i s4 sensor and simulation notes .278 note 278

I S4

.278 Sensor and Simulation Notes

Note 278

17 Arpil 1980

In-Flight Missile Electromagnetic Coupling Tests-- Preliminary Considerations

Daniel F. Higgins William A. Radasky

JAYCOR Santa Barbara, California

Abstract

EM coupling to an inflight missile is a topic of interest to EMP survivability efforts. A particular issue is the possibility of actually doing EM tests while a missile is in flight. This report briefly considers such tests. The rationale for such tests is considered, as are types of inflight tests. Various background information is also included.

electromagnetic fields, inflight missiles, Minuteman, ground based, electromagnetic pulse simulators, coupling

UNLLASSIFLED :ClJRlTY CLASSIFICATION OF TUIS PAGE (I)‘f~cr~ Dntr ErUrrcd)

REPORT DtKUMENTAJ-ION PAGE , REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO

5,

, TITLE (snd SubtItle)

IN-FLIGHT MISSILE ELECTROMAGNETIC COUPLING TESTS--PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS

. AU THOR-s)

Daniel F. Higgins, William A. Radasky JAYCOR Santa Barbara, California 93105

. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

The Dikewood Corporation 1613 University Boulevard, N.E. Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102

1. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS

Air Force Weapons Laboratory (NTYET) Air Force Systems Command Kirtland AFB, New Mexico 87117

4. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & AOORESS(if cfiffcrenl from Conrrolling Ollice)

6. D~STRIQUTION STATEMENT (01 rhit Repor?)

5. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

Technical Note

5. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

DC-TN-1505-3 (FINAL) 6. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(s)

F29601-79-C-0036

IO. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT. TAStC LIIILI

12. REPORT DATE

April 17, 1980

I

\3. NUMBER OF PAGES

37 IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of this rcporlJ

UNCLASSIFIED ISa. OECLASSlFICATION/OOWt~GRAOING

SCHEDULE

7. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of ths abstract entered in BJock 20, if different from Reporf)

6. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

This work was completed by JAYCOR under Subcontract No. DC-SC-79-01 for The Dikewood Corporation (JAYCOR Report No. 200-80-218-2148). This research was supported by the Defense Nuclear Agency under Subtask 637PAXYX957, MX Missile In-Flio,bt Test, Work Unit 20.

9. KEY WORDS (Concfnuo 0” rc~br+e ride if necessary asd identify by block number)

EMP, MX Missile, EM Shielding, In-Flight Coupling

0. ABSTRACT (Conrfnu* on ~OYCI** mIda If necnrrary and ldcnrlfy by block number)

EM coupling to an inflight missile is a topic of interest to EMP survivability efforts. A particular issue is the possibility of- actually doing EM tests while a missile is in flight. This report briefly considers such tests. The rationale for such tests is considered, as are types of inflight tests. Various background information is also included.

DD , :::M7, 1473 EDITION OF I NOV 6s IS OOSOLETE UNCLASSIFIED SECURITY CLXSIfICAl-!CN OF Tt(IS PAGE (I’hrn f)c!n cfj’crcO

-

. .

Section

CONTENTS

I INTRODUCTION

II POSSIBLE RATIONALE FOR AN IN-FLIGHT EM TEST 1. PLUME RELATED RATIONALE 2. EM SHIELDING RATIONALE 3. OTHER RATIONALE

III. TYPES OF IN-FLIGHT TESTS 6 1. SOURCE/SENSOR LOCATIONS 6 2. TYPES OF FLIGHT VEHICLES 12

IV. BACKGROUND INFORMzzTION 1. PERSONS CONTACTED 2. PREVIOUS STUDIES OF INTEREST 3. ON-GOING WORK

V. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 16

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDIX A 20

APPENDIX B 26

Page

2

i3 13 13 13

17

2

I. INTRODUCTION

The coupling of electromagnetic pulse fields generated by a nuclear burst to an in-flight missile was first considered in the early sixties as part of the EMP hardening of the Minuteman missile system. Interest has recently been renewed as a result of the MX missile program.

Numerous in-flight coupling calculations have thus been carried out over the past 15 years, and various experimental coupling studies have been performed using missile hardware and ground-based EMP simulators. However, no EM coupling tests have been done on a missile while it was actually flying.

A basic reason for considering in-flight tests is that the fundamental electromagnetic configuration of an in-flight missile is different than that of the same missile sitting on the ground. The most dramatic difference is the existence of a long, conducting rocket exhaust plume when the missile is in-flight. This plume can greatly affect the electrical length of the missile and will enhance the low frequency coupling. Besides the plume, there may also be electromagnetic differences due to the motion of the missile. These might include shock wave ionization of the ambient air and shielding degradation due to missile vibration. Estimates of how much such phenomena affect electromagnetic coupling have been made theoretically and a few tests have been performed examining a few of the phenomena separately, but experimental verification of the overall response is presently lacking.

The purpose of this report is thus to present the results of a brief, preliminary investigation of possible in-flight electromagnetic coupling tests. Variousrationalesfor such tests will be discussed first. This is followed by a categorization of possible tests, both in terms of flight vehicles and source/ sensor location. This is followed by a summary of background information col- lected under this effort and technical discussions of experimental options.

As this effort involved a survey of existing technology in the plume phenomenology and missile testing areas, a bibliography is given in Section VI to indicate the sources employed here.

. . .

II. POSSIBLE UTIONALES FOR AN IN-FLIGHT EM TEST

1. PLUME RELATED RATIONALE

As mentioned previously, the existence of a long rocket exhause plume, made up of hot, conducting gases, can, at least theoretically, greatly affect the basic electromagnetic configuration of an in-flight missile. In particular, external EM coupling to the missile may be severely modified by the plume (although the effect of a plume on missile survivability depends upon specific design details, such as the amount of EM shielding).

Various plume parameters have been identified as being potentially important to EM coupling. These include: 1) plume length and cross-section; 2) electron density; 3) effective conductivity (impedance); and 4) connectivity between the plume and conductors on the missile. A number of theoretical studies have been carried out to investigate the relative importance of such parameters, but experimental data for confirming various plume models is practi- cally nonexistent.

One reason for an in-flight missile test is thus to try to directly measure the actual plume parameters of interest. A direct measurement of parame . eterssuch asthe electron density at a number of locations within the plume would be very difficult experimentally, however. (Measuring the overall effect of the plume would be easier). One also has the question of why an in-flight missile test is required to investigate plume parameters.

With regards to this last question, it has been suggested that static rocket tests might be a much better way to study plume parameters. Obviously, many experimental problems would be alleviated if the test object were not moving through the air with supersonic velocity. However, various theoretical plume models indicate that the basic plume behavior is a strong function of missile velocity. For example, turbulent mixing at the boundary between the moving plume and the surrounding air is thought to be a prime factor in deter- mining plume electron density. Also, plume lengths are apparently quite long at higher altitudes and pressure chambers large enough for investigating such effects are not available. It thus appears that static plume tests cannot provide valid measurements of plume parameters for a rapidly moving, high-altitude missile.

4

Because plume parameters are difficult to directly measure on an in-flight missile, one can consider measuring the "effects" of such parameters rather than the actual parameters. In this case, one might measure the resulting current along one part of the missile as a result of some electromagnetic excitation. The response as a function of frequency would depend upon such plume parameters as conductivity, plume length, and plume connection to the rocket nozzle.

Such plume effects tests would be relatively easy to perform on an in- flight missile (compared to direct plume parameter measurements), and the results could be used to check the predictions of existing plume/EM coupling models. Such tests would thus primarily serve as analysis verification exper- ments.

It should be noted that analysis verification tests have certain limita- tions. For example, if experimental results do not agree with theoretical predictions, it may be very difficult to determine the actual effects of interest. Differences might be due to either plume length, conductivity, or connectivity and effects measurements may be incapable of distinguishing which phenomena caused a given response. Similarly, a theorectical model may be incorrect and still give answers close to those measured under some circumstances. The results of analysis verification tests must thus be carefully interpreted, and such tests must often be iterated along with theoretical model development un- til results agree.

2. EM SllIELDING RATIONALE

Any missile designed to survive nuclear electromagnetic effects will have a variety of hardening features. A key hardening feature expected in most cases is an electromagnetic shield surrounding all sensitive electronic hardware. No electromagnetic shield is perfect, however, but various apertures, cracks, and imperfectly sealed joints are usually the dominant source of leaks in shielding systems.

It is known that shielding effectiveness can degrade as a result of bending and vibration. Ground based shielding effectiveness tests can examine such degradation to some degree, but such ground tests cannot duplicate all of the mech- anical stresses that might be applied to an in-flight missile. One thus reaches

5

.

the conclusion that an inflight test might be needed to evaluate the performance of EM shielding on an actual missile.

3. OTHER RATIONALES

Other related reasons might be given for an inflight missile test. For example, the goal might be to acquire data for use in guiding ground- level EMP tests. (A plume effects tests might be used to help design a plume simulator for a ground-*based EMP test in the ARES simulator.) On the other hand, the goal might be system-specific, such as validation of specific hardness features (e.g., shielding) of an inflight MX missile.

6

. .

0 III. TYPES OF IN-FLIGHT TESTS

1. SOURCE/SENSOR LOCATIONS

One method of characterizing various types of in-flight electromagnetic tests is in terms of the locations of the EM source and the EM sensors. Both

the source and any sensors can be located either on the missile or on the ground with the resulting matrix of experiment concepts shown in Table 1. Each of these concepts will be briefly discussed.

A. Source on Ground/Sensors on Ground

The idea of having both the EM source and the sensors on the ground greatly simplifies experimental problems because no additional equipment need be installed on the missile. This concept, however, is basically just one of making radar cross-section measurements of an in-flight missile. A great deal

of such data already exists (see Section IV and Appendix A.) There is thus already some information on the effective electrical length of plumes at radar frequencies, and more will be generated during future flight tests.

A major problem with such techniques, however, is that little, if any, missile coupling information is obtained. The plume itself tends to dominate the radar cross-section. Plume connection and missile response is thus not directly measurable. Some additional study of existing data might be useful, but further work on this concept would probably be of only limited value.

B. Source on Missile/Sensors on Ground

Another means of investigating the electromagnetic features of an in-flight missile is to install a source on the missile, for example, exciting currents on conducting surfaces and measuring the resulting radiated fields at various locations on the gorund. This source-on-missile with measurements-on-ground experiment can be compared to the threat condition of an incident EMP inducing missile currents and voltages by the use of reciprocity concepts. One could use pulse techniques, but a stepped CW source would probably give better sensitivity. Existing narrow-band ground antennas might then be used to monitor various frequency regions.

This source-on-missile, receiver-on-ground approach has several conceptual advantages. First of all, the need for sensitive missile instrumentation and telemetry links is eliminated. Secondly, one may be able to use existing large

7

MISSILE

G!?OUND

TABLE 1. EXPERWNT CONCEPTS

MISSILE

EXCITE CURREHTS ON THE ; EXCITE CURRENTS I MISSILE MISSILE

MEASURE RESPONSES ON THE MISSILE

USE TELEMETRY OR RECOVERA9LE DATA PACKAGE

MEASURE “ANTENNAll ON THE GROUND

i I

RADAR EXCITATICN

MEASURE RESPONSES ON THE MISSILE

USE TELEElETRY OR RECOVERABLE DATA PACKAGE

RADAR CROSS-SECT ,MEASUREM”NTS

l

ground antennas for measuring the radiated signal. The approach also has several disadvantages, however. These include the problems of how to drive * a large enough current on the missile for the radiated signal to be measured on the ground, and how to interpret these measured signals in a manner that tells us something about the EM features of the in-flight missile.

Consider first the second problem of how to interpret measured ground data. The radiated signal will depend not only on the missile details, but also on the rocket exhaust plume. The conductivity profiles of such plumes are not well established, although several calculational plume models have been considered over the past few years. Deducing plume electrical parameters solely from ground measured data is expected to be very difficult, if not impos- sible (e.g., different combinations of plume parameters may result in almost

. identical radiated waveforms). It would thus appear that the best one might do is to compare the measured data with that predicted, using various plume models. If the results agree with predictions, one has more confidence in the models, but there is no guarantee that the assumed plume parameters are the actual ones. (In other words, the measured output of this experiment may not be very sensitive to plume details.)

Another potential problem is the source level needed for measurable signals. Crude estimates of required signal levels can be obtained by modeling the missile and plume as a simple center-fed dipole antenna. An expression for the radiated power, Pr, far from an electrically short dipole antenna is

'r watts m*

where n = JgT = 120n ohms

k = w/c = wave number

h= total dipole length

IO= peak current on dipole

r = distance to observer

8= polar angle with respect to the dipole axis

and it is assumed that kh <e 1.

. . .

Note that the angular,dependence of the radiated power (the sin20 term) indicates that we need to know the angle between the missile axis and the ground antenna fairly accurately. Also, the peak current, IO, will depend

0 upon plume conductivity while the antenna length, h, is a function of plume length.

As an example, let IO = 1 amp, kh = 0.1, and r = 20 km. For 0 = 90°, the radiated power is calculated to be 3 x 10 -11 watts/m*. This corresponds to a radiated electric field of only about 10 -4 v/m, using

One would thus need a current of lo4 amps to get an incident field on the ground of 1 v/m.

The situation is slightly better at higher frequencies. For a half-wave dipole, where X = h/2 (h being the total dipole length), the radiated power is

Pr = 1!51* way nr

2. (cos~~q-~cos~li’

For r = 20 km, IO= 1 amp, and 0 = 90°, one gets Pr = 1.2 x 10 -8 watts/m*. This corresponds to a field of 2.1 x 10 -3 v/m for each amp of current on the l - dipole.

In either of the above cases , power levels at the ground are quite small unless very large currents are induced on the in-flight missile.

It should be noted that there may be a number of problems involved in trying to drive large skin currents on an in-flight missile. First of all, there are practical safety and EM1 considerations that depend upon the specific missile being used for any test. More general considerations, however, include the problem of how to excite skin currents without degrading missile flight performance,

From an electromagnetic point-of-view, the most desirable way to drive the missile would be to create a gap in its conducting surface and attach a voltage source across the gap (see Figure 1A). This involves a basic change in missile design, however, since no conductors can traverse the gap. In general, then, this approach is not feasible since it would require a complete

10

SURFACE

Figure IA. Voltage Gap Drive

CONDUCTING SURFACE

- INVERSE

CURRENT PROBE PROBE

Figure 18. Inverse current probe drive

11

change in the missile design (i.e., missile electronics on each side of the gap would be required to operate without a conducting link). It could probably only be carried out with a missile specifically designed for such a test.

Another concept, which would have less impact on missile design and operation, is to drive skin currents with an inverse current probe. This idea is illustrated in Figure lB, where the inverse current probe is placed near the base of the missile (surrounding the nozzle) and recessed to minimize aerodynamic interference. With this drive, a voltage is impressed across the gap of the annular probe, and missile conductors run through the center aper- ture. Similar probes have been designed, built, and used for measuring the EMP response of missiles in simulators.

The problem with using such a current probe in an inverse fashion is that it is a very inefficient coupler. Any voltage source connected across the gap will have to supply very large currents (because the interior conductors tend to short out the gap). The ultimate result of this drive inefficiency is that large power sources will be required to excite large missile currents. The problem can be alleviated somewhat, of course, by specially designed couplers, but details still need to be resolved.

C. Source on Ground/Sensors on Missile

This approach is the inverse of the one just discussed. It has the conceptual advantage that it resembles the high-altitude EW excitation where the EM driver is created far from the missile. One also does not have the need to carry a large power source on the missile, while large ground-based transmitters are certainly feasible as are existing radar antennas.

In this case, the missile and its plume become the receiving antenna. Sensitive receiving equipment must thus be installed on the missile and measured responses must either be recorded (and recovered) or sent back to ground via telemetry. As in the previous case, missile location and orientation with. respect to the ground-based source must be accurately known in order to interpret results. Atmospheric attenuations or dispersion (e.g., by the ionosphere for high-altitude missiles) may also cause data interpretation problems.

D. Source on Missile/Sensors on Missile

In this configuration, both the EM source and the response sensors are mounted on the in-flight missile. One thus has the previously discussed

. . -

0

I

I

O-

12

problem of driving large currents on the missile, but the need for very large

currents is now lessened as response measurements can be made quite near the source. Problems of knowing the missile orientation and location are thus eliminated, but the amount of on-board instrumentation is larger than for the other experimental options.

Measurements to be made for this test configuration are also different than previously discussed. For other source/sensor locations, one measures such parameters as the radar cross-section and the radiated or received power. In this case, one can measure the current or charge distribution resulting from a given excitation point, or one could measure the resulting current for a given voltage driver. (This last configuration could give a direct measurement of plume impedance that might be used to guide ground-based EMP tests.) One could also place sensors both inside and outside any EM shields on the missile to get some indication of in-flight shielding effectiveness. Note that one could conceptually make all these same measurements with the source

on the ground, but signal levels on the missile would probably be quite small and difficult to accurately measure (especially for measurements inside shields).

2. TYPES OF FLIGHT VEHICLES

Another means of characterizing in-flight EM experiments is in terms of the type of flight vehicle to be used, For example, one might consider a relatively simple add-on to existing research flight tests. Examples might include the Scout missile which is periodically launched by NASA for research purposes or DNA missile launches used primarily for studying upper atmospheric air chem- istry.

More complex experiments could be carried out with a missile especially purchased for and fully dedicated to an in-flight electromagnetic coupling test. The problem, of course, is that such a fully dedicated missile test would be fairly expensive, even if a readily available sounding rocket and telemetry package were used. (Rocket and telemetry costs alone would probably be in the $200-$300K range).

Finally, one could consider making measurements during operational flight development tests of a military missile of interest, such as the MX. Such tests would be of great potential interest, since they might provide information directly applicable to the EM survivability of a military system; however, the amount of instrumentation that might be added to such an operational missile test may be quite limited due to its impact on missile performance.

13

IV. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. PERSONS CONTACTED A number of persons at various agencies were contacted in the attempt to 0

collect information on plume phenomenology, on missile availability for add- on experiments, and on the general problems of in-flight experimentation. A partial list of contact is shown in Table 2.

2. PREVIOUS STUDIES OF INTEREST

As mentioned previously, radar cross-sections of missiles and their associated plumes have been measured in the past for a number of in-flight missiles. SRI International has been involved in such radar cross-section measurements since 1959. Appendix A contains a brief description of SRI's experience over the years and a 1,ist of associated references. A future effort might examine the details of this past work to see if it might be useful for helping to under- stand plume effects on EMP coupling.

3. ON-GOING WORK

Although no directly applicable on-going missile EM coupling experimental studies were discovered, it was determined that plume effects in general are of great interest to numerous other government agencies and organizations. In particular,a Joint Army-Navy-NASA-Air Force (JANNAF) Exhaust Plume Technology Subcommittee exists for coordinating research on various aspects of plume effects. An annual report which describes this committee and its work is attached in Appendix B.

As indicated in Appendix B, plume studies are going on in a variety of places. Personnel at the Jet Propulsion Laboratories were quite helpful in describing various efforts. Their research is primarily involved with plume contamination effects, and they have several space shuttle experiments planned to study such phenomena.

o-

14

Place

AEDC

AFGL

TABLE 2. IN-FLIGHT MISSILE COWLING EXPERIMENT CONTACTS (JuLY - DECEMBER

Aeronautical Research Associates of Princeton

China Lake

Edwards (RPL)

Edwards (RPL)

Edwards (RPL)

Johns Hopkins Univ. (Applied Physics Lab)

JPL

JPL

JPL

Name

Herman Scott

McIntyre

H.S. Pergament

Andy Victor

Al Kawasaki

Dan Stuart

David Mann

Ted Gilleland

Frank Bouquet

Carl Maag

Lou Molanary

Phone

(615) 455-2611 x 7834

(617) 861-3637

(714) 939-3134

(805) 277-5623

(805) 277-5240

(213) 354-4321 x 4031

(213) 354-4321 x 6453

(213) 354-4321 x 4515

TABLE 2. (CONCLUDED)

Place

NASA/Marshall

SAMSO/LA

White Sands

White Sands

White Sands

White Sands

Name

Terry Greenwood

Major Sumondi (2133 643-0093

John Morgan

Maj. Jim Parks

Bill Hansen

Frank McKenna

Phone

--

(505) 678-3348

(505) 678-1251

(505) 675-1245

(505) 678-1156

V. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

After considering the various options, it appears that an in-flight missile EM coupling experiment with both the source and the sensors on the missile would be the most desirable of the tests considered. This type of experiment has the advantage that several objectives can be simultaneously pursued. For example, one can measure plume impedance, external current/ charge distributions, and shielding effectiveness, in addition to checking various coupling models.

Such tests would probably be most meaningful if they could be done as part of the MX missile flight program. In order to gain experience, however, it is recommended that any in&flight tests first be attempted as add-on experiments to research rocket launches where the impact of added instrumentation is not great. Once experimental experience is gained, tests on operational missiles can be designed with higher confidence that missile operation will not be greatly perturbed.

Note that in-flight test data would be useful and interesting, but obtaining such data is expected to be neither easy nor inexpensive. The need for such tests must therefore be carefully evaluated and compared to other research programs of interest since both time and money are always limited.

17

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Reports

Chang, S. K., F. M. Tesche, and D. V. Giri, EMP Coupling to an In- Flight MX Missile in the O-20 km Altitude Regime (U), Science Applications, Inc., DNA 4616F, 31 May 1978 (Confidential).

Victor, A. C., Plume-Signal Interference, Part 1. Radar Attenuation, Part 2. Plume-Induced Noise, Naval Weapons Center, NWC TP 5319, June 1975 (U).

DNA Sounding Rocket Capabilities, Space Data Corporation, SDC TM-1443A, 16 February 1978.

Rocket Exhaust Plume Technology, Chapter 4 - Plume Electromagnetic Interactions, CPIA Publication 263.

Memoranda

.

Memorandum from Dr. R. Goldman of JAYCOR to Bill Radasky, "Plume Pheno- menology and Some Estimates", 21 August 1979.

Memorandum from Dr. R. Goldman of JAYCOR to Bill Radasky, "Zero-Order Plume Estimates", 4 January 1980.

Memorandum from R. Goldman of JAYCOR to Bill Radasky, "Analytic Elements of Missile Plume Structure", 24 January 1980.

Technical Interchanges

Technical discussions with Dr. Lambert Dolphin of SRI regarding plume measurements performed during previous flight test programs, 5 September 1979.

Technical discussions with Mr. Carl Maag of JPL concerning plume phenomenology and JPL missile test programs, 2 October 1979-December 1979.

Technical discussions with Dr. Carl Baum of AFWL concerning his thoughts on in-flight EM experiments, 5 October 1979.

Technical discussions with Dr. Bill Graham of RDA regarding importance of in-flight testing and his experiences during the Minuteman program, 10 October 1979.

Technical discussions with Andy Victor at China Lake concerning the

18

-- 0

JANNAF plume program, October 1979.

Technical discussions with Capt. McKechney of DNA regarding the DNA missile flight test program, 24 October 1979.

19

APPENDIX A

SRI RADAR CROSS-SECTION MEASUREMENTS

(THIS INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY SRI INTERNATIONAL PER LETTER DATED 18 JULY 1979)

20

II EXPERIENCE AND BACKGROUKD

In 1959 SRI designed and conducted an experimental program to measure the radar cross sections of missiles and their associated plumes as a function of frequency and aspect angle.'-Is These early mcasurcments on the Eastern Test Range were extremely successful in idcnlifying 1rcquency and aspect-angle sensitivity of missile plumes. In scvcrnl ways the Lcchnical problems were nmrc complex than those cnvlsioncd I'or the cxpcrimcnts now being planned by the Air Force. For cxnmplc. the previous measurement program took place at the Eastern Test R;lng:c (ETR) so that all the missile trajectories wcrc directed over water immediately after liftoff. In order to obLain a wide range of viewing aspect angles and at the same time full coverage of the nlti- tudc range of interest (sea level to 600 kft), SRI fully instrumented and operated a ship with multifrequency radar equipment. A wide variety of missiles were observed --everything from the solid-fueled Polaris and hlinutemcn to the liquid-fueled Titans and Atlases--so that from one launch to the nexL, one had to contend with greatly different flight paramtitcrs and trajectories. This required careful experimental plan- ning in order to'mnximize the information obtained on each launch. The l'rcquvncic6 used in those tests were lower (10 to 370 MHz) than the L'rcqrrcncics spccil'icd I‘or the presently planned cxperimcnt (1 to 10 GHz).

The calibration of radars at the lower frequencies--especially 10 to 50 MHz--is difficult. Antenna patterns cannot be measured on antenna cnlibrntion ranges but mustinsteadbe Mflown" by aircraft towing radio bc:lcolls. Sphere-drop calibration tests that are quite routine in the

21

Mz range are difficult in the MHz range due to the much larger spheres needed in the latter case. Additional complexities resulted from the variation of the plume radar cross section at high altitudes (over 300 kft) as a function of the time of day and the state of the Ionosphere. These difficulties were successfully overcome by the suitable design of the 0 exper fmen t’al program.

In 1964-65 SRI designed what was known as the ETR Mls~ilc Phcno- mcnology Program. 23-25 and aided DARPA (Formerly ARPA) in its coordinn- tion. and collntrd the data from the cxpcrimcnt. The objcctlvcs ol’ Lhc proK:ronl WCIV to Cost Chc validity ol’ scvcral dil’icrcnt clcctrlcnl :Ind scattering models of m issile plumes and to provide inrormntlon for the design of operational m ilitary systems. The ETR program involved simultaneous measurements of m issiles and their plumes by a number of

different contractors and government agencies. The equipment included both pulse and CW at a variety of frequencies (10 to 64 MHz). The measurements were made using both monostatic (transmitter and receiver collocated) and bistatic (transmitter and receiver separated) geometries from a number of different sites. The objectives of the program were successfully accomplished.

Plasma diagnostic techniques have been used at SRI for over 15 years. Radar-beam electron density measurements in rocket exhaust gases were developed for the Air Force Western Development Division. Mcasure- mcnts have been made in rocket exhausts for the Polaris, Atlas, and M inutemnn m issiles.

Since 1965 SRI, under Project RONDO, has designed and directed several experiments related to testing the validity of models of radar scattering from reentry wakes.28 Although differences exist between radar scattering from m issile plumes and reentry wakes, the theory of scattering from a turbulent plasma is applicable to both.

As part of the RONDO program SRI has been actively engaged in laboratory studies of electromagnetic scattering from turbulent jets. This work has been largely successful in the development of a model and computer codes for calculating the scatter from turbulent plnsmas.2’-32 The laboratory-developed scnttering model has been applied with con- sidcrnblc success to reentry-wake scattering.

The RONDO program involved the measurement of reentry wakes using a polystntic geometry (Lwo receiving sites each widely scxpnrntcd from the lrnnsmittcr) at 1.3 and 5.1 Gliz. The equipment was specified by SRI and a test plan was written that was followed by field-site personnel under the employ of another contractor. All of the digital data tapes rccordrd in the f icld were reduced nnd analyzed by SRI personnel in Menlo Pnrk. California. The entire ROKDO program wns under the scientific direction ol’ SRI.

22

REFERENCES

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

"106.1-htc Radar Echoes from Missile Exhaust and Other Effects," paper presented at AMFUC Meeting, San Diego, California, 19-20 January 1960, by W. E. Jaye, hl. R. Berg, and G. S. Parks, Jr. (February 19601, SECRET.

"Radio Effects of Missile Flights--Tests 1753, 2006, 1961, 2103, 1758, 2000, 2015, 1764, and 2019,"'by L. T. Dolphin, Jr?, R. A. Low, and R. L. Leadabrand (August 1959), SECRET.

"Radio Effects of Test 2119--Mercury Launch," by L. T. Dolphin, Jr. and R. A. Long (October 19591, SECRET.

"The ACANIA Re-Entry and Exhaust Trail hleasurements Program," paper presented at AhlRAC AIeeting, 19-20 January 1960, San Diego, California, by L. T. Dolphin, Jr., R. A. Long, and R. L. Leadabrand (January 19601, SECRET.

"Radar Effects Observed During htissile Launchings,w by L. T. Dolphin, Jr. and R. A. Long (March 19601, SECRET.

"Radar Observations of Missile Launchings," by L. T. Dolphin, Jr. and R. A. Long (hInrch 1960), SECRET.

"Radar Observations of Missile Launchitqs," by L. 7'. Dolphin. Jr. and R. A. Long (April 19601, SECRET.

"Research in Electromagnetic Effects of Missile Flight," hl. R. Bcrc. Ed. (June 1960), SECRET.

"Radar Observations of Missile Launch Effects ,” paper presented at AMRAC hleetlnl: 21 July 1960, Seattle, Washington, by L. T. Dolphin, Jr. pnd R. A. Long (July 19601, SECRET.

“Raditt- Observations of Missile Launchings,” by L. T. Dolphin, Jr. and R. A. Long (July 19601, SECRET.

"Suwwry of ACANIA Radar Observations of Ik~llistlc hIissile Launch,” by I,. 1‘. Mlphin, Jr. and R. A. InnK (Augusr 19GO), SECRET,

23

12.

13.

14 .

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

34 .

25 .

l'Radlo Propagation Effects During Missile Launchings," L. T.

REFERENCES (continued)

Dolphin, Jr., B. T. Fogle, and G. L. Johnson (November 1960),

SECRET.

"Research in Electromagnetic Effects of hIissile Flight," A. R.

Tobcy, Ed. (January 1961), SECRET.

",I Review of h!isslle Launch Phenomena," paper presented at FIREFLY Symposium, 1 February 1961, by L. T. Dolphin, Jr. (May 1961), SECRET.

"Some Comments on Radar Reflections from Exhaust Plumes," by L. T. Dolphin, Jr. (hlay 1961), SECRET.

"hIisslle Launch Observations," by L. T. Dolphin, Jr. and R. A. Long (May 1961), SECRET,

"XANIA Observations During the Launching of ATLAS 12E," by L. T. Dolphin, Jr. and R. A. Long (June 1961). SECRET.

"ACJXNIA Observations: ATLAS 18E and TITAN J-16 LAUNCHES," by L. T. Dolphin, Jr. and R. A. Long (August 1961), SECRET.

“AIXNIA Missile Launch Observations (0) ," by L. T. Dolphin, Jr., R. A. Long; and J. R, Hubbard (October 1961), SECRET.

"Radar Cross Section of Missile Exhausts,II by L. T. Dolphin, Jr. (October 19621, CONFIDENTIAL.

"Proceedings of Study Group on hfissile Launch Phenomenology, 18-19 October 1961,” by D. Johnson (November 1961), SECRET.

"Study of Radar Beam Attenuation in Rocket Exhaust Gases (U), Part 1: hlicrowave hleasurement In Rocket Exhaust Gases," by Cecil Barnes, Jr. (June 1961), CONFIDENTIAL.

"Operational Plan for the Coordinated AhlR Launch hleasurcmcnts P1TJ::tnm , ” Stnnford Research Institute (8 October 1963). SECRET,

"Eiistoru Test Ilnncr* PhcnomcnoloKy Program Part Il--Direct Look. IIF ItatlilV Reslllts (U)," by li. 1.. l30llcn (Apri 1 196G), SECRET.

"Procccdinps pf the ETR Phcnomenol~~cical WorkinK Group (U)," Meeting of 11-13 Kay 1966 (July 19(X), SECRET.

24

0

. a .

. . i

REFERENCES (concluded)

l 26. "Survey of Theoretical OHD Efforts," by R. L. Bollen and G. L. Johnson (October 1963). CONFIDENTIAL.

27. Procecdinc's of OHD Theoretical Working Group of 20-Z). Novcmbcr 1963, Stanford Research Institute (January 1964), SECRET,

28. Project RONDO: Semi-Annual Tech. Reports 1 through 4, Contract DA-01-021 AMC-11224(Z) (1966-1968), SECRET. Semi-Annual Tech. Report 1, Contract DAAHOl-68-C- 2097 (1968). SECRET. Semi-Annual Tech. Reports 1 and 2, Contract DXHC- 60-70-C-0016 (1969-1972), SECRET, Semi-Annual Tech. Report 3, Contract DAHC-60-70- C-0016 (1969-1972), SECRET-NOFORN.

29. "Attenuation Due to Scatter in Random Media," by H. Guthart and K. A. Graf, Phys. Fluids, Vol. 15 (July 1972)'.

30. "Application of a Simple hIode for Calculating Scatter," by K. A. Grnf and H. athart, Phys. Fluids, No, 14, pp. 410-413 (1971).

31. "Scattering from a Turbulent Plasma," by H. Guthart and K. A. Graf, Radio Science, No. 5, pp. 1099-1118 (1970).

32. "Scattering from a Turbulent Laboratory Plasma at 31 GHt," bv K. A. Graf, H. Guthart, and D, G. Douglas, Radio Science, No. 6, pp. 737-752 (1971).

25

,

0

APPENDIX B

JANNAF EXHAUST PLUME TECHNOLOGY SUBCOMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT - SEPTEMBER 1979

26

. I. SCOPE

.e The tech3xical ereas 02 concern to this subcozaiztee involve phenomena essoc- iated ~5th the exhzusts fzoz rocket znd rajet tissile ad sp2ce >?rc.~~lsion sys- teiils 2zd gun systms. These phenomena czn be divided into three t2chzicel 2rczs; plme flow fields, plEe r&ietion, and 6 bro2d 2rea incorporztiq other piz-e efcects.

The plme flow field 2re.z .encoqases the physL cai ~>enoizcnology required to describe the thenzodynaic, ~2s d-&c, cIjenfc21 zl?d physLc2l state cf the plume.

Plate radiation 26lresces the physic21 processes 2ssocFated xith the ezLsslon, scettering, 2bsorotior! ad xflectace of electroE,";letic rzdieticn frcn exhast phxs coverkg t<e spe:tra fro3 the altraviolet 2x? visible through the infrared 2nd rZcrow2ve regioss.

?il.ize effects kclude the iatersction of plwxs ~5th externei structures t:hic!l lead ta the k~position of thezz21, che&cal ad mech2cic21 stresses, 2a3 the ele'ctzc- z.z&xetic ixterf2rence effects k-kich de'grEde EcZlace zd sexor systez.

, L.

I;.

*

C.

D.

E.

F.

Stand2rdize, qdzte sd neiatzin conputcr progr~s for co-~~~x use by govement zd tidzctry in order to describe plmes -md their interzcticn effects in .z cost effective z.mer.

Define nonezcl2ti;re, defiCtions, me.zsmF-ept tec3iZqucc ad x1alytic21 Eethcds ia order to pronet& the edoptioa ~5 sta,21-C; prectices. 2

Proncte tecizic21 izfom2tion, exchenge through wetizgs, pr,cgra ?lans .md reviews, ad s~,ec?ld pablic2tion.s.

DisseLinete ixfc-- -,&ion to the cscr cozxnity by 1~ie2zs of plme hadbooks, 'workshops ad t2ckical neetiqs.

27

\ , The naices and effiI,iEtions of r;abers of the TSG 2nd the panel chcixzen

2re listed below. A list of the mzbers ar;d $nfomatibn exchmge perticipats is attached to th5s

A. Technical

report.

Steering C-romp

Mr. A. c. Dr. D. K. t?r. s. il. xr. J. R. Dr. T. P. Dr. T. D. xr. 3. 3. Dr. 1;. E. Dr. 3. J.

Victor, hS?C; China Lake, CA (Chairman M 1979) x2ra - , H?ZL, Zdwerds AD, CA (Cheimzn FY 1980) Breil, l&T, China Lake, CA fultz, AFAPL, WrTght-Pattersrn AFB, OH Greenmcd, KBA/KSFC, AL ?kCay, Z?ZL, Edward AFB, CA Roberts, KASA/JSC, Eouston, TX Scott, .EEC, Arnold 23, T'Iq k'2iker , 13 CM, Redstone Arsexial, AT.

. 3. Panel, Chzimen

Tectic21 >;issile 2FJL.X Sign2ture Pecel, Dr. f;,. E. Scott, JXDC Visual Signature Pael, Lt. 3. C-. Lund, kXT2L

A. The TSG hes defizled a r.mber of tasks for the purpose of achieving the gerersl tectir;cal objectives of the Subccrzxittee. iSth the exception cf 2i- ni;;isrrative f~cticz;s L-Xch ca be performed by thy m&bers of the TSG, t&se tas!Ls 211 fell izto two &xLair?s. That is, they appe2r as part of the techr.icrl prcgras of inSviduel qekies az?/or agency orgsciz,zticns and ii50 as part cf the Subcodttee plz. Sunding fcr the perforiri2nce of t'nese tasks is provicl- .by tile i&ivid*dii zgen:ies q,-hich h2ve interest Fn their eccoqEs?xxct. The a

*

tasks Were smerized in a p2per 2t the 11th flme Technology Xeeting (S-10 F52y 19793 (See Attac?azt 1). .

. '1 . .TAKX$Z Pime Technology Ezdbook, CPU Publication 263 #

The purpose of this hendbock is to docmeat h 2. siligie scarce the bzslc prticiples azd solut5on tecb!iques required to sclive pLune Effects‘

problems, Solut5on tcc'noiques rye divided ir,to th:ree cetegories of in- , . . creasxg.coi;?lexltg; hzzo c2lculatloix, desk c2lculeticE solutiox and

deteiled SGTA cocpnter progrms. It is Intended es 2n iztroduct%cn for the novice, 2 refeiecce source for the piuse phenozenologict End .z pi.ZC-

.tlcel hazdbook to soive plme-reltted problems for the systm user. This ' task is reneged by the TSG. K2n2gezent of irdividuel ch2pters is assigned to the 2ger.c~ rith the greatest interest ia the p2rticul.2r tecbzology are2 cavered. cJ.though m2st work 03 th e ?iinltook 32s been perfo=ed cx contracY,' scne is dozle in-house by govexzzect l&oratories. Dcrizg the past year work has toztFrxrd czl Chaptar 3 (Eocket Exhaust ?lme Xadiation) and Chapter 5 (3ase Sating 2nd Ikse Flow).

2. Tri-Service Sncke Visibiiity 3123

szndszdfzed szc':;e defir?iticn 2nd accocp,~~ l-'ched zrhrcqh ccordinztfcx service support fcr r?er,? pr0graz.s.

28.

,

Executive Codiztee's direction. The current versicn o? the pl.zn, incorpcrating soze ch23ges suggesied' by neizbers of t?e Zcec~tive Coa- mittee, is rt Lsched to this report (Attzchacnt 2). This task is to te managed by the Visual Signature Panel.

3. Tri-SenTice Tactical Ydssilc IR/UV Signature Plen

The principle cbjective of this pl.e-n is to fulfill the cosi~on needs of the three services for plwe IR and 17' data 2nd Eodeling cepabilities. The besis for this plan ~2s established during the TSG meeting in SepterT-bt:r 1977. Since then a major tri-service prosicz~ has been assembled and cctcid-

inated. During this past year a draft of the plan was prepared (see Xttsch- ment.3). This tsk is manrged by the Tecticd Missile IR/L';J Signature Bsnsl.

B. Keethgs znd V0rE:shcp.s

1. JMXAF Pluixe Tec'hnology XeetLng (frequency: is months)

2. TecfioFcel Review Korkshcps

a. Plme Rzcieticn (50 attendees) 3 yzy igig

b. Flume Flow Fields (60 attendees) p yzy igycj

3. Task Review Rorkshops

Task reviews are hsid perrodic~?ig to 2zevk.r the progress of tri- service sponsored ccntracts. At the present t&e these contracts involve two modeling efforts: (i) Standardized Fl.me Plow Field (Si'?) Program and (2) Standardized Infrared Radiation Fiodel (SIPS;) Progrm.

a. SPF Quarterly Reviews: 7 Xovember 1975, ReZstone Ar.scr?d., AL 7 February 19i9, HEZL, Edwards, CA 7 H2y 1579, Redstone Arsenal, H,

b. SI-EN Review

25 January 1979, Photcn Res., L2 .Jollz, CA.

4. Technical Steering Group Xeeiirgs

29

. - z-

I

&joor pl2nring meetings associated 55th the tasks of the Tzctical * M issile IR/UV Signature P2ael were necessary: .

8. 8-9 November 1979, Redstone Arsenal, AL

b. 11 Pky 1979, Redstone Arscxl, )iL c

In addit ion most members and pvticipents of the Tectical M issile IRjLV Simature Panel participated in Flight Simuletion Test Progrm L

.at kE?X durhg the last ixo weeks cf Ilarch 1979.

6. Signeture Studies Specielist Session, (30) attendees wss held on CI 8 lkrch 1379 in Lneheim, CA .ZS p2r t of the 1979 J4KX.G Propulsion Keeting. *

c. fublic2ticns L

1. Cheticzl Propulsion Ioformztion Agency, "JAXUE 11th Plume Technology a~eetin~-u~cl2ssified Fepers." c CPTA Pu3licatfon 305, 2 Volumes. C

. ~

VT- lneif 2re tire basic 2ie2s cf F iuixe teckoiogy 2s s$oc.m in F igure 1 xhcre Ftr h2s brcme CmerztLve, to neke izodel st~zdarizet5cns. Z-ase 2re - (1) ?iuze T'toi7 Fleid, i2) P'i-se Radietio2. T'his h2s tECG-iX i iec&sszry becaise of a xide proliferetion of 2nelytical models, m2ny of which 2re net v2liZ2td, poorly doccm2nted, or both. Sicce tl2ese two erecs under-1 m - 2X the plume technology progrsxs, this is the highest priority current task. Tine goal of this st2nd2rcd -iw2tioz is to est2blish a standard sst

. of codes to ailcv t&e -predictions to Start at the chamber of the rocket . and utilize the ZAKX.L-r SPP, OX:, z~d/cr IDK to predict the rocket nczzle properties. The StEndzrdized Plume Fio;:field (SE) code is utilized to go from the nozzle exit p12De to the end of the piT=e by c.dcul2ilng the flow field structure. Utilizing the flor.? field structure, the S%nderdised- Plume Infrered Bdiztion (SIFGN) Cede is utilized to predict source rrdf2- tion from the plume 2s txll 2s trulszissicn through the stmosphere if plweletmospheric ccrrelsticn is tiport2nt. For t-he c2se k-hen ccrrelaticz - is not important, the trtlsmission to the sensor is msde by utilizing the standardized 2tmosphcric sttenu2tfon codes developed by USPJGL (RI-T"&, LOX-TRZ<) .

1?ith the development of these tT;o sZ2nd2rdized coSes.it becozies possible to solve plme technolcgy e?plicEtion problems utili-zfcg a JfiXAP Ecccpted rode1 in eech of the technology 2re2s. Hence, ukiher the technclo,v qqlicaticn be plume signe"c-ure, or p lume interference, stzndardize d preiiction codes rjill be tvailzhle to predict these effects. : : ~

The stznd2rdiz2tion of these Tao btsLc 2re2s h2s tsgur? and is descri'rc: 5n whnt follo~:s. .

Stznd2rdized Pime Flow Ficz:ld (S?F) ?rcGic

cover the Mach number reoge fro3 O-10. It will focus 03 exhaust plunes _ which contain particles Chile also being able to handle purely ~,EEECPS plumes. It will corctain various &kg models imluding eddy visccsity and turbulent Enetic energy. It will htve ncn-equilibrm cher?istrj capebilities. It will consider axial 2nd later21 pressure groiienta. Ken-optin= ezpecsion*uld shock w2ves ~511 be take3 into account. The . cgpability to zdd a base flow region will be included. Multiple nozzle 2nd three-dimension21 flou effects ~511 not be considered. The code will be modular in form in order to facilitate future changes in technology. This progzm tjill be compctible tith the JZZ%P Improved Solid and Litluid Propelkit Perform2rce Prcgr2m by utiliz+g their output directly 2s iqut to this progzm. Additionally, the*output of SPF xi11 be ccqztibale vith the input of the Etzznd2rdized Infrared Radktion Xodel (SIFaI) Prcgzm. This piogiz is bekg -aged by.tZ.kDCOH and develoPed by 12J.P (Aeroncuticzl Resezrch XssociateS of PiincetC2).‘-

This progrzrj wil 1 be 2pplic2ble to Eli pk2SeS of the ykce techmlcgy program since the flow field is E;? integrzl part C-Z 211 2ppliCethcs.

This Diring the

program is a three (3) ye&r progr2a which begzn in k.prLl 19X. first year the model ~2s formulated. DCiiIlg the &eCGiid y&X

the model xZ.11 be-coded. ,pxing the following nine (9) ncnths, the code-will be.v2lid2ted ?gzinst eqerimentel drta 2nd ckmonstr2te6 on e2cb goverime;! t p2itZClpElt'k cmputer systei2. During the r2zainLzg three (3) nontfrs, the cc& xilL be extensively dccumcnted.

Stand2rdized Infr2re$ Peli2tFon Pl'odel (Si?ZZ) Progrr;l .

This model, z.nd itk.sta&ar&Lked computer co;Le, will be capable of I predicting the infr2red rediaticc of.ttctic21 2nd stiat epic nissiies below 70 kz altitude~cver-the full,opectr21 rage from 1 'to *25bz. Both liquid prcpulsion (g2S'Oniy;_~h?~St) 2nd solid propulsion (g2s/perticle

'exhzust) system trfll be tre2ted,.,qd v2rying levels of zpproxkztions .; for treetant of the Co~i~-g2S/prrticle rad+-^' ,c~~v2 tracsfer processes dll be included, couzensurcte \%th the level of engin~er~.g-apprc~~~atic~ required to solve a given prok&ea. V2riable vi2zing geometries 2nd lines of sight will be included, 2s ~~11 as the cap2bility to h2ndle missile obscur2tion. In genexl, 2 b2nd-model 2ppro2ch‘is used for g2ses in order to mini&e computer run times I* * Iczle retaining edeqiiete 2cccracFes. A line by line spectral c2pability till be included in or&r to hxdie

. , those diatmic gases cot aenable to band-nodel'solutiozs. The code will be nodulerly structured so th2t coqonent parts c2n be easily czinteined 2nd upgraded 2s needed. In the case xhere plume/2tncspheric

. correlaticn is 'r"portEnt, the code oil1 be cqable of treztlzg the coupled radiation tia;lsfe?. It will be user-oriented with v2rious opticzs to allov for solutions r?ging fioa quick and approximte to rare detail-‘ ed ttie-cohsmi.& t?d to eccozodste both ez?ericnced (plme phenoreno- logist) 2nd uxxperienced (system designer cr 2n2lyst) users. P!:e code input will be ccqktible kit> the ccts>\;t fron thz SrznZzrdizG Plce Floufield (SPT) code, and its cxtput will be ccrpatrjle &%th the iziustry stendard $Z GeopSysics Lab's Lox-Przn/Ei-Tr2n ktncspheric o--rc-qecgon' A-c Ir--rr- codes.

31

This [email protected] which began i,n September 1975 will be a ?O month cffo?: by'fhoton Research Inc. end Groan. Technical proposal evaluetions were conducted during June-July by a Tri-Service evaluntion tern.. The prcgra is being mer;eged by the Air Force Rocket Propulsion Labcrstcry d is divided into two phases. During Ph=.. -cc i the contractor will fonzul a and demonstrate the overall methodology, with particular ez;~;hes%s on the treatment of gesjparticle redi&iive techniques. During Phase II the aodel will be ceded, validated against experbental data, demonstrated on the various govermer,t participant's computer systcxs and documented. A techn? workshop ~zill be held neer the ccrpletior? cf the effort to daonsiiaie the code's cepebilfties and to deliver copies to the user commrtriity.

3. Exhaust Plume Technology Handbooks:

This is za on-going task of this subcomfttee 2nd is being develcped 011 a chapter by chapter basis proceeding fro= Plme Flow Fields to Eqerimentel Xeesurements. The status of the hand'sook chapters is:

Chapter 1. ktroduction, to be done Cnapter 2. Gas D~7xmic Flow Kcdels, Kay 1975 Chapter 3. flue Radiation, in final review Ciiepter 4. Plume-ElectronaEnetfc Interactions, April 1977 Chqier 5. Ease Flw-, iin progress C5aptei 6. Pluze Impirgewaiit end Cont.ez,inetion, to Se done Cha"Ler 7 r'L * ?Lune l55as2seneni ~~clziques~ to be dcae ,

The he&book is 2 iocse leaf style F=blicarFoz vhLch is 2 primary method of tec'bzoiogy transfer to gOVEKiGei?t-iiidUSiKy personnel dl0 utilize this techr?olo~y in their bcsizlesses. a Typical applicaticns incli-~2' the effects of pl*wze impir?gement cc rocket 1x;ncher.s and spacecraft surfzct design of an IR sensor, etc. This is a problez? coiving hacdhook r.?hich conteins three levels of complexity going from hand calculations to conp7-e::

. . COzpuiEZ code soluiFons. This lEndbock is iCittiZr! t0 St2sd alor;e Vilth . 2 mxi’?;:-? of references being required fcr its use. Effoy- *CO EE eX>EiZl?d

on the handbook during the r;ext year xi11 ccnsist of the ccnpietion of t?:e' writing on Chapter 5 2x16 the final review and publicericn on Chapter 3.

The completion of Chapter 3 hes IEgged the pleized schedule. In - order to ccnply rrith revisions requEsteZ by TSG reviebzrs, small contracts q?ere arzzrded to Aer0dyr.e Kesczch, Inc. ezld EEXTZCY, Inc. in FY 1979. These cor?tracts are scheduled to be ccqleted in late September ,

. 1979.

The Lzroved technology resulting frcn ihe ix0 stan&rdizeZ ~lu32~ - codes (see Section 17-A) vi11 require thet additions be made to Chepters

2 and 3 sometime after the beginzing of U 1SSl.

c. Iri-Senice IR/tY, Tactical Plissile Program f1.e-n. .

‘.e

D. &i-Service Snake Tisibility Prcgra Pled.

This plm, presented in atteciment 2, v2s prepared in respos;se to the Executive Comittee's direction. The Visible Sigxture Panel hzs been fomed to coordimte the Individual senTice Ectivities zccl Tri- Service sponsored efforts cited in the plen zs ccxtrrbuting to the . overall gosl of developing standxd Zefiniticns znd mxsurezent techdques for missile exheust smzke.

33

AIR FORCE '5E!3ERS

*:k. 3azk R. Fulte, kZ>_FL (EiJA) Dr. David M. %krza, k1L3L (?AC3)

*Dr. T. ,Dv.z.yne XcCay, kFK?L PACP) "Dr. Eerrren E. Scott, AEDC (DOTR)

LWY ?233ERS

Dr. Billy 2. Jexkins, KXC?! (DXXI-IDK) %I!. Billy J. 'Gklker, X'ICO?i (DXSXI-TX)

*xr . 'Stuzrt E. Brell, LiC {Code 3543) cr. kkrev C. i'ictcr, l&T (Code 3240)

R. ACUE, PZk.sD (EIT) L. c. k.dZ.y, 3!aATC (ATC-14) a. A. k..xzs.trcng (LTOSX (KC) s. Berier, DLL4 (DT-1.q E. L. Br2dbury, E-4, D. 3. Sroc'may, Oi'SI??Z

*G. A. Et2cklt2, liCS/El (5252E) Jq* hF . . . Dobbs, Xsl Znrelligexe Agy D. B. Ebeoglu AFATL (DJX?)

*R. Fargnoli, ASTD (SDS') J.' Gem, KS?~C/~zm.zpolis (2833) 3,. I. Goderg, K?SA/L&C (3 423) 3. I;J. ElliSOil, CIA J. Xyknd, KISC (452) E. G. Lmd, AlW?L (PA'Z) s. N2nls2, LXX-D (Scpx)

33. KcCletchery, UGL (CPI)

.

G. R. Moore, KSKChhlgr2n . AD. E. Pepchne, !;rIC (1233)

L. J. Pleshel:, AF!.SZ (X?.'Y) E. E. Ruskic, XISC (Dot Lfb) K. ?.osenwzsser, 1-xVL-w (31GC) c I ..-* J. Rogers, kr.GD (XEZP) I D. B. Sazdford, HGL. (OPX) R. Seixica-Zro, t;/.SAjKSC (DD-SED) mi - ; D. C. Sayles, 3lGATC (ATC-U) 1 E. Sicpson, mx (3343)

*s. T. s-,its, xx (39403) . c W. H. Ts-dce, XX (3343) J. E. Tenner, KKSC (5042) L. Xiiaon, A%% R. c. Yost, OUSDRZ

c 1 I

*S. Zakanycz, lXE2.i (STO) 1 *J. Zlotkovski, AFWL (PACP) I

. 1

IR/UV PAXEL DLSIXL6UTI@N LIST (?kzbers Not Listed Above)

S. E. Xzte, AFASD (1;ZX) T. Trzynor, PZ-ASD (E!ZAC T B. KcDemott, XASD (YIZV) ii: S23derson, SAL h?Zl) A. Torres, &SAL (18?2)

G. Ezrvey , X3 (1409)C. Velicr, EEL (i124: I C. Veiler, KU.. (7124) 1:. ?Isc?kekin: 3.43C (301'1) I G. St2=, NXL (5534) ’ . 1

T, J2cksm, KICcO!~I (DBSEI-TEI) I

.&5x&;' R,,‘ Grxzx Aerospace A&e&, 5. J., E!SC/Huntsville Bzrton, J. ?,I., Boeing Aerospace Bezstern, L., Aerodyne Research Boreas, S., Thiokol/3righa City Bayer, D. W., Cals,zn Bo;.:nton, F. P., i'hysical Dymznics Buckie, G. A., NOS/Indi2n Keed Campbell, R. G., Rocketdy;l.e/Caaoga Pk Carter, R. E., LXSC/Huntsville Cbou, L. c. , NAsA/115FC COR~RC, J., Aerodyne Research Cocnaughton, J. W., XIRZDCOX Cooper, B., K!lAC/Z!urziagto2 Ee2ch

Coug'nliz, J. P., Aerojet Solid Prop Co Dssh, s. I?. , Aeroaauticel Res Assoc Pr Dawbaix, R., KRO Del Guidice, P., GruB2n Aerospace Elgic, J., Aerodpe Research Everscle, J. D., University D2yto~ Falm_er, I-?. 14. , Univ. TX Spece Inst FOX, s . 1-f. , BC.?1/Princetoz Franke', D., Aerodyne Reseerch Free-z=, G. h'., Photcn Resrerch Geish, ?I., Aerodyne Zesearch Gillil2r?d, T. M., J~~/APL Gion, E. J., Arxv B?& Gizxi, L. R., Ys;cuies/C-mberlwd GreezJood, T. F., NASA/MS FC Guemsey, c. s., JPL Hair, L. M., RZXZEC Hen7e11, R. E., Univ. TN Space Inst Eoshizaki, B., Lo&heed P210 Alto Hrubes, J. D., JPL E;ueser, J. E., Old Doxinion Univ Jertki-is, 3. Z., MIRZICOM Rassei, T., Grumman Aerospace Ko3ler, J. S., MIPSiDCO?f Levers, K. H., AXDC Lewis, 3.. W. L., ARG Light, G., Aerospace LiEbaugS, C. C., AR0 Ludwig, C. 3., Photcn Rsearch Luz-td, E. G., AFIZ-PL Eadson, J. M., KDAC/St.Louis x.albus, w., Photon Resezrch. Mann, D. If., AIFRPL

b!cG?egdr; %. %. , jZ.0 Melfi, L. T., :Y.S4!L.2zgley Meredith, R. E., Opel Z-fetrics >!eyer, J. !J., Lcckhesd Palo kl;o Xikkelser!, C. D. , Th5OliOl/Z.UZiS-7iliCI

Plolzud, P. , TX; Moore, G. R., ?;SWC/Dahlgren Nelson, D. A., A2rosp2ce Iievitt, 1.7. G., ?ZS/indiarr Ee2d Nichols, T. D., AZiTiI I?oyes, J. C., ZceL3g Ohrenberger, J., TW Pearce, B. E., .43-A? Peinemem, AXIOM Pergaent, E. S., AIIQ? Peterson, L. X., 5Z-f Prozan, R. J., Ccntiwu Razierez, P., Roclzwell/Seai Beach Rexls, E. A., Chryst2r/Z;e:J Orleans Reardon, 3. D., F.Z=TZC Rhodes, R. ?., X.0 Rieger, T. J., SySi2ZS CO3irCl

Roj2rt5, 3. 3., %SXfJSC R1;dzan, S., Grm271 Saxderson, R. E., .A.?AL S2rg22nt, B. I., Zr.terst2te Eiec. Sayles, D. C., 31%4TC Scott, B. E., EDC Selby, J,. E. A., Groan Seymour, D., X4S&'ZiSTC simpsor., G., mc Sins, J. L., NASX/MSX Slack, MI. , Gitxxan Saith, A. Z?., A30 Smith, S. D., USC/Euntsville Smith, s. T., xc Thorpe, R. D., &Z'X' Treanor, C., C2lspan Victor, A. C., XX Walcek, E. J., LittOo

Walker, 3. J., 25XADCOM Weaver, D. P., AR0 W2bb, J. R., Thiokol/Brigh2m City Weinberg, K. , Q.0 \%itesid2s, R. H., Thiokol/Buntsville Wilson;, K., Lockheed/Palo Alto Womhoudt, J., Aerodpe Research Yousefien, V., Aerodyne Research

35

PlJYiICI?PXTS (Kot Included on Attendance List)

32Tb0\~, E. J., Rockvell/Dohmey 3lessitg, k. tI., Bell ryrooks, I?. T., Iiercules/?:cGregor 3-2rtCn , J., ~ercules/XcGregor Eusch, C. PI., Spectron Celcote, E., Aerochm Dlrector, hi., ARC Dreper, 3. S., Xerodyce hmey, T. E., Kercnles/Ai?L Edelrixi, R,, SAI Elghobashi, S., CX.+!X of ]\'A Felix, 3. R., tJT/CSD ris'hbuznc, nL. S., A??A.F Foster, R. C.: Kercules, &L. Frazer, A. c., Ford Greenvald, C-. F., XX.C/BuB Guile, R. IT., LT/RC &.rs’;la, T., SXI S~t'fy, D. id., ?DX, EiuZ EE-~L?, R. R., Xercsp2ce Eetrick, Ii. A., SAI, Golden, CO EQffGrI, R., s&s c.Eims , Ii. J. , zliol:cljRasatch L&occa, A., ER.TLT Lee , R. El., Aerosps c2 Lovdeer, J., XiT Kzrone, 3, Y., Celspen Yelson, D., Xercsp2ce Xickersos, G. R., SE4 Inc Korbgard, J. D., GeTech ferlg, s. Y., Aerojet ElectroSys ?ezmy, M. M., U!SC/Zi Persky, Il. J., Block piesik, E. T., GD/Ponona -- Rzy, C., PhysSci iZng, L. R., LYSCJY Sdxll, L., Xart~II/@rlan~o Sheets, D. A., LXC/S Sm.zerhays, R. M., Vought Suttor, E. A., Coxord Sci Virte, 0. 3., TR'r k'cifhard, E. G., IDA Vurster, 1J, E., Crlspan

.

,

I

36

i s4 sensor and simulation notes .278 note 278

Documents