aa
1-0)1120
1100108010601040
- ^
- g0)
- 'SoW-^
2.001.951.901.851.801.75
. >U
28528027527 0265260255
i .h
-
490480470460450440430420410
. _ > _ &_0
Q Q Q G
20 10 6 0 I 100 120 140 160Lift-|off8 7 F S ,
T i m e f r o m 87FS. (sec)
A v e r a g e E n g i n e P e r f o r m a n c e I n t e g r a t e df r o m Liftoff to 87FS.
S y m b o lF t(lb) '8"MR eW ( I b / s e c )W fo ( l b / s e c )
Pre f l i g h tP r e d i c t i o n4 5 5 . 7 4 22 7 6 . 8 51 . 9 2 4 81 0 8 2 . 9 7563. 17
F l i g h tA v e r a g e4 5 3 . 7 9 32 7 7 . 2 71.93811 0 7 9 . 2 95 5 7 . 3 8
P r e f l i g h t p r e d i c t i o n F l i g h t p e r f o r m a n c e
Fig. III-. Stage I Engine Flight Performance
CONFIDENTIALER 13227-6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
67/253
in the r e f O . he ~ ~ e d i c t elight perJmanCe a t standard'OnditiOns LVaS ob ta ine d by modif yin g the nomi na l acc ep tan ce test dataa 4 8 5 0 - ~ 0 u n d c c ep t an c e - to -fligh t th ru st growth obtained from analv-of PI.evious Titan I1 and G Lv flights.
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
68/253
III-12 ITIAL
TABLE III-4Stage I Engine Shutdown Parameters
ParameterTime from P decay to 87FS (sec)P at 87FS (psia)Time from FS9 to data dropout (sec)P at data dropout (psia)
S / A 10 . 72000.7150
S / A 20 . 72500.7148
e. Engine malfunction detection system (MDS)The Stage I engine MDSoperated satisfactorily and within specifiedlimits throughout the flight. Figures III-4 and III-5 illustrate responsetimes and actuation levels of the malfunction detection thrust chamberpressure switches (MDTCPS) during engine start for S/A 1 and S/A 2,respectively. Figures III-7 and III-8 show deactuation times and levelsduring shutdown for S/A 1 and S/A 2, respectively.A summary of the operating characteristics of the switches is tabu-lated in Table III-5.
TABLE III-5Stage I MDTCPS Operation
SwitchS/A 1S / A 2
ActuationTime (sec)FS1 + 0. 900FS- + 0. 920
Pressure (psia)585575
DeactuationTime (sec)FS - 0. 047FS - 0. 045
Specification RequirementsActuation 540 to 600 psiaDeactuation 585 to 515 psia
Pressure (psia)550530
ON FIDENER 13227-6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
69/253
1000
800
IH-13/5V
i-4001200
P (Meas 0003)t spPgflSM
-2
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
70/253
m - 1 4l O O O ONFIDENTIAL
(Meas 0004)1
w3 600'Staging "j.blackout .
M DT CP S (M e a ' s 0357)f j ;_ ; *^ * \ivieas UO O""'-' - ..j..."- ' 1 ' ' J :till-1.0
I + 1.0' \Time from 87FS2 (sec) 87FS +
Fig. III-8. S/A 2 Shutdown Transient
CONFIDENTIALER 13227-6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
71/253
ONFIDENTIAL I I I - 1 5
f. Engine prelaunch malfunction detection system ( P M D S )All PMDS switches actuated within specified actuation times andpressures as shown in Table III-6. As a result of the later than ex-pected OPPS actuati on on GLV-7 launch, the oxidizer pressurant backpressure orifice diameter was c hanged from 0. 50 inch to 0. 46 inch.The smaller back pressure orifice increased the oxidizer pressurantorifice inlet pressure (POPOI); consequently, the OPPS actuated earlierthan on previous Gemini flights and substantially earlier than the inter-rogation time (T-0 + 2 . 2 seconds), as shown in Fig. III-9.
TABLE III-6Stage I PMDS Operation
Actuation timeMeasured time from87FS (sec)Measured time fromTO (sec)Required time (sec)*
Actuation pressureMeasured (psia)Required (psia)
TCPS
0. 981
1. 043T+2. 2#*60 0 to 640
OPPS
1. 5781 . 640T + 2 . 242 436 0 to 445
FPDPS
0 . 9 1 20 . 9 7 4T + 2 . 2**46 to 79 (psid)
*The shutdown'timers start from Tn.**Not instrumented.2. Stage II Engine (YLR91-AJ-7 S /N 2 0 0 7 )
a. Configuration and special proceduresThe GLV-6 Stage II engine configuration was identical to that of GLV-7.During the time of GLV-6 storage, afte r the 25 October 1965 launchattempt, the Stage II gas generator was removed and returned to Aerojet,Sacramento, for cleaning.
E R 1 3 2 2 7 - 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
72/253
- /6 - 1-M l'
a :_1- .iL-1
"1J
I-3.-
i---_.i,
600
1 0
300
150
0
(
-
)x i d i z
.-
I
sr pre SSIr_ irant pre'
(
3SU releas 2105
+ 0.5
.)sw i t c h i ( O P P S )
'
P O P O l 2 ( M e a s
*
I3PPSsresst~a n g e
'
;
"m ak e
0026)
.
+ 1.0
..
II
'
. **
_
.
Ii1111L
'
*
'
+ 1. 5
. ,
1
:
,.
"~~^ OPPS' i n t e ri.
:
rogati:
on
'
.
..
+ 2.0 +2. 5 + 3.8 7 F S , T i m e , f r o m T - 0 (sec)
F i g . III-9. S/A2 Start T ran si e n t
CONFIDENTIALER 13227-6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
73/253
After the 12 December 1965 launch a ttempt, Stage I1 r e c yc le r e qui r e -ments were based on Aeroje t Engine Test Directive 2, 1-3. 4E. The TPAoil rvas changed as a precautionary measu re . The prevalves remainedinsta lled, and re loading the propellants direc tly on the thrust chambervalves had no adverse effec t on the engine system.. b. Start transient
Stage I1 engine s tart transient was normal, as i l lustra ted by thethrust chamber pressure in Fig. 111-10. Significant engine s tar t eventsa r e pr e s e nte d in Ta ble 111-7.
TABLE 111-7Stage I1 Engine Start Parameters
PC ignition spike (psia)3
Pa ra m e te rFS1 to initia l PC r i s e ( s e c )
3
Flight Performance0. 651
1 I 1:::Staging blackout period.
/ pc 3 overshoot (psia)
c . Steady-sta te performance
Not available::< I
Stage I1 engine s teady-sta te f l ight performance was sa tisfac torythroughout f l ight and agreed c losely with preflight predic tions. The
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
74/253
CONFIDENTIAL J J T O F f f l E N T I A L1 0 0 0
800
00
j 600 -gor.i-- 400
200
Time from 91FS1 (sec)+ 3 . 0
Fig . 111-10. S/A 3 Start Tr s ms ien tCONFIDENTIALE R 1 3 2 2 7 - 6 C O N F I D E N T I A L
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
75/253
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
76/253
0 CONFIDEN1- m i B E N T I A L
" 104
--.
1.85rt(
-.I01.s
01-
-_< :
"F
V "-- +1 _-0r_ -
hr-i
,
xt
1
1
.
:
+ 291FSr Time fro m 91FS? (sec)
Fig. 111-12. S/A 3 Shutdown Transient
CONFIDENTIALER 1 3 227-6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
79/253
C O N F I D E N T I A L C fW - 23 ^5 0 0 0
40 0 0
30 0 0
2000 h
1000
1 Fig. 111-13. Stage Engine Thrust Tail-OffCONFIDFMTi A i
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
80/253
III-2 4 CONFIDENTIAL
switches (MDFJPS) during the start and s h u t d o w n transients, respec-tively. The f u e l injector pressure is not instrume nted and, ther efore,is not available. A summary of the significant switch parameters ispresented in Table III- 10.TABLE III- 10
Stage II MDS OperationParameter
A c t u a t i o n time (sec)P at actuat ion (psia)D e a c t u a t i o n time (sec)P at deactua tion (psia)
91FS. + 0 . 7 3 752 091FS + 0 . 14 045 0
. PR OPELLANT SUBSYSTEM1. Propellant Loading
a. Loading procedureFive propellant loadings were performed on G L V - 6 , consisting ofthe RTP and W M S L exercises, two launch attempts and the actuallaunch. (See Table III -11.)
TABLE I I I - 1 1G L V - 6 Loadings
OperationRTPW M S L1st l a u n c h attempt2n d launch attemptL a u n c h
DescriptionD u a l loadingD u a l loadingD u a l loadingD u a l loadingD u a l loading
Date28 September 19657 October 196524 October 196512 December 196515 December 1965
All loadings were made using the tandem flowmeter system installedafter the l a u n c h of GT- 5. No serious ground or airborne hardware
CONFIDENTIALER 13227-6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
81/253
prob l em s o r c u r r e d d u r i n g the f ive propellan!. Inadings; h o \ \ c v ~ : - ~ ,! i~nl!3~:rf fluv:rneters \rVere enloved folio\ring the 15.21SL a n d ai;a.iilfollc\~:inethe 1 2 Octobe r 1965 iaunch a t tempt .
Tile check ca l ibra t ion results of the flow meter^ removecl fro111 t h es ~ ~ s t e n :r e pr e s e n t e d i n T a l ~ l e 11- 13. These data h a ~ ~ e1een upplietlto t he i i f f c r e nc e s obse rl -ec l b ~ t~ x . e e nloxvmeter and t a b r .un ~ v h e r c \ . ~ rappl icable .
F low m e t e r V e r i f i ca t i on R e s u l t s
The tab r u n s u s e d fo r the f ive loading opera t ion s lx!ere d er i ve d a sfol lows:
-1'est i \ f ter[Vhich \letel*[['as Checked
IVlISL
WXISL
LVMSL
\YITS -
(1) R T P Obta ined f r om Denver t an k cal ibra t ion da ta .2 W?;ISL Obta ined f ro m D e n v e r t ank ca l ibra t ion da ta .
AIeterPos i t ion
Stzge I fue l
S tage I fue l
S tage I1 fuel
S tage I1 fue l
( 3 ) First Launch Or ig ina l t ab run c o r r e c t e d f o r R T P an d:Ittempt WAISL r e s u l t s i ncluding f low m e te r ve r i f i -c a t i ons a f t e r t he W!lISJ,.
S t a g e I I f u e l
l l e t e rN o .
2 0 2 146 3Iarti11-Denver D e n v e r109 1 7 2 Mart in- XIar t in -
\ l a r in -
206361
20636 1
Denver 1 D e n v e rDenver
Denverh l a r t i n -DenverM a r t i n --
S t a g e I f u e l1st !at:nch Denvera t t e m pt i Stag e I1 fuel 199170 / Ma r t in -II j Denver
Denx~erf i la r t in-DenverLf'yle- -Lla r t in- 1 +0. 1
+O . 3 9
+O. 14
DenverMa r t i n -Denver [email protected]
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
82/253
Ill-26
Stage IFuelN o change
Stage IIFuel-0. 31%
Stage IOxidizer+ 0 . 14%
Stage IIOxidizerN o change
( 4 ) Second Launchattempt Tab runs revised to account for results offirst three tests, flowmeter verificationsafter the first launch attempt and the d i f f e r -ence between Denver and Wyle calibrationfacilities. Changes below are from originaltab run.
Stage IFuel+0 . 0 4%
Stage IIFuel-0. 30%
Stage IOxidizer-0. 11%
Stage IIOxidizer- 0 . 2 3 %
( 5 ) Launch Tab run pounds changed to account for openprevalves; otherwise same as that for sec-on d launch attempt.Tests at the Denver and Wyle calibration facilities have establishedthat, if a f u e l or oxidizer flowmeter calibrated at Martin-Denver isassumed to be correct, a corresponding Wyle meter will read about0. 3% higher. It is not k n o w n which facility is more nearly correct;however, the launch loading was based on the Martin-Denver calibratedflowmeters being correct. This, in e f f e c t , decreased the Wyle cali-brated flowmeter/tab run errors by 0. 3% and established the leastprobability of payload loss.A detailed summary of results of the f ive propellant loadings madefor GLV-6 is shown in Table III 13.
E R 1 3 2 2 7 - 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
83/253
NFIDENTIAL - 27
TABLE III-13Summary of Propel lant Load Verification
L o a d i n gEventRTF
WMSL
FirstL a u n c hattempt
SecondL a u n c hattempt
Launch
TankStage I f u e lStage II fuelStage I oxidizerStage II oxidizer
Stage I fuelStage II fuelStage 1 oxidizerStage II oxidizer
Stage I fuelStage II fuelStage I oxidizerStage II oxidizer
Stage I f u e lStage II fuelStage I oxidizerStage II oxidizer
Stage I fuelStage II fuelStage I oxidizerStage II oxidizer
Flowmeter
SerialNo.2021941991722063611991702042772063592061681991732021461991722063611991702 0 4 2 7 7206359199168199173199169202146199171199170SPOOL202164199168199173206362202146206361204278206360202164199168199167206362202146206361204278206360202164199168199167
FTPSNo.441
441144544194424412446
44204414411445
4419442
4412446442044144114454419442
44124464420441441144544194424412446442044144114454 4 1 944244124464420
ConnectedtoCP 2500Counters
XXX
XX
XX
X
XX
XX
XXXX
XXXX
Calibra-tion Facil -ity (1)DDDDWWWWDDDDWWWWDDDD-WWWWDWDWWWWWDWDWWWW
H i - LiteTemper -a tu r e (*F)44.044.046.946.948.648.649.849.829.929.930.830.826.926.929.429.434.534.533.833.836.236.237. 537.528.228.229.029.026.626.627.627.629.229.230.030.029.429.429.829.8
DifferenceBetweenFlowmeteran d ActualTab Run Nom(% ) (2 )+ 0 . 141+0.398+ 0.086- 0.070+ 0.168+ 0.318+ 0. I ll+ 0.152+ 0.358+ 0.645+ 0.174+ 0.008+ 0.082+ 0.084+ 0.032- 0.109+0. 584+ 0.006+ 0.065+ 0.170- -+0. 153+ 0.147+ 0.081+ 0.469- 0.022+ 0.477+ 0.243+ 0.274+ 0.378+ 0.355+ 0. 113+ 0.497- 0.001+ 0. 516+ 0.268+ 0.288+ 0.420+0.364+ 0.183
DifferneceBetweenFlowmelerand FirstTab Run(% ) (3 )- 0.025- 0. 192- 0.304- 0.340+ 0.168+ 0.318+ 0. I ll+ 0.152+ 0. 192+ 0.065- 0.216- 0.262+ 0.082+ 0.084+ 0.032- 0.109+ 0.174+ 0.006- 0.245- 0.410- -+ 0.293+ 0. 147+ 0.081+ 0.509+ 0.018+ 0 .1 7 7- 0.057+ 0.164+ 0.268+ 0. 125- 0. 117+ 0.537+ 0.039+ 0.216- 0.032+ 0.178+ 0.310+ 0. 134- 0.047
Allow-ableToler-ance(%)
t o .
tO. 110.31*0. 1
AverageLoad- inFlow Rate(gpm)2 4 312 1205
97
23010917 585
(1 ) W Wyle laboratories D = Martin- Denver(2) Actual difference observed during loading, no t corrected for meter verification where applicable.(3) Difference from RTF or WMSL tab run corrected for f low ra te and meter verification resul ts whereapplicable. (Does no t include any meter bias.)
CONFIDENTIALER 13227- 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
84/253
Ill- 2 8
The sequence of pro pellant loading events is given in Table III - 14.
TABLE I I I -14G T ~ 6 Launch Propellant Loading Schedule
EventStart pre chillStart loadHi- liteLoad complete
Time (EST) 14 Dec, 1965Stage IOxidizer
19352012
21422155
Stage IIOxidizer19352013
20502108
Stage IFuel2205223023252333
Stage IIFuel2205223023022307
Mission loads for the oxidizer tanks were obtained by using theK- fac tor ratio technique. This was in accord with a Martin Company/SSD agreement that an oxidizer flo wm e t e r / t a b run e r r o r of more than+ 0. 1% at hi- lite would constitute an out ~of- tolerance condition.A flowmete r - t o - t ab run comparison is shown in Figs. I l l- 14 and1 - 15. In each figure, the data are referenced to the tank calibration
made at Denver (which is synonymous to the special loading tab run).The data fo r Wyle calibrated m e t e r s are not corrected for the differ-ence between Denver and Wyle facilities. In Fig. Ill- 14 the applicationo f the - 0. 3% correction to all Wyle resu l t s will account for the place-ment of the launch tab shift.b. Total propellant loadsTotal mission loads for the launch, as det erm ined from flowm ete rs,are shown in Table III - 15. The flowm et er tot alizer r ea dings wer e c or-rected by subtr ac ting prop ellant vapo rized and propellant remaining inthe fill lines. Oxidizer flowmeter loads reflect the use of the K- fac to rratio method to obtain m ission load s. Total pr op ellant loads as deter -mined by flight verification are also shown in Table III- 15. The flightverification loads were calculated from a pr op ellant invento ry, u singactual level sensor uncover t imes and tank calibration data to determineflow ra tes . Tot al, integra ted , in- flight overboard prop ellant con-sumption was f o u n d using the engine analytical model. Engine starttra nsient co nsum pt ions were der ived from Aero jet sum m ary repor t s .Other t ransient propellant consumptions and pressurization ga s weightswere calcu lated from flight d at a (T ables - 36 and - 37).
CONFIDENTIALER 13227- 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
85/253
CONFIDENTIAL 111- 29
Data are correc ted fo r flow rate and me ter verification resul ts , whereavailable. All data are referenced to original tank calibration and representthe percent error of the flowmeter resul t at hi- lite from the original calibration.
Stage I- r 0.5
-- 0.4
202164 L - r 0.3
- - 0 .2206360 L
Launch ,t ab shif t '
- - 0 . 1
206359 RTF202164 LA 1202164 LA 2204277 RT F
2 06 36 0 L A 2- 206359 WMSL 2 04 27 7 WMSL
- - 0
r v- - - o . 1
- - - 0 . 2
- "- - . 3Note: All meters are Wyle calibrated
LEGENDR T F = first loadingWMSL = w e t mockLA 1 =25 October 1965 launch attemptLA 2 = 12 December 1965 launch attemptL = launch
Stage II- 0.5
-- 0.4
-- 0.3
0. 2 199168 L-
199167 L
Launch , r ^t ab shift 1- u '
- - 0. 1
199173 RTF199168 LA 1199168 LA 2206168 RT F199173 LA 1
199168 WMSL- - 0
0. 1 199173 WMSL199167 LA 2
- 0.2
-"--0.3
Fig. III-lA. GLV- Loading SummaryOxidizer
CONFIDENTIALER 13227 - 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
86/253
111-30 CONFIDENTIALData are correc ted fo r flow r a te and met e r verification results, whereavailable. All data are referenced to original tank calibration and representthe percent error of the flowmeter result at hi- lite from the original calibration.
W 202362 L
Stage I- i- O. 6
05*- W 202362 LA 2
-0. 4
- -0 .3
0. 2- = ,
D 202146 LLaunch ,- -tab shift ' '
- - 0 . 1D 202146 WMSLD 199169 L A 1D 199172 WMSLD 202146 LA 2D 202146 LA 1D 202146 RTF0. 1
_ 0 2_ r D 199172 RT F
0. 3
0.4
-"-- . 5
W 206361 L -
Stage II- T - 0 . 6
--0. 5
- -0. 4
--0. 3
2
- - 0 . 1
D 204278 L
- 0. 2-jLaunch , Jt ab shift L i
-0.4--
W 206361 L A 2
D 204278 L A 20.1
-0. 3
D 206361 WMSLD 199171 L A 1D 199170 WMSLD 206361 RTFD 199170 RTFD 199170 LA 1
- L-0. 5
LEGENDD = DenverW = WyleRTF = first loadingWMSL = w e t mockLA 1 = 25 October 1965 launch attemptLA 2 = 12 December 1965 launch at temptL = launch
Fig. 111-15. GLV-6 Loading Summary--Fuel
CONFIDENTIALE R 1 3 2 2 7 - 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
87/253
p
3r50|>Q08005>4~)CU01_Q3)~
,
->*4
8~&
rf(0)_g-:-(1.id-CODNA
E16
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
88/253
I l l- 3 2
. P r o p e l l a n t assayP r e l a u n c h d a t a f r o m t h e p r o p e l l a n t assay repor t ( s a m p l e d o n
6 D e c e m b e r 1 9 6 5 ) fo r o x i d i z e r a n d f u e l a r e presented i n Table I I I - 1 6 .S p e c i f i c a t i o n values are also listed. G o o d agreement was o b t a i n e db e t w e e n t h e analysis a n d s p e c i f i c a t i o n requirements. D a t a a r e f r o mt h e pr imary R S V p r o p e l l a n t s w h i c h were u s e d t o load t h e v e h i c l e .
T A B L E I I I - 1 6P r o p e l l a n t Assay S u m m a r y
F u e l A I I L - P - 2 7 4 0 2 ( U S A F )H y d r a z i n eU D M HH9OT o t a l X0H4 + U D M HS o l i d sPart ic les o n 5 0 mesh screenD e n si t y ( g m / c c ) at 77 FOxidizer M I L - P - 2 6 5 3 9 ( U S A F )N i t ro g e n t e t r o x i d e ( N 9 O . )C h l o r i d e as N O C 1H 9 O e q u i v a l e n tSolidsN o n v o l a t i le ashPart ic les o n 5 0 mesh screen
Test5 1 . 7 %47 . 9%0 . 4 %9 9 . 6 %0 . 2 m g / l i t e r00 . 8 9 9 9Test9 9 . 8 %
*0 . 0 1 %
00
R e q u i r e m e n t51 . 0 . 9%4 6 . 9 % m i n2. 0% max98% min25 m g / l it e r0
- -Requi rement99. 4% min
- -0 . 2 %1 0 m g / l it e r
- -0
; N o t r e p o r t e d .
ER 13227- 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
89/253
Ill-33
2. Propellant Temperaturea. WeatherA comparison of the F-45 day prediction, the F~l day predictionand the actu al weather for the 15 December launch of GT~6 is presentedin Table III- 17. The F-45 day prediction was based on weather for ahot December through M arch day. There was, in general, better agree-ment between the F-45 day prediction and actual weather than betweenbetween the F- l day prediction and actual.Predicted wind speed average was approximately 52%higher thanactual.
TABLE III- 17Predicted and Actu al Weathe r Conditions for G T - 6 Launch
Time(est)2100 02200 Q2300 200000100020003000400 0500 0600 0700 Q0800 -0900100011001200
Dr y BulbTemperature (F)F-457 1 . 270. 770. 169. 869. 569.369. 068.868. 768.568.470. 972. 875.076.477.2
F- l6 7 . 0
63.0
59.0
59.0
63.0
68. 0
A c t u a l68.068. 268.468.868. 569. 069.370.569,268. 467. 367. 370.1
Dew PointTemperature ( F)F-4565.865.364. 964. 664. 464,264. 063. 963. 763. 664. 966. 167.266.268. 869.2
F- l61. 0
58.0
53.0
55. 0
57. 0
60. 0
Actual66. 066.066. 066. 066.066. 066.066.066. 065.064.064.066. 0
W i n d Speed (kn)F- 45
7777777777779
101212
F- l7
6
6
6
9
13
Actual3144746776567
Cloud CoverF- 450. 50.50.50. 40. 50.50. 50. 50.50.50. 60. 60. 60. 60. 60. 6
F- l0. 2
0.2
0. 2
0. 3
0. 4
0.4
Actual0.80. 61.01.00.80. 80. 60.80. 80.60. 60. 50. 4
b. Propellant loading temperatures
Table 111-18 compares the requested propellant temperatures at theRSV (at start of loading) and the tank bottom probe (at hi- lite) with themeasured propellant temperatures.
ER 13227- 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
90/253
- 34
TABLE - 18Propel lant Tem perat ure Com parison- -RSV and Ta nk Bottom Pro be
SystemStage I fuelStage II fuelStage I oxidizerStage II oxidizer
RSV Tempera tu r e ( F)Requested26. 726. 725.525. 5
Actual26 .526.525.525. 5
0.20.2
00
Tank Bottom ProbeTempera tu r e ( F)Requested28.428.527 . 929 . 7
Actual28.228. 529. 828.8
- 0. 2- i . o+ 1.9- 0. 9
The requested oxidizer RSV tem perat ures were m atched exactly,and the f u e l RSV and fuel and oxidizer tank bottom probe readings werewithin an acceptable range of accuracy.RS V and flowm ete r tem per atu res reco rded du ring loading are shownin Figs. Il l- 16 and III -17.c. L i f t o f f t empe ra tu r e sA comparison of predicted, actual and reconstruc ted propel lantbulk temperatures appears in Table III- 19.
TABLE II I- 19Pro pellant Bulk Tem pera tur e Comparison
SystemStage I fuelStage II fuelStage I oxidizerStage II oxidizer
F-45 DayPrediction(F)38.737.839.842.4
F- l DayPrediction(F)38. 138.239.843.6
Actual(F)41.141.842.044.2
Reconst ruc ted(F)40.839.241.644.0
irrr m inER 13227- 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
91/253
--'i
I
(
aue
CODNA
E1376
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
92/253
111-36 - " ' U u i i , i l l ' i 1 1 T *
Time of event - Jtage I load complete
Stage I fuel Hi- LiteStage II load comple te
- ! Stage I I fuel Hi- LiteResume loadStart leak checkStart loading
3 5 ;
30
:Meas 4432'(Stage ' f lowmeter)
Meas 4431(Stage I)f lowmeter)2100 2130 2200 2230 2300 2330
Eastern Standard Time (hr)Fig. III-1T. Fuel Temperature During Loading
ER 13227- 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
93/253
- 37
Actual bulk tempera tures a t l i f t o f f were obtained from a computerprogram analysis of flight data. The positions of the recons t ruc ted ,actual and pred ic ted t empera tu re s in the mixture ratio band are shownin Figs. I l l- 18 and I I I -19.
Figures - 20 through 111-23 show a comparison of the F- l day t e m -perature prediction, the recons t ruc ted t empera tu re and actual propel-lant probe temperatures during the countdown fo r each pro pellant tank.Correlation of actual and r e c o n st ru c t e d t e m p e ra t u re s was excellent.The difference between the F- l day prediction was due to the differencesbetween predicted and act ual weat her conditions. Avera ge a ct ual drybulb and wet bulb t em p er a t u res wer e 5. 5 F and 8. 3 F higher , respec -tively, than pr edicte d. P redicted winds averaged 3 knots higher .The m aximu m de viation between actual and recons t ruc ted t empera -t u r e s (10. 3% of total rise) occur red in the Stage fuel tank. All otherswere 3. 8% or less.d. Suction t e m p e ra t u re sThe actual pump inlet tem per atu res were in good agreement withthe pred icted tem per atu re pr ofiles. The se data are shown in Figs.111-24 th ro u gh 111- 27. The t r ends of the actual tem perat ure cur veswere in good agreement with those predicted. Deviations may be as-cribed to differences in predicted and actual weather and the differ-ences between optimum and T~0 t empera tu re s . In Table 111- 20 a com-
pa rison is made be t wee n the suc tion and tank bottom pro bes at variou st imes after FS,T ABLE - 20
Prope l lant Temp era tu re Com par i son- - TankBottom Probe and P u m p Inlet
SystemStage I f u e lStage II fuelStage I oxidizerStage II oxidizer
Time(sec)FS 1 + 5FS. + 25FS 1 + 6FS. + 22
Suction ProbeTempera tu re(F)40. 239. 139. 942. 8
Tank BottomT e m p e ra t u reProbe(F)40. 938.339. 043. 3
DeltaTempera ture(F)- 0. 7+ 1. 4+ 0. 9- 0. 5
ER 13227- 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
94/253
111-38
. - - ;.-.
~
50
45
40
F-45 days predictedlaunch window
Reconstructed
MR (optimum)
2 !
-,
;, ; . : : , ' : . ^5 30 35 40 45 i>0 5Bulk Fuel Temperature ( F)
Fig. III-18. Propellent Bulk Temperatures at Liftoff, Stage I
ER 13227- 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
95/253
_Li H IIII il M l ITT - 3 9
.V- . - ...
i
F- 45 days predicted__launch \ y i n d q w
F- l day pre
: : ;: - :MR (maximum)
M R (optimum)iiM R (minimum) '
35 40 45Bulk Fuel Temperature ( F)
Fig. 111-19. Propellant Bulk Temperatures at Liftoff, Stage II
.CONFIDENTSER 13227- 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
96/253
_const
fe
i
g
(E1376
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
97/253
i- -
-
- F - l day-45,
Fday
ActualReconstructedF- l day prediction
" SP.
'0 8 0 0
111-41
Eastern S t a n d a r d TimeFig . Ill-21. Stage I F u e l Tank Bottom Probe T em pera tu re (Meas
CONFIDENTIALER 13227- 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
98/253
111- 42
-i.--.
- F - l dayFday
- . I ' ^15
3 0
ActualReconstructedF- l day prediction
2000 2 4 0 0 0 4 0 0Eastern Standard Time (hr)
Fig. 111-22. Stage II Oxidlzer Tank Bottom Probe Temperature (Meas
ER 13227-6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
99/253
3NFIDENTIAL 111-43
F - l day 1 0
45 ^
10
F day-
a 3 5:
0 0ActualF- l day prediction
' *J< ^ - < - -' ^^^"
00 24 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 8 0 0
- ""
E a s t e r n S t a n d a r d T i m e (hr)F ig . 111-23. Stage II F u e l Tank Bottom P r o b e T e m p e r a t u r e (Meas l|60l)
.CONFIDENTIALE R 1 3 2 2 7 - 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
100/253
111-44
-_
I-45
:
;
' i
Q QActual (Meas 0023) Actual (Meas 0 0 2 4 )
F - 4 5 day predictionA Tank bottom probe
4i< b G G G I D 0
,-,U J
G
Q
?
0
1
087FS, ,:1 100
Time from 87 FS, (sec)120 140 160
Fig. 1-24. Stage I Oxidizer Pump Inlet Temperature (Meas 0023 and 0024)
E R 1 3 2 2 7 - 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
101/253
^ONJf DFNT IAI -45
1
ActualF-45 day predictionA Tank bottom probe
IF - 50v-
-v 4 5H
0 e
20 40 60 80 100 140 IBO87FS1 Time from 87FS1 (sec)Fig. HI- 25. Stage I Fuel Pump Inlet Temperature (Meas 0013)
C O N F I D E N T I A LE R 1 3 2 2 7 - 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
102/253
0i,41"2tdIs\-4)/
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
103/253
0
^6>-.
-
\
\
-
IQ
.0\
000
\
-
4gS1If
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
104/253
- 48
3. Propellant Feed Systema. Feedline transientsThe maximum transient pre s s u re s record ed at the pum p inlet in-strumentation bosses are listed in Table - 21.
TABLE - 21Maximum Transient Pressures at P u m p Inlet
MeasurementStage I oxidizer
(0017)Stage I fuel(0014)Stage II oxidizer(0510)Stage II fuel
(0507)
AtPrevalveOpeningNo dataNo dataNo dataNo data
AtInitialPressureWaveNegligibleNegligibleNegligibleNegligible
AtIgnition(psia)124
Negligible**
AtTCVClosing(psia)NegligibleNegligible
68Negligible
DesignOperatingPressure(psia)215
55260
80*Not available due to telem et ry staging blacko ut .No data were available on the prevalve opening pressure transients,since these valves were opened during the 12 December 1965 launchat tempt and were not replaced. Ignition transient pr e s su r e s were, ingeneral, similar to those of G LV- 5 and G LV- 7 flights. Telemetryblackout norm ally exper ienced d ur ing Stage ignition eliminates dataon sustainer engine ignition transients.
b. P u m p inlet suction pr e s su r e sStage I and Stag3 II static suction pressures at the suction measure-ment boss locations are shown in Figs. IH- 28 through 111- 31, which
present t he pre flight pr edict ed, po stflight rec onst ru ct ed and best esti-mate of actual flight pressures. The postflight reconstructed curveswere based on flight measured values of ullage ga s pressure , axialload facto rs , prop el lant tem per atu res and pro pellant loa dings.The Stage I oxidizer best estimate curve of the static suction pres -sures at the measu rement boss (Meas 0017) co nsists of an average ofthe measured pressure and the two oxidizer standpipe pressures
ER 13227- 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
105/253
111-49
11 0
100
. 80
70
Preflight prediction Postflight reconstruction
Best estimate o f flight suction pre ssu re
87FS, 100Time from 87FS. (sec )120 140 160
Fig. 111-28. Stage I Oxidizer Suction Pressure (Meas 0017)
NFIDENTIE R 13227- 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
106/253
IH-50
Preue(pa
to
1\
(
>
~
i0tO
0
'
'A 4
1
- Postf light reconstruction Best estimate of flightsuction pressu re
-
- " \\ i ' ;
i!
1 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160- 1 Time fro m 87FS. (sec)
Fig. HI-29. Stage I Fuel Suction Pressure (Meas OOlU)
CONFIDENTIALE R 13227- 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
107/253
00
(X
,m?I
.
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
108/253
'C
(X
-1
-_fc
^
(EsE1376
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
109/253
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
110/253
:W.--.--
J1
2*C
->2ad1
"^v2||2T2?LIw+->23crWUG323gOsQ.:
_.id-0iC
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
111/253
DO-V-01uncover tinstruc-4
-:--id.izer~ J---7;
34in0;CSD:ieiJ 41-.15'1-3'0 4CN ,g0VNX' 4
0>''5'3-.40
-
S.0-T1
--'
-CL---
-'-1;h
':"-
,CODNA
ER1376
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
112/253
jncoverCt>
0r
&00|4cs20^3>01-0">0C1D
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
113/253
1*>6N1^1111"WJc'*
0SH
>S
0
5
>10L
s0Hh*1
00
ct>4'bcC0
*ii
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
114/253
J50tuOrtn0O
1
^
^t*c>
c
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
115/253
.CONFIDENTIAL IH- 59Table - 25 lists the level sensor volumes and delta volumes usedin the level sensor f l o w rate analysis. The Stages I and II oxidizer andfuel high- level sensor volumes were reconstructed to reflect the volumeswhich were de ter m ined by calibration at Cape Kennedy using the propel-
lant tr ansfer and pr essu rizat ion system. The Stages I and II outagesand shutdown level sensor volumes were calculated using the actualcounts of flowmeter pulses obtained du ring the special loading and theWMSL exercises.TABLE 111- 25
Averaged Volumes at Level Sensor Locations
TankStage I oxidizer
Stage I fuel
Stage II oxidizer
Stage II fuel
SensorHi- levelOutageHi- levelOutageHi- levelShutdownHi- levelOutage
Averaged Volumes(stretch included )(ft 3)
1708.2037. 85
1402. 5 465. 80
285. 5122.41
350.0819.08
Volume( f t 3 )
1670. 3 5
1336. 74
2 6 3 . 1 0
331.00 . Flow r a t e sTable 111-26 presents the pre dicted and the actual volum etr ic flowr a t e s between level sensors.
TABLE III -26P rop ellant Volu m et ric Flow Rate
TankStage I oxidizerStage I fuelStage II oxidizerStage II fuel
Predicted(ft 3 / s ec )11. 7519.8212.2692.087
Actual(ft 3 / sec)11.7349.7352.2652.071
CONFIDENTIALER 13227- 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
116/253
I I I - 6 0
d. Mixture ratioTable 111- 27 compares the Stages I and II predicted and actual engine
mixture ratios (between level sensors) for the G LV- 6 flight.TABLE 111-27
Engine Mixture Ratio
SystemStage IStage II
Predicted MixtureRatio1.92801.7470
Mixture RatioActual1.94181. 7578
Sensitivity coefficients applied to the delta between the predictedand actual variations in average suction pressure and t emperature be -tween sensor uncoverings yield the information shown in Table II I- 28.TABLE III-28
Mixture Ratio Pressure and Temperature
SystemStage I oxidizerStage I fuel
Pres -sure(psi)- 0. 5
+ 2. 5Total Stage I
Stage II oxidizerStage II fuel
- i . o-1 .5
Total Stage II
MixtureRatio(Pressure)- 0.000810- 0.006250- 0.007060- 0.004200+ 0.005310+ 0.002760
Tempera-t u re(oF)
+ 0.9+ 1.0
- -+ 1.4+ 3 . 2
- -
MixtureRatio(temp)- 0.002086+ 0.001627- 0.000459- 0.003661+ 0. 005325+ 0.001664
MixtureRatio(total)- 0.002514- 0.003028- 0.007519- 0.006002+ 0.008277+ 0.004424
By applying the delta mixture ratio (to ta l) shown in Table 111-28 tothe pre dicted (F- 45 Day) between- sensor m ixtu re ratios, the run- to -run variation can be calculat ed. The m ixtu re ratio deviation along withthe allowable ru n- to - ru n disper sions are sho wn in Table 111-29.
ER 13227- 6
-
8/8/2019 Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx
117/253
I I I - 6 1
T A B L E I I I -29Mixture R a t i o Deviation
SystemStage IStage II
Predicted M i x t u r e R a t i o(corrected for pressurea n