-

!

GEORGE C.

U
MPR-SAT-FE-73-1
S LIUMCH REPOR_-ES-512 295 p HC CSCL 22C G3/30

N
N'73-33922 OncLa$ 198_5

FEBRUARY 1973 28,

SATURNLAUNCH V VEHICLE FLIGHTVALUATION E REPORT-AS-512 APOLLO 17MISSION

....'.- ' /Io _.._ ,; .. "

" '_V

iviO-iL

PmEPARED BY _TUH FLEHT _ALUATIOHWORKIHG GROUP

:L'r_C

- F,_¢'¢

"'J

,'Rev

Ocf

:_,er

|';;'bT)

6EOKE C.HA|SHALL SPACE FLI6HT CENTE|

MPR-SAT-FE-73-1

FEBRUARY 28, 1973

SATURN LAUNCH V VEHICLE FLIGHT EVALUATION REPORTAS-512 APOLLO 17MISSION

PlgAlll

BY

_11iJllflFLINT EVALUATION WOIIKIN STOUP

L

MPR-SAT-FE-73-I SATU_¢ V LAUNCH VEHICLE FLIGHT EVALUATION REPORT - AS-512 APOLLO 17 MISSION BY Saturn Flight Evaluation Working Group George C. Marshall Space Flight Center ABSTRACT

Saturn V AS-512 (Apollo 17 Mission) was launched at 00:33:00 Eastern Standard Time (EST) on December 7, 1972, from Kennedy Space Center, Complex 39, Pad A. The vehicle lifted off on a launch azimuth of 90 degrees east of north and rolled to a flight azimuth of 91.504 degrees east of north. The launch vehicle successfully placed the manne_ spacecraft in the planned translunar coast mode. The S-IVB/ I_ impacted the lunar surface within the planned target area. This was the third Apollo Mission to employ the Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV) during Extravehicular Activity (EVA). The performance of the LRV was satisfactory and, as on Apollo 15 and 16 Missions, resulted in a significant increase in lunar exploration capability relative to the lunar exploration missions made without the LRV. The average distance traversed with the LRV on the last three Apollo Missions was approximate]y 30 kilometers, where the average distance traversed on the three Missions without the LRV was approximately 3 kilometers. The total distance traveled on the lunar surface with the LRV on this Mission was 35.7 kilometers (17 miles). All launch vehicle Mandatory and Desirable Objectives were acco_lished except the precise determination of the lunar in_act point. It is expected t_at this will be accon_}llshedat a later date. No failures or anomalies occurred that seriously affected the mission. Any questions or comments pertaining to the information contained in this report are invited and should be directed to: Director, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, Alabama 35812 Attention: Chairman, Saturn Flight Evaluation Working Group, SAT-E (Phone 205-453-1030)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page TABLE OF CONTENTS L|ST OF ,'LLUSTflATIOflS LIST OF TABLES tf! vii J| x 11I xlv xvllI xxt ACCOPWI.ISIMEIIT xxvtll xxvtx 5.5 1-1 ]-1 5.6 5.6.1 5.5.2 2-1 2-2 5.7 5.8 S(CTION ) 3. I 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.3 3.4 3.4.1 3.4.Z 3.4.3 3.5 3.5.1 3.S.2 - LAUNCH OP(RATI011S 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-3 3-3 3...4 3-4 3-8 3-8 3-8 3-9 3-9 3-9 3-10 5.10 5.9 Summary Pre] eunch _t teStS S-IC Stage S-IX Stage S-iYB Stage IU Sr.aqe Ten, hal Coun_leum SECTION S - S-IC 5.1 S.2 5.3 5.4 S_q_ry 3-|C Ignition Per fofmance $-_C P_lln_lge Transient Pe.rfocg_nce P_OPULSI_ 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.4 Park|nq Orbit Phase In_ectlon Phase Early Translunar Orbit

Page 4-2 4-2 4-9

Phase

aC_J_OWL £_EMENT AeM£YI&T IONS MISSION PLAN FLIGHT _RV NISSION O_£CTIV(S FAILUA(S _0 A_LIES INTRODUCTION

S- 1 5-1 S-4 5-7 ._°7 5.-7 5.7 5-8 5-9 _,'_ S-i0 S-|I

S-:C £n_tme Sbutdotm Transient Per for_r_e S-IC Staqe Propellant /_i_g_ment S-IC Pressurization Systems S-:C _'_xel IlYessurtzetIon Sys_e_ S-IC LOX Pressur]zatton 3_ste_ 3-IC _tlc Control Pressure Systlm $-IC S-IC 3-IC $-II Purge $.v'stl_S POGO Suppression H_lr_ulSc S}_tem

SECTION I 1. ] 1.2

%rpose Scape

S£CTIOfl 2 - EVENT TI_IES 2.1 2.2 _ry of Events

Yet|able Ti_ and C_ Switch Selector Events

Sys_m
SICTION 6 6.1 6.2 6.3 5.4 6.S 6.i 5.5.1 5.6.2 PROPULSION 6-I 6-I 608 6-10 (w11 6-13 6013 6-16 6-17

_mmlry S-II Chtlldoun aml il_llclh_ Trans 4t_nt Peqr'f'omnce 3-II Mafnst_je Perfor_nce

Pro_l 1ant Loads ng RP-I Loadtng LOX Loading LH2 Londt ng Ground Support Ground/Vehicle MSFC Fur_tshed [_t_wnt Equtmunt I nt4rface Grmmd Suitors

S-IX Shutdomm Transient Perfomnce S-IX Stage Prol_Tlant Iq_nagement System S-IX Pressuriza;lon System S.-II Fuel Pressurlzatto_ System S.-II LOX Pressurization System S-If Pneu_ttc C_trol Pressur_ System

SICTION 4 - TRAJ(CT0rt 4.1 4.2 4.2.1 Suimry TrIJector_ Ira|rattan Ascent Phase 41-,I 4-1 4-1

6.7

iii

i"
t-

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

P_ 6.S S+I! 5_ 6.9 System 6.10 $-II System SECTI_ 7.1 7.2 7 Su_ry S-frO Chllldove and :rftnSJ_qg. PPrfn_'Pin_e r|_st _rn S-IV8 Patn$t4.ne for First _urn S-IVg ShoL4ovn for Bvtldup for $-1V8 Pg_)P_L$IO_ 7- I 9.1 7-2 9.2 9.3 7-2 9._.1 9.3.Z 9.3.3 9.J.4 9.3.S 9.4 RvJldu_ for 7-9 9.4.1 9.4.Z 7-12 S, CTIOII E Transient for Se¢on4 llur_ 7-12 7-12 10. ! 10.2 10.2.1 10.2.2 7-75 7-15 7-16 _0.3 10.4 70.4.1 10o4.Z Pm_vm_tt¢ $75t_ Auail_ary Pro_elst_ 7-19 Control 7-11 90.4.3 10.4.4 90.5 IO.5.I !0.5,2 VO.l_ 10.6.1 IO.ILZ 10.6.3 /0.6.4 $[CTI_II :0 COJPITII_L _r_ y System (vilvatlO_ S_PI_KATIOII _,mar S_m_ ry _ tcM_Ce C_lr| an4 so_s 6uid4l_e Scheme Mydriu14 c 6-19 _11up tern Suooress ton 6-19 |njectlon 6-17 8.2,2 _).2.3 8.2.3.1 6.2.4 8.3 een_ tnq ._ent s Y_tc)e Oy_)mtc C_aracter*sttcs L0ngit_li_l 0yna_+c C_lr+cCer+5C_c5 Vlbra_.iO_ 5-_! Cutoff SECTI(_J 9 _ L_mi_n_ System A_O _VlG_TlOlq _actuo

Paqe 8-3 8-3 8-3 8-6 8-8

GUIDk_CE

9-1 9-| %7 <)-7 9-7 9-12 _-14 9-16 9-16 9-_6 _*17

7.)

Perfo_m4_e Transient First 6urn Co4st

_av,qa_lon [v4 _ua( <o_

7.4

7-6

P_rfOrm_r.ce 7.S 7.6 _-IV8 P_Jse Park_n_

Orbit n_

7-6

¥ir_able Liunch _Zimuth _(rs_ _t Period Ear_ Parktr_3 Orbit _tCOP_ BOOSt Per_d Po_t-TL I Pt,+-t<xl ._3vigatton an4 _td_ce System Co_oor_nt$ ST-/Z4_ Scai_ilfz_ PtdtfOn_ S vsten _ance Comout er

Con<It t _

$-.'V8 Chi11(_own and TranSI_nt Perfc.rm4_e Se¢ond _r. 5-1V6 _alss:age for SeCoflC[ Burn 5-1V_ _vtee_m

7.7

Performince

7.B

10-1 10-1 10-1 10-I [++l_tton 10-6 10-7 10-7 I0-1I 10-19 10-14

Perfor_a_¢e 7.9 S-IV8 5tlet _n_aement S-lY8 5-IY8

Pro_llant

S*IC Control Ltftoff Inflt9_t $-ZI

Dynamics Cemt._ol ._ysCem

7, tO 7.10.1 7.10.2

Pr4Pssuetza_ton System Fuel Pressurtzattcm I_essurlZattem

S_s_ea 5-I¥8 LOI 5_te_

S-IY8 Control Syste_ (v41u4tlem Control $+vstm Evatvl¢fon _rin9 Ftrst _urn Control SyStel [vll_tton Ovrin 9 Parkin_ Orbit £emZrol System £v+lu_t_ Dvrtn I Secon4 Bur_ C04_n21 System [V41eklgJem AFter S-;VB Se¢oed Burn Instrument C_m_enents GImI 5T.lZm S4Pl_rit 5-lCfS-I _ntt Concrol lvaluJttem _esotvm 5v_pg+es

7.11 7.12

S-IY8 _ressure S-IY9

7.13 7.13.1 7.19.2 7.13.3 7.13.4 7.13.5 7.13.6 7.13.7 7.14 7.11.I 7.14.2 SECTICII : 8.1 8.2 |.Z.t

_|Y80rl_Jlr_lll _ftn_ Fuel Tank _4ftn_ LOI Tie Oum_i_g i_d C_Id Nellue _ _e_ H_14u_ Ovm_ Sr_N P_e_ttc _ft_ £na_ne S_r,. lrngtne C_trol

Ol_lt_ 54f|m)

7-23 7-_ 7-26 7-21 7-27 7-_8 7-28 7-29 7-29 7-29

10-ZZ IO-ZZ 10-22 |O-ZZ _0-_'_ IO*ZE 10-23 10-23

Angle Po_r

Cemt_rol

S_r_

t ot_ I _ritiO_l

t_nk So¢tmJ SO,ore Stftq

S-IVl _4ravltc Systln Beost ariel First _r_ Parkine Orbit and _ecend _• _lr_ To_al veet¢le Evaluatten Lo_dl _1 Structure5 LoNs Sl_CTU_S

S-J9 Secen4 Plane Se_ratt_ S-I IIS-.IV8 Sel_ratlem _ $'l_at IOn 19 ELEC/RtCAL DEI"ECT1011

_

XlETMIIIIeI_ AIIO EPIE_IICr $1r_tEl_ 11-I

11.1 8-1 6-1 8-1 11.Z 11.3 fl.4

S_llq S-IC S-11 S-IV| St49e Stllge Stage (tectrt_ll |le¢trtcli (le¢trVc_! Sysm SySt_ Syst_l

I1-1 11-2 I1-3

iv

T._BLE OF CONTE_TS (CONT_NUED)

Page .... tt.4. t 11.t.2 _.._ _It 11 .S ......... 11.E ry ,_o. 1, Te_era_ure Un:_ Electrical Oece¢_lo_ 11-9 11-1S SECT:O._ 18 * SP=C£CR_I S_'_-_BY _, SECT:0.q 19 - _SFC ::;FL!_ 12-1 12-T 12-1 _2-1 S[_ICX 20 - LL."_R_O'z:'._ '._H:G.£ )7-3 )7.3.2 17.3.3 17.3.4 17.4 :7.5 TraJK:or_ £ffec:s Per_ueb:n_ _ec_ant s_s T_a'.', ve Co.nclus_ons Tri'_eC:Ory :P_¢_ _viTua_

_a_e :7-5 _7*_ :7-_. T7-g 17.-_.

_ncr4_asa_

"ns:_n_ Sys_.e-

Co_I_

Sa_ur_ Y [_roe_Cy Sys*.e_ ,r£ns}

SECTXOm 12.1 ":2.2 12.2.1 12.2.2 .............. TZ.3 SECTZO_I_3 - vI[_,'CLE T_E_.vAL £._YIR(_qlT 1:3.1 13.2 13.3 ........ _3.113._ _.;C/S._.: Sega_l_,on Then'_.ll 13-3

19-:

S_ry last _tss_ra$ S-:C _ase _ressu_es "-_: =.ese PreSsures

20-: 20.2 Z0.3 Oep! ovum: L_'; ".o scored _y1044 ;n:er_ace [_vt r O_en_ 20.5 _0._ _.7 20.7.1 _-ee: Locc_: Soll :n_eracz_o_ 22-2 20-2 _.0-2 2_-2

Sv_ar_ S-:C Base _eal'.1_ _-': _ase _ei:ln9

TJ- I 13-1 T3-2

_on Per_omence

Yec_a_cal Systrs _a_-on_c _r4ve 2_ 2_-£ 2_-S 204 20--S ZC4 2-7 20-7 2O-7 Z3-Z Z04 Z0-10 Vl_dcle Z0-I0

14. ) 1&.2 1A.3 14.4 |4o4.1 14.4.2

.%w_ery _-:C S-:_ _nv_ron_n_41 .r_y_ro_encal Contr91 C_ntr_l

14-1 1_-1 14-2

Z_.7.4 20.7.5 20o7.6 20._ _.8. | 2eJ.8.2 20.8.3 20.$.4 20.8.5 23.g

S:ab_ 1_ :y Ha_d Ccn_rol",er Loads E_ec:_tcll Syst_es _::er:es Trace:on Ortv_ (:SCare° g_s_.rt _t.to_ S_S_.l_ S:ee_ _'_-_'4_r InteSra_.or Con:_ol _nd Otsplay Console ._av_ga'.ton Sy_eu •

"._ (nv_ror_cm_il Control 14-2 T_e ._',41 C_ndf_lontn4 S.ys_:4_ (TCS)14-2 G4s 8ear_n_ Sys_ _erfor_mce _-S

_CTZOIZ 15 - _T,_ S_?T.-S 15.1 15.2 IS.3 lS.4 lS.S IS.I; 15.i.1 Su_a_ Vehtcle ._eesure_'ent (valutt|e_ Sys_es 1S-1 16.1 IS-I 16.S 1S-5 IS4

29.10 29.1I 29.12 29.13 20.14

&Irhorne V_F Te1_t_y (velua_ton

Crew S_a_to_ The_41 S?.r_c_rtl Lunar Roving _4guratlon

C-_and Radar System (valuatt4a Secure S_szem Cc_n_r_ Sy__.m S_Jr7 _t_e SMety Com_nd Evalvatto_ and C_m_¢at_o_s Evaluat_ c_ of _r_omtnce

fdq_EAO|X A - _.'_OS_(RE 16.8

ls._.z
15.7

_am_e
;r_vr4

_,;zsfs

ls-_

A.1 A.Z A.3

Sen_lr_ Generll
dtttO_tS

[ngtnee_ng

CltraS

36-12

At_S,._h_rtc
it Lwach

C4_
Tim

A-1 A-1

_EL'TIOII 16 - _ 16.1 ll.2 S_TIOI 17.1 17.Z I7.3 17.3.1

DgUU_L'T_R|ST|_ 16-1 1_-1

Su_ace _.v'_tioms Launch Ttee

at

S_llm_7 Miss [yilu4ttOn 17 - L_UUi 2RPACT S_m_ry Tninslun_r Coest _lnevvers 1(ms

17-I 17-1 17-3 17-3

A.4 A.4.1 A.4.2 A.i.3 A.4.4 A.4.S A.4.S

;_er _f_ _eis_r_ints V_n_ SPeed Vtn_ _t re¢¢10_ P_J_ Vfnd _q_nenZ Yav gfnd (_epon4_ _. litn4 Sh_m _t_ Idtn4 _1_ ts t_e

A-I

A-t

Tr_eC¢ory Per_rbat lnt_u4uct4on

Htg_ Oy_dc aegtm

TABLE OF' CONTENTS(CONTINUED)

Pll_e X.5 A.S.|A.S.2 A.5.3 A.S.4 A.6 The_odvmPl¢ Atrmsphertc At_osghert¢ At_o$_l_ert¢ _ta T_n_rature P_ssure Ocms t ty of A-6 J.:4 A*I¢ J-14 A-14 A-14

OptJcal |nclex _efra¢l_to_ Ccw_r_son A_o$:_hertc S4turn

of Selectecl Oatl for

¥ Lsuncl_es AS..S_Z S_G_ZF_CJIKI' ON CKUC_ $ B-1

_[110lX

II -

C_:F ZF, _T; U 8.1 |nt_xk_t _on

vt

,

.

-. •

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

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

Figure 2-I . 3-1 3-2 AS-SI2 Telemetry Tlme Olf fe_-e_ Elect_ca! E_u_e_ Support _arttal ScheNttc

Page 2-3 3-5 3-7 PositiOn S_acear_ Flt0ht

Figure 6-7 6-8 6-9 6-10 S-If Steady O_eration S-:I
Prffssur_

Paqe State 6-9 6-14 5-1S 6-15 5-I8 6-20

Fuel Tank Ullage

Olode C.h!__etall _ AScent Tra_e_tOr7 Ascent Tr_ectory
F_xed V_oclty

............ _" ;, ;_

4-1 4-2

4-3 4-3

S-II Fuel Fume Inlet ._ondt t!ons S-I: LOX Tank Ullage Pressure S-I: LOX Pur_ Inlet Co_dl tion$

Pat_ 4-3 4-4 4-S 4-6

Ar_'e

Cormartsons 4-4 4°4 6-13 4-8 _IO 6-14 5-12

Ascemt .'ra_ectar7 Acceleration Comparl _n 0yna_ic _Ssure and ,_,ach _ur'ber C_. arisons Laurch _'ealcleGrouncZtrack XnJecticr.Phase SpaceF(xed 7e:_Ity and Flight patll ;, r_,e Coe_artsons _" I n.;ectie_ Phase Acceleration C_ari_n S-IC L._I Start Box Reout re_mt s S-:C E-xlinesThrust

S-'i Center Engine LOX ._ll_ Accumulator Bleed Sj_ _.em Per for_nc.* S-If Center Er<Ine LOX Fe._line Acc_lator FIll
Trails ient

6-20

f;, " 4-7 _. 5°1 _ S-2

S*I: Cecter £_I_ L0) Fee(Hine _cc_nulator Ho11_ _pply System Performance S-IVB Start Box m_ Run Requirements - First Burn S-!Vg Thrust Bu(Idup for First Burn S-IV_ Steady-S_ate Decay - Co4st Transient

6-21

4-10 S-Z 5-3 S-S S-9

7-I 7-Z 7-3 7-4 7-5 7-6

7-3 7-4 7°5 7-7 7-8 7-10

Pert_omnc_

S-!VB Thrust S-IV8 _se

._-3 -_. 5-4 S-S _ :_ ._ :6-I 6-2 6-3

_IC S:-_e Prnl_lsto_ Performance S-IC Fuel Tank Ullage Pressure S-IC LOX Tank Ullage Pressure S-If [mime Perfor_mce S-11 E_me Pressu_s Start Holtum TaW Tank

CVS Performance

_ZVS Ullage Conditions During Re_-essurtzatton 02/H2 Burner S-!YE 0211(2 Burner Thrust and Pressurant Flc_rate S-IYB Start P_uirnments

Using 7-10 7-1! 7-13 7-16

6-3 6-4 6-4

7-7

;4 7-9 7-10

Box and Run - Second Burn

_II Ty_i_ml S_r_ Tank b_Iti_mms Oum'l_ Hold C_wrls_n of S-II Start Tank Co_tttons During COOT and LauecN _-II S_,'_ Tank l_ill Semm_e (Engine 1. i'ypi_1 ) S-ll Englme P_ Start _I m_tt lnlet

S-IVB S_e_dy-State Perfm_aance - Second Burn _IYB First L_2 Ullage Pressure * Burn, Parking Orbit Second Burn M Inlet - First Born _ Inlet - Second Burn

T v _/
q

6-4

6-5 7-11

F -_:,_ _ -

6-5

S-1¥0 Fuel Conditions S-_V8 Fuel Conditions

7-17 7-17 7-18

6-6

6-7

7-13

S-IYB LOX Tank Ullage lh'_ - First Burn. Earth Parking Orbit, and Burn

_r

vii

°

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (CONTINUED)

Fggure 7-14 7°IS 7-16 7-17 ....... 7-18 ....

Piqe 7-20 7-20

Figure g-9 AS-S12 Dynamic Responses _urina S-If Acc_mu;a_or F111 {1-1!0 Mz Ftlter) AS-S_Z S-IVB Gfm_al Block AcCelorat(nn _'_ur(n(J S-If Burn - Longit_ina_ (8 tO 20 HZ Filter} S-'V8 Gi.bal Block Acceleration and S-If Cen_er Enaine Thrust P_d Acceleration S.-'_,c_ra at T *'85 to 190 _¢oe_s r_i_e on S*!VB _lmbal 81c_k During S-;I Burn _S-51Z S-IVB LOX _mm In!et Pressure S_ec_ra Tra.tectory and ST-_24_ P_,at._om VeIoctty CornPerisons. Bo_$t-_o-EPO (Trajectory _,i_uS LVDC) Tra;ectory a_ ST-I.'4X Platform Velocity C_;arisons, BoOSI- _-TLI (TraJe¢_.ory _im_s LVDC) Comparison of L_OC and PostfIIgh_ Tr_ectory Our1 n9 [PO Contfnuous Vent System (C:'_} Thrust. and _cceleritto_ _ur_ ng EPO Steering S_rtng Coaw,"_IS, Ft_t

Pagu 8-10

8-10 7-21 7-24 7-24

8-10

8-II

8-11

7-25 7-27

8-12 8-13 9-1

&-12 8-13 9-2

8-2 A£celeratton at Durtn_ Thrust up and Launch 8-Z |U and Build9.2 8-3

9-4

Loh_i tu_Iina Load I _tstributlon st Time of .uax_ Bendlng ,_t, CICO a._d OECO 9endtna Moment and Load Feb.tar Distribution at Tfe_e of Kaxt_um Be_dtng _ment AS-512 EnvelOpe of CouOtned Loads Producfi_. I_tntmum _lfety ;qlrgtn$ fm- S-IC Flights IU Vibration Ourfng S-IC 8urn (Longttudtmll) AS-S12 Longitudinal Acceleration at IU and OM During. Csmtof Engine
Cutoff

9-3 8-4 9-4 8-5 9-5 8-6 8-7 9-6 10-I 10-2 8-8 10-3

9-8

8-3

9-9

8-4

9-10 9.IS 10-3 10-4 10-S

8-S 8-6

Cammmnd$, _¢_ D)m_wa|¢$ Dw_in9 Ourtng

Pttch Plane S- IC Burn

taw Plane O)_mqcs S-It Burn

8-7

kS-S12 Longitudinal Acceleratlon at IU and oq Our4ng Outboard Engine Cutoff A_512 Center Engfne Chamfer Pressure and GimI_i PM Ar_elefatt_m O_eiml _-II Ibrm (8 ta 20 _z FITter) ¢c_m to AS-S11

Ptt_l_ and Yav Plane Free Stremm Angle of Atta¢k During S-It Pitch S.-II Plane Oy_mt¢$ Durt__ Owing O_-(m_

10-4 8-g 10-5 TO4

10-8 10-!1 10-10

8-8

• aw Plane 07_mfCS • -;I Burro Pltch S-I¥8 Plane First Wcs I1_

viii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (CONTINUED)

Ftgurt ............... 1007 "I0-8 10-9 10010 ........ 10011 ¥a_ Plane DynisicsDurtn9 5-1VB first Burn Pitch Plane Dynaplc= Park tmJ Orbit Pitch S-IVB ,_uring

Page 1001G lO-IZ 10-13 I0-13 10-15

Ft_re 13-5 la-I 14-2 14-3 14-4 14-S S-If _eat Radtatto_ Shield Aft Heat Llti Coetrol

Page 13-6 14-) 14-4 14-6 14-7 14.8 14-9 14-9 I_-6 1S-7 15-9 15-10 17-4 Co_st 17-4 17-7 17-7

IU TCS Coolant Para_e tc_'s

Plane Dynamics _rtng Seemed

IU S_bllmator P_rfCraanCe Bur t _J A$C(._t _l_tK IU Cmq_ane_t

Yaw ?lane O)mamics O_n-tr_ _-:v_"Sec_ Pitch Plane Dyr_nlcs Duff N Tra_slunar CmIst (Sheet 1 of 6) AS-_12 S-IC-S-II _ep4ratlon

IU TCS rr_r_llc
Pe_or_a_e IU "CS Sph_r¢ Pr_ssvrt Platfo@F"

10012 11-1
• f r_

10-23 11-4

14-6 14-7 IS-I

Otstancea. S-IVB Staae For_rd NO. 1 htter.v Vo;tage and Current S-IV8 Stage For_rd No. Z Ilattery Voltage aM Current _.IVB Staee _'.ft ._o. I httery (o_,tage an_ Current S-IV3 Staee Aft Battery Voltage S-IYB 0at4 S-Iv9
Heawr

I_J :Hfttll ._res ;ure

:u &m_S z S_here P_ssvres C,x V14FTelemetry _Isltl_ and Loss "rimes C-Band Ac_tstt_on Loss Tim CCS D_nltnk Tim (Ltftoff _1

11-2 11-3 11-4 !1-S

11-S lf-2 11-6 • IS-3 11-? lS-4 1I-8 17-1 11-10 17-Z 1:-II II-1Z 11-13 11-14 IZ-Z 17-S 12-2 IZ-] 13-4 13-4 13-S 20-4 13-6 17.8 17-7 17-8 17o3 17-4

k £

r.

NO. 2 and Curr_t _o. !

Phase Lock to TILl) to

Aft Aft

hater7 htter_

COS Coverage (.'LI Lunar eaglet ) Transluner 0vervtev Coast _

)
)
o,

114 11-7 11-41 II-I 11-10

.go. 1
Circuit

Control

IU 6010 httery |U 6029 htt_'y IU _30 ht_

Par_eWrs P,ramters Parameters Pirmeten Fc_rd

_elecl Translv_r Hlnl_vers

Gravtty-0niy Lunar Impact Tra_lL_trry Ra_aell Lunar Impact TraJectm'y lltstduals wifJ! Pls,lurlilng Influt_ces Nodel_l Early PTC T_ie lesi411s llestclv41s

IU 6040 Battery S-If I1eat S_told Face Pressure S-II T_vst

t

12-1 12-2 12-3 13-1 13-2 13-3 13-4

17-10 17-11 I7-14

CAme Pressure Aft To141 Tamp_rlAft _

Late FTC T_ble Lunar Landm_ks Tracking 04_

S-If He_t Skteld Face P_sur_. 5-IC ha R_tem Heatl ng Rate S-IC M_tllllt r._

/l_lllMlllty

17-1S 20-3 20-4 20-g 2U-11

20-i 2O-2

Apollo 11 UW £_-3 Trlvlrs4

L_VPo_r Uslgl
L_ Fender Fta

S-II Heat Heat late

Sktel4

LW htt_ry no. I (Left)
Tlnperil_re

S-II Heat S_teN Tmt_w_

$

i.
iX

4J

°

LIST

OF ILLUSTRATIONS

(CONTINUED)

Page .................. 20-3 A-I , L_V F.a_ery _. 2 (Plaht) Tem_ra _re Surface ;leather _;) •_c'proxtrate]y 6 |/2 HOurS _f:em Launch af AS-SlZ SO0 _|l)_l_r _ Ao_rQx_NCeT.v 6 TIZ Hours After Launch of _5-S|2 La_u_cmTime of 13-S1Z
A-4 Id_nd DtrectJoct it LauflCh

20-11 A-2

A-2

Ao4

A-7 A-8 A-9

Ttm A-S ........ ,L6

of AS.-SIZ

Pitch Vtnd Veloc|ty _omone.t (W_) at Launch Tt_ 6f-l_S-512 " Ya_ ]_nd Velocity ComDo_t (u z) aC Launch Tir, e of AS-.c12 Ptt, Ch (Sx) and Tar (Sz) Comonent Vtnd S/tear5 aC Laun(_ Ttm of 4S-51Z Relative Oevtattcn of T_raturll and P_l_surll fr_ the I_UI-t_I Reference Am_4_ere. AS-S12 Rel;r.lve Oevtat4m of Don_|ty and Absolt/t_ nev_atlan of _e [_tex of Refraction Finn the I_-63 Ref_e ),tPnosl_,ere. AS-S12

A-IO

A-7

A-11

A-8

A-iS

A*9

_-16

X

LIST OF TABLES

...........

Table I

-

....... Iq $slon 0bJect 1yes Accomo1! s_me_t _ary An,_ Of SIQniftcent I fes

Paae

Table 9"I Iner:tal Platfom Velocity C_lr| sons ( PAC$S-12 Coordih4 te Syst_) _v_ga_fon Co_p4r_ so_s (PACSS-13} State 'Lector U_fferen_es it Translun_r |n_ect;o_ AS*SIZ End Conditions Coas_ I_ase Gutdance Steeri_ Cmmae,_$ at Major [ve_ts A5-$12 Liftoff ::ts_ltgn_mt Conditions ,nd S_4ry

P_e 9"S

2 3

@-2 9-3 9-4 9*5

9.6 9-11 9-1Z 9"13

Sumn'alry _f AnGmilfes -T4_e- _se $|_|ffcant S_ma4ry ¥1rtlbll _ttch _wnn_ry £VL_._ .Ttmcs 2-i Z-4 Z-lO 3-2 4-5 4-6 4-7 4-0 dl-8 S-2 S-6 5-8 5-.11 6-'*_ 7.6

/T,

-

2- I 2-2 2-3

_"
_.: _, '_" 4-I 4-2 4-3

TIN and Cam_Med SelLqctor Events 17 ere_aunch "_'" -

_S-S1Z/ApolIo _|lesTOhes Cor_4rtr.o_ TrajectOry

|0-I 10-2 10-3 10-4 I1-1 11-2 11-3 ;" .4 1S-1 IS,-2 1S-.3 1S-4 1S-S

10-2 I0-6 10-7 10-11 11-1 11-2 11-q 11-10 15-2 i5 IS-3 15-4 1S-ll

Of $'_mliflClflt Events

•v4_n_J_ Control Par3meter5 _rtn9 S-IC 6urn P_xlmu* Cont-_! F_rm_ers Ourlng S-IC 8urn I(axt_uu Ce.*trol Parameters Oveing S-IVB First Burn S-IC Stage &_ttc_/ Concept tcm $-II Stage Battery Co_sumPtSen S-IVS Sta_e ConSumt.ton IU 8_tery AS-_IZ Battery Power Power Power

CompariSOn of Cutoff Events .r'_partson I[ve_ts of _aratton Zasertto_

Parktng Orbit COnditions _. 4-S Tr4ns)u_r Condition

ln_ect to'_

;"
t t

s-1 s-2

F-I Ermine Sy_t_ns k( IduG Times S-IC Indt_|dual Standard Sea Level Enqtne Performance S-IC Pro_Hlant _ss HistOry

;:

Power Consumption S4amuury

;qeasureNmt

_.

S-3

g

S-IX ENtne

Perfor-4nce

AS-S12 Fltght J4e_svrene_tS k(iived Prior to Flight A5-$32 Xe*sur_unt I_lfv..-ct_ons TeleAS-S12 Launc_ Ye_tr.le ue_r7 Links C_mancl and Co_u:tatton System _nd mstor_, AS-512 To_11 Ye_lcle _iss - S-;C lk_ Phase - 1(41ogrm

[i

6.'
7-1

AS-SIZ Flight 5-1| I_re_elhnt Pass Htstury S-118 Steady St.lt_ Pa_,fori_imce *Ftrst Burn (STOY Open *13S-Seccmd T4_ Sl1¢e at St_lndard AItftike Comities) S-I¥8 S_ody SUt_ Perfon_nce - _ Ikrn (STDV Open .17Z-Second Ttne Slice it St_nd4rd Altt_uMe Condftlons} Tv-ITB S_ h_'Ta_t I_ss W.story S-llnlAPS Prope114mt Cansui_tten

i

7-2

7-14 15-2 lt-3 16-4

1&-3 16-4 !6.5 16-6

To_al

lte_tcle _s - S-,C P_ase - Ponds

7-3

7-14 7-_

Total Ye_tcle hiss - S-II Bvr_ Pl_se * [tlogrms Total Vehicle Mass - S-f1 krn Iq_se - Pomds

i

¸.

xi

LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)

Table 16-S 16-6 Toul FtrsL Vehtcle Mass - S-IV tq _u_f_ Pb45eKilograms

Page 16-7 16-8

Table A*6 Selected AtmospheriC ObS4L_vat|ons for ApollolSatvr_ 501 through Apollo/Satu¢_ 512 Veh_:le Launches at Kennedy Space Center, Flort4a S-IC Sfgntftcant Co_flguritto_ ConflgvrltlOll ConfiguraCo_flgvratlon

Page A-17

Tot4| Veflfcte _ss - Soly8 F_,rst Burn Phase * Pounds M4SS Total Vehtcle Pass * S-IY8 Second _rn Pl_se - I{tlegra_ Total Vehtcle Wass - S*IV8 Secoq_ 8uTn Phase - Povnds Mass F11ght Seeuence Mass Summary Mass Ct_aeacter_s&_cs Comoaristm Tran_lunar COe_L Naneuvers

16-7 16-8 ..... 16*9 16-10 17-117-2 17-3 17-4 17-S 20-1 20-2 20-3 A-I A-Z 4-3

16-9 16-10

6-1 8-2 8-3 8-4

11-1 8-1 I1-1 I_Z

S*lI Significant Cha.noes $-IVlJ S|g_llrtcint tton C_n?e_ IU Significant Chan_e5

16-11 16-13 17-2 17-9 17-12 17-13

Trajectory Parameters After JPS-Z 8urn Lunar Lunar !mp4¢_ Conditions Im_ct Ttme$ Stations

S-IYS/IU

Tracking

17-1S 20-S 20-S 20-12 A-3 A-S A-S

_ollo 17 LRV Performance Sumary Apoi lo Lunar LRY Stentftcant (:twinges EVA S_mary Configurattcm a¢

Surface (_servattons A5-$12 Launch Ttme

Sola_ Radtit$on at AS-S12 Ldq_ch Tim*, La_mCh Pad 3_q System Used to Flnsure Upper Atr _11_ Data for AS-S12 MazlJdun Wtnd _ 11i Wt_li_ Oy_mric P_ssure Regton for Apello/S4turn f_)l throvgl_ AIx)llo/Satvrn 51Z vehtcles £xtr_e WtM S_e4r Yalm tn the mgh Oy_JJiC Presser* Regto_ for Al_ello/_4tvrA

A-4

A-lZ

A-S

A-13

so, SI:P

,,o,,ols,,,,.,,

xii

ACknOWLEDGEMENT

This report is published by the Saturn Flight Evaluation Working Group, composed of representatives of Marshall Space Flight Center, John F. Kennedy Space Center, and MSFC's prime contractors, and in cooperation with the Manned Spacecraft Center. Significant contributions to the ........evaluation have been made b). George C. Marshall Space Flight Center

Science

and Engineering Aero-Astrodynamics Laboratory Astrionics Laboratory Computation Laboratory Astronautics Laboratory Space Sciences Laboratory

Saturn

Program

Office Center

John F. Kennedy Manned

Space

Spacecraft

Center

The Boeing Company McDonnell International North American North American Douglas Astronautics Machines Company Corporation Division Division

Business

RockwellJSpace

Rockwell/Rocketdyne Company

General

Electric

xlii

ABBREVIATIONS

•.AC_......scension Island A ACS Alternating Current Power Supply

CT4 CVS CYI DAC DDAS

Cape Telemetry 4 Continuous Vent System Grand Canary Island Data Acquisition Camera Digital Data Acquisition System Digital Events Evaluator Directional Gyro Unit Desirable Objective Data Output Multiplexer Data Transmission System Exploding Bridge Wire Engine Cutoff Engineering Change Proposal Environmental Control System Emergency Detection System Engine Mixture Ratio Extra-Vehicular Mobility Unit Earth Parking Orbit Engine Start Command Eastern Standard Time Goddard Experimental Test Center Error Time.Word Extra-Vehi cular Activity Flight Control Coa_uter Frequency Modulation/ Frequency Modulation

ALSEP Apollo Lunar Surface ............ Experiments Package ANT AOS APS .ARIA ASC ASI-AVP BDA BST CCS C&DC CDDT CDR CECO CIF CG CM CNV CRO CRP CSM Antigua Acquisition of Signal Auxiliary Propulsion System Apol.l_Range.lnstrument Aircraft Accelerometer Signal Conditioner -Augmented Spar£..Igniter Address Verification Pulse Bermuda Boost Command and Communications System Control and Display Console Countdown Demonstration Test Commander Center Engine Cutoff Central Instru_ntation Facility Center of Gravity Command Module Cape Kennedy Carnarvon Computer Reset Pulse Command and Service Module

DEE DGU DO DOM DTS EBW ECO ECP ECS EDS EMR EMU EPO ESC EST ETC ETW EVA FCC FM/FM

xiv

-

°

ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED) FMR FRT GBI GBS GDS Flight Mission Rule Flight Readines_ Test Grand Bahama Island Gas Bearing System Goldstone LMP LMR LOI LOS LOX LRV LSS LUT LV LVDA Lunar Module Pilot Launch Mission Rule Lunar Orbit Insertion

Loss of Signal Liquid Oxygen Lunar Roving Vehicle Lunar Soil Simulant Launch Umbilical Tower Launch Vehicle Launch Vehicle Data Adapter Launch Vehicle Digital Computer Launch Vehicle Ground Support Equipn_nt Madrid Madrid Wing Message Acceptance Pulse Mission Control Center Houston Modularized Equipment Storage Assembly Main Fuel Valve Merritt Island Launch Area Mobile Launcher Mandatory Objective Main Oxidizer Valve Mixture Ratio Mixture Ratio Control Valve Manned Spacecraft Center

GDSW "-'Goldston_ Wing GG GOX GRR GSE GSFC GTK GWM HAW, HDA HE HFCV HSK leo IGM IMU IU KSC LCRU LET LH 2 LIT LM Gas Generator Gaseous Oxygen Guidance Reference Release Ground-Supl_brt Equfpment Goddard Space Flight Center Grand Turk Island Guam ............... Hawaii Holddown Arm He1ium Helium Flow Control Valve Honeysuckle Creek Interface Control Document Iterative Guidance Mode Inertial Measurement Unit Instrument Unit Kennedy Space Center Lunar Communication Relay Unit Launch Escape Tower Liquid Hydrogen

LVDC LVGSE MAD MADW MAP MCC-H MESA MFV MILA ML 140 MOV MR MRCV

Lunar Impact Team Lunar Module

MSC

I

1
XV

ABBREVIATIONS MSFC Marshall Center Space Flight

(CONTINUED) PRA Patrick Reference Atmosphere Propellant System Tanking Computer

MSF)I..... _a_,me<i ' Space MSS MTF Mobile

Flight _letwork Structure

PTCS PTC

Service

Passive Thermal Propellant Pulse

Control

Mississippi

Test Facility PU and PWM RACS RF RFI Program RMS RP-I . SA SC SCFM SCIM ZIM Utilization Width Modulato;. Calibration

r_ASA...... ]_ationa] Aeronautics Space Administration NPSP _/et Positive Pressure Suction

Remote Automatic System Radio Radio Root S-IC Freauency Frequency Mean Square Stage Arm Fuel

rIPV OAT OCP OECO OFSO OMPT

;;onproDulsive Vent Cverai-l "_-s-t ...... Orbital Outboard Overfill Correction Engine

Interference

Cutoff

S_hut_offSens_or Point

Service

Observed Mass Trajectory Operational Oxidizer Valve

Spacecraf._* Standard Minute Standard Minute Cubic Feet per

OT OTBV PACSS PAFB PCA PCM PCM/FM PEA

Trajectory Bypass

Turbine

Cubic Inch per Instrument

Project Apollo Coordinate Sys tern Standa rds Patrick Air Force Base Approach

Scientific Module

SLA SM SPS SPS SPU SRSCS

Spacecraft/LM Service Module Service

Adapter

Point of Closest

Pulse Code Modulation Pulse Code Modulation/ Frequency Modulation Platform Assembly Process Portable System Parking Electronics

Propulsion Platfom

System

Stabilized Subsystem Signal

Processing

Unit

PIO PLSS

Input/Output Life Support SSDO STDV

Secure Range Safety Command System Switch Selector Discrete Output Start Tank and Register Valve

POI PMR

Orbit

Insertion Ratio

Discharge

Programmed

Mixture

xvt

ABBREVIAT[ONS (CONTINUED) SV TCS TCS TD&E TEl TEX TLC TLI TM
i

Space Vehicle Tn.erm_a.l ._ondit.ioning ystem S Terminal Countdown Sequencer Transportation, Docking and Ejection T,_a_searth Injection Corpus Christi (Texas Translunar Coast Translunar Injection Telemetry............... Triple Module Redundant Tail Service Mast Thrust Vecto.r .Con_tro! .... . Unsatisfactory Condition Report U. S. Army Engineer Unilied S-Band Universal Time Volt An_oe es r Vanguard (ship) Very High Frequency Waterways Experimental Station lulu Time (equivalent to tiT) - "

TMR TSM

>

TVC UCR . USAE USB UT VA VAN VHF WES

)

i-

i
{
xvii/xviii

l

MISSION PLAN

The AS-Si2-fiight'{Apoil-o17 mission) to the Taurus-Llttrow site is the twelfth flight in the Apollo/Saturn V flight program, the seventh mission planned for lunar landtng, and the third mission planned for the Lunar Roving Vehicle. The Apollo 17 mission ts the first Apollo flight planned for night launch and for translunar injection over the Atlantic Ocean. The primary mission objectives are: a) perfom selenologtcal inspection, survey, and sumpltng of mterta!s and surface features in a preselected area of the Taurus-Ltttrow region; b) deploy and activate surface experiments- and c) conduct tnfltght experiments and photographic tasks_. The crew consists of E. A. Cernan (Hisston Commander), R_ EL Evans (CommandHodule Ptlot), and It. H. Schmttt (Lunar Hodule Ptlot). The AS-512 Launch Vehtcle (LY) ts composed of the S-IC-12, S-II-12, S-IVB-512, and Instr_uent Unit (lU)-512 stages. The Spacecraft (SC) consists of SC/Lunar H(xluie Adal_t_ (SLA)-21), CoIand Rodule (O1)114, Service Hodule (SH)-114, and Lunar Hndule (U1)-12. The UI has been modified to carry the Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRY)-3. . Yehtcle launch from Complex 39A at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) ts planned along a g0 degree azimuth followed by a roll to • flight aztmth of ,approxtmtely 72 degrees measured east of true north. : Yehtcle mss at ignition Is nollnally 6,530,819 111.-....:::.. : :::.-:..__. _, _.: _,...... The S*IC stage powered flight )nets approxletely-162 seconds; the ":':: S-I 1 stage provides powered fltght for approximately 395 seconds.. The S-lYe stage first burn of approxheately 146 Seconds inserts the". _ ;: S-IVB/IU/SLA/IJt/ C_mand and Service Nodule(C_l) Into •ctrcular '. 90 n rot. altttude (referenced to the earth's equatorial radius) .i_;:-?-._:.L:.-:." Earth Parking 0rblt (EPO). ;_Vehtcle mass at Orbtti_tnserUon_;ls ,_.._ :.-:_-_-- .:306 • 791 "Ihe."-;_/._.._. -".,-'Z -_ --'--'L-*-," __:'-_:-;.___::._.G:':.:::/-_-_/_ .r" _:::..:_ '¢:--_,;.i'_:': _.'_;._.,_ _:_.._.-. - .'_ _'_" _ • l_- " ,;.-':-_ ._: ':--" :_." ,t_.-_?_ :_,.'_\:_ • " - . "'.-i>"_ "L. . • -... . .--_ :..,,_.__,',:._,..,._. .... __:.._,,_:.o_.._._-,,-__-:-._ :._-_,.., _. _._,-..- ,_-. . :._.
_" m " '

.

At approxtmtely 10 seconds oft_,._.l_. ;.|m_tiopi" the Vehicle is _.:.' ._" ' altgned _i t_ the local : hor_z0ntal:_Cent!_s ._en i/enttng is initiated shorUy afta-_ .F_O. _|iiserltl_i'i_l;_the-LV!alM!... _Sl_ft_)._:_-! " (SC) systems Are ch_ed:.In.'Fr_raUm :for. the :Traml_r.."Imd_Uon _.::._;..-._ (TLT) burn. Shortly/mfter_[_gtm|ng _tJIme.Udrd._irwoluUm_tm; _i_. ;_;;_,i_/!4;;_ • the S-lYe stagel$ restlarbM_iuMl_rns_for'a_lm1_,:.lY._34T_co_ls,_:_]"_-.. : . This burn inserts the S-IyB/IU/_CSM tnto_an,mr__,_.'.,;-;__,-;:...
'_m_ !#_i" ';::_ " " 4

_-____.

_.-,

_-.:_a.._.-"

-: -": _.

-::..

* :- _ -_' ,-: -.',_,,-'_._...'_-_-i._i_J;_-_:

"._";

",'.'"

_....

-

: - ; -.-

:-.
.

: -_::..""
• . ; "r. "

..-

"

-- _-::._

_c _e;,'_._--_._"._:i_-<-:...;-:

_"

;-.... -.,_.-.. ._, --...._:.;_--._,_:__,--_. -._-._,_ " ','" "_ "_:"" - - '"_.';_-, '<'_' _;_'"_..--'" _';_''_:''

xlx

At 15 minutes after TLI, the vehicle initiates a maneuver to and holds inertia]-a.t1_itude for CSM separation and docking, and CSM/LM ejection. Following attitude acquisition the SLA panels are jettisoned and the ¢SM separates from the LV. The CSM then transposes and docks with the LM. After ducking and latching, tile CSM/LM is spring ejected from the S-IVB/IU. Following separation of the combined CSlVIJ1.fromthe S-IVB/IU, the S-IVB/IU performs a yaw maneuver and then an 80-second burn of the S-IVB Auxiliary Propulsion System (APS) ullage engines as an evasive maneuver to decrease the probability of S-IVB/IU recontact with the spacecraft. Subsequent to the completion of the S-IVB/IU evasive maneuver, the S-IVB/IU Is placed on a trajectory such that it wlll impact the lunar surface in a target area Iocated.betlweenthe Apollo 14 and 16 landing sites. The lunar impact target Is 7.0°5 latitude and 8.O°W longitude. The impact trajectory is achieved by propulsive venting of hydrogen {11_), dumping of residual liquid oxygen (LOX), and by ground-commanded -firing of the APS ullage engines. The S-IYB/IU impact will be recorded by the.setsmograph_dep19_ed durtng the Apollo 12. i4. 15 and 16 missions• S-IVS/IU lunar impact ts predicted to occur at Bg hours 16 minutes 08 seconds after launch for nominal fltght. Several tnflight experiments wtll be flmm on Apollo 17 Including experiments conducted by use of tie Scientific Instrument Mndule. ,. • (SIX) located in Section ! of the SM, arid flight expertmnts during earth orbit, translunar coast, lunar orbit, and t_-ansearth coast mission phases. " __rtng the.85-hour ._'anslunar coast, the astronauts will star-earth landmrk sightings, Inertial Measurement Unit _e_u_m:. alignments, general lunar navigation procedures, and mtdc_rse * corrections. At approxtmatoly 88 bours and SOmtnutes, a $orvtce : Propulsion System (SPS), Lunar Orbit Insertion (LOI) burn of ' approxtmtely 395 seconds ts initiated to insert the CSM/UI tnto a 51 by •171 n at. altitude parklng orbtt. _Approxtmately two re_olu- _:_" ttons after LOI, a 22.9 secor_,, burn vlli--acLlust the orbtt .to IS by_:i! 5g n mi. altitude: . The UI is entail by astronauts Cer_n and _:- /,,.:_,." Schmttt. aM checlu_Jt ts:'aC_pltshed.-: Dur|ng the itwelfth "rtvolu_-•:_tL: tlon In orbit, at 110 hour_ 28 Irl_t_s;ithe IJ1Sei_rat_s f*_rm_t_)_'_:_ CSMand prepares :for the lunar, des_mt..;,The _CSN ;ts_then tnsert4d j;_(:_'. tnto an appr0xtma rely:62 n mri_:ai U .t_de)ctrcular_brMt_u*tng a/4.0 *ic_*_ i*. second SPS burn. The.LHDescent)_lsto_*Sysl_m'ts'_used ._ brake-?',* the LM tnto the proper landing 1Ta_ectory and to maneuver the LN ':--_ during descent to the lunar 'surface. Landing at Taurus-Ltttrov ts scheduled to occur at 113 hours 2 minutes., The landing stte ts .- :
. . ;"..!_. . ,

/

r

.

_.

.:_. XX

sttuated

at 20o10 ` North latttude

and 30%5'

East longitude

Follo_ng lunar landtng, three. EVA Line per|_ds of 7 hours each are scheduled during-which the-astronauts _ill exnlore the lunar surface in the LRV, collect surface samples, photograph the lunar surface. and d_ploy sc|entlflc Instrmn_ts. Sor.tles in the LAY v111 be 1trotted tn red!us such that the 11fe support system capebtllty vill not be exceeded tf LRV fatlure necessitates the astronauts walktng back to the IJ¢.- Total stay ttm on the lunar surface ts open-ended, wtth a planned maxtmumof 75.0 hours depen_,tng upon the outcmm of current lunar surface operaUons piannlng and of real-tlme operational declslons. The CSH performs an orbttal plane change approxtmtely 8 hours before rendezvous, LH 11ftoff nomtnallyoccurs at 183 hours 3 ,_tnutes into the mtsston. The ascent stage Insertion tnto a 9 by 48 n ms1, _Itltude lunar orblt occurs approxlmtely 7 mlmJtos later. At approxtmtely 190.0 hours the rendezvous and docktng vith the ts accompllshedo Followlng. docktng, equipment transfer, and de_ontamqnaUon procedures, the IJq ascent stage Is JetttsoMd and targeted to tmpact the lunar surface at a potnt approxtmtoly 9 Im from the Apollo 17 landtng stte. Tr=nsearth Injection (TEl) ts accomplished at the end of revolution 75 at approximtely 236 h_rs and 40 mtnutes wttha 142.2 second SPS burn, */--. ,• :,•:_ ._ Durtng the 68-hour trinsearth coast, the astronauts vii1 perform -. navtgaUon procedures, stor-earth-mon _tghttegs, the electro--_ . " phorettc separation dmonstnl_lon, and as tony as three rldcem'se _ correcUons. The Commnd .qodule r|lot vtl! also perform an EVA to _" •retrteve ftla cassettes fr_ the SDI bays.". The_l seperates from _: the CH before re-entrjf. 5plL_dOMI Occurs- In .the Pac]ftc Ocean . _,;'* 304 hours 31 mtnutes after 11flbsf.f, ':_.'. _:-_ -"_ .*: ..... '- , -.After the recovery qperatto.s, a-b|Ological quaruttM ts mt ]qxlesed on the crew and OI. However, btotogtcml tsolaUon garments rill be a'vallable for use In the event of unexplained crew 111hess.

_

,

_i,::_-.::-

:__...

.

:

, _

4 "_

xxt ! xxll

i

FLIGHT SUMMARY

The tenth manned Saturn Apollo space vehtcle, AS-512 (Apollo 17 Mtsston) was launched at 00:33:00 Eastern Standard Ttme on December 7, 1972, from Kennedy Space Center, Complex 39, Pad A. The performance of the launch vehtcle and Lunar Rovtng Vehicle was satisfactory and al1 HSFC Mandatory and Desirable Objectives were accomplished except the precise deter_natton of the S-IVB/IU lunar |mpact point. Pre11,rinary assessments |ndtcate that the final Impact solutt6n will sattsfy the mission objective. The ground system supporting the countdown and launch performed satisfactorily wtth the exception of the Termtnal Countdmm Sequencer (TCS). The TCS malfunct|on resultedtn'a Zh_r 40 _nute unscheduled hold. Damage to the pad, Launch Umbilical Tower and support equipment was considered wintmal. The vehtcle was launched on an azimuth 90 degrees east of north, k roll maneuver was Initiated at 13 "second that'placed the vehtcle on a flight aztmuth of 91.504 degrees east of north. In accordance with preflight targeting objectives, the transluemr Injection maneuver shortened the translunar coast pertod by 2 hours and 40 minutes to compensate for the launch delay so that the lunar landing could be made with the same light]ng conditions as originally planned. Available C-Gand radar and Untf]ed S-Bend tracktng data plus tolemetered guldence velocity data were used tn the trajectory reconstruction. Because the veloctty at S-I! OuUmrd Engtne Cutoff was htgher than r_ldnal, earth parking orbit Insertion cond_ttons uere achteve_ 4.08 seconds earlier than nondnal. Translunar Injection candtttons were achieved 2.11 seconds later than nmdnal with alt]tude 5.8 k]lameters greater than nominal and velocll_ 5.1 meters per second less than n_tnal. CSM sepant|on m Comander Initiated S7.g : seconds earlier than nominal resulting tn an altitude 306.1 kilometers less than nemtnal and velocity 91.7 meters per.second greater,than retain al.

A11 s-I¢ p p.lslon spurn parro,ed
propulslon performnce was very clme'to.the predicted

i.;.
e_mleml. Overall •

stage s|to thrust m 0.310 percent hlglmr than pred]cted.;Tota] pro_.;_-:_ pellant cmsm_tlon rate m 0.16 Femmt Mgher than prea_c11_l and the total cmsmmd udxt.re rat]o m-O.OO2 .percent h11gher than predictS..;.
5pectf|c 1repulse was 0.1.4 percent ktglm'_than predlcted._Total proFellant

consmetim

frm Holddom Am release :to O.tt_

Enflnes cvtoff

(0£C0)"

_as lou by 0.14 percent. the Instrmant Un]t at

_*Center Eaglne Cutoff (CECO) vas tntUated by'. 139.30 seconds, O.OZ seconds earlier l_an:plamaed.
.'
"k.

!:

..
3"

.

"_

.;

-

-,,

-

.

°

.

.

4

xxttt

..

P

0EC0 was initiated by the fuel deplet|on sensors at 161.20 seconds, 0.47 seconds earlier than predicted. This is well within the +5.99, -4.22 second 3-sign_ limits. At OECO, the LOX restdual was 36,479 lbd compared tO the predicted 37,235 1bin and the fuel restdu[1 _as 26,305 lbn ca_ared to the predicted 29,956 lb_. ........ The S-I! propu]ston systems performed satisfactorily throughout the flight. The 5-|1 Engine Start Comnand(F.SC), as sensed at the engines, occurred at 163.6 seconds. Center Engine Cutoff (CECO) qas Initiated by the Instrument Untt (IU)-at 461,21 seconds, 0.47 seconds earl iLr than planned. Outbnard Engine Cutoff (OECO), tn|ttated by LOX depletion sensors, occurred at 559.68 seconds gtvlng an outboard engtne opar_ttng ttme of 396.1 seconds. Engine mtnstage performance was satisfactory throughout f'ltght. The total stage thrust at the standard ttme sltce (61 seconds after S-II ESC)was 0,14 per_:ent below predicted. Total propellant flo_rate, Including pressurtzat|on flov, was 0.19 percent belcw predtc+_l, and the stage spectftc tnpulse ws 0.05 percent above predicted at the standard ttm slice. Stage propellant mixture ratto was 0.36 percent below predicted. Eng|ne thrust butldup and cutoff transients were vrlthth the predicted envelopes. The propellant management system perfomance was sattsfacl_ory-thr0ugRout loadtng and fltght, and all parameters were wtthtn expected 11atts except the LOX ftne ross Indication. Propellant residuals at OECOwere 1401 1be LOX, as Iwedtcted and 2752 1tin LIt2, 107 1be less than predicted. Control of engtne wixtore ratto was acco_plfshed with the tvo-posftton pnemattca]ly operated Rixbre Ratton Control Valves, Relattve to ESC, the lever Engtne RIxtore Ratto step occurred 1.6 seconds eorller than predicted. The performmce of t#_ LOX and LH tank pressurlzat|on 2 system ms satisfactory. Ullage pressure tn both tanks was adequate to lat or exceed engine tnlet Net Postttve Suctton Pressure wintmm .rL, q_relents threughout mtnstage. The S-IVB propulsion systm perfomed satisfactorily throughout the operattonal phase of ffrst and second burns and had norm1 star*,, and cutoff transients. 5-|1t3 ftrst burn ttae ms 138.8 seconds, 3.7 seconds shorter than predicted for the actuel fltght aztmth uf 91 .S degrees. Thts d|fference ts composed of -4,1 seconds due to the htgher than exFectod S-II/ S-IYB separation veloctty and +0.4 second due to lomr than predicted S-IYB performance. The enflne performnce durlng ftrst burn, as deterwined from standard altitude reconstructfm analysts, devtated from the predicted Start Tank Dtscherge Valve (STgV) open +135-seca_ ttae s11ce by -0.68 percent for. thrust and -0,14 percent for spectflc+.tqmlse, .... * The S-IVB stage ftrst burn F.._lmCtd_l_ (ECO) ms Initiated by the + -_++ Launch Vehtcle Dt.crltal Cemlmter (LVOC) It 702.65 secmds. The Cmttnuous Vent System adeouately +regul_tt_t _ tank ullage pressure at an _tsage " level of 19.1 psta during orb t a the Ox)_e_q_-ogen lamm_ sat sfactortly achteved LH2 and LOX tank rewessurtzat|on for restart. Enflm restart conditions vere withtn specified 1twits. S-lY8 secoml bet1 tlae .+ ws 351.0 seconds, 4.0 seconds l,oa_r _ predicted for the 91.S . -+* degree flt oht aztmth. Th|s dtffereEe ts prtmm_17 dueto the l_er :+.++++,:++

s-tw performnceandheavter vehicle--ss ,m,q,,j second.Imm,,.. ++. ++'n,e
'+ . .+ -_.;+++,+._r:+.+. . ,++.._....-,,r._+',+ .-.+:_., .+ .+'+ .,.+.+,+ ....

iy
+ ;

+.,
.:.. XXiV

o •

....?
+ .-+ .-+,,+_+_._... + ;_
_.

performance durtn9 second burn, as deter_ined froB the standard altitude reconstruction analys|s, devtated from the STOV open +172-second ttme s]tce by -0.77 percent for thrust and -0.16 percent for speclftc 1repulse. Second burn ECO was Initiated by the LVDC at 11,907.64 seconds, (08:51:27.64). Subseouent--to-second burn, the stage _ropollant tanks and hellum spheres were safed satisfactorily. _Jfftctent impulse was dertved from LOX dump, LHZ CVS operation and auxtl]ar7 propulsion system (APS) ul;ape burn to achteve a successful lunar Impact. Two subseauent planned AP_ burns were used to tlprove lunar tmpact targeting. The APS operatJon Ms no_nal throughout the flight. No heltuE or propellant lea[s were observed and the regulators functioned nefinally. The structural loads experter_ed durtng the S-IC boost phase were well below design values. The mxtaue bendtng moment was 96 x 106 lbf-tn at the S-IC LOX tank (less than 36 percent of the destgn value). Thrust cutoff transt._nts expertcnced byAS-512 uere st_tlar to those of I_'evtous fltghts. The mxtmt longttudtna] dynafic respnnses at the Instrument Untt (IU) _ere +0.20 g and +0.27 g at S-IC Center Engtne Cutoff and Outboard Engt.he-Cutoff (OECO), respectively. The mgnttudes of the thrust cutoff responses are considered norm1. During S--IC stage boost, four to ftve hertz osottlattens _mpe detected begtnntn9 at approximately 100 .seconds. The mxtmm aWlltude measured at the IU tins +0.06 g. 0sctllattons tn the four to ftve hertz range have been observed on prevtous fltghts and are considered to be norm1 vehtcle response to fl|oht envtrommnt. _ d|d not occur durtng S-IC boost. The 5-II stage center engtne L0X feedltne accmmlator successfully |nhtbttnd the 16 hertz PO60 oscillations. A peak response of +0.4 g In the 14 to 20 hertz frequency range was measured on engine II_. S atmbal pad durin9 sto_ly-state engine operation. Ps on prevteus flights, lew a_11tude 11 hertz oscillations were experienced near the end of S-TI burn. Peak enatne No. 1 gtuhal pad mpense vas -_0.0_ g. POGOdtd not occur du;rng S-II beost. The POGO11udttng backup cutoff system perforued satisfactorily durt_j the prelaunch and Irl Ight q_er_t_ons. The system dtd not produce any dtscrete outputs and sheuld not have stnce there ms no POG_. The structural loads experienced during the S-IVB st_,oe burns vere yell baler destgn values. 9urtng ftrst burn the S-IVB experienced 1or mplltude, -0,14 g, 16 to 20 hertz oscillations. The a_plltudes measured on the gtJal block were ce_parable to p_vtous fltohts and vtthtn the expected range of values. S||rllarly, S-IV8 second burn produced tntor_ritte_ 1or mplltode oscillations of ,0.10 g tn the 11 to 16 hertz frequency range vhtch peaked near second burn cutoff. _ The Stabilized Platfom and the Gutdanc_ _ the acc_pltslment of all getchmce and mvtgatton no discrepancies tn _ of the harclwre. Parktng Orbit Insertion and Trensluna_ In_ectton Mftr_rt navigation _.rrOr. Tvo anomlles related occur. At aPlmexlmtely 5421 seconds range ttm error tel_etry Indicated at unreasmmble change dwlng one wlnor loop. At the re-tnttlaltzatt_ successfully supported _sstm d_ecttves vith The end conditions at ve_e at_atned vtth tnstgo to the fl_gl_ progrm dtd (T5 44718,8) _nor loop tn the jew gt_al angle ... of boost ivtgatlon for

- xxv

S-XVB secondburn the extra accelerometer readtngs nomally teleuetered fr,_, GRR to 11ftoff plus 10 seconds _ere restarted and continued throughc_t second burn boost navtgat|on. Neither of these anomltes significantly impacted navigation, widance and control. A minor discrepancy occurred during S-II burn, when the yaw gtmbal angle failed the zero reasunableness test twice, resulting tn minor loop error telewetry at 478.3 seconds (T3 +317.2) and 55g.4 seconds (T3 +398.2).
All control functions and separation events occurred as planned. Engine gtmbal deflections were nomtnal and APS ftrtngs predictable throughout powered fltoht. All d_mamtcs were within vehtcle capability, and bendtng and slosh modes were adecluately stabilized. The AP5 provided satisfactory orientation and stabilization durtng parking orbit and .*rmn translunar Injection through the S-IVB/IU passive themal control mneuver. APS _ropellar.t consumption for attttude control and propellant settltng prior to the APS burn for luner target impact _s lower than the man predicted reoutre_ents. All separation seouences were performed as planned. Transients due to spacecraft Separation, docking, and Lunar I_xlule eJectton vere nmtnal. The launch vehtcle electrical system and Emergency Oe_ctton System performed satisfactorily thr_.jghout the r_u_red period of flight. ever, the temperature of the S-IVB Aft Battery !1o. 1 Unit No. 1, increased significantly _x_e t:_ nominal control l:Mt (90°F) at approximately 9 hours due to mlfunctton of the prtmry heater control system. Operation of the Aft Battery No. I remtned nminal as dtd operation of all other batteries, _power supplies, tnverters, Exploding Bridge Wtre firtng units, and swttch selectors. The _-IC and 5-1! ba_e pressure envtroments were conslstont vlth trends mgnttudes observed on previous f11ghts. The S-11 base pressure en_ronments were consistent with trends seen on previous fltghts, although the magnitudes were higher than seen on pre_ous fltghts. The pressure envt_t _urtng S-1C/S-I) separation was yell belov mxtmm nlues. and

The S-IC base region therml envtroments exhibited trends and magnitudes st_lar to those seen on prevtous f11ghts except that the ambient temperature under Engtne No. 4 cocoon rose mmxpectutly and at about 50 secoMs and ms approxtmtel¥ 13"C above the level eXpe_ended during previous flights. Ourt_ t.he later I_rtton of the S-IC boost, the temereture returned to herin1. T.he mxlmum cocoen temperature reached ws yell I_low the upper upper 11adt of the components under the cocoon. The base themal mtronrants on the S-!! stage were consistent v'-_h the trends and mgnttudes seen on pr_tous fltohts and _re well belou destgn 11Mrs. Aernd3mmtc heating envtroments and S-IVB base thereto1 _lrommts were not measured. The S-!C stage forlrd compartaent themul envtremmt ms adequately mlntatned although the temperature v_ lover than expe_enced during previous rl|ghts. The S-IC stage aft cmpart_nt e_vtrommtal condt. ttontng system performed s_tlsfactorlly. The S-II stage, emjtne caupartL, nt conditioning system mtnta_ned the _btent _ature and thrust xxvl

cone surface temperatures vithtn design ranges thri.'Jghout the launch countdown. No eauipment container temperature .mea-t_rements were taken; however, stnce the external temperature were sat_fa:tor_; and there were no problems vtth the equipment- .tn-the- containers, the thermal control system apparently performed adequately. The IU stage Environmental Control System exhibited satisfactory performance for the duratton of the IU nrlsston. Coolant temperatures, pressures, and t'lo_ates were contfn_ously mtntatned vJe.htn the reoulred ranaes and design ltmtts. At 20,998 seconds the weter valve logic was pUrl_sely Inhibited (wtth the valve closed)o SubseQuent temperature increases were as predicted for this condition. A11 data systems performed satisfactorily thr_ugheut the flight. F11_ht measurements from onboard telemetry were 99.8 percent _el_able. Telemetry performance was normal except for noted problems. Radio Frequency propagation was satisfactory, though the usual tntertrerer--e due to f_ame effects and st_g_.ng were experienced. Usable YHF data were recetved unttl 36,555 seconds (10:09:15). The Secure Range Safety Command Systems on the $-[C, $-II, and S-IYS stages were ready _C perform their functions properly, on co_Bnd, tf flight conditions dbr4ng- launch phase had required destruct. _he s_tem properly sated the S-IVB destruct s_tem on a connand transmritted from Bemuda (BOA) at 72_.1 seconds. The performance of the Comand and Comuntcattons System (COS) was satisfactory from ltftoff through lunar |mpact at 313,181 secends (86:59:41). Madrtd, Goldstone mere receiving CC._ sf_al carrier at lunar tnq_c_. Good tracking data vere rece|ved from the C-Band radar, vtth BOA tndfcattng final Loss of $|gnal at 48,4_1} seconds (13:.'_7:00). Total vehicle mess, determtne_ from postfli.aht _nalysfs, ms v#thin &.68 percent of predicted from around tgnttton through S-IVB stage ftnal sht_mm. This stall variation fndicates that h_rdvare _.fghts, p_opellant loads, ar_l propellant utfltzatton were close to predicted values during fllght. The S-IW/IU Lunar Impact Iqsston objectives wre to t_pact the st_e vithtn 350 I_ of the (_l_get, detendne the Impact t_me _rith_n 1 second, _nd determine the tmpect potnt Mthtn S lore. The first tm ob,lectlves _ have been met. Further analysls ts required to satisfy the thtrd objective. Pased on anslysqs to date, the S-IVBIIU Imlmctad the moo_ l)ecmter 10, 1972, 20:32:40.g9 (;iqT {313,180._J seconds after range zero) a*. 4.33 degrees south latqtude and 12.37 degrees vest longqtude. Thqs locatqo, fs 155 ka (M n _i) froa the target Of 7 _ south latftude and 8 degrees vest longitude. TI_ veloctty of the _IVBIIU at twact relattve . to the lunar surface _es 2,544 a_s _.8,346 ft/s). The tn:mrlng headtng angle yes 83.0 degrees vest of north and the angl_ relattve to the local verttcal m 35.0 degrees. T._e total ross tnpecttng the moon ms approxtmtely 13,931 kg (alqxmxtmtely 30,712 lira). Real-Mine targeting

x_ ,:t

o

activities modified the planned i'irstAPS lunar impact burn to reduce the APS ullage burn duration. A second APS burn was performed to minimize the trajectory dispersion from the targeted impact point. Three HSFC Inflloht Demc-stratlons _re conducted during trans!unar coast. The purpose of the Demonstrations were to obtain data in a low g environment on:
a.

Convection

in a Liquid

Caused by Surface Tension in a Confined. Gas..........

Gradients.

b. c.

Heat Flow and Convection

Heat Flow and Convection in a Llo_Jid.

The Demonstrations were conducted as planned. The data were collected by movie camera and crew observation, was of good oualtty, and is presently being analyzed. .................. The Lunar Rovtno Vehicle (LRV) satisfactorily supported the Apollo 17 Taurus-Llttrow iunar surface exploration objectives. The total odometer distance traveled durtno the three EVA's was 35.7 kilometers at an average velocity of 7.75 kmlhr on traverses.. The _aximum velocity . attained was 18.0 km/hr and the maximum slopes neoottated _ere 18 degrees up and 20 degrees down. The average LRV energy cons_ptton rate was 1.64 amp-hours/kin with a total consumed energy of 73.4 map-hours (including 14.8 amp-hours used by Lunar Communication Relay Unit) out of an approximate total available energy of 242 am-hours. The navigation system _-o drift and closure error were negligible. Controllability was good. There were no problem with steering, braking, or obstacle negotiation. Brakes were ur_d at least partially on all downslopas. Driving down sun was difficult because the concealed shadows caused poor obstacle visibility. lihtle the LRV had no problems vlth the dust, stowed payload mechentcal parts attached to the LRV tended to bind up. The crew described dust as being an anti-lubricant and reported.thatthere .ms no EVA-4 capability in many of the stowed payload items becuse_of dust intrusion. Large tolerance mechanical items such as locking bags on the gate and the pallet lock had problems toward the end of EYA-3. Only those ttem vhtch had been protected from the dust performed vlthout degradatlon. _ All interfaces between Cr_,'LIW LRV system anomalies a'ml ;_ wre "_iOa'd noted:. _re satisfactory:,

The following

: .......

a. At i.ltlal
predicted. b. Battery EVA-3.

-up,

the UWhat ..,-yi.t/
indication ms off scale

wereht r
low at start of

No. 2 temperature

xandll

B ..e

Ce

The rtght rear fender extension stte on EVA-] prior to driv|ng mnts Package stte.

was broken off at the Lunar I_dule to the Apollo Lunar Surface Expert-

:

o -

MISSION OBJECTIVES ACCOMPLIS_tMENT

Table I presents the MSFC Mandatory Objectives and Desirable Objectives as def|ned in the "Saturn V Apollo 17/AS-512 Mtsston Implelntatton Plan," MSFCDocument PM-SAT-8OIO.IOA, dated September_29, 1972. An assessment of the degree of accomplishment of each object|re |s show,. Discussion supporting the assessment can be found tn other sectto.ns of th|s report as shmm tn Table 1.

Table
aO.
i I "

1.

Mtsston O_ecttves
".
i

Accompltsbuent
JrJ:l_wtlSmEIrl

DESlllmLE Lamch _ • flight Utmtb betm 7Z i lm _ md 4inert tim I-IIIIWIC tm_ N pll ¢l_lie N_ _W_q

01SOEPNiG'I_ .

_lal 4.1

_lem

• ,_lt. (nO)

.... -.

• q_ _ me AtliRlc md 1,_,¢t " " / m S-lt_l_/S¢ cute me plm trmskmmr ::.' trtt_-tor_, fro) ..... _ 3

;-

. -, _" , . i_.

-- ,.

. 4.Z.3.7.1

_.4.4 •

4

_.4.4 17.4

S

6

htend_e

ml

II_

_

ul_dn

J Irlle-,,:

Aml;rs_Is net ,-., ---':" : • -

-'17.4

: 7 ¸

vltldm | -,_- • wmllam
. -'-

'*

Afar 15=,ILv/s_ u_wu_,
mlu4ul S-ll/lg. _
. .,d nn m

_nt and _,
W s_
,: .

_ ..

7.4

-"

"-_k* . .-°.

.

,.

-

I P

.....

•.

_ .,.

-./

',

.-_.

.

..

_.

,'-_ •

FAILURES AND ANO_LIES

Eval_tton of the La_h Vehicle and Lunar Rovtng Vehtcle data _vealed ntne anomalies, one of whtch ts considered significant. " The significant an_aly ts summrtzed In Table 2, and the other anmaltes are sumar4zed in Table 3. . ................

J z,

Table
im_Y )rj_mw i! S. ICjINIllsS_ $-K m UW _ J.lol*| pl_ tscm_ tat_ I-Z-Z. s_mm_t Of

3.

S_ry
_

of ,_omlies
SISII; If./il_ _**° $.1 II.Zo t

i im.*_

,

I_

Is r

imoe_il

_

_

m

_$1Z

Tim mlA_

m_n_l

I.

Sill IWt_I tM i

leI_ I*

|lira _ fi ¢._wstm ttltlf _

(U|

$i_

slme

_

O_I_

i_s

_M,* ImkM _ _- m_ N _Itm

ammdm_ I li4_ts. $11Kll! " ImN(tt_ _te_ el' _ eill iS

ml

o._mslv n*l_ iu el_ett_ _t.

_o at N

ll_mm_. ;.._-

taw _) M S-X

tiilMl_

_Im_itlr,

SlKS i

3

S.rm_sr*mI

Ikf_ b.

*,,*ttm'T ll). I ImNe_m'w

I.

II_t

M.

M_

wl_

"=*

II.I.|

M dqnes _ a,w *mk_! W"F cu4m_ IgiOl d Il IrllI'_ d_4q m_ ciis_.

_
gtm.t_ : li_kaso


i_ _k_ mm

_,w*ml,m
_

$ f_llm, _m_a,w m_m

ml in _o_.

mmm_M _lm flt_nt

te i_c_de ,reese_lene_

test.

_|1

_o_ •

mt_t

flOllm ,in, mI o_ kmM,

_

.ram's

g., _

.a _W_ml o

,..,.,.

c...-.

_.=..._,,,..,.

,=.,.
SCUll W _lmmm. sw¢¢m

k •

m illlelm

ill w iltl

IMI/_l iil_l

'

;.

• -,

ulm

n

xxxtlt

....

I-

SECTION

1

I RODUCT ION NT

1.1

PURPOSE

This report provides the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Headquarters, and other interested agencies, wi.th .the.__launch vehicle and Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV) evaluation results of the AS'512 flight (Apollo 17 Mission). The basic objective of flight evaluation is to acquire, reduce, analyze, evaluate and report on flight data to the extent required to assure future mission success and vehicle reliability. To accomplish this objective, actual flight problems are identified, their causes determined, and recommendations made for appropriate corrective acti on. 1.2 SCOPE

This report contains the performance evaluation of the major launch vehicle systems and LRV, with special enl)hasis on problems. Summaries of launch _-operations and spacecraft performance are included. The official George C. Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) position at this time is represented by this report. It will not be followed by a similar report unless continued analysis or new information should prove the conclusions presented herein to be significantly incorrect.

....

t L

!

! | l-Ill-?

SECTION

2

EVE,_IT TIMES

2.1

SUMMARY

OF

EVENTS

Range zero occurred at 00:33:00 Eastern Standard Time Universal Time [LIT]) December 7, 1972. Range time is from range zero, and is the time used throughout this wise noted. Time time from base Table time 2-I is the elapsed the time indicated sequence base. presents time bases

(EST) (05:33:00 the elapsed time report-un_ess 6therfrom the start in the of the used flight

program. Table 2-I. Time Base Summary

Ir

TIME BASE

VEHICLE TIME" SECONOS (HR:MIN:SEC) -16.96 0.63

GROUND TIME** SECONDS (HR:MIN:SEC) -16.96 0.63

SIGNAL

START

TO i. TI

Gutdance

Reference

Release

IU Umbilical Disconnect Sensed by LVDC Initiated Seconds Seconds by LVOC 0.013 after T 1 +138.8

T2

139.44

139.44

T3 T4 T5

161.22 559.65 702.87

161.22 559.65 702.87

S-IC S-II

OECO Sensed OECO Sensed

by LVDC by LVDC

S-IVB ECO (Velocity) Sensed by LVDC ResOrt EQuation Solutton

%"

16

10,978.65 (03:02:58.65) 11,907.87 (03:18:27.87) 18,179.88 (05:02:59.88)

10,978.65 (03:02:58.65) 11,907.87 (03:18:27.87) 18o180.00 (0S:03:00.00)

T.

T7

S-IV8 ECO (Velocity) Sensed by LYOC Initiated Command by Ground

T8

*Range Time of i.e., the time **Range Includes Figure

occurrence as indicated by uncorrected of event as tagged onl_ard, converted of telometered signal time and LVOC cIock

LVDC clock, _.o range time. from vehicle. correction.

Time of Ground receipt telemetry transmission 2-1.

6

i

1

2-1

The start of Time Bases TO, Tl, and T2 were nominal. T3, T4 and T 5 were initiated approximately 0.5 seconds early, 0.4 secor_Is early, and 4.1 seconds early, respectively, due to variations in the stage burn times. These variations are discussed in Sections 5, 6 and 7 of this document. Start times of T_ and T7 were l.g seconds early and 2.l seconds late, respectively, T8 was initiated by the receipt of a grob_o'- ....... command. Figure 2-I shows the mean difference between ground station receipt time and vehicle tagged time which may be used for precise comparisons between onboard guidance and navigation data that is time-tagged on6_a-?d and .... other data that is time-tagged by time of telemetry signal receipt at a ground station. A summary of significant event times for AS-512 is given in Table 2-2. The preflight predicted times were _djusted to match the actual first motion time. The predicted times for establishing actual minus predicted .......... times in Table 2-2 were taken from 40M33627D, "Interface Control Docu_w_nt Definition of Saturn SA-Sll, 512 and 514 Flight Sequence Program" a;id from the AS-SI2 Postlaunch Operational Trajecto_, (OT). The postlaunch operational trajectory, MSFC Memorandum S&E-AERO-MFT-200-72, correcting the earlier OT for the adjusted flight azimuth, was used because of the.-- ...... launch delay. 2.2 VARIABLE TIME AND COMMANDED SWITCH SELECTOR EVENTS issued during the

Table 2-3 lists the switch selector events which were flight, but were not programmed for specific times.

2-2

-.o

300'_

1

/
25O
L L ,, .....

zoo,
Z

_J

=> 15o,
•" !

_-. lO0

50,

/
10,_ 20_000 RANGE TILE, S[COlOS 30.000

,

l
2:00:00

,,

I
4:00:00

l
5:00:00

I
8:00:00

RANGETIME, HOURS:MINUTES:SECOMDS * RANGE TIRE OF GROUNO RECEIPT OF TELEMETERED SIGIM4. FROMVEHICLE. • * RANGE TIME OF OCCURRENCE INDICATEDBY UNCORRECTED AS LVDC CLOCK.

Figure 2-1.

/6-512

Telemetry

Time Difference

1

2-3

ap

Table

2-2.

Significant

Event
eaNr, r

Times Summarj

|Trm
i|

_v_r

_:SC=IPT

Ir_ '_FC

_I_E _CIU_L _FC

F
AC I -,._D F i"

_,EC

I

F.UlCSNC

_-

I;l_lrFwr4Ct

_:1

_aSF

- I ?.0

0o0

-il.6

....

....

0-.11-

tGPm) 0o0 Cl'uuJ_._ 3 S-I_ $-1C _-IC 6 S-lC F_r.I_F FqC. IkF _'_C.I.",F ICur).NE) 'w_.'_ TTA_T _('._ °,1_.? _TJlaT $IAD'I <;TAal $lAl_ll' tNAbSI t*:.K -6.3 -6.3 -!.6 0.0 iiEL_ASFO 0. Z 0.0 -6.7 0.0 0.0 _. ,..) 0.0 0.! -0.1 -0.6 -C.4 - -0.0 -1.0 _" -?.3 -;.2
_.0 ....

0.0

0.1 0.0 O.I 0,_0 -_).! "

F_.(:-I&£ ,wr.? _q, GIP, F S-If IF_C &C._.

_' S-IC .aLl q IO _&kCF

trNGImFS

JiLL _(L_OCW/I Ag_ IFIwST I,C TIC_I |U U_ILlCIL t_F TIV;

It

P_SF

CISCCN_ECI'_ I Itl) YAW

STARt"

0.6

0.0

O.O

0.0

12

P._GI_ ICwEF NA_ ft.VE@ _NC _EGlq $-!( ESC YJW

(LI./leANCF

a*l

0.1

!o0

0.0

|_ 14 IS 16

WANEIIVf .t_;£

• OCLL wE_,EUVEP Ca&T

q.7

0.1 O.k

q.! 12.3 20.0 13.7 6f_.q hi.?

0.1 J.5 0.0 -0.4 J.l -I1.1

PITCH CLTB('APD PI'_LI

[kCl_l

20.6 14.3 67.5

0.0 -0.4 0.0 -I.!

Ulll_[_lVEII

18

eiXll_ts.

OYkl_iC

Pe[rc,$UqE

qZ.S

lq

S-IC CEkT£P ICfCCl SI'JRT END EP P|lC_ TI_*£

_GIkE

CUTCFF

I 3q.)O

-0°02

l 3eo 6?

-O.

Ol

ZO ;_1

RiSE

?

Illl

l)q._

C.O 0.?

¢.0 ZO.6

0.0 0.!

PiNcrUVEA

ITIL1

leO. I
161,20

2_

S-IC olulr_oJl_O ICECCI START CF TIPE

E'NGINf

Cl,.TCFF

-0._1

21.75

-0.47

23

EASE

3

1131

161.2

-0.5

0.0

0°0

2-4

Table 2-2.

Significant Event Times Sunmary (Cont'd)
eA_C_ IC TuIL
i

ITEN

EVENT

DE_C_IPv|O_

lCf-#m+O S£C -0.5

TI_'E _CIUIL SEE O. 1

Fqc_

eASE lCr-+'m+C SEC -

24

START PmESS_a( S-If OFF LM2

S-II LM7 TANK VE_T _C_£ eFCIRCULaTI_N

MIGH

I+I.+

.... 0.03

25

PUNPS

I+I.4

-0.5

0.Z

0.0

Z6

S-|CIS-|| fEPAPIt|ON TC FIPF SFP4_aTICN Ak_ g_IgO W_TCR_ S°ll ION ENGINF SCL_(IC |AV_OA_E CF

COPMIN0 CfVICFS

16Z.q

-0.5

1.6

......

Owl

27

JCTIVaTFI_E| b£GU£NC(

I_!.6

-0.5

2.4

0.0

? _r

28

S-II ENGINE SVART CCPWaNO |ESC) S-II IG_ITI_N-ST0V

163.6

-0.5

Z.4

.

Q.O

2q

CPE_

-0.5

J.4

0.0

30

S-I|

WIINSTaGE CFILLOCNN _IGH HIGM i_.5l 15.51EPR VILVES _p_ CLOSE NC. N_, ! OH

16A.t 166.5 16q. 169.3 192o9 I

-O.S -0.S -0.5 -0.S -O.S

S.Z 5.3 7.9 8.1 3L.?

0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3

31S.-I! :L 31 33 3q % S-il S-II

Z ON

S-ll S_CONO _LANE COwliNg IJ£TTISCN INTERSTIGtl LAUNCN ESCAPE JETTISCN ITERITIV£ P_kSl S-ll

SEPARATION S-If l_T

35

TOWER

IL_TI

36

I

GUIOINCE I_ITIAT[D £NGINI

uCOE

IIGI_I

204.1

0.0

42.q

0.S

17
r..

CENTER ICECC) CF

CUTOFF

461.ZI

-0.47

2sq.il

-0.02

38 39

START S-II

6RTIFICIIL

TAU

_QQE RATIO

48900 489.2

-l.q -2.L

327.0 378.0

-l.S -1.6

LOW ENGINE NIXTURE IEffn| S_IFT IACTUILJ CF ARTIFICIAL TAU ENCINE

60 41

ENO

PQO_ CUTOFF

4qq.o 55q.66

-3.2 -0.47

337.8 3_;8.,43

-2.8 -0.02

$--'I! C_TBCARC IOECCI S-Jl EkG|NE START OF S-iV8 S-I|#S-|VB TC FIRE ANG tlTtO ULLAGE

7"

4_

CUTOFF INTEPRUPTt T|_E @ASE _ |T61 POTGR SEPARATION SEPARATION POTOPS IGNITIQN CC;mqANO OEYICES

$5q.7

-0.4

0.0

0.0

43
%

S60.5 560_6

-O.S -O.S

O.q IL.O

0.0 0.0

4_

¢

j_

*Data not available. 2-5

Table

2-2.

Significant

Event Times Summary

(Cont'd)

'lUE lIE,+ Ev¢_f f'F %t*.l; I P I Irv_, S_C 5FC |.l Irla+I • 6 +I _ ++ 50 fueL $-)vm S-IvP srair S-IV_ Cr F_() C+ILtF+(mN |+_I1iP_ wa_m_i ++ ++ri¢ICi+i FJSF PiE JETTIS(N tall GLJILA_CF + C CblrFF trI_ST CbVrFr "CCE _82.7 _bq.l _q6,3 6qb._ 1C7.65 ECOI IOZ.?5 -_,. !0 -0.12 -b°? -),1 -J.? -_.Oq II0.I t36.1 t36._ -O._J -U(,+ p_jwo lSl_v ,_E¢ P_+_) 5e6.? _6fl.q -0.5 (:.6 'l.Z _61.8 ?.?
_1 :¢JAI

¢_C v _aSE _Ct-+wFr Sir+ + J-_l. _

J.O 0. O.O ,).8 0.0 +o0 I

UlLaGE ++tl+lClat IEm+l_At IG. P_aSE

+1EmC !Z 5+ 54 55 mEGlm FN_ BEGIN

-3._ -_Jo2 -0.02

CMI

FQEEI

S-IVB vELCCITV KCPPA_D _r. $-1_ VFLCCIIV

I

56

-O.0Z

SP

$-IVR EkRIk_ CUICCF START _F Time Bt_ g-lV6 SP5 f_&/TICN $-|VO IPS IG_ITICN LCX T_ ULLAGE CO-_a_{ ULLIG_ CC-'I_C

I%IE_AbPT_ 5 ITSI _C. 1

IC7.9

-_',,, 1

0o0

0.O

50

ENGI_

7C3.1

-,'o ° I

0.3

0o0

59

ENCI_

c

h_.

Z

1C3.?

-_oi

0.0

6_ 41 6Z

_ESSU_I?_11C_ C++IT I&SE_riC_

rFF

7C_.0 ttZ.e

-_k.?

I.Z 9. O

0.O C.O

eae+IkG

_GI_ _SNkUVF_ ro LOCAL H_RIZC_TAL ATTITUCE S-IV_ CCNTI&UCUS SYSXEW ¢CVSI S-lie APS VLL'_.. E_TCFF C(_a_L _-lYe APS ULLAGE CuTCFF CCPWING BEGIN ORBITAL VENT CN F'_INE N_. l T8_.8 76|.8

-7.1

21.5

63

'_q.O

3.3

6_

-...[

at.,)

3.3

65

EkGl_E

_G.

Z

?#_.q

-_ol

01.1

.3.0

b6

NAVIG&T|GN

67

BEGIN TICN$_ ITBI

.c-,.IYB

nESTanT (F

PREPIASTJPE faSE 6

,0_18.6

°I,S

0°0

3.0

SYJiY

!

,I
! 2-6
"+_

*Data

not available.

Table

2-2.

Significant

Event Times Summary

(Cont'd)

_af.Cr 4FT,.AI '
i

lfvF ACT-P_F_

tire
,tCTU&L

_:nC _, leaSE
&CT_,_; F7

SFC _'.8 69 1,3 $-1V_ 5-1V9 _2/t'2 C?/_., _ P_IIp_¢.:_ P_,_'_,_P th2 C1'; C_ ItClq.q 11020.Z i13;O.b -|.q -l.q -1.7 _,1.6 4? .O 0.O 0.0

rxt'ltF_$ O_

S-lYe C211,,2 RU_NFu t_x IPELIUw I-[ATFu ."'%1 S-IvP r.V5 r"FF I_fPlar_'_L_IZAYlI'N VltV¢ CP_ _BEPPF_SbPlIA'I'I_N VII VF _N IC

O.O

7] 1Z

11020.8 ! ! C Z_. T

-I.? -l.q

_,¢ ° ? 4@.1 0.0

5-1VP LHZ (CNT_CL 5-1v1_ LCx (C_lgCL 5-|VP FI 5-1V6 $-IV_ S-IVP

13

110760_

-I-q

4e.3

Co0

I_ ! 15 16 17 78

41,X _'YC_eLt, IGI-T _I"E f_N L0X LPZ CH|[IDfWK CPIILCfW_

PU_VP

lllq/.6

-I.q

_1_.9

U.O

ptjleP I_U_P CIf'$E_.

CI_ C_

117Z7.6 IiZ)_.6

-l.q -I.? -I.q

74_.0

0°0 0°0

PPEVALVES

75q. 4s.0,.1

J 0.0

%-1_R wIXIURE VALVE CPE_ _;-Ive Ae5 IGNITION S-JVR APS IGNITIO,_

RAIIC

CCk,11z_L

11_28.

l

-I.9

rq

ULLAGE (kCI_,E CO_NANC ULLAGE LkGI_,E COH_IN[ t_7 CFFI LCx k

_C.

[

11_T4.'9

-|.9

_q6.3

0.0

00

kC.

2

11_15.0

-|.q

_96.4

0.0

gl

5-1v8 C21W2 Eb_Ee IwELIUN hEAThER ._-lVl_ 5-|VE 5-1V6 C2/H2 L1_2 L(_X

CFF

-l.q

,).0

e2 83 e_

PURNEid CPILLCCk, CPi¢LOCI_N

fFF CFF (:FF

111_Tq.q llb4@.C 115,48.? 115_8o6

-l.q -!.9 -|.q -!.9

_O1.3 0.0

powl_ PUUP

1_5 S-iVB ENGIkE: RESTanT IFUEL LEA_ INllI&11Gk) (SECC_C ESCI
L.

C(_'"Ni_

570.C

0.0

i"

16

S-IvB AP$ ULLAGE CUTCFF CCIeM ANC S-I#8 JPS L;LLAG_ CUTCFF COl_Wal_Cl S-IVB 5ECGNC (PE:N I .;-lvft wAI_SFaGE

ENGit,

E KQ.

l

11551.6

-I.q

SLY.}

0.,,)

87

EhGII_E

_.C.

2

_!!5510

7

-I.9

573.1

O.}

_L

ae

IGNITICk

ISTOV

11556.6

-!.9

510.J

O.O

8_

-|.q

See.4

*0.

t

2-7

Table

2-2.

Significant

Event

Ti_s

Summary
T I'E At" V-pa. 7 [
ii

(Cont'd)
vI'_. _"C" qSSJ

i

iTEm

EVENT
i

UFS_

ivv I_,

90

E'4GINF ul;.TLP_ cr_rmFL valVE

QaT/G '_t-lF?

|E-r.| I'FGI_,

,/.71 .7

I°,"

ql

S-IV

a

LPZ

ITFP

PwF_,GI/OIt4TIC_,

IIa?M._

-[.o

qEC.C

92 ,_3 94

_,l;GIF. REGIN

'l'Em_l_At Cl-I

GHILa",I('r:

ItPlq. 11_.7 CL_Tf'FI r _%rjl CUTCIrF IlqO/.b4

I

--Z. 001 2.1_

tJ (.7_.o -.'.74

4.? 2.e: --0.0'.

FI;;EIcZ,; _LJlC_CF I (S;-[IN_ (,UI_._.Cz-

S-IVB $_CCP,,._ ¢'I_P'_AND _0. S-IItR IECCNC

;.5

II_Ol.

Tb

-C.12

--0.07

4;_ S-f_ ENGINF C_TCF_ r INTE_WUPT. STIi_IT ,'IF tf"f A.,S_;t I 11"71 <;1 qq _;q IO0 S-l'eO C_S G_, |NJ_CTIC_lw CFf _,a',,iG_lrlCk iTL |)

liqOt.q

Z.t

C°O

0.0

Z.I, I1917.6 IZCSH.? 120_qo6 Z.I 2.1 3.0

0.5 <;.m

0.0 0°0 O.J

TaAkSt_kA* S-IYB _GIk Cv$

ClZl_llliL

I'.I.7

0.8

|0|

nEGIN _J&EUVE9 TC LOCAl NCRIZCNTJL ATT|TbOE 6EGI_ PA4EUYEe TC TICN AND _CCRIEG ITC_E) CS u CS_ $C/_v STaeT S_P&RAT|_ CCC¢ FINAL OF TI_E $_PARATInN eaSE e |TB) kC. l TalNIFC$IAlTITUdE

12059._

3.0

I_|.7

O.B

102

LZOo4.q

qO I.O

IQ] 104 1_5 106 IO7

13347.6 14230.1 |7|02°3 18179.q 18181.1 ,,&.,It. ,,d,,.d.

143_;.1

51(_4.3 0.0 l.Z 0.0 O.O

I-lYe APS IG_ITICh S-IVe AVS ICkttlC5

ULLAGE C_W_J_ ULLAGt CO_A_C

EkCINP

IQ6

EkCINE

wO.

18181.Z

|°4

0.0

IGq

S-lYe AP$ ULLAGEI_kCIkE C_IQFF CC_PJkO S-IVE IPS ULLAGE CUTOFF CC_PA_O ENCINE

kC.

[

18261.0

"N'tk'

g1.2

0.0

l[O

NO.

"Data not available. "*Prediction not available.

2-8

Table

2-2.

Significant

Event

Times

Summary (Cont'd)
Tl_ FOR BASE ACT-PffD SEC 0.0

ITEH

E';E_;T DESCRIPT 1,_;;

ACTUAL SEC

ACTUAL SEC 40.1

111

Initiate Vaneuver Att itude S-IVB S-IVB CYS _N CVS _FF

to LOX Ou_ I l IP,,76n.O Ig,179.8 19,480.0 for 19,507.9
,we

112 113 114

IO00.O 1300.0 1328.0

0.0 O.O 0.0

End tOX Dump Required S-IVB APS Burn

115

_IVB APS Ullage Engine _o. I Ignition Co_a_ S-IVB APS Ullage Ignition S-IVB APS Ullage Cutoff Command S-IVB APS Ullage Cutoff Command 2rid Lunar Co=end Impact En_tne _o. 2
I

22,199.8

4020.0

116

22,200.0

4020.2

117

Engine

_o.

l

22,297.8

Qt

4118.0

)
Era. inn _o. 2 22,298.0
et

I
4118.2

118

119

@(aneuver
I

39,760.0

120

S-:YB APS Ulla_e [_ine Ignition Contend S-IVB APS Ullage Ignition Coerar_ S-IVB APS Ullage Cutoff ComRand r_-IVB APS Ullage Cutoff Cmnd Passive I_n_ver Thermal Engine

1_o. 1

40,499.8

tt

121

.'(o. 2

40,500.0

122

£ngtne

_o.

I

I

40,601.8

123

Ermine

No.

2

40,60Z.0

124

Control

:

41,510

1ZS

Flight Contr_1 Co_ter Off CCS _arrter S-IVBIIU Lunar (le:elN:SEC) Off Isct

Power

41,532

IZ6 127

49,260 (Hl_rs) 86.995 86:5g:41 103.951

"Predictions

not available.
, i i

i

2-9

9

Table

2-3.

Variable

Time

and

C_nmanded

Switch

Selector

Events

FI_CTION
m

STAGE

RA)¢GETI..vE (SEC) 489.0 489.2 780.5

TI_E FRO,_BASE (SEC)
i i

REMARKS
i

L_

(4.8) EMR No. I 0.'¢ EMIt No. 2 ON

S-I; S-If IU

T3 +327.8 T3 +3280 T5 +77.6

LV_C Function LVDC Function LVCC Function

Low (4.8)

Water Coolant Closed

Valve

Telemetr 7 Cal tbrator Infligi_t Calibrate 0.4 TM Calibrate ON

lU

3216.1

T 5 "2513.2

Acquisition by C_rnarvon Revolution 1 Acquisition Revolution by Carnarvon 1

r_

S-:V8

3216.5

T5 +2513.6

TM Calibrate OFF

3217.5

TS *2514.6

Acquisition by Carnarvon Revolutfon I Acouisition by Carnarvon Revolution 1 L',/'DCFunction

Tele,me try Calibrator Inflight Calibrate OFF Water CooTant Valve Open Telemetry Calibrator inflignt Calibrate O_ TM Calibrata ON

IU

3221.1

T5 "2518.2

lU

3_80.5

TS +2777.6

IU

471Z.]

T S *4009.2

Acquisition by Hawaii Rev. I Acquisition by Hawaii Rev. 1 Acquisition by Hawaii Rev. l Acquisition by Goldstone Rev. 1 Acquisition by Goidst_e Rev. I Acquisition by Goldstc_e Rev. I Acquisition by Go!ctstone Rev. 1 Acquisitlmby _oldstc_e J_v.

S-IVB

471Z.S

T 5 .4009.6

TH Calibrate

OFF

S-I'm

4713.5

T 5 +4010.6

Telemetry Calibrator Inflignt Calibrate OFF Telemetry Calfbrator Inflight Calibrate ON TM Calibrato ON

iU

4717.1

T 5 +4014,Z

IU

5344. l

T 5 +4641.Z

S-Ilfl$

5344.5

T5 "4641.6

TIN Calibrate

OFF

S-IV_

5345.5

T 5 ÷464Z.6

Tele.,etr 7 Caltbrator InfliCt C.mltbrate

lU OFF

5349. I

T s +4646.2

1

2-I0

Table

2-3.

Variable

Time

and Commanded Switch

Selector

Events

(Contd

FI_CT !Ott

STAGE

R_IG[ TIME (SEC) 6928. i

TIME

FROM BASE (SEC)

REMARKS

Telemetry Infltght

Calibrator Calibrate ON

IU ON S-IVB

TS +6225.2

Acquisition Ascenslon Acqui$itioe Ascension

by Rev.

Z

TM Calibrate

6928.5

T 5 +62L5.6

by Rev. 2

TM Calibrate

OfF

S-IVB

6929.5

T5 _226.6

Acquisition by AscensiOn Rev. Z Acquisition by Ascension Rev.

Telemetry lnflight Tel_etry Inf119ht TM Calibrate

Calibrator Calibrate Calibrator ON ON

IU OFF lU

6935.1

T5 +6232.2

2

8808. I

T5 +8105.2

Acquis|tion by Carnarvon Rev. 2 Acqo|$1tl_ by Carnar_ Rev. Z Acquisition by Carnarvon Rev. 2 Acquisition by Carnarvoa Rev. Z Acquisition Hawaii Rev. Acquisition Hawaii Rev. Acqulsltim Xawati Rev. Acquisition Hawaii Rev. Acquisition Gol_stone by 2 by 2 by 2 by 2 by Rev.

S-IVB

8808.5

T5 +8105.6

TM Calibrate

OFF

S-[VB

8809.5

T5 +8106.6

Telemetry infltght Tetemet_j InfUght TlqCallbrate

Calibrator OFF Calibrator Calibrate ON

IU

8813.1

T5 +8110.2

IU ON S-IV8

10264.1

T5 +9561.2

10264.5

T5 +9561.6

TM Calibrate

OFF

S-IVB

10265.5

T5 +9562.6

Telemetry infltg_t ,Tel_try IInf119ht Tlq Calibrate

Calibra_or Calibrate Calibrator Calibrate ON

IU OFF IU ON S-IVB

10269.1

T5 +9566.2

10888.1

T 5 +10185.2

2

10888.5

T5 +10185.6

Acqu|sJtionby Goldstone Rev. AcquJsltl_ by Gol_stone Rev. Acquisition by Goldstoem Rev.

2

LTR Calibrate

OFF

S-IVB

10889.5

T$

+10186.6

2

Te1_try lnf119ht

Calibrator Calibrate

Iu
OFF

10893.1

TS +10190.2

2

2-11

Table 2-3.

Variable Time and Commanded Switch Selector Events (Cont'd)
STAGE RAr(GE TIME (SEC} lZl7S.Z TI_E FROM BASE ($EC)
L

FUNCT IUN

REMARKS

Telu_try Calibrator Inflight Calibrate ON TM Calibrate ON

IU

T7 ÷267.3

Acquisition by Ascension TLC Acquisition Ascension Acquisition Ascension Acquisition Ascension by TLC by TLC by TLC

S-IVB

12175.6

T 7 *267.7

TM Calibrate OFF

S-IVB

C

12176.6

T 7 +268.7

Telemetry Calibrator |nflight Calibrate OFF Water Coolant Valve Closed S-IVB Ullage Engine No. 1 ON S-IVB Ullage Engine No. 2 ON $-IVB Ullage No. ] OFF . Engine

IU

1218C.2

T7 +272.3

IU

19079.8

T8 +899.9

LVDC Function

S-IVB

22199.8

T8 +4020.0

Lunar Impact Burn No. 1 Lunar l_act No. I Lunar Impact No. 1 Burn

S-IV8

22200.0

T8 *4020.2

S-IV8

22297.8

Ts +4118.0

Burn

S-IVB Ullage Engine No. 2 OFF S-IVB Ullage No. I ON S-IVB Ullage No. 2 ON S-IVB Ullage No. I OFF S-IV8 Ullage No. 2 OFF Flight Control Power OFF A Flight Control Power OFF 9 Water Coolant Engine

S-IV8

22298.0

T8 +4118.2

Lunar Impact 8urn No. 1

$-lV8

40499.8

T8 -22320.0

I

Umar l_act No. 2 Lunar Impact No. 2 Lunar Impact No. 2

Burn

Engine

S-IV8

40500.0

T8 +22320.1

8urn

EngJme

S-IV8

40601.0

T 8 +22421.9

Burn

Engine

S-[Vg

4O602.0

T8 .22422.1

Lunar Impact Burn No. 2 CCS Comand

Computer

IU

41521.0

T8 +23341.1

Computer

IU

41532.1

T 8 +23352.2

CCS Cemwmd

Valve

IO

41554.3

T8 +23374.4

LVOC Funct Ion

Open

k

!
i

2-12
t

SECTION 3 LAU_:CHOPERATIONS

3.1

SUMM_RY

The around systems supportina the FS-512/Apollo 17 countdown and launch performed satisfactorily with the exception of the Terminal Countdown Seauencer (TCS). The TCS malfur_Lion, which is discussed (n paragramh 3.3, resulted in a 2 hour and 40 minute launch delay. The space vehicle was launched at 00:33:00 Eastern Standard Time (EST) (05:33:00 UT) on December 7, 1972, from Pad 3gA of the Kennedy Space Center, Saturn Complex. Damage to the pad, Launch Umbilical Tower (LUT) and supnort equipment was considered minimal. 3.2 PRELAUNCH MILESTONES

A chronological sun_naryof prelaunch milestones for the AS-SI2 launch is contained in Table 3-I. 3.2.1 S-IC Stage

S-IC stage and _SE systems performed satisfactorily during countdown with the exception of three failures which were subseouentlv corrected. The failures were 1_;....tl ...... "_- _,) C,_o a_ _.._.. Devices fS&A) (2) Remote Digital _ Sub-Multiplexer, and (3) F-I Engine _Io.2 Gas Generato- Igniter. The Safe and _rm Device failed to respond to a safe command. Possible causes for the failure were determined to be low voltaoe, i_proper installation, or a defective unit. The Safe and Arm Device and its mounting block were replaced and the replacement unit performed satisfactorily. Bench tests of the suspect unit failed to duplicate the problem and dimensional ana;ysis of the unit and mounting block was satisfactory. Analysis did reveal, however, that output toroue of the solenoid at the lower end of the voltage curve was marginal with respect to the toraue requirements of the mechanical linkage of the S&A device. As a precautionary measure, the countdown procedure was changed to arm the device at T-33 minutes instead of T-S minutes to eliminate the need for recycling to T-22 minutes in the event of a hold. In addition, the provision was made to increase the stage bus voltaae to 30 V if the unit should fail to arm during the count. At the T-9 hour scheduled hold the Remote Digital Sub-Multiplexer (RDSM) failed and an 8 ampere current surge of one minute duration was recorded. The RDSM was replaced and satisfactorily retested. The cause was isolated to shorted ceramic capacitor (C7) in the power supply card. As a result of failure analysis it was concluded that the failure was randem and no corrective action is anticipated.

3-I

Table 3-I.
DATE

AS-512/Apollo 17 Prelaunch Milestones
ACTIVITY OR EVEIiI

October december June June 16, ;7,

27, 21, 1971 ;;7,

)°.70 1970

S-II-12 S-IVB-SI2 Lunar

Stage

A.rival Arrival Ascent Descent Stage Stage Arrival Arrival Arrlval

Stare

Module

(LM)-I2

L,._cr :-_o_-';_.e t,t_)-12 Spacecraft/Lunar Co.m,and S-IC-12 S-IC S-IT Lunar and Staqe Service ._rr|val on Jw_ile

",arch 24, :_arCh Z4,

1972 1772

.U,_lule Adapter Module

(SLA)-21 Arrival

(C5M)-114

_oa,l 11. may _ay June June • Tune Jun_ July A_just 1S. 19. 2. 7.

1972 1972 1972 1972 1972

Erection Erection Rosin 9

kaunctmr

(M_.)-3

Vehicle

(LRV)-3

Arrival

Instrurw_nt IU Erection

Unit

(I0)-512

Arrival

2P,, 1972 23, IZ, 1. 1'J72 1_7Z 1972

S-IV3 Launcn

Erection Vetlicle (LV) Electrical Systems Test Overall Completed Test (OAT)

LV Propellant Co._le te L'V Service Arm

OisperslonlMalfu_tion

OAf

Complete

;,uqust Au,lust At_ust ,October October OC%o_er

13, 23, 28, ]l, ]2, 20,

197Z I.u72 1972 ]972 )972 )972 1972 !972 1972 1972 "972 (EST)_ I

LRV

Installation (SC) Erection Transfer to Pad 39A

Spacecraft Space

Vehicle

(SV)/RL Mlat_

SV _.Iectrica) SV SY RP-I OAT ";o. Fligh[

1 (Plugs Readiness

In) Test

£_lete (FRT) Cm_leted

._ovember

I0,

Loading D_onstraf.i_ (O_) Countdown Started (T-28 Hours) Test (CJ)I]T) C_leCed (Wet)

,';ovem_er 20. ";ovember Dece_er ,_cen_er 2_. f, 7,

Countdown CDDT

Completed

S_,'Terminal $I/ Launc_

3-2

.'.

The F-, Eneine

r:o. 2 Gas _enerator

(GG) igniter

installed

indication

was

lost at T-23 hours. Both GG igniters on Engine No. 2 were replaced and the problem was determined to be due to igniter failure. Failure analysis revealed an error in manufacture in that solder had been omitted from an electrical pin in the igniter, allowing intermittent contact. The lack of solder was seen in the X-ray nicture which is m_de during receiving inspection. Corrective action taken was to review all remaining igniter X-ray pictures to assure no more omissions exist. 3.2.2 S-II Stage

The S-ii stage and GSE performed satisfactorily during the countdown. As a result of the unscheduled hold caused by the Terminal Countdown Sequencer (TCS) malfunction, some systems such as the J-2 engine start tank system were required to remain active. During the first unscheduled hold at 02:52:30 tiT (T-30 seconds), S-ll stage systems were safed and recycled successfully during this 65.2 minute hold duration. At 03:57:41 LIT (T-22 minutes), the countdown was resumed and continued to T-8 minutes when another hold occurred to resolve the TCS corrective action. This hold lasted 73.3 minutes and contingency hold Option 2 was utilized. S-If systems remaining active through this hold were LOX system helium injection, engine actuation hydraulic system temperature control, and engine helium and hydrogen start tanks pressurized. It was necessary to manually control engine helium tank venting as temperature changes di tated. The engine start tanks were chilled, pressurized, and then required one rechill cycle at 05:12:00 LIT for proper temperature conditions. At 05:25:00 UT, the countdown resumed at T-8 minutes and proceeded without further problems to liftoff. Electrical batteries on the S-II stage were on internal power about 20 seconds longer than previous vehicles and were slightly more discharged at liftoff as a result of the repeated countdown. 3.2.3 S-IVB Stage during

Overall performance of the S-IVB stage and GSE was satisfactory the countdown operations.

A hazardous gas detection sensor located at the LH2 tank vent disconnect on Swing Arm No. 7, showed an intermittent indication of GH 2 for approximately l-I/2 hours from T-3 hours 30 minutes. The leak was not large enough to cause a problem and was dispositioned acceptable for launch. To keen the engine control helium sphere pressure below the redline limit of 3400 psia, the sphere was vented six times using the emergency vent during the hold period. Prior to resuming the countdown at T-8 minutes, the start tank was rechilled to bring the te_erature below the maximun limit acceptable for launch. After rechilling, the start tank emergency vent valve was cycled three times to keep the start tank pressure below the maximum limit.

r

3-3

A long term decay was noted on Forward Battery No. 2, open circuit voltaae. The open circuit voltage at the time of inst_llation was 34.74 V. The voltage decayed 1.50 V over a 24-hour period. During the hold at T-9 hours, a power transfer test was performed to verify battery performance under loaded conditions. Battery performance was normal. At T-8 hours 53 minutes, Battery Monitor EnaBle was turned on to provide a small load in order to stabilize the battery. The battery voltage stabilized at T-4 hours. The voltaee decay was attributed to a greater than nominal silver-peroxide level in the battery cells. The battery met all specifications and criteria. 3.2.4 IU Stage performed satisfactorily during the countdown.

The IU stage 3.3

T_RMINAL

COUNTDOWN

The AS-Sl2/#pollo 17 Terminal Countdown was picked up at T-38 hours on December 5, 1972. Scheduled holds were initiated at T-g hours fnr a duration of g hours, and at T-3 hours 30 minutes for a duration of one hour. At T-167 seconds the Terminal Countdown Seouencer (TCS) failed to issue the "S-IVB LOX Tank Pressurization" command. When it was visually observed t_t the S-IVB LOX Tank was not being pressurized, the console operator initiated action to manually control S-IVB LDX Tank Pressurization. The tank was pressurizeo, but because an interlock relay was not energized when the TCS failed to issue the T-167 second command, a countdown hold was experienced at T-30 seconds. This hold lasted for 2 hours and 40 minutes during which time the TCS failure was confirmed, a "Work-Around" was investigated, and the "Work-Around" was verified at the MSFC Saturn V System Development Facility (SDF). Also during this hold the countdown was recycled to T-22 minutes. After investigation of the failure and verification of the "Work-Around" it was concluded that the countdown could be successfully and safely accomplished by using a jumper to bypass the "S-IVB LOX Tank Pressurized" interlock relay and manually pressurizing the LOX tank from the LCC. The countdown sequence w_s restarted at T-22 minutes and completed successfully. Figure 3-I shows the electrical circuits associated with this anomaly and the following is a description of the functional operation of the circuits. The T-167 second command from the TCS (Channel 3) is supplied to the Mobile Launcher (ML) Integration Patch Distributor to energize relay K3 which supplies a 28V signal to the ML S-IVB Patch distributor. Thi_ signal is used to initiate l) S-IVB LOX tank vent closed, 2) S-IVB LOX tank pressurization valve open, and 3) energize relay K577 "TiM for LOX Tank Pressurization." Without relay K577 energized the "S-IVB LOX Tank Pressurized" interlock relay K536 cannot be energized even if

3-4

f-T

LI_.L .,,,I:-: "

_T,....__.,
C_loql I1 ell _'11_"_"

I'
I

Figure

3-I.

[lectrical

Support

[quiF_nent Partial

Schematic

i'

3-5

/

relay K492 "LOX Tank Minimum Low Pressure OK" is energized by manually pressurizing the LOX tank. When K536 is not energized the "S-IVB Ready for Launcn" relay K607 will not provide a signal to the ML S-IC Patch Distributor "S-IVB Ready for Launch" relay K972 to complete the interlock chain to allow relay K465 "Swing Arm _Io. l Retract Preparation Complete" to be energized. If K465 is not energized when the T-30 second TCS command (Swing Arm No. I Carrier Retract) is received, a cutoff con_nand will be initiated and a countdown hold will occur. When the above condition occurred, the absence of the TCS T-167 second command was confir=,.edon the Digital Events Evaluator-6 (DEE-6) printout. Investigation of the DEE-6 printout disclosed that the T-176 second spare output from the TCS also did not occur. After investigation of various combinations of lost outputs and associated fixes, it was determined that the "LOX Tank Pressurized" relay K536 could be bypassed by moving the "LOX Tank Pressurized Bypass" jumper from "INHIBIT" to "ON" position. This jumper is located on S-IVB Patch Distributor in the LCC. The failure was simulated and the "Work-AFound" was verified at the MSFC Saturn V SDF and a decision was made to proceed with the launch using the interlock bypass and manual pressurization. During the successful launch all TCS outputs were obtained except the T-176 second spare output. Therefore, the bypass and manual pressurization procedures were actually redundant to the normal circuitry. Investigation of this failure at KSC subsequently centered on two diodes located in the logic circuitry of the TCS. One of these diodes inhibited the T-167 second S-IVB LOX Tank Pressurization command and the other inhibited the spare output. The two failures are functionally unrelated in the TCS circuitry. Excessive reverse current leakage through the partially shorted diodes caused intermittent operation of TCS outputs. The two failed diodes had been in service six years. Each TCS contains 1,827 of these diodes with approximately 1500 of these capable of causing a launch hold or scrub if they failed between CDDT and launch. Testing of all similar diodes is being conducted where feasible. Of 2196 diodes tested, 7 additional diodes exhibited reverse current leakage in excess of the spezification. The diodes that failed along with a number of non-failed diodes from the same printed circuit boards were subjected to extensive analysis. The following four causes of failure have been postulated: I) inversion layer formation, 2) accumulation layer formation, 3) metallic precipitates in the depletion layer cr 4) contamination in cracks partially or completely across the depletion layer'. Since deposition of contamination in microscopic cracks (Figure 3-2) was consistently observed in the failed diodes, this is considered to be the most probable failure mode. However, the investigation as to the cause of the cracks and subsequent contamination deposition is still underway and cannot be considered conclusive at this time.

3--6

GE SIN444g DIODE _ CRACKS

t t
_o

_%ANODE

SILVER

UTTON COfFFACT

_ \_

t
l" 20 MILS Figure 3-2.
L_

.I
Diode Chip Detail

4
c

3-7

The "Work-Around" with the TCS at KSC that resulted in a satisfactory terminal countdown would not be acceptable if a problem occurred with the TCS during the Skylab-2, -3, and -4 countdowns due to the short launch windows. The following activities will be accomplished prior to the Skylab launches in order to eliminate the possibility of another failure.
a,

The diodes will be tested and replaced as required existing TCS's to assure reliable performance.

in each of the

Pad 39A and Pad 39B will be modified to provide three TCS's launch vehicle ESE rather than the present one.

in each

c.

Incorporate voting logic so that any t_o of the three TCS's will assure that the proper signals are provided. All unused there will signals from each TCS will be unp_tched and grounded be no possibility of them causing problems. so

d.

The above activities will reduce the probability of a false command beina initiated and also assure that no single electrical failure will result in loss of the proper terminal countdown co--rid.

3.4 3.4.1

PROPELLANT

LOADING

RP-I Loading

The RP-1 system successfully supported countdown and launch without incident. Tail Service Mast (TSM) 1-2 fill and replenish was accomplished at T-I3 huurs and S-IC level adjust and fill line inert occurred at about T-60 minutes. Both operations were satisfactory, there were no failures or anomalies. Launch countdown support consumd 213,304 gallons of RP-I. 3.4.2 LOX Loading

The LOX system supported countdown and launch satisfactorily. The fill seauence began with S-IVB fill command at 12:34 EST, Decee_er 6, 1972, and was completed 2 hours 40 minutes later with all stage replenish normal at 15:15 EST. Replenishment was automatic through the first Terminal Countdown Sequence but was switched to manual when S-IVB flight mass began cycling shortly before final countdown. This condition has been experienced during some previous loading operations and is a result of trapped LOX warming in the S-IVB inlet line. The LH2/LOX Auto Load allows for manual replenishment when such cycling occurs. Men LOX loading was reinitiated shortly before recycling to T-22 minutes, LOX system loaic did not reestablish replenish operations

as

3-8

expected. Instead, it sequenced into a dual mode configuring simultaneously for both "vehicle replenishment" and "S-IC chilldown." In this posture, the S-IC slew fill valve was opened allowing LOX to be pumped directly into the stage resulting in a slight overfill. The system was manually reverted to prevent further overfill. Subsequent investigation reve_led that an S-IC discrete necessary fnr nor-hal replenishment was ,_issing when loading operations were r_su_l. A real time procedure charge to LOX/LH2 auto load, was prepared to initiate the discrete manually. Replenishment operations were reinitiated and continued normally through launch. This procedure change, which requires manual issue of Propellant Tanking Computer System (PTCS) discretes if tank level is at or above 98_, will prevent problem recurrence. LOX consumption 3.4.3 during launch countdown was 618,000 gallons.

LH 2 Loading

The LH 2 system successfully supported countdown and launch. The fill seouence began with start of S-II loading at 15:27 EST, Dece_er 6, 1972, and was completed _5 minutes later when all stage replenish was established at 16:52 EST. S-If replenish was automatic until terminated at initiation pf the Terminal Countdown Sequencer. Int_flmittent ,over° fill "indications were experiencedafter S-IVB auto replenish was achieved and had to be inhibited to avoid unnecessarily cycling the replenish valve. S-IVB replenish was switched to manual at T°I hour and left in that mode through start of Terminal Countdown Sequencer at T-Ia7 seconds. During recycle operations at T-30 seconds the LH2 system was reverted normally. Fill operations were reestablished when count was resumed and both stages replenished normally to flight mass. Launch 3.5 3.5.1 countdown GROUND support consumed about 520,000 gallons of LH 2.

SUPPORT

EQUIFMENT Interface

Ground/Vehicle

In general, performance of the ground service systems supporting all stages of the launch vehicle was satisfactory. Overall damage to the pad, LUT, and support equipment from blast and flame impingement was considered minimal. The PTCS adequately supported damage or system failures. all countdown operations and there was no

The Environmental Control System (ECS) successfully countdown. All _pecifications for ECS flow rates, pressures were met and flow/pressure criteria were

supported temperatures, satisfactory

the

AS-512 and durtng

3-9

the air to GT_ changeover. 2 At T-48 hours, ECS chiller _;o. 1 shut down due :o a low refrigerant charge. The redundant chil]ers were placed in operation and Freon added to chiller _o. I. _Io impact resulted. At T-2 minutes the S-IC forward lower compartment temperature indication became inoperative. Redundant measurement systems were utilized and no impcct resulted. The Holddown Arms and Service Arm Control Switches (SACS) satisfactorily supported countdown and launch. All Holddown Arms released pneumatically within a six (6) millisecond period. The retraction and explos;ve release lanyara pull was accomplished in advance of ordncnce actuation with a 42 millisecond margin. Pneumatic release valves l aria 2 opened within 21 milliseconds after SACS armed signal. The SACS prin_ry _wit,.hes closed simu'taneously at 449 milliseconds after con_it. SACS secondary switches closed 1.154 and 1.163 seconds after commit. Overall performance of the Tail Service Masts was satisfactory. Mast retraction times were nominal; 2.760 seconds for TSM 1-2, _.980 seconds for TSM 3-2 and 2.685 seconds for TSM 3-4, measured from umbilical plate separation to mast retracted. The preflight aid _nflight Service Arms the countdown in a s_tisfactory manner. terminal count and liftoff. (S/A's 1 through 8) supported Performance was nominal during

The DEE°3 system adequately supported a11 countdown operations. A dSscrepant printed circuit board was replaced in the FR I subsystem and a failed vacuum motor was replaced in the Pad A DEE-3D magnetic tape station. The Pad A DEE-3F magnetic tape station became ino._e_rative subsequent to the propellant loading operations. The remainder of the countdown was supoorted by backup tape and line printer recordings. There was no launch damage. 3.5.2 MSFC Furnished Ground Support Eouipment

Otter than the TCS anomly discussed in Section 3.3, the MSFC furnished electrical and mechanical ground support equipment successfully supported the Apollo 17 12unch.

3-1G

SECTIOII 4 TR_JECTCRY

4.1

SUPFARY

The vehicle was launched on an azimuth 90 degrees e_st of north. A ro11 maneuver was initiated at 13.0 seconds that plac_ the vehicle on a flight azimuth of 91.504 degrees east of north. In accordance with preflight tar_eting objectives, the translunar injection maneuver shortened the translunar coast period by Z hours and 40 minutes to compensate for the launch delay so that the lunar landi_ could be made with the same lighting conditions as originally planned. The reconstructed trajectory was generated by merging the following four trajectory s_nts: the ascent phase, the parking orbit phase, the injection phase, and the early translunar orbit phase. The analysis for each phase was conducted separately mth appropriate er_ ;mint constraints to provide trajectory continuity. Available C-Sand radar and Unified _nd (U_) tracking data plus telem_.teredguidance velocity data were used in the trajectory reconstruction. The trajectory variables from launch to Command and Service Module (CSM) separation are discussed below and, in general, were close to nominal. Because the S-II Outboard Engine Cutoff velocity was higher than nominal, earth parking orbit insertion conditions h_re achieved 4.08 seconds earlier than nominal. Translunar Injection (TLI) conditions were achieved 2.11 seconds later than nominal with altitude 5.8 kilometers greater than nominal and velocity 5.1 meters per second less than nominal. CS_ separation was Camander initiated 57.9 seconds earlier than nominal resulting in an altitude 306.1 kiloBeters less than nomtnal and velocity 91.7 meters per second greater than n_inal. 4.Z 4.2.1 TRAJECTORYEVALUATION Ascent Phase

The ascent phase spans the interval from guidance reference release through parking orbit insertion. The ascent trajectory =as established by using telemetered guidance velocity data as gene-attng parameters to fit tracking data from stx C-Band stattcms (Rer, ttt Island, Patrick Air Force Base, Grand Turk, Bermxla FPQ-6. Bermuda FPS-16M and Antigua) and two S-Band stations (MerritL Island and Bermuda). Apgroximmtely 13 percent of the C-Band tracking data and 42 percent of the S-Band tracking data were not used because of inconsistencies. These values are consistent vith past experience. The launch portion of the ascent phase (l_ftoff to al_proxtmtely 20 seconds) was established by constraining Int_ateO teimtered guidance accelerometer c_ta to the best estimate trajectory.

i

A

Actual and nominal altitude, surface range, and crossrange for the ascent phase are presented in Figure 4-I. Actual and nominal spacefixed velocity and flight path angle during ascent are shown in Figure 4-2. Actual and nominal comparisons of total non-gravitational accelerations are shown in Figure 4-3. The maximum acceleration during _iC burn was 3.87 g. Macn nurser and dynamic pressure are shown in Figure _-4. These parameters were calculated using meteorological data measured to an altitude of -_.3 kilometers (31.5 n mi). Above this altitude, the measured data were merged into the U.S. Standard Reference Atmosphere. Actual and nominal values of parameters at significant trajectory event times, cutoff events, and separation events are shown in Tables 4-I. 4-2, and 4-3, respectively. All trajectory parameters were close to nominal throughout ascent. The space-fixed velocity was 25.6 m/s (84.0 ft/s) higher than predicted at the end of S-II powered flight. This difference is so,_hat greater than usual and is discussed in Section 6.3. 4.Z.Z Parking Orbit Phase

Orbital tracking was accomplished by the NASA Manned Space Flight )_etwork. Three C-Band stations (Merritt Island, Antigua and Carnarvon) provided four data passes. Six S-Band stations (Goldstone, Bermuda, Texas, Verritt Island, Hawaii and Ascension) furnished eight additional tracking passes. Velocity data generated by the ST. IZ4M guidance" platfom were used to derive the orbital non-gravltational acceleration (venting) _el. The parking orbit trajectory was obtained by integrating a comprehensive force model (gravity plus venting) with corrected insertion conditions fon_ to T6 at I0,g78.65 seconds (03:02:_.65). The insertion conditions were obtained by using the force n)del and a differential correctlon procedure to fit the available trackl_ data. A c_rison of actual and nominaI parking orbit insertion parameters is Resented in Table 4-4. The groundtrKk from insertion tO _IVB/ CSM se_ratlon is given in FI__ 4-5. All orbital trajectory variables _ere close to nominal. 4,.2.3 Injectlo, Phase

The t_)ectton phase spans the interval from T6 to TLI and was established tn two I_rts (T6 to I1,500 seconds and 11,500 seconds to TLI). The first I_rt _s obtalned by fitting data available frm one C-Band station (Cartulrvo_) and three S-Band stations (Texas, Goldstone, and RerrJtt Island). The second part was obtained by integrating a state vector t_ee from the first part at 11,500 seconas (03:11:40) throug_ second burn and canstraining the Integration tc a final TL! state vector taken from the early translunar orbit tr_ectorT. Tel_tered guidance veloctty data were used as generating parmeters for both parts.

T

4-2

lOGO-

Z40 o

t
--_O.t.AL s-Jcoico _-1+_ rl,_'r _co T

. 1I
I

ZSO0-

ZOO"

i

I
:/!
1

iP
_..

i

'

_

20OO"

16o- , : . i ¢ :lo-

so.

! I I I [i'i
s+-,¢i

l
--.+t.i/

i/i" 1
r

[

tic

s
4

! 500-

,.: f,n.

i!!

tl-IILT'lTUOl:lI

r

! I

,.,j

._,

IO00-

8o-

49.

i
/

/r!iX']
+,J
200

i i /
/ "- i _i

f ,/1

si
i
i

++I -"<;°s+l"'_[l

5OO-

40-

lO.

/
'00

O-

O-

O. iO0 100 SO0

lP
+00

9P
#00

Idllltil[

tlMi,

5tCOmOS

Ftqure

4-1.

Ascent Trajectory

Position

Comparison

----

--

tOilllill+

1

IS,

i+
t

t'_
+_

>-:;
_-il _-:+l

_llli
ill£O tllll + Ill

.

"
_,, Zil.

it
r+ l

I_
l\

I
1

I

I
l ]i

I

I

++'- f i

it
i

'

I

: i"+
.=

_\ i
T ' t

I i
'i

I7"i Y I
_m_ S'' <1 "'

i ii
'l_illl' ''1_'1 y'

_'" '
41_

1i _ \ +I I l iI il i i ,+;_ I + l [ i _,-T_ \!i ! t li _J It"_-'<'''*'''<'+', ,
"

i

"

/

i\<!

I

" ..
Ft_ 4-2.

il _it_
1 'let lie

i I
ill s'iq. elll Sl ClilS ill

/i! !vt
ill

ii,
_ lU

_e.t irajectoPjr $_e-Flx_ Path _le C_rt_ 4-3

Yeloclty

aM

Fii_t

4_

i
"I j
[

_tl_,

:

T _ Z

_'., :,_.
.....

t l ;l'.t.l ! I !,
_I*I
_..!

I
i
!

i .-- ...... .
i I _
._. I

i
!

i
i

I
_

!
I

=-

_. ;

$...

,,,

,. I ;ii]

', _ i i ! i i ! i

_"

J/_: I iti i [ iY!_k'. : ,.Ii| .'..ILl k.,,_ 1 '_ t k
T_T_mf-q'q
I t I _1

I t I !i-1

1 1

=
604

T
i I
7,_1 MO

/

I 1

_0

Z_q

I_

LOG

_lq

Figure

4-3.

Ascent Trajectory

Acceleration

Comparison

4,0,

ii_'ilf ,,,, ; ii
I,I,

i I _ _ _ _ ' ' , 1 I i/_
i. i ; i ; /

tl;

------

," ; [.I i !
t

v-,.,
ll_

I Illl_

_111 m,_l

plmlI(

i\I

II i ,lii, -4
&

,, ,
\.
/i \ 1,"f

it ti
lxl

1
J

1i

I!
I1._.

1_
/] I

.,

"
114 t4_ III

I-

s

Figure

4-4.

Oynmric Pressure and Mach /lumber Comparisons

4-4

I

°

Table
111111' Ir_ _ t lq¢lom

4-1.

Comparison

of

Significant
PAIAW(Tll

Trajectory
ACTUAL

Events
IOn|IlL

l(T-lOn O.O0 O.OS (o.173 (o.oo) O.I o.I (o+o) -I.o 0.013 (11.oo1 (-0.])

14nqt

Ire,.

$eC

0.24

o.*'4

Totel

go_-Growttatto_jl ictel/rottoa,

el

i

.

(ft/$L}

10.60 (34+703 (T .00) 67.5: |.0 (4.33

I0.55 +_4.6;) Iv.o8)
417.4

wSch

|

Q4_1e Altttade.

TfmB, in

$0¢

(4.3) 03.5 3.Z7 !411z.953 13.] (?.Zl

|ialgl'_

Oyll$11tC

Pf#_IIIrP

iqR_e O_lamic

TlaO.

$eC _lc_ Z

|Z. S 3.36 (701.7S) I).! (7.1)

Pres_vre.

Altetude.

km

(too) snosO*un
IccclerltlOe-

Total

Io*

&_lw0¢stloeoI 5If Iomje T_ale. e, eC

141.20 37.95 (JZ4.SI) ().17) 461.ZI 17.07 (s6.oo) 0u._43 702.46 1.$4 (zz .ell (.I.67) 11.907.1S
_ L )

139.34 37.19 1122.013 (3.7_) 461.60 16.9F 05S.t0) 11.733 704. 741 i.6Z 021.723 (0.60) l 1094$oS4 14.10 0H.II) (;.,)

z1.1M 0.71 IZ.Se) 00.013 4.1; 0.10 00.32) 0o._) -4.01
° .

( Acr.elefettea.

el| z (4,tlsZ) (r,)
Sl'¢

$-II

1140410

Y_II#.

JIccelow'etlol,

ollh z (Ftl$')

(;)
S-I( I (O,sL II1,*

Be_Ie

Tree.

$ec o/_ z

iLcqlerltloI,

0,,,;,i
• I lit $O(Omd lull O'J, OqlJe T_oQ, SO¢ o/| (ftls &ccoIorotlee,

-0.20) I -0.01)00 O _.11 -0._4 (-O. 70) (-O.03)

(s)

13.11 045.47| 01.48|

elestoeo Iolocitr:

[Ortk-Flmed 5-1C |oqe Iolocltpo S*ll game
|OIOCltl.

line. oil (,Jo) 11o4.
011

$e¢

llZ.IMl 1,)74.1 (7,_10.03

163.34 Z.341,Z.l 07.7$I.I) HI .14 6.$411.I (:PI.II3.11 Fl •. 741 7,)iS.t)
0 Z4 0_)_. 0 )

-1.31 11.6 131.11 -a.s4 ZS.6 004.1) -4.00

$ec

544.44 1,573.0 [_I.S17.01

ItUs) S-lira Irlr, s¢ II_l IIIICt S-|N S4c_4 |err
Be_lle

liar. tl. e/$ (et/s)
1t1_.

sic

710-+.M

S4'¢

I'.OOO°SO IO.41S.Z IM.ZI].4)

II,_0S._ 10.4Zt.$ 134,21_.S1

I.PS

,-,+,:il

l • q_e_t Yiee P_imls Jbillllle

4-S

Table
PIIJl Yl[t

4-2.
I(TUIL 5-IC

Coeq_aTison • o,,(...i.

of Cutoff ] Jc+-,m-

Events
41¢'P,JILL

Illm_lle

Y_III.

_q¢

C(C5 + IJ_. 3o 47.0 IZL 4}

( (l_II( 50Llm2101 , , ... 130. 341 -0. 16.8 (_5.1) t.llt.] +K .Jill1

t,
041 • + a

S-:C

9(C0

([qGIu[

+0LI_I0) 161 .t ; 66.7 (J4 O| *_.17 -¢._ (-0.I) ;.0 (6.51 -+.Cla .0.111

)61.2o 66. $ 13S._| 1.746.9 (e._IZ. I I .'_.i_ .t 41 ";+"

JII If &gd41. le (m.g t 5141¢lr.lrtlc4l IIcl@¢*tl+. B/S iftl%f

5+2 +,.s +

2.,_q! I • * . 6Z .e_ +'). • l. I_9 ]$_

S|

t;'; *O.o_l

2,144._ (1o005.4) _0.iY] ql. 14)2

IIf*Rt 1011419_
_qle'fS(1

IF(lit

lel411

o d4P*

JiJUlI_I .

diP*

%1 _S] Sl .S II_r.l) 0.3 I0.2) I.Z

+0. PII 0.0 10.01 4.1 1-0+_) -6.7 (-_2.2)

l141Dq4,o It ,**tl

$1.5 127 I) 0.2 I) Io$ lj C|(D

++I ._ If*. I) 0.3 10.2) 6.4 (Zl.O) 5*II o(C0 ( il_IllI

_11.6 4 lq.S) *" +"

1.0.11

(J_e_$ Iomq_po km (m_t) Crils$ Blql Ilelt¢_tr. I15 |r¢¢_) , • ,,,,

(0.

{"

l-0.+)

!,i

ll.l (_6._) SKIHID) S60.1 IIZ.I (SZ.S) I 6.964. 122,019.1) 0.247 I00.33] 1,6S3.6 (ltZ.+) 34.4 S )

(-_S.))

5-11 IlPa41 ......... _ Tt_. "I _1¢ 161 .Z1 I1].0 q51.8) II1_ (ft/S) $ ,6Z0.4 II.l)*.i)

461.6(I 172.7 (q).31 5,641.4 ( i i.J11. ,)) -0.005 *7.%71 I ,_3. (s_.z) II.l (io.Zl I21.5 l'Zl .t) GII01[ ¢I_OFF ;'04.74 O

.(I.I17 0.3 (o.u) 19.0 |62.3) 0.027 0.076 2.0 (I.ll -4.3 (-o.z)

$5_ .66 172.6 1,3,2) 6 ,_*0.

4.47 0.S 10.11 25.6 104.0) §.007 O.OiZ 4.0 (z.t) 0.4

Jl tl tede.

$1ill¢@-ft

mtl(I II11¢Itp.

ll_l_Jlll: kiatq _IB#ICe

fib lqle,

1114111.

.O.ose
*7.647

0.2S4 100. ]*S

leI_D (**g)

111

1,09S.8 (5_1.1| !1.6 (I0.01 o1% |tCJS) I]S.4 | 444o_) 5-1g_ IST

I .eS7.6 (11_ .01 34.1 (II.I) 194.1 1639.41 5-11_I II._7.64 )N.O 2gI =

Iml) Crll% Ioqf IIlI¢ttl,

118.¢)
III.$ lli,.e)

IS.Z)
6.0 11_.i)

(22.6) SlrmK

IolmIC

Tql_.

%1¢ liO.S

-a.o_
1.I (+.t) °0.3 .el

I : .905.

S4 S.S (3.01 -4.7 (-1S.4) 0.144 0.079

Ira) 511_41-fi|Q41 lellcltlo als IlL*s) ,'gz. I ,II ) .lllZ. ( _3.5_II. I I 0.0_I IH.711 to ¿tool ]_ ,6lS. (i.sl;.s) 67.4 136.11 I_s.I 18S6._) leclteaCtOe, Itesc4N_q |c4est_ Z C 3. o-t, [_tr,%l) deql I_e. ¢1 t_ Z dml 2 I

1711.4 (_z.e) 7.M2.6 (_S.SlS. I1 Oeo1_2 114.710 I.IL].7 (I.lZT.S) 67._

(TiZ.e)
(3S.57,.41 6.0341 1II.016

(Is9.o) 10D849.3 (3S,Sf4.IJ 6.7M 117.967

(-I

Irllt_lt 81.4It 51r941_ q

PI_ lol

liLNi11. le.

II.OlJ -_.O41,Z -11.$ I -le.o)

Io4geo

1)6.3)
IIS_-I)

Ii.I) !.6 1_.6) + J 21.171 06.041,I 0._171JI -1,773.210 I.I,.esl.Ti4) ZO,I2| M .14g 0 ,l_II, +i.711,'JIl I -II.141.1+4| ! 0.054 -0.01I *l.l_ll + [-LI,066!

4-6

° .Ib . .

Table
PAIA_ETEt

4-3.

Comparison

of

Separation

Events
ACT-NON

ACTUAL

NOMINAL S-ICIS-Z! S£PANA?ION 1_3.4 5L4 {._6.;; 2,751.7 (9,027.9) 20. ZOO 91.916 95._ (ST .S) 0.6 (0.3) 14.5 (47.5) Z8.S77 -79.630 S-|itS-|Vl S[PA_ATIOR 561.1 172.1 (92.9) 6.967.2 (Z2,858.3) O. Z36 100.36.: 1,660. i [195.4) 34.4 (11.7) 189.3 (621.1) Z6.874 -63.866 S*i II/CSN SEPAJATION

NortOn

Ttme.

5e(

162.9 68,1 (_e.o)

-0.5 .n (-0.1) 3

_I_Itvdo, km (NI)
_lsce-F|lee Velocity, ee/s

(eels) FlfO_t Needing Po¢_ Anqle. dig de9

(O.036.1) zo. ISI 91.741 94.7 (5_ .t)

Z.S (O.Z) -0.057 -0.174 -0.6 (-0.4) -0.$ (-o.t) .7.| (-Zs.t) 0.003 -0.007
i,

Angle,

Cross
?

Mnnqe, Range

(meI)

bee ee/s (ft/s) dig [ g

0.3 (O.Z) 6.7 (2Z.O) Zo. 56o -79.637

Cress

Velocity,

t
d F

Geodetic Leqttvde.

Latitude. dee

+. 550,f " 172.6

tinge
i

Tteee. rude.

SiC

-O.S O.S (0.3) (ZS.A) (84.0) o. 000 0.060 3.S (I .s) o.4

!
)

Altt

ken

(93.Z)
Spice*Fined Velocity, soil (ft/s} deq 6,992.0 (22,942.3) 0.244 100.424 1.663.6 (,8.3) 35.0 (to.s)

Flight Heeding

Pith

Ang|e, dog

Angle.

,.,,.Cross liege, (ml) Cress hnge km

T

(o.z)
4.0 (lg.S) -0.009 O.03S

Velocity,

(_tls)
dig

ee/s

195.3 (64o.7) ZI.MS -63.811

Geodetic Leqttede,
[

LetJtode, dq
,,

g

[

Itoqe

Tieee.

oec

13,347.6 1,604.4 (3,667.Z) eels (film) deMI 7,724.7 (2S,343.S) 44.100 IOL7S7
4Jq •

13,406.S. 6,912.S (3,73Z.S) 7,633.0 (ZS,04Z.7) 44.847 102.166 -25.944 13.161

-S7.9 *301.1 (-166.]) 91.7 ( 300. e) -O.iJ7 0.631 0.224 -l.lll

AI el tm,

ken

(ml)
Velocity.

Specol*flsed

Fllldlt lieedtag
Geodetic

Pill Aqle,

Ample, 4q

LoSllede,

-ZS.716 11.N4

Leqlt_ek.

dog

I[

4-7

°

Table 4-4.
I " Range Altitude. Time, PARAMETER $ec km

Parking Orbit Insertion Conditions
ACTUAL 712.66 170.b (92.1) m/$ (fits) deg 1.804.i (2b.604.0) 0.003 IOS.OZl 28.526 NOMINAL 716.74 170.3 (92.0) 7,804.3 (25,604.7) -0.001 105.082 28.524 87.024 0.0001 167.¢ {93.4) 166.6 (90.0) 87.83 24.542 -53.633 ACT-NOM -4.08 O.Z (0.I) -_).Z (-0.7) 0.004 -0.061 0.002 -0.046 -o.oo01 -0.2

(nmt)

Spice-Fixed • Flight Heading Inclination, ............. DeScending Eccent.'tcity Apogee, kl Pith

Velocity,

Ansle, dog dog Node,

Angle,

dog

86.97n 0.0000 167.2 (90.3)

(-n.t)
0.0 (o.e) 0.00 0.038 0.177

Perigee,

km

(nml)
Period. Geodetic Longitude, m/n Litttude, dog E deg N

(go.o)
87.83 24.680 -$3.810

166.6

z"! ,'_

-80

_$,.,-., ,_<---4&,z.:F,., _t_t .lJix - _) ,,,,.,.,..., 1 L
T. I. 3. *. CO_alS IILJ NTIIN HmNiom _IelSTS S. e. ;. 8. 1ISIITIII ISCIR$tlI II_IIIIP _umael _IID t. tl. 11. I_I|I$1CILI _all 60tISTIII _r Q Q LNITI.

.
willy SI¢lml NIqKgTtII NILIrVIIM

Figure

4-5.

Launch Vehf"e

Groundtrack

4-8

el

Comparisons between the actual and nominal space-fixed velocity and flight path angle are shown in Figure 4-6. The actual and noninal total non-gravitational acceleration comparisons are presented in Figure 4-7. The lower than nominal velocity and acceleration shown in Figures 4-6 and 4-7, respectively, are due to the heavier S-IVB stage resulting from the 4.08 seconds early first $-IVB cutoff. The actual and nominal $*IV8 second guidance cutoff conditions are presented in Table 4-2. The _!i?ht!y longer than nominal burn compensated for the heavier S-IVB stage and resulted in near nominal conditions at cutoff. . 4.2.4 Early Translunar Orbit Phase

The early translunar orbit trajectory spans the interval from translunar injection to S-IVB/CSH separation. Tracking data from one C-Band ....... station (Carnarvon) and one S-Band station (Ascension) were fitted using the procedure outlined in 4.2.2. The actual and nominal translunar injection conditions are compared in Table 4-5. The S-IVB/CSM separation conditions are presented in Table 4-3. The large differences at CSM set.ration were due to the earlier than nominal separation time which ...... wls Con_Landerinitiated.
i
/:

Table 4-5.
PAIAM[
.a

Translunar Injection Conditions
ACTUAL
i i

|L I
ii

N0nINAL 11,91S.S4 307.7 (i66.I) 10,642.1 (3S.S71.2) 7.240 110.039 2|.523 86.149 O.9721 -I,58g,025 (-18,100oS2S)

ACT-NON
i

Rmnge .T Altitude.

Time. Im (fie|)

sec

11,917.5S 313.S

?.11 S.5 (3.2) -S,t

(16g.3)
Yelo¢fty, (ft/S) mlS 10.831.0 : (3S.SSA.S) 7.384 110.116 28. deg 474

Spe_e-Flued

(m6.7)
O. 144 0.077 O.OSl -O.Olll -0.1}001 -5,gS9 ( - 74 ,gO6 )

Flight Hee_ln9 incilnallOn,

Peth Ang)e,

Angle. deg de9 modo.

deg

Oescendfng
,%

86.0Sl 0.9720 -1,59S,90S (-18,2SS,431)

|¢¢entrt¢lty m2- 2 /s

3(_t2/sz)

i,
4-9

""

8

• o°

-

.

-q, t_ tit
• " _..,o_'.. _.-,

i

i i, i. >/-.. !i _J_, _-_
, _-t',

_. • _ ! - t ._ _ ')' _- * t-_

_,llol

_

vii . $1Lt:lllil_

#

maim

111nt.

qmoq; :alle_|

: $|COM$

Figure

4-S.

Injection Phase Space-Fixed Angle Compar_ sons

Velocity

and Flight

Path

"i,.D

-i ......... ,,___
_.:,e .corn ice " _ , ; _ _-/

g
,_ u.@

o

[, ,o

!
|
0.2,

[_ I '
' , ; I I
I

_ i i - - _ ".9" t I I_ _.P.--'!
I ,...v] .... ]

'....

|

,N
qlO dim

,':,l-,,
IIII. _11'; _llllfn dlltll_

_'4C_npar|son

F'igure 4-7.

Ir_lection

Phase Acceleration

4-10

.t--

SECTION 5 S-IC PROPULSION

S.l

SUMMARY

All S-IC propulsion systems performed satisfactorily. In a11 cases, the propulsion performance was very close to the predicted nominal. Overall stage site thrust was 0.30 percent higher than predicted. Total propellant consumption rate was 0.16 percent higher than predicted and the total consumed mixture ratio was 0.002 percent higher than predlct_d. SpeciTic(mpulse was 0.14 percent higher than predicted. Total propellant consumption from Holddown Arm (HDA) release to _Jtboard Engines Cutoff (OECO) was low by 0.14 percent. Center Engine Cutoff (CECO) was initiated by the Instrument Unit (IU) at t39.30--seconcrs_ 0.02 seconds earlier than planned. OECO was initiated by the fuel depletion sensors at 161.20 seconds, 0.47 seconds earlier than predicted. This is well within the +5.99, -4.22 second 3-sigma limits. At OECO, the LOX residual was 36,479 Ibm compared to the predicted 37,235 Ibm and the fuel residuat was 26;305 Ibm compared to the predicted 29,956 Ibm. The S-IC hydraulic system performed satisfactorily. 5.2 S-IC IGNITION TRANSIENT PERFORMANCE

i

(

}

The fuel pump inlet prestart pressure of 45.3 psia was within the F-1 engine acceptable starting region of 43.3 to 110 psla. The LOX pump inlet prestart pressure and temperature were 81.3 -287.3°F and were within F-1 engine acceptable starting region, by Figure 5-1. psia and as shown

The planned 1-Z-Z F*I Engfne start sequence (Engf_s 5, 3-1, 4-2) was not achieved. T_o engines are considered to start together tf both thrust chamber pressures reach 100 psig within 100 milliseconds. By this definition, the starting order was 2-1-1-1 (Engines 5-3, 1, 4, 2). The butldup times of all ftve engines as measured fma engine control valve open signal to lOOpstg chamber pressure, Table 5-1, were faster than predicted, although within specifications. The 2-1-1-1 start sequence had no adverse affect on either propulsion system performance or on the structure.

5-1

J

Q

106.

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

-F!
102.

I
;k
I ii

II
_1 ,_t'" I , __Z:,__!___I :
I I
1

I 1 i ,:o,o' LL I__
B

s

I

! l

,i

,_, /I

/1

1

I

t

'.,

t

I

i

1

t

I

I

1

i

i

I

_

I

I

;i

;|

I

F_---

.% ;t 94

-[[|
90

i I f
i I 4-.1' I J

t
' I

Ii
I '

I I I:----I

!

4O

50

60

70 L.OXm

aO

90

i00

!10

120

130

!_.ET P_E$c._tE. _cj2

i

Figure
!

5.1.

S-[C LOX Start

Box Requirements

Table

E-1.

F-1 Engine SysCemsBuildup Ttmes
llUILDUP TII_, Si[CCIli)S

_GI_
Pr_|cted t Actual* 0t fference _i r_ctton 4.0_; 3.862 O. 1;5 Fast

2

E._IJ_ 3 3.925
3.6O5 O.320 Fast

ENGXNE 4

EI_IIIE 5
3.933 3.819 0.114 Fas_ pmsur_

;GS
..861 0.104 Fast

3.990 3.669
0.321 Fast

*Ttme from 4-ray control valve Ali t_mes corrected to _o_n41

open S$_nal to 100 Pst9 pres¢4_ conditions

c_mOuStEon chai_n"

The destred 1-2-2 start sequencems also not achieved on f11ghts AS-SGT, AS-S08, and AS-S10. The ti_ing of the start signals to each engine Js adjusted to achieve the desired start sequence and ts based on data fr_ _nd_v_dual engine firings and the single data sample _n the stage environmerit obtained fro_s_tic fJrtng. Typically, a wide d_sperston of start

5-2

t

times is observed at the stage static firing. This dispe_sior is attributed prin_rily to the differences between the stage conditions and single engine test stand conditions. Adjust_nts made between stage static ....... firing and launch have been effective in reducing the dispersions substantially. However, it is apparent from review of data from all the Saturn V launches, that the system cannot be fine tuned accurately enough to consistently assure the desired start sequence within the lO0 ms criterion. This fact is probably attributable to a combination of the ......... limited data sample in the stage environment and typical engine start time dispersions even under controlled conditions. The structural implications of a non-standard engine start sequence for the Skylab mission have been examined considering significantly larger dispersions than experienced on AS-S12 and other Saturn V flights, and there-is no .concern. Accordingly, no modification of the present engine start sequence implementation is planned. The reconstructed propellant consumption during holddown {from ignition co,nand to holddown arm release) was 75,090 l_ LOX (67,031 Ibm predicted) and 22_015 ibm fuel-(l_,764 Ibm predicted). The greater than predicted propellant consumption during holddo_ yes due to the faster engine start and longer burn before holddown release. The reconstructed nrooellant load at holddown Arm release was 3_,2)g,298 Ibm LOX (3,243,g32 Ibm predicted) and 1,409,906 Ibm fuel (I,415,766 lbm predicted). ,. Thrust buildup rates were as expected, as _.hownin Figure 5-2.
9.0 S $.0 Z.O

p_

:t

h
e

i,

7.0 0 6.0
I

mt

--

--

1.5

? _t

ii
,-.(_zm( z I.O .--ENGI_ 4

m

5.0 --

4.0 .1.0

2.0

1.0

0 -S.O,

)')L I
-4.3 -3.0 -Z.O

/____ '1/
-I.0

J

i
O.S

0 0 1.3

Figure

5-2.

S-IC Engines Thrust 5-3

Buildup

4"

kb

0

The enqineMain Oxidizer Valve (;(OV),P_in Fuel Valve (),F'/),nd Gas a Generator (GG) ball valve opening ti_es were nnminal. 5.3 s-IC _INSTAGE PER.r'ORMA;4CE

S-IC stage propulsion performance was satisfactory. Stage thrust, specific impulse, mixture ratio, and prop_.llantflowrate were near nominal pre...... dictions as shown_in FigureL5-3. The stage site thrust (averaged f-om ti_e zero to OECO) was 0.30 percent higher than predicted. Total prope.lant consum@tion rate was 0.16 percent higher than predicted and the total consumed mixture ratio was 0.002 percent higher than predicted. The specific impulse was 0.14 percent higher than predicted. Total propellant consumption from HDA relea'_ to OECO was Icy;by G.14 percent. For comparison of F-l engine flight performance with predicted performance the flight performance has been analytically reduced to standard conditions and compared to the predicted performance which is based on ground firings and also reduced to standard conditions. These comparisons are shown in.Table_5°2 f(_rt,_e35 to 38-second time slice. The largest thrust deviation from the predicted value was -7 klbf for engine 2. Engine_ I and 5 had lower thrusts than predicted by 6 an(ll klbf, re__pectively. Engines 3 and 4 had higher thrust than predicted by l and 2 klbf, respect_ively. Total stage thrust was II Klbf lower than predicted for an average of -2.2 klbf/enaine. These performance values are derived from a reconstruction math model that uses a chamber pressure and pump speed match. An II Hz, 8 psi peak amplitude, oscillation was observed in the S-lC Engine No. 2 fuel suc,ion line inlet pressure. This oscillation was also observed during S-IC-12 static test and disposed of at that time as no problem. This phenomenon Is a self-induced o_cillation characteristic of the F-I fuel pump and has been observed on previous flights. The oscillation is Net Positive Suction Pressure {NPSP) dependent and its sensitivity varies from engine to engine. The stage accelerometer data are nominal at II Hz and comparable to that of previous flights, im(!icating the vehicle structural gain at this frequency is small.

The ambient gas temperature under Engine No. l cocoon increased shortly after liftoff and exceeded previous flight data from approximately 30 to 65 seconds by a maximum of about 13°C. After 1OO seconds the t_mpera ture returned to a normal level and remained similar to the cocoon ambient temperature level for the other engines. The increase in the ambient gas temperature did not affect engine performance during flight. The two most probable causes of the temperature increase are: _) a minor hot gas leakage from the Gas Generator drain port plug which subsequently sealed, 2) a temporary loss of cocoon insulation integrity (possible loose combustion drain access cover) which later :orrected itself. Both of these possible causes for the cocoon ambient tomper_ture rise are discussed in detail in Section 13.2 Vehicle Thermal Environment.

5-4

di_/tt-l.ol

"

,

!ililt1!._!_, iiiii!!i_: q7 !-i
• [

i-!
,_.

I i i i _ :"
. __ : i _ "

1'_

,_ i

I

I 5 i
I i a _ _

.
I a

i
[ k -

'

! i ["_

....
-.%"

'liiiii-'_:i:i

77_ .

_a

I:

_"

! |

]

I

1 i ! i

! I

! i

i"

"2

_-

I IN
\
: = v _.

,_
I

l
i
-2".--

_-[-

|
• I I II :I I

[_--

L

_-._

,Nm,_

__..,.._.,_

o

+--.+

+.

+

.

--7
f

.+

.

_-++

+_+--+

_6
. -+

,

+2

,'he F-1 e_gire trr,_s: decay transient was nc_tnal. The cutoff reasured _ c_toff sigr_1 to zero thrust, was 669.632 |bf-$ center eng_r_ (0.| _erce_t less than predicted) and 2,593,423

trlx;lse. fcr t_e lbf-$

for all out_r_ en_ir.es (3.0 _rcent _reater total stage cutoff ir_ulse of 3,263,055 lbf-s
tt_n I_re_i tied.

than predicted). The was 2.3 percent greater

Center e_gine second earlier _s inttiate_

cutoff was |nttlated by t_e IU _t 139.30 seconds, 0.O2 tt_n planned. Cutoff signal to the outb_rd e_gtne$ by fuel depletion and occurred 0.47 second earlier than

the noBir_l

_re<ltCte_

tfme of 161.67

seconds.

The fuel

dt_ietton

cutoff

was cause_ _y the ht_er t_n I_reeltCted fuel density due to chtlldmm of the .*_e; dur-|nq tr_.2__u_ 40 _tnute _,o|d and the $|tght|y higher than _(r4| I_¢n rue| _ensity for this flight. The earl), cutoff tkls _ue mtn]y :o sl|ehtly _is_er than _re_icted sickle s|_ thrust (0.0_ pet'Ceflt

htqher)

and _e

acc_nytn9

htgher

_oei|ant

flo_rates.

S- IC ST_,£ P_ELL_IT.
The S-IC stage to does not have

m_tG£_
_'c_ellant plus the utilization pr_tcted System.

an acttve engines

lqni_
expected

residuals

are o_tatned
by the

by att_pttn

9 to load t_

n_xt_re
unusable

ratio

be consure_

residuals. _n analysts of the mtduals experienced dm-tn_ • flight ts a 90od measure of the performnce of the passive propellant utilization s_st_m.
The rest_ual L0X at 0Ecn uas 36,479 11_u c_arecl to _he predicted value of 37,235 Ibm. :he fuel residual at 0EC0 uas 26,30S Ibm cremated _o _ _red_cted value of 29,9S6 ltm. A s_mar7 of the propellants remaining at aaJor ever, t ttmes is presented In Table 5-3.

5.5
5.6.1 The fuel

S-.ICIIqIESSURIT..ATIOI STSTEXS
S-:C tank Fuel l_resam_1_atloo Sysl_m wtlsfactortly, klK_p|ng

_ressurtzatlOn

SyStem performed

ullage pressure u4thtn _cce_table ltwits durtng fltg_t. Control Valves (HFCV) _o. I t_rou9_ 4 o_ as planned
ws not recurred.

Helium Irl_u and NIftY no. S

The leu fle_ _$u_tz_tlo_ system ml$ ¢mmanded on at -97.0 S4COadS. The lm trlcu system ms cycled on • second t_e at -3.1 secmds. Htg_ _a_ pressuriZatiOn, _.amlts_ed by the cmlx_rd gress_rtzattcm s),_f_m, _erqorned as e_l_ct_d. _FCY Iio. I _s c_ on at -2.7 secmds and uas $_M)lement_ed by the ground htg_ fln_ prew_S_rtzattom system rot11
_ipt 1 teal d¢_t.

Fuel _nk

u11_le

pressure ms ud',.hdn _

Iprodlct_

llml?_

_t

5-7
, • , _-. , ,

Table

5-3..

_-[C

Propellant

Mass Htstory

LIP

t[1fl[L_Jl _il OaTJ. Llm LOt

I_C_11mCTED. ¢m (lIST £STImT[)

tOf
|_,tlem Po14_ Oele_se Corn &m

r_L
1.431.921 1.410.116 181.115

LOI 3..114.]8 ).Z_.Z_
]i118.0i,4

3JlO._3
-I 3.;43.y3,?

1.131.S2S "
! .41S.766 182.M!

-*
].2i|.S§I M) _

1.4]I.IIZl 1.109.105
IIZ.IlO

cIco cEco _et,o. Zere _t
37._S31 .TTZ ,1! °644

.... _._

36.631

Z7,,'%1

]i.l_P JoJ;;

ZliJoS z].:_

_.901

flight as $ho_ by Figure S-4. HFtY lio.'s 2, 3 and 4 were cemlnded open durtng f11ght by the saritCh selector _lthtn Kceptable limits. Helium t_tt_e pressure sis 3000 psla at -2.8 seconds and deca)Id to 475 psla at 0(C0. Total hellum flourate yes Is expected. Fuel _ _'osl_|ve 5.6.2 Inlet _t,l(,ll S-IC pressure Ptessure ms iliniSIIllld (_;3P) during STstem litre flight. the rl_ptred urlnlmu Net

LOX Pr_ssurlzlt|on

The LW[ prtssur4zatlcm mnce _S_ts _ tatned ullage pressure The oMeard _t_rt_tlc_

system performd Utlsflctorlly lld ill I_rfor* met. The ground prewessuri_Jttc_ systm llln_il_lm acclptdple limits until launch COa|t. systam perfarmd satisfactorily during flight.

The I_x_ssirlzatto_ sysr_ -us tdttatsl at -72.0 seconds. U11nge pressur_ I,creised to BI preprtsslrizltto_ S_KJl bind l_l flgl-is terrlnated at *M.3 seconds. The Ira. fle_ system ms c)rcled em three mldltJo_ll ttmes at -42.9. *,_.8. and *S.4 seconds. At *4.7 s4amds. the _lgh flo_ s_rstem ms tmlnded m and mlnt_lned ullage Wessure ut?J_ln accel_able 14mrs until liacl ¢amlt.

5-8

m

-

u

in

--

.

• c_0.I

n_l

qO. 40el].

133.0

il
"......
B

llllf
.[ / ''''il t
l m 1 I

,.

'

"i

,"

''''.,.,. .." ..... .,..,]

'"
, Z4 I

|
:)

T I ...... 1-'_1i
14 e 4O

I_NCIUP

INlalNln

!
40

!
m

!

Ivl
I_

J

J
I_

JV

J
Im 160

II]JIoSlUCI_JeS

Figure

S.4.

S--IC

Fuel

Tank Ullage

Pressure

Llllage pressure _s wi_tn the predicted limits throughout fltght as shove In Ft_re S-S. GOX flarrate to the tank was as expected. The mx4u GOX flo_ate after the {nlttal transte_l; was 48.8 II:_VS at CECO. The LOX _ tnlet pressure met the i|n|_ _ requ4remeet throughout

flt_t.
5.7 The control S-IC fl |ght. S,-IC PII(IJ_TIC sptm CORTRIX. _ functioned satisfactorily throughout the

pressure

S¢_ere pressure _ls 2970 psfa at 11ftoff and reu_,ned steady until ¢ECO _hen tt decmsed to Z8SO psla. The decrease v_s due to center engtne ;x_valve _ctuatton. There _s a further decrease to 247S psta after O[CO. Pressure r_julator performnce *as vithtn traits. The e_g4ne _eva|ves ve_e ClOSed tfter C[CO and O[CO aS r_|red.

s. s
P_o_ce

_ Zc PL_
of the

STATIC5
p_r_e s_s?_ms _s s_it|sfa_tor_f dur|ng _|_tt•

5-9

_B

24

*

i •

F 11 ..... , i ..... 7-,-,
i | I

AS-SIZ Irl.l;_TTA _

I

¸

|

10 ! 40 kO dO I00 167 140 i_

I

0

20

Figure

5-5.

_-;C

LOX Tank Ullage

Pressure

The tur_oma,p L0X sea] storage sphere pressure of 2955 psta at ltftoff was within the prestart |imtts of 2700 to 3300 psta. Pressure was w|thtn the predic*.ed envelope throughout fitght and was 2805 psia at; OECO. The pressure regulator 8_ +._10 stg limits. p 5.9 performance throughout the flight was vithir, the

S-IC POGO5UPPRESSION$¥STEIq system performed sattsfactor_,ly during S-IC flight.

The POG0 suppressfon

0ut_ard L0X prevalve temperature measurements Indicated that the prevalve cavttte_ were ftlled with gas prior to ltftoff as p)armed. The four resistance themmeters behaved durtng the k%512 flight st_larly 'Co the fl|ght of AS-S1|. The temperature measurements in the Outboard L0X prevalve cavftfes remained mm (off scale hfgh) throughout flight, indicating helium remained in the prevalves as plan_qJ. The two therIcmters in the center engine I_revalve were cold, indicating LOX in this valve as plann_. The r_essure and floura=e 4n the system uere noarihal.

5-.10

5.10

S-IC HYDRAULIC SYSTEM
A_I

The performance of the S.IC_hydr.aulic system was satisfactory. ser_o-actuator supply pressures here within required limits.

Engine control system return pressures were within predicted l|mtts and the engine hydraulic control system valves operated as planned.

%

.6 2

?
?

!
5-11/5-12

SECTION

6

S-If PROPULSION-

6. l

S UMM_RY

The S-II propulsion systems performed satisfactorily throughout the flight. The S-II Engine Start Command (ESC), as sensed at the engines, occurred at 163.6 seconds. Center Engine Cutoff (CECO) was initiated by the Instrument Unit (IU) at 461.21 seconds, 0.47 seconds earlier than planned. Outboard Engine Cutoff (OECO), initiated by LOX depletion sensors, occurred at 559.66 seconds giving an outboard engine operating time of 396.1 seconds. ............
t-

Engine mainstage performance was satisfactory throughout flight. The total stage thrust at the standard time slice (61 seconds after S-II ESC) was 0.14 percent below predicted. Total propellant flowrate, including pressurization flow, was 0.19 percent below-predicted, _d the stage sDeciflc impulse was 0.05 percent above predicted at the standard time slice. Stage propellant mixture ratio was 0.36 percent below predicted. Engine thrust buildup and cutoff transients were within the predicted envelopes.The propellant management system performance was satisfactory throughout loading and flight, and all parameters were within expected limits except the LOX fine mass indication. Propellant residuals at OECO were 1401 lbm LOX, as predicted and 2752 Ibm LH2, I07 Ibm less than predicted. Control of Engine Mixture Ratio (EMR)was accomplished with the two-position pneumatically operated Mixture Ratio Control Valves (MRCV). Relative to ESC, the low EMR step occurred 1.6 seconds earlier than predicted. The performance of the LOX and LH2 tank pressurization system was satisfactory. Ullage pressure in both tanks was adequate to meet or exceed engine inlet Net Positive Suction Pressure (NPSP) minimum reouirements throughout mainstage. Performance of the center engine LOX feedline accumulator system for POGO suppression was satisfactory. The accumulator bleed and fill subsystems operations were within predictions. The engine servicing, recirculation, systems performed satisfactorily. S-II 6.2 hydraulic S-II system performance helium injection, and valve actuation

r

C

r,

*

i
was normal throughout the flight.

CHILLDOWN AND BUILDUP TRANSIENT PERFORMANCE to condition the engines prior accomplished. Thrust chanl)er

{T i"

The engine servicing operations reauired to S-II engine start were satisfactorily

6-I
T

jacket temperatures were within predicted limits at bo_h prelaunch and 5-11ESC. Thrust chamber chilldown requirements are -200°F maximum at pre|aunch commit and -150°F maxi_'nnat engine start. Thrust chamber temperatures ranged between -2_6-and,258°F at prelaunchcommit and between -238 and -207°F at S-II ESC. Thrust chamber warmup rates during $-IC boost agreed closely with those experienced on previous flights. Start tank system performance was-satisfactory. Both temperature and pressure conditions of the engine start tanks were within the required prelaunch and engine start boxes as shown in Figure 6-I. Start tank temperature and pressure increase rates were normal during prelaunch and S-IC boost. Start tank relief valve operat$onwas noted.onEngine No. 3. This characteristic had been predicted based upon results of the AS-512 Countdown Demonstration Test (CDDT) start tank relief valve setting test. All engine helium tank pressures were within the prelaunch limits of 2800 to 3350 psia and engine start limit_ of 2000 to,3500 psia. Engine helium tank pressures ranged between 2940 and 3060 psia at prelaunch commit and between 3030 and 3160 psia at S-II ESC. Engine helium tank pressures during start and initial mainstage operation were within the predicted limits as shown in Figure 6-2. The helium tank pressures decayed 350 to 370 psi during the engine start transient. During the countdown hold initiated at -30 seconds, the hold options were exercised. The launch vehicle was maintained in the Hold Option 2 condition for approximately 73 minutes. This reouired control of the J-2 engine start tank and helium tank pressures to assure that they would remain within redline limits during the hold. Engine helium tank pressure was maintained by manual venting using the emergency vent solenoids. Start tank pressures were similarly controlled by use of the emergency vent solenoids until the start tank relief valves functioned to automatically maintain the tank pressures. A special test was run during the CDDT to determine the individual characteristic of each start tank relief valve and to show that it was comparable with existing stage redllnes. Figure 6-3 shows the start tank pressures and temperatures during the option 2 hold. Figure 6-4 illustrates the repeatibility of the start tank relief valves operation as evidenced during an Option 2 Hold. During the hold period the prechilled start tanks warmed up at a rate of approximately 1,7°F/min, Fifty eight minutes after initiating the hold, engine 3 start tank had warmed up to the maximum temperature (-146°F) allowed by the redline requirements. At this point it was necessary to subject all five start tanks to a short rechill cycle in order to keep the respective temperatures within redline limits. Figure 6-5 shows the start tank and helium tank conditions during the rechill cycle. After the rechill and pressurizing, the start tank and helium tank pressures were controlled during the remainder of the hold and countdown using the emergency vent solenoids. 6-2

I

I

I

I

',

+
L

1

+ J
l

'
I

'

<:; _ ' I-- <_ c; " <_ +'+t_+./_" _ : z z

i

S, ',

..... +-l \ \Jo<,+:, ,> + .... o
___|__ _ \x!

_+ ....... .+ i]t
"+ ++

++,,',
), , ,_

l\t'+,
_,,+ .....
o""

4_ U 4_

E
o
!.

P..+0,
° +o

+/%.,
"l _+., /,

.

. +I._

RI

4_ i,,

VI

_J Y

/
/:

+,,
,+

" ,_ ,,_

I

_,

|

EL

8
"_
f

_" ""

I

"+_


_-.%

I I

,_+

\
qr

,,,• .....
°
_1

.'i

]
°
..4

_.

°

41_

°

It

_

_tsd "_lnS_ld IV1 1W15

+:-.
6-3

f/

I
" F ......... i i 744 /-- ;REDIf.T[D

!

__2
70_ ,

,

i

,

-zsoo peoo _$ i v 0 EIG toO. 4 _1. dJ o [1_o. I

j
.$ TIN[ F_ 1o I$

Fi.oure 6-2.

S-I!

Engine Hellum Tank Pressures

6-4

i

r

i

--

--

I

p

--

I

! _-':_;_J_ "::'

: ,

1

,

. -

(
....
:// Y

i.... i.......

_

I

i

....

.i P

_,,", -i@.-',/l ! ,
:

.:

,:-..

-.

_

,.,

_ . __...,,.,f

..,:r_

I

' e",,°

I i,

1 ...L _

i

I

'

i

,
! i
-ZSG STilT

'
i

]

:
i

)J
r.
-ZOO air

i

t

t
-ISO

i
,. ,,_

!

i

' I
Star_

)

T_¢C TF_IPEi_T_I{,

Fioure
t

6-4.

Comparison

of S-I!

Tank Conditions

During CDDT& Launch

This is the first time the S-I! stage ),as been required to rechill its engine start tanks during an actual launch situation. Personnel, procedures, and hardware all performed as expected and all results were completely satisfactory. The LOX and LH2 recirculatlon systems, used to chill the feed ducts, turbopumps, and other engine components performed satisfactorily during prelaunch and S-IC boost. E,gine pump inlet temperatures and pressures at S-ll ESC _ere Well within the requirements as shown in Figure 6-6. The LOX pu_ inlet pressure for all five engines was approximtely O.S psi above the predicted envelope because the LOX tank experienced an approximate l psi increase in ullaoe pressure between S-IC OECO and S-II E$C. This _essure increase is attributed to the small ullage volume, coupled with the springback of the aft bulkhead at S-IC OECO, thus compressing the pressurant in the ullage. The LOX pump discharge temperatures at S-II ESC were approximately 14.0°F subcooled, el" _lo_ the 3°F subcooling reouirment.
-L

7

7

Ag,_in,as _" not advperat,, and
_a

$-5ii the deletion of the S-If ullage motors did recirculation system. The characteristic tempump discharge te_erature between S-IC OECO .imately !.5°F, similar to that experienced on otors installed.

.on of the propellant ta-ks was accomplished satisfactorily. . pressures at S-II ESC _ere 41.5 psia for LOX and 2g.l psla .,L,well above the minimum requirement of 33.0 and 27.0 psia, espectively. 6-5
v

i

o

.

_ 3600

PRESSURE SUPPLYON HELIIJH PRESSURE SUPPLYOFF HELIIM STARTTANKSUPPLYON

STARTTANK VENTSCLOSED _jT,STARTTANKVENTSOPEN STARTTANK ;UPPLY OFF

34oo
3200

t'

!

J 3 i t

i

i •

\.

[

,I
i

]
I I HEL UN TMK ! STARTTANK

i
z ¢ # t

'

f
!

1400 120C
L

;

_.
L

1000

-

80o
6oo¸
!

4oo
-22 -21

_"
-20 -19 -18 -17

W
-16

_r
-15 -14 -13 -12 -11

RA;IG_TIME, NNUI"ES Figure 6-5. S--II Start Tank Rech|11 Sequence (Engine 1, Typical)

6-6

-414

20 JL

r

LHZ PLINPI;_LET PRESSUR[, rl/_ z Z5 30 1 J .... _ "" o_

SATURATIONCURVE -_

3

-418

..
/" l,_ / _,"

.LI_
_

/ PREOICTED ESC ENVELOPE

• R[qUH_.HEr,TSl ......

[.V[LOPE
.

I

_ZZ'-

J l

_-4ZZ

--L__--L-----_,-FLIGHT DATA

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

_....
SO

_-

N .il

-426 2S

[
30 35 21 23 SATURATION

l
40
..........

"
4S
..... .

LH2 PUMP INLET PRESSURE, ps.a L0X PUPIP[FLEETPRESSURE. N/on 2 ZS 27 29 31 33

-268

tar. 0

W n,.

-276 -100

o _
o t_

O.

_5
)1 I-W ..I N

.J

-284

f ' REQUtRE_ENTS ENVELOPE

t_ Im

t_J ..J

9S 5 PREDICTED ESC
Q,. ).C O ,iJ tL

-29Z

I

EIIVEILOPE
Q,.

FLIGHT DATA ENGIMES NO. ] THROUGH S -3O0

0 ..J

9O

3O

34 LOX _

38 42 [NLET PRESSURE, ps4a

46

Fiqure

6-6.

S-II

Engine

Pump Inlet

Start

Requirements

6-7

i

.

.

.

S-II ESC was received at 163.6 secoflds and the Start Tank Discharge Valve (STDV) solenoid activation sional occurred 1.0 sec_ later. The engine thrust tuildup was satisfactory ar.d well within the predicted thrust buildup envelope. All engi.-es reacted 90 percent thruSt within 3.3 seconds after S-II ESC. 6.3 S-ll VAIIibT_GE PEPFO_)_C£ ..........

The provision _onstruction analysis sho_ed that stage perforce duri_ mainstaoe Operation was satisfactory. _ c_aris_n of predicted and reconsidered th_Sto specific 7_lSeo total fl_ateo and fixture ratio versus ti_ is sh_ in Finure 6-7;-'$taee perfo_nce _s very close to predicted. At ESC _61 seconds, total stage th_st was Io156o694 lbf _ich wa_ 15_5 lbf (0.14 percent) be)_ the preflight prediction. Total propellant fl_ate tncludi_ _essurizatton fl_, _s Z743.4 i_/s° 0.19 percent bel_ predicted. Staoe s_iftc t_-1_iSeo i_ludinq the effect of pressurization gas fl_ateo was 421.6 Ibf°s/ll_o 0.05 percent alx)ve p-edtct_-_d. The sta.oe propellant mixture ratio was 0.-_ T_cent below predicted. Center Engine Cutoff was initiated at ESC ÷Z97.6Z seconds, 0.47 seconds earlier than planned. This action reduced total stage thrust by 2_1oi21 lbf to a level of 920,746 lbf. The E]qt shift from hi eh re low ocCurr_t 325.6 seconds after ESC and the reduction in stage thrust occurred as expected. At ESC +351 seconds, the total stage thrust ms 787,009 Ibf; thus, a decrease in thrust of 133,737 lbf mS indicated _ high and 1_ E_R operation. S-II burn duration was 396,1 seconds, Indivld,_al J-2 engine data are presented in Table 6-1 for the ESC ,61 second tim_ slice. Good coffelatton utsts _ predicted and _ strutted flight performance. The perfomance levels sham in Table 6-1 have not _en adjusted to standard J-2 altitude co_lttons and do not include the effects of pressurization f|ow.

_~ -....

r-

A1th_u_h the prooulslon reconstru_tiO_ was very close to the predicted, the traJe_to_ r_str_tlc_. Section 4.2.1, Indicated that tM S-If stage produced ap_roximteiy 23 _/s m velocity than predicted. Mhtle this difference 1s _lth(n the norm| ril_je of tr_ectory d|sl_rs|im, the unexpectedly poor ¢or_lat|m of the trl_ector_ Idth the e_j|nl W_dtct_d and reconstructed performmnce Is unique In the htstm_ of the .5-11. Fr_ a revtev of the precision and trajectory as wll as the htstor7 of staqe and engine aanufact_ring and testing, it has been determined that the combined contrlbuttem of initial conditions, tosses. I_se pressure thrust, insulation erosicm, pro_11_t lo4dtng, progellant res|duls. and rec_structad engi,e Ix_rform_ accounts for alX_lmmt_l¥ 9 m_s of the addttta_lll velocfty, le4vt_g 14 m/s sttil to be e_lal_ed.
-.--?-=.

6-8
m i

i

I

I

-

-iN

IT

I

i

_'

--

_m

---

-'h-T

.2-.

_

,q-_-

-s.

-

6-9
A I U I I III

_

I

I_

I

-

"

=--

- "

.... " :;L-

_ -. ---

-

-

._-

.-..;.

--;-

-__-. -

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

Q

--

...

{lSa) :,n _-II-)2 is t_ evade tlwt the e_i_ staqe :_rfc_4_e _ld traJ_t_ r_st_ti_ _uct_c_ )|C_* (E_i_s italy rut the e_tne inst_t_it io_.

lowest of ¢_ S-II sta_)e. ¢m _lle t_n _s log _ Isp values are _m_r_r. the :_(c_ have _ v_r7 close to .t_mLjndtc_at_.)y tl_ If t_ ¢_erage I_ for the e._i_s In _(s proSiN _C_c0 t_r_h 25_) h_d _ as_. This _ld Is a_xi_tell is r_t_ata_le is its ¢ss_tited

The dlff_rce.$ fr_olved are quite _11. T_ difference _e_een t_ hl_k avlra_ ISp ¢rd the 5-11-12 mverage Io_._ values {_s) is _|n the Ir_tr_er.tat:_.._tse level. The actual e_qtrue-t_-_qtr_ r_l_eatabtltty (s v_r! s(mmilar to the tnitnl_ntattofl r_-tO-run relpeata_iltty. Therefore.
It |$ redsor_|e CO _lyl)ot._'_._fze Uld( _ |_r r_atl 41r_r4._ (n_ft_ O_rt_Orllt_e

(n_tcited by the log _ I$0 values _my not .hove been _I.¢_ _JkK.Ki4kmt emit,_e perfc_rance tax have be_n close to _ olc_k averaq_. While the reconltr_ttc_ uould detect a flowate contribution to an error in t_q lse, it uould _t correct a t_ruit measurem_n¢ error. If this latter situation were _ case. a significant difference between pr_dicted and rec_nstruCt_l _roc_Iston values uould not be expected because the n_z_le efftci_e_c_ ....
coeff_clesl_ us_ in _th t_

propulsion

r_flstr_t!_

_

the

.eitctton

No _e to the _rcculstcm t_i_ fc_r_&-513 ts reautred :)eca_ the actaal velocity i._c_t fr_ the _II-13, _Ich is _mm_J for an eser_ :utofY, is not affected and becaus_ the payload effect is ntnt_ml a_l t_ _ylab eisslon Is not Oayload crstlccl. Also _ difference between _II-13 _ and the bl_ck avera_ ts _ly about _mlf as large aS that for YlI-12.

Tw L_ srsr_m _¢s_ts, engine No. 4 _ inlet t_rar_re _ir_e _o. 4 _ dis_ pressure., _Jhtbt_ _I @aric_ristias _rtng _ later I_rt of _(gn E_ o_erattoe. Slflce _ measurements were _it_|fl _e s_me _i_, a &_tail_ ex_mtnatic_ -as c_(lucte_ to tlcn concluded tlh_t _ fl_t _mt_. For fu_ 15-3. 6.4 _II _t_ _i_ perfcrmmnce ct_lmge _S i_Ic_ by the dlscus$1o_ of _ measurements refer to Table

I_ID_T

__ cutoff srsten is

S-|| O(CO _I$ planned.

initiate_ by the siege LO[ _e_letson

T_e LOx _epleticm cutoff system _s in previous flights (_

again Inclu_e_ and s__t},

a 1.5 secT_ del_ l timer. t_is resulted _n engine

"T

t

5-10
m m . _ . .. /L ...... .--'--_ ............. roll

!
I II" I'_-"_ II

I

I

I

P

Table
smmt_t

6-1.

S-l; [r_

I_mm¢,

IW

! Z i 4 $ _u, ll_ ! Z I 4 $

_l.e& ZI;J4 Zll.t Tll rnjiI I;N.! 121.1) 17).]1 mA _M.:m f_.JS _.ta re.S1

Seactte_

Ile_Jk_o

; i $ Cq_ m,t_ m, tm_t_ I Z ! $
iii i

%t% $.gWf t.tJ2

InS,liB1aNllm

riD.

thrust rKe(pt

dec_y (el)sen_ of t_e cutoff

as • drop tn "_rus: $t_mll.

_

pressure)

prtor

to

The oul2_llrd engine thrvst de¢_]_ perforunce vii vtthln "_e predicted bind. FirSt tf_tlCltlor4 of thr_t _ly ver_ nOtt_l 0.7S second prior to CutOff signal on e_jlne I. !n order of engine p_sltton, thrust, decay beqlan at 0.75, O.SO, O.SS. and 0.30 seconds prior to cutOff signal and corr_pondtng c_mber pressure decays were 180, 180, 130 an4 129 psi. A: S-II t_C.0 tOUl l.*Jr_l ._s _ to 612.126 Ibt r. SUge lhrlnt drooped to f;_ l_rr.ent _1 l_ls r lewl .tilth 0.4 second. The sUge c_tOfl r ioulse thrOugh _ flve l_t U_rusl lev_l IS esll_ce4 to be Ill,ll lblr-s. 6.5 S-if ST_IG[_ _IT S'rST_I
/

./

i_t

lo,dlq _ fllglt _rf_a mF _ S-If sl,_l*imlla_t mmgesystme Ns'e eowl_l md all l_r_ m vltlln taxis1 rlqes. only exr_,l_tlcm m the L0X fine Ill _ tl_t exklblted • slgul levi r_Kttml ml _t to _ r volts / -2.S sor.omdsamd 1S seax,ds _d then relm,ed tO nml_1 for tke r_llndor of tJ_ trllgM. Tkts cmdtttan _ not bees _m.mL dftl; Fr_vtous trllgl_. A revtev el r the LOll co4m ross i_d the Prll_lllnl Uttllzattm (PU, _ror stg_ll verifies mt the PU Cemlmter LOI bridll _ 41d _tegly _ dim_q lkts tim _eriod ell_dmtlng the possibility of"I tole_'tTy problem. Aftlr • data revlev, thls slgmal ¢l_arKlerlsll¢ cmld treebe _m)lllmd by tank comdltloes. Laboratory slmalatlons vlU_ elthf s4wles of perallel 6-11
• I mm m

m

i

;e_re 5ee$cr _rOl_ l_

sys:es_

_rte_r::_

_111 load_r_

_e cc_uc:e_ could

for

S-;|-_3 for gro_r_

and s'_sec.uer,: _r_d_r<} 5rould this

:dC_ _rcl>ella_ re<.ur.

_e used

;_,e _el]_ :ir_|_j Co_uter Syste_ (PTCS) _nd _,e s_e ,_r_ellant _ae.a<;_ee= 5ys_eY5 _rcoe¢l! :_ro1]e_ S-_ loed_ ar,_-rep]-e_$rrer,_. _11 _-_ 5_a<)e LOX ar_ L_2 l_au_d leve] _o_t sensCr_ at4 ca_ac:_arce ._ra_e_ c_era_ed ,_'_ a_y ;roO;e_s aurtrq _e pr_t_1_a,_ ]¢_K1_r_F. _, L_I _rd LPZ overf_;1 _oir, t sensor Deftest _e_ |r_tc_t_c_5 _._re _11 ._'_r "*e _oadt_ redlt_e _t U_e -_7 5ecc_ CCI_t_ _lnt. _Oe,r..-_oclP CO_e.rol Of _ ".ur_r_ fligh¢ uas successfully ecco_]tsr_,_.:+_ro_g_. v_e cf "J'e ec_It_e '_o _o_ttto_ pr,etw,,itlcal]y o_rated _tx_ur_ _a=io Co,ntro] lalRs (v_C'l). It [SC. _elt_ pressure drove :_e valves :o _he e_ire $_lr_ _oSt_to_ ¢or_reSD_tr_. _0 _he 4.8 [_R. Tt_ hi,fi _ (5.5) -as r_e_ved a_ ESC -5.5 5ecor_s as expected, providing a _c_ir_l ht9_ of c.s fOr TJ'e ftrs'. _hase of t_e ProRr_c*ed _ix_ure Ra¢|o (l_O) ........... ,'he lae ___R.s_p occur_ a¢ [SC *325.6 seconds, vhtc_ |s 1.6 seconds ear|_er "_ar. _re_tcted. This tt_ dtffereflce t5 moS_ 11ke]y caused by _U c_ut_+._o_al cTcle errors or tt_ Saturn vehicle reac_tng the _reset 5_e_ c_and veloct_ a_ an earlier ttne _an planned. The average ERR at _.e low steO .as 4.78 as c_mared to a predtc'_ed 4.80. This 1oust _an planned [_R tS _ell _tth_n t_e t_o sigma __0.06 utxturre ra_to _.o"+ r ar_+e . e O_oard Engine Cutoff ((XCO) _as Initiated by the LOX ce_letton [CO sensors at (SC -396.07 seccr_s ._tch ts 0.02 seconds lo'.er thin planned. Ltqutd level I_lnc 5efl_O¢ _C_li _ r_?. Ava|ldb,_ _ _<r;_ 7 _r,dL _0X 01etto_ occurred but engine parmeter5 such as thrust c_mmer _ressure. It, Set _emeratures. lxaup speeds and pu_ flo_s all e_hlbi_d cf_rlcf_risttCS Siatllr to LOX deolet|_ cutoff o_ DrevtM 1flightS. Since 11outd level data uere not available, iwegellant rtstdu_! ross In tanks deterrlnattoe _s done by other ae4ms. IMsed on predicted L_ 0(CO ross. predicted LI(2 full load alss and tqmmeter data. prooellar.t restdu81 mass fn tanks at 0[CO _re 1401 ltm L0X and Z7S2 ll:m U42 versus 1401 11_ L0X and 2_8 Ibm LH2 pred|cted. The open loop PU error at (3[CO _s -107 lira IJI 2 u_tc_ _s _eT! within the esttmted three stgm dispersion

of .Z_o

lira L"2-

Table 6-2 presents a c_q_rtson of propellant Basses as _easured by the PU i_ and engtne flo_meters. The full 1old mass could not be _-4ved using Dotnt sensors (data not available) as • reference. The predicted value for LI_ ts used aS the best est|mte. ,'he LOJ[ full load Nss _s dertved from the engtne fl_eter tfltegra&:.-_n and 9ECO res:du_l value. 5-12
I | it l , • ' ' ! I II I I -• -• • ,.

Table

6-2.

AS-512

Fl_-t

S-I%

l_ooellant

"'_ss History

PtEDICTE:). L_

_j SvST£x _Y$IS

_GINE FLOI,iqETEn z:.-E_tT1m, cam (BE_r ESTI_JIT() LOX LH z

I

LOx
8,U.1c_0

L_
160.206 2S,061

_ox
844.1f.0 1" .;29

J ' '-"z,
:+150.415 24,)67

$.-II S.*ll

ET_C P'U lfal_ St.e_

1842.469 109,354

I50.Z06 2S._7

1C7,c._E_

Z Per_mt S,-[! 0(¢0

POint Senscw

'".'_3 1401 t179

aM _ Z7,u
iJ

"" M Dau _ot .scale
a

.e _M Data not u'seaole 14_1 1222

4m

S,,.ll residual Afro Thrust Decay
i i

2S75

Ioto:

Table ts _ co miss tn U_ks and _ only. i_,'o_ellae_ l_ra_ed ex_r_l to tanks and LOX s_p is not tncluaea. PU Uta er_ not CorreCted for _nk/Swol_ mtsmi_._. data not available due _o F_rm_a Ground Station

_Potn_. s4_sor discrete p_o_tm.

6.6 6.6.1 LJ_ tank

S.- I I PI_SSURIZATIO_ S,-II ullage Fuel

SYSTD_ Sy$_ _ predicted, is presenM in Figure

Pressurization actual

pressure,

6-8 were for autosequence, closed at -94.08 psia tn 17.5 seconds.

S-IC boost, vent valves seconds and _h_ S-11 boost. ullage voluue The _ pressurized to 35.8 One make-up cycle u_s reQutred at apgroxtitely at -19 pmsure lhetLS seconds (launch comtt) vas 3S.4 psta yes increased frm 34.8 psia to c. of 33.0 _o 3_.0 psta. Ullage pres the pmsure decay rate decay vu launches. caused yes

35.8 psia. Ullege pmsure -43 seconds and the u11aqe _nic_ tS within the redlJne ; sure rate

decayed to 3S.I psia at S-IC [SC at ufltc_ ttme ]ncreased .or about 20 seconds. (The Increased Thqs decay tn cool|ng

i

by S-IC emJtfle ftrlng.) attributed to an increase Du_qn9 S-IC boost, the

is normal and seen om prtvtOuS due to _LH surface 2 agitation I_ress_re across the vent valve,

'|

dtffere_ta]

L
_"
I an III II II I I I

5-13
I I -i • ' ' " " ' ' .J.

i
"_ ;

Figure

6-8.

S-If

Fuel Tank Ullage

Pressure

_lthtn the _11ovable 1or-mode band of 27.5 to 29.5 pst. The LH ve_t valve 2 No. 2 cycled open at 140.3 s_nds a_d closed at 141.1 seconds. Ullage Ixressure a_ S*II engine 5tar_ _as 29.1 I_ta e_ceedtng the mtnimuu engine start re<lutrement of 27 psta. The LH2 vent valves uere suit:cried to the high vent mode (30.5 to 33.0 p_ta) prior to _-I! engine stalr_. During S-iI boost, the GH for pressurizing 2 the LH2 tank was controlled by a flo_ control or"iftce In the LH tank pressurization 2 line with maxiu tank pmsure co_trolled by the LH vent valves. 2 [xcegt for the normal lo- pressure spike during start transient, the ullage pressure throughout the S-ll ooost perto4 was controlled by the _ venL valves wtthln t_e 30.5 to 33 psta allo_able band. Lh2 vent valve 1 opened at 171.9 seconds and reiaIned open unttl 174.2 seconds. Yent Valve No. 2 cracked ope_ five (5) times durtng the first 1_ seconds of S-I! boost. Yent valve dts_re:_ measurements are not available beyond 310.9 seconds due to data acquts_tto_ preblems. The LH ullage pmsure 2 was a maxtnuu of 0.3 _1 higher than the predicted pressure. F|gu_e 6.-9 sho+s LH2 _ gogal inlet pmsure, temperature, and Xet Positive S_ctJon P_ess_re (NPSP) for the J-2 engines. The paramer_s vere In close a_re_._enC wt_ the predicted values througi_out the S.-!I flight period. IlPSP remained above the minimum requ|r_ent throughout

the S-II

bur_ tmase.
6-14
I • • i •

+,

+.,qqD

_ .....

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

_w..

++

-.... -----

_+£,.__
I,I IIII_II+ I _QUl P_q_T -3O

_,,,s

,_'TU,I,.I.. CtMTI[IIlJIGll_

"10
I_d mt

a_35
8..-0 0,,-

I ="1
20 18 -_ Q.

'-30
ImO .if m

+

,,..4

!
m,.L [Sl6X_S I

?._
7,0

i
_..

+e
14

+. -- _ F,o+ ,,;.. ..... .I_,,_._.__I_ _r-'.+ E,,. _,o I I'e
O 0 SO 100 ISO TI_ FILCH liSlE 250 STJUK, 300 3S0 4100 1SO ZOO 25O 100 4eiO _10 liOI

Figure

6-9.

S-II

Fuel _

Inlet

Conditions

6-15

I

6.6.2

S-II

LOX Pressurization

System

LOX tank ullage pressure, actual and pr_ltcted, is presented in Figure 6-10 for autosecluence, $-IC boost, and S-|I burn. After a 107 second cold helium chilldown flo, through the LOX tank, the cht.ldcMn flo_ was temtnated at -200 seconds. The vent valves were closed at -184 seconds and the LOX tank was pressurized to the pressure swttch setting of 38.5 _ .... psta in 31.0 secords. NO pressure make-up cycles were required. The LOX tank ullage oressure increased to 40.0 psia because of common bulkhead flexure during LH2 tank prepressurtzatton. Ullage pressure at -19 seconds (launch commit) _as 40.2 psia _l_ich is within the redltne limits of 36 to 43 psia. The LOX vent valves performed satisfactorily durtmja11 ...... prel aunch operations.

"_Lt 10/ JWJlL4SLI I_Cm) 310 S£CO_S _ TU_. vies IrX_T OP[_i ZIO%CATIOn AnD fOa 111[ fluAL C_OSZD ;talcs;sin

_ M( UJUI.mL[

TIzLS

r_ .............

Figure

6.-10.

S-II

LOX Tank

Ulllge

Pressure

6-16

The LOX vent valves remained closed during the S-IC boost mode and the L0X tank ullage pressure prior to S-ll engine start was 41.5 psia. During the S-ll boost mode, the LOX tank pressure varied from a maximum of 42.0 psia at 182.0 seconds to a minimum of 39.0 psia at S-ll OECC. Similarly to _-$10 and _-511 the GOX for pressurizing the LOX tank was controlled by a flow control orifice in the LOX tank pressurization.......... line with the LOX tank vent valves controlling excessive pressure buildup _thin a pressure range setting of 39._ to 42.0 psia. The LOX vent valve No. 2 first opened at 164.8 seco,,dsand reseated at 165.5 secono_. LOX vent vale No. 2 opened and reseated a total of _ive (5) times between 164.8 seconds and 188.1 seconds. The LOX vent valve rio. 1 cracked open 18 times bel)ween 166.0 seconds and 310.9 seconOs. Vent valve position discrete indications are not available beyond 310.9 seconds due to data acquisition problems.
................

The LOX tank u11age pressure was contro11_ within ore psi of the pressure predicted for S-ll boost as shown in Figure 6-10. ComFarlsons of the LOX pump total inlet pressure, temperature and NPSP are presented in Figure 6-II. Throughout S-II boost, the L0X pump tlPSPwas well above the mi nlaum requtrement. This was the second flight using the LOX tank pre.ssure switch purge. The purge system was incorporated to preclude a potential LOX/GOX incompatibility situation within the LOX pressure switch assembly. The purge is connected to the helium t_ectton and accumulator fill helium supply system. No instrumentation ts available to evaluate the purge system. However, since both the helium injection and accumulator ftll systems operated successfully, it is concluded that the purge systm also functioned prooerly. 6.7 _-II PNEUMATICCONTROL PRESSURESYSTEM functioned satisfactorily throughout the Bottle pressure was 2990 psla at -30 activities during S-IX burn, pressure psta after _II OECO.

The pneumatic control system S-IC and S-!I boost periods. seconds and with normal valve decayed to approximately 2590

Regulator outlet pmsure during flight rmtned at a constant 715 psta, except for the expected momentary pmsure drops uhen the rectrculation or prevalves were actuated closed Just after engine start, at CECO, and at OECO. 6.8 S-II HELIUM IMUECTIOR SYSTEM

The perfomance of the helium injection system was satisfactory. The supply bottle was pressurized to 2976 psta prior to Itftoff and by S-II ESC the pressure was 1663 psta. Heltm Injection average total flourete during supply bottle blowdoun (-30 to 161.4 seconds) was 74 SCFIq. During the prelaunc_ countcloun, the helium Injection bottle decay test was repeated to assure no adverse trends existed. The initial and final decay tests Nere w_thin predicted limits.

6-17
I | m I II I m -I IN m Ill i _m-i_ i I

t

!

$-I1

ESC PIIEDICTEO ACTUAl.. UTEOAI_ ENGINE 0

$-I1 _|1

[NR St:lifT _CO ----

A_'TtIAIL.CENTER ENGINE RINI._UIq MI_P REQUIIIEI'EIT

•:
,,,8

:+
IS

1.3
50 I00 TIIE Fill ZOO STJMIIr, lO01_ S 4100

,,,al

o

I0

Ill,lilt

.
150 ZOO

,
ZSO

,
_

,
_10 Till,

,
400

----.,_,.Q__ .
4150 gO0 TI+O

.

F+gure

6-11.

S-ll

LOX P_p

Inlet

ComHttons

6-18

6.9

POGOSUPPRESSIONSYSTEH

A center engine L0X feedline accumulator is installed on the S-[I stage as a POG0 suppression device. Analysis indicates that there was no S-II POGO. The accumulator system consists of 11 a bleed system to maintain subcooled LOX in the accumulator during S-IC boost and S-II engine start, and 2) a ftll system to fi_l the acc_nulator with helium subsequent to engine start and maintain a heli:_ filled accumulator through _-II CECG ............... The acc_nulator bleed subsystem performance was satisfactory. Figure 6-12 shows the required accumulator temperature at engine start, the predicted temperatures durinq prelaunch and S-IC boost, and the actual temperatures experienced during AS-S12 flight. The maximum allowable temoerature of -281.5°F at engine start was adequately met (-293.8°F actual). Accumulator fill was initiated 4.1 seconds after engine start. Figure 6-13 shows the _ccumulator L0X level versus time during accumulator fill. The ftll time was 6.6 seconds, within the requtr_-d S to 7 seconds. The ._eliua fill trlok rate, during the ftl1 transient, was O.OOSSll_/s and the accumulator pressure was 45.7Z psta. After the accumulator was f'.kled wtth hell,,,, it remained in that state until S-II CECOwhen the helium flow was teminated by closing the two fill solenotd valves. The accumulator bottom t_rature measurement indicated there was liquid pro_11ant splash|ng on the bottm tmperature probe shortly after the accumulator was filled wtth helim gas. Thts type of phenmena w_s observed during the ground static firing test of the S-1]-14 vehtcle and to a lesser degree during the tqi_ts of S-II-g, -10, and -11. This splashing ts not Cof_stdered to be a problem. Figure 6-14 shots the heltm injection and accmulator ftll Supply pressure during accmulator fill operation. As can be seen, the supply bottle ;ressure w4s within the predicted band, indicating that the helium usage rates were as predicted. 6.10 S-;! _f_ULIC SYSTEM

4 !

/

i
!

)
T L

S-ll hydraulic SyStem perfomance was ncml_1 with all pressures, ta_peratures, and voi_ vlthin nominal predicted limits thnx_out countdown an_ f11_t. Actuator positions followed actuator comancs vtth good accuracy and showed normal _l_t resmetses. The maximum engine deflection eas al_roxt_ately 1.3 degrees in pitch on engines 3 _cl 4 In response to sea.ratio, and engine start transients. Actuator loads ,ere _ell .rlthln design lqmrlU. The maximum actuator load was approxtmetely 6800 lbf for the pttc_ actuator of enqtne 1. This 1Nd alSO occurred se_rtly after e_l_e start.

L
qv

t

6-19
i •

|

q_

LOI Till S.,-ll ESC

llqElqll[SgJllltZATlel

.... --,_'I'U_

lqlt"OlCTtO TOIl'J.CCIItI.ATOII1'EiltIt4'tlJt ,A, e.JUTOII T'Eg_MTI,IIII.S. TI_. ICCUP, IqlOOLE _1) IlOTTON

._.
-zm ,
m_l 0

SATIJIL_T fON

,

_
_j

+/,t]++,,.,,o
, . ,Io+ .,,
m_
_ ._O0 _ ............. , ....

TEMP_MTUR[ [,

I r
.

.J-"'_

...........

AT_c \
lqllx II, UN-.,_ I

m_O

_

-,im.qw._

,

m,

I.m

" "Ira mnmm "m'm_mm_U _11 m _ ammmml ma'mmlJa'Jeml

_

m"m

mRmml_mm, a m

be Imn_mm mmm

_

,,_ledl

Ullmm i

mmmimmm mm_m,mm

m

m

m_O0

L

-.+ _P
-ZOO

oi00 0 R,IIIIG[ TIRE. $1[COIIOS 100

'_
_ _

Figure 6-12.

$-tl

Center

[ngJne LOX Feedl+ne Accumulator Bleed Syst_

Performance

14 12

I

I

I

"

f

TOP 0¢ ACOJlqULATO i i

30

!

I

I

_,, -+-",
<
o
| | 11

_F_!,o,,+, _ I I I

:°_

,,,
Z
! l

-!
4 5
OF A_I_LATGR
I I I a

++I,
8
S(CI)IIB
• l

,, brrm'mm:
10

°
12

TIME IrllOR _T,ll_f

FILL.

16J

171

173 TgE. SE_

175

177

F|g_re

6-13.

,Tv,.lI Cent.er Engtne fOX Feedltne

_.clmulat_"

Flll

Trlnstett

6-.20

.++._,_ _ .
..._.

.....

i'-

--

.+:_++_++

+,++. _ . +

- ."

_+_.

SECTION S-IVB

7

PROPULSION

7.1

SUMMARY

The S-IVB propulsion system performed satisfactorily throughout the opera_ tional phase of first and second burns and had normal start and cutoff transie:_ts. S-IVB first burn time was 138.8 seconds, 3.7 seconds shorter than predicCed for the actual flight azimuth of 91.5 degrees. This difference is composed of -4.1 seconds due to the higher than expected S-II/S-IVB separation velocity and +0.4 second due to lower than predicted S-IVB performance. The engine performance during first burn, as determined from standard altitude reconstruction analysis, deviated from the predicted Start Tank Discharge Valve (STDV) open +135-second time slice by -0.68 percent for thrust and -0.14 percent for specific impulse. The S-IVB stage first burn Enqine Cutoff (ECO) was initiated by the Launch Vehicle Digital Computer (LVDC) at 702.65 seconds. The Continuous Vent System (CVS) adeouately regulated LH2 tank ullage pre:sure at an average level of 19.1 psia during orbit ard the Oxygen/ Hydrogen (02/H2) burner satisfactorily achieved LH2 and LOX tank repressurization for restart. Engine restart conditions were within specified limits. S-IVB secc,ld burn time was 351.0 seconds, 4.0 seconds longer than predicted for the 91.5 degree flight azimuth. This difference is primarily due to the lower S-IVB _rformance and heavier vehicle mass during second burn. The engine performance during second burn, as determined from the standard altitude reconstruction analysis, deviated from the STDV open +172-second time slice by -0.77 percent for thrust and -O.IE percent for specific impulse. Second burn ECO was initiated by the LVDC at 11,907.64 seconds, (08:5l:27.64). SubseQuent to second burn, the stage propellant tanks and heli_n spheres were safed satisfactorily. Sufficient impulse was derived from LOX dump, LH2 CVS operation and auxiliary propulsion system (APS) ullage burn to achieve a successful lunar impact. Two subsequent olanned APS burns were used to improve lunar impact targeting. The APS operation was nominal throughout the flight. No helium or propellant leaks were observed and the regulators functioned nominally. The hydraulic system performance was nominal throughout flight.

t

7-1

7.2

S-IVB CHILLDOWN BURN

AND BUILDUP

TRANSIENT

PERFORMAr;CE FOR FIRST

The thrust chamber temperature at launch was -177°F, which was below the maximum allowable redline limit of -130°F. At S-IVB first burn Engine Start Conrnand (ESC), the temperature was -136°F, which was within the reouirements of -189.6 +llO°F. The chilldown and loading of the engine GH 2 start trol bottle prior to Iiftoff was satisfactory. tank and pneumatic cen-

The engine c_ntrol sphere pressure and temperature at liftoff were 3070 psia and -155.7°F. At first burn ESC the start tank conditions tere 1310 psia and -_57.7°F, within the required region of 1325 +75 psia and -170 +30°F for start. The discharge was con_)leted and the _efill initiated at fi7st burn ESC +3.8 seconds. The refill _:as satisfactory with I173 psia and -223°F at cutoff. The propellant recirculation systems operation, which was continuous from before liftoff until just prior to first ESC, was satisfactory. Start and run box requirements for both fuel and LOX were met, as shown in Figure 7-1. At first ESC the LOX pump inlet temperature was -295°F and the LH 2 pun_) inlet temperature was -421.5°F. First burn fuel lead followed the expected pattern and resulted in satisfactory conditions as indicated by the fuel injector temperature. The first burn start transient was satisfactory, and the thrust buildup was within the limits set by the engine manufacturer. Thrust datG during the start transient is presented in Figure 7-2. This buildup was similar to the thrust buildups observed on previous flights. The Mixture Ratio Control Valve (MRCV) was in the closed position (5.0 EI_) prior to first start, and performance indicates it remained closed during the first burn. The total impulse from STDV open to STDV open +2.5 seconds was 187,271 lbf-s. 7.3 S-IVB MAINSTAGE PERFORMANCE FOR FIRST BURN

The propulsion reconstruction analysis showed that the stage performance during mainstage operation was satisfactory. A cm_arison of predicted ant actual performance of thrust, specific impulse, total flowrate, and Engine Mixture Ratio (EMR) versus time is shown in Figure 7-3. Table 7-I shows the thrust, specific impulse, flowrates, and _ deviations from the predicted at the STDV open +135-second time slice at standard altitude conditions. Thrust, specific impulse, and EMR were sllghtly less than the nominal prediction but well within the predicted bands. These deviations from predicted are very minor conslderingthe S-IYB-512 stage was not static fired. Based on engine performance reconstruction the MRCV setting was within the requirement of 30.0 +_I degrees.

7-2

Lnx _ ZO -ZSO IT(P4 I ? ) -+_LS S J TP+( FP?,,4 (SI:. Sir( o ] ($TD¥ OPEN) r_) £C0 ZS _

X_IFT TnTAL I_(S<;Ir_q _/0_ ". I(I i 1 )5 1110

I
1/

!'

£NGINI[ START POX -----.--._m APPL ICIIIL£ TO _rov OP[N _

-

9O

;5

ii

_5

tOIr _

It'll.IT TOTAl. PS_SSUP( (P_IA)

trt_t, m 10
-414

mLlT T01'_ P_SSuM. ZO

Wc_ Z5
,

IS

)0
i

ITm l 2 ) 4 5

Tlql[ FROPl (SC. SEC 0 ) (STOV 0P_) 50 100 [co

.,,.116

!..
I0 IS

]4

j

i

'
ZO

/
2O f_L _ ZS

£alGIX[ STAXT BOX I AIPI_|ulIL( AT __J Sl"OV_x _

3O

3_ pile

4e

4S

SO

ILLrV vnTm. PlESgN.

Figure

7-1.

S-ZVB Start

Box and Run Requirements - First

Burn

_/

SIVB IGNITION (STDV f)PE)l CO_4AND) S-IVB MAINSTAGE OK SIGNAL SWITCH 1 ANO Z S-IVB MAINSTAGE PREDICTED BAND ACTUAL

%_7 ....

25O 1100

20O 8O0 3 SIG_IAPREDICTION
W-

BANDS "-_

,/

150

700
Z

0

-600 ills I00 / I#
iiii/

o

,.c .SOD
IX

SO

f-

jlJl

I


I I
a I ,

,200 -tO0 0

0 3.0

3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 5.0 TIME FROMENGINE START COHHAND--FIRST BURN, SECO_
, i

6.5

564.2'

564.7

565.Z

565.7

566.Z

566.7

567.Z

RANGETIRE, SECONDS Ffgure 7-2. S-IVB Thrust Buildup Transient for First Burn

7.4

_7 S-IVB FIRST ESC _TS-[VB FIRST ECO Z20

_ACTUAL - - - PREDICTED

.

200

900 850

180

8OO

i

440 430

4.3 4.2

i .-._w
m

420 225

_ '-

5oo 48o
470
I--

.........

- -- --,-

..... ....

___
220 215
..,I LL

,_
h.. .¢

'_

460 450 5.5

210

_

205

..,,,_
z_
W o _m,, o

E-----:--__-_
m_ a m

5.0 | 4.5 0 20 40

u.lr _ ," "--_ ....

--"_r

--

a

_LL-

60

80

100

120 SECONDS

140

160

TIME FROH STDV OPEN +2.5

£ ,560

i 580

I 600

I 620

I 640

I 660

I 680

.tl 7OO

! 720

RANGETI_, Figure 7-3.

SECONDS

S-IVB Steady-St_t_ Performance

Table 7-I. S-IVB Steady State Performance - First Burn (STDV Open +13S-Second Time Slice at Standard Altitude Conditions) _ERCE_¢T DEVIATION FP_ PREDICTED

PARA:IETER

POEDICTED

RECONSTRUCTION

FLIr.MT DEVIATIO,

ThruSt,

Ibf

207,197 428.3

Z05,797 427.7

-0.68 -0.14

Specific Impulse, Ibf-s/Ibm LOX Flowrate, lbm/s Fuel Flowrate. lbm/s Enqine Mixture Ratio. LOX/Fuel

403.40

401.26

-2.14

-0.53

80.37

lg.g6

-0.41

-0.51

5.019

5.018

-.001

-0.02

The first burn time was 138.8 seconds, terminated by a guidance velocity cutoff command, which was 3.7 seconds less than predicted for the actual flight azimuth of gl.s aegrees. This difference is composed of 4.1 seconds less due to the higher than expected S-II/S-IVB separation velocity and 0.4 second longer due to lower S-IVB performance. Total impulse from STDV open +2.5-seconds to ECO was 28.23 x lO6 lbf-s which was 874,949 Ibf-s less than predicted. The engine helium control system performed satisfactorily during mainstage operation. An estimated 0.30 ibm of helium was consu_d during first burn. 7.4 S-IVB SHUTDOWN TRANSIENT PERFORMANCE FOR FIRST BURN

S-IVB first ECO was initiated at 702.65 seconds and the ECO transient was satisfactory. The total cutoff impulse to zero thrust was 46,401 Ibf-s which was 1237 Ibf-s lower than the nominal predicted value of 47,638 lbf-s and within the +4100 Ibf-s predicted band. Cutoff occurred with the tCRCV in the 5.0 EMR--posltlon. Thrust data during the cutoff transient is presented in Figure 7-4. The J-2 engine bleed valves normally open within seven seconds from Engine Cutoff Command (ECC) based on previous flight experience. However, the engine helium control package was modified for this flight to allow the purge valve to open and close at a higher pressure. This results ifl a longer time to adequately reduce the accumulator pressure to allow the bleed valves to open.

PREDICTED BAND....

11OO

10OO

9O0

II 0 po p. D

IO0

400

300

200
5O 100

0.5 TIHE

.0

.5

2.0 BURN, SEI_01_S 704.7 705.2

FROR ENGINE CUTOFF ¢0PIM_D--F|RST

Figure 7-4.

S-IVB Thrust

Decay

t
!

Consequently, the bleed valves' opening time from ECC was increased from approximately 7 to I4 seconds. 7.5 S-IVB PARKING ORBIT COAST PHASE CONDITIONING

The LH2 CVS performed satisfactorily, maintaining the fuel tank ullage pressure at an average level of 19.1 psia. This was v,ellwithin the 18 to 21 psia band of the inflight specification. The continuous vent regulator was activated at 761.8 seconds and was terminated at II,020.8 seconds (03:03:40.8). The CVS performance is shown in Figure /-5.

V s.m Ft_ _

v ST_T oFT,

,o

!

f

i
o

....

,
o

"
0 O:O0:M

.
2 4 0:.10:00 1:0o:o0

iiil_L
|

!

t

II
. ,

|
10 13 .1:0o:o8

i

8

! :.10.-o0 l_n[.

Z:Oo:O0

Z: ]o:o0

MmIB: nmm[s:sEc_s

Figure 7-5.

S-IVB CVS Performance - Coast Phase

The CVS than on and the pellant cycling

regulator began cycling at 900 seconds, about 30 minutes earlier previous flights. The extended hold during launch countdown atmospheric conditions provided low initial LH 2 tank and protemperatures, which resulted in low boiloff and permitted regulator early in the orbita_ coast period.

Calculations based on estimated temperatures indicate that the mass vented from the fuel tank during parking orbit was 2195 Ibm and that the boiloff mass was 2405 Ibm, compared to predicted values of 2330 Ibm and 2540 Ibm, respectively. LOX boiluff 7.6 during S-IVB BURN the parking orbit coast phase was approximately PERFORMANCE I0 Ibm.

CHILLDOWN

AND BUILDUP TRANSIENT

FOR SECOND

Repressurization of the LOX and LH2 tanks was satisfactorily accomplished by the 02/H 2 burner. Burner "ON" command yes initiated at 11,020.6 seconds (3:03:40.6) The LH 2 repressurization control valves were opened at burner "ON" +6.1 seconds, and the fuel tank was repressurized from 19.1 to 30.5 psia in 191 seconds. There were 26.2 Ibm of cold helium used _o repressurize the LH 2 tank. The LOX repressurizetion control valves were opened at burner "ON" +6.3 seconds, and the LOX tank was repressurized from 36.5 to 40.I psia in 130 seconds. There were 3.7 Ibm of cold helium used to repressurize the LOX tank. LH 2 and LOX ullage pressures are shown in Figure 7-6. The burner continued to operate for a total of 459 seconds providing nominal propellant settling forces. The performance of the AS-512 02/H 2 burner was satisfactory as shovln in Figure 7-7. The S-IVB LOX recirculation system satisfactorily provided conditioned oxidizer to the J-2 engine for restart. Fuel recirculatlon system performance was adequate and conditions at the pump inlet conditions were satisfactory at second STDV open. The LOX and fuel pump inlet conditions are plotted in the start and run boxes in Figure 7-8. At second ESC, the LOX and fuel pump inlet temperatures were -294.4 and -418.5°F, respectively. Second burn fuel lead generally followed the predicted pattern and resulted in satisfactory conditions, as indicated by the fuel injector temperature. Since J-2 start system performance was nominal during coast and restart, no helium recharge was required from the LOX ambient repressurization system (bottle No. 2). The start tank performed satisfactorily during second burn blewdown and recharge sequence. The engine start tank was recharged properly and it maintained sufficient pressure during coast. The engine control sphere first bur_ gas usage was as predicted; the ambient helium spheres recharged the control sphere to _ nominal level for restart. The second burn start transient was satisfactory. The thrust buildup was

i/II °_liUl _i'i GL _Im,_'t_ ,dII'_3_

$/II "_ilRa.I_I O_. ;.In_10"bl 3 11|I]iI

lqt "_IIK/. Ii_

_,ii_

"_li_"_i

_

Z_I

I_ f,.. S.S..

!

'

,

i

i '_i I _

_
..ft.

__

,
\

----

;

I

\\\

!! i
,, I !il

:4-'2- _

!_.,

'i \

_il

,'_
'I,
<1

-_,I
II .!_

-...
:8 "
_l
I,i.

'.
;

i, t
I;I I , , l ,

I I
{

LOS _ 2$ -28O ITI_ TI_ F_t_l StCt_lO I I

IMC.fT,%"TN._f++SU_.f. sl/o_ 2 )10 I I 'I 100 )S • I

_.

sic

I

i

+.,<Y'_
-£ 941

m
-+ I

!+
' 1

+
I

+
//" / i

//

"'+J
/

I
l I. I 2 I

+... %

}

T+
i-

-z<mI

1 r I,,"
-Zg+,

/_" / i

/

t /
I

'J
I ,

+

. ,

94 at
T

1
.

9Z

.,.i

t

I

.m]+
LOY _U _p I'iLET ":+_TN. P'_$$UP( :P_:_,}

LjI_'

FUlL PU_ -414 I ,LH |11 I_M( FIItv,I SECO+IO IS

Ill JET IOTN. PI_$_III[. 20 |

q/caa 2 ZS )0

,
+tl6

t++.sic +
s(_Ov ,m

+ +
0_)---------; :

! ,
;.... i
- +.......

I +
_

|

1
-

!
" + .....-I'"

I ....
i +

-++

mo
,., + ....

i
.--+-+

I
,+

/
.---+--+-,

i

-411

+

+
_1_4

__

--

-,

1

+ +_---+.._,,r--l--J:

+.-_, :._:i, :+ +
.+
l ,,_'PL |_J,_[ [ AI _el ,

--

-----.4,--

....

T

20
--

.+.
.,+ 10

.....l
IS

i

+-

-

/_
29
FUEL _

t"- s+a, _,_,

'

t

f

_,

,
4o

Z_
INL|T

)0
TOTJI4. PqHE_+_'II_.

_
1_4

4$

54

Figure 7-8.

S-IVB Start Box and Run Requirements - Second Burn

e'

v;ithinthe limits set by the engine manufacturer and was similar to the thrust buildups observed on previous fliohts. The MRCV was in the proper full open (4.5 Er_) position prior to the second start. The total impulse from STDV open to STDV open +2.5 seconds was 182,50Z Ibf-s. 7.7 S-IVB MAINSTAGE PERFORMANCE FOR SECOND BURN

The propulsion reconstruction analysis showed that the stage performance during mainstage operation was satisfactory. A comparison of predicted and actual performance of thrust, specific impulse, total flowrate, and EMR versus time is shown in Figure 7-9. Table 7-2 shows the thrust, specific impulse, flowrates, and E_ deviations from the predicted at the STDV open +172-second time slice at standard altitude conditions. This time slice performance is the standard altitude performance which is comparable to the first burn slice at STDV open +135 seconds. Thrust, specific impulse, and EMR were well w_thin the predicted bands. The thrust and propellant flowrates were slightly l_:er than predicted. The second burn time was 351.0 seconds which was 4.0 seconds longer than predicted. This difference is primarily due to the slightly lower S-IVB performance and heavier second burn vehicle mass. The total impulse from STDV open +2.5 seconds to ECO was 69.59 x 106 Ibf-s which was 466,296 Ibf-s more than predicted. The engine helium control system performed satisfactorily during mainstage operation. An estimated l.l Ibm of helium was consumed during second burn. 7.8 S-IVB SHUTDOWN TRM¢SIENT PERFORMANCE FOR SECOND BURN

S-IVB second ECO was initiated at 11,907.64 seconds. The ECO transient was satisfactory. The total cutoff impulse to zero thrust was 46,260 Ibf-s which was 2123 Ibf-s lower than the nominal predicted value of 48,383 Ibf-s and within the +4100 Ibf-s predicted band. Cutoff occurred with the MRCV in the 5.0 EMR--position. 7.9 S-IVB STAGE PROPELLANT MANAGEMENT

A comparison of propellant masses at critical flight events, as determined by various analyses, is presented in Table 7-3. The best estimate full load propellant masses were 0.027 percent greater for LOX and 0.005 percent greater for LH2 than _redicted. This deviation was well _ithin the required loading accuracy. Extrapolation of best estimate residuals data to depletion, using the propellant flowrates, indicated that a LOX depletion would have occurred approximately 9.22 seconds after the second burn velocity cutoff.

_Ts-[vB _TS-IVB gzo

SECONDESC $ECONOECO /

_ACTUAL ----PREDICTED BAND

900
......... etpl,

o p..

180 160

........

_

....

8oo

0

7011 ,2
V_

CI_

140 120 440

|

o

450

400

TIME FROM STDV OPEN +2.5 SECONDS

i i 3:12:00

I 3:14:00

I 3:16:00

!
3:18:00

,

RAISE TIME, HOLI_:NINUTES:SECONI_

Figure 7-9.

S-IVB

Steady-State

Performance

- Second

Burn

Table 7-2. S-IVB Steady State Perfomance (STDV Open +172-Second Tln_ Slice at Standard

- Second Altitude

Burn Conditions)

PARAHETER
[

PREDICTED

RECONSTRUCTION
i i i i

FLIGHT DEVIATInf(

PERCENT DEVIATION F_ PREDICTED

Thrust,

lbf

207,197 4Z6.3

205,608 427.6

-I,589 -0.7

-0.77 -0.16

Sp_ific Impulse, Ibf-s/Ibm LOX F1owrate. Ibmls Fuel F1owrate, ll_Is Enqine ;4ixture Ratio, LOX/Fuei
i

403.40

400.95

-2.45

-0.61

80.37

79.91

-.46 -.001

-0.57

5.019

5.018

-O.cJZ

Table

7-3.

S-IVB

St.age l_opellant
_bU InOIr.._T£O (OXetECT_) LOS 111S,421 19S.421 140,)41 I_.MS L_2 43.724 43,7Z4 32.$34 30 .Odl4

_ssHistory

(_
i| i

_s
lm 1_ Im lu Im

I_EOICT[O LOS L_
iM.SM 1116,$74 I_,2_S I18.14Z 3184
i

PJ VOLUIq(TIIIC

FLOW INTEG,UW. I

NST (STIIMTE LOX LW Z 43.7SZ 43,750 32,675 30,075 Z224

Lo_
1H.421 1_.421 140,141 131.t8S 43t2

L'z
43o_WI 43,944 32,790 30,1_1 Z2Sl • 19S,49S 139.840 l_.M4 43,600 &),600 32,536 i 30,040 _Z_

S..IC Ft_t rt_t

Ltt'r.4_'f 5..IVl E_ ,q,-I11 f_wff S-IWll S.,Ill F.SC

_.7_ 43.749 _,21_ _.774

l_J .636 lgS,636 140,017 139.879 4249

Saco.a

2244

424g 1

!

l

i
7-14

During first burn, the pneumatically controlled two position Mixture Ratio Control Valve (MRCV) was positioned at the closed position for start and remained there, as programmed, for the duration of the burn. The MRCV was coem_nded to the 4.5 EMR position I19.9 seconds prior to second ESC. The MRCV, however, did not actually move until it received engine pneumatic power. At second ESC +I00.0 seconds, the MRCV was commanded to the closed .... position (approximately 5.0 EMR) and remained there throughout the remainder of the flight. 7.10 7.10.1 S-IVB S-iVB PRESSURIZATION SYSTEM System

Fuel Pressurization

Performance of the LH 2 pressurization system was satisfactory during prepressurization, boost, first burn, coast phase, and second burn. The LHp tank prepressurization command was received at -96.3 seconds and the taBk pressurized signal was received ll.l seconds later. Following the termination of prepressurization, the ullage pressure reached relief conditions (approximately 31.5 psia) and remained at that level until liftoff, as shown in Figure 7-I0. A small ullage collapse occurred during the first lO seconds of boost. The ullage pressure returned to the relief level by 130 seconds due to self pressurization. A similar ullage collapse occurred at S-iC/S-II separation. The ullage pressure returned to the relief level 35 seconds later. Ullage collapse during boost has been experienced on previous flights and is considered normal. During first burn, the average pressurization flowrate was approximately 0.67 Ibm/s, providing a total flow of 92.2 Ibm. Throughout the burn, the ullage pressure was at the relief level, as predicted. The LH2 tank was satisfactorily repressurized for restart by the 02/H 2 burner. The LH2 ullage pressure was 30.6 psia at second burn ESC, as shown in Figure 7-I0. The average second burn pressurization flowrate was 0.69 Ibm/s until step pressurization, when it increased to 1.34 Ibm/s. This provided a total flow of 288.2 Ibm during second burn. Due to lower than expected ullage collapse, the ullage pressure was slightly above the predicted value, but well within acceptable limits, during the initial portion of second burn. The increase in pressurization flowrate resulting from the EMR change increased the ullage pressure to relief pressure (31.7 psia) at second ESC +195 seconds. The initiation of step pressurization at second ESC +280 seconds increased the relief level to 32.4 psia. The LH 2 pump inlet Net Positive Suction Pressure (NPSP) was calculated from the pump interface temperature and total pressure. These values indicated that the NPSP at first burn ESC was 15.5 psi. At the minimum point, the

- ....

7.1¢_

35 3O
q

INITIATION OF PREPRESSURIZATION FIRST ESC _7 SECONDESC _7 FIRST ECO _ SECONDECO OPEN CVS _7 OPEN CVS _7 CRYOGEN_C. REPRESSURIZATION _7 OPENLATCHING NPV 24 F ACTUAL PREOICTEO BAND
|_ h

e_

! I

zs
.............. V_ lEO L_ e_ O,

I
I _ q allf .e_JI, S_ _. m n_Qw

i

ZO I
t

L%/ iZ U Z

4'/

16

W Q. IA/

.:.

2O

-J

12
N

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

e_

15

10
I

-2

0

2

4

6 1000 SECONDS

8

10

12

RANGETIH£,

0:00:00

1:00:00

2:00:00

3:00:00

RANGETIME_ HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS Figure 7-10. S-]VB LH2 Ullage Pressure - Ftrst and Second Burn Burn, Parking Orbit

NPSP had satisfactory agreement vlth the predicted values. The NPSP at second burn STOV open was 7.0 pst, which was 2.5 psi above the minimum required value. Figures 7-11 and 7-12 sumarize the fuel pump inlet conditions for first and secono burns. 7.10.2 S-IVB LOX Pressurtzatt0n System

LOX tank prepressurtzatton was tnftiated at -167 seconds and increased the LOX Lank ullage pressure from ambfent to 40.1 psfa fn 14.9 seconds, as shown in Figure 7-13. Three makeup cycles were requlred to maintain the LOX tank ullage pressure before the ullage temperature stabilized.

'7

37

_TLOX TA_K PRESSURIZATINN INITIATED _TS-[VB FIRST ENG|NESTARTCOHHANO _TS-IVB VELOCZTY CUTOFFCOr_AND ",_CRYOGEN]CREPRESSURIZATION [NIT[ATED 5O
.... i .....

30
¢%1

5
Z Ld _ J

!

;

.......

L.J

_ k_30
W ..J ,.J

_.J

20

,,.I

20
t_ ._J

.... -4 6

PREDICTED BAND ACTUAL

X 0 ,,.,.I

10 12

!

I

8

10

RANGE T|HE, 1000 SECONDS

0:00:()0

j 1:00:00

j 2:00:00

_'_7 3:00:00

RANGE TINE, HOURS:MINUTES:SECO_S Figure 7-13. S-IVB LOX Tank Ullage Pressure - First Burn, Earth Parking Orbit, and Second Burn

At -g6 seconds, fuel tank pressurization caused the LOX tank pressure to increase from 39.7 to 42.2 psta and unseat the tank pressure reltef valve (NPV). The valve reseated at 40.6 psta and the ullage pressure then _ncreased to 41.2 psta at 11ftoff. During boost there was a nominal rate of ullage pressure decay caused by tank volume increase (acceleration effect) and ullage temperature decrease. No makeup cycles can occur because of an Inhibit until after Timebase 4 (T4). LOX tank ullage pressure was 36.3 psta just prior to ESC and was increasing at ESC due to a makeup cycle. Outing first burn, six over-control cycles were Initiated, Includin,l the prngrammed over-control cycle Initiated prtor to ESC. The LOX tank pressurization flowrate vartatfon was 0.24 to 0.29 lbm/s during undercontrol and 0.33 to 0.41 lbm/s durtng overocontrol system operation. This

variation is normal and is caused by ternperature effects. Heat exchanger performance during first burn was satisfactory. .... The LOX NPSP calculated at the interface was 21.7 psi at the first burn ESC. This was 8.9 psi above the NPSP minimum requirement for start. The LOX pump static interface pressure during first burn follows the cyclic trends of the LOX tank ullage pressure. D_rfng orbital coast, the LOX tank ullage pressure experienced a decay similar to that experienced in the AS-5ll flight. This decay was within the predicted band, and was not a problem. The vehicle pitch maneuver at insertion resulted in minimal LOX sloshing and no tank venting. Mass addition to the ullage from LOX evapora.......... tibn was minimal and the ullage pressure stayed below the relief range. • Repressurization of the LOX tank prior to second burn was required and was satisfactorily acco_lished by the O2/H2 burner. The tank ullage pressure was 39. 9 Psia at second ESC and satisfied the engine start requirements. Pressurization system perforn_nce during second burn was satisfactory. There was one over-control cycle, which was nominal. Helium flowrate varied between 0.33 and 0.41 lbmls. Heat exchanger performance was satisfactory. The LOX NPSP calculated at the engine interface was 22.5 psi at second burn ESC. This was 10.7 psi aoove the minimum required NPSP for second engine start. At all times during second burn, NPSP was above the required level. Figures 7-14 and 7-15 summarize the LOX pump conditions for first burn and second burn, respectively. The LOX pump run requiremerits for first and second burns were satisfactorily met. The cold helium supply was adequate to meet all flight requirements. first burn ESC, the cold helium spheres contained 382 lbm of helium. At the end of second burn, the helium mass had decreased to 165 Ibm. Figure 7-16 shows helium supply pressure history. 7.11 S-IVB PNEUMATICCONTROLPRESSURE SYSTEM At

.........

The stage pneumatic system performed satl;factorily during all phases of the mission. The pneumatic sphere pressure was 2390 psia at initiation of safing. 7.12 S-IVB AUXILIARY PROPULSION SYSTEM

The APS d._menstratedclose to nominal performance throughout flight and met control system demands as required out to the time of flight control c_uter shutoff at approximately 41,533 seconds (11:32:13). The oxidizer and fuel supply systems performed as expected during the flight. The propellant te_ratures measured in the propellant control

II sMI *Ill.Old IUl *_S411 10'I JL,TIII 1111121 _ lrl

L.

"]llllVlldl_ m I_I

" J..Tnl

qlId.

S-IVB F|RST ECD _7 S-IVB FIRST ESC STARTCRYOGENICREPRESSUR|ZATIO/I S-IVB SECO/¢O ECO S-IVB SECONO ESC STARTCOLDHELIUM DU/qP J500 _'

END CC_LD HELIUM_P STARTCOLD HELII_4 n_-'P E;IOCOLD HELtI_ 9U_P ST._PTCnLn HELIUMO,r,_P END C_I.D HEL[_4 DUmP

.24OO

3OO0
I

.20O0

2SO( •
i

I
I

I I

-1600
N .b io4

I

E
a t.J e_

I

-1200

W eL

-8O0 1DO0
I

I
I
-400

5OO

0

O

3

6

9

12

is

18

21

z4"

RANGE TINE, 1000 SECOgI_

0:00:00

1:_:_

2:_:_

3:_:_

4:_:_

S:_:_

_:_:_

Figure

7-16.

S-?VB Cold Hellum Supply History

modules ranged from 60 to 107°F. The APS propellant usage was nominal. ...... _Table 7-4 presents the APS propellant usage during specific portions of the mission. Table 7-4. S-IVB APS Propellant Consumption
V_ULi QI[DIIEO qo. i 7 FUTL

tm
latUol !r4nt Lud 0urn (hl1 C_mtml] U11Htq _23. | 0.S i 14.S ]

_l
O.Z 7.2 I

up l_
126. I 0.$ 11.3 i ,Z 9.0 $,6 0.S ll.l 04 6.1 121t. I O.] I0.0 0.2 7.@

[CO r_ [nd of flrst,N_ {M.1 sec tlm perOo4)

M of Irl_t Ull_le Seem _ SUr_ If Secm_ ull_Jm Iww UI11e Ov_ Set kntlm)

il.Z

S.I

7.0

$.1

Z.9

3.1

Z.9

II.S

J

t.I

S.S

t.S

II.$

6.1

9.4

7.S

(71.1

0.1 [CO Lo Start of Fie'st l_ct liven mt 2Z,ZO0 FIrst hm (,Unit *,ec. ZS.0i 13.T

0.2 ILl

.2 14.9

0.3 3S.$

O.1 11.9

0.2 2S.1

.2 19.9

Lmmov |mpI¢t U11OQl (ke_.l) (98 se¢ 0urmtlen)

IS.0

1.4

II.I

9.2

1$.$

?.6

12.0

q),S

_gm fJId (if Irf_t L_v lqklCt Ib_ tO Start If Seem4 Lm_r [nlsct I_ at 410,S00 sec. From $f4111 of (iom, ozimr_l), Sef.and Lwww 41,S33 Useql sec)

1,0

3.4

1.4

3,S

1.0

3.4

,I.8

).l

1$.l

1.S

12.0

S.S

11.0

T.8

12.2

9,7

Total Pnlellllnt mOTE: _ fm

104.3:

$1.1

_.I

I S9.4 I caJclililIN

I01.6

7?.6

61.I

NIl p_llmt _mlt-I_ttte

clmlwlllm omsent_l pmsuflm lad hggerotem

tn l_llI tlmle mmlmu.

Both regulators functioned nominally during the mission. The module No. 1 regulator outlet pressure increased from 194 psia to 206 psta as the helium bottle temperature decreased from 80°F to -40°F. The module No. 2 regulator outlet pressure decreased from 194 psia to 186.5 psia as the helium bottle temperature increased from8S°F to 166°F. This thermal effect on the regulator outlet pressure is normal and has been observed on previous flights. The APS ullage pressures in the propellant tanks ranged from 182 psia to 200 psta. The performance of the attitude control thrusters and the ullage thrusters was satisfactory throughout the mission. The thruster chamber pressures ranged from 95 to lOl psta. The ullage thrusters successfully completed the three sequenced burns of 86.7, 76.7, and 80.0 seconds; and the two round commanded lunar impact burns of 98 seconds at 22,200 seconds 6:10:00) and 102 seconds at 40,500 seconds (11:15:00). The Passive Thermal Control (PTC) Maneuver was successfully c_pleted prior to flight controi-computer shutoff.

The longest attitude control engine firing recorded during the mission was 0.890 seconds on the module No. 2 pitcil engine at 12,810 seconds .......drTng _ theTransportation Docking and Ejeczion (TD&E) maneuver. The average specific mately 220 Ibf-s/Ibm
...........

impulse of the attituae for both modules.

control

thrusters

was approxi-

The sealing and transducer mounting block changes incorporated in the AS-512 APS modules to prevent helium leakage such as occurred during the AS-511 mission were apparently successful. No leakage occurred during the AS-512 mission. 7.13 S-IVB ORBITAL SAFIHG OPERATIONS

The S-IVB high pressure systems were safed following J-2 engine second ECO. The thrust developed during the LOX dump was utilized to provide a velocity change for S-IVB lunar impact. The manner and sequence in which the safing was performed is presented in Figure 7-17, and in the following paragraphs,..... 7.13.1 Fuel Tank Safing

The LH2 tank was satisfactoril) safed by utilizing both the Nonpropulsive Vent (RPV) and the CVS, as indfcated in Figure 7-17. The LH 2 tank ullage pressure during safing is shown in Figure 7-18. At second ECO, the LH2 tank ullage pressure was 32.4 psia; after three vent cycles, this decayed to zero at approximately 25,000 seconds (06:56:40). The mass of vented GH 2 agrees with the 2224 Ibm of residual liquid and approximately 610 Ibm of GH2 in the tank at the end of powered flight. 7.13.2 LOX Tank Dumping and Safing oxidizer mass, and LOX

LOX dump performance in thrust, LOX flowrate, ullage pressure is shown in Figure 7-1g.

At 22 seconds into the programmed LOX tank vent following second burn cutoff, vent system pressures and temperatureb indicated momentary (less than 4 seconds) liquid venting. The amotnt of liquid vented Is estimated at less than 20 pounds. Probable cause was a combination of a later engine LOX bleed valve opening than on previous flights and a vehicle pitch rate correction at J-2 engine cutoff. The engine helium control package was modified, effective on AS-S_Z, in response to a problem on the previous flight in which a S-II stage J-2 engine He purge valve failed to completely close for I0 seconds. This modification consisted of a change to the J-2 engine LOX Dome/Gas Generator Purge System to incorporate a Purge Control Valve with readjusted operating pressures, a redundant Purge Check Valve and Purge Control Valve Vent Line Orifice. These changes resulted in delaying the bleed valve opening from 7 to 14 seconds after engine cutoff command (reference paragraph 7.4). After second burn shutdown and prevalve/ chilldown shutoff valve closure, the LOX pump inlet pressure increased to

_.__..
=,_,.--_,-_

J ! I J Ii_ i_4 ILl ] L I
_.___a_.JL._.L_n_. _ : .. .... _ ..... Zn.._J

i

L

.

;

:

_

i

"

"°"!

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

I

I

,

_

'

I

'

_

_

'

" _

"_'_"

-- ---4 -- t --! --_'--_
,_..--._....-.,-_.

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

T .... I
_ ......

--_--

----J

_

....... i

._

.....

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

Figure

7-17.

S-IVB

l.OX Dump and Orbital

Saftng

Sequence

_' /4)

_llPn

Nr_LlUn ounp

i

,

i

_

J

,o_-_-:.

%.._

-"%,

......
0

_,_
3:.II0:_ 4:0Q:OQ

'7

,_
4:)0:I_

,
S:OO:O0

,e,_"_,,
S:30:00 6:o0:nn 6:30:00 7:90:_ 7:_-QO

Figure

7-18.

S-IVB

LH2 Ullage

Pressure

- Translunar

Coast

,p

......... 80O "
o

_'

START OF LOX DUmP TE_IfiATIO_I OF LI')X DUMP

301)0 60G

°
ZOO 0

/
7S

/

I

1000

_-

0 30 J
f ...... n m_ .... ! r

p.

_"
_J

_ _ o

50 25

!
20 10

.c
0

[L

_a

f
0 5O0O

o

A
s_

I
TOTAL LIQUID HASS REHAINING! ! I ! I

-2000

z ""
0

3000 Z_

-1500

X ,..,*

-IOOO
0

,500
"ZO

_ 8
"_ Z

_J

e'L

_ e,,, ,=.1
_Ctd O'V .,.I O.

2s
20 19,460

18 _
16 .a_ 19,470 19,480 19,490 19,500 19,510 14 "_ 19,5Z0 --, "

RANGE TIME,
_7 i

SECONOS
|

V

a:Z4:ZO

5:Z4:40 RANGETIME,

5:Z5:00 HOU_:NINUTES:SECOIIOS

Fiqure

7-19.

S-IVB LOX Dump Parameter

H_stories

a greater value than that seen on past flights due to the delayed bleed valve opening_and consequent added heat transfer. At the same time LOX tank venting had reduced the LOX tank pressure. These two factors produce a greater pressure differential between the bleed valve inlet and the tank at the time of bleed valve opening than was seen on previous flights. This increased pressure differential would cause the bleed valve return flow velocity to be greater than nom_l. The probable sequence of events that led to liquid venting wo,:Id be: slosh activity following cutoff and pitch attitude corrections momentarily submerged the L0X chilldown return line diffuser during the higher than normal return flow through this line from the bleed valve; the higher velocity flow into the small amount of remaining liquid dispersed L0X in the tank in such-amanner that liquid was ingested into the nonpropulsive vent system. This LOX venting is not significant for an Apollo mission. However, it is of concern for a Skylab mission because of the need to conserve residuals fo? deorbiting theS-IVB/IU. In order to eliminate similar liquid venting on Skylab missions a procedural change to delay closing the chilldown valve has been incorporated. Following vent completion, the ullage pressure rose gradually, due to self-pressurization, to 23.5 psia by the time of initiation of the transposition, docking, and ejection (TD&E) raneuvel. The LOX dump was initiated at 19,460.2 seconds (05:24:20.2) and was satisfactorily accomplished. A steady liquid flow of 368 gpm was reached in 13.3 seconds. The LOX residual at th_ start of dump was 3928 Ibm. Calculatlo,,s indicate that 2564 Ibm was dumped. During dump, the ullage pressure decreased from 25.l to 24.4 psia. A steady state LOX dump thrust of 720 lbf was attained. There was no ulla_ gas ingestion, and LOX dump ended at lg,507.9 seconds (05:25:01.9) as scheduled, by closing the Main Oxidizer Valve (MOV). The total impulse before MOV closure was 33,650 ibf-s, resulting in a calculated vele:ity change of 29.3 ft/sec. At LOX dump termination +242 seconds, the LOX NPV valve was opened and latched. The LOX tank ullage pressure decayed from 24.a psia at 19,750 seconds (05:29:10) to near zero pressu, e at approximately 24,000 seconds (06:40:00) as shown in Figure 7-20. Sufficient impulse was derived from the LOX dump, LH 2 CVS operation, and APS ullage burn to achieve lunar impact. For further _iscussion of the lunar impact, refer to Section 17. 7.13.3 Cold Helium Dump

A total of approximately 159 Ibm of cold helium frum the bottles su_merged in the LH 2 tank was dumped through the cold He dump module during the three programmed du_s which occurred as shown in Figure 7-17. 7.13.4 Ambient Heliu_ Dump spheres were duped through the LOX

The two LOX ambient

repressurization

Q

$-|VlJ . ._ II_G[_

5[CJ_O

[CO.

LOZ

TAmlf

qO_DP_q._,[Y[ MIO 00¢[|_

yl[._r ATT|TUDt:

."q_qiq_Lilrl[R TO

T _I_I_S|T:Qll

Te llrdLZnLOX
I_ _f LO,II tJIdK JIOI4PIIOIPULS|Y_[ yE_T

....... Ir J l......... .....i

qtITl[.:

PII[DICTtrlm TO COm_LATI[

Tt_q[Lll _IT_

AOdI_TI[D ACTI_L I'_

L_


IO
Z_

_qG£ TI_. _'
4: 30:3(_

lO_O _co_o$ ,
(_: _O::X)

"_
$:00:0(] T[_[.

_

,
?:0_:0_

_JlS

:n[IIOT[S

: SrC_OS

Figure

7-20.

S-IVB LOX Tank Ullage

Pressure

- Translunar

Coast

ambient repressurization control module into the LOX tank HPV syst_,_for 40 seconds beginning at II,938 seconds (03:18:_). During this dump, the _ressure decayed fro_ 2900 psia to approximately 120O psia. A modification to the stage ambient He system, effective _th AS-512, provided an interconnect through a normally closed valve to the APS He bottles. This interconnect provides _n APS recharge capability in the event that He losses, simile- to those seen on A_511, occur. In order _o retain the recharge capability through the initiation of the first APS lunar impact burn (APS-I), th-.A_SI2 LH2 ambient repressurization sphere dump time was reduced to 15 seconds as opposed to the AS-S11 dum time of 1070 seconds. The 15-seco_ dump began at 21,196 seconds (05:53:16) and approximately _6.3 I_ of He was dumped via the fuel tank and the non-propulsive venL. 7.13.5
fr

Stage Pneumatic Control Sphere _fing

The stage pneumtic control sphere and the LOX repressurization spheres were safed by initiating the J-Z engine pump purge for a one-hour period. This activity began at 18,180 second_ (05:03:00) and satisfactorily reduced the pressure in the spheres f-om 2390 to 1300 psia.

7.]3.6

Engine

Start

Tank Safing

The engine start tankwas safed during a period of approximately 150 seconds beginning at 15,509 seconds (04:18:29). Safing was accomplished by opening_he)t_rt tank vent valve. Pressure was decreased from 1300 to 20 psia with approximately 2.78 Ikm of ;_ydrogen being vented. 7.13.7 Engine Control Sphere Safing

The eng_n_ _dntrol sphere He durnp was reduced to 16 sec on AS-512 as opposed to 1000 seconds on AS-511 to retain an APS He recharge capability as discussed in 7.13.4. The safing of the engine control sphere began at 21,216.4 (05:!3:36.4) by energizing the helium control solenoid to vent helium through the engine purge system. The hellum control sphere vented until 21,232.4 seconds (05:53:52.4) with the initial pressure of 2970 psia reduced to 1340 psia at vent termination. S-IVB HYDRAULIC Boost and First SYSTEM Burn

The S-IVB Hydraulic System performed within the predicted limits after liftoff with nu overboard venting of system fluid as a result of hydraulic fluid expansion. Prior to start of propellant loading, the accumulator was precharged to 2440 psia at 85°F. Reservoir oil level (auxiliary pump off) was 82 percent at 65°F at 20 minutes prior to launch. During S-ICIS-II boost, all system fluid temperatures rose steadily when the auxiliary pump was operating and convection cooling was decreasing. The supply pressure during the S-IVB first burn was 3570 psia which was within the allowable limits of 3515 to 3665 psia. The engine driven hydraulic pump operated properly as indicated by the current drop at engine start. Due to the close pressure settings of the pumps and the minimum demand by the system, the auxiliary pump provided the system internal fluid leakage rate of 0.63 gal/min (0.4 to 0.8 gpm allowable) for the burn. This is characterized by the pump motor current draw of 42 amperes. 7.14.2 Parking Orbit and Second Burn

The auxiliary hydraulic pump was programmed to flight mode "ON" at II,198 seconds for engine restart preparations. System pressure stabilized at 3530 psia. At engine start, system pressure increased to 3580 psia and remained steady for approximately 140 seconds. The engine driven pump furnished most of the leakage flow during this period as evident by a current draw from Aft Battery No. 2 of 22 amperes. Following the first 140 seconds, the auxiliary hydraulic pump b_an sharing a portion of the leakage flow as indicated by an increase in current to

7-28

o

2g amps and a slight decrease in system pressure. Later, during the burn, the engine driven pump again furnished the leakage flow requirements for approximately 30 seconds followed by the auxiliary pump furnishing most of_the leakage flow as evident by shifts in Aft Battery No. 2 current. System temperatures were normal during the burn. Pump inlet oil temperature responded to the changes in Aft Battery No. 2 current as the pressure and flow output varied between the two pumps. The most.probable cause for the interaction between the two pumps is the close pressure settings between the two pumps and frictional hysteresis in the engine drive pump flow-regulating mechanism. The operation of the hydraulic system during the first and second burns was nominal and the interaction between the two pu._ps is within the design specification of the system. It should be noted that this interaction between the two pumps does-not indicate.an impending malfunction and does not degrade the reliability of the engine driven pump or auxiliary hydraulic pump.

SECTION 8 STRUCTURES

8.1

SUMMARY

The structural load_ experienced during the S-IC boost phase were well below design values. The maximum bending moment was 96 x 106 Ibf-in at the S-IC LOX tank (less than 36 percent of the design value). Thrust cutoff transients experienced by AS-Sl2 were similar to those of previous flights. The maximum longitudinal dynamic responses at the Instrument Unit (IU) were +0.20 g and +_0.27g at S-IC Center Engine Cutoff and Outboard Engine Cutoff_OECO), respectively. The magnitudes of the thrust cutoff responses are considered normal. During S-IC stage boost, four to five hertz oscillations were detected beginning at approximately IO0 seconds. The maximum amplitude measured at the IU was +0.06 g. Osc@l}ations in,he four to five hertz range have been observed on previous flights and are considered to be normal vehicle response to flight environment. POGO did not occur during S-IC boost. The S-ll stage center engine LOX feedline accumulator successfully inhibited the 16 hertz POGO oscillations. A peak response of +0.4 g in the 14 to 20 hertz frequency range was measured on engine _o. 5 gimbal pad during steady-state engine operatior. As on previous flights, low amplitude II hertz oscillations were experienced near the end of S-II burn. Peak engine No. l gimbal pad response was +0.06 g. POGO did not occur during S-II boost. The POGO limiting backup cutoff system performed satisfactorily during the prelaunch and flight operations. The system did not produce any _iscrete outputs and should not have since there was no POGO. The structural loads experienced during the S-IVB stage turns were well below design values. During first burn the S-IVB experienced low amplitude, _0.14 g, 16 to 20 hertz oscillations. The amplitudes measured on the gimbal block were comparable to previous flights and within the expected range of values. Similarly, S-IVB second burn produced intermittent lot amplitude oscillations of +O.lO g in the II to 16 hertz frequency range which peaked near second burn cutoff. B.2 8.2.1 TOTAL VEHICLE STRUCTURES EVALUATION Longitudinal Loads

The structural loads experienced during boost were well below design values. The A$-512 vehicle liftoff steady-state acceleration of 1.21 g was slightly higher than predicted (l.lg g), resulting in slightly higher 8-I

.4

I

.m

longitudinal loads but no associated problems. Maximum longitudinal dynamic response measured during thrust buildup and release was +0.21 g in the IU and +0.40 g at the Ccmmand Module (CM), Figure 8-l. C_mparable values have b_n seenonDrev_ious f!ights.

,, ._ : ' 1.1 L} I±!

_

....

....

i I

i i '

i i[ii|
o

lt ii-tlttiiiilltiiii
RANGE TIMI, $£cONns

I-IIiil

III III
3

z

"
o . -I

Li

I i L'__H._ LI
. C)

: {J

,,

' , .......

,tt1!111t11i!i11!i!:11iiii "_ ' "
2 ;

, ] RN*G_ TIME, SECON0S

Figure

8-I.

AS-SI2 Longitudinal Acceleration Thrust Bui.ld_up-and£aunch

at IU and CM During

The F-I engine thrust buildup rates were normal. The ignition sequence was 2-I-I-I with engines 3 and 4 igniting early relative to the center engine. Whi;e the desired I-2-2 start sequence was not achieved, the time deltas between pairs of diametrically opposed engines were within the 30 dispersion used in preflight loads analyses (229 ms). The desired start sequence apparently cannot be expected with high confidence, but the structural loads on the SA-SI3 vehicle have been analyzed using start sequence stagger times both less and significantly larger than experienced on AS-512 with no problems arising. Thus the AS-512 ignition sequence has been established as not detrimental to SA-513. The longitudinal loads experienced at the time of maximum bending moment (Tg seconds) were as _xpected and are shown in Figure 8-2. The steadystate longitudinal acceleration was 2.02 g. Figure 8-2 also shows that the maximum longitudinal loads imposed on the S-IC stage thrust structure, fuel tank, and intertank area occurred at S-IC CECO (13g.3 seconds) at a longitudinal acceleration of 3.79 g. The maximum longitudinal loads imposed on all vehicle structure above the S-IC intertank area occurred at S-IC OECO (!61.2 seconds) at an acceleration of 3.B7 g. Combined compression and tension loads were computed for the maximum bending moment, CECO and OECO conditions, using the loads shown in Figures 8-2 and B-3 and measured ullage pressures. Those loads which produced minimum safe:y margins are plotted versus vehicle station along with the associated capabilities in Figure 8-4. The minimum ratio of capability to load is at Station 1541 for the OECO condition.

8-2

°

Iooo 30 ZO ;0 0

10.

Figure

8-2.

Longitudinal Load Distribution at Time of Maximum Bending Moment, CECO and OECO

8.2.2

Bending Moments

The peak vehicle bending moment occurred during the maximum d_namic pressure phase of boost at 79 seconds, Figure 8-3. The maximum bending moment of 96 x I06 Ibf-in at vehicle station I156 was less than 36 percent of design value. 8.2.3 8.2.3.1 Vehicle Dynamic Characteristics Longitudinal Dynamic Characteristics

During S-IC stage boost, the significant vehicle response was the expected four to five hertz first longitudinal mode response. The low amplitude oscillations began at approximatel_ IO0 seconds and continued until S-IC CECO. The peak amplitude measured in the IU was +0.06 g, the same as seen on AS-SIO and AS-511. The AS-512 IU response during the oscillatory period is compared with previous flight data in Figure 8-5. Spectral analysis of engine chamber pressure measurements shows no detectable buildup of structural/propulsion coupled oscillations. POlO did not occur during S-IC boost. 8-3

YEH|C._ . . _ _ 7C ............. I !_ Iq.z_rY z &S-.512 LO_ Tlq[ l I _0 | Vl_r_[ 50 T -

SlAT;ON,

in . i ZO '0 i 0 -.O1Z

S?ATIOI, 40

= _0

300.

i

T

l

1

ZSO

30

• ;

79.0

raE.r,..' , DE&L i ; •

I . s ,a

t _ -_.v " " s

_%

..010

.e._[ 0r A_Jc. - 4._ _s,
2S _ ZOO [FF'ECTI yt r-INSaL _[ _._

I

"" i_

\_
.a

=¢ m

;

r

;

;

_

\

=

IS

i

! • ,_

i vz_

I STr_CTU,W,..-

i _

• $

J

_"
tO

l

,'_

_

_ _

I

,

o,

.......-T
/_*, - -_ .... _. .... . . _

!\:.\',

0,

Figure

8-3.

Bending Moment and Load Factor Distribution at Time
of Maximum Bending Moment

Engine 2 outboard fuel suction duct l pressure data (D146-l15) showed a high amplitude (8 psi peak) II Hz oscillation throughout most of the S-IC stage burn. The II Hz freouency content was also found in the related fuel suction inlet pressure measurement D4-I02 where it appears as an aliased l Hz frequency of similar amplitude. This 11 Hz oscillation has been observed on previous flights for various time periods and comparable am&litudes. In particular, the fuel inlet3 on Engine 5 on AS-501 (D]4&.Jlb and D]49-ll5) exhibited a ]2.5 HZ, 8 psi peak amplitude oscillation throughout flight. This observed oscillation is a combined pump-propellant feed line pressure oscillation that occurs under certain Net Positive Suction Pressure (NPSP) conditions which were_et for Engine 2 for most of the AS-512 S-]C

burn time.
response

This
occurred

is
at

not a POGO phenomenon. No significant
this frequency.

vehicle

The AS-S12 S-IC CECO and OECO transient responses were equal to or less than those of previous flights. The maximum longitudinal dynamics resulting from CECO were +0.20 g at the IU and +0.50 g at the CM, Figure 8-6. For OECO the--maximum dynamics at t_e IU were +O.Z7 g and +_0.80 g at the CM, Figure 8-7. The minimumCM acceleratio_level of -0.60 g occurred at approximately the same time and is somewhat lower

VF._ICL£AT:OIV. _ 6O
! ,&

_ VE._41CL[ STAT;CN,_n

3600

2200

2_0

Z400

20OO

16G0

;2_0

_0

4OO

0 1500

4SOC

7500. 9OO0 I 0 ,SO0

Figure

8-4.

AS-512

Envelope

of

Combined for

Loads

Producing

Minimum

Safety

Margins

S-IC

Flight

than

on

previous

flights

but

considered accumulator flight data hertz

normal. effectively suppressed show that the 16 hertz to those gimbal seen POGO engine the 16 oscillaon AS-511, was not did

The S-If stage center hertz POGO phenomenon. tions Figure were 8-8. inhibited The peak

engine The with 74 as

amplitudes to 20 compared

comparable cen_er

response

approximately occur.

+_0.4 g,

to +_0.5 g on AS-511.

The usual transient response in pressure was experienced shortly The peak response of approximately on AS-511 had

the

center engine after accumulator

LOX pump inlet fill was initiated.

was approximately 70 hertz, Figure frequency

34 psi peak-to-peak with a frequency 8-9. The LOX pump in]et pressure content, a longer duration, and lower

a higher

amplitude (13 psi peak-to-peak) but AS-512 is similar to AS-SIO (45 psi peak-to-peak at 68 hertz}. Such variationz are not unique and the causes are attributed to the individual pump characteristics. There are no parallel increases in responses among the and the structural accelerations which again strong coupling accelerations. between the transient pressure other engine pressures indicates the lack of response and the structural

0.10 I
q

0.08 ' ,
:

-.('_'_%
"_

! .-AS-5C5

THROUGH S-51I A
It I

.........
0.06

I ......

/
_

E.',vE o.

_0.04 -'.

,,

0.02

100

10S

110

i 115

_ 120

.

i 125

, 130

l 13S

RANGETIME. SECONDS

Figure 8-5.

IU Vibration

During

S-IC Burn {Longitudinal)

As on prior flights, very low II hertz oscillations were noted near the end of S-If burn. The AS-512 peak engine No. l gimbal pad response was +0.06 g as compared to ±0.07 g on AS-511. During S-If burn, between 184 and 207 seconds range time, the vibration level on the S-IVB gimbal block was discernible above the noise floor, Figure 8-I0. The maximum acceleration of the gimbal block in this interval was about +0.06 g. The signature of this signal appears to be wide band random. No signature similar to the $-IVB gimbal block oscillation was apparent on the various S-If dynamic parameters, i.e., the structural vibrations, the LOX pump inlet pressure fl,_ctuations and the combustion chamber pressure fluctuation. Figure 8-11 compares the spectrum of the S-IVB gimbal block signal with the spectrum of the S-If center engine thrust pad. The spectrum associated with the center engine indicates a very low level response concentrated in the 20 hertz region. The S-IVB gimbal block has the character of a random response across the frequency spectrum. This demonstrates that the S-IV8 phenomena is

6L

!
-= 2

8

i6--w--T

,
__ [
--

I

P

J

e"

0 138

139

140

141

I._2

;:"

Figure

8-6.

AS-512 Longitudinal Acceleration During Center Engine Cutoff

at IU and CM

not the result of a forced response due to an excitation emanating from the S-II. The S-IVB gimbal block vibration spectrum shows an order of magnitude increase when the noise occurs whereas the S-IVB LOX pump inlet pressure shows little change, Figure 8-12. The higher levels at frequencies from 5 to 20 hertz on the gimbal block do not occur in the LOX pump inlet pressure. Therefore it is concluded that the disturbance is not valid vibration data. Also, the amplitude during this disturbance, if valid, would produce insignificant dynamic loads on the stage. During AS-512 S-IVB first burn, low frequency (16 to 20 hertz) longitudinal oscillations very similar to those observed on AS-511 were evident. The AS-SI2 amplitudes (_0.14 g at gimbal block) were well below the maximum measured on AS-505 (+_0.30g) and within the expected range of values. AS-512 S-IVB second burn produced intermittent II to 16 tions similar to those experienced on previous flights. began approximately 135 seconds prior to cutoff and had of_+0.10 g measured Gn the gimbal block. This compared AS-510 and +0.08 g on AS-511. hertz oscillaThe oscillations a maximum value to _+0.05g on

, |

b,d

r

;3MM_NOwor, UL_
cD

g
_d_

i

i

Z 0 -2 161

\^

!
i

!
I

!
i • i .

16Z

163,

164

16_

:_6

_a_ T_e. seconos Figure 8-7. 8.2.4 AS-S1Z Longitudinal Acceleration Outboard Engine Cutoff at IU and CM During

Vibration

There were no significant vibration environments identified on AS-512. A comparison of AS-512 data with data from previous flights show similar trends and magnitudes. The "buzz" reported by the astronauts on AS-511 flight is again apparent on AS-512 at approximately 63 hertz in the pump inlet pressure measurement as it has been on previous flights. The vibrations can also be seen on selected propulsion pressure measurements (Figure 8-13). The AS-512 data show amplitudes similar to AS-511 (less than !.0 psi rms). A review of AS-510 data showed similar vibration at approximately 72 hertz. The vibration is related to normal stage propulsion system operation and probably characteristic of the J-2 turbomachinery. These vibrations pose no POGO or any other structural concerns, and are of very low amplitude. 8.3 S-ll POGO LIMITING BACKUP CUTOFF SYSTEM

The backup cutoff system provides for automatic S-ll CECO if vibration response levels exceed predetermined levels within the preselected frequency band. The system consists of three sensors, a two-out-of-three voting logic, an engine cutoff arming function, and an automatic disable function which is effective until the arming operation has occurred. The system did not produce discrete outputs at any time. The accelerometer analo9 outputs were well below the levels which would produce a

discrete output ev(n during the engine start period when t_.e system was not armed. After jrmin9, the analog output d_d net exceecl one g.

E0363-206

!

i
I

I
_g .J

i

l
25 D0013-205 AS-511
u_

i I

2:3

I
-z_ I 7
I _0 200 ZSO 300 350 R/_'IGE TIt_, SECOeiDS 400

! w
!

T'
45O 50O 55O

D0363-:06 ASo51Z

I

i

"

-

BII

...........

"

_

-

-

_

m

I

-5 ZS_ 00013-20S AS-51Z
eo o.

uuJ
--p -] .......

-25 550 TIME, SEC;OIIDS

Fioure 8-8. Acceleration

AS-SI2 Center Engine Chamber Pressure and Gimbal Pad During S-If Burn (8 to 20 Hz Filter) Compared to AS-511

"TJ_cUNULATO¢

Ir[LL

START OZ67-ZO'_

IJifiil,i!!II!iU: !1! li!_, I11 !1 HI_i!!!j! ! ...... 11,1 IlittU_IlU I!IiH_ '
r_'iil, ll,_il Filtitt_tljti'tliln_" il,_tvtlifi;tlP, iiidtttlitt'liilt JFiili!ttt, h

w,a

"K

g

"Ox SL_P,1C_.EL_.RATION

,i¢

£.NGIN[

(G}

THRUST

PAO

ACCEL£RATIO_I

0.00 -3.25

--_ _7

= IE_

--- --

' ............ 169 170 RA,%E TI_E,SECONDS 171

Figure 8-9.

AS-512

Dynamic _esponses During S-II Accumulator (l-JIG Hz Filter)

Flit

Figure 8-]0.

AS-SIZ S-IVB Global B1oc_ Acceleration Longitudinal (8 to 20 Hz Filter)

During S-II Burn -

(ZH/zg)

_IIS_Q

"_V'dl_3dS _Od

S-If I0 "i
b-"' !

LOX PUMP INLET PRESSURE
I

S-[¥B-LOX PUMP INLET PRESSUPE lO-I _.
=,=.

AT 176 SECS 10
-Z

I
I

L,,J

..=a

I
lO-:3
rig N

10-Z

AT sEc*s J 1"91" l ]

4t

I

..,
U

10-3=

LJ eL

_--.
31" ela.

1C,'4
i

I
I
I

_.
Iv'_l

10.4

10-5

&

i

10.6 O 20 40 60 80 FREQUENCY,HERTZ

10-6 100 0 20 40 60 80 leo FREQUENCY.HERTZ LXIR ,_G NOISE l GIHBAL BLOCKVIBRATION - LONGITUDINAL 10-4 ..... ,..,:"u_ I0.5" .J_

BEFORENOISE GIMBAL BLOCKVIBRATION LONGITUDINAL 10-4
Z W

i0-5_

A

I-.. I.I, Qkl

lO-6_ _.g
N

__

:-

,/
II I

I0 "7

:

:

'II
i0-8. 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 FREQUENCY.HERTZ
!

10.8

60 8O FREOUENCY.qERTZ

:00

Figure

8-12.

Noise on S-IVB Gimbal

Block During

_-II Burn

&
f .I-

1,1. 0 0 0 0

.--

o _U_sd

c:_ "30III'W_

_-13/8-14

SECTION 9 GUIDANCE AND NAVIGATION ..........

g.1

SUMMARY

The Stabilized Platform and the Guidance Computers-uCcessfully supported the accomplishment of all guidance and navigation mission objectives with no discrepancies in performance of the hardware. Theend conditions at Parking Orbit Insertion and Translunar Injection were attained with insignificant navigation error. Two anomalies related to the flight program did Occur. At apprOximcitely 5421 seconds range time (T5 +4718.8) minor loop error telemetry indicated an unreasonable change in the yaw gimbal angle during one minor loop. At the re-initialization of boost navigation for S-IVB second burn the extra accelerometer readings normally telemetered from Guidance Reference Release (GRR) to liftoff plus I0 seconds were restarted anGcontITnQed .... throughout second burn boost navigation. Neither of these anomalies significantly impacted navigation, guidance and control. A detailed discussion is included in Section 9.3.3 and 9.3.4. A minor discrepancy occurred during S-II burn, when the yaw gimbal angle failed the zero reasonableness test twice, resulting in minor loop error telemetry at 478.3 seconds (T3 +317.2) and 559.4 seconds (T3 +398.2). Detailed discussion of this occurrence is included in Section 9.3.2. 9.2 GUIDANCE COMPARISONS

The postflight guidance error analysis was based on comparisons of telemetered position and velocity data with corresponding values from the final postflight trajectory (21 day observed mass point trajectory) as established from telemetry and external tracking (see paragraph 4.2). Comparisons of the inertial platform measured velocities (PACSS 12) with correspondina postflight trajectory values from launch to earth parking orbit (EPO) are shown in Figure 9-I. At EPO insertion these diff)rences were 0.47 m/s (I.54 ft/s), 3.07 m/s (10.07 ft/s), and 0.18 m/s (0.59 ft/s) for vertical, crossrange and downrange velocities, respectively. The inplane differences are very small. The crossrange velocity difference is somewhat larger than expected from laboratory measured hardware errors. However, this difference includes trajectory errors as well as platform measurement errors and is well within the combined accuracies. There was no indication of either inplane or crossrange velocity error caused by an accelerometer hitting its mechanical stop during thrust buildup on AS-512. Platform velocity differences for the translunar injection burn are shown

g-1

S-/C 0(C0 _;PS-H 0(C0 _' S-IV@FIRSTEC0

1
t-_dN la.

5 _-"

-2
4 _-

....

p_

_0

Io
fl

_,M,W

0

----"

_m
-2 -S

z_ lOO 20o 3@0 400 soo 6o0 70O

IL4JIGE T%R(o SECO_OS

Ftgure 9-1.

Trajectory ar+J ST-124t4 Platfom Veloctty Comparisons. Boost-to-EPO (Trajec _ry
Htnus LVDC)

g-2

in Figure 9-2. At Time Base 6 iT6) minus 7.21 seconds, the platform velocity measurements were properly set to zero in the LVDC and the corresponding trajectory data were adjusted accordingly for comparison with the LVDC outputs. The differences shown in Figure 9-2 reflect adjustments made to the telemetered platform velocities du_ing-con-.... struction of the trajectory initlalized to a parkino orbit state vector and constrained to a state vector near TLi which was determined from post TLI tracking. The inplane (vertical and downrange) velocity difference profiles are not characteristic of hardwareerrors, However ........... the deviations are small and reflect an inconsistency between the initial and terminal trajectory state vectors. The crossrange ve|ocity difference is greater than expected but well within the accuracy of the trajectory and 3 sigma hardware errors and the error profile is characteristic of platform misalignment due to drift over the long coast before second burn. Telemetered platform system velocity measurements at sisnificant event times are shown in Table 9-I along with corresponding data from both the postflight and Operational (predicted) Trajectories (OT). The differences between the telemetered and postflight trajectory data reflect............. some combination of small guidance hardware errors and tracking errors. The differences between the LVDC and OT values reflect differences between actual and nominal performance and environmental conditions. The values shown for the second burn are velocity changes from T6. The characteristic velocity accumulated during Second burn was 0.44 m/s (l.44 ft/s) greater than the OT which indicates slightly more stage performance was required to meet the targeted end conditions. The telemetered data indicated 0.32 m/s (I.05 ft/s) less than the )ostflight trajectory. The difference in indicated performance between the telemetered and postflight trajectory data reflects small errors in the state vectors to which the guidance velocities were constrained to generate the boost-to-TLl trajectory. The velocity increase due to thrust decay was O.Ol m/s (0.033 ft/s) less than the OT after first ECO and 0.05 m/s (0.16 ft/s) greater than the OT after second ECO, indicating very good prediction in both cases. Comparisons of navigation (PACSS 13) positions, velocities and flight path angle at significant event times are presented in Table 9-2. Differences between the LVDC and _ values reflect off-nominal flight environment and vehicle performance. At first S-IVB ECO total ve:'-ity was 0.20 m/s (0.66 ft/s) less than the or and the radius vector was 30.8 m (101.0 ft) greater than the OT. At S-IVB second ECO orbital energy (C3) was 1849 m2/s2 greater than the OT value of -I,769,443 m2/s2. The LVDC and postflioht trajectory were in excellent agreement, except for crossrange, for the boost-to-EPO portion of flight. The crossrange component differences are within the accuracy of the data compared. The state vector differences during parking orblt were very small as compared to prior Saturn V flights. These small differences during parking orbit indicate that the vent thrust was effectively the same as programmed in the LVDC. The postflight trajectory and LVDC state vectors at TLI were in relatively good agreement. The difference in C3

I

9-3

'_

I_£ IGNITION

_'

TL!

_";

o

0

_
,e£ s,_ _16dJ I.... t.6. QCI6.

-2

1

"

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

3S

,30

,zs B.. _ ...........
'20

q,.J_

,10

,S

C

° K.,
11.300 11.400 11 500 'lillE, , I 03:10:00 RNIGI[ TII_, 11 600 SECON05 I 03:15:00 HOL_S:NIIWTI_:S(COIIDS 11,700 11 JO0 j 11.900 S

Figure

9-2.

Trajectory and ST-124M Platfom Veloctty Boost-to-TLI (Trajectory Minus LVDC)

Comparisons,

n

8

_

--I

4

Table g-l.

Inertial Platform Velocity Comparisons (PACSS-12 Coordinate System)

VELOCITY - M/5 (FTIS) EVENT 0ATA SOURCE VERTICAL CROSSRANGE -11.80 1-_!.71 ) -11.07 (-36.32) -3.37

(i)
Guidance S-IC O(CO {LVOC) Z 631.75 (8 634.35) 2 631.68 (8 534.12) 2 537.75 (8 554.03)
i

Postf119ht

Trajectory

O_ratlonal

Trajectory

(-11 .os)
4.50 (14.76) 7.07 (23.20) 1.87 (6.14) -1.57 (-S.15) 1.45 (4.76) -1.18 (22 349.74) 6 810.92 (22 345.54) 6 787.06 (22 267.25) • 7 603.88 (24 947.11) • 7 603.99 (24 947.49) 7 606.72 (24 956.44) 7 605.55 (24 952.59) 7 605.73 (24 953.18)
..r-

Gu|dance iLVDC) $-II OECO

3 408.84 (11 183.845) 3 409.52 (11 186.09) 3 425.35 238.04)

Postfltght

Tr|Jectory

Opera_lona!

Tra_ector_ (11

Guidance (LYOC_ S-IVB FIRST ECO

3 212.45 (10 539.53) 3 212.95 (10 541.18) 3 226.31 (10 584.99) 3 211.95 (10 537.89) 3 212.42 (10 S39.44) 3 225.76 (10 _.19)

Postflfght

Trajectory

Olwratonal

Trajectory

(-3.ea)
-1.65 (-S.41) 1.42 (4.6_) -1.1S (-3.9t) -22.40 (-73.49)

Guidance (LYDC)
PAPJ_ING _IT IN_EIIION PostFi 19_t Trajectory

Operational

Trajectory

_t dance(LVOC)
$-I_ _¢OND ECO* Postfl tgmt Trajectory TriIJector),
, i |

1 499.70 (4 920.2e) 1 800.07 (4 921.411) I 494.47 (4 903.13) 1 SOI.O0 (4 924.541

-2 766.91 (-9 077.79) -2 769.00

-11.97 (-39.27) -22.71 (-74.51) -22.40 (-73.40) -11.87 (-_.94)

9peratto_41

(-9 oe4.r_)
in

Gutd,nce (LYOC)
Post_ Itl_t Trav_'tory

-2 770.20 (-9 om.sa)

Operatt_l

Tfldectorj,

-2 772.47

(-s ou.o4)
_ilm _ veloctl_ ch..a_ f_m T1mo _ S.

! 49S. 7S (4 _07.33)

4

0

E
0

O °@.,

I,'-"

!

at TLI was -1887 m2/s Z (trajectory minus LVDC). Figure 9-3 presents the state vector comparisons during EPO. The LVDC data not received because of non-continuous station coverage were simulated by initializing to a .......... telemetered state vector and integrating a trajectory using flight program navigation equations and programmed vent accelerations. At T6, the differences in total position and velocity were 872 meters in radius and I m/s in velocity and are not significant. The AS-S12 vehicle was guided to the targeted end conditions with a high degree of accuracy. Vent thrust was effectively nominal during EPO. Figure g-4 presents the continuous vent thrust reconstruction along with OT predictions and three-sigma envelope. The upper portion of Figure 9-4 shows the orbital acceleration derived from the platform measurements adjusted for accelerometer bias. The LVDC programmed acceleration ................. is also shown. The oscillations in acceleration from orbital navigation (804.2 seconds) to about 2500 seconds may not be real. During this period only compressed data were available for a curve fit of the telemetered velocity outputs. However, the area under the curve w_ich represents the accumulated velocity over this time span is essentially nominal. The LVDC state :ector at TLI was compared with the OT and postflight trajectories and the differences are presented in Table 9-3. The LVDC radius vector was 5093.1 meters (16,709.6 ft) higher than the OT and 686.7 meters (2253.0 ft) lower than the postflight trajectory value. Telemetered total velocity was 4.24 m/s (13.gl ft/s) less than the OT and 0.83 m/s (2.72 ft/s) higher than the postflight trajectory. The guidance system was highly successful in measuring the vehicle performance and generating proper cemmnds to guide the vehicle to desired conditions as shown in Table 9-4. 9.3 NAVIGATION AND GUIDANCE SCHEME EVALUATION

The LVDC flight program performed all reouired functions properly. Two anomalies are reported in paragraphs 9.3.3 and 9.3.4. Neither significantly affected flight program perfor_nce. 9.3.1 Variable Launch Azimuth

Due to the unscheduled hold in the countdown at approximately T-30 seconds, the variable launch azimuth function of the flight program was required to perform over a time variation greater than for any previous Saturn V vehicle. The two hour 40 minute launch delay res_Ited in a change of the flight azimuth from 72.141 degrees to gl.S04 degrees East of North. The performance of flight program In achieving the targeted parameters was satisfactory. 9.3.2 First Boost Period

All first stage maneuvers were performed within predicted tolerances and Iterative Guidance Mode (IGM) performance for first boost was nominal. The steering commands tel_etered during first boost are illustrated in Figure 9-5. Table 9-4 shows the terminal end conditions for first

oH--F'i i _ .. l i ! !\ _ -' _-_ x _ i -,.,L__u :, .. _ l l..i- .;'_.-_/_i----.
I /
_._

i
! .

1 l

.__.. _
_

-I ...... ,;

_,,,L,,..(.l dlirlll_(£ *,

, ,_,tl0_. _ Vll.OCl'lt. * I

,. _I/S I

"" l / 1 " !

I I qliA_.l --oJFIj:I[_'.[ .... 0llFllllIC[

k l pOsiTIon, Z vILOCITI, ! jaq 915 I I -+

--"

/

_o
N

l

g

0

°1

I1_

t_l_.

I:gllmPTS:

_III

Figure

9-3.

Comparison

of LVDC and Postflight

Trajectory

Durin 9 EPO

%
............ . | o

.... .__ .001;

CVS ACCELERATION RECOIlSTIIUCTION L¥OC _IOGK4/_D --

'°i
.

+-'..

I

L

....

._ • .* r °...|.

'I0

_

'._1
%1 _I

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

cvs_.USTe[cmsv,_'vsm
¢VSIlmlll_. (01") PItEDICT(O lWtlI_ NIIIMUM UIVELOI_ _ 240

I000

ZOO0

3000

4000

SO00 TIFE.

6000 SEC._

7000

I1000

gO00

Figure

9-4.

Continuous Vent During EPO

System

(CVS)

Thrust

and Acceleration

r

40

....

OPE ]OUAL TPAJECTORY RAT TELEUETRV

i _s-_c o_co
VS-II 0EC0 I _y.zc, START P _."_ El_4 NAL GLII ANCE T | D WS- I'AB ECO

I

1

i
-4C
N

\
-8(

I 1

E
N a,.

-10(

I

p,. N

L

i
_2xt'

!

,IE

t

?
0 100 290 300 IWIGE TIN[, 400 _COIII_ 500 6OO

v'7
7OO

Figure 9-5.

Steering Commanas, First Boost

Table g-3.

State Vector Differences at Translunar Injection

PARAMETER

OPERAT ONAL I TRAJECTORY MINUS LVDC

POSTFLIGHT TRAJECTORY MINUS LVDC

LXs, meters (feet) _Ys' meters (feet) _Zs' meters (feet)

35 370.6 (11" 045.3)

4 261.I (13 980.0) 3 868.6 (12 692.3)

-13 706.7 (-44 969.5) -5 093.1 (-16 709.6) 7.13 (23.39) -0.15

-330.6 (-1 084.6) 687.7 (2 253.0) 2.30 (7.55)
,t

_R, meters (feet) AiS, m/s (ftls)

is; m/s
(ft/s)

(-0.49)
30.74 (100.85) 4.24 (13.91)

11.19 (36.71) 3.76 (12.34) -0.83 (-2.72)

is.
AV, m/s (ft/s)

burn. Terminal conditions were obtained by linear forward extrapolation using the velocity bias AV b = 1.514 meters/second to establish the extrapolation interval beyend velocity cutoff. Minor loup error telemetry indicated an unreasonable zero reading of the yaw (Z) gimbal at 478.4 seconds iT3 +317.2) and again at 559.4 seconds iT3 +398.2). The test for an unreasonable zero reading was designed to detect a failure of the gimbal resolver power source. If two successive readings of the gimbal are found to be zero while the past attitude error magnitude exceeds the test constant (0.06 degrees) the zero reasonableness test is failed and minor loop error telemetry is generated. If the fine resolver fails the zero test three times in 0.8 seconds during boost, a failure of the fine resolver is assumed and the corresponding backup resolver is selected for attitude information for the remainder of the mission. Since gimbal and ladder data at the times of the error telemetry indicate zero yaw with yaw ladders (indicative of yaw attitude error) greater than the test constant, the flight

Table FIRST BURN

9-4.

AS-SI2

End

Conditions

PARA/qETER Temlmi] (m/s) ead_us, _ Velocity, YT

ACHIEVED 7803.8796

I_ROR (NIHIEVLrD-01[SIR[D) -O. 1817

(meters) 03" 0.0

S,5,_,838.51 -Q.000741

-7.49 -0.000741

PitJ_ Angle, (degrees) £ncTinatlon, (deg_es)

I

ZS. 5Z385G

;]. 524Z01

0.000346

Descending _ade. (degrees)

_7.019862

87.018449

-0.001413

SECON0 BURN

PAP.A_rTER Eccen_tcity, Im:11n,*clon, (degv'ees) E I

:ES IRE.D Q. 97220895 28.4244SS

'IEVEO
|

ERROR (J_.._| EYl_)- OES Ill[l)) -0.00001002 0.000500

O.97219893 Z8.424998

Descendt ng No¢le, (degrees) Argument of Perigee, -D (degrees) Energy, C3 (aZ/sec2)

86.143262

86.142845

-0.00_17

24.936942

24.925433

-0.011S09

-1,683,990.0

-1,684,5GZ.

3;_3

-ST:L3_3

program apparently responded correctly. 0nly one unreasonable zero reading was found in each case and no change to backup readings was initiated. Although the improper selection of a backup resolver _uld not significantly degrade system accuracy, the current test zero method test _r is the magbeing studied nitude of the 9.3.3 Parking commanded 0rbital (T6 -7.2). for possible test constant Parking changes to either the for future missions.

Earth orbit

Orbit proceeded for as major the expected. events. required occurred tolerances at I0,971.4 for parking orbit. Table 9-5 presents the

guidance

steering navigation of

angles was

within

Termination

orbital

navigation

seconds

o

Table
FLZGWT P[mIO0 [arm Pin'tlq Orbt t

9-5.

Coast

Phase

Guidance

Steering

Commands at

Major

Events

C_eWuO(OST_Z_IaGL_.=iSa([S (Vt_T Iettt4te Orbital Cht Fp_ezt _w.t_4mce TI_. S£CCI_S TS *4.0 qOL_ (X) .I0_.8471 O.O_OG

|nit/4_ Iqm_e_etLocal _rt zoe_] Zntt_lte Or-)t LII

TS *Z1.S38 T5 *)01.378

-117._]

.-0.12_5
..

..

Post TLI

lnlL'taM, Or_t_l _1 Fnmze In1 ttatR _v_ttm OrID4 1 tJ

Get4_.,_

1"7 *o.0

-lsg.fim

T7 -152.003 1"7*152.Q33

..

..

In1 ttats _ Local Horizontal Intttate TOU _kmevver Camle_

O.O00G

-17_.Z931

-0.2341

1'7 _JG1.032 T7 ,_194.4 11 _41.014 ?80.0000 -94..F_43
°.

R_euw_. In4.ttalw! L_r Local _fereecm

_r

18 64_

Minor loop error telemetry issued at approximate,y 5421 secor_s (T5 +4715.8) indicated an unreasonable change in successive readings of the yaw 9im bal angle. The test for a reasonable cnaf,ge is made by comparing the differenc_ in past and current gimbal readings with a preset test constant. If the change between past and current gimbal readings exceeds the respective test constant for pitch, yaw, or ro11 the change is considered unreasonable. The magnitude of the yaw test constant at the time of the failure was 0.2 degree/minor loop. If a fine resolver fails the reasonableness test three times in one second during orbit the corresponding backup (coarse) resolver reading is selected for attitude information for the remainder of the mission. Since only one unreasonable chan_e was found, the backup yaw gtmbal was not selected. Evaluation of the gimbal angle data from the time of the error telemetry indicated that the yaw (Z) backup gimbal reading was erroneously compared with a fine resolver reading instead of the proper comparison of two successive fine resolver readings. Further investigation revealed the initiation of the once per 100 second data compression module at the time of the minor loop interrupt. The occurrence of the minor loop interrupt during a particular six instructien interval at the start of

,m i

.

i

the data compression resulted in the replacement of the fine yaw gimbal reading by the backup yaw gimbal. Since the backup reading was rejected as unreasonable, the next fine gimbal reading was properly compared with the last reasonable fine gimbal reading and all _ubsequent reasonableness tests were passed. The possibility of a similar occurrence on subseouent missions has been eliminated by starting a read of the currently selected Z gimbal ,_solver (fine or backup) at the end of data compression. 9.3.4 Second Boost Period

The December 6 target objectives resulted in nearly constant-time-ofarrival trajectories across th_ launch window. Therefore the targeting parameters calculated in preparation for second burn defined a higher energy transfer orbit which CO_l_ensated for the 2 hour 40 minute launch delay and enabled ccrn.pletion of the lunar landing and exploration on the originally planned timeline. Sequencing of restart preparations occurred as scheduled. T6 was initiated at 10,978.6 seconds. Extra acceler_eter telemetry was noted throughout the second boost navigation periods. This is discussed in the following oaragraphs. Upon reinitiation of boost navigation at lO,g71.4 seconds the extra accelerometer readings, that should have been telemetered only from GRR to T ÷1_, were reinitiated and continued throughout second boost navigation. This resulted from the extra accelerometer read module being queued in vith the periodic processor at GRR and again at second boost initialize. The readings were not stopped as in first boost, because there was no counterpart to the T ÷lO second cue during second boost. In previous flight program.s the extra acceler_neter readings were aueued in separately after GRR and were not queued in again at second boost. A class II change effective with AS-512 reduced the priority of these accelercmeter readings and placed their start time at GRR. Tne only effect of this problem was a slight lengthening of the coml)utation cycle during second boost but this was accounted for by the flight program without adverse results. Since no further missions with a S-IVB second burn are planned no program changes are recommended but docLmentation of the occurrence has been accomplished for future reference. I(_q for the S-IVB second burn was iIpl_nted at 11,562.7 second_ (T6 +584.1). Pitch, yaw and roll attitude angles for second burr are shc_m in Figure 9-6. _able 9-4 shews the terminal end conditions for the S-IVB s_cond burn. :es|red values a-e the telemetered target values and actual teminal values were obtained by linear forward extrapolation using a velocity bias of ZYbra " 3.660 meters/second.

L

g-14

E

°!
-...
f_

0 U

°

• o

. o

o

g
e,-

i
0 e-

uD ! °° L

==
LI.

'1
! ! !

/ /
A
a

im

o

o
g 0 D

0

} ]

Sa} "_9_t 3_1I'.I'Y H]lld

r_p "]w.wv 30nlIlI;

_

'I

q-1._

9.3.5

Post-TLI

Period the com-

Post TLI guidance proceeded as expected. Table g-5 presents manded steering angles for some major events.

Two lunar impact APS burns were commanded from Mission Control CenterHouston (MCC-H} at 21,735 seconds (6:02:15) and 39,754 (II:02:34), respectively. The first burn of 98 seconds duration was started at the cor_nanded time of 22,200 seconds (6:10:00). The second burn was cou_nded to start at 40,500 seconds (I:15:00} with a duration of 102 seconds. Both burns were properly i_lemented by the flight program with the desired attitude changes occurring upon acceptance of the Digital Command System (DCS) commands, ignition times and burn durations occurring as commanded. The three-axis tumble was started by a zero burn set of lunar impact commands beginning at 41,502 seconds. Changes of +31 degrees to pitch, yaw and roll were commanded establishing tulle rates, followed by Flight Control Computer power off "A" and "B" commands at 41,519 seconds and 41,530 seconds, respectively. (Power off "A" and "B" switch selectors were issued at 41,521 and 41,53Z seconds, respectively.) The telemetry subcarrier osci_latorwas commanded off by the flight program at49,620 seconds after which no further telemetry data was available. NAVIGATION AND GUIDANCE SYSTEM COI_NENTS

The navigation and guidance hardware satisfactorily supported the accomplishment of mission ob|ectives. No anomalies were observed during the AS-512 flight. 9.4.1 ST-124M Stabilized Platform System

The three gyTo servo loops responded properly to all vehicle perturbations. Maximum deflection during the liftoff period was 0.3 degree on the Z gyro pickoff. As on previous vehicles the S Hz oscillation (0.2° peakto-peak) occurred from S-IC CECO to S-IC OECO. The largest disturbance occurred at Spacecraft/IU separation when the X ¢Lyro pickoff deflected 0.8 degree, well within limits for proper control. The three accelerometer servo loops operated within previously experienced limits. Peak deflections of the accelerometer gyro pickoffs occurred during the heavy vehicle vibration period at liftoff. Maxi* mum excursions were as follows:

9-16

k •

°

X Positive Negative 9.4.2 2.5 deg. 2.1 deg.

y 5.0 deg. 4.5 deg.

Z 3.0 deg. 2.9 deg.

Guidance Cez_uter

The LVOC and LVOA performed satisfactorily, and no hardware anemaltes were observed during any phase of the A5-512 mission.

I

t
( Q_ITYa-la

SECTION 10 CONTROL AND SEPARATION

10.1

SLIqMARY

All control functions and separation events occurred as planned. Er_jtae gimbal deflections were emmtnal and Auxiliary ProDuls|on System (FPS) firings predictable throughout povered fltght. All dynamtcs vere vithtn vehicle capability, and bend|rig and slosh modes were adequately stabilized. The _ provided satisfactory orientation and stabilization durfng parking orbit and irro" Translunar [nJectton (TLI) throu<jh the S-[VS/IU passive thermal control maneuver. APS propellant consueption for attitude control and propellant settling prior to the APS burn for lunar target impact was louer than the mean predicted requtrments. Al1 AS-512 separation sequences were performed as planned _ith no anomalies. Transients due to spacecraft separation, clocking, and Lunar Module election appeared to be nominal. 10.2 10.2.1 S-IC CONTROL SYSTEMEVN.UATION Ltftoff

The llftoff rover clearance aane_ve: occurred as planned. Table 10-1 s_marizes liftoff conditions and urisaltgrments. 10.2.2 [nflIght Dynamics

The AS-SI2 control systeu perfomed satisfactorily during S-IC boost. Jtmphere measurements indicate th4t the peak vtnd speed encountered vas 45.1 aeterslsecond at 12.2 ktlcmete_ altttude vtth an azimuth of 311 degrees. The peak wind speed calculated from the O-bill data vas 40.5 aeters/second at 12.2 k|lameters vrlth an aztauth of 313.1 degrees. The yav rind r._apenent In beth cases was 28.6 meters/second, whlc_ is near the 99 Percentile yaw vinci coqxxwnt for December (29.7 meters/ second for a gO degree launch azimuth). The pitch component vas near SO percentile. The control system adequately stabilized the vehicle In thts vtnd. About 12_. of the available yaw plane engine deflection vas used in the region of the pe4k vlnd speed, and less th4n 105 was used in pitch (based on the average engine glabal angles In pttch and yaw).
a

¢
ln_1 J_

_ / -f-"

j_o---

Table

10-I.

A5-512

Misalignment PI_OICT(O

and Liftoff _ RANG( ROLL

Conditions

Summary

LAUNCH PITCH YAid ROLL

P_RA_TER

PITCH

YAW

Ths,'_,_ @(tsal _. ignment. de_ Center de1 (ngine Cant,

:0.31

"0.31

:0.37

-0.13

0.11

-0.04

"0.31

"0.31

-

O.OZ

O. 30

Vehtcle SUck|ng and Pad Htsal tgnment, de9 Attitude (rror at Holddown Am Release. de9

;0.27

*0.27

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

-0.12

0.1Z

-0.O6

Peak Soft Release Force Per Rod, ll(lbf) tdtnd

415.900

(93.500)
k

19.55 H/3 (38 KnotS) at 161.5 Meters (530 Feet) to Weight 1.189

5.4 M/5 (10.5 Knots) at 161.S Meters ($30 Feet) at 3:)50
Q

Thrust
i

eO,lm_Jnot avat lable. Ttme histories of pitch and yaw control parameters are sl_m in Figures 10-1 through 10-3, vtth peaks s_martzed in Table 10-2. Dynamics tn the region between 0 and 40 seconds resulted _rtmartly fr_ guidance commands. Bebeeen 40 and 110 seconds veh|c!e dynamics mere caused by the pitch guidance program and the wind. Dynamics fro.. 110 seconds to S-IC ou*.J:x_rd engine cutoff were caused by separated atrflow aerodynamics, tnboard engtne shutdovn, ttlt arrest, and htgh altitude vtnds. The attitude errors between 11ftoff and 29 seconds Indicate that the equivalent thrust vector mlsa11_ts present belror_ the outboard encjine_ canted vere -0.13, 0.II, and -0.04 degrees in pitch, yaw, and roll, respectively. After outboard engine cant the mtsilt_ments became 0.04, 0.06, and 0.01 degrees. The attitude error transients at center engine cutoff indicate that the center engtne mrisaltgrmentS were 0.02 and 0.130 deqrees In pitch and yaw.

i
o

,)

BEGIN YAWMANEUVER END YAW,qANEUVER BEGIN PITCH/ROLL _;q':EUVER E,"IDROLL .v;:_EUVER _VOUTBOARD ENGINE CANT

'_ MACH Z
_ --1.5
L_

_MAX q Ist GAIN SWITCH '_Znd GAIN SWITCH CENTERENGINE CUTOFF TILT ARREST OUTBOARD ENGINE CUTOFF x_ STAGING

MEASURED SIMULATED i

Ip-- a--I

0.8

_'_Z

I

I

HEASURED OATA. INACCURATEIN THIS REGION

rv

J

'_

_ _ o " _ -f ,.

f . ._ _..........

_£___j _,_,-:_,

1_ 0

i ZO 40 60

I

I 80 100 TIRE. SECOII_ 120

I 140 160

Ffgure

10-1.

Pitch

Plane

Dynamics

During

S-IC

Burn

_ fl_

"_

_'

3£S::; YAw ,_A'IEUVE_ E'iO YAa _A'_Eu'K._ [3£_lrt P_TCH/P3LL ','-'*_EUVER

_' r'jbq_OARO E_'IG_,iE CANI

1st _1,_ SUZTCd _Znd GAiN Si_[TCH "_CE'iTER EHG[q[ CUTOFF T|LT _RP.E ST OUTBOARDENG|,_E CUTOFF _7 STAGi:IG

....

S[,_ULATEn

o
IX ocw li,,I _")

0.8

#\ "!
v

i

i

yit.
1 I

!

i

Ira,- :_

B

Om 231 ¢b. ,_'

-0.8

_....

t

:! 111

I
-0.8

I1¢ _

Ill

_=_:

i I, LI! Ill -o., lU
0.4 -0.8

/\
II w _il v

_k
A

I
I 'tF

%1

If

I ,_,
1lO 140

4t7,
160

0

2O

4O RAIIGE TIPE.

101) SECONOS

Figure

10-2.

Yau Plane _ic_

_ring

S-IC Burn

1tt..JL

BEGIN YAM MANEUVER _;T END YAg HANEUVER BEGIN PITCH/ROLL MANEUVER _0 ROLL MANEUVER _rOUTBOARD ENGINE CART

_'HAX

q

lst GAIN SMITCH 2nd GAIN SWITCH CENTER ENGINE CUTOFF T TILT ARREST OUTBOARD ENGINE CUTOFF STAGING

_Ca I
_CALCULATED .... SIMULATED FROM Q-BALL

i _
o

i
" l

I

,. /_/__..

i 1
I

w_

0 ¸

-2v

[ -4

I

4
A

J

0

0

-2

6"

U I-t-4'

J

00"0 I-..J

\
0 20 40 60 80 100 SECONDS 120 140 PJqNG_TIRE.

?
160
..u

Figure

10-3.

P_tch and Yaw Plane Free Stream Angle of Attack During S-IC Burn

"D

Table

10-2.

Maximum

Control

Parameters
yJw ?t_(

During

S-IC Burn
_LL PL_£

•",,"_LITUII (S(C)

R_r_E TL'qE

{s_c)
ol.26 O. 71 3.3 5.0 3.Z 1.OZ -1.18

(SEC}

,tttttude _guIar Average deg

Er_r °, ¢u'_. Etma!

dl_Q

0.84

119.4

14._ 74.7

_t,_l/s Angle. 0,38 75.0

-0._

_k_g|e of At_dICk. _J _gle of St_ack_n4ml ¢ P_essvrt P,-o_.ct. dep_/¢,_ { d_-1 bf/f¢" )

2.23

59.6

4,_S

7a.9

5.48

74.4

14.45

79.9

(Ii_)
-_._S

C_IG)
_. 52 (1.7] 31

_¢ce]erat_. Cfr_s:) Stase5 }-emoved

m/s z

(-i.5)

A11 dynamics were within vehicle capability. The attitude errors required to trim out the effects of thrust unbalance, offset center of gravity, thrust vector misalignment, and control system misa]ignments were within predicted envelopes. The peak angles of attack in the maximum dynamic pressure region were 2.23 degrees in pitch and 4.45 degrees in yaw. The peak average engine deflections requl-ed to trim out the aerodynamic moments in this region were 0.38 degree in pitch and 0.58 degree in yaw. No divergent bending or slosh dynamics were observed, indicating that both bending and slosh were adequately stabilized. Vehicle dynamics prior to S-IC/S-II first plane separation were within staging requirements. 10.3 S-II CONTROL SYSTEM EVALUATION

The S-II stage attitude control system performance was satisfactory. The vehicle dynamics were within expectations at all times. The maximum values of pitch parameters occurred in response to Iterative Guidance Mode (IGM) Phase I initiation. The maximum values of yaw and roll control parameters occurred in response to S-IC/S-II separation conditions. The maximum control parameter values for the period of S-II burn are shown in Tab]e ]0-3. Between S-IC OECO and initiation of I@1 Phase I, commands were held constant. Significant events occurring during this interval were S-IC/ S-II separation, S-II stage _-2 engine start, second plane separation, and Launch Escape Tower (LET} jettison. Pitch and yaw dynamics during

Table 10-3.

Maximum

Control Parameters
i

During

S-IT Burn

PITCH

PLANE

PALLOR
i ii i i

TIME (s_c) -1.5 1.0 0.5 471 471 206

IT_ -O.S O.S 0.4

I
i

TIRE (SEe) Z06 -2.7 2.5 166

Attit_ ._julJr

E_r t, deg Ra_. de_/sec

Av_-ageGtmal Angle. c_g
• Iltases _moved

this interval indicated adequate control stability as shown in Figures I0-4 and 10-5, respectively. Steady state attitudes were achieved within 10 seconds from S-IC/S-II separation. Flight and simulated data comparison, Flgures 10-4 and 10-5, show agreement at those events of greatest control system activity. Differences betweenthe two can be accounted for largely by engine location misalignments, thrust vector mtsaltgnments, and uncertainties in engine thrust buildup characteristics.

10.4

S-IVB CONTROL SYSTEM

EVALUATION

The S-IVB thrust vector control system provided satisfactory pitch and yaw control during powered flight. The APS provided satisfactory roll control during first and second burns. During S-IVB first and second burns, control system transients were exoerienced at S-II/S-IVB separation, guidance initiation, Engine Mixture Ratio (MR) shift, teminal guidance mode, and S-IVB Engine Cutoff (ECO). These transients were expocted and were well within the capabilities of the control system. 10.4.1 Control System Evaluation During First Burn

S-IVB first burn pitch attitude error, angular rate, and actuator position are presented tn Figure 10-6. First burn yaw plane dynamics are presented in Figure 10-7. The maximum attitude errors and rates occurred at IGM initiation. A summary of the first burn maximum values of critical flight control parameters is presented in Table 10-4.

%.

*!EA_URE; X_7 S-! ! CIC_ --_ S I:!ULAT['_

I

'

" I !
_ _-__. ......
1 !

.n--

0

-2 2

.l=[N __

i.,_

i '
__
A

._z: L] ,.-_ o .......
-1

'

.4

i I

I

_-

IILLF"

_

m

200

240

280

320

360

400

440

480

520

560

IU_,IGE TIME,

SECONI_

Figure

10-4.

Pitch

Plane Dynamics During S-II Burn

_7

S-IC/S-II

SFP4RATIOtl COMM_

MEASUR[D Slr111ATEn

Ir_ CECr) S- IIPHASE I INITIATED _5-I 1.0 I h[Ch

,_,_ 0.5 _,'_ o --_ ,"£gr., I_

-I.0

1.0

_},T,
i

o.s

_-o.s !
-l.Oi

_X

d
w_ _e's

|.0,

I

! 0.5

I
I
L A |

OtA. Q.w v.,J

______ _ _ __

m,_ 0

l °0. a.
|

.,.[ 7
C f
160 200 Z40 280 320 RAN_ TIME, 360 SECOffi_ 400 440 480 S20 560

Figure

10-5.

Yaw Plane Dynamics During S-II

Burn

<_

_E

7i

:.
..t.-.

'7,"
ii
]iliilOii lilnlliiV Illlllll nil $1'611 llnl_ °]lill nil illllllOil) i01v_ IlOlill_d _,,

,-,

'

I

+ ,,ilii
,

,_ i_
_ !

"_
'_'

,

.

_

>Ill

I

=!

x"_.
t,,.-.

-,- -

o

_ ,-?,
"tJlrll _c'_i l_i _11/llOlll ttOll¢l

!
• I L_Vll* ill Ii_! i i lOd l._i ll_ild

I / _lll 4fir "lrl-lillr

• m° . .e .o °. °.o._e

Table

10-4.

Xaxi_

Contro]

Parameters

During

S-IVB

First

Burn

wITC_ NqW.I,'_G( mJ_ll Z.4

_.IE _ TIRE _:TUOE _ TZR[

_LL

_._qE

(sic)
_I.5 573.0 570.5 -¢.7 -0.3 -_.7

(sic)
574.0 572._ 574.: -0.8 -0.5

(5[C)
(.._i.O _1.4

-:._L

Mg.l,r
Jet

_ce, _/s

-I .4 i .5

f-

• Iios4,s ,,_woved

._.pf:--

The pitch were 0.37

and yaw effective and -0.18 degrees,

thrust vector respectively.

m|salignments during A steady state roll roll (45.3 torque lbf-ft)

first burn torque of

7.4 N4

(5.4

lbf-ft)

countercloc_tse

]ooklng forward required roll

APS

firin3s during first burn. The steady state previous flights has ranged between 61.4 N-I and 54.Z _t-m (40.0 ibf-ft) c]oclrwtse.

experienced on counterclockwise

Propellant sloshing during ftrst burn was observed on data obtained from the Propellant Utilization (PU) mass sen_ors. The propellant slosh did not have any noticeable effect on the operation of the attitude control system. 10.4.Z Control System Evaluation Durtng Parking Orbit
w

.-=

The AI_ provided satisfactory oHentat|on and stabilization during parklng orbit. Following S-IV_ first ECO, the vehicle was maneuvered to the tnplane local horizontal, and the orbttal pttch rate w_s establ|shed. The p|tch attitude error and pitch angular rate for this maneuver are shoun in F_ure 10-8. Available data indicate that sloshing disturbances which caused venting of L0X on AS-510 were minimized on AS-512. The LOX ullage pressure remained belo_ the reltef setttng throughout parking or_tt. 10.4.3 Control System Evaluation During Second Burn
f.._ -

S-|YB second burn pitch attitude error, angular rate, and actuator position are pmented tn Ftgure 10-9. Second burn yaw plane dyna,,tcs Ire pmented in Ftgure 10-10. The maxtmm attttude efTOrS and rates occurred follovlng gut_nce tn|ttatton. Transients were also observed as a result of the pttch and y_ attitude c_ands at the tendnatto_ of the Artificial Tau 9utdance mode (27 seconds before ECO).
-2.

4.;

|

!

°_

_7 3.0 .

MANEUVER to

Lr)C,_L IN-PLANE "1 ....

HORIZONTAL

l
- ._,..,.,._

!.0 -1.0 -2.C -3.0: 1.0 0.5
..It--

.... /
@

_a.Q.

-0.5, - 1.O'7z 0 760 I_NGE 800 TIME, SECONDS 840 880 920

,_7.
00"12:00

I..

I
00:12:40 RA_E TIME,

I

l
00:)3:20

I

i
00:14:00

t

I
' 00:14:40

I

I
00:15:20

HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS

Figure I0-8.

Pitch Plane Dynamics During Parking Orbit

A sumnary of the second burn maxlmmn flight control parameter values is presented in Table I0-5. Table I0-5. Maximum Control Parameters During S-IVB Second Burn
_%TOm_
m

YAw Pt_ li_ TIME' AN_,ITI_ I_ TIME

lOLL _._E Jl_l.ITl_E iUMIG( TI_

Pm_rTEI

_ITUDE

(s(c)
Z.2 A'v/wlin" ll41_. M_S _tmlm line Gl_! _bq|e, -I .4 1.3 II_7.S llSEg.O 11S67.0 -O.$ 0.3 -0.7

(s(c)
11S79o0 11M1.0 11S70.0 *0.9 O.lS

(SEC)
llMS.O II_.0
_. o

The pitch and yaw effective thrust vector mtsalignments early in second burn (prior to MR shift) were 0.36 and -0.16 degrees, respectively. Following the MR shift the mtsalignmenLs were 0.50 and -0.24 for pitch and yaw, respectively. The steady state roll torque during second burn was essentially zero as minimum impulse firings were observed at alternating sides of b_e roll deadband. Nomal oropellant sloshing during second burn was observed on data obtained from the PU mass sensors. The slosh activity did not have any noticeable effect on the operation of the Attitude Control System.

lO-12

++ , N

I __

t

I, I'

. . +-++.---4

U E

i i_i
t_

ii +---+

L

C 0 U

+- o,,_ . /__
)xl J Ir_kl) )DIll Illv _ell3 qVA

Z. n,

!1_-+

'7

!

_'

! 0

l .,,,_

all

_1 i

im

"[_

_

II

"[£..qllLll

A

k

10..13

-"

.s •

D k,

I0.4.4

Control

System

Evaluation

After S°IYB

Second Burn

The AFS orovided satisfactory orientation and stabilization from Translunar Injection (TLI) through t_e S-IVB/IU Passive Thermal Control (PTC) maneuver [Three-Axis Tu_.ble Maneuver]. Each of the planned maneuvers was performed satisfactorily. Significant events related to translunar coast attitude control were the maneuver to the i_-oIane local horizontal following second burn cutoff, the maneuver to the Transportation Docking and Ejection (TD&E) attitude, soacecraft seoaration, spacecraft docking, lunar module extraction, the taneuver to the evasive ullage burn attitude, the maneuver to the LOX du_ a_titude, the maneuver to the optimum lunar imbact ullage burn attitude, the raneuver to the solar heating control attitude, the maneuver to the vernier lunar imoact ullage burn attitude, and the PTC maneuver. The pitch attitude error and anc.u]=r rate for events during which teI_metry.data were available a_ shown in Figure 10-11. Following S-IVB second cutoff, ".he vehicle was maneuvered to the in-plane local horizontal at 12,059 seconds ((03:20:59) (through approximately -19.4 degrees in pitch and-0.2 degree in yaw), and an orbital pitch rate was established. At 12,809 sec_ds (03:33:2g), the vehicle was commanded to maneuver to the separation TI)&E attitude {through approximately 120, 40 and -180 degrees in pitch, yaw and roll, respectively). Spacecraft separation, which occurre_ at 13,347 seconds (03:42:27), appeared nominal, as indicated by the relatively small disturbances induced on the S-IVB. Disturbances during spacecraft docking, which occurred at 14,231 seconds (03:57:11), were less than on previous flights. Docking disturbances required 2,160 N-sac (485 Ibf-sec) of impulse from Module 1 and 1,160 N-sac (261 lbf-sec) of impulse from _Xlule 2. The largest docking disturbances on previous flights occurred on AS-510 and required 3,480 N-sec (783 Ibfsec) of impulse from Module 1 and 3,040 N-see (683 lbf-sec) of impulse from Wodule 2. Lunar module extraction occurred at 17,102 seconds (04:45:02) with nominal disturbtmces. At 17,520 seconds (04:52:00) a yaw mneuver from 40.3 degrees (TO&E attitude) to -40.0 degr_ was initiated tO attain the desired attitude for the evasive ullage burn. At 18,181 seconds (05:03:01) the APS ullage engines were commanded on for El)seconds to provide the necessary separation distance between the S-IVB and spacecraft. The maneuver (05:12:40). to the LOX du_ attitude was performed at 18,760 seconds ,'his was a two-axis maneuver with pitch cmmanded frm 179.5

.....

!0-3_

el 7 [qITIJT( "3_ Tq|T[AT( 3.0

eqUI(UV(II TO LOCAL H01[Z_ITAL mJ_(UYEII TO TOIIE ATTITUOE

=P.- o

1.0

__

-I.0 -3.0 1.0

I
f

\
_ v , L

or_

-tJ.5
Lm-- Iw- _

1_07S

1210S

1213S

12155

1Z195

IumGE. TIME. SECnml_

I
03:20:45

_'

I
03:21:1S

I
fliT.

I
03:21:45

1

!
03:22:15

I

I
03:22:45

J

a
O3:23:1S

IOAIS:MIIIJTES:SECI:_IOS

6.0

_
_e.-o _vq

,.0
= 0 -Z.O

_-o

"-1
\ I

/ _ ./'
"-"-

""

:_

-""-

N_
_"

-4.o
-6.0 1.0

w_

_.2 •,=_._

o.s o

12830

12910 UmGE TINE.

12qJg0 SECrOmS

13070

13150

I 03:32:30

l.._'

I
03:33:S0 IIIGE

,
TII_E.

J
03:3S:10

I

I
03:36:$0

I

I
03:37:S0

I

|
03:39:00

HOURS:RIll/I1_:SECIIIOS

Figure

10-11.

P'_t.r._ Plane Dynamics During Translunar

Coast (Sheet 1 of 6)

d

10..15

_

SPLC[CPJFT _,F P/.oAT!,'111 _'_ECa_r _, Dnc_Iv, f.,tPOD

2..I

i
.j
i |

i-.c]
I,-,O B :::I II" 4[ .|o

!
I
I

-2.gl
i% ....... ,,,,i Z im.

-3-0 1.0
_ _

1

I

_, --

'_EIi
v_

o.s

13320

13340

13360 IUlm'_ TI_E,

13380 S[COIII3S

I
03:4Z:20

7,
lIJilirJf TIM[,

i
0.I:42:_

f..

f
03:43:00

.I

!
03 I]:Z)

I

I
0):43:_

_:IIImiTI$:SI[COII05

].0

1.0
_li v "el Cl :i (]

I

i

,._

*1.1_

;_Ii

-z.:
-]IX

i I
--. _. ._ ,_. . m _

X i.llp

I/lllO

liZlO

liii_ ItmGE tll_. _(glO5

llitO

i_
O3:St:aO

I

I
03:S7:00

w
TP_o

I
05:$?:_9

I

!
03:_:40

!

!
03:54:00

i

l
".3:'_1 :ZO

UOUIS:mJ1011_: S£COIOS

Flgur_ 10-11.

Pltcl_Pl_

_mlmlc_

l)u_

Translunar

_st,

(_'_et 2 of 6)

1-

:0-16

o

[,lure wJOA.£ [,_£CT:e.N IIITIlII'I[ £111Si'IT -41[U_'I! •'p ).9
O--_Iu m +,_qJ

,u_

'.,Jl..l+_ ('Jlr.l_$

2.0 ! .0

-I.0 .--_w W -).0 .... _ _ . . .._._

i
+

z

gg

o._ -0.5
17050 i 7Q]I_ lilG[ lTOqo TILE. 511:1)1105 17110

l I
171)o

-++-_

_-

171cjl'j

J
04"414:!0

!
04:44:)0

I

i
04:44:50

iT

I
04:4S:I0

!

I
Wl-IS']O

I

J
04.15-'_

Yllq'. IQl_-ml/_$:

S((3_mlm

).¢

+.++ .+.---I

+++
IPI40 lqr 04:51:410 I t _l:f, il:J_ l 1111_ TDI.
,e-

i

tPllO 5ICOImS l I 04:$9:40 I

_llt40

:lLlO0

I 01:57._1

I V I "V I _$_1_"_1_ 0_:05 O0

rlgv_

10-11.

P4-,_s

Plane

Oy_arlcs

Ovrtng

Tr_lvmr

Co_¢

(Sheet)

of

6)

t

_I_I?IM[ LOI

_'rl[_

:O LOJ _UPP ITTITUI_

_-_._

,

/
....

1

k

-3-_

I
0S" I I "410

I

T
0_" 11'40

1

I
05: 11"4Q

1

1
0_: 14:4Q

I

!
05 _IS-II0

I
_-14

i
_0

I

.,,,,

i

Eli..:

.J

_

_!i_

"_-

"_.

, ,

1

I

v

_

1

_

I

13

!.

I

I

I

qA

_q

3_
__
=m
nr _,A T.

V

Iq|TIJT( lqltlit(

IM/iI[UVI[II TO LLllit M/IN(I_[! tO SOl.l/

|I'IPICT ATT|TUI_ N(ATI.'I_ ITTII"UOE

1.:
-I.G -

/
I

s.

-3.0 -(--e 0._.

_
Z

.0.._ -l.C

oo..... :
Z1720

--_-----._.
......

._ ....
i

_._..__ J-" zTm 2ira I I
0G:O4:aO

•,- .,- ,_'

•L - =

zT760 T I
06:02:40

zT_
TIME. S_COnOS

z_9_ I I
06:0S:00

I
tll_,

I
06:03:20

I

I
06:04:00

N0OlIS:IqlIJTES: SECgqOS

3.0

f 1 I
, , •

.,_

-3.C

.0. • .

/

TI_.

slr_mEs

,_I
06:17"]0

_
06:11:30

I

t
CI_:II:3I

I

I
0_:_0:30

I

I
06:471:]O

I

I
0S:Z2:30

• mE( TD_. _mS_mm_S

SEIX_S

F_gur_

10-11.

Pi_

Plane

Oy_l_cs

Outing

Translunir

Co_t

(Sheet

S of

6)

_

_

-_

_7

[N[T|AT( INITIATE

MANEUVER TO VERNIER PTC .%-_:_(UVER C_IPLITEI_ OFF

LL_AR

[lqF'ACT ATTZTUO(

FLI_',HT CO;tTPOI 3.0

_
_ ,.s,9 O,,.',Q

_ . ,?,._
."

!

=o:

.1..r.

\
L -...... i

/
/

/

-3.9

_:'__
_(

0.5
0.0
.... i
]

-.oA
a.

o.

x

-0.5

L
39870 3_10 39950

39750

39790

39830 I_ANGE TINE, SECONDS

I
11:02:30 11:03:10 RANGE TIME.

I

I
11:03:50 '

I

I
11:04:30"

I

l
11:05:10

I

I
11:05:50

HOU_:MIIzU1"ES:SECONDS

6.0
A

=,,- ,e
_,

Z.O
O.G

-,.o

t,e,z

e.,,,.4b, _-_. 4( _Q,.

-

/

=,

-Z.O -_.o

_'_

.,Je

I.
41500 41_ ,111_ TI_, 41560 SI[COIIOS 41580 41600

I
11:31:40

_

I
11:_:00

_'
IUtNG£ tll_.

,
11:32:20

_

i
11:32:40

_

,
11:33:00

i

I
11:33:20

IIOURS:MINUTr_:.Td[_

Ffgure

10-11.

P_h

Plane

Dynamics

During

Translun_r

Coast

(Sheet

6 of

6)

to 190:O-degrees anO yaw from -40 to -19 degrees referenced to the inplane local horizontal. LOX dump occurred at 19,460 seconds {04:24:20) and lasted for 48 seconds. At 21,735 seconds (06:02:15) a ground command was received to perform a maneuver to the desired-attitude for the APS ullage burn for lunar target impact. This was also a two-axis maneuver and resulted in a pitch maneuver change from 190.0 to 248.0 degrees and a yaw attitude maneuver change from -19.0 to -23.b degrees referenced to the in-plane local horizontal. At 22,200 seconds (06:10:003 the APS ullage engines were commanded on for 98 seconds to provide delta velocity for lunar target impa_t. .............. At 22,664 seconds (06:17:443 a ground command was received to perform a maneuver to the solar heating attitude to assure proper solar heating conditions. This was a single-axis pitch maneuver and resulted in a pitch maneuver changefrom_48.Oto 161.0 degrees referenced to the inplane local horizontal. At 39,760 seconds (11:02:40) a ground command was received to perform a maneuver to the desired attitude for the second luna_ impact APS ullage burn. This maneuver was a two-axis maneuver and resulted in a pitch maneuver change from 161.0 to 121.0 degrees and a yaw attitude maneuver change from -23.0 to -II degrees referenced to the in-plane local horizontal. At 49,500 seconds (11:15:00) the APS ullage engines were commanded on for 102 seconds to provide delta velocity for a more accurate lunar target impact. The command to initiate the PTC maneuver was received at 41,510 seconds (II:31:50). This maneuver consisted of commanding the vehicle +31 degrees in the pitch, yaw and roll axis. After vehicle angular rates of approximately -0.3 degree/second pitch, -0.3 degree/second yaw, and 0.6 degree/second roll were established, a ground command was received (Flight Control Computer Power Off B) at 41,532.5 (II:32:12.53 to inhibit the IU Flight Control Computer leaving the vehicle in a three-axis tumble mode. APS propellant consumption for attitude control and propellant settling prior to the APS burn for lunar target impact was lower than the mean predicted requirements. The total propellant {fuel and oxidizer) used prior to the first ullage burn for lunar target impact delta velocity was 51.8 kilograms {ll4.Z Ibm) and 5Z.g kilograms (I16.7 ll_n) for Modules l and 2, respectively. This was approximately 35 percent of the total available propellant in each module {approximately 147 kilograms [330 Ibm]). APS propelllnt r-nsumptlon is tabulated in Section 7, Table 7-4.

10.5

I;;STRUMENT UtlIT CONTROL

COMPONENTS

EVALUATION

The control subsystem performed properly throughout the AS-S12 mission. All ST-124M Stabilized Platform Subsystem (SPS) factors remained within previously experienced limits. The eouipment temperatures increased as expected when the water sublimator operation was inhibited (Section

14.4.1).
10.5.1 Gimbal Anale Resolvers

Prooer vehicle attitudewas4nd_ca_ed by the gimbal angle resolvers until the PTC maneuv( w_s initiated at approximately 41,500 seconds. As on AS-511 the _osi yaw aimbal mechanical stop was contacted for short periods o_ time. his was expected. No vehicle perturbation or hardware failure was ev,dent as a result of the contacts. I0.5.2 • ST-124M Power Supplies

All power parameters were within specification limits. Deviation from nominal Occurred while the water sublimator operation was inhibited. The 4.8 _qz voltage increased while the 400 Hz voltage decreased, but in each case no specification limit was exceeded. 10.6 10.6.1 SEPARATION S-IC/S-II Separation

The AS-512 S-IC/S-II stages separated as planned with no known anomalies. Clearance distance between the sta_es was approxiamtely 2.4 meters (eight feet) more than reoulred at S-II Engine Start Command (ESC) as shown In Figure I0-12. Separation distance was approximately 15.2 meters (SO feet) at d-2 engines main propellant ignition. During the first rum roll atti)" and +2._ " rude ma_,-_ s n" -_ separation period (160 to 166 seconds), the maxiand angular rate were approximately -2.7 degrees ,cond, respectively. Maximum pitch and yaw atti-

nd -0.7 degrees,respectlvely.Corresponding
rates at this tlme were -0.2 and -0.1 degrees per

ond Plane

Separation

.ane separation was performed as planned. No significant tran..,,_ in vehicle attitudes or rates were identified that would have caused this separation to be other than nominal.

i.

e

6O

'7_'uT_o.c_,,,,o

I

/
I c

/

?-AIN P_CPt'_L.AXT l_?l(Im) "50

/

o .s-5.

i
4O

; J
I

, J

!

, :,./

'__,/o _-.._,_,_ , i -i
! : I

I

t/

i

.............
_0 ¸'

! i_

I ', I r/,-,, ,_,,o,.,,,,.:.,
fi ill I )¢_._ _.\\\\\\'_

//

'_

.; . i
lO

://,._, _,._':_ _,_,_,_,_
s 6

....

i

0

I 2 3 4 Tl.q[ FI_0MUIIICJ&RO 3 D4GI_I[ JTOFF. E_);_ O S

,
162

,17,
163

_

,
164

,
165

_'

,
166

"_ ',
167

IUIl_E TIRE, SECTS

Figure 10.6.3

I0-12.

AS-S12 S-IC/S-II Separation Distance

S-II/S-IVB Separation

Nominal accelerations were observed on the flight vehicle during the S-II/S-IVB separation. Vehicle dynamics were as _redicted and well within staging limits. 10.6.4 CSM Separation

At i2,810 seconds (03:33:30) a maneuver to the TD&E attitude was initiated co _ssure proper lighting and communication conditions for spacecraft separation, docking, and lunar module ejection. The vehicle was comm_nded to pitch 120 degrees, yaw 40 degrees, and roll -180 degrees. This attitude was held inertially until the beginning of the evasive maneuver. The vehicle motion during the maneuver was close to predicted with maximum vehicle rates of 0.75 deg/sec, 0.95 deg/sec, and -0.80 deg/sec in the pitch, yaw, and roll axes, respectively. Transients due to spacecraft separation at approximtely 13,348 seconds (03:42:28) appeared nominal. Separation disturbances caused five ._PS Module 1 pitch firings within 10 seconds following separation. A negative roll disturbance was controlled by 6 roll flrln_swlthln 15 seconds following separation. All attitude errors re_ained within the l degree deadband luring the separation )rocess.

SECTION 11 ELECTRICAL NETWORKS AND EMERGENCY DETECTION SYSTEM

II.I

SUMMARY

The AS-5_2 launch vehicle electrical systems and Emergency Detection System (EDS) performed satisfactorily throughout the requi_ed period of flight. However, the temperature of the S-IVB Aft Battery No. I, Unit No. I, increased significantlyabbve the nominal control limit (90°F) at approximately 9 hours due to malfunction of the primary heater control system. Operation of the Aft Battery NO. I remained nominal as did operation of a11 other batteries, power supp1(es, inverters, Exploding Bridge Wire (EBW) firing units _ andsw!t_ selectors. I1.2 S-IC STAGE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM

The S-IC stage electrical syst_ performance was satisfactory. Battery voltages were withih performance limits of 26.5 to 32.0 V db. ing powered flight. The battery currents were near predicted and below the maximum limits of SO amperes for each battery. Battery power consumption was within the rated capacity of each battery, as shown in Table If-l, but exceeded predictions due to range safety system loads during the launch delay.

Taole

11-1.

S-IC

Stage _tt_._

Po_er Consumption POWER CONSUMPTION"

BATTERY

RATED CAPACITY (Am'-MR) 8.33 8.33

;V(P-HR

PERCENT OF CAPACITY
um iN m

I

Operational Instrumentation

2.51 3.70

30.1 44.4

*Battery power consumptions ,ere calculated frmthe initial power transfer (T-50 seconds) until S-IC/S-ll separation and include energy used during the first countd_ sequence prior to the hold inclWlng range safety consumption.
i i

.T -

Fhe two m_easuring p_r Supplies were within the recruited _ _O.OS V limit during p_r flight. All switc_ selector channels fur_ticned as commanded by the Instrument Unit (IU) and were within reouired time limits. The separation and retro_OtOe E_ f-iring units were ar_ed aria triggered as prograemed. Chargir_j time and volt_e characteristics were within perfonnar_e iimi t_. The range safety con, ar, d s)_te. State-of-reaainess for_icle 11.3 $-II STAGE [LECTRI_L [Eld firing destruct_ SYST[_ units were in the required had it _een necessary.

"r

The %11 stage electrical system per¢onned satisfactorily. A11 battery and bus voltages rmair_ within specified limits through the prelaunch and _ligflt _riods. Bus currents a15o r_mined within predicted limits. Main bu_ current averaged 30 amperes during S-IC boost and varied fr_ 45 to SO amperes _uring S-II boost. InstrlJnentation bus current averaged 22 ammeres durin 9 S-IC aria S-II boost. Recirculation )us current averaged 87 amperes durin 0 S-IC boost. Ignition bus current averaged 30 amperes during the S-[I Ignitic_ seauer, ce, .......... The first countdown sequence produced an additional battery load prior to Teminal Countdown Sequencer (TCS) cutoff. T.he additional tlme on interhal po_er was 20 seconds w_Ich resulted in an additional drain of 0.16 ampere-hours for the Main Battery. 0.13 ampere-hours for Instr_Jentation Battery and 0.48 am_erc-hc_rs for the combination of Rectrculatton and Ignition batteries. T_ tgntttcm vo|ta_e drop ancma)y _hich occurred durtn 9 A:.S-.SI1 did not r_appear On this flight. Battery power consumtion as s_o.n in Table 11-2. was within the rated

Tr

capacity

of each battery,

- _.= -_ .

Table
,

11-2.

S-ll

Stage

Battery

Power (4_ts_tlon
im i m i

_.

-_.

gglll]rf
|

m C_llT (i_-mm)
I

am-m

P_mmT C_IIT
I •
Nil

/mtrmm¢_tle* I_trc_latSem kctlrc_l_ttm t_1 OZ

]S

I_.S6 iz.;e

]_.I 4,1.a 42.S

)o

12._S fr,_

• btt

,,.=er msees
Ill

)I-111 IMirli_lm ecttmt_ _ s_m_ce wter

m rjl¢_l_ li_llil 6.| tl 4.| R _ 111 is R _ 1_ tSm _kl S_le_lilell _

,¢_s_t_** ,,¢II 5-1U m ¢mrlml llm llrlq ill first camlim _ mmmMs_.

11-2

:

" "_

2:.

There was no indication in flight of a performance degradation occurrence _ith the countdown long term open circuit voltage decay of forward battery No. 2 reported in Section 3.2.3. All switch selector channels functioned as commanded by the IU and were within acceptable limits. The LH2 rec!rculation pump inverters performed satisfactorily, Performance of the E_W circuitry for the separation systems was satisfactory. The charge an_ discharge responses were within predicted time and voltage limits. TEe range safety command system EBW firing units were in the reouired state-of-readiness for vehicle destruct, had it been necessar?. 11.4 11.4.1 S-IVB Surrary STAGE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM

..Z._

_.2

",,2?

f

The S-IVB stage electrical system performance was satisfactory. The battery voltages and currents remained within the normal range beyond their mission reouire_ents. Battery temperatures were norml except for the temDerature of the Aft Battery No. 1, Unit No. 1 which increased slgnlficantly above the cutoff limit of the primary heater control system at approximtely g hours. _tte_'voltage and current plots are shc_ in Figures ll-I through II-4 and battery power consumption and capacity for each battery are shown in Table 11-3. There was no recurrence of forward Battery Mo. 2 early depletion that occurred during AS-SIO and AS..511. The three 5 V and acceptable limits. satisfactorily. seven 20 V excitation modules all performed within The LOX and LH2 chilldown tnverters performed 22_. All switch selector channels issued within reautred time functional ltmtts. properly and all outputs were

Performance of the E_ circuitry for the separation system was satisfactory. The cha .ran and discharge responses of the firing units were within I_redicted time and voltage ltmtts. The command destruct firing units in the reauired state-of-readiness for vehicle destruct, had it been necessary. 11.4.2 _llrIB Aft Battery 11o. I, Unit No. I, Temq_erature Incrlase

?.._-

_ra_ of _ _-I_ Aft Batt_Iry 11o. I, Unit _. |, increased Significantly _ the _1 cutoff 11malt (90"F) of the pri_ heater control syst_ at approximately 9.0 hours (see Figure 11-5). The teeperature of Untt !10. 1 continued to increase until the htgh teN_rature backup thermostat deener_tzed the heater at aplmDxtmately 120"F (see Figure 11-6). The te_erature then decked to apprmtmatoly 87"F at which Point the heater was energized. Since t_e htgh t_mli¢_ra_ thermostat has a small _erat_re deadl_nd and the heater dtd not cycle around the high temperature thermostat control I)otnt, tmperature control of Unit No. 1

_

°

II-3

\

r 1

\

i+.

h r

j.

11-5

.+

. +

"_,i+

q

+'I++-II.... +++ :-t
.... ++#?-ii t - - :!.
_i i ........

.......

,

+i++

"

,, ,, .+..._..,., +=+=,+++2 +.+ "
iF ,,

?+ ....

__..,++++._.+ ...... +
++ ." i

+!I+'- +, II-

+: [_,,. l_ ..+._..._.__..I .+°+J I g::+ll ]
+: td,,__:__II. t +c_:-_L., +

.I

[_"';_

i i,, u,_, ,_-_:'+++++ +.+
,i_.... :" g+-+.+I'l .

._.-+-,-

! i'-+.,l+,+li+ Fi'II + I_I ,.i;_ "I
li_i

2

__

+

11-6

• !

!

I

i

I

P I. I

;

.

11°_

1

T_,_le 11-3.
. i

$-:F'_ St.l_e OaJt_f'/

_ouer _:1_ W3d_.JC_WSUPPT, ! On
I

J.,1._. [_r

m[a_ CF CAP_ITt I I Z27.b .... I Z27.S ZOO.1Z" ,'6.77** 1_.LS* 37.47 °
a

For_Jrd I,o. Irer_,"=

_<,. Z

51 ._ 56.35

,_f_ to.

2 _.tva'Joa _nttl

*YroJ )_t_er/ o'_r_ 25.G

end of dat_ (at

18,1f_S _=nds_. oec_ bel_

_a_er 7 K_.m_t0n wntll ba:1_er7ml_le r_t_$ {a: )O,_iZ se_omm).

$_-'_e_e_'Jy, _ _ea_t_ controilt_r again failed to tw'n _ _L,4't,4_roff a% y_*_r _ ",,"_e :emperaY_e _patn _ncreased. That %amaperaY_e_ seomee_e _/S we'_eaf_,,,__Z41 _r_ar_llt.t_ of S.,llyB d&lLo. Littler7 _ _01%,11_@. r_re% _ t_e _ra_re of Aft IMt_ 11o. i, Unit I0. Z t_ua_n_ _tr41 Cur_ *_15 tecre_Jr_ed _1_4_11_1_ C7c1t_ql.

r_a_y of _ _m_ tr_siSter. LaNratu7 tlms_l nmm_r tests _aw t_lat_d U_ fltqltt frlll_re. Ps, _ ktStm_/ I_S i_dtr,Jl_ J Imor tms_11411_ of "_rmtst0r _t sl_ uould cJm14 _1 r_/. _ect_o, _ mt _a tastallatlm I_s _i_ twittal_ to ism ttat s'_ _tag fast4aer t0r_e. FlrUwr correcttw Ktlm wi4e_ _]r _e 11.5 |_ t)4_s_LIt. Tkts lf_ll qS ¢saS4_rld clmaM.

IJITT _lC.q,

The I_ elec'r._c_l system fmctt_l _ma111. Ill b_ttwy w_l_ges _med _t_tim perfo_ limits If _t to 30 I. The kttery _t_re _m_ _ ,Jrlq _ flt_Wt m m_lml. Tt_WI_ tacrmses _rre e_m_e_M _m_lq _Je Imlbitlq of _ _mlal Coaltt(_riq 5Fs_Bm (TC_} meyer mllm ts I closM Imstttoa _¢ _0,918 secmds (_nca pera_raca 14.&.1) as e_4c*._. 8a_4ry _o11UIges. _S _ =eroY.w_ arw _ 18 Ftqmres 11-7 _ 11-10. latter), l:mer coa-

11-11

Tmle

11-4.

XU ktttr7

l_.er
I

Cons_tloa
I I I I

_1 ¢,IfilCITv U1T_D (m'-_)

¢_5UWTIm
II

m_

I

AI94
I

6010

255._0 36So4 H 329.0 ° 307.5 _o 104-* e_ I11 m

o,_mml {13 _

_

Ns 41' _|.

_

from flul

m_r

tr_sfar

to 49,t20

s4c_as

-'rime CCS u'mmmd_, pro,era4 W me ira0 N_, ms mttmlp ms $-|11/|IIItmJr MNct dltlCll or.cxrnd it ]113,181 514coIs (N:541:41). mmsmetlcm wmtll 50118118 1mot toect is r._lculeti4 INtse4 om _NI epe_glea. ***frmm flul _ ¢remf_r wmtS1 bitter/ _otts at lS,O00 secoem (1Z.5 ,torsi. mlUqe acdrlqM tnlgu _.0

e_

_A

o

.

_!iI i;!li

jiii!!!l!.!!l.l: !-!. |;_, _. l-._-i-: I i

{,: ! ijj I i _, ill lIijr!i!!triZ -iT i i j _ li i ' _ li-:
' ! !]
• - Fi]

_,! , I '. _ _].-i
.
i ; ;
]

j

1 ! !,
] -

! I !
i

:J.,
l

i

,

i

;

-v_,

i

i_, ]

;

i

I i. ;' , :

i:,, _:- ,t

f\_ ,-'.

o i-

_ f -. ,.

I ,

l'

-i iiI]

i

i l _

_ li ; il_i I i ili ! I! I t ! !lit!; I 1 :,lii ! !1_ ! I./ "i I"

l i_il!ill_il

!_i .I

i_¸,

i I ii !il t,'!]l | i t_1 i I

Ii

i!-!llii

_!il./

-=

"

,i

,I

w

!1 I1_

'I

i !J,_t I ,! t !

I I i i _, i I.]. !
1 =

"_.,;..

-

i

_<
.

=

Ii
o" o° l "..

i :
_ .,

i
%
t

11-11

.P

i |

t , ,

I !

l ' i i

.

i

,

,

I

i I

p

1

I

L
¢

,


t

1

; t

i

1t
i i

• ram mm_

m

"J

-

.

-

.

-

.,,,

II-12

.

I

I.

,

,I

I

i,,

A

t
I

J I

' I

I
I

Ii

l

i
i,

i.L
\

Q

ep.

= |
i

i:
m

e o

8

• I

• °_

lJ -" ." II Z o" "-

i

i,

i _

i

_

i

,

i

i J
¢ J

'
i

i

I
A

p

f*_

i t
9
|

t
i

! ; :2A.
IJ ; , i

tili:.!

!,
& .
o
o

tixij

i
i
i_-. L

i I1 i
I • • I : .

I]!1

t
; • • I • •

i_

,,.

.1"

II*II "ll&

The current sharing of the 6D10 and 6D30 batteries, to provide redundant power to the ST-1Z4, was satisfactory throughout the 1flight.--Current .... chartng reached a maxi.._ of 23 amperes (6010 and 26 amperes (6030) compared to an average of 20 amperes (6D10) and 24 amperes (6030) during S-IC burn (see Ftgures 11-7 and 11-9). The 56 volt Dower suoply maintained an output voltage of 56:'2-to whtch iS well wtthtn the requtred tolerance of 56 +_2.5 volts. The S volt measuring power supply performed nominally, constant voltage within specified tolerances. The switch selector, formed nominally. I1.6 electrical distributors maintaining 56.6 V .......

a

and network cabltng

per ...........

SATURNV E_IERGENCY DETECTION SYSTE]q(EDS)

The perfomance of the AS-512 EDS wa_ nomal and no abort 11mtts were ........... exceeded. All switch selector events associated with EOS for whtch data are available were Issued at the nomtnal tim. The dtscrete indications for EDS events also functioned nomally. The performance of all thrust OK pressure switches and associated voting logtc, _tch monitors engine status, was nomtnal insofar as EDS operation was concerned. S-IVB tank ullage pressures remained below the abort i:aits. EDS displays to the crew were normal. The maximum dynamic pressure difference sensed by the Q-ball was 1.2 pstd at 88.0 seconds. This pressure was only 37.5 percent of the EOS abort limit of 3.2 pstd. As noted tn Section 10, none of the rate gyros gave any Indication of angular overrate tn the pitch, yaw, or roll axis. The maxtmm angular rates were well below the abort 1111ts.

!'

.

SECTION 12 VEHICLE PRESSURE ENVIRONMENT

12.1

SUMMARY

The SoIC base pressure environments were consistent with trends and magnitudes observed on previous flights. The S-If base pressure environments were consistent with trends seen on previous flights, _lthough the magnitudes were higher than seen on previous flights. The pressure environment during S-IC/S-II separation was well below .................. m_ximum allowable values. 12.2 32.2., BASE PRESSURES S-IC Base Pressures

The S-IC base heat shield was instrumented with two differential 'internal minus external) pressure transducers. The data recorded by both instruments, D046-I06 and D047-I06, are in good agreement with previous flight data in both trends and _gnitudes. A maxln_m differential pressure of 0,12 psi occurred at an altitude of 6.0 n ml. 12.2.2 S-If Base Pressures

Figure 12-1 shows the AS-512 post-flight heat shield forward face pressure data. The heat shield forward face pressure transducer (D150-206) provided no useful data during S-II matnstage. Post-flight analysis, using semi-empirical correlations based on 1/25 scale model hot flow test results, indicated that the S-II-12 heat shield forward face pressures were within the previous flight data band. ,he thrust cone post flight reconstruction is shown in Figure 12-2. The thrust cone pzessure transducer (D187-206) provided no useful data during S-II mainstage. Post-flight analysis based on the semiempirical correlations mentioned above indicates higher thrust cone pressures, prior to interstage separation, than previous flight data. The heat shield aft face pressures, shown in higher than those seen on previous flights. Figure 12-3, were

"he higher pressures in the S-II-12 base region as indicated by post-flight analysis and measured flight data, are attributed to fur T_rther inboard deflections of the engines than on previous flights. Effective with AS-510, the S-II engine precant angle was reduced f.'om 1.8 ° to 9.6 °. Since base pressures result from reverse flow of the engine exhaust gases, a further inboard deflection would

12-I
i i • m I IN i .

I I

I

I

q_$-I I 1GqIT I0R _P' INTERSTAG£ SEPARATION

_

(I,IR SHIFT S-ll 0£C0

_S-ll

cEco

0.06

0.05

N

8

0.04

0.03
-.,m,

0.02

ms

0.01

0.0

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

MANGETIME, SECONDS

Flgure 12-3.

S-II Heat Shield Aft Face Pressure

cause higher 12.3

pressures

in

the base region.

S-IC/S-ll SEPARATION PRESSURES

Details of the S-IC/S-II separation arepresented in Section 10.6. At main propellant ignition, the separation distance was over 50 feet, and over 100 feet at gO% thrust; conseqcently the pressure environment during S-IC/S-II separation was well below maximumallowable values.

T2-3112-4
.... u

•_

.

SECTION 13 VEHICLE THERMAL ENVIRONMENT 13.1 SUMMARY

The AS-512 S-IC base region themal environments exhibited trends and magnitudes similar to those seen on previous flights, except that the ambient temperature under engine No. 1 cocoon showed an unexpected rise that peaked at about 50 seconds.
!

J

The base thermal environments on the S-II stage were consistent with the trends and magnitudes seen on previous flights and were well below design limits. Aerodynamic heating environments were not measured on AS-512. 13.2 S-lC BASE HEMING and S-IVB base thermal environments

.7.

-m

Thermal environments in the base region of the S-IC stage were recorded by two total calorimeters, C0026-106 and C014g-106, and two gas temperature probes, C0050-106 and C0052-I06, which were located on the aft heat shield, The sensing surfaces of the total calorimeters were mounted flush with the aft shield surface. The base gas temperature sensing surfaces were mounted at distances aft of the heat shield surface of 0.25 inch (C0050-106) and 2.50 inches (C0052-106). In general, the AS-512 da¢a was in good agreement wtth previous flight data in both trends and magnitudes. Typical base thermal data, total heating rates recorded by C0026-106, are presented in Figure 13-1 and compared to data from the AS-511 flight= The meximun recorded total heating rate was approximately 17 Btu/ftZ-s and occurred at an altitude of 11,5 n mi. The ambient temperature measurement (C242-I01) under Engine No. 1 cocoon showed an unexpected rise starting soon after liftoff and peaking at about 50 seconds (see Figure 13-2). Following the peak, the teq)erature returned to a normal level at about lO0 seconds, and remained similar to cocoon temperature levels for the other engines. The peak tmperature at 50 seconds was approximately 13% above the upper band experienced during previous flights, There are two possible
B

) I

causes for

this

anomaly:

The first possibility is that hot gas from the Gas Generator (GG) may have leaked through the G8 drain port. Thts port is plugged in flight and opened only during ground ope_tlons. Leakage past the p]ug has occurred In the past during low pressure ground checkout. The temperature senso_ is I_ in

i

)

13-1

I

.'i

*

the vicinity of the GG drain port and a leak of about 0.003 lb/sec would propagate enough hot gas under the cocoon to cause such a temperature rise. A leak of such small magnttude weuld tend to be self-sealing due to the deposition of hydrocarbon solids from the fuel-rich GG combustion gases. This could explain why the temperature reading returned to the normal ]evel.
Q

The second possibility is a temporary loss of cocoon insulation integrity (possible loose combustion drain access cover) which later corrected itself, allowing the instrument to return to the normal temperature level. The temperature rise was coincident with the normal rise in base heating rate which peaks at about 50 seconds as shown in Figure 13-1. A loss of cocoon insulation integrity would show up in a temperature rise. However, the loss of cocoon insulation integrity would have to have been temporary because the temperature rise did not recur when the base heating rate peaked the second time at about 110 seconds (a non, a1 occurrence). Base heating rates and temperatures do not show any unusual excursions during SoIC flight, indicating normal gas flow in the base region.

Special attention will be given during prelaunch operations to inspection of the GG plug and cocoon access covers.

13.3

S-II BASE HEATING aft face tota] heat rate data band of previous flights heating rates uere 3.2 Btu/ft2-s.

Figure 13-3 shows the AS-512 flight heat shield history. The fltaht data fa|ls we]l within the except at Center Engine Cutoff (CECO) when the equal to the prevtous]¥ recorded peak value of

The AS-512 flight and the post-flight analytical value of the gas recovery temperature probe indicated output are shown tn Figure 13-4. The corresponding data band of the AS-503 through AS-511 flights ts included for comparison. Figure 13-5 shows the AS-512 flight and post-flight analytical values of the radiometer indicated radiative heat flux to the heat shteld aft surface. Also shown Is the post-flight analytical value of the actual incident radiative heat flux at the same location. The discrepancy between the radiometer indicated value and the !nctdent heat flux Is due to the heating of the radiometer quartz window by convection and long-wave plume radiation. Consequently, the radiometer sensor receives additional heat from th_ quartz window by radiation and convection across the atr gap between the wtndow and the sensor. Thts explains the apparently slow radiometer response at engine start, CECO, Engine Mixture Ratio (ENR) shift and at engine cut-off. Figure 13-5 shows that the actual incident radiative heat flux prior to CECOts about 30% less than the radiometer indicated value. The post-flight analytical history of the radiometer output ts tn good agreement wtth the flight radiometer output history. 13-2

}

"

!

There were no structural temperature measurements on the base heat shleld and only three thrust cone forward surface temperature measurements In the entire base reglon. In order to evaluate the structural temperatures experlenced on the aft surface of the heat shleld, a maximum post-fllght predicted temperature was determined for the aft surface using maximum i_ost-fllghtpredicted base heatlng rates for the AS-512 fllght. The pn_dlcted maximum post-flight temperature was 794°K (_g°F) and c_ pares favorably with maxlmum post-fllght temperatures predicted for previous f11ghts, and was well belom the maximum design temperatures of I066°K (1460°F) for no engine out and 1116°K (1550°F) for one cont.1 engine out. The effectiveness of the heat sh|eld and flexlble curtains as a themal protection system was again demonstrated on this f11ght as on previous flights by the relatlvely low temperatures recorded on the thrust cone forward surface. The maximum measured temperature on AS-512 by any of the three thrust cone forward surface temperature measurements was 260°K (g°F), which also compares favorably with data recorded on previous f11ghts. The measured temperatures were _11 be1_ design values. 13.4 VEHICLE AEROHEATING THERMAL ENVIRONMENT

i

1 F

Aerodynamic heating environments were not measured on the AS-512 S-IC stage. Due to the similarity in the trajectory, the aerodynamic heating environments are believed to be approximately the same as previous flight environments. Because of the nighttime launch, ground opttcal data from Helbourne Beach and Ponce de Leon cameras do not have sufficient clartty to define the flow separation point on the S-IC stage, but ttts expected that the data would be stMtlar to previous flights. 13.5 S-IC/S-II SEPARATION THERMAL ENVIRONMENT the heat input to the

Since the AS-S12 S-IC/S-II separation was nomal, S-IC LOX tank dome is assumed to be near nominal. There were no environmental measurements vehtcle but nothing has been observedtn anything other than a nomal envtrorment. tn thts related

area on the fltght flight data to indicate

i

13-3

_

f

8O

Ftgure

13-1.

S-IC

Base Regto.

Total

Heating

Rate

160. _7 :(CO _---"

_-5|2 FLIGHT DATA PI_VIOUS FLIGHT -3OO

I DATA 8AIIO

-2OO

i

80"

/,,.j...

-_

.

0

IIII

-0

-4O

lINE

TI_.

Ftgure 13-2.

S-IC kab|ent Gas T_per_ture

Under Engtne Cocoon

13-4

!

S-ll q_ q_7

IGNITION

_'

EMRSHZF'I"

INTERSTAGE SEPN4ATION S-I! CECO

PREVIOUSFLIGHT DATA -----------FLIGHT DATA POST-FLIGHT ANALYSIS

-4 4 I

'-

'" --!'_ ....

,.ram.

ql

m

_

m

e_
m ,

-3
w$
|

3

i

. ,

,,,-: ,.iii,. 1

-z
..

m

z

vi iJR

--

...

"

,3

0 ...

I
i

.

-0

-I

i _

..-1

7_
150 200 250 300 350 400 450 5O0 55O

7
600

RN,IGETIl'f.., $ECON_

Ftgure

13-3.

S-II

Heat Shteld Aft

Heat Rate

4

13-5

13.-6

F

i-, SECTION 14 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL SYST_

14.1

SU_4ARY

The S-IC stage forward compartment thermal environment was adequately maintained although the temperature was lower than experienced du-lng previous flights. The S-IC stage aft compartment environmental conditioning system performed satisfactorily. The S-II stage engine compartment conditioning system maintained the ambient temperature and thrust cone surface temperatures within design ranges throughout the launch countdown. No equil_aent container temperature measurements were taken; however, since the external temperatures were satisfactory and there were no problems with the equipment in the containers, the thermal control system apparently performed adequately. The IU stage Environmental Control System (ECS) exhibited satisfactory performance for the duration of the IU mission. Coolant temperatures, pressures, and flowrates were continuously maintained within the required ranges and design limits. At 20,998 seconds the water valve logic was purposely inhibited (with the valve closed). Subsequent te_erature increases were as predicted for thls condition. 14.2 S-IC ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL

The S-IC forward compartment pre-launch temperature reached a minimum of -g2.2°F (C0206-120) at liftoff. This temperature was lower by approximately II°F than experienced during previous flights but well above the established minimum design criteria. These criteria, established by analysis and test, permit a minimum temperature at liftoff of -llO°F after an 8 minute S-II stage J-2 engine chtl|down or -170°F after a 13 minute chilldown at the C0206-120 transducer location. Therefore, it was concluded that the critical components that are in the compartment were well abeve their minimum qualification limits. The aft compartment environmental conditioning system performed satisfactorily during countdown. After the initiation of LOX loading, the temperature in the vicinity of the battery (12K10) decreased to 65°F which is within the battery qualification limits of 3S°F to 95°F. The temperature increased to 78°F at llftoff.

14-1

_j

""

F

Just prior to liftoff, the other aft compartment temperatvres ranged from 77°F at measurement C0203-I15 location to 86.goF at measurement C0205-I15 location. During flight, the lowes? temperature recorded was 63.5°F at measurement C0203-115. 14.3 S-ll ENVIRONHENTAL CONTROL

The engine compartment conditioning system maintained the ambient temperature _nd thrust cone surface temperatures within design ranges throughout the launch countdown. The system also maintained an inert atmosphere within the compartment as evidenced by the absence of H2 or 02 indications on the hazardous gas monitor. No equipment container temperature measurements were taken. However, since the ambient measurements external to the containers were satisfactory and there were no problems with the equipment in the containers, it is assumed that the thermal control system perform.ed adequately. 14.4 14.4.1 IU ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL Thermal Conditioning System (TCS)

The IU TCS performance was satisfactory throughout the IU mission. The temperature of the coolant as supplied to the IU thermal conditioning panels, S-IVB TCS, and IU internally cooled components was continuously maintained within the required limits of 45° to 68°F until approximately 23,500 seconds, as shown in Figure 14-1. The coolant temoerature exceeded the monitored t._mperature band (50° to 60°F) of measurement C15-601 due to the planned inhibition (valve closed) of the water valve. Sublimator performance during ascent is presented in Figure 14-2. The water valve opened initially at approximately 180 seconds as commanded, allowing water to flow to the subllmator. Slgnlficanz cooling by the sublimator was evident at approximately 530 seconds at which time the temperature of the coolant began to rapidly decrease. At the first thermal switch sampling, {480 seconds) the coolant temperature was above the thermal switch activation point; hence the w_ter valve remained open. At the second thermal switch sampling (780 seconds), the coolant temperature was below the actuation point, and the water valve closed. Sublimator cooling was nominal as evidenced by normal coolant temperature (C15-601) cycling through approximately 21,000 seconds. Following water valve closure at 19,080 seconds the water line pressure indication, measurement D43-601, leveled off at about 1.4 psta rather than continuously decreasing to zero as ts normally expected during the sublimator drying out cycle. The indicated pressure remained at this level until about 27,000 seconds, at which time the indicated pressure did begin a gradual decrease to zero {Figure 14-I). This same general condition has occurred on a number of previous missions and is due to either water"

14-2

.

i

+ _W

.

4.

"3aNIV'd3d1431

:1.

"lll_lVl13dit31

ttsd

"3UI1$S3_

8

[
p-

'

I _,1 ! I1 i P/i I li

I I

irJl!

!

IN (II3SO 03.LI$II! _uWA

II _._i' •
UA.WA I i

iI
Q S,,

F'I- _!!,
}

b

8

L_

""

_

..)

]|

¢

i 14-3

0 °. .,

!

O) I,.

.

._ °
°o _p IL

B

]4-4

,--

.

.

..

.p

r

.

.......

freeze-up in the pressure pick up line, or icing at the pressure transducer resulting in the diaphragm of the transducer locking in a fixed position. The latter condition is thought to be the case, though in either event system performance is unaffected, and the true pressure in the water supply line decays nominally. At 20,998 seconds, the Launch Vehicle Digital Computer (LVDC) logic controlling water valve operation was inhibited by ground command with the valve closed. The purpose of this event was to eliminate sublimtor venting during the lunar impact course correction and tracking period between APS-I and APS-2 burns. (It had been conjectured from previous mission performance that water vapor venting from the sublimator contributed significantly to unplanned velocity changes, causing degradation in lunar impact accuracy.) The water valve remained closed and the sublimator inoperative until the valve inhibition was removed by ground conmand at 41,553 seconds, after the FCC was shutdown. Within this period of no active cooling, component and coolant fluid temperatures increased at rates within the conservative predictions. When the valve opened the sublimator quickly achieved a high level of heat rejection as evidenced by the rapid decrease in component temperatures (Figure 14-3). Within twenty minutes after subllmator restart coolant temperatures had returned to normal operating ranges. The water valve, however, was allowed to remain in the open position. All component temperatures remained within their expected ranges for the duration of the IU mission except for the period of time the water valve was commanded closed. The sublimator restarted in a timely fashion, with a high level of heat dissipation as expected. The TCS hydraulic performance was nominal as seen in Figure 14-4. The TCS sphere pressure decay was nominal as shown by Figure 14-5 and there was no evidence of any excess GN2 usage or leakage as was exDerienced on AS-Sll. 14.4.2 Gas Bearing System Performance

The Gas Bearing System (GBS) performance was nominal throughout the IU mission. Figure 14-6 shows ST-124 platform pressure differential (Dli603) and platform internal ambient pressure (D12-603). The GBS GN2 supply sphere pressure decay was as expected for the nominal casp as shown in Figure 14-7.
T

An attempt was made to evaluate the effects of residual IU venting during the period between APS-I and APS-2 burns while the TCS water valve was commanded closed (water sublimator eliminated as a source of S-IVB/IU thrust). Platform GBS venting and the corresponding APS activity have been analyzed with regard to trajectory perturbations. Details of this analysis are presented in Section 17.3.

L

14-5

,

I

i

i

--

--I

i

'_TLI MATERVALVE CLOSED k_ATER VALVE INHIBIT

dP$-1 APS-2 COM. MATERVALVE OPEN ,,, ST-iZ4H INERTIAL GieB.'_L LI,Jq-_all mmlm_mmACCEL. S)GNAL CONO. (C62-603) ................. b'T-124M ELECTRONICB)X (C63-O03) *****-*,*.** 2SO V A INVERTER (C67-603)

L

.......

i

c_Rot co_Ea c-,-_),

Ill

,

32!

"

"

"...";

*"

v"" _\

"-..

120

• 31!

--'%

-----,.,, .,'"

_7 ;

.,...-

, ..--'i ,.,_ q_, k.

_ ..._

_.-'_'-.-,"_"

._-"

IL -""_i

,
3S3

I:::--!
q i
1 t

i

i ]
-.......

i
LmC LOGIC (CS3-(,_3) t Lvoc MENORV (CS4-603)-J,---

i

i

............ L_TE_CCSS'_)

)

I

.... ,_i!

[
I _ ,

t'
313 303;
im _m. met

1

¢/
f
.G

' "':" 'i ..

-i_, I"?,.
._

)
48

J

I

l

273

l 0 4 8 12 16

i
20 24 28 32 RANG_ TIME, 1000 S_CONI)S q_e 6:00:00 T_ RNIGE TII_. 8:00:00 NOUItS:MINUTES:SECONOS

)
36 40 10:00:00 ?

I
44 12:00:00 _ "

_:_:00

m

2:00:_

I

4:_:_

Figure

14-3.

Selected

IU Component Temperatures

14-6
I .... • z .... II m'--|| _ . I-Np _ -+. +

• cl8 ']LV_ MOIJ
0 0 0 0

/I
1

:l
! ! i

/

,

L
i ,

" oo

'i
! !

/ ).'"

Y
,I
" ,! ,

m

i ' i , i '
r t'

_LL LI,._

|.

ee"

l !, i ( '! i 1:i
l o t ' i
! I I

oo oo
,° O (D U

!

,P_
U.Z L

.,.,J I"

't
I ;

N

1 )
r_

s
I ! ! # I

t
, ; i

'

t'i '.
I .

,

oo o o
°. .°

I

i;
I

8
.° N

! !

0

0

0

8 8 8
._q/EM"_J.V_I O'I_I 3 M

Z_/N

"]_S]ad

i
14-7
| !

!-

i
t

14-8

2O 13. 12.

18

m umm p..., o,._-+__,_m._) c i "-l" I [ I ) _" _
i

I

-

16 "

I0.

--- +"'_0 _N

t_tmm. _+mE.Tmssuet (m.6o3r , I
l

_.
_+ 12

8.

F
7 0 4 8 12 t6 20 24 211 32 3t 40 U 48 10 RANG(TIM(. IOO0 _conos 2:00:00
II I I flu I I

4:00:C0

6:00:00 8:00:00 lO:OG:O0 UNG[ TTM[, IO,IIS:N]NUT[S:S£CON05

12:00:00

Figure 14-6.

IV Inertial Platform GH2 Pressure

-2O

.m,+ _xmm cmm,_tm ,m+(
3Z00

-IPI, IGHT 0ATA ..... _XIN,_I ALLCVAIIL[ 011_MPTICII C PATE ....... •- l_([ImJ (x_i+b C0i+_.WTI011RAT[

"-,,j+'..:.._ +-..,. ", "'N _'_ ",,I'--._.._,_
_ ", )%

l

n

L

i I

*

I

I

i

I

2800

-...,_

_14.

i'_,

,%. _ I_o0
-q t'.ql Illlllm ., _ll+_l I+• lb. _1%. "ee 1 e.O e !%, m i,... -

8Oo

4OO

o

III iii

IIIi

I ill

0

8

12

15

2O

24

28

32

3+
i

40

44 I 12:00:00

48

IIA_G( T[I_. _:_:_ 2:(_0:00 * 4,:00:00

1000 _C011K

6:00:00 8:w:O0 i0:00:_0 UJlG[ T_M[. I*Olll$:M'mT[S:SII_IOS

Figure

14-'/.

IO GBS GN Sphere Pressures 2 14-g/14-10

6

I

*

SECTION 15 DATA SYSTEMS

l 5.1

SUI_RY Fllght

All data systems performed satisfactorily throughout the flight. measurements from onboard telr_:,etry were 99.8 percent reliable.

Telemetry performance was normal except for noted problems. Radio Frequency (RF) propagation was satisfactory, though the usual interference due to flame effects and staging were experienced. Usable Very High Frequency (VHF) data were received until 36,555 seconds (10:0g:15). The Secure Range Safety Command Systems (SRSCS) on the S-IC, S-II, and S-IVB stages were ready to perform their functions properly, on command, if flight conditions during launch phase had required destruct. The system properly safed the S-IVB destruct system on a command transmitted from Bermuda (BOA) at 723.1 seconds. The performance of the Command and Communications System (CCS) was satisfactory from llftoff through lunar impact at 313,181 seconds (86:5g:41). Madrid {MADX) and Goldstone (GDS) were receiving CCS signal carrier at lunar impact. Good tracking data were received from the C-Band radar, with BDA indicating final Loss of Signal {LOS) at 48,420 seconds (13:27:00). In general, ground engineering camera coverage was good. 15.2 VEHICLE MEASUREMENT EVALUATION

The AS-512 launch vehicle had 1353 measurements scheduled for flight; four measurements were waived prior to start of the automatic countdown sequence leaving 1349 measurements active for flight. Three measurements failed during flight, resulting in an overall measurement system rellability of g9.8 percent. A summary of measurement reliability is presented in Table 15-I for the total vehicle and for each stage. The waived measurements, failed measurements, partially failed measurements, and questionable measurements are listed by stage in Tables 15-2 and 15-3. None of these listed failures had any significant impact on postflight evaluation. 15.3 AIRBORNE VHF TELEMETRYSYSTEMSEVALUATION

Performance of the eight VHF telemetry links provided good data from 1I ftoff until the vehicle exceeded each subsystem's range limitations, however, data dropouts occurred as indicated tn Table 15-4. All inflight calibrations occurred as programmed and were within specifications.

15-I

Table 15-1. AS-512 Heasurement Summr¥ HEASUREHENT
CATEGORY S-IC STAGE S-II STAGE S-IV6 SIAGE INSTRUMENT UNIT
i

TOTAL VEHICLE

Scheduled Halved Fatled Parttal Failed O_stlonable Reliability, Percent

292 1 0 3

552 1 1 3

274 2 2 0

235 0 0 0

1353 4 3 6

0 100.0

0 99.9

0 99.3

0 100.0

0 99.8

Table
IqASt/IEIEIIT_
I L

15-2.
_
u '

AS-512 Flight Measurements Waived Prier to Flight
m"

TITLE

MTURE OF FAILURE S-.IC STAGE Tr_c_m" fd lure

J

0119-103

Prus_t_, FI_

Otfferlmtlll,

lit_

I-I-SIZ-1

GriM1 Mm|foid Sj_i S-l! STAll MNsvrmmt excneded tim zero shift spot4* flcatloe rmlVi rammt. Pr_rl_d _table data during fllpt. S-!_1 ST/El
u

0011-201

[I

LOXP_F

Olsclmrge

Ti_Fnel lnle_

Turbine

Osta came m*s_le fr_ off-scele I_ ill nendered q_'otlcally.
i i ,

Vmtver S12-Vt-13

Prels-Cold Nelti _l VII_ Inlet

Remote ketelt Jc C411krotlon S_tll (MCS) tdhd te ulllnt4 and tlw

lI1_

S12-1i-17

d_nfc _

_

15-2

+e

,+

,

Table IS-3.

AS-512 Measurement Malfunctions
TIME OF FAILU_ (IWm_ rim[)

TITLE

MTlJI[

Of FAILUI[

OUlMTIOll SATISF/ClIMIY oP[_txme

N

N[NIINU_

IrAILUR[S, S-If $TJ_(

0181-204 .T

Thrsst Cam Surface I_essere

Improper respoece iN ernlttc

11S seconls

Prter to 11S sKoeds

P_4_ble fatlvrt

trlreslluc_

IqEASUIIDINT FAILUII£S, S-111 STJ_E UnsltlsfKtory response to t_pers_n_ c_ees I 1,778 First _ d_t4 ms _od. Second burn aU NS pod until UllrOx. I1.7711 ser_mls. First burn Pr_Ixbll _ ¢trcult in ellis" sensor or lntor* cmmecUn9 cable

i"

C00R-401

Tmp-_NI Inlet

zer Tvrbtne

t

11a_-401

Speed-Fmll_p

b mponse lye1 ogercUee PMTIN.

to

llom ikml FAiLUI_S, S-I¢ 831 _ secmds ST_

1+4st iSk_1y cause yes o_4m plCk vp ¢oli

N£AS_I_[NT

COM-IOI

Tellplrtllllre, mlnl_ld Tmperltofll, Rmt fen

Tvrb|M Tvrbtne

ISeesvrm_t PqVd oft scale ht_ xlsvrmmt pegged off scale htgk (xcesslve noise

103 seconds

Pr_4ble fitlmre

trlmsdu¢l_'

I

C00_103

4Z seconds

IN_Wbl t tnmslkce" fJtlure Prol_le rile ummec_or p,'ilm

I 0047-|M

PrsSll_, Nit Skleid OI ffllrentlul

mteSo I0_N lOS SeceNs

147 seconds

i'_ITIAL

IIJgltlNDIT

FAIUII_o
,i

S-I!

STii( 163 seconds

mM-¢Ol

Hat SMeld Fervlr4 Svrf_ce Pressure

mm Zer_ sMft of qqw_x. IS PSU_ Laqle no|sl Imttlm ilcvrstml

mtoly 163 secmdl 42Sm Prtor to 4t2S seco_s

PreGablu trmsdvrler fitlvre

0011.._4

E4 L01 I_p W [4 IOt lllllt

01scSlr2e

ProWbl, fillm'_ Profile fltlm

tnmse_e,

Tim-

4S0U sm

trlmduclr

f-

_r
_t

Data degradation and dropouts were experienced at various times durtng launch and earth orbit as on previous flights, due to the attenuation of RF signals. Signal attenuation was caused by $-1C stage flame effects, $-IC Center Engine Cutoff (C[CO) and retro-rocket effects at $oIC/S-IZ separation. S-IC CECOresulted In |ntemtttent data loss from 140.65 to 142.80. The effects at S-IC/S-II separation lasted from 162.0 to 163.5 seconds. The S-II stage second plane separation effects were apparent between 195.0 and 195.2 seconds. The maximum attentuation of the DP1 signal was approxtmetely 22 db at the Central |nst_umentatton Facility (CIF) and is similar to that experienced on prior fltghts wtth 8 S-IC retro-rockets. 15-3

I

r_

Table 15-4.

AS-512 Launch Vehtcle Telemetry

Ltnks

.sin _-1 _e.i

FREO_I_'I' (mz) zs_.2 z44.3

_TION

STAGE

FLIGHT PERIO0 (WUlIG[ TINE, S£C) 0 to 420.65 0 to 420.65

PERFgflJMANCE SUHIMRY Satisfactory Data Dro_uts Range Ttl 140.6 (see) Ourlltton (sec) Z.2

F_F_ e ,vm

S-lC s-lc

BF-I llF-2 P-1

241 .S 234.0 248.5

FIq/Flq Ir/_F)l PQI/FIq

S-I! S-I| S-If

0 to 73S 0 to 735 0 to 735

Satisfactory Data Dropouts Range Tim 162.0 195.0 (see) Ouratton (sec) ! .S 0.2

!CP-1

2M.5

PC_F)I

S-IV8

0 to 13,900

Satlsflctory

Data Oropouts Range Tt.e (see) D.r, ttoa (sec) J
163.0 Intern1 ttant 194.1 OF-1 OP-1 OF-l| (CCS) 2S0.7 245.3 Z282.5 FtVm POI/FH POVm IU IU lU 0 tO 36,55S 0 to 36,5S5 0 to 49,_20 Satisfactory Data Dropouts Range Tim (see) Duration (sec) 2.6 Data 0.5

163.o (op-l)

!.1

15-4

-J•w

The last (ACN).
TI4 •

VHF signal

was 36,555 seconds (10:09:15)

at Ascension Island

The performance of S-IVB and IU VHF telemetry systems was normal during earth orbit, S-IVB second burn and final coast. A summary of available VHF telemetry coverage showing Acquisition of Signal (AOS) and LOS for each station is shown in Figure 15-1. 15.4 C-BAND RADAR SYSTEM EVALUATION

The C-Band radar performed satisfactorily during flight, although several of the ground stations experienced problems with their equipment which caused some loss of signal. Phase front disturbances were reported at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) between 123 and 137 seconds, Grand Turk Island (GTK) between 560 and 568 seconds, Grand Bahama Island (GBI) between 340 and 357 seconds, and Patrick Air Force Base (PAFB) between 28 and 90 seconds. Phase front disturbances occur when the pointing information is erroneous as a result of sudden antenna nulls or distorted beacon returns. Carnarvon (CRO) experienced signal fade and dropout near Point of Closest Approach (PCA) during revolution l, due to the high elevation and attendant high azimuth rates. The BDA FPS-16 site experienced data losses during boost {552 to 642 seconds) and during the second revolution (3330 to 3366 seconds) because the vehicle look angles during these passes were such that the FPQ-6 antenna obscured the FPS-16 antenna during these intervals.

!
During revolution 3, Merrltt Island Launch Area (MILA) reported the tracking angles wandering over a wide area before PCA although there was no evidence of beacon malfunction and the beacon was tracked from horizon to horizon. According to the Radar Operator Log, a cold front was passing through the area at the time and the operator suspected that temperature inversions were interfering with the tracking during that time. After PCA the tracking proceeded in a normal fashion. The BDA FPQ-6 reported weak signals and intermittent track during the period between 41,760 seconds and final LOS (48,420 seconds) while the vehicle was tumbling. A summary of available C-Band radar coverage showing AOS and LOS for each station is shown in Figure 15-2. 15.5 SECURE RANGE SAFETY COMMAND SYSTEI_SEVALUATION

IW'

Telemetered data indicated that the command antennas, receivers/decoders, Exploding Bridge Wire (EBW) networks, and destruct controllers on each powered stage functioned properly during flight. They were in the required state-of-readiness if flight conditions during the launch had required vehicle destruct. Since no arm/cutoff or destruct commands

,_

15-5

-

°

PNIKING QRIIIT INSiPtTlOll

a_l,, asm, _mt

n._,i_s

_S-lVll SECOIIUIGJIITIOtl _;' tltlUlSLUlt411 In_.CT loll tt

0

SOB

1 :! 1000 II_

_ )OGO titlE, _COIl_

35n0

4SO0

SO00

• 0

V

t: : + t ;l 00:30:00 O1:00:00 TIN[, IcCtllS:HI RUT(S: S[C_IOS

Rim

ii

i

i

i

TIPE. SFXCIIOS & OI: 310:00 itNg_ TIN(, I 02:00:00 NOUIS_ltlUITS:S(C0flOS

li

I w

II,NO

II._lO

Y

TitlE,

NOqIS:PlIIIt/IT$: S[CIDIII

l
IZ.O00 wm TUt. 1_." ]O._l IMIIG[ Till[. O_:O0: O0 IS :O0:eo Iq011RS.-PlIIIUIl[S:S[C0110S
t

i

Ftgure

15-1.

YHF Telemetry

Acquisition

end Loss T_mes

15-6

'e

.+?

_ _°

PAIII[II& NIT INSERTION BEGIN $-11111 RESTART PREPARATIONS

'_PS-IVl +

IGNITION

t_

qmw_

s_tc'rlm

i'_mAIT/Fl_-5 _ CaO,'FPQ-6

soo Y

+o_o

1500
TIHE.

•_Z

3000

,

|

3500

4OOO

Si[C0110S

k.

0 IL4NG(TII_.

00:30:00 HOUI_:fllNUT(S:S(COlIOS

01:00:00

;t

iUtO/n'Q-6
|

5OOO

SSOO

6OO0

,

6S00

,

't}

IS00

,

1000

,

,

.+
01:30:00

P, NISE TINE. 5EClmK

02:30:00 NAME TIE. HOINIS:IgNUIlTS:SI(C01_

I!
i mx_te

3'.

"IL

I,

,

11.000

.'
11 .SO0

,
12,000

_t_'

,
34,500

,,
_CONOS

,
3S,000

_,P

,
40.000

I

44,S00

iNIGE Till(.

Y

..
03:30:00

,?:

,,

I

13:30:00

IWIG[ TIE,_ HOUIIS:NIIIRS:S[COIOS Figure 15-2. C-Band Acquisition an4 Loss T_aes

15-7

• 4

.

were required, all data except receiver signal strength remained unchanged during the flight. Power to the S-IVB stage range safety command systems was cutoff at 723.1 seconds by ground command, thereby deactivating (safing) the systems. 15.6 15.6.1 COMMAND AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM EVALUATION Summary of Perfomance

The performance of the command section of the CCS was satisfactory. No flight equipment malfunctions occurred during the flight. The phase lock periods from liftoff to Translunar Injection (TLI) for the downlink carrier are shown in Figure 15-3. Ground station coverage times from TLI through lunar impact are shown in Figure 15-4.
+ • . . ...... !.....

i i

!

Nineteen commands were initiated by Mission Control Center-Houston (MCC-H) and a total of 182 words were transmitted. Two words were not received by the onboard system because the upltnk signal level was below the command threshold. These words were retransmitted and accepted. One commandwas retransmitted when a telemetry dropout precluded verification of acceptance by the transmitting ground station. These problems resulted from signal strength fluctuations (uplink and downlink) occurring during the solar heating maneuver. A list of commandsinitiated by MCC-H and the number of words transmitted for each commandts shown in Table 15-5. 15.6.2 Performance Analysis

The first of the three commands required to accompllsh the solar heating maneuver was transmitted unsuccessfully at 22,659 seconds (6:17:39) and caused the vehicle attitude to begin moving about the pitch axis. The changing vehicle attitude resulted in uplink and downlink signal strength fluctuations from Z2,665 seconds (6:17:45) to 22,860 seconds (6:23:00). As a result of uplink signal strength fluctuations, the mode word of the solar heating command initiated at 22,667 seconds (6:17:47) was not received onboard. The uplink received signal strength was down to -117 dbm and the 70 KHz subcarrier lost lock for 0.3 second at the time of word transmission. The modF ,_ordwas retransmltted and accepted. The solar heating commandinitiated at 22,677 seconds (6:17:57) was accepted onboard on the first transmission e-:ept for the third d_ta word which was accepted on the first retransmission. At the time this word was first transmitted, the onboard receiver signal strength had dropped to approximately 5 to 7 db belot: commandthreshold. The commandthreshold measured at KSC was from -103 to -106 dbm. The momentary low signal strength levels are attributed to antenna nulls. Single word dumps were initiated at 22,749 seconds (6:19:09). Sixteen words were accepted by the vehicle. At the time the sixteenth word was transmitted, the grounC station lost telemetry lock for 0.25 second and therefore did not detect the Address Verification Pulse (AVP) and Computer Release Pulse (CliP) from the vehicle. Therefore, the 15-8

/.

_tll-

,

,

PA_IN miT

:_SEnlOm

II(G|II S-|m NESTAIITPR(PAMTIOIS TUNSL_IIIAJI |Ik_CT_011 _|o_

_

t,JIO

wwm

r_ v

IO00

|

1500

Z_O

300O TILE. S(C, lIOS O

3SO0

4OOO

|

J

11

4S00

0o0

|

;Z
00:30:00

I
01:00:00 IWmE TIME, IIOURS:NIIIUTES:S(COdOS

_

0

_eos

n_

¢.

mmCJI0 ILII

s_o
T_. I O!:30:00

|

IO00

11000

M.O00

II.m

IZ.O00

,
i_ T]I_ a NOUtS:nllnl_fs:_c_s

,

q_

V

Ftgure

15-3.

CCS Ommltnk

Phase Lock Ttmes

(Llftoff

to

TLI, _

1S-9

;

ll_Klqln IIUICT !011 I.IlUl Im_T
t t

HSI_ in _u

m
I

III
mvm

NJOT

IL

mo

......

B

....

ll,_lm TIN[, W I t:m:O0 i , 1O:O0:00 I tS:00:O0 t_ I 20:00:00 TII_, S_CI]_S ,I ZS:00:00 I 30:O0:f10 I .,'S:00:00

_44.4go

ILzoooo

I m:fto:oO

I 4S:0O:00

HOURS:MIIqlI_S:SECOI_S

I

mm I III I I .s_ I mm
I II I.S_

I

lill_

IIE,OW

Z_,OW

ISZ.O00

170,000

al,_O

_,llm

324,_

4l

TW

lm_

:W

SS:W.08

t0:00:aO

tS:0_:G0 TilE,

_.

:00

7S:00:00

ee:N:eo

II$:ee:e8

!)o:ot,lo

w_IIS._ff_Rf3:S_I_S

Figure

15-4.

CCS Coverage

(TL!

to

Lunar

Zmpact}

15-10

°:

.....

C_-

-

L_
= o,,

:Z:

!
"E

| i

-ii
4J 4,0 I01

_=
I'-

IS-li

ground station retransmitted the word 8 times. After each retransmisston the Launch Vehicle Digital Computer (LVDC) sent down an error message stating that the word received was out of sequence since it was expecting the seventeenth word. A terminate, commandwas transmitted at 22,818 seconds (6:20:18) to clear the onboard commandcircuitry and at the complete single word dump commandwas successfully retransmttted at 22,828 seconds (6:20:28). 15.7 GROUND ENGINEERINGCAHERAS

In general, ground camera coverage was good. Thirty-three items were received from KSC and evaluated. One item did not provide coverage of the entire event due to a film Jam, and one did not have timing. The vehicle vertical motion data is not reducib|e due to timing loss. The night launch had no effect on the camera coverage during pre]aunch operations and during ]tftoff. Although, as expected, the tracking coverage was not nearly as clear as experienced during daylight launches.

i

L

15-12

SECTION 16 MASS CHARACTERISTICS

16.I

SUPg_ARY

Total vehicle mass, determined from post-flight analysis, was within 0.68 ................ percent ofpredicted from ground ignition through S-IVB stage final shutdown. This small variation indicates that hardware weights, propellant loads, and propellant utilization were close to predicted values during flight. 16.2 MASS EVALUATION

Post-flight mass characteristics are compared with final predicted mass characteristics (MSFC Memorandum S&E-ASTN-SAE-72-87) and the operational trajectory (MSFC Memorandum S&E-AERO-MFT-200-72). -The)ost-fT1ght mass characteristics were determined from an analysis of all available actual and reconstructed data from S-IC ignition through S-IVB second burn cutoff. Dry weights of the launch vehicle are based on actual stage weighings and evaluation of the weight and balance log books (MSFC Form gg8). Propellant loading and utilization was evaluated from propulsion system performance reconstructions. Spacecraft data were obtained from the Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC). Dry weights of the inert stages and the leaded spacecraft were all within 0.9 percent of predicted, which was well within acceptable limits. During S-IC burn phase, the total vehicle mass was less than predicted by 470 kilograms (I036 Ibm) (0.02 percent) at ignition, and less than predicted by Z878 kilograms (6344 Ibm) (0.34 percent) at S-IC/S-II separation. This difference ts the net of a larger than predicted LOX loading, and a less than predicted upper stage mass, S-IC fuel loading, and residuals on board at separation. S-IC burn phase total vehicle mass ts shown tn Tables 16-1 and 16-2. During S-II burn phase, the total vehtcle mass was less than predicted by 740 kilograms (1630 lbm) (O.l] percent) at ignition, and greater than predicted by 47 kilograms (103 Ibm) (0.02 percent) at S-II/S-IVB separation. This deviation is the result of a lower than predicted S-II LOX load and a higher than predicted upper stage mass. Total vehicle mass for the S-II burn phase is shown in Tables 16-3 and 16-4.

16-1

! _J

a

Total vehicle mass during both S-IVB burn phases, as shown in Tables 16-5 through 16-8, was within 0.68 percent of the predicted values. A difference of 57 kilograms (125 Ibm) (0.03 oercent) greater than predicted at first burn ignition was due to S-IVB dry weight, LOX and APS loading. The mass at completion of first burn was 956 kilograms (2108 Ibm) (0.68 percent) higher than predicted and was due primarily to the hioher than ........ predicted velocity at S-II stage c_toff. The high velocity at S-II cutoff resulted in a shorter than predicted burntime of the S-IVB stage to reach the desired trajectory end conditions and consequently more propellants were onboard at this time than predicted. A longer than predicted S-IVB second burn was required because of the mass of the ..........extra propellants onboard. Even with the longer burn, the residual propellants were 226 kilograms (498 Ibm) (0.35 percent) more than predicted but well within typical dispersions. A summary of mass utilization and loss, both actual and predicted, from S-IC stage ignition through spacecraft separation is presented in Table 16-9.--A comparison of actual and predicted mass, center of gravity, and moment of inertia is shown in Table 16-I0.

16-2

jr

°

_J "1{

,o ,¢

..e ,3 u J' .-_ ,0 ,0

T_
*F. -t _ I •. ,t D ,q lel tt i,! rv:. G.

14_,1

ii,lt

, i I I

II

I

I I

4' I,,. tn E , ; .I. of o ii.. q... al: I,,<':l OU I-.. _J O_ UJ G. I oo*ooeooeoeo vh ,0 0 t I.I t_l: ::) I ua_J I ll-. I _.41a ol ud,#/ I _,3, I q[ .4 "0 ..e .,.4 4' -..e

I
cO.

S-

q_ tu G.

d,
I

lU

I I I ! I I I i I !

,a.

I,,1[

o

,0 4'

,,_ in l< (1_1

I J_ 0 eGII ,.4, _4 o _eeee_oeelee

_I_O

_0_ 4'

_._0_ 4mmON_ @,

N

m

I _' I .4 IF'-

4' _'_

0 F--

2

;

,4) i

Q ,4)

=
I 0 4J .10 I | i _J ld I I lal I I I I( I-ILl t_ II-)_ th tl i._ lt_. NN% I I _11 ) -_1 I t_-I q[ _liJ II-- ltJ e( _{t, I *" I I_ I lU I _I0. I I -ll I_[ I_ ,.J I I I I I I I I _b*_. t_l ,,._ _ ! e_e_eeeeeee_ ! 0 I.'* I m (It N •,_ i_ I_ ,4, _a _ N I I. I I I I I I *

......

;

&

_

I,-

I_

I

I i'* l Z llU I I .,I 19[

Ill 0 < I

!

.,J t*

I I

.I..J 4_ Im t--

oooog_lg

..' 4{_el i..,. I.,.

..I

I_:

16-3

I I

o

i

i

!
I

!

16-4

_0 i.dD ._ >0 I _ .it

..,_

...e

i I 1__es -I ,-4 II) ,0 _1 ".'J ,_1 90 ,0

.0 0 _. 14 u_ 0 ..,} _u I_lll I Ul ." 1° d) ,..,I -,_

;

2;2;

;

;

i
S. 0

r I "1 i | ! i I

_ 11....

'u 1' "_

o,-

o

_
41

SaD Ill _ T luJ i a. ! ! I ! ! ! ! ! !

! V) VI nl Z

_

;;g
(14 0 i_1 _11 {k i ,.i I | I I i .l_ ,_ 4 _,i

Z 0

1.1 U Ir.J= _U

g;;
IZ

IIIi!111tl

t

I

I,,- ,0

I

II_

(_

._*

_

0

*-*

.-*

I I I

,0

I 0 I" (1 I i 0,I _ I .e

,4
I Ill _U U _ !

i

g
,o .o o Po _

T
!

"
I

II I--

_l._l

*{

E

II_

I

I

_ _)_ I1_0( _1_ Ja" J_ ( _ II I_ l* I _IL 4.1 llll ILl I t .I _[ I I-. I .I • I *-* *u

!

I _1 -I.._.,J _[_[_[ s-I*-I_-l.-

oooo

o

tll

:3 0 D.. t

In

_L

S. m

1'--9 | U) ! Ih 41 =E {U

"G
4;

0 I--

I _0

4U ,Q mS I--

[

16-6

j

!

j-

L

o

_

<

I

lU

e_

.S-

in

I

!

lp

IU

0

! _0 j,..,.

.Q
I'--

I

16-7

tl • ,_P•.4 •+ ) ++

4
.I

,I
,1_ ,+_

.._

_' .: .'t ;.' ?,

,,

,J

,:

-g


,II

,_

0-'+

4

_

.:2

;
4'

-I
lid 0 '0 F'-_ ,4',"+ ,,F"P" I1_ _l "+

,J

I

=10.

I_ |

.J

I

_l.J

.1

J

I0

O0 I-I-

0 e-

1_,-8

Q 1

*

.11'

"3) 41

2, ; ° 2 Iii

4[_ t't"1_ _jm

"f ....

--4 I .... 11

_r

ill

2
_Jl" _4 ,.. _.. r_l .,...._ _d eql _1 -. 4r _1, ....* 0-,,0 •

E
41 I. T¸ O m_j

.T,
! {U III

e m *'4 4'

o
el.. =1 .-Iv D_ imJ Ii. It. -) 4 .)

:

O"
U I/) lu Q. ,-) O_ .,,4 *.4 ..) d "4

2
,1_

;
,o .|

'7
! I#1 1,0

q_ .-4 4,

.,,4,0

,..4

3[:

_;__

"g
ID ,o ,4) 4-1 O I-" U 4

O

J

.I._
.| • _ 4

,4
! !

"_ _

*4

Ill
14 I-V_q_ UII I I :1[ I I,I Ill _1 I 01-0'4[ • *" _ J lU J._& J _'u_,JO .I.-.11 =11[) aJJ -e.tvl I J --eIil(l((l(l(I ./,,.8 ...ill t J e J ! IlL _l .I .J

(

"'_B_B_Z__'_I_21_I_

'.

!

:i I
R r_

b..t

! u,<

G. ULII tn tn

L_I

!

_-,
Ill e:3 o e_ "o, ) l• I _o o. .o s. ljm f_ . .i) ,I 4'_ .e.4 ,o ,l_ P4 • t .h ol J ,t .i _e 0e _ll .4

; .,_
•j .e, .e -_. * vJ _ _ • ,,4


°4

/, _ t
.e

o u

teJ .4 .4 i _J3 i

?. &
er_ ,_ _4 ,..4 ! o ,j _2 0

,')

-4 r..

,,,4

.4

Q,P

2

"g

_;
0

"d

,_
0 0 m_

g.I

.I
(I

I Z' | _ 0 w a. (3, 0 ,4 0

°_,._ I-u IA I I Qd

,'2 _
.J ml N I" I_. I .1 I j.l l(i( i,- I..I t-I Im Q.

,T
im t IL5 I ,2 _e_ I_000__ I _J_J_Z_O I0 I_ JJZ_JO I

o

Table
_SS $-|C S-_C/S-;: S-X| $T_EI S-[|/$-Z;_ S-Iv8 STa3[* |NSTR_':[',T S_;CECR_;T, |S_ FLT ST3 ST:3_ _St _!STO_Y T_T&_ ..............

16-9.

F11ght Sequence Mass SunTary
P_EOICT_D _G 2245_Z0. k_)l* 493318. J637, 120627, 20_6, L_ _ SOjd463. 99¢0. 1087593o 8019, 26_93S. _S_1, 11631_, 6S338A3, _G 22a_679. k_. _2_7, _7, 1_069_, 2027, _2735. 2961859° ACTUAL _ SGJ_6_. 997_. _0_90_. 8U19. 266087, 4_70, 116269, 68ZgTSk,

TOTAL

T_TAL :$, T3TAL 7CT_L U',IT T3T&_ AT |_% ...................

52759, 2962329.

_ST

FLT

ST3

AT

,_Aq

2923460° -29_, -2078975°

6_G_28° -680, --_§8335_. 16, -37° -2101. -38, --200* O* 18_7876. -e_GS. O, O, 1849470, -3S7806. -1359, O* O, 1_903G6, O* 3, O* 1490305. "28* O* 1_8899§, -99318_, -9167, -8631* -118, k77893. -320. -S* k77868, -92158, -69_9, -1060o -_8, --3, -3, 377337° -

Zgl?dk3, -Zg_, -2076_17. -16, -997. -17* --90* O* _'.OG|6, 03988° 0, 836027, -160159, -616, O, 67528_° O* O* 675251, --11, O° 67_657, -_49797. -_129, -3908, -_k, 21677_, -108. "Z* Z16668, -k1791, -31_4, -_82, Z), --1, -;, 17121_°

6_327_b. -6_0, -_$76a36. -37, -Z190. -38, -ZO_* O° 18_1919° -8793. O° _843_26, -353091, -13_° O, _k8867_. 0, U* 1_8867_° --2_* O* 1487366, -99_633, -910k, -8616, -97, 47791_. -Z)U. "_* 477671, -q_138, -695_, -1J6_, -_8, -3-3, 377_63,

_ROST qA_;,_:3_ _2 P_[ 3_$ 3[C*v-|_ !'.S_ r;:St _C_v-_ _73 AT _CO q_T _ *[ o |S R(T SSC =_g_ ............. T_R_ST S-ll S-_;_ T_R'J_T 157 FLT

-9S3. -17, --90* O* 8_2718-38120

THRUST 5-1C/$-;; _$7 $TG F_T AT

_C_-g[ _ $TG AT $_A_ _._ $TG L£;3 _ ST3 7;%( _ $T3 AT _T AT

83890_, -162298, -616,

S[_AT|_%

S-|C/S-!| S-IC/S-|; 2_D _T

675991.

_uEL $-;CIS-;; 2_O F_T

RKT IG_ 67_991,

O*

START S-|CIS';; 2NO F_T

--''**° R_T _S 675396, --_053;. -_1S$* .AqGE 1$ -39_-$3* COS PROP SEP Z16768* -1_* --2216$2_, -_1802* -3186° -"_80-21, PRO_ --Z* -I, $SC 171157, G*

_A|_$TA_ _ES S-|C/S'_: TD 2ND & F_T [%3 $_3 _3P _T

T_RU$T $-1v5 L. 2_D FLT

2_:_Y **_v q_T $-3 AT

STG AT $-||/S-:,_ $-[[/S-;,_ $-|VS S-|v8 S-lVB 3RD FLT _"

$_=A_A7|O_ |$ ORY PROP FqA_[ q_T P<G AT ;.L _£_ ST3

?

,0 • #

,, •

Table
MASS HISTORY

16-9.

Flight Sequence Mass Summary (Continued)
PRE_ICTEJ K3 LSv ACTuA.

3RD FLT STG 1ST ULLAGE ROCKET FUEL LEAD

SSC _qCP

1711_7, -39, -0, 17111_, -9, -_63, 1709_1, -61, -30901. -1, 139976, -3Be 139937. 18, -_0_5, -_7, -0, -7, _38_21 "11, 138801, -161_

37/337. -_$, -1, 3772_4, -22, -361, 376_60, .'135° -6_127• -_, 3_E57_. -Sk, 304513, _0° -2339. -10_, -2o -16, - _3&029° -_, 3060_S. -356, 33_6_g, -161293_

1T_2_, -bgo "1Z7_;73, -9. -Z60, |?103J, -61. -300_6. -3• _0_33. -)6. _0_93, -18, -13_1, -b3, -0, -7, - 139761° -11, L39750° -19_, 13_k9, -73B28°

37T-_3. -_:. -3o _T73_Z, -_, -35-. 376_9Z, -_3S. -b6L_2. -7, 31069:. -3_. 3_36;=, -_:° -Z297. -1_, -2, -i_* 3_8_Z. "Z_, 36_97. -_3_307b_, -16ZTb_.

3RD FLT STG IST [G_ ULLAGE RCCKET P;OP START TA%_ THRUST 8U|_0_ _ 3RD FLT STG 1ST ULLAGE RDC<ET _AI_STAg5 APS 3RD FLT T_uST ST_ 1ST DECAY vS CASE

--

-

COS

3RD FLT STG 1ST ETO E_GI_E PRO: FUEL TA_K L_SS LOX TA_K LOSS APS START TA_K

......

.....

3_O FLT STG FUEL LEAD

2_3

SSC

3RD FLT STG 2_0 START TA_K TNRuST BUILDUP 3D FLT STG MA|NSTAGE APS 2_D

IG_

_S

13863_° --73161°

3RD FLT STG 2";0 TPRUST DECAY

COS -36, 6§_38e -1170, -30367* ")38* 33_62. 30367. 63929. -30367, -16436e -29_, 16829, -62S, -20_6e -T90 1_2o7, -Z5_i, --669_9. --7kS, 73992, 669_9, 140941, -669_9, -36237, -6S20 37132, --13800 -_511, "_2° b566_, -1L70, -333b_° -Jlk. 3381_. 303_ko 64179, -3036k0 -164_4, -272• 1T09_° -62_-2027° -5-0 _76:, -Z_;* -b69_2, --6_3, 7_S_, 66g_2, 1ki_9;, "06gk2. -_6Z, -b=_, 37bE:° -;3E.o -_?_,

3RD FLT STG 2_O ETD JETTISG_ SLA CSV S-;v8 STAGE LOSS STRT TRANS/DOC¢ CSM END TRANSI_0¢¢ CSM L_ S-Iv8 STAGE

LO_S

bAU VEH AT S/C SEP S/C NoT SEPARAT(D iU

S-IV8

STAGE

-14157.

-31211°

-I_1°

-3|_37.

#-4

_ .

T

16-12
II II I I • mm - --i Im'J

"3, i _," r. 0 u_ m ;I "0 ,.q O

I

I

_.
..)J:-.v X_

o_
I O I e,l,3 • I * I

2
• !

,,4 0

,4 o

a.O

_'J<

eo vl

,)

.'1_

0 I

4
I !

J_ .II

."-. I I ¢_ el t

o
_3 ..I

0"1

OO

J*

_

g;
f,-Ii R_ I,,-_ 4r_ll

ee

_utr o_1_ U q OO

0_Io_

O* .,1[ .( ...I e") O OI !

J_"

I

.Irr-

N,,D

N,II_

*,0

! I

e_l

04

o,,lt

eO

e_

o
I _. ||j O ¢)

O_

I

!

!

JlJ .J.P Jril_ or-. i_11t I _*,'q I i'll',, I i_111 I I I ! I

_I_N

¢1

.J il _t

I I I I |

J

I I ! I I

.I n

I_i IX ! ,1[

I I

II.#

?

lel ILl I I #'1 ¢1

g

W_ I ! I | _J

,

T

I

N N ! d

16-13

T

#

4'

I

=

2.

4

I

I

-'!

.IJ 0 (..) v Q

0 • l| •

,# 1) '1.*) -, o, | t

",

)

I' I#! (J

II

!

I

# _n

I.

.*'1

"E
IIJ U 1..

e

_o l't).-_ t

0 in in

1_4 -I!

I'

P-

eO_

erl_

0 ! 1.0 i..-. !

.g
!

•0_ .CI #0 I"-

-,1.11'

0_'11

<11_1

I I

, _

*,-0

.J I

,,J _ 1"i*,

16-14

,-,.._ io _,,. • tt, r I t|l I 0 .4 _t "l,) • It J,. v' i ! .e _e ••) i,i o( cJ (I • I ..... |_ 01 *q ,e ,4 ,O .* ..e .e

.It

.It

t

,I

'1

•0 ¶.13 4,1 i1,, t_ .4 J .4 .4 r_

!

I

_
0 c,.) _.:J

2 _ "_ I

o 0

0 I/I .,p... S..,

.j=._ J

I "_

2D I0 "_

! ! I

I) _l) • :) ¢'1. N 0 I I • ,'1, .3e_ • 0 I I • "3

0

R0 r,.,) I/I U _r I/I J • • ,_ I[

,( i,-. J

rl.')

_g
! _'IQ I "_ .') !

:;
_r_

e_

##
1 4'')

??
4.,.,

-.

Orv •

I I

0"_ •

o..,;._ o._
0 ."_ I _) ,,"_ o_ _e e_ I _ _e *4V_ O0 0 • *0

':_. I +'.=.
0,,_ "o")

4; U 4I I,.. .J 4_ ,.J 0 _X l--v _el_e 0 •

e_ I ! I

I

I

C,.)

_elle ,'_I '_ o4' e.lr oO ft-Pb e.d' /',,. Iq eel 0 m 4 I ..-. I",. e_lo_ 10110

0 * ,.JU

c_
F--" I r.-, CU ,.10 n I--' < ! O0 • e •

0 0

o
eel • •

_
e ,-*_l • I •

g

4)_1

•-IP= "'*_

| I I I I

_4P_ ,"*_ ! .I u _4 _J _l • _ • . 4[ .J

.I 'l _"-I i_1 I Q. I,.t,J 91

G.

I I

'_

lUO '_0 lu _0 ¢,.. 4[ _ V)_,.') lid •-C uq,

J_ ul Q I

m .jk.

V J_ ,,,_ 4,1 Q Q I O Q _, k_ lu I J_

16-15

f- +

Ii

.It lr

• +4'i ..... ! +

.o ,,,D • _ +

I I | I I J

.,o • -"+ I -

,O • 4,

,It

A

N o

I l.... I I I

"51 ii, d"l

0 ,O i +

I I I' I !

.,,0 " •

,_I ,I _

,4,.II £-. O

d e

e_ .)

! 4' O O Vl, • O I I I I ,.I 3 "_ ,1_ -It • ! ! I O I .o .it

I

!

3,

_'

I

')

O.

%';
•+I ".II iii • 211 ,.4

S
! U 41".. .I.,I !

.+ ,

@;
I !

U ell I,.. 110 I...II I/I,

c_ "7
0,I l,l..

I---

! 4 '.._

i
!

16-16

1

SECTION .I 7 LUNAR I_T .......

17.1

SUMMARY

The Apollo 17 S-IVB/IU lunar impactmission objectives were tolmpact the stage within 350 km of the target, determine the impact time withln l second, and determine the impact point within 5 km. The first t_m objectives have been met. Further analysis is required to satisfy the third objective. Based on analysis to date, the S-IVB/IU impacted the moon December lO, 1972, 20:32:40.99 UT (313,180.99 seconds after range zero) at 4.33 degrees south latitude and 12.37 degrees west longitude. This location is 155 km (84 n miles) from the target of 7 degrees south latitude and 8 degrees west longitude. The velocity of the S-IVB/IU at impact relative to the lunar surface was 2,544 m/s (8,346 ft/s). The incoming heading angle was83.0degrees west of north and the angle relative to the local vertical was 35.O.degrees. The total mass impacting the moon was approximately 33,933 kg (approximately 30,712 Ibm). Real-time targeting activities modified the planned flr_tAuxllia_ Propulsion System (@d)S)lunar impact bum attitude to reduce the burn duration. A second /LoSburn was performed to complete vehicle targeting. 17.2 TRANSLUNAR COAST MANEUVERS

Following Command and Service Module (CSM)ILaunch Vehicle (LV) separation at 13,348 seconds (3:42:28); the CSMwas docked with the Lunar Module (LM) at 14,231 seconds (3:57:11). The C_/LM was then ejected from the S-IVB/IU at 17,102 seconds (4:45:02). After CSH/LM ejection, the S-IVB/ IU was maneuvered to the inertially-flxed attitude required for the APS evasive burn. Ttmebase 8 was Initiated as planned at |8,180 seconds (5:03:00). The APS ullage engines were ignited 1 second later and burned for 80 seconds. Table 17-1 shows that the actual evastve velocity change was close to nominal. Following the maneuver to the Continuous Vent System (CVS) and LOX dump attitude, the initial lunar targeting velocity changes were accomplished by a 300-second CVS vent startl_ 1,O00 seconds after T8 and a 48-second LOX dump starting 1,280 second; after T8. Table 17-1 shows that the CVS vent and LOX dump were near nominal. The Lunar Impact Team (LIT) at the Huntsville Operation Support Center (HOSC) decided tn real-time to shorten the first APS lunar impact burn (APS-1) duration by selecting a more efficient attitude. This change

'i

17-1

Table

17-1.

Translunar

Coast Maneuvers

,..,.tIEr '
UT 1tam Iluvo 7 Dot.. TQIe, hr:mln:5e¢ (,UC)

ACTU&L I .0mHL " Tl"t_,st , im,,TlO,
10:30:00 S:03:00 (18,18eJ [VASIV[ |gin I I I0:35:00 S:03:00 (;o.;eo)

[ ACT-|O.
0 0 (o1

ht:nll._se¢

InlEt*tie*. OurOt|on. Velocity *itCh

$ec SUC

from

T0

0 0

Increment,

ml$ (rt/$) dev. luertlel

2.90 (o.$11 -101.9S -3|.4Z ¢VS VENT

3.01 {o.oe) *104.9| -40.00
i, i

4.11 (-o.37) 2.to I,Z$

Attitude*.

Yew kttltvde*,

dog.

|nettle|

|ulUlation.

se¢

from

T0

! .004 300

l.HO 340 0.40 (;.JH --IS.IV+ -11.01 • (e.]o) *_70

0 I

hrltlon. Velocity Pitch

SOt Increment, Attitude*. mls ( f t/$ ) ,of. dig.
, se¢ free T0

0.49 (I.J_) -00.65 .17.07 LOX 0U_9

o,,os

IRePtlel IflertJe|

Yev Attitude**
i |u|tlJtien.

O.TS

I.ZlIO 41

I.III0 10 l.ll 130.11) *Jl.|S -11.0_ -I.ll (-0.30) 2.14

0 0

0mr|item,

$e¢

1z0.40)
Pitch Y_ Attttede*. Attltodi*. dig, des. Ilertlll Inertial -04.01 -14.40 ! lIP&¢T 0lll

9.10

APS F|'0ST tgllAII |lllttetieo
IMrlt100.

o sic
lee

from T0

0.020 01

4,010 o0 4.01 -4$.7S -II.01

I e e.0S 10.16) 2.04 |.41

¥11lClty Pitch V_

l*creaeet, Attitude**

Ill (It/s) dig. |nettle1 Inertial APS SlCmlO

4.07 113.30) -41.71 -_qD. 14 LMBMi INPACT 8gtn 11,$10 101 4./t (14.07)

Attltedon.

des.

Initiation, Ourttlooo lee

soc

fm

T0

21.300 |II 4.N (14.11) l;s.le -10.40

I 0 -O.01 (0.04) l.ll 1.77

Pitch

Attttudi**

dq,

lJlll"tlel

iTS.Z! 4.11 t,crmeat dlro¢ttN.

VlV Attltldi** *Attltedis li0?[:

41111. IMrttll ere tie vele¢lty

k81MII for beth L_ I, rHI-ttQe.

preflight lit*dieted leer leq)e¢t iotas

im¢epl tbet tile ImtNIs men deteralaed bit obe LIT
i

! 17-2

conserved propellant for a second APS lunar targeting burn• The commands for this maneuver were sent from the Mission Control CQ_ter at Houston (_C-H) by the Booster Systems Engineer (BSE) to the S-IVB/IIJ. The actual APS-I occurred as planned 4,020 seconds after TB and was close to the (real-time) nominal. The nominal values for APS-lshow, in Figure 17-I were selected in real-time and differ from the preflight nominals of 190 seconds burn time, 8.13 m/s (26.67 ft/s) velocity change, -lO1.7S degrees inertial pitch, and -18.55 degrees inertial yaw. Following the APS-I burn, an attitude maneuver was accomplished to prevent excessive solar heating of the IU while the Thermal Control System (TCS) water valve operation was Inhlblted. Although the IU's thermal control system water valve was closed prior to APS-1 to minimize non-gravitatlonal perturbations, MCC-H reported difficulty in the post APS-I orbit determination due to venting disturbances. Therefore, the planned contingency delay of l hour for targeting the second APS impact burn(APS-2) was incorporated. Upon completion of the post APS-I orbit detemination, MCC-H reported the S-IVB/IU would impact the moon at g.64 degrees south latitude and 15.2g degrees east longitude, 678 +300 km from the target. The liT d_Ided._In APS-2 burn was required and 3elected the nominal conditions shownin Table 17-1. At 22,320 seconds after T8, the APS-2 maneuver was performed. The actual maneuver as shown in Table 17-1 was close to nominal. After APS-2, the three-axis passive thermal control (PTC) maneuver was initiated at 41,503 seconds (II:31:43) range time and the flight control computer was turned off. Figure 17-1 presents line-of-sight range rate residuals from the Ascension Unified S-Band (USB) tracking station and depicts graphically the major S-IVB/IU velocity changes and the PTC tumbling. Residuals are obtained by differencing observed range-rate data with calculated range-rate data {observed minus calculated). The calculated range-rate data are developed from a sophisticated orbital model which is statistically fitted to portions of the observed data. Figure I7-Z verifies the reconstruction of the maneuvers presented In Table 17-I by showing the residuals resuiting from the same Ascension tracking data but with the reconstructed maneuvers modeled. However, the low-level perturbations occurring during this time period ano discussed In Section 17.3 are not included in the preliminary model shown in Figure 17-2. 17.3 17.3.1 TRAJECTORYPERTURBATIONS Introduction

L

)

Postflight analyses on recent Apollo/Saturn missions have-show, small nonravttattonal acceleraton effects in the S-1VB/IU translunar tr_iectory. uch accelerations have been expected stncebothS-IVB and the IU stage system vent during normal operation. These small vehicle accelerations were of no concern until AS-508 when Lunar impact became a mission objective. Since the accuracy of the S-IVB/IU's tracking data allows the determination

_J
•)

17-3

S.C

AP$

[VAS[ V[

i

'

i

//.LOX ,........-.e//I,".
i

.cvs vEnT

0_, o_,

I

I I

I .! .......
I . I PTC

I

_/APS°I
w_ de

I •

-S.0

'1C de W de de

-10.0

-lS.¢

ACN3
34:0U 36:00 38:00 " 40 : 00 -1 " _ i 0"0 .......

32:00

TIME
|

FROM OO:OO:00
I l:OO

GNT-6
• 7:00

DEC..

1972*NNS:NINS
I g*OO I1 I :OO

3:00

RANGE T|NE*NRS:IqIRS

F_gure

17-1.

Translunar

Coast

Maneuvers

Overview

300
E E
I

..f

100

APS EVASIVE

LOX DUMP

APS*2

0

/ u4 e,e W l-ne

v

-100

CVS VENT

APS-1 He DUMP

I
ACN3 -300 32:00 PTC 34:00 TIME
I

tV
42:00

Z _e

36:00 GMT-6
I

38:00 DEC.,

40:00 1972-HRS:MINS
I I
i

FROM 00:00:00
I

3:00

5:00

7:00 RANGE TIME -

9:00 HRS:MINS Coast Maneuvers

11:00

Figure
--.

17-2.

Modeled

Translunar

17-4

3" of these accelerations, attempts have been made to improve lunar impact targeting operations and Impact location determinations. Also, attempts to identify the causes of these trajectory perturbations have been made. The identified causes, although incomplete, are reported,hereinslnce this is the last flight with a lunar impact objective. 17.3.2 Trajectory Effects

_L

AS-508 range rate tracking data showed a shift at.?O,150 $ec (19:29:10) that was interpreted as a veloclty decrease of 2 to 3 m/s during a 60 ..... second period. The velocity change, fortunately, moved the predicted lunar impact point approximately 5 degrees in latitude or 150 km closer to the target. AS-509 used a Passive Thermal Control (PTC) maneuver to average solar heating rates and translational velocity changes due to non-gravitational forces acting on the vehicle. The PTC maneuver was initiated by ground commandand established vehicle pttch and yaw rates of 0.3 deg/s. The Flight Control Computer was then inhibited leavtng the S-IVB/IU in a "Barbecue" or tumble mode untll lunar impact. No translational velocity perturbations following PTC were identified on this flight. AS-510 range rate residuals give evidence of a significant velocity change following LOX dump. In addition, the data shows that velocity changes due to non-gravitational forces occcurred in six steps between 25,200 and 36,001 seconds (period between APS-1 and APS-2 burns). The changes slowed the S-IVB/IU and perturbed the lunar impact point to the east. The velocity steps also caused difficulty in obtaining an accurate state vector on which to base the APS-2 bucn. Following the APS-2 burn and "rollonly" PTC maneuvers, a small unbalanced force perturbed the early period of the post APS-2 trajectory. This perturbation increased the veloclty of the S-IVB/IU and perturbed the lunar impact trajectory to the west. The vehlcle tumble frequency.lncreased about 50% followlng APS-2 until lunar impact (approximately 6g.5 hours). The co¢_lexity of the angular motion also Increased. AS-511 dld not perform an APS-2burn because of suspected early depletlon of the APS Hellum supply. Therefore, a 3-axls PTC maneuver was performed at 21,306 sec (approxlmately 6 hours) and the FCC was turned off. The PTC tumble rate started at approxlmately 5.2 cycles per hour (cph) and increased 100% in approxlmately I0 hours. During the next 10 hours the tumble rate gradually decreased by 10%. AS-512 postflight analysts has shownthat non-gravitational accelerations were acting over part of the tra,lectory from translunar injection (TLI) to impact. From TLI to PTC initiation these perturbations produced accelerations on the order of 0.1 mm/s2. After the PTC threeaxis tumble was initiated, trajectory perturbing accelerations on the

f

;_

17-5

order of 0.04 mm/s2 continued to act for at least 18 hours. Figure 17-3 shows range-rate residuals produced by fitting a gravity only trajectory to the last 46 hours of tracking data. The deviations._n residuals at the beginning of this time span indicate that non-gravitational accelerations acted on the S-IVB/IU. The residuals in Figure 17-4 show the results of incorporating a preliminary model of a small constant non-gravitational acceleration acting ........ after APS-2. The improvement in the residuals confirms the presence of perturbing influences acting on the vehicle. The observation of the effects of perturbing influences confirm real-tlme reports from MCC-H. The actual magnitude, direction, and duration of these perturbing accelerations have not been determined. 17.3.3 Perturbing Mechanisms

The velocity change observed on AS-508 at 70,150 sec correlates with loss of attitude control inputs to the APS system and resulting unplanned APS firing in pitch, yaw, and ro11. This loss of attitude contro1-resul_ed ..... from the 6DIO battery, which supplies power to the Launch Vehi:le Digital Computer (LVDC), depleting at 68,948 seconds. It is quite possible that.the full-on yaw/roll APS control engines provided the translational velocity change seen in the trajectory data. Therefore, all subsequent flights were planned to incorporate (l) a passive thermal control(PTC) maneuver after the APS-2 lunar impact burn in an effort to average out thrust disturbances and (2) turn off the Flight Control Computer (FCC) after PTC to eliminate unplanned APS activities. The PTC maneuver was performed on AS-509 as planned and the FCC turned off. The high tumble rate resulting from the PTC maneuver modulated the range rate tracking data and caused difficulty in determining the lunar impact point. No trajectory perturbations following the PTC maneuver were identified on this flight.

)

I

On the AS-510 fltght a velocity change following LOX dump correlates with the inadvertent ambient heltum dump through the J-2 engine. The velocity steps that occurred on AS-510 between APS-1 and APS-2 burns correlate with the tin_s of the IU TCS sublimator cycling and the subsequent APS reaction firings to maintain the vehicle attitude. In addition to shifting the projected lunar impact point, these velocity steps caused difficulty in obtaining an accurate state vector on which to base the APS-2 burn. Followino the AP$-2 burn at 36,001 seconds the S-IVB/IU stage performed a "roll-only" PTC maneuver and the FCC was turned off. Since the IU TCS sublimator continues operation for several thousand seconos after APS-2 it probably accounts in part for the mall non-gravitational force that perturbed the early portion of the post APS-2 trajectory. Also, the venting of the IU's gas bearing system for several thousand seconds after APS-2may account for part of the perturbing

17-6

t

S0+O

N ,°

..+.
II

i0(

°--__
--I00 --30_ _TC3, CNJ, SO:00 Iln! _ GJM3 i0:00 70:00 IO:00 GNT, tO:00 6 DEC., 100:00 110:00 lZ0:00 ' . ............... 40:00 Fm0n 00:00:00
i

E ,r +

+

1972-HRS:Nl|S
i

20:00

$O:00

40:00 T_II,

SO:00

J0:O0

70:00 SECOES

IO:OO

9O_ON

+

NOUIS:IIlII/TI_:

Ftgure

17-3.

Gravity-Only

Lunar Impact Trajectory

Residuals

U5

._<

+,oo - o
-ioo
mr Sle al,

m_
70:00 80:00 GNT, i JO:OO 01¢., FROH 00:00:00
i

m
100:00 197ZoNRS:NIIS

,IZO:OO

_..

l,

[TC3, i¢m3, GI N3 --300 40:00 S0:00 t0:O0 tl#[

118:041

zo:oo

!

3o:o0

40_00 SOLO000:oo'

7o_00

' I0:00

• tO:OO

IIII_TIII°IEIIS:IEIIES:SECIN

Figure

17-4.

Lunar Impact Trajectory Residuals Influences Hodeled

with PerCurb|ng

17-7

Q

force. Since the APS system no longer maintains attitude control, these forces would also produce an unbalanced moment which would perturb and greatly complicate the roll motion. The doubling of the tumble rate seen on AS-511 during the early post APS burn period correlates with the period of relief venting from the AF. Module No. 2. This venting continued until the APS He supply bottle pressure depleted to the lock-up pressure of the relief valve at a calculated range time of 15 to 16 hours.
.....................

The AS-512 accelerations during the period from translunar injection to PTC initiation were on the order of O.l mm/s2. Since the IU TCS sublimator water valve was turned off during this period, these perturbations may in part be due to the IU gas bearing system venting and associated APS attitude control firings. Calculations yield approximately 0.02 mm/s2 ........... theoretical acceleration from this source. After the AS-S12 APS-2 burn was completed, trajectory perturbing accelerations discussed previously continued to act for at least 18 hours. The preliminary model of this acceleration was obtained by letting the Lunar.......... Impact Determination program solve for an average acceleration over this 18-hour period. The preliminary model gave an average acceleration of 0.04 mm/sZ.resulting in a possible 2.8 m/s post APS-2 total velocity change. The observation of the post APS-Z effects of perturbing influences confirm real-time reports from _C-H. The actual magnitude, direction, and duration of these perturbing accelerations have not been determined. Since the TCS water valve is commanded on after APS-2, possible A5-512 post APS-2 perturbation sources may be the IU's subIimator venting as well as the gas bearing system. Considerable subliming should take place to dissipate the increased system temperatures. Eventually, the battery voltage should decrease, the water valve stay open and continuous "ublimlng take place unt|1 the coolant pump ceases to circulate fluid. Therefore, the subllmator should have a limited lifetime and, coupled with limited gas bearing subsystem venttng, may cause the observed perturbations for the tile period shown. A small additional vent of.O.09 N due to the S-IVB LOX chilldown pump purge has been identified. This purge force is expected to act continuously unttl lunar impact and therefore, does not correlate with the 18-hour perturbation period identified in Figure 17-3. 17.3.4 Tentative Conclusions

Onboard gaseous venting sources have been identified that account in part for observed perturbations of the S-IVB/IU stage's translunar trajectory. These sources are the IU TCS subltmator water vapor and the stable platform gas bearing system GN venting. 2 However, the IU TCS subitmator was not a venting source on AS-S11 or on the early part of Translunar Coast (TLC) on AS-512. Due to a leak tn the TCS G!t storage sphere, 2

17-8

AS-511 lost sublimator water pressure at about 18,000 seconds effective the remainder of the lunar trajectory. On AS-51Z the sublimator water valve was turned off in the period from the A_S-1 burn to the APS-Z burn in order to eliminate the subllmator as a venting source. ..........

for

After the PTC maneuver the FCC is turned off thereby deacttvating the APS. However, tracking data show that the stage is still subject to low order translational perturbations and to changes in the stage tumble rate. The result of the translational perturbations is to shlft'the ........... final impact point on the lunar surface. Further study wou)d be necessary to show correlation of the observed perturbations with the known dlsturbing forces. However, analysis has shown that a fixed thrust aligned with the vehicle longitudinal centerllne wlll result in a net translational movement, even though the vehicle is in a three axis tumble mode. Therefore, it is possible for the observed vehicle perturbations to be caused by the ........... type of venting sources that have been Identified on the S-IVB/IU stage to date. c 17.4 TRAJECTORY EVALUATION

°_

Table 17-2 presents the actual and nominal geocentric orbital parameters of the S-IVB/IU trajectory at 17:03:00, December 7, 1972, (soon after the APS-2 burn). The orbital elements are osculating and expressed in the true-of-date epoch. Table 17-Z. Trajectory Parameters After APS-2 Burn

f
o

r

PARAMETER
i , , i

ACTUAL
i

NOM%NAL 28.512 IS4.981 -15.764 218,978 0.970648 154.771

ACT-NOM -0.088 -0.066 0.213 -481 *0.000152 -0.041

Inclination, Argument d Rtght of

de9 Pertfocus, of km deS) deg

28.424 154.915 -15.551 218,497 0.9)L#96

4scenston AIts,

Node,

Semi -major

3

Eccentr4 True

ct ty deg

Anommly,

154.730

Figure 17-5 presents range-rate residuals showing the first 24 hours of PTC t,_mble. This plot was made continuous by combining residual plots from four range-rate trackers (Madrid USB, Goldstone DSN, T_dbtnbtlla DSN, and Bermuda USB). The tnittal tumble rate of 5.2 cph (0.52 degrees per second) is close to the commanded pitch, yaw, and roll rates. Following PTC, a 14- to 16-hour period occurs during which the tumble changes from a "three-axis" rotation to a "spin/precession" rotation.

-.

1"7_0

)OQ o q_ _m oo

100

AlIA
m_ Q

AAA

.

AAAA.

^AA

^A

VVV IVVl?Vl/_ 'V' _VV_ IVV'
'i

m_ mZ

41

: 00

42:00

4):00 time

44:00 tl0ll H:00:0|

4S:00 U+. i H¢..

46:00 I_IZ-OOVI_I

47:00

46:00

49:N

u:oo
!

._oo

,4:oo'

,s:oo'
AnIIG! 11111.

16bo
149UlS:_IIIT[$:S|COM)S

.:o0'

,._oo

i 10:00

"tO0

ve

ao _,,,b

IO0

.,_ .,ILl"

o

4-_8

19:00

S0:00

$1:00 Tin(

$2:00 fllg_ 04:00:00

S't:O0 _;. 6 O[C.,

S4:00 197_-_iS

SS:U

$6;00

5):i_

zo,oo
I

z,:oo
I

+z_oo

nbo
TIl_.
_ :NI

_6_oo
IUI'i S : SIC_IIS

_:-"

+,;--

't00

._.-+

,IJ
Ill ¸

-.344 SL'00 $8:00 59:00 TIIII in:00 Irl14_ 14):00 61:00 :041 I_,, t

r,
6+?:00 NC.,

1,
1_;l.lll4NIS

i11,_,
J 63:4141


60.04 65:o41

ZI:,_I

Z0:00 T

30:00 I

|l:O0I

,li:OO •

3,11 i 041

)4:04, m

3S'0_

iI_,

mOultS:lqllltlS

:51,(0105

Ftgure

17-5.

Early

PTC Tumble Residuals

t

17-10

.

.

.

300
i i

1oo
o

o -1o0
og

'AA, ^I A /lAP
V e V

f"

1I

VV

NA08 -300 51 _00 TIME
I

61:12 FRON

61:24 00:00:00
I

UT,

61:36 60EC.,
I

61:48 197Z-XRS:M|NS
I !

62:00

3l:36

31:48

32:00

32:!Z

32:24

RANGETII'qE, NQ_S:_INUTES:SECONOS

3O0
i i

'_
o m:

too
I lilll !

.i,

-Ioo

r
82:1Z Till( $Z:36 FRON 82:24 00:00:00 52:48 RANGETIME,

lilly; I I/I
_-.,:

. IVIA,. klVtnJ,,il I/V"'YV
I I|
_-_-_-i

=

-3oo
8Z : O0 82:36 UT. 6 DEC., 53:00

82:48 1972-HRS:NIN5 S3:12

83:00

,

,

,

l

$3:24

H_URS:H|NUTES:SECONDS

300
I |

100

=
-100

r, A .,,,,
II

J!JIIV ' ;-= |

_JV''

I:

[T¢3 -300 11S:00 T|HE

,, 115:12 FRON
|

115:Z4 00:00:00
|

115:36 UT. 6 DEC.,

115:48 1972-HRS:HIIIS

116:00

8S:36

88:41 RANGETll_,

16_00

li_l:

Ill'Z4

H_UI_:NINUTE3 S_C(I_
o_ 4

F_gure 17-5.

Late PTC Tumble Residuals 17-11

i

_

i

i

m -_ .... i-1

Tab]e 17-3.

Lunar Impact Condltions

PAIAM[T[A
n

AT kg )

]MPAC1

ACTUAL

NOMINAL 13,931 (30.712)

ACT-,O,
,.0 ('0)

Stage

Massi]bm

Velocity Relative tO Surface, m/s

(Yt/s)
impact Angle from Vert|¢al, Measured dog

2,544 (8,346)

2,545 (8.3S0)

-1

(-4) -2.8

35.0

37.8

Incomtng Heidtng Angle Measured from North to West, dog Selenogrmpht¢ dog Selenogrephl¢ dog Impact OSstence Time, to Latitude.

83.0

82.0

1.0

-4.33 Longitude, -12.37 UT I0 Dec. km 20:32:40.gg 1SS (84)

°7.00

2.67

-8.00 20:15:4g.3S

-4.37 00:18:52.64

Target,

(n ml)
12

(o)
481 (260)

0

ISS

(e4)
-144 (-78) -147 (-80)

Distance to Selsmometer,

Apollo km

(n mt)
04stance to Setsmometer, Apollo km 14

337 (le2)

(n as )
Otstanct to Apollo 15

Is6 (s4)

]03 (164)

Sessmomet._ ml) k.
Dtstonco to Sefsmometer, Apollo km 16

1,035

(ssg) 8sl
(460)

1,080 (s7z) 7og (]8])

-2S (-13)

(n mS)

142 (77)

!
17-12
m ' I "" I

J

Figure 17-6 shows Madrid USB, Canberra USB, and Greenbelt USB range_rate residuals 20 hours, 41 hours, and 74 hours after PTC initiation, respectively. At 20 hours after PTC initiation° the S-IVB/IU had a spin rate around the longitudinal axis of 14.5 cph (1.45 degrees per second) and a precession rate of 5 cph (0.5 degree per second). During the next 55.5 hours to impact, the nature of the tumble changed little. The spin rate increased to 21 cph (2.1 degrees per second) and the precession rate increased to 6.5 cph (0.65 degrees per second). 17.5 IMPACT CONDITIONS

Figure 17-7 presents the lunar landmarks of scientific interest relative to the S-IVB/IU impact. Analysis to date indicates the S-IVB/IU impacted the moon at 4.33 degrees south latitude and 12.37 degrees west longitude at 20:32:40.99 UT on December lO, 1972, (313,180.99 seconds range time). Impact conditions and miss distances are presented in Table 17-3. The distance from the impact to the target is 155 km (84 n miles) which ts within the 350-ktlemeter mission objective. The distance to Apollo 12 setsmemeter is 337 km (182 n miles); the distance to the Apollo 34 setsmometer is 156 km (84 n miles); the distance to the Apollo 1S setsmometer is 1,03S km (559 n miles); and the distance to the Apollo 16 setslometer is 851 km (460 n miles). The impact time presented in Table 17-3 is derived from the loss of signal times shown in Table 17-4 and has an accuracy one order of magnitude smaller than the mission objective of 1 second. 17.6 TRACKING DATA

Figure 17-8 shows the tracking data available for the trajectory determination. Good quality C-band and S-band data were received over nearly 87 hours of flight to lunar impact. Table 17-5 shows the tracking site locations and configurations. Table 17-4. Lunar Impact Times

TRACKING STATION

IECOiOCO TIM[ Oi ECENBER 10, 1972 UT-HR:MIN:SEC) 20:32:42.28 42.30 42.30 42.25 4Z. 30

LIGHT TIME OELAV (SEe)

CORRECTED TINE ON ECENRER 10_ le7| UT-HR:MI|:SEC) 2o:3z:4o.Ra 41.oo 40.99 4o.9s 41.Ol

Nnrrttt Nidrtd (oldstone Bemudn Ascension

lsland

1.297 1.300 1.307 1.2t6 1.ZgO

j

Range Time.

sec

313,180.99

Averege

ZO:3Z:40,t9


17-13

i

APOLLO 17 LUNAR LANDHARKS

POINT ! T 12 14 15 16

DESCRIPT[ON [HPACT TARGET APOLLO APOLLO APOLLO APOLLO (TRACKING) 12 14 15 16 SEISHOHETER SEISHOHETER SE[SHOHETER SEISHOHETER

LAT-DEG -4.33 -7.00 -3.04 -3.67 26.07 -8.97

LONG-DEG -12.37 -8.00 -23.42 -17.47 3.65 15.51

/
ILl

15

/
035

laJ

1 [d

I-.J

/
-1 -35 -30 -Z5 -ZO

/
, s 1o is
20

__L3V Is6 / ,2. ,--T"_.7,_. i _.L__......__ -,S-lO-s
LONGITUDE -

o
DEGREES

NOTE:

DISTANCES

FRON INPACT

POINT

IN

KZLOHETERS

F!gure

17-7.

Lunar Landmarks

17-14

4

STATION/ OATA TYPE n_.l+nu++'/RR GOSV/RR HSKU/R8 nAO8/RR GOS81RR HSUlRR [TCS/RR A':.N3/RR IOA3/RR mlL31mR HAM3/RR GMN3 / RR ¢tO31RR NAOWIRA GDSHIRA MSKill RA MAOI/RA GOSBIRA NSKNIRA ACN31RA 800C/RA ¢ROC/RA

NO. OF POINTS g370' 6930 *.728 3180 3630 4605 1715 8410 3171 48 ZO 5380 5647 2815 228 94 430 6 11 7 4 1084 99 0
10

00:DO:ON

T[M[ FROM UT 60[C., 1272-HOURS

/

++ +p
i RE Hi I n l i l II i li 81 HI lli

+o, I? '++ 'T?
n In l/ i RI l i I ll l me li I _g, i

! 20

aim |

n

i|

i l I I II11
I

II

|
10 Z) 30 40 RANG[ SO TIME-HOuRS 60 70

J
TOTAL 76.g66

LUIIAR , IMPACT

I
? i

in
......

Figure

17-8.

Tracktng

Data

Availability

Table
STATIOn
i

17-5.

S-IVB/IU
'L

Tracking
'

Stattons
AIIR[TIATIOI'' HAOV HAOO ACN3 IOA3 NIL3 [TC3 10SV SOlO NAN3 SUN] CnO3 NSEd

LOCATIOn

CONFIGURATION
n

Nedrtd, Medrtd, Ascension gerunds Merrill Greenbelt, eeldstene, Goldstene, Kllilo Gem

Spite Spain Isllad ISllnd IIllnd, Florldl

OSi

86'

S-|end S-lind S-Send

STONOS' STON STOII STOll 30'

SO + S-llnd" 30' S-Grid

NlryllAd California California MAYO||

STON30' OSl IS' STOIIIS'
STONN' STOII 30*

S-hnd S-llnd S-lnd
S*llnd S-lind S-lend S-had S-lend

Isle+ AlStrlJll Amstrelln Australia Island Alstrllll

CIrnIrvIn. Tlditnb+lle, Cemblrre, lermldl CirilrVOn.

STON 30' OSN IS' STHIS' Irlqlol tTQ-I

NSKI IOq¢ ¢tOC
!

C-lind C-hmd

17-15/17-15

• : • _

4 _ ._1_ _

o

SECTiON 18 SPACECRAFT SUMMARY

Apollo 17 was launched at 00:33:00 EST on December 7, 1972, from Complex 3gA at the Kennedy Space Center. The spacecraft was manned by Captain Eugene A. Cernan, Commnder; Commander Ronald E. Evans, Command Hodule Ptlot; and Dr. Harrison H. Schmitt, Lunar Module Pilot. The launch was delayed 2 hours and 40 minutes because of a failure tn the launch vehtcle ground support equipment automatic sequencing circuitry.

The spacecraft/S-IVB/IU combination was inserted into an earth parking orbit of 90.3 mtles by 90.0 miles for systems checkout and preparation for the translunar injection maneuver, in accordance with preflight targeting objectives, the translunar injection maneuver shortened the translunar coast pertod by 2 hours and 40 minutes to compensate for the launch delay so that the lunar landtng could be made with the same lighttng conditions as originally planned. After spacecraft separation, transposition, docking, and lunar module election, the evasive maneuver was performed and the S-IVB/IU was subsequently targeted for lunar impact. The S-]VB/IU impacted the lunar surface about 84 miles from the preplanned point, and the impact was recorded by the Apollo 12, 14, 15, and 16 lunar surface setsmometers.
One spacecraft mtdcourse correction of 10.5 ft/sec was performed during the translunar coast phase to achieve the destred altitude of closest approach to the lunar surface. The crew performed a heat flow and convection demonstration and an Apollo light flash investigation during the translunar coast period. Also, the crew transferred to the lunar module twice and found all system to be operating properly.

The scientific instrument module door was Jettisoned about 4 1/2 hours prior to lunar orbit insertion. The docked spacecraft was inserted into a 170-by-52.6-mlle lunar orbit following a service propulsion
firing 90 1/2 of 393 seconds. The first descent hours lowered the spacecraft orbit orbit insertion to 59 by 14.5 maneuver miles. at

7

The crew entered the lunar module at 105 1/4 hours to prepare for descent to the lunar surface. After powering up the lunar module and undocktng, the second lunar module descent orbit insertion maneuver was performed using the lunar module reaction control system to adjust the orbital condttons. The powered descent proceeded normally and the spacecraft was landed within 200metors of the preferred landing point at 110:21:57. About 120 seconds of hover time remained at touchdown. The best estimte of the landing point is 30 degrees 45 minutes 25.9 seconds east longitude and 20 degrees 9 minutes 41 seconds north latitude on the l:25,000-scale Lunar Topographic Photomap of

18-I

Taurus Littrow, First Edition, September, 1972. The first extravehicular activity began at 114:22 (HR:MIN). Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV) offloading and equipment unstowage proceeded normally, and television coverage was initiated about 1 I/4 hours into the extravehicular activity. The lunar surface experiment package was deployed approximately 185 meters northwest of the lunar module. Prior to leaving the LM site, the right rear fender extension was accidentally broken off and emergency repairs were made. The lunar surface experiment package deployment, deep core drilling, and neutron probe emplacement were accomplished. Two geologic units were sampled, two seismic explosive packages were deployed and seven traverse gravlmeter measurements were taken during the traverse. The samples collected weighed about 25 pounds. The second extravehicular activity began at 137:55. The traverse was conducted with real-time modifications to station stop times because of geologic interests. At station 4, the crew discovered the first evidence of possible volcanic activity on the lunar surface in the form of orange soil. Five surface samples and a double core sample were taken at this site. Three seismic exploslve packages were deployed, seven traverse gravimeter measurements were taken, and all observations were documented photographically. The time of the second extravehicular activity was 7 hours 37 minutes with 77 pounds of samples gathered. The third extravehicular activity Eegan at 160:53. _peclfic sampling objectives were accomplished at stations 6 and 7 among some 3 to 4 m boulders. Again, seven traverse gravtmeter measurements were made. The surface electrical properties experiment was terminated because the receiver temperature was approaching the point of affecting the data tape; therefore, the tape was removed at Station g. The crew entered and repressurtzed the spacecraft after 7 hours and 15 minutes of lunar surface activity. Samples amounting to about 155 pounds were obtained on the third extravehicular activity for a grand total of 257 pounds for the mission. The total distance traveled with the LRV during the three extravehicular activities was about 36 kilometers. In addition to the panoramic camera, the mapping camera, and the laser" altimeter carried on previous missions, three new scientific instrument module experiments rounded out the Apollo 17 comploment of orbital science equipment. An ultraviolet spectrometer measured lunar atmospheric density and composition, an infrared radiometer mapped the thermal characteristics of the moon, a_ a lunar sounder acquired data

J

18-2

-'+. 4

%p

°

on subsurface

structure.
t

Lunar ascent was initiated at 185:21:37 and was followed by a norm1 rendezvous and docking. After transferring samples and equipment from the ascent stage to the commandmdule, the ascent stage was Jettisoned for the deorbtt fJrtng and lunar tmpact. The preliminary coordinates of the ascent stage impact were 19.99 degrees north and 30.51 degrees east, about 0.7 mtle from the planned target. Transearth Injection was Initiated at about 234 hours with a servtce propulsion system ftrtng of 144.9 seconds. A 1 hour and 6 minute transearth extravehicular activity was conducted by the CommandHodule Ptlot: The ftlm cassettes were retrieved from the scientific Jnstrument module cameras and lunar sounder and the scientific equipment bay was vlsually inspected. Entry and landtng were nomal. The spacecraft landed at 0 degrees 43 minutes 12 seconds south latitude and 155 degrees 12 mtnutes 36 seconds west longitude, as determined by the onboard computer. Total time for the Apollo 17 mtssion was 301 hours, 51 mtnutes, and 59 seconds.

/

l
r'.

,t

.Tl . )

18-3118-4

"0

SECTION _,9 MSFC INFLIGHT DEMONSTRATION

19.1

SUMMARY

A Heat Flow and Convection Demonstration was performed during Apollo 17 translunar coast. The data obtained apparently were satisfactory although analysis is in progress. There were no reported problems with the experimental apparatus. 19.2 HEAT FLOW AND CONVECTION DEMONSTRATION

)

i
!

A Heat Flow and Convection Demonstration, similar to the one on Apollo 14, was performed on Apollo 17 translunar coast. The three related experiments co_orising the demonstration were convection In a liquid caused by surface tension gradients, heat flow and convection in a confined gas at low g force (approximately I0-9 g due to Command Service Module drift in roll), and heat flow and convection in a confined liquid at low g force. The purpose of these experiments was to determine the type and _gnitude of fluid convection encountered In a near welghtless environment. Although normal convection is so@pressed at near weightlessness, some fluid flow will occur due to acceleration Impulses, surface tension gradients, and expansion. The information obtained from this demonstrationwill provide some of the data required to evaluate space manufacturing processes and other future space applications. The thermal behavior of fluids is a vital part of manufacturing processes involving liquid separation, precipitation, solidification, etc. The experimental apparatus consisted of a package wlth three test configurations, each of a particular geometry and each containing a specially chosen fluid. Data was recorded by a 16 mm camera which was attached to the package. Ig.2.1 Flow Pattern Experiment

)
r

The purpose of the Flow Pattern Experiment was to investigate convection in a liquid caused by surface tension gradients. The surface tension gradients are generated by heatt::_ a thin layer of liquid with a free surface. These surface tension gradients generate a cellular circulation pattern known as B_na-d cells.

Ig-I

The experimentalapparatusconsisted of an open

dish containing liquid Krytox oil that was uniformly h_ated from the bottom, The oil contained suspended aluminum flakes to permit direct observation of flow patterns. The cover of the dish was opened during the actual experiments to expose the free surface of the liquid to the spacecraft atmosphere.

Runs were made with liquid depths of two and four millimeters. In the two millimeter run, convection was evident within a few seconds after initiation of heating as compared to five minutes in an earth environment. B6nard cells were formed, but were less orderly and symmetrical than earth environment patterns. Steady state was reached in about seven minutes. In the four-millimeter run, the B_nard cells were more regular and larger than in the two-millimeter run. Steady state had not been reached at the conclusion of the lO minute heating period. 19.2.2 Radial Heat Flow Experiment

The purpose of this experiment was to investigate heat flow and convection in a gas at low gravity conditions. The experimental apparatus consisted of a centrally heated closed cylinder filled with argon gas. Liquid crystal temperature sensing strips were located to measure gas temperature changes radially from the heater. These strips change color in response to temperature changes and the color changes are recorded on 16 mm color film. The experiment was conducted as planned. The operation of all equipment and the data obtained were ap)arently satisfactory. Computer analyses are currently being made to evaluate the scientific performance of the experiment. 19.2.3 Lineal Heat Flow Experiment

This experiment was similar to the gas experiment described In 19.2.2, except that the fluid medium was Krytox oll and the cylinder length-todiameter ratio was greater so that lengthwise heating was measured. Equipment operation and data obtained were apparently satisfactory. However, the results of computer analyses of the data are In progress.

I

I
I
i

19-2

SECTION 20 LU_R
i T

ROVING VEHICLE

20.1

SUMMARY

The Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV) satisfactorily supported the Apollo 17 Taurus-Ltttrow lunar surface exploration objectives. The total odometer distance traveled during the three Extra Vehicular Activities (EVA's) was 35.7 kilometers at an average velocity of 7.75 _/hr on traverses. The maximum velocity attained was 18.0 lun/hr and the maximum slopes negotiated were 18 degrees up and 20 degrees down. The average LRV energy consumption rate was 1.64 amp-hours/km with a total consu,_i energy of 73.4 amp-hours [including 14.8 amp-hours used by Lunar Com,Jntcatton Relay Unit (LCRU)] out of an approximate total available energy of 242 amp-hours. The navigation system gyro drift and closure error were negligible. Contrcllcbility was good. There were no problems with steering, br_klng, or obstacle negotiation. Brakes were Used at ]east partlal]y on a11 downslopes. Driving down sun was difficult because the concealed shadows caused poor obstacle visibility. Whtle the LRV had no problems with the dus_, stowed Payload mechanical parts attached to the LRV tended to bind up. The crew described dust as being an anti-lubricant and reported that there was no EVA-4 capability in many of the stowed payloaC items because of dust intrusion. Large tolerance mechanical items such as locking bags on the gate and the pallet lock had problems toward the end of EVA-3. Only those items which had been protected from the dust performed without degradation. Al1 interfaces The followina
a.

between crew,

LR_ and stowed payload were s-ttsfactory.

LRV system anomalies were noted:

At initial power-up, the LRV battery temperatures were higher than prndlcted (refere,ce paragraph 20.12). Battery No. 2 temperature indication was off scale EVA-3 (reference paragraph 20.8.3). low at start of

b.

C.

The right rear fender extension was broken off at the Lunar Module (LM) site on EVA-1 prior to driving to the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package (ALSEP) stte (reference paragraph 20.1l).

20.2

DEPLOYMENT

Deployment of the LRV from the LH was completed successfully using less than 10 minutes of crew time. The operation was s_oth and no problems were encountered, The landing attitude of the LM was favorable (less than 3° inclination) and did not adversely affect the operation, The chassis lock pins did not seat fully in place but the crew had no difficulty in seatlnp the pins by using the dplo_ent assist tool per normal procedures. LRV set up and checkout reouired less than 9 minutes of crew time. 20.3 LPV TO STOWED PAYLOADINTERFACE

The interfaces between the stowed payloads and LRV were satisfactory. 20.4 LUNAR TRAFFICABILITY ENVIRONMENT

The lurain created no unusual operating problems for the LRV. Traverses are shown in Figure 20-I. In general, the lunar surface charcter was gently undulated, hun_nocky,abundantly cratered and somewhat rougher than expected, On the basis of crew debrlefinos and EVA photographic coverage, it appears that the LRV was operated uphl)l on slopes of 18 degrees or more and downhill on slopes of 20 degrees or more. Because of its light weight and the excellent traction obtained, the general performance of the vehicle on these slopes w_s satisfactory. Maneuvering the vehicle on slopes consisted primarily of uphill and downhlll travel and did not present any serious problems. Maximum speed reached was 18 kph downslope. Vehicle traverse cross slope caused discomfort to the crewman on the down-slope side and was avoided whenever possible. The crew also reported that drlvlng on the lunar surface reoulres a constant effort to avoid obstacles. 20.5
i

WHEEL SOIL INTERACTION

As on Apollo 15 and 16, the LRV made only a shallow imprint on the lunar surface. This crew observation is supported by numerous photographs obtained during the lunar surface EVA's. The depth of the whee| tracks averaged 1-1/2 cm (112 in) for a fully loaded LRV (vehicle, crew, payloed). The LRV wheels developed excellent traction tn the lunar surface material. In most cases a sharp imprint of the Chevron tread was clearly discernible, indicating that the surface soil possessed cohesion and the amount of wheel sllp was mtniNl. The shallow wheel track indicates that good flotation was provided by the wheel design and also indicates that the primary energy losses were due to compaction and rolling resistance and that bulldozing was minimal. This observation is supported by the small error tn traverse closure in the navigation system.

J

o

.

-

o

I

#t,%,'i:_i',-._'.:u:\',. ,>./ \k _

/

",

'"'

; "
.I

_ :"
I '

"

_I

.
• .

_'<_

I
I

."_t_',_.t_,,..J /
' .

"/_•

_.=..

/ti

q

I

11 '

,.

I

'"!
I;,i|.

_, ,

I_..

,

,

_

I" M
/ l
! J

/

/

-

/'L I

/,I

i_il

,_,-,

l,i,II--

:

I [1_,,t'.i ILl :

'...
|1

'. !
;i

, !
',

-_
_

l_.i'l,.. '-i_,-;,./
If

!

-_ _

t

o

_

i

/ / /

_ } "_"_' "_\i" _, ...t ,. /ill-/,-'_ J
I#l tli

,,i'- ,', -

I

Vf
i

1

i

il#':.l
_.i?/"
1_1

.,"

_._.,.il Vl
tl '

'Fi:_" I

_.l,i

' '.... "
lil_

__
• ".

I i

_!_

,
I

_l,,,il,._,.ie_ _1
,_
_i ;,i'
II _1.

t i
_ -

,

,'-, :-,.

.

20.6

LOCOMOTION PERFORMANCE

The locomotion performance of the LRV was satisfactory and met all of the demands of the Apollo 17 mission. Comparison of the LRV amp-hour integrator readings with pre-fllght predictions (Figure 20-2) shows that the LRV power usage was as expected. Locomotion performance is contained in Table 20-1. As shown in Apollo Lunar EVA Summary, Table 20-2, a longer traverse and a greater distance from the LM was achieved during EVA-2 than any prior mission.
140 ; RECONSTRUCTION

i I I i I l_J.. _i....
• I_IIELAU_ICN.IEDIC_IOII (_

8)

__

m

_._

[.... l_l___l .......I.__L._J_. t+__

|

CUIeA.ATI_

EVA DISTANCE (m)

Figure 20.7 20.7.1

20-2.

LRV Power Usage

MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Harmonic Drive

The harmonic drive performed satisfactorily; no excessive power consumptton or temperatures were noted nor was any mechanical mlfunctton apparent. 20.7.2 Wheels and Suspension
+!+

The wheels and suspension systems performed as expected. The maxtu vehtcle speed/obstacle stze encountered was 10-12 kph over an obstacle 30 centimeters high. The vehtcle scr8.l_ bottom occasionally. The left front wheel sustained a dent (about the size of a tennis ball) on the sidewall but locomotion performance was not affected.

°+

20-4

.

-o

Table 20-I.

Apollo 17 LRV Performance Sunlnary
EVA 1
m

EVA2

_FA 3

TOTN. 269 32.3 )S.7 7.Z o.8

Iql_im P't, ANIM 280 3_.S $7.JS 7.0 #

_lt,U[

_J

Tim (m4n) (kin) _P_L#dd4tto_l

33 Z.3

14S 19.0

II 11.0

HeO_staAq:e _0_ne_r (_-1 _illty

Dls_nce _w

.j.s ....... 0.8
4.18 p 4.$4 I.m

_._1"7.8S 8.3s 1.5.1

.__I_L.
,1 7.Z4 7.R .... 1.76

(k_) Trsv_s*

AvqtrOtle Soeed (kph) Trevtrse *q-_rlin (L_ Onlr)

,?.64
13.4 0 0 • 1" 8.4

1.m
8S 0.2 3 1.6 10.0

J

....
Nov. Closure [r_r o¢ _v. (it| 0 0 ,1" 0 0 ,._o i (4 m IZ w S •Im1 lip SO 0 0 _10 IO Ir _ ,18 _ IZ h_11 _ces

_irt mJte (4_qY_)

_eir F_r • Sltw jJ> (s) k. _eN _e_ud (k_)
nu. Slw, _ (dqrm)

9 11
-

,n-b.

(Nm_ter 0ss_ce (Travlrse) - 01$_Ke actuolly tim frem Croverse starting Imtnt to e*d pot*t. HMJlilty Irate - Hill 01SUKt

admet_r OS_t_ce (;ddltto_el) * i*c1_ks dtst_ce I_ Lll _d Surface [IG¢* trtcal Preterites (S[P) or uq mi M_P mot IKludk, dtn inverse dtsN. X_ _ s_ece

Table 20-2.

Apollo

Lunar EVA Summary
A_LL0 IS AWALOli liMI,LO 17

APOLLO I1] N_LL0 12 A_LL0 14

nee Ois_ce _rfKe

(_) rreversed (_am| 0._ 2:24 2.0 7:_ -. . 3.3 t: |3

2S.3 _r.q 18:3,1 5.4 1.9 _.o (,k..,) 0.1 I 5.4 12.S N 94 170 1532

_.0 2G.g Z1:00 l.uO t.I N.? 0 0 4.S 11.6 213 1S4_

3Z.3 35.7 22:15 7.75 1.6 73,4 O
_JT._. A

0_s_*ce

_A Ouratto_ (l_:edn) _ _ (*_)

Umril m_ _ _m-_r/k_ (L_ o.1_) _p-_ow's
(Z42

C4_e_ed

AvltllblO)

nov. Ctmure (n,_r

a_ilm,. _d' le_v. Opabt@s _#inum tmqe frem Lie (in) (in) (ll_l (lea)

7.6 _8.3 _S_ _.7

Longest _VA Trsverse ihmc_k SMoles tetiJ_ I_v nusu ue(_¢

20-5

20.7.3

Brakes

The LRV braking capability was reported to be excellent and the vehicle came to a complete stop within one to three vehicle lengths. There was no instance of "fade" even during prolonged down-slope braking. 20.7.4 Stability

The LRV stability was satisfactory. The LRV had no tendency to roll and its response was predominantly a pitching motion. The crew felt that individual wheels became airborne occasionally, but did not cause a controllability problem. Driving cross slope was uncomfortable to the cretan on the down-slope side and was avoided whenever possible. 20.7.5 Hand Controller

The hand controller performed satisfactorily. 20.7.6 Loads

Instrumentation was not provided on the LRV to ascertain induced loads. No evidence of load problems was reported. 20.8 ELECTRICAL SYSTEHS

The LRV electrical systems satisfactorily supported the lunar surface exploration. The battery temperature anomaly had no major impact on the mission (see 20.8.3). 20.8.1 Batteries

The battery capacity was more than adequate for the mission. Amp-hour usage including LCRU, was estimated to be 73.4out of a nominal capacity of 242 amp-hours for the two batteries. 20.8.2 Traction Drive System

The traction drive system perfomed satisfactorily. There were no indications of any off nemtnal conditions wtthin the traction drive and all four units perfon_,_l as expected. The mxtmmtemperaturerelx)rtedof any traction drive untt was 2700F and occurred at Station 6 on E'/A-3.
..)

!
.

20.8.3

Distribution

System
'L

The electrical distribution system provided power to all functions as required. However, battery No. 2 temperature indication was off scale low during powerup at the beginning of EVA-3. This condition continued for the reminder of the

20-6

mission. The most probable cause was a shorted temperature sensor in the battery, which would cause the meter to read off scale low. Thts same condition was noted on two batteries previously tested at temperatures above the qualification level. Electrolyte leakage through the sensor bond caused by the elevated temperatures appears to have caused the short. There was no impact on the mission. Temperature monitoring was continued using Battery No. 1 as an indicator and using temperature trends established from actual data on EVA's-1 and -2. Normal performance monitoring was continued, using amp-hour integrator data. 20.8.4 Steering

The LRV steering performed satisfactorily for all three EVA's. Controllabtltty was excellent. The Commander (CDR) reported that good vehicle maneuverability using double Ackerman steering made thts the preferred mode. The CDR felt that a single steering mode (locked rear steering) would not have given the required maneuvering capability for this particular area. The CDR also reported that he found the preferred mode was to drive over blocks and craters up to one foot tn diameter and to drive through blocks and craters from 5 to 10 meters tn size, rather than steer around them and put the LRV tnto cross slope conditions. 20.8.5 Amp-Hour Integrator all three

The /_mp-Hour Integrator performed satisfactory throughout EVA-s. Amp-hour usage ts shown in Figure 20-2. 20.9 CONTROL AND DISPLAY CONSOLE

The control and dt_play console dtspl_ys performed sattsfacto_. The only Indication loss was attributed to a faulty sensor, as discussed tn Section 20.8.3. There were no occurrences to suggest Improper swttch or circuit breaker positions. 20.10 NAVIGATION SYSTEM The

The Navigation System satisfactorily supported the Apollo 17 Msston. position error waswe11 wtthtn the mriss|on planntng value of lOOmters durtng all EVA's and no update was requtrnd. Table 20-1 contains a summmr_j navigation of performance. The LRV Vehtcle Attttude Indicator pointers tended to sttck throughout al1 three EVA's. There ms no tmpact on the mission as the potnters worked when the crew tapped the un]t. There was no recurrence oft he Vehicle Attitude Indicator scale problem reported on APOl]o 16, LRV-2. 20.11 CRE'g STATION no problem vlth the crew statton. 20.-7 The seat belt

_oT:'_

The crew reported

design functioned satisfactorily. The ground adjustments proved to be very good, with only minor adjustments required on the lunar surface. Access and stowage was adequate. During Extravehicular Activity (EVA-I) at the LM prior to driving Lo ALSEP, the CDR inadvertently pulled off the right rear fender extension by catching it with the hammer carried in the right leg pocket of the Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU). While still at the LM site, the CDR spent approximately 12 mlnutes taping the extension onto the fender. Because of the dusty surfaces, the tape did not adhere and the extension fell off returning from Station I. In the moon's low gravity and hard vacuum, loss of the fender extension allowed dust to be thrown forward by the revolving rear wheel onto the LRV and crew. Per real time procedures established by MSC and MSFC, the crew taped together four Lunar Module (LM) maps and fastened them to the fender with two clamps from the LM (refer to Figure 20-3). Installation of this fix required approximately 7 minutes of CDR and Lunar Module Pilot (LMP) surface time at the beginnine of EVA-2. This fix was adequate for the remainder of the mission. A fender extension was also lost on Apollo IS and 16. A fender modification was incorporated for Apollo 17 to prevent the fender extension from being dislodged from its guides. The fix would have been effective except that the force applied was so great that it fractured the guide material. 20.12 THERMAL

The thermal control system satisfactorily supported all the Apollo 17 mission lunar surface operations. At tnittal power-up, the LRV battery temperatures were higher than predicted and the right battery indicated I5°F higher than the left {95°F left and IIO°F right actual vs. 80°F pre-mlsslon predicted). The higher temperature was due to hot holds (orientation of LRV toward the sun instead of passive thermal control) during translunar coast. Based on the LM solar attitude during translunar coast, the LRV temperature of gS°F is reasonable at initial power-up. There was no apparent performance degradation throughout the mlsslon due to the high battery temperatures. Battery temperatures at LRV closeout were indicated to be 139°F for Battery No. 1 and 148°F {calculated) for Battery No. 2. Predicted temperatures were 140°F and 148°F (8° included for meter bias). This meter bias was confirmed by caution and warning flag activation on EVA-2. The flag, which activates at 12S°F activated when the meter indicated 132°F. All temperature values shown will be meter values and will include this bias. Because of this bias an indicated battery temperature limit of 148°F was agreed to prior to EVA-2. The amp-hour usage of both batteries followed the predicted curves througheut the mlsslon.
T..-_!

i

The probable cause of the temperature initial power-up (gS°F left and llO°F

difference between batteries at right) ts heat absorption by the

2O-8

J

Figure 20-3.

LRV Fender Fix

4

i

17

20-9

Q k° l

wax tank on the left battery. The right battery has no wax tank and it Would would have been unusual for both batteries to be at the same temperature above the wax tank melting point (93°F). Revised parking constraints and careful attention to battery dusting procedures by the crew provided better cooldown than on previous missions. The CDR reported that careful dusting of the LRV battery covers at each stop, resulted in relatively dust-free radiators through all three EVA's. By keeping the covers clean, dusting of the battery mirrors was not required until the end of EVA-2. Additionally, per alternate procedures, the battery covers were opened at the ALSEP site during EVA-1 and at Station 6 during EVA-3 to maintain batteries within acceptable limits. All LRV components remained within operational temperature limits throughout the three lunar surface EVA's. As predicted, motor temperatures were "off-scale-low" (below 200°F) throughout most of the EVA°s. The maximum motor temperature of 270°F (131"C) occurred during EVA-3. Figures 10-4 and 20-5 present the battery profiles for the three EVA's. Because of the high battery temperatures at initial power-up the LRV was parked heading up-sun for best radiation to deep space and the dust coversware opened during the ALSEP deployment period. The anticipated cooldovn of lO°F (6%)* for Battery I, and 4°F {1%)* for Battery No. l was achieved. The battery l and 2 temperatures, with the LRV supplying LCRU power, were lO8"F (42°C) and 123°F (51°C)* at the end of EVA-I. Adequate battery cooldown was obtained between EVA'sI and 2. EVA-2 began with battery temperatures of 70°F (2l°C) * and 92°F (33°C) *. The warning flag activated on attery 2 when the meter indicated 132°F (56°C). EVA-2.eMed with temperatures of 114°F (46°C) * and 1380F (59°C) *. EVA-3 began with a Battery No. 1 temperature of 95°F (33°C) and a nonoperating temperature meter for Battery No. 2 [estimated temperature was 120°F (49°C)], Per alternate procedures the dust covers were opened at Station 6 to maintain batteries within thermal limits, the final recorded te_rature for Battery No. l was 139°F (S9"C). A warning flag was also noted for Battery No. l at that time. It is estimated that the final Battery No. 2 temperature was about 148°F (64°C). 20.13 STRUCTURAl. damage to the load bearing members of the LRV. was dislodged on EVA-1 (refer to paragraph 20.11).

F

(

i

There was no structural A rear fender extension 20.14

..! i

LUNARROVING VEHICLE CONFIGURATION

+

LRV-3was essentially unchanged froeLRV-2_tchwms flown on APOllo 16 other than those changes sllotm tn TabLe20-3. Refer to Saturn V Launch Vehtcle r"ltght Evaluation Report - AS-SIO, Apollo 15 Hisston for a basic Vehtcle Description. *Temperature as read by crew. Subsequent analysis peratures to be 8 ° lower than readouts. 20-10 indicated actual tem-

......

i

i

I

• _

t J_.

_

i

I I

.....

k_

i

"

LOWER OI_RATIIIG LIMIT

IO 0

$5

6O

UPPER OFgMTING LINIT

_"
130'

r-

_

"

I
ESTIIMTED,

I'
P_r(R--%

'

/

u. I10,

F"

%.

/

II'

LIEII mTlI

LIHT,

Io T_. I

Ftgure

20-5.

LRV Battery

No. 2 (Rtght)

Temperature

20-11 •

P

Significant

configuration

changes are contained

tn Table

20-3.

Table 20-3.

LRV Significant

Configuration

Changes

h$1_

J

Add tedex rlql for a_tm_h eliot dtel oa 1or gatn ntmms. Im_11 surface (SIP) uN_mt _w:_slq .mlt electrical p_1_ sl_l role (sIp.l w _).

To provtde cm _tt_ _ tw ptR am_m ulmt_

rtfenmce for petlttmj ae_le. Qta tb _.P.

P_ylud

To provtdo vqhtcle locatloe

P_l18

4vst cover ta SI_ ¢mmectm'.

To prmmt rKtptKle. IllSLSS _ SIP.

coatamt_tllm

from _tertng

I'lylSlV Crw Stattu

.eve Iva_/S_mder_ Life SvpWt. S_t_ (B/SLSS) ll_q strip from LI9 sellt b4ck to COIl me Imck. _I _ aft clls$1$ le_ltiq N]I_ |mull mm _ i11 1Mar 1Minims. _Iml s_ i

to _

lmgm_fmm¢_ _tlh lmllatm, of step tether. _tm_tm

Te W_dl cm _t_ per hale to use utt_ To immmt less ef _ 4ertn9 1mar oNvltt_.

-__,-•-

.

, ... _

.

g.l
20-12
_

i.

"

APPENDIX A ATMOSPHERE

.

.A.I

SUltRY atmospheric environment at launch data is stmilar to that presented to permit comparisons. Surface data near launch time are given.

This appendix presents a sumuary of the time of the AS-S12. The format of these on previous launches of Satum vehicles and upper level winds, and thermodynamic

A'Z

GENERAL ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONSAT LAUNCH TIME

........

During the evening launch of Apollo 17, the Cape Kennedy launch" area was experiencing mild temperatures with gentle surface winds. These condl_tions.resulted from a warmmotst atr mass covering most of Flortda. This warm air was separated from an extremely cold atr mass over the rest of the south by a cold front ortented northeast-southwest and passing through the Florida panhandle. See Figure A-1. Surface winds tn the Cape Kennedy area were light and northwesterly as shown in Table A-1. Wtnd flow aloft ts shown in Figure A-2 (500 Btlltbar level). The maximum wtnd belt was located north of Flortda, giving less intense wtnd flow aloft overt he Cape Kennedy area. A.3 SURFACEOBSERVATIONS LAUNCH AT TIME

At launch time, total sky cover was 5110, consisting of scattered stratocumulus at 0.8 kilometers (2,600 ft) and scattered cirrus at 7.9 kilometers (26,000 ft). Surface ambient temperature was 294°K (70.O°F). During ascent the vehtcle dtd pass through some thtn cirrus clouds. All surface observations at launch time are summarized tn Table A-1. Solar radiation data for the day of December 6, 1972, are given tn Table A-2. A.4 UPPERAIR MEASUREMENTS

Data were used from three oft he upper atr windsystem to compile the final meteorulogtcal tape. Table A-3 sumrtzes the wtnd data system used. Only the Rawinsonde and the Lokt Oartmeteorological rocket data were used tn the upper level atmospheric therle_Jynamtc analyses. A.4.1 Wtnd Speed

Wtnd speeds were light, being 3.6 m/s (7.0 knots) at the surface and increasing to a peak of 45.1 m/s (87.6 knots) at 12.18 kilometers (39,960 ft). The winds began decreasing above thts altitude, becoming relatively

A-1

j/

! !

A-2

.....

i,

Om

_...,m.

qr ,*---

_

t*J

1
q,,,, ;J G: m col ....... *,-. - clip U[1 ! •

:

I

:

el ut

E
qpJ* 4")

US

1:
:1 V)

(J eel

!

Q.

_B -,_p

iS"

5OO MILLIBAR EIGHT CONTOURS AT 1200 Z _ m. D£CF.14NER 1972 7, C(_I'INUOUS LINES INDICATE NEIGRT CIJITOUILSIN FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEl.. BASHED LINES ARE ISOTHI[NIS IN DEGREESCENTIGRADE. AARCWS rIND DIRECTION #did SPEEDAT TNE SIX) M LEVEL. (AI_O_S SAMEAS ON SUWACE MP).

Figure A-2.

500 Nt111bar Hap Approximately Launch of AS-512

5 112 Hours After

A-4

1

+9

Table A-2.
i

Solar

Radiation

at

AS-512

Launch

Ttme,

Launch

Pad 39A

DATE
I I

HOUREAOZNG EST

DIFFUSE TOTAL HORIZONTAL INCIDENT SURF (SKY) G-C, L/C_N A G-CJU./CZ_2-_[N G-C,_/CM2-NIN
I IL

Oeamber 6,

Ig72

07.00 08.00 09.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00

0.00 0.04 0.17 0.53 0.63 0.62 0.81 0.71 0.-2 0.39 0.11 0.01 0.00

0.00 0.02 0.20 1.14 1.32 0.6g 0.92 0.8_ 0.51 0.63 0.14 0.01 0.00

0.00 0.04 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.24 0.23 0.31 0.23 0.10 0.01 0.00
i i

[
Table A-3.
TI'FE _F MTA

19.00

Systems

_sed

to

Heasure

Upper Atr

Mtnd Data

for

AS-512

RELFA_ 1IIE
i

PORTION DATAWED OF STMT ALTTI1JE N (it) TZRE AFTER T.-O (11111) N.TXTU_ N (_:) END AgTE_ T._

T_ TZRE (mr)

(ran)

T,.O

(ma)

FPS-16,,_
Ilwtnamle

,_r,

17

150 (4m) IS_O (SO Ore) Sl2SO 107)

17

18 000 (4., 212) 24 7SO (111 300) 28000 (12 OZO)

H

0S43

10

SO

91

081S
i ,

162

(Igl

15t

183

!

.o

light at 22.88 kilometers (75,065 ft). Above this level, winds increased to a peak of 77.0 m/s (149.7 knots) at 44.50 Km (145,996 ft) altitude as shown in Figure A-3. Maximum dynamic pressure occurred at 13.06 kilometers (42,847 ft). At max Q altitude, the wind speed and direction was 33.2 m/s (64.5 knots), from 314 degrees. A.4.2 Wind Direction

.... t-launchtime, the surface wind direction was from 300 degrees. The A wind direction varied, between southwest and northwest, with increasing altitude over the entire profile. Figure A-4 shows the complete wind direction versus altitude profile. As shown in Figure A-4, wind direc...... tions were quite variable at altitudes with low wind speeds. A.4.3. Pitch Wind Co_onent

The pitch wind velocity component (con_onent parallel to the borizontal projection of the flight path) at the surface was a tailwind of 3.2 m/s (6.1knots)._ The maximum tailwind, in the altitude range of 8 to 16 kilometers (26,247 to 52,493 ft), was 34.8 m/s (67.6 knots) observed at 12.18 kilometers (39,944 ft) altitude. See Figure A-5. A.4.4 Yaw Wind Coe_onent

The yaw-wind-veloctty-component (component normal to the horizontal projection of the flight path) at the surface was a wind from the left of 1.7 mls (3.3 knots}, The peak yaw wind velocity in the hlgh dynamic pressure region was from the left of 29,2 mls (56.8 knots) at 11.35 kilometers (37,237 ft). See Figure A-6. A.4.5 Component Wind Shears

The largest component wind.shear (ah = 1,000 m) In the max Q region was a pitch shear of 0.0177 sec °j at 7.98 kilometers (26,164,ft). The largest yaw wind shear, at these lower levels, was 0.0148 sec "m at 10.65 kilometers (34,940 ft). See Figure A-7. A.4.6 Extreme Wind Data in the High Dynamdc Region speeds and wtnd comq)onents is given t? Table wind shear values (6h = 1,000 meters) is

A summary of the mxtmumwtnd A-4. A SUlmary of the extre_ given In Table A-5. A.5 THERMODYNAMIC ATA D

Comparisons of the thermodynamic data taken at AS-512 launch ttme with the annual Patrick Reference Atmosphere, 1963 (PRA-63) for temperature, pressure, density, and Optical Index of Refraction are shown in Figures A-8 and Ao9, and are discussed in the following paragraphs.

A-6

• :::

....

B

Ftgure A-3.

I .:_i'+;_
A-7

|_

]<°

A-8

i

i

l

Figure

A-S.

Pitch

Wind Veloctt_j

Component (i#x) at LnnchTtm

of AS-S12

A-9

1
llO

l

*"!

.

_ !

40

i ii

i

i

J

.

,

,

,,

i-m _"

:_

F|gure

A-7.

Pftch

(S x) and Yaw (Sz)

Component triad Shears at LaunchTtm

ofAS-S12

A-11

Table A-4. Haxtmum gtnd Speed tn Ht9 h Dynamic pressure Region for Apollo/Saturn 501 through Apollo/Saturn 512 Vehtcles MAXIHUMMIND COMPONENTS PITCH (gx) H/S (KNOTS) 24.3 (47.2) 27.1 (52.7) ALT K14 (FT) 11.50 (37,700) 13.00 (42,650) 15.10 (49,500) 11.70 (38 ,390) 13.80 (45 ,280) 11.18 (36,580) 14.23 (46,670) 13.58 (44,540) 13.33 13.73 (46,030) 11.85 (38,880) (gT) (KNOTS) 12.9 (25.1) 12.9 (25.1) 22.6 (43.9) 21.7 (42.2) 18.7 (36.3) 7.1 (13.8) -19.5 (-37.9) 15.0 (29.1) 24.9 7.3 (14.2) 12.5 (24.2) 9.00 (29,500) 15.75 (51,700) 15.80 (51,800) 11.43 (37,500) 14.85 (48,720) 12.05 ALT Kit

MAXIMUMWINO

VEH]CLE
NLIIBER SPEED (tOTS) 26.0(50.5) 27.1 (52.7)

"--" R !G) 73

ALT 104 (FT) 11.50 (37,7DO) 13.00 (42,650)

(FT)

!55

34.8
(67.6) 76.2 (148.1) 42.5 (82.6) 9.6 (18.7) 47.6 (92.5) 55.6

ze4
264

ls.22
(49,900) 11.73 (38,480) -14.i8 (46,520) 11.40 (37,400) 14.23 (46,670) 13.58

31.2
(60.6) 74.5 (144.8) 40.8 (79.3) 7.6 (14.8) 47.2 (91.7) 55.6

27()

297

(39,53o)
13.65 (44,780) 12.98 (42,570) 10.20

24 =251 25 06

(io8.I)
52.8 (102.6) 18.6 (36.2) ;-511 26.1 (50.7) 46.1

(44.s_)
13.33 (43,720) 13.75 (46,110) 11.85 (38,880) 12.10

(lO8.1)
52.8 (102.6) -17.8 (-34.6) 26.0 (50.5) 34.8

(43320) (48.5)

(33,,_so)
13.43

(44.040)
15.50 (50,850) 11.35 (37,237)

25 ; 31

(87.6)

(39345)

(67.6)

12.18 29.2 (_,._) (_.s) ._

"

"

"

A-.12

t

,

°.

,

b -¸

.,

,i

i

_

i

|

il

I

Table A-5.

Extreme Htnd Shear Values In the Htgh Dynamic Pressure for Apollo/Saturn 501 through Apollo/Saturn 512 Vehtcles

Regton

i

(Ah - 1000 m) PITCH PLANE VEHZCLE NUMBER ALTZTUI)E KN YAH PLANE

SHEAR

SHEAR (SEC-1) 0.0067

-_--(SEC-1)
I

(FT)
10.00

ALTITUDE KH (IT) 10.00

AS-501

O,0O66

(32 coo)
AS-502 0.0125 ........ 14.90 (48 900) 16.00 (52 5GO) 15.15 (49 700) 15.30 (50 20O) 14.78 (48 490) 14.25 (46 75O) 15.43 (50610)13.33 (43 720) 11.23 _ :" 0.0084

(32 soo)
13.28 (43 500) 15.78 (51 800) 14.68 (48 150) 15.53 (50 950) 10.30 (33 79O) 14.58 (47 82O) (45 0.0281 13.98 85O).

AS-503

0.0103

0.0157

AS-504

0.0248

0.0254

AS-505

0.0203

0.0125

AS-506

0.0077

0.0056

AS-507 AS-50g

0.0183 0.0166

0.0178 0.0178

AS-509

0.0201

. il.85 (38 88O) : 14.43

AS-510 AS-511

-0.0110

0.0071

(36mm)::
0.0095 13.65._ ....::

,.

-- :. -:_-

" !0:01i4:::":

(44.780)":.: (26 164)

::(47330) • -:15.50 : (so 8so)

_

AS-512

0.0177

. ..- :-: ::-.. !(34 94o) :- -_-

.. r.:.. ..... .
•. :":::.::." . . __ .

. -' ":: ..
" ....

. .....
.- . .
.:, • -

A-13

¢

'

I 4 .

A. 5.1

Atmosphert c Temperature

Atmospheric temperature differences were small, generally deviating less than 5 percent from the PRA-63, below 59 kilometers (193,570 ft) altitude. Temp-.-'J.ures did deviate to -4.82 percent of the PRA-63 value at 24.50 km (80,380 ft).. Air temperatures were generally warmer than the PRA-63 from the surface through 36 kilometers (52,493 ft). Above thts altitude, tomperatures became cooler than the PRA-63 values through 42.0 Im (137,794 ft). Above thts level temperatures were again warmer than the PRA-63. See Figure A-8 for the complete profile. A.5.2 Atmospheric Pressure were sltghtly greater than the PRA-63 to 20.60 kilometers (67,584 ft) altibecame less than the PP_-63 wtth a peak 42.50 kilometers (139,434 ft) altitude.

A_osphertc pressure deviations pressure values from the surface tude. Above this level pressure deviation of -8.78_ occurring at See Figure A-8. A.5.3 A1_osphert c Density

Atmospher4c density deviations _ere s¢_11, being _thtn 4 percent of the PRA-63 below 36 kilometers (118,109 ft) altitude. The density deviation reached a maximum of 3.91 percent greater than the PRA-63 value at 17.00 ktlomters (55,774 ft) as shown tn Figure A-9. A.5.4 Opttcal Index of Refraction

*° ;

°

The Optical Index o_ Refraction at the surface was 4.7 x 10 -6 untts lo_er than the corresponding value of the PRA-63. The mx|u _egattve deviation of -8.37 x 10.0 occurred at 250 meters: (820 ft). The dev4atlon then became less negattve wtth altitude, and approxtlted the PRA-63 at htgh altitudes, as ts sho_n tn Ftgure A;9. _ The mxtmm value of the Opttcal Index of Refractto_ was 1.81 x 10.o units *greater than the PRA-63 at 5.5 kilometers (18,044 ft). A.6 CONPARISON SELECTED ATIIOSPHERICDATA FOR 5ATUIUI V LAUNCHES OF data for each Sa_.urn Y launch ts shown tn *

k _

A sumnaw of the at_phertc Table A-6.

k

A-14

__

iii

p

4 m

44, m

-II _

II

. II

l Imml

mmluml,

Ftgure A-8.

Relative

Deviation

of .Temperature and Pressure

fral

the PPJ_-63

ReferenceAtaosl_ere, kS-Sl,?

A-15

r-

1

APPENDIX B AS-512 SIGNIFICANT CONFIGURATION CHANGES

B.1

INTRODUCTION

The AS-512, twelft_ flight of the Saturn V sertes, was the tenth mnned /_ollo Saturn V vehicle; The AS-512 launch vehicle configuration was essentially the same as the A5-511 wtth significant exceptions shown tn Tables B-1 through B-4. The Apollo 17 spacecraft structure and cm_onents were essentially unchanged from the Apollo 16 configuration. The bastc launch vehtcle description ts presented In Appendix B of the Saturn V Launch Vehtcle Fltght Evaluation Report, AS-S04, A_ollo 9 Mission, MPR-SAT-FE-69-4. " ......... Table B-1. S-IC Significant
L

Configuration
. II

Changes
n

elm • _e IRtl_b Iiml_ M m tplN_ ,c spmm mum u_tw$ _ pl_Mq m_cttms _ u41| _et Iw femtm4 _ eme_e_q prom. amine molMo atom _ me m tl4tmm -d- _4 memm •raises.

Iwm s4rmct_W_ smmp. ilmtem CemmtcNtmm

m4 F-I m

Table B-2.
ImliMttem W_U.

S-II
e_ an W

Significant
_-_ mime

Configuration

Changes
m
i

Ire elm stuile _II_e su_gm mlSa_llW.

im_as _

;IMIf1_,_m e_ W_-_ aqlm UII 81m/_s m _e S_m tm tmo t_lm _emml _lglm_e4Juted eme_lq me • m

_he

1_ pm m nm e_ m q_u i_m t$ i_p mue_l _ mts _e_ tm ctem_

m I_lm

i

Table B-3.

S-IVB Significant
iii

Conftgmtt_

Changes

k

_1 pmn_q _nc_

clqa,_m a.oamDn, (ms) mum sm em io_.s _ _ aemct_eet_s. ef J._ _qm ti 9lm_ m • _DmUw#

1re_

slime e_il_

_

at

_"-

c

ut_ mw_ m m_.m¢ Pw_. 01Ek _lm

m, mt _

_e ennm_ emN qm_il_ Iflm_ ms ts sl_ t_ _kq.

tm e_ eqlm m emDwl ml_ Id_

lmwem mmmt ram.

m M _e_

_m, "e" rtqm _lb C4m_

mm_ "d

0e_ mm

_

mw_e_

_ m

ii

tlec_eel

mmm e_ qml Js _I_ mm

ml era4 emmm m _ke. Imm I i lut ime _t

M

,. ..,,., ,.. ,,.,,.,.,,.,,,,,, ,,.
Iv faro m I_ mlm m. _ earn leem Ib elg.mmt o gussMo "--d ¢/Wmlt.

lmmm4 mc_n_l meptq m e$ emu_m m. il of _ Imtll_ k

_o
o o-

..d%_

. • _ ;,j

I

Table

B-4.

[U Significant

Configuration

Changes

*st_rlJ¢ i t all I_mmlAta I Iteiied ,e#vlltlu I fl0i Llitnll lllctrOslC _o_lrllll_. t 1 flillY Issocviled _d_ frp !{_. bly bottom i [{$ Nil. sebl Im tic. h_oet S •60119 the'_ll _ vllve

.i-

t

,i IIASml i u NCW sei_ys_ flmn I,I active Illmck ¢4b_i_1 is _ Ioeqwr ra_ired fulclltl diriiq tlli_r or fliq_t 01eflllll. tO luPi* n

(_C¥). I_

t_lltlq _l(_¢d_ .l_1411_d 10¢4¢ed Oe ei_b sId_ If

fl lilt.

ol I#ttllN| liilll¢ll b_ to the 15_.

ili¢

fr08

the

PImvldl,l

_

llell_ 14 meripze

the f_

pll$1111111111 llt_"I( If_llnl illilll INS If tlils|SI[ COral(Ill, Til vtrlq If lie r-lml_t$ ° If qlly |#tlf_4_ ,llJi ContaCtS" ef relay P'rlvl,60d tmblllr.al /ill te I)ll_ll "S/¢ 5tNrltllm hlltr Igt l! llt 105 tll|tllite' _ _fl|li blllT t95. Iifliff w' BIIII slq_ll$ viii Utl If UNI I._A/I.ll_. (ll-ll I_aelJ_iLed. "er" litlq aid elhste41_l the Netical lllll li • li:.klt Iiltltf Se4 _uere provIm. Idld IIIINIIIIIIII lld (mlml_Jthms Illillf q ill, till of OlllZl oil UIII; icr, elmtl_r II_lll t! _ll I_cllp - . ..... TO Illitltlll e_ _ltldl _ If s_t S|_J4l. _ _ If Iltemllllq liftll_ $_rltl. tll ti_s. _il/es ..... if Ilti

the emma4 systtm eellile s.mll,_i_t ,diet _ le_s ef q_ _ 14) Isle _ %y,_lim Imlilt Cllmmll.

llIKIs. ilq _lblrs

ittrl

bleca4 Rellclr_ li NI le tin P0_TIS Isseil_. msm_ml r--_ted llS_i01. aNSlmm_¢s

ICll-10l _401.

to X25-I0_. 1_601

11 _idl Ilml-;_l IIKta_llc il|stl

I_lt_P

_llld t_lSl cllfanllllf. _

tllllqPItl_l (_lt_l

i_. _llll lid

Ilvl

mU:

TO as$t1111 alllsmmlmlt nifm _lt_lmi _

tll li s]mc mr4s.

lllllmt_

K381_N_

w_aN.4n_

PoO.410_

I

i
StmSl ilre _ccehssiler nlod M}_I_,_ ot tlllrflr_q _tli Ilfllff i i' tl Ill"

t
!

i 7 repines Iiilllttlll. S-Ill _

IfPtl4_ sllll I_ _lm_m_ _ llltm'fli_t

Ill

d_ll b_te_ (111 4| II

li_l fer T1 rlslt

1re 111¢111

llil

i

ilflltf

illlll

lid

:j

Tommm II It II lllilll

Ill

mile,

• _v_ le Tli

lel_ ir 111.

i

t
It-?

APPROVAL SATURNV LAUNCHVEHICLE FI.IG_fTVALUATIONREPORT E AS-512, APOLLO 17 HISSION

By Saturn Flight Evaluat|or_Working Group

T,

The information in this report has been reviewed for security classification. Review of any information concerning _epartment of Defense or Atomic Energy Commission programs ha_-been made by the MSFC Security Classification Officer. The highest classification has been determined' to beunciasstfted.

Stanley L. Fragge Security Classification Officer

This

_rt

has been reviewed

and approved for

t_hntcal

accuracy.

?

ueorge H. Hc_yo Jr. Chairman, SaturnFllq_t
L

Evaluation _rklng

G_up'

" Her_n
JL'

K. _Idn_
Science

\
and Eng_r1_

Olr§ctor,

j_,

Richard

G. _tth

-_-_aturnP_gr_

_nager
!

I
I F Q_

)
|
(

I

t'
1

i

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful