Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx

NASA-MSC-G-R-65-5
and MSC-G-R-66-2
Supplemental Report 2
333
Published as Supplemental LAUNCH

o: Gemini Program $$ssion
Gemini VI and Geminj #$ VEHICLE NO. 6
MSC-G-R-65-5
MSC-G-R-66-2
»y: Gemini VI and VI-A Mission Evaluation Team
National Aeronautics and Space Administration FLIGHT
Manned Spacecraft Center
Houston, Texas E V A L U A T I O N (U)
.
U. S. Government Agencies Only
PREPARED BY Engineering Report 13227-6
fi
X67-U135
(ACCESSION NUMBER) (THRU)
Г£ ' ..
(NASA CR ORT-MXOR AD NUMbrftRJ
(NASA-CR-83090) LAUNCH
L NO. 6 F L I G H T
February 1966
N75-75623
E V A L U A T I O N (MartinC o . )
Unclas
00/98 23571
e National
the meaning of the
U.S.C., Sections 793 and 794,
the 'transmission or revelttjgn of which in any manner to
an unauthorized person is pr^Bkted by law.
Copy No.
I'
U. S. Government Agencies Only
, в. "" г <• т-1 Т"'

ER 13227-6 February 1966
NASA-MSC-G-R-65-5
and MSC-G-R-66-2
Supplemental Report 2
Published as Supplemental Report 2

to: Gemini Program Mission Reports
Gemini VI and Gemini VI-A
MSC-G-R-65-5 and
MSC-G-R-66-2
by: Gemini VI and VI-A Mission Evaluation Team
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Manned Spacecraft Center
Houston, Texas
LAUNCH VEHICLE NO. 6

FLIGHT
EVALUATION (U)
Approved by
oU
L. J. Rose С Curlander
A s s i s t a n t Technical Director Director
Test E v a l u a t i o n .V ,V IIS
'C COfFNTS
IN ANr WM'ilEft PERSON i3
PROHiBlTtO BY
Prepared by For
MARTIN COMPANY, BALTIMORE DIVISION SPACE SYSTEMS DIVISION

Baltimore, Maryland 21203 AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND
Under CONTRACT AF 04(695)-394 UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

PRIORITY DX-A2 Lot Angele», California
ii
FOREWORD
This report has been prepared by the Gemini Launch Vehicle Pro-
gram Test Evaluation Section of the Martin Company, Baltimore Divi-
sion. It is submitted to the Space Systems Division, Air Force Systems
Command, in compliance with Contract AF04(695)-394.
ER 13227-6
Ill
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword n
Summary . . . vii
I Introduction . .. I~l
II. System Performance П-1
A. Trajectory Analysis .... II-1
B. Payload Capability 11-40
C. Staging И-40
D. Weight Statement 11-41
III. Propulsion System Ш-1
A. Launch Attempt (12 December 1965) Ш-1
B. Engine Subsystem III-2
C. Propellant Subsystem Ш-24
D. Pressunzation Subsystem Ш-70
E. Environmental Control Ill-81
IV. Flight Control System IV-1
A. Stage I Flight IV-1
B. Stage II Flight . . IV-9
C. Post-SECO Flight IV-9
V. Hydraulic System . V-l
A. Stage I .... V-l
B. Stage П V-5
VI. Guidance Systems VI-1
ER 13227-6
IV
CONTENTS (continued)
Page
A. Radio Guidance System Performance VI-1
B. Spacecraft Inertial Guidance System Ascent
Performance VI-6
VII. Electrical System Analysis VII-1
A. Configuration VII-1
B. Countdown and Flight Performance VII-1
VIII. Instrumentation System VIII-1
A. Airborne Instrumentation VIII-1
B. Landlme Instrumentation VIII-3
IX. Range Safety and Ordnance IX-1
A. Command Control Receivers IX-1
B. MISTRAM IX-1
C. Ordnance IX-2
X. Malfunction Detection System X-l
A. Configuration X-l
B. System Performance X-2
XI. Crew Safety XI-1
A. GT-6A Launch Attempt XI-1
B. Prelaunch Winds Operations XI-1
C. Slow Malfunction Monitoring XI-12
XII. Airframe System XII-1
A. Structural Loads XII-1
ER 13227-6
CONTENTS (continued)
Page
B. POGO XII-19
ХШ. AGE and Facilities Х1П-1
A. Mechanical AGE XIII-1
B. Master Operations Control Set ХШ-2
C. Facilities XIII-3
XIV. Reliability XIV-1
XV. Range Data XV-1
A. Launch Attempt Data and Film Distribution . . . XV-1
B. Launch Data Distribution XV-2
C. Launch Film Coverage XV-7
XVI. Prelaunch and Countdown Operations XVI-1
A. Prelaunch XVI-1
B. Launch Attempt Countdown Summary XVI-1
C. Recycle and Prelaunch Activity XVI-2
D. Countdown Summary XVI-2
XVII. Configuration Summary XVII-1
A. Launch Vehicle Systems Description XVII-1
B. Major Components XVII-3
XVin. References XVIII-1
Appendix A: Summary of Gemini Launches A-l
ER 13227-6
Vll
RECEDING PAGE BLANK NOT FILMED.
SUMMARY
The scheduled launch of GT-6A on 12 December 1965 was terminated

due to a premature disconnection of tail plug 3D1M. Engine shutdown
was automatically initiated 1.24 seconds after MOCS T n by holdfire
C-4 (programmer reset monitor), when the programmer in the three-
axis reference system (TARS), having been initiated by the inadvertent
disconnect of 3D1M, started prematurely. Engine shutdown was pre-
ceded by a normal start transient in S/A 1, whereas S/A 2 exhibited
an abnormal pressure buildup. Investigation of the abnormality led to
an inspection of the gas generator, which revealed that a plastic dust
cover had been left in the S/A 2 gas generator assembly. All other
systems performed properly during the launch attempt.
On 15 December 1965, Gemini-Titan 6A (GT-6A) was launched suc-

cessfully and on schedule from Complex 19, Cape Kennedy, Florida.
Launch vehicle/spacecraft separation was completed 361 seconds after
liftoff. Spacecraft re-entry was accomplished after completion of 17. 1
orbits.
The 240-minute countdown was picked up at 0529 EST on 15 Decem-

ber and continued without incident through liftoff at 0837 EST. The
spacecraft was inserted into an elliptical orbit with a perigee of 87
nautical miles and an apogee of 140. 4 nautical miles; all test objectives
for the launch were achieved.
Stages I and П engines operated satisfactorily throughout powered

flight. Stage I burning time was 160.4 seconds, with shutdown initiated
by oxidizer exhaustion. Stage II engine operation was terminated by a
guidance command after 181.6 seconds of operation.
The flight control system (FCS) maintained satisfactory vehicle

stability during Stages I and II flight. The primary FCS was in com-
mand throughout the flight. Vehicle rates during Stage I flight never
exceeded 1. 9 deg/sec, and the maximum attitude error was 1. 7 degrees.
The maximum rate and attitude error that occurred during staging did
not exceed 3. 7 deg/sec and 2.8 degrees, respectively.
Performance of the radio guidance system (RGS) was satisfactory.

Pitch and yaw steering signals and SECO discrete commands were
properly executed.
IGS pitch, yaw and roll performance for the entire flight appeared
normal. The dispersions between IGS and primary system attitude
errors remained within acceptable limits during powered flight.
ER 13227-6
Vlll
The hydraulic system operated satisfactorily during launch opera-

tions and both stages of flight. There were no significant pressure
perturbations at liftoff or during flight.
The electrical system functioned as designed throughout the launch
countdown and flight. Power transfer to vehicle batteries was smooth.
All channels of the PCM instrumentation system functioned satis-
factorily throughout the fright. The landlme instrumentation system
also functioned satisfactorily prior to and up to liftoff. All airborne
instrumentation hold functions monitored in the blockhouse remained
within specification throughout the countdown.
The ordnance system umbilical drop weight release, explosive launch

nuts and stage separation nuts operated as designed. The prevalves
were not replaced after the 12 December 1965 launch attempt, therefore,
the valves were open prior to propellant loading. The performances
of the command control receivers and the MISTRAM transponder were
satisfactory.
Malfunction detection system (MDS) performance during preflight
checkout and flight was satisfactory. There were no switchover com-
mands during the flight.
The flight environment encountered by GT-6A was within design re-

quirements. Flight loads were well within the structural capabilities
of the launch vehicle. The most critical loading (which occurred at pre-
BECO, aft of Station 320) reached 103. 6% of design limit load in com-
pression.
The longitudinal oscillation (POGO) on GT-6A reached a maximum

value at Station 280 of 0. 115 g zero-to-peak at frequencies of 13. 7 cps
at LO + 146. 8 seconds and 16. 8 cps at LO + 153. 9 seconds. This was
the lowest POGO experienced on any Gemini flight to date.
Crew safety monitoring, which was conducted at NASA-MSC, was
active during prelaunch and the launch. All guidance monitor parameters
were nominal and no corrective action was required during the flight.
The precount operation progressed without problems. All AGE and
facilities operated without incident during the countdown. Propellant
loading was completed within the scheduled time span and to the specified
load and temperature limits.
All electrical umbilicals disconnected in the planned sequence and
within 0. 854 second. Engine blast and heat damage to the launch stand
was minor.
ER 13227-6
IX
GLV-6 Test Objectives and Results
Objective Results
Primary
P-l Demonstrate satisfactory P-l Orbit insertion was

boost by the Gemini within the predicted
launch vehicle system of tolerances for V, h
a manned Gemini space- and у.
craft into the prescribed
orbital insertion condi-
tions.
P-2 Evaluate launch vehicle P-2 All systems performed

subsystem performance satisfactorily through-
during powered flight out flight. The POGO
for mission success and oscillation (0. 115 g
crew safety. zero-to-peak) was the
lowest encountered.
P-3 Demonstrate the effec- р-з GT-6A was erected

tiveness of launch op- and ready for launch
erations including prop- countdown seven days
er operations of neces- after the launch of
sary ground/range sup- GT-7 from the same
port systems to achieve launch pad.
the prescribed rendez-
vous mission launch
requirements.
Secondary
s-i Evaluate trajectory per- s-i Vehicle flight was

formance of the launch within the 3-sigma
vehicle system for re- predicted trajectory.
fining capability and
predictions for future
missions.
S-2 Demonstrate ability to S-2 Tanks were loaded

load propellants to within the required
weight and temperature tolerances of weight
limits imposed by pay- and temperature.
load and vehicle re-
quirements.
ER 13227-6
1-1
I. INTRODUCTION
This report presents an engineering evaluation of Gemini Launch

Vehicle No. 6 (GLV~6) systems performance during the 15 December
1965 countdown, launch and boost phase of the Gemini 6A mission.
Discussion of pertinent aspects of the 12 December launch attempt has
also been included.
The GT-6A vehicle was launched from Complex 19, Cape Kennedy,
Florida at 0837 hours EST on 15 December 1965, 12 days after the launch
of GT-7 from the same pad. A successful flight was achieved, and the
spacecraft was inserted into an elliptical orbit with a perigee of 87
nautical miles and an apogee of 140. 4 nautical miles. Gemini 6A was
the seventh mission and the fifth manned flight in the Gemini program,
with Astronauts Walter Schirra and Thomas Stafford aboard the Gemini
6 spacecraft. The one-day mission, with its objective of rendezvous
with the Gemini 7 spacecraft, was completed successfully on 16 Decem-
ber 1965.
GLV-6 was delivered to Cape Kennedy on 2 August 1965 in prepara-
tion for the Gemini 6 mission, a rendezvous and docking exercise with
an Agena Target Vehicle (ATV), scheduled to begin on 25 October 1965.
On that day, the GLV countdown and the mission were terminated shortly
after the Atlas-Agena liftoff when the ATV failed to achieve orbit.
Subsequently, the Gemini 6 mission plan was changed to that of a
rendezvous with the Gemini 7 spacecraft and redesignated as the Gemini
6A mission. For the redefined 6A mission, it was required to launch
GT-6A from Complex 19 within eight to twelve days following the GT-7
flight. Following the successful GT~7 operation on 4 December 1965,
the GT-6A vehicle was erected on Complex 19, and both vehicle and
launch complex were readied for a 12 December flight. On this date
the countdown proceeded on schedule through T~0 and engine ignition,
but an automatic shutdown occurred due to inadvertent release of a tail
plug. The GT-6A vehicle was recycled to permit a 15 December launch,
which was accomplished on time and without incident and which was
followed by the Gemini 6 rendezvous with the Gemini 7 spacecraft.
Significant events and tests accomplished for GLV-6 at ETR appear
in Table 1-1.
ER 13227-6
1-2
EVENTS
Q
со
X)
1
л
л
3
ОЛ
0)
ь
о
6
О)
3
0)
0)
01
и
4)
t,
а
о
0
см
GLV-6 on dock, ETR
со
Erection of GLV-6
г
Subsystem revenfication (SSRT)
Ю
р
>
CU
Prespacecraft mate verification (
,н
^ 0
Spacecraft mechanical mate
Г-
1-1
1
4
3
тз
CM ^ ^
Electrical integrated interface va
•м
cd
О
С
Joint guidance and control (JG&C)
CM
->
CM
_
Joint combined systems test (JCS
CM
со
9-iO
Propellant tanking test
«
CM
00
P
С 1
Flight configuration mode test (F<
4
_
J
Q
Wet mock simulated launch (WMS
0
ER 13227-6
"to
*
со
Spacecraft demate (Replace Batte
0)
с
со со ^
Spacecraft mate
^
4
**
Launch vehicle and spacecraft rei
(Л
0)
Simulated night test (SFT)
о
CM
in
Launch attempt
~
4 «
Spacecraft demate
CD
Launch vehicle de-erection
CM
со eo
«
ТЭ
73
Transport to satellite building foi
CM
О
0)
M
ca
(H
о
Launch vehicle re -erection
ю
«1ю
Spacecraft remate
J
>
en
en
V9-1D
со
^J
Launch vehicle and spacecraft re

м
0)
Simulated night test (SFT)
4*
со ~
1 l
Launch attempt
CM
Recycle test and checkout
см
2 2
Launch
Рч
•H
H
M)
I
II-1
II. SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
A. TRAJECTORY ANALYSIS
1. Orbit Insertion
Gemini Launch Vehicle No. 6 (GLV-6) performed as predicted and

inserted the Gemini 6 spacecraft into earth orbit well within the allow-
able tolerance limits to permit rendezvous with the GT-7 spacecraft.
GLV-6 was steered in the lateral plane during Stage II flight to a

set of ephemeris data referenced to the time of insertion (or targeting).
The values of two of these targeting parameters Ш = ~0. 18719584 x
10 rad/sec and T~ = 53,741.21875 seconds) are given here for record;
there are no observed values of these parameters. The targeted and ob-
served inclination angles were 28. 895 and 28. 97 degrees, respectively.
The targeted wedge angle of 0.2002 degree was exceeded. The observed
residual wedge angle was -0.075 degree, which meant that the total wedge
angle steered was -0.275 degree.
A comparison of the predicted and observed insertion conditions is

given in Table II-1. In this table and in all succeeding references to a
predicted (nominal) trajectory, the data were obtained from the GLV-6
45-day prelaunch report (Ref. 10), updated to reflect the actual space-
craft weight (7821 pounds), guidance constants, T-l hour wind and at-
mospheric data, and the -1.07% pitch and -1.4% roll programmer
biases. The observed trajectory parameters are those derived by the
Martin Company from the Final GE Mod III-G 10 pps data. These data
have been smoothed and corrected for both refraction errors and sys-
tematic biases by the General Electric Corporation before submittal to
the Martin Company.
TABLE II-1
Comparison of Insertion Conditions at SECO + 20 Seconds
Observed
Predicted GE Mod Minus Preliminary
Nominal III-G Planned Tolerance
Altitude (naut mi) 87. 128 87.260 +0. 132 ±0.346

Inertial velocity (fps) 25,731 25, 728 -3 +30. 3
Inertial flight path
angle (deg) 0.002 -0.054 -0.056 iO.' 125
ER 13227-6
II-2
со cu w
rn i—I С
goo rj< -* t~ о
г] уз со о оэ со ю X
114
4) f-i •^ о со о •-< Ю О CO Ю ОЭ CO CM
^ О • «s • • 1-* I
со
^ л
^ СО • со ел ю оэ • • H со
со со тз со
Tj< ,-H ,-Н I-H СО СО CN t- CM CO C- CM i—i О
С
+1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 . со
01
О ей Ц со ей
со
0) СО CU
о, С ^
со со ю
О н
о Р ^ *ч
т-ч
со о
О)
о о
i-н
•*
CM
1-н «§S
1
ср Iе
rh
0) l k « О I-H • СО ОЭ i—i *-н
ел тЗ
ш 2^ СО
о,"!)) £ £ О гн СМ 'ф ОЭ О О
о
CM Q
Q-J
+1 -1-1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 о
гН pv гн ^а.
тз
0
и с
со ... о ,_,л см о
^
со ^
о оэ со ^ ^
"—1 W *-•
*Ф С4- СО О i—t Ю TJ< ^ Ю о со LO
ш
£ *-<" • СО О5 1Л ОЭ • •
чф LO »
. ю со со со ю
* • • О
. §
а.
см 'Hcd D- г* *н t> CM t-н О
G
I
^1- +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1
см
со
W и
и ТЗ х-х см со о
и (0 ГЗ ; о
со
см
<Ф
с-
•>
со
с~ СШ
г 1
м
-t-^
Е- ^ ей
•sg.3*; Г—
•
Ю
i-H
rf
О СО СО •-«
ОЭ
СО
.
СО
СО СО
•sfH
^Н
Г~ CM
СО
" СО
f-
СМ
ОЭ СМ
.О
С СО „ > t^ Ю СО « .. СО ОЭ Ю о
О П . ^ S.*• Ю г-н О СО Ю СМ 00 Ю •—1 Ю "—1 т-1 СО .
*—' СМ *—' 1 1 Ю »—< СО СМ СМ ' 1 Ю о
со
О
со
а "ьЬ "ьЬ
со со со
, ТЗ <ТЗ а -
о со ей
тз СО (Ц "и ш
си 0 л
а~ Д ^ О, .^ г-Н
-t-J
S о -- ~ £. с sВ?
о
гН ей S ^ g. >> S ^ Н 1о Т S S о
ТЗ S-i д 8-
0)
р
PU
и1)
й
jjj
2 7^
ТЗ "Д "+J
J
о ч g rt и "S
(ц ~' д
ю ^
^^
«« SS а
<Ы
^
2
ё. "° и S ^>
S» _
Тч
^ лrtгч ^
^о^J
0 ^ ей ей
О
о '
СО
о T J " 1 o i i > c o - s о н ^ О >_ > СО -у
с
ей •: ^ 5 « о, g -a g t—'
гн
w
,,
О
г-н СО
bD J5
tuD с<w *"H
CU "М
СЬ а)
а
!ч о с > a If " a о
Н О 0 too
О ей
«2
LJ •*-* _i то та . О
1 1 - 2 2 -S -
« § 1 » g1 1 + JJ
tt)
о
н
+-1 to
CO CO С
со з
2
t1
со
^ g о ^. о о о ^.
Ри g § 1 | g g
.3 |
0) ^ |^ о
JH SH i
И н о и и и о £ W W щ <^ а
PQ w И ?
ER 13227-6
2. Derivation of Trajectory Uncertainties
The expected maximum vehicle dispersions and RGS dispersions at
BECO and at SECO + 20 seconds were obtained from Refs. 11 and 12,
respectively. A root sum square (RSS) of these dispersions is termed
the preliminary tolerance. After determination of the preliminary
tolerance, the total tolerance may be computed by the arithmetic addi-
tion of the preliminary tolerance to the 3-sigma data error of the in-
strumentation source being considered. Thus,
/ 2 2
Preliminary tolerance = ^(vehicle dispersions) + (RGS dispersions)
Total tolerance = preliminary tolerance + 3-sigma data error.
The resulting preliminary tolerance is shown in Table II-2. Because
the actual insertion conditions were within the preliminary tolerance,
the data error estimates are not needed and, therefore, have been ex-
cluded from this report.
3. Flight Plan
The primary objective for GLV-6A was to place the Gemini 6A
spacecraft into an elliptical earth orbit with an 87-nautical mile perigee*
and 146-nautical mile apogee.* Having achieved orbital insertion at
25, 730 fps, ** the spacecraft then separates from Stage II (adding 10 fps
to spacecraft velocity in the process) and coasts to the desired apogee.
The following flight plan was employed to attain these desired conditions.
A vertical rise is planned for the first 23.04 seconds following liftoff,
during which time a programmed roll rate of 1.25 deg/sec is initiated
to roll the vehicle from a pad orientation of 84. 903 degrees to the flight
azimuth of 81.4 degrees.
At this time, an open-loop pitch program is begun (via a three-step
rate command) which terminates at 162. 56 seconds. The nominal com-
manded pitch rates and their times of application are shown in Table II-3.
Guidance commands from the radio guidance system (RGS) are initiated
at LO + 168. 35 seconds and continue until two seconds prior to SECO,
however, velocity cutoff computations continue to SECO. Between SECO
and SECO + 20 seconds, the engine shutdown impulse continues to add
velocity to the vehicle (approximately 85 fps), and the spacecraft is
separated from the sustainer just after SECO + 20 seconds.
#Relative to Complex 19.

i-*Does not include the separation velocity imparted by the spacecraft.
ER 13227-6
II-4
TABLE II-3
Planned GLV Pitch Program
Rate Time from Liftoff

Program (deg/sec) (sec)
Step 1 -0.709 23.04 to 88.32

Step 2 -0.516 88.32 to 119.04
Step 3 -0.235 119.04 to 162. 56
A comparison of the planned and actual sequences of events is con-

tained in Table II-4, and a profile of the GT-6A flight superimposed
on the range planning map appears in Fig. II-1.
4. Trajectory Results
Analysis of the range data and Mod Ш radar data indicates that
the performance of GLV~6 was normal and the vehicle flew close to
the prescribed ascent trajectory throughout Stages I and II. The only
significant deviations in the trajectory occurred in the first stage, in
which, at BECO, the vehicle was 4900 feet low and 6100 feet to the
left of the nominal trajectory.
Reconstruction of the BECO condition (Table II-5) shows that a

satisfactory simulation may be obtained by consideration of the actual
engine data, weather conditions, propellant loading, inert weight, en-
gine misalignments, wind and guidance errors. This table is com-
prised of those items which can be measured and those which can only
be estimated due to lack of suitable instrumentation. The primary
factors contributing to the pitch and yaw plane trajectory dispersions
at BECO are listed and the effect of each is summarized. The pitch
plane reconstruction matches the flight data quite well, the yaw plane
reconstruction does not match the flight data quite as well as for pre-
vious Gemini flights.
A Y,-, coordinate displacement at BECO results in an approximate

amplification of four on the ¥„ coordinate displacement at SECO + 20
seconds. The differences shown in the apparent and measured incre-
ments of Table II"5 are well within the allowable tolerance limits pre-
sented in Table II-2.
Table П-6 presents the trajectory parameters computed from the

GE Mod Ш-G, MISTRAM 1 and 2, and C-band radar data. At BECO
all of the data sources yielded comparable results. MISTRAM yielded
somewhat different values for the insertion parameters than did GE
Mod Ш-G and C-band radar. MISTRAM values of mertial velocity,
ER 13227-6
П-5
TABLE II-4
GT-6A Flight Events Summary
Time from Liftoff (sec)

GMT
Measurement Event (hr-mm-sec) Actual Planned
0800/0801 Power transfer 1335 57.6 -88 9 -89.
FC В- 10 MOCS T-0 1337 23. 13 -3 34 -3.46
2104 87FS! (T-0) 23. 192 -3.279 -3.37
0356 Stage I S/A-1 MDTCPS make 24.092 -2 379 -2 27
0357 Stage I S/A-2 MDTCPS make 24 112 -2 359 -2 27
2101 TCPS S/A-1 and S/A-2 24. 172 -2 299 -2 20
0169 Launch nuts 26.28 -0. 19 -0 20
4421 First motion 26. 362 -0.109 -0. 10
4422 Shutdown lockout (backup) 26.378 -0.093 -0 10
4423 Liftoff 26 471 0 0
0734 Start roll program 44. 13 17.66 17 68
0734 End roll program 46.93 20.46 20 48
0732 Start pitch program No. 1 •49.46 22.99 23.04
0732 Stop pitch program No. 1 1338 54.67 88.20 88.32
0732 Start pitch program No. 2 54.67 88 20 88 32
0728 FCS gain change No. 1 1339 16.28 109.81 110.00
0732 Stop pitch program No. 2 •25.30 118.83 119 04
0732 Start pitch program No. 3 25.30 118.83 119 04
0735 Staging enable (TARS discrete) 50.88 144.41 144 64
0741 IPS staging arm timer 51 44 144.97 145.00
0356 Stage I S/A-1 MDTCPS break 1340 03 586 157. 115 156.52
0357 Stage I S/A-2 MDTCPS break 03 588 157. 117 136.52
0032 87FS 2 /91FSj (BECO) 03.633 157. 162 156.58
0502 Start PC3 rise 04.300 157.829 157.23
0169 Stage separation 04.315 157 844 157.31
0855 Stage II MDFJPS make 04.370 157 899 157.48
0732 Stop pitch program No. 3 08. 17 161 70 162 56
0740 RGS enable 08 11 161 64 162 56
0755/0756 First guidance command 14 68 168 21 168. 35
0739 Stage II shutdown enable 1342 42. 75 316.28 317 44
0777 Guidance SECO 1343 05. 188 338 717 336 87
0519 91FS2 05 208 338.737 336.89
0522 Shutdown valve relay 05.234 338 763 336. 91
0521 Shutdown squib 05.224 338 753 336. 91
0799 ASCO 05 24 338 77 336 92
0855 Stage П MDFJPS break 05.348 338 877 337. 19
AB-03 Spacecraft separation 27.4 360.9 356.89
ER 13227-6
п-6
-,
•- о'. о»
VT*..,
.',- ч у, У». SECO + 20 (530, 201)-
- ' С ^
Т^Л
•^ > , SECO(529,89D-
v
<5- - ' '
-
»• i ', ^ о V^
^>-
г
^ /
', / •О(
Г' п
-"'в ' I
:
^}^-
_ \ V.2-
Fig. II-1. GT-бА Boost Flight Path Profile
ER 13227-6
II-7
in со со
со со со со см со со
. со . со in см г-
о1 1 i1
о — 0
+ +
CM
1
CO
i
0
1
*н
+
1П
1
СМ
+ +
'
'
о со о
со CO О in ю о ю 1П О
s-i 1
-*- г- г- см со СО
СЭ CO СО -ч
?" «и со 1 i см см ел см со
<з - 1 + 1 1 i 1 1 + 1
' +
CO
+ 1
t-
со 0 со со аз см
ел о Г- 0 СО i-ч О ^а4
<•- ш см о 1-1
0 о о о тГ О о о со со
<! -о о Q
о о о 1 о о 1 0 0 о о 0 0
i +
1 1
+ 1 1 1 1 i i 1 1
гЧ
CJ ^,
О со in ел r- С- -ч
i t-
со in см 1 со -ч СО i-l
i 1 + 1 1 + i i +
oo
С
:Г
О
ш
•о
ш о
ю •a
3 0
с о со со о ел t- со 0 0
i о смin
со
.-(
со см со
1
in см
1
о см ю ел
со см 1-1 СО —< со
U 1 1 i i 1 1 1 i + 1 1
W
J U
<
PQ W
И 0
§•3 г~ см со со со
in см см ш ш
«о 1
>2- о 0 1 1 1 , , 1 1 1 0 0 0
+ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 +
^
О
"ад _ 'ад
ЕШ си ел ш
тз ш тз
Сч
nj 9 ^ "ад •£ со
-ч
о
-°
in
ел
со
td t-H тз <и "ад
О
^r
1-4
СО ^
V + 0 сэ
си^ о л ~
5 см
Engine misalignment pitc
Engine misalignment roll

Specific impulse (+0 15%)
Engine misalignment yaw
TARS roll programmer (
TARS pitch programmer
0) со
Thrust Stage I (-0. 43%)
0)
« i
Measured increments
Apparent increments
С -5
[easured Parameters
•о
cd
а
1—1
тз t,
тз
0 '
а тз ш (ч О о
rend Indications
1
со
& j;
со Н ас I-H
си sгна >>
Scd "о
о>
ад О
cd OJ
со
1ч
ш
сп со
<И <и
г
8 см
Д И Н
§ EH
ER 13227-6
П-8
m
со
я
•о
э
в ^ - ^ 4 0 rf " «.
t.
0)
и Z со см 55 + 2 см 2
i
2
ce
О
со см
ш 2 2 ,л 4 П £: S " ^ ш « л й о
Ю
. « * от г- •* *o
ш
— о>м — л м м - ф - « а ) — сч i i со w ю + ю см со • с м е м • i i
I
^
о с
и
ы 'и Ml- °1 СО Ш «s r-^ - e o e o c o л JC
m Ия
и*
~ 0 ~. g S П «. - ^. СОш Ш 0
ш *, S ~ш '. 1 5 °" <* I S *
a
- —м —ш е ч о о - г - ю — N i i c o c M i r t ' i n c M c o i e M C M . i i '
0
ш •?
о и
T3
с
ев CD
OJ fe
Ш) § О1 ro
OS CO S
TJ
!ч 0 S 0
t^ .-• О en to en o* * см с- o> to о
О г Si ^ S «• " " 5 П' S n' S N и Ш ,
£
0)
JC
a
Рн
со г о
тз В
ТЗ с
0) о •о
с
ь о о cd
о
со
ь 0)
0) с/э
э~ СМ 00
ф
-от ~
CO 0 тз
с
1 со о
1—Н
(—i см S t» I- ш гм"
Ш Ш
". см" S) о> 0 ш ю S m "л о ° со ". en to со °1 от S £
0
О о
л
W •р
тз
TABL
со
nJ и 0 "с
ТЗ И о 4<
ч- ш
CO
о
л
СЛ
с "° а 2 2 .» N ~ ™ S " с м е м ю с о с о с п "° ™ «sч- §
с а S2 f- m N ГО
"° "• N го го - ш S 5 со- о" е о . с о с о о о " - с п ш (
ы"
рц тзс
i-H
о
rt
1
со gl
i
CO "т
--• CO тз
О 2li 2°
« 5 0 ""
03 0> - Л « §
О
a
|ssu. "" 0 ". — ш - °. S °. 0 п
c o e o c o g o > t o c M ^- « со to см ^ t-
i n 0 0 0 3 M - « W C O O M U 5 a > 1 •
(>.*££ ^ й й о 2 ^ с о - 7 ^ ^ Г ? ? Т СО
с
о
ш 1
V
,0. a. ?
ей
а JH a
i
и
^
"° *"ь
"^ "т °-
[ ь ' т > ^ у
"и"
^
>1 Ъ _- 9
6
| | о jj
0
0)
^ ~ d , - s " . ' S . > o ^ ^,
•ш~_х . " > < ! • ^1 .; ? м - x ^ " x
H
•*&.>:'?
g в -g
. 1 1 1 1 ! i 1 N. $ ! N. I I
о 5 *-
cd о, d з
*. -S С rt
0 0 С
- от
1 ! НП ! 1 ! ! ! 1 1
а г s S a a , g 8 . s , s § : s |
1f ^
94o *- 0) nJ О
4^ 1 S I I I ! f 1 с 8
^ - j Q ^ j s S o ^ a c u n
±i "3"» Q)
>
^
«5
" b
с
.«*J
2 *.
—ш
u
2 ^ u S b = 2 ' 3 g 2- S>> •о °
Ь О В щ З щ 0 0 * ° ** * ° *< * S •о < о"С
P E S j 5 m ° ° * ° ** ^ ° ^ Я a —- aw
а н ^ З ^ о о о о > о и > > и p q H . 5 « l * 5 O G Q U > Q U > t« Ш £> S < СХ
щ V)
ER 13227-6
inertial flight path angle, and geocentric radius agreed very closely
with values derived from the Bermuda tracking data. BET data (which
are derived from MISTRAM data) are presented in Table II-6
Table II-6 presents a comparison of the GE Mod III-G 10 pps and

the 2 pps data. Starting with GT-8, only the GE Mod Ш-G 2 pps data
will be available.' Comparing the two sets of data on Table II-6, it is
concluded that the GE Mod III-G 2 pps data are satisfactory.
The actual, as well as the predicted, nominal trajectory is pre-

sented in graphical form in Figs. II-2 through 11-24. On these graphs,
the nominal trajectory is that documented in Ref. 10, updated to re-
flect the actual spacecraft weight (7821 pounds), guidance constants,
T-l hour wind and atmospheric data, and the -1.07% pitch and -1. 4%
roll programmer biases. The observed flight data were obtained from
the Mod III-G 10 pps data, smoothed and corrected for refraction errors
and systematic biases.
A list of the primary tracking sources with the trajectory time inter-
val covered by each is contained in Table II-7.
5. Geodetic and Weather Parameters
Significant geodetic and weather parameters are shown in Table II-8.

The atmospheric pressure and temperature variation with altitude is
depicted in Fig. П-25. The pressure was essentially standard, while
the temperature was slightly warmer than standard. Figure 11-26 pre-
sents the altitude history of the magnitude and direction of the wind.
At low altitudes the winds were light, increasing to a peak of 86 knots
at 42, 500 feet. The wind was essentially a tail wind with a small com-
ponent from the left of the trajectory.
6. Look Angles
An initial decoder pitch-down command of about 0. 10 deg/sec,

lasting approximately 0. 5 second, was issued at LO + 168. 21 seconds.
Following this, a 0. 56 deg/sec pitch-down command was issued for ap-
proximately 0. 3 second. Thereafter, the pitch steering command de-
creased to approximately 0.25 deg/sec within 2 seconds.
During this period, the maneuver resulted in decreasing angles of

attack as shown in Fig. П-20. The maximum look angle in pitch (LAP)
occurred at LO + 335 seconds, when it attained a value of 2 2 . 2 degrees.
This maximum value was within the boundary existing at that time, as
shown in Fig. 11-27. The corresponding look angle in yaw (LAY) was
also within the established limitation (±20 degrees), as shown in Fig.
11-28. The maximum value of LAY was 6. 3 degrees which occurred
160 seconds after liftoff.
ER 13227-6
и-ю
TABLE II-7
Data Available for Trajectory Analysis
Flight Coverage
Source Type Station (sec from range-0)
AFETR MISTRAM posi- Valkaria I + 65 to 383

tion, velocity Eleuthera II + 65 to 383
and acceleration
FPQ-6 radar MILA 19.18 + 13 to +380

position, veloc- GBI 3.18 + 147.6 to +379.1
ity and accelera- Grand Turk 7. 18 + 329.1 to 491. 1
tion Patrick 0.18 90 to 379
FPS-16 radar 3.16 + 147.6 to +379.1

position, veloc-
ity and accelera-
tion
BET (composite) + 66 to +379
GE Mod III-G radar Cape Kennedy LO to +381

position, veloc-
ity
NASA-MSC Spacecraft IGS LO to +367.9
aspect param-
eters
ER 13227-6
II-11
TABLE II-8
Geographic and Weather Conditions at Launch
Location
Site Complex 19
Site coordinates-
Latitude (deg) 28.507 N
Longitude (deg) 80.554 W
Pad orientation (deg) 84.903 true azimuth
Weather
Ambient pressure (psi) 14.71

Ambient temperature (°F) 68
Dew point (°F) 67
Relative humidity (%) 97
Surface wind-
Speed (fps) 7
Direction (deg) 200
Winds aloft (max):
Altitude (ft) 42,500
Speed (fps) 147
Direction (deg) 292 true azimuth
Cloud cover 0. 2 alto-cumulus
Reference Coordinate System
Type Martin reference coordinate system
Origin Center of launch ring, Complex 19
Positive X-axis Downrange along flight azimuth
tangent to ellipsoid
Positive Y-axis To left of flight azimuth tangent to
ellipsoid and_LX-axis
Positive Z-axis Forms a right-handed orthogonal
system
Reference ellipsoid Fischer
Launch
Initial flight azimuth (deg) 81. 4 true azimuth

Roll program (deg) 3. 5 cw
ER 13227-6
П-12
FIDENTIAL
BECO
(157. 162 sec)"
I
Predicted nominal wind run 80-GT-6 (final)*
9
! GE Mod III-G final flight data*
\J Predicted BECO
(156.578 sec)
•
-
: 1
•
• Încludes
Rawinsonde balloon data
£? Cape Kennedy .
u 0739 EST, 15 December 1965
и
•a ...
-
«
с 4
•
•
_.
1
•
... ,
I 10 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Fig. II-2. Inertial Velocity Versus Time: Stage I Flight
ER 13227-6
Predicted nominal wind run 8Q-GT-6 (final)*
GE Mod III-G final flight data*
BECO
(157. 162 sec)
Includes
Cape Kennedy Predicted BECO
0739 EST, 15 December 1965 (156. 578 sec)
'
50 60 70 80 90 100 ПО 120 130 140 150 160 170 180

Fig. II-3. Inertial Flight Path Angle Versus Time: Stage I Flight
nnj сшсухш
4^^™ !U[.li IIHL AL
ER 13227-6
П-14 -
'NFIDENTIAL
240
>
BECO
Predicted nominal wind run 80-GT-6
Г-6 (final)* (157. 162 sec)
220
'
200
•
i
/•
180 /.
/ /
160
140
-
-
— 120
ш
О
:-
100
80
И!
130 140 150 160 170 180

Fig. II-k. Altitude (h) Versus Time: Stage I Flight
CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
^^fl?
II-15
400
BECO
Predicted nominal wind run 80-GT-6 (final)* (157. 162 sec)
Predicted BECO
(156.578 sec)
"Includes i i
Rawinsonde balloon data '
Cape Kennedy
0739 EST, 15 December 1965
'"
•
10 20 70 80 90 160
Fig. II-5. Downrange Position Coordinate (XF) Versus Time: Stage I Flight
MTlAi
ER 13227-6
И-16
CONFIDENTIAL
.
5 ВЕС о
(final)* (157 .162 sec) \
'
\1
• \'
£f
Щ
.
<n «
•
3
«" л '''Includes
Cape Kennedy
5 о "
>-i °
Ш
»•"
•
с
^«
.••
0
и ..-'
•*->
en
о
-<-s<^ .
.
о, *-*~^^^
с -1 ^^^
•«•^
*---«-
•
1 ^^-—v^^
со •
со
8
.
' "*-"•<_
2 •
а "^>^J '
""-^ ^*|Ч!
Ь
се 7*
SH >.
га -з
\^
И
.
. ^ч
0
ОТ 1
4 /i
Г /
I Predicted BECO
(156.578 sec)
/
-5 '
j ; __ „...
20 30 10 50 60 70 80 90 100 ПО 120 130 140 150 160 " 170 180
Fig. II-6. Cross-Range Position Coordinate (Y ) Versus Time: Stage I Flight
CONFIDENTIAL
1 ER 13227-6
fj СУПЛЬ
* ЯЯГ
320
Predicted nomir
280
BE CO
!
(157. 162 sec)
* 240
'
.. • Predicted BECO
( 1 5 6 . 5 7 8 sec)
% 200
Ж *Includes
Rawinsonde balloon
- Cape Kennedy
о 0739 EST, 15 Dece
160 -
С
•
120
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170

Fig. II-T. Vertical Position Coordinate (ZF) Versus Time: Stage I Flight
_^АЛА 1ППГЫТ1 A I
ШштГ NFIDENTIAW
ER 13227-6
11-18 "
CONFIDENTIAL
,..-•••• 1
•
.
Predicted BECO
(156.578 sec)
*Includes
Cape Kennedy
70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170

Fig. H-8. Mach Number (M) Versus Time: Stage I Flight
CONFIDEN
ER 13227-6
^FIDENT!
"MTIftl
IUUIIIHL
1000
5
(final) '
-• • -• * » •
/•^^Чч -Includes
/.'/•
Cape Kennedy
- /
/ \.\
1
'
• /•
/.
V»
HI V
500
/• V \ .
л/•
\
\»
. / v\. \ fc
/. \.
у
\»\*
/>
/• V
V\ •
300
/•
X
/. v \•
\•
/• V.
• /• V.
200
/•' V. BECO
/' X!- (157. 162 sec) ~\
100 /,•
/•' x/.
X*.
XN.
Predicted BECO "^v.
V (156. 578 sec) "7"— ""^<i.
- -—— __^*J^ *^ L Sl
*fc* »
LO
^^
О 30 И) 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Fig. II-9- Dynamic Pressure (q) Versus Time: Stage I Flight
FIDENTI/1L
ER 13227-6
11-20
CONFIDEN1
мШШШМ
^„pj*i
30

v\. -'Includes
Cape Kennedy
1 0739 EST, 15 December 1965
BECO
(157. 162 sec)
Predicted BECO :
(156. 578 sec)
60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160

Fig. 11-10. Axial Force Versus Time: Stage I Flight
«W1DENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
II-21
IDEN7W
-2-
BECO
Predicted nominal wind run 8Q-GT-6 (final)* (157. 162 sec)"
-Includes Predicted BECO

Rawinsonde balloon data (156.578 sec)
Cape Kennedy
60
60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160

Fig. II-11. Aerodynamic Heating Indicator Versus Time: Stage I Flight
•«HUM?!!
ER 13227-6
11-22
••

II
20
-Includes BECO
Rawinsonde balloon data (157. 162 sec)"
ы
Cape Kennedy
10
• ••-
,
-.
::
.
-10
Predicted BECO
(156. 578 sec)
-20
-30
-40
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 по 120 130 140 150 160 170
Fig. 11-12. Stage I Angle of Attack History
ER 1 3 2 2 7 - 6
23
W^^^^WP*^"
BE CO
Predicted nominal wind run 80-GT-6 (final)* (157. 162 sec)"
GE Mod IH-G final flight data*
.
»•
-* --^—*ч-
-
Predicted BECO
(156. 578 sec)
ад
a
''Includes
to Cape Kennedy
Ш
. 0739 EST, 15 December 1965
1 -30
-40
-50
-60
30 • 50 60 70 80 9C 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Fig. 11-13. Stage I Angle of Sideslip History
ER 13227-6
11-24 -
SECO + 20 (358. 737 sec)

Predicted nominal wind run 80-GT-6 (final) 5
26
GE Mod III-G f i n a l flight data*
24
Predicted SECO + 20 (356. 894 sec)

22
Încludes
Cape Kennedy
140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460
Fig. II-lA. Resultant Inertia! Velocity (V ) Versus Time: Stage II Flight
-_^k 'TiM
•• ИСТ
ER 13227-6
. .

Cape Kennedy
SECO + 20 (358. 737 sec)
140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460
Fig. II-15. Inertial Flight Path Angle (ут) Versus Time: Stage II Flight
JG8NFIDENTIAL ER 13227-6
П-26
600, •
SE
SECO+ 20 (358.737 sec)
560
;d nominal wind run 80-GT-6 (final)* I
III-G final flight data*
520 •
.
480 "^
*Includes
Cape Kennedy
0739 EST, 15 December 1965 Predicted SECO + 20 (356. 894 sec)
440
--о
400
2 360 !
320
280
140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380
Fig. II-16. Altitude Versus Time: Stage II Flight
(^HI'IULN I IHL
ER 13227-6
4.0,
ir ' SECO + 20 (358 737 sec)
;.._.;_ L-
_ 3
CD
О

GE M
° d In " G f l n a l
f l l h t data
*
•_, '_ ' . i. J. i. L
ев
_
•о
и
о
V'~i Predicted SECO + 20 (356. 894 sec)
о
о [- -. -г т .
. ^Л '.• > £,. Includes .1 ' t
о _'_L'
r
,'-_ _t Rawinsonde balloon data !
' ' "' ' ' Cape Kennedy Г
га 0739 EST, 15 December 1965 \'~ b
"L "T '" J _ll i —-1-
£ •~ J r--, f - - . ! j—r -
i ••- > г . - --I W-;~! -V- -!• :

0 :
ад
с
i- ' - ; ' t
'•т-г:л 1„_,4_;ш__
о
Q
.* Lli! : _! i-4.lt.--L: .л i L'. "-_u-J " .„J L J_J_^ ' „i i..
'. ' ._- L ' '
> . Г
_ ! ! _ _Г _. Т . i "
. "' -
Г ~ i
i ' ' '
_- -, . ; _ -I z l—
t -- --
' -u_ ' -ji .!—;_î'

140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440
Fig. 11-17- Dovnrange Position Coordinate (X_) Versus Time: Stage II flight
ER 13227-6
П-28
С
40>
Predicted nominal wind run 80-GT-6 (final)* |

] Încludes
Cape Kennedy
0739 EST, 15 December 1965 h
- ЩЩЩШ;!
:.
-
;:
О •;•"—~1—г-
.
-$$
n
-
li
rt SECO + 20 (358.737 sec)
. r*:t:fc
I
.
i-Ж
-
-
-120 ......,.••{.-:••[• '"Т
'-•
-û- ;-ФУЩ-я
-140 ... , -i i ; .• . i .i
* j :.!.':.
, » I
-160l \ - » -
ISf
* --T" - :
*
;•- ' ; •- ; _Ц,— i ' i" I
-200
120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 480
Fig. 11-18. Cross-Range Position Coordinate (Y ) Versus Time: Stage И Plight

г
ER 13227-6
520

'

Cape Kennedy
0739 EST, 15 December 1965 .
SECO + 20 (358.737 sec)
Predicted SECO + 20 (356.894 sec)
•
4-,
140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 380 400 420 440 460 480
Fig. 11-19. Vertical Position Coordinate (Zp) Versus Time: Stage И Flight
СШШШннямя*
ПЛГ
ER 13227-6
и-зо
СОЫЙВ0ЧIIAL"
12
. Predicted nominal wind run 80-GT-65 (final)*

(finsil)*
•
- SECO + 20 (358.737 sec)
Miu
»
/
:
==aex>
st, ' >
^х^
и Sv"
''Includes
*> 19 Rawinsonde balloon data
d " - Cape Kennedy
<
0739 EST, 15 December 1965 Predicted SEC Э + 20 (356.894 sec)
-16 .
-20
. '
-24
•
00 .
~ АО
140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440
Fig. 11-20. Stage II Angle of Attack History
CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
NFIDENTI
3/
SECO + 20 (358. 737 i

•
•
-^~~~~~~~*~- .
^r^-^T
_
00. Predicted SECO + 20 (356. 894 sec)
оГ
%

m GE Mod III-G final flight data*
<v
."2 -12
Încludes
-16 Cape Kennedy
•20
140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360
Fig. 11-21. Angle of Sideslip Versus Time: Stage II Flight
ER 13227-6
И-32
ИПИЯР
ЮОг- 650 -200г 214. 7r 1.0 2 Г,
50 600 -250 214.6 0.5
т ем : Cross -range velocity

О
а;
г
•л II
550 - ~ -зоо 214.5 0.0
aс £
а
м
nj 'о
во
5
л
\
ч
с и и 3
>н - I Inertia! flight path angle
) JLIiei LlcLi 1
м
IX
V
м
1
к
Я тз
ш о DQ и аk
и П и -гЬи*
о о о о V
и
-50
и о
500 -350- 214.4 -0.5
! Cross range •
iGround rang
-100L 450 -4001- 214.3 й -1.0
SEC О SECO + 20 sec

I
334 336 338 340 342 344 346 348 350 352 354 356 358 360
Pig. H-22. GE Mod III-G Flight Data from SECO to SECO + 20 Seconds
ER 13227-6
'п-зз
CONFIDENTIAL
,
^B i^
Predicted nominal wind run 8Q-GT-6 (final)*

-400 GE Mod III-G final flight data*
-500 \\ ч
-600 *Includes
Cape Kennedy \\
-700
0739 EST, 15 December 1965 \\
-800
-900
ад
с
-1000
о -1100
-1200
-1300 ч-
-1400
-1500
-1600
SECO+ 20 (358.737 sec)
-1700
'
-1800
Predicted SECO + 20 (356. 894 sec)-
-1900 360
340
120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320
-2000 100
О
Time from Liftoff (sec) Fig. 11-23- Cross-Bange Velocity (Yp) Versus Т1ше
NFIDENTI
ER 13227-6
П-34
L
200
SECO + 20 (358.737 sec)

100

-100
Includes
Cape Kennedy
-200
. -300
-
•
•
-400 ;
-500

-600
-700
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360
Fig. II-2k. Yaw Steering Velocity (V Y ) Versus Time
ER 13227-6
И-35
110

Cape Kennedy
100 -
~ 60 -
<L>
40
20 40 - 300 280 260 240

Wind Speed (kn) Wind Azimuth (deg from north)
Fig. 11-25. Wind Speed and Azimuth Versus Altitude
ER 13227-6
II-36
110
100

Cape Kennedy
I Temperature
Pressure (psi)
-80 -60 -40 -20 +20

Temperature ( C)
Fig. 11-26. Ambient Temperature and Pressure Versus Altitude
ER 13227-6
П-37
^
FIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
И-38
CO
ER 13227-6
7. l l a s i m u m Dynamic P r e s s u r e
- - - -
T h e m a x i m u m d y n a m i c p r e s s u r e f o r the G T - 6 t r a j e c t o r y \vas l e s s
t h a n d e s i g n l i m i t s . T a b l e 11-9 c o m p a r e s the p r e d i c t e d a n d o b s e r v e d
c o n d i t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d with t h e m a x i m u m d y n a m i c p r e s s u r e . The p r e -
d o m i n a n t l y t a i l - m i n d e n v i r o n m e n t f o r t h i s flight i n i t s e l f r e d u c e s t h e
m a x i m u m dynamic p r e s s u r e . A predicted trajectory computation f o r
a no wind condition s h o w e d t h a t t h e m a x i m u m d y n a m i c p r e s s u r e lvould
b e 737. 5 p s i , a n d t h e p r e d i c t e d t r a j e c t o r y with T - 1 w i n d s , f r o m T a b l e
11-9, s h o w s a v a l u e of 729. 7 p s i , v e r i f y i n g t h e e f f e c t of a t a i l wind.
However, the o b s e r v e d m a x i m u m dynamic p r e s s u r e was the s a m e as
t h e p r e d i c t e d n o wind v a l u e . T h e r e f o r e , o t h e r f a c t o r s s u c h as e n g i n e
p e r f o r m a n c e a n d t h e TARS p i t c h p r o g r a m m i n g c o m b i n e d t o i n c r e a s e
t h e m a x i m u m d y n a m i c p r e s s u r e s l i g h t l y c o m p a r e d to t h e p r e d i c t i o n .
T A B L E 11-9
T r a j e c t o r y P a r a m e t e r s a t Maximum Dynamic P r e s s u r e
Predicted:k
(nominal) Observed**
I
I
Dynamic p r e s s u r e (psf)
T i m e f r o m liftoff ( s e c )
Mach n u m b e r 1.89
A l t i t u d e (ft) 47, 650
R e l a t i v e f l i g h t path a n g l e (deg) 46.28
R e l a t i v e wind v e l o c i t y (fps)
Wind v e l o c i t y (fps)
I Wind a z i m u t h ( d e g f r o m n o r t h )
A n g l e of a t t a c k (deg)
Angle of s i d e s l i p (deg)
281
0.61
0.86 -0.24
*Ref. 1 0 , u p d a t e d ( s e e footnote t o T a b l e 11-7)
**Mod 111-G 1 0 p p s r a d a r d a t a
II-40
8. Angles of Attack and Sideslip
Predicted and observed histories of angles of attack and sideslip dur-

ing the ascent are shown in Figs. 11-12, 11-13, 11-20 and 11-21. The
predicted values were obtained from a digital run utilizing wind and atmo-
spheric information obtained from the 0739 EST Rawinsonde sounding.
Observed angles of attack and sideslip were derived using the Mod III-G
position and velocity information, IGS attitude data and the aforemen-
tioned weather data.
В. PAYLOAD CAPABILITY
Propellants remaining onboard after Stage II low level sensor un-

cover indicated that a burning time margin (BTM) of 2. 348 seconds
existed to a command shutdown. The total propellant weight margin
was 767 pounds, and the corresponding GLV payload capability was
8655 pounds. These values and the predicted nominal and minimum
values appear in Fig. 11-29. The predicted capability curves were
taken from the GLV-6 preflight report (Ref. 13), updated to incorporate
the 81.4-degree launch azimuth, yaw steering to correct for the 0. 2002-
degree wedge angle, revised guidance constants, and the -1.07% pitch
and -1.4% roll programmer biases. The predicted propellant weight
and burning time margins are based on the difference between these
curves and the 7821-pound spacecraft weight.
Real-time payload predictions differed from the predictions shown

in Fig. 11-29 because extrapolated actual propellant temperatures were
used instead of preflight predicted propellant temperatures. The last
payload prediction indicated that the minimum payload capability was
275 pounds more than the spacecraft weight, and the nominal payload
capability was 878 pounds greater than the spacecraft weight at the pre-
dicted launch time. The actual (postflight reconstructed) GLV capability
was 834 pounds greater than the spacecraft weight.
C. STAGING
The staging sequence was normal and physical stage separation oc-
curred as planned. The time interval from staging signal (87FS 9 /91FS 1 )
to start of Stage II engine chamber pressure (P ) rise was 0. 667 sec-
C
3
ond. This compares'favorably with the nominal expected time of 0. 70*
0.08 second. Stage separation occurred 0.015 second following start
of P rise.
C
3
ER 13227-6
>ENTIAL И-41
D. WEIGHT STATEMENT
Table 11-10 shows the GT-6 weight history from launch to orbital
insertion.
The postflight weight report (Ref. 11) provides the background data
for this summary. The report includes a list of dry weight empty
changes at ETR and shows a derivation of weight empty from the actual
vehicle weighing. Other items covered include the derivation of burn-
out, BECO, SECO and shutdown weights; weight comparisons with the
BLH data; and the center of gravity travel envelope as a function of
burn time for the horizontal, vertical and lateral planes.
TABLE 11-10
GT-6 Weight Summary
Weight (Ib)
Step I Step II Step III Stage Total
Loaded weight 272,925 65,343 7, 821 346,089
Start and grain losses 3,617 ( 3 )

Trajectory LO weight 269,308 65,343 7, 821 342,472
Propellant consumed 257, 533
to BECO
Coolant water 0
Fuel bleed 11
Weight at BECO 11, 775 65,332 7,821 84,928
Shutdown propellant 164
Stage I burnout 11,611 ( 2 ) 65, 332 7,821 84,764

Stage II engine start 11,611 188
Grain loss 3
Stage II LO 65,141 7,821 72, 962
Propellant consumed 58,754
to SECO
Ablative, covers and 20
coolant water
Stage II at SECO 6,367 7,821 14,188 (4)
CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
II-42
TABLE II-10 (continued)

Weight (Ib)
Step I Step II Step III Stage Total
Shutdown propellant 136
Weight at SECO + 20 6, 231 7,821 14,052(4)
seconds
(1) Information from NASA-Houston

(2) Includes outage: 834-lb Stage I; 255-lb Stage II
(3) Event: launch bolts blown
(4) Includes 767 Ib of usable propellant
ER 13227-6
II-43
GT-6A Flight Test Values
Spacecraft weight = 7821 Ib
Targeting;
change
Y, Phase pane /'/Л
20 40 80 100 120 140
Time in Launch W i n d o w ( n i i n )
Fig. 11-29. Payload Capability
ER 13227-6
ш-1
III. PROPULSION SYSTEM
A. LAUNCH ATTEMPT ( 12 DECEMBER 1965)
The launch of GLV-6 on 12 December 1965 was automatically ter-

minated at 87FS + 1. 158 seconds due to premature separation of the
electrical tail plug disconnect 3D1M.
G L V - 6 Stage I engine experienced a normal start transient through

thrust chamber ignition and into secondary rise until start cartridge
burnout and gas generator ignition. S/A 1 start transient appeared
nominal and nearly reached equilibrium conditions at the time the shut-
down command was initiated. S/A 2 thrust chamber pressure rise was
normal through the completion of start cartridge burning, but the sub-
assembly failed to achieve satisfactory bootstrapping and all parameters
started to decay abnormally at 87FS. + 1. 05 seconds. S/A 2 data
showed that sufficient energy was generated by the start cartridge to
provide proper bootstrapping operation. Gas generator combustion in
S/A 2 apparently was not sustained, and a restriction in propellant
flow to the gas generator was the suspected cause.
To determine the exact cause of engine performance decay, the S/A

2 gas generator, fuel and oxidizer bootstrap lines, fuel and oxidizer
check valves and strainers were removed for inspection. A small
plastic dust cap was found lodged in the gas generator oxidizer injector
inlet, which prevented oxidizer flow to the gas generator.
As shown in Figs. III-l and III-2, both S/A 1 MDTCPS and S/A 2
MDTCPS actuated and de-actuated during the flight attempt. S/A 1
chamber pressure exceeded the TCPS actuation tolerance band (600 to
640 psia); therefore, it is concluded that S/A 1 TCPS had actuated.
As shown in Fig. III-l, S/A 2 chamber pressure reached the TCPS
actuation limits only momentarily. Both subassembly switches must
actuate before TCPS make signal is given, and because this signal was
not given for GLV-6 attempt, it was assumed that S/A 2 TCPS did not
make.
It was concluded that, had the disconnect malfunction not initiated

shutdown, the engine would have received a shutdown command at Т +
2. 2 seconds due to TCPS not being actuated.
The fuel autogenous system was functioning normally, which is in-

dicated by the fuel pressurant differential pressure switch (FPDPS)
actuation at 87FS + 0. 98 second as shown in Fig. III-3. The oxidizer
pressurant orifice inlet pressure (POPOJ) also shown in Fig. III-3 did
not reach the OPPS actuation limits of 300 to 445 psia; hence, OPPS did
not actuate. POPOI reached a maximum of only 212 psia.
ER 13227-6
III-2 '
.t-г-
1000
900
800
P (Meas 0003)
700
- 600
-
. MDTCPS (Meas 0356)
':
.
500
400 :• *
300
200
100
0. 5
Time from 87FS1 (sec)
Fig. III-l. Launch Attempt S/A 1 Start Transient

ЧГПД1
^^BWr1* Jl~* •••
III-3
1000
900
800
700
600
MDTCPS (Meas 0357)

500
400
300
200
100
-I J L _
0. 5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2. 5 3.0

Time from 87FS. (sec)
Fig. III-2. Launch Attempt S/A 2 Start Transient
ER 13227-6
Ш-4
600
LONFIDENTI
. '
•
450
n •
а ,
-
-
gg
/,
I) :
300
.
И
a
I
к
ы
I
J •
-- . ..
. . . 't «
DTPTD^T / Т \ Л ~ . ^ ЛЛО 1 \
I»»»»'.* :••• J
POI OI (Meas 0026)
150 — H -•••' •'. •
л
\
.
—
. v\
3
. FPDI S bre ak
•
•
• 1 • •
*••
•
X
1.0 1. 5 2.0 2.5 3. О
Time from MOCS T-0 (sec)

Fig. III-3. Launch Attempt Start Transient Stage I S/A 2
CONFIDENTIAL ,
ER 13227-6
Ill-5
В. ENGINE SUBSYSTEM
The Stages I and II engines operated satisfactorily throughout the

flight, and all launch objectives were met. The Stage I burning time
was 160. 441 seconds, and shutdown was initiated by oxidizer exhaus-
tion. Stage II engine operation was terminated by guidance command
after 181. 575 seconds of burning time.
Several anomalies occurred during the flight, none of which ad-

versely affected engine performance. These were:
(1) Subassembly 1 thrust chamber pressure (P , Meas

c
l
0003) exhibited unusually high amplitude oscillations through-
out Stage I flight. The oscillation frequency was approxi-
mately 48 cps with a superimposed beat frequency of 3 cps.
The maximum P amplitude was 60 psi peak-to-peak. A
review of acceptance test data for this engine showed no
similar occurrence.
(2) Subassembly 3 (Stage II engine) oxidizer discharge pressure

(Pon , Meas 0509) also exhibited oscillations and beats
during Stage I flight. Maximum amplitude was 90 psi peak-
to-peak. The parameter appeared normal during Stage II
flight. This anomaly is attributed to RF interference to the
transducer.
(3) Four post-SECO disturbances were noted. The first two

appeared only on the ± 1/2 g accelerometer and were of very
low magnitudes ( < 0. 02 g peak-to-peak). The latter two
were also reflected in the rate gyros and actuator motion
traces: No. 3 occurred at SECO + 17. 5 seconds at 0. 089 g
peak-to-peak, and No. 4 occurred at SECO + 28 seconds at
0. 093 g peak-to-peak. None of the disturbances were re-
flected in the engine parameters.
1. Stage I Engine (YLR87-AJ-7, S/N 1006)
a. Configuration and special procedures
The only significant difference in hardware on GLV-6 from that of

GLV-7 was the reduction in size of the oxidizer pressurant back pres-
sure orifice from 0. 50-inch diameter to 0. 46-inch diameter. This
change, Aerojet ECP-183, was made in order to increase the confi-
dence level that the oxidizer pressurant pressure switch (automatic
engine shutdown switch) would actuate prior to T n + 2 . 2 seconds. The
ER 13227-6
Ill-6
ШЕШЕА1Т1М1
ИОПтЯь
1000
800
j^^
- 600
н
и
-
и
во
-
I т
VS.
О 400
. MDTCPS (Meas 0356)
200;
•
1
_
I
о
о +0.5 + 1.0 + 1.5 +2.0 +2.5 +3.0
87FS Time from 87FS. (sec)
Fig. IH-k. S/A 1 Start Transient
>NFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
Ill-7
P transducer was wrapped with additional thermal insulation to

C
l
evaluate the effects of thermal environment on transducer drift.
Following the 25 October 1965 countdown and during the time of

GLV-6 bonded storage, all prevalves were removed. New prevalves
were installed prior to the 12 December 1965 launch attempt.
b. Start transient
The S/A 1 and S/A 2 thrust chamber start transients were normal
as shown in Figs. III-4 and III-5. The ignition spikes indicated 89%
of rated thrust for both S/A 1 and S/A 2, which is above the engine
model specification allowable (75%). However, the Gemini P instru-
mentation has characteristically shown undamped oscillations which
obscure the true transient performance and prevent accurate deter-
mination of the ignition spikes. Significant start events are presented
in Table III-l.
TABLE III-l
Stage I Engine Start Parameters
Parameter S/A 1 S/A 2
FS, to initial P rise (sec) 0.736 0. 751

1 с
P ignition spike (psia) 692 696
P step (psia) 465 445
P overshoot (psia) None None
c. Steady-state performance
Stage I engine flight performance agreed closely with the preflight

prediction. Flight integrated average performance parameters were
within 1. 0% of the preflight predicted.
Engine performance was calculated from measured flight data with

the Martin-Baltimore PRESTO program and used the Stage I thrust
coefficient relationship as modified by Martin. The modification in-
creased thrust and specific impulse approximately 3400 pounds and
2. 0 seconds, respectively, above the values calculated with the Aerojet
thrust coefficient relationship. The Martin-modified thrust coefficient
also was used in the preflight predictions.
)NFIDE JTIAjfc
ER 13227-6
Ill-8
CONFIDENTIAL
LUOU
ГП11ПИИГ
—-.
•
' • 1
'
:
. P (Meas 0004)
C
2
800 •
**глY*V lyxV*" *™^nA*%JWf*- 4 /wvvwvWWWuVrfV
. -игу.•
tflW*fy*\ A*W 4f У^¥\
*sr ^n
Щ
.. . :
I . JA •
/*if i
•
• r
1
600 ' ;
. .
_
I
« /
s1
-
•
-
"...-..~ ••«.•••.-"..~~« :~f.J
J
if w
.
if
- i
.
-
i .
-
t
•
•-
400 , i.
,
; MDTC :PS (Mea s 0357)
•
- _;•
..... -—7*~ .
...
...
...
w
• ;. • '
200
i J .„. '
0
'
РГ fl %л •» •• • * Ц 11 V Ч
/
p*^
i +0.5 + 1.0 + 1.5 + 2.0 + 2.5 + 3.0
, га
! Time from 87FS (sec)
Fig. III-5- S/A 2 Start Transient
NF IDENTIAL
кЧ 13227-6 -WfDENTIAL
Ill-9
The Stage I engine average flight performance, integrated from

liftoff to 8 7 F S , is compared with the preflight prediction in Table III-2.
TABLE III-2
Predicted and Flight Performance Comparison--Stage I Engine
Preflight* Flight* Difference

Parameter Average Average (%)
Thrust, engine (Ib) 455,742 453,793 -0.43
Specific impulse, engine (sec) 276. 85 277. 27 +0. 15
Mixture ratio, engine 1.9248 1 9381 +0. 69
Oxidizer flow rate,
overboard (Ib/sec) 1082. 97 1079 29 -0. 34
Fuel flow rate, overboard
(Ib/sec) 563. 17 557 38 -1 03
*Martm-Baltimore modified thrust coefficient relationship used
Engine performance calculated throughout the Stage I flight is pre-

sented in Fig. Ill-6. The preflight prediction is also shown for
comparison.
The S/A 1 thrust chamber pressure transducer was wrapped with

four times the normal amount of thermal insulation. The extra insula-
tion was used on the transducer to verify that the P transducer drift
was due to thermal effects and to confine the drift to acceptable limits
Reconstructed data showed that the P transducer, which had normal
C
2
insulation, began to drift at approximately 87FS + 80 seconds and
drifted approximately -2% (normal for S/A 2 as established from pre-
vious Gemini flights) P data showed no negative drift, verifying the
c
l
theory that P drift was due to the excessive thermal environment.
Stage I engine flight performance calculated at the 87FS.. + 55 second

time slice and corrected to standard inlet conditions is shown in Table
III-3. This is compared to the acceptance test and the predicted flight
performance at standard inlet conditions and the nominal time as used
ER 13227-6
щ 10
- CONFIDENTIAL
490
480
470
. ^ лD_0
п о о ©_£>_&
мшили
и
Average Engine Performance Integrated
С 460 from Liftoff to 87FS.
U •i. 450
Ш
( h Q ОО Q Q G О Preflight Flight
Symbol Prediction Average
pf
Т.
285 440
Ft(lb) 455.742 453.793
280 - О 430
- Н 276.85 277.27
DO
Ч'8"'
275 420
MRe 1.9248 1.9381
270 410
W (Ib/sec) 1082.97 1079.29
265 W f o (lb/sec) 563. 17 557.38
о.
и
1 2.00 г а> 260
U
U
s- 1.95 Н 255
1
DO о
£ 1.90
К
0)
£
1120 - ^ 1.85
Я
: 1100 - g 1.80
К 0)
д
1080 - 'So 1.75 Preflight prediction
о с
W О Flight performance
1060 -
Т
-
a
| - 600
a 1040 ^
•о ^ 580
| «2 560
ш•>
>
aj 540 О
ш n)
а К
Ьч
20 10 60 I 100 120 140 160
Lift- Time from 87FS. (sec)
|off
87FS,
Fig. III-б. Stage I Engine Flight Performance
CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
in the r e f P O . The ~ ~ e d i c flight t e perJmanCe a t standard
I 'OnditiOns LVaS obtained by modifying the nominal acceptance test data
a 4 8 5 0 - ~ 0 u n da c c e p t a n c e - to -fligh t t h r u s t growth obtained from analv-
of PI.evious Titan I1 a n d GLv flights.
III-12 ITIAL
TABLE III-4
Stage I Engine Shutdown Parameters
Parameter S/A 1 S/A 2

Time from P decay to 87FS (sec) 0. 7 0. 7
P at 87FS (psia) 200 250
Time from FS9 to data dropout (sec) 0.71 0.71

P at data dropout (psia) 50 48
e. Engine malfunction detection system (MDS)
The Stage I engine MDS operated satisfactorily and within specified

limits throughout the flight. Figures III-4 and III-5 illustrate response
times and actuation levels of the malfunction detection thrust chamber
pressure switches (MDTCPS) during engine start for S/A 1 and S/A 2,
respectively. Figures III-7 and III-8 show deactuation times and levels
during shutdown for S/A 1 and S/A 2, respectively.
A summary of the operating characteristics of the switches is tabu-

lated in Table III-5.
TABLE III-5
Stage I MDTCPS Operation

Actuation Deactuation
Switch Time (sec) Pressure (psia) Time (sec) Pressure (psia)
S/A 1 FS1 + 0. 900 585 FS - 0. 047 550
S/A 2 FS- + 0. 920 575 FS - 0. 045 530
Specification Requirements
Actuation 540 to 600 psia

Deactuation 585 to 515 psia
ONFIDEN
ER 13227-6
IH-13
1000
/5V
P (Meas 0003)
800
t^spPgflSM
i
- 4001
<-...-..^'....-....-..
200
-2 + 1.0
Time from 87FS (sec) Fig. III-T. S/A 1 Shutdown Transient
iDENTIAI
ER 13227-6
m-14
lOOO
ONFIDENTIAL
Р„ (Meas 0004)1
w
3 600'
Staging "j
.blackout .
—f j ;_; •MDTCPS
*^* <->(Mea's
\ivieas0357)
UOO
""••'-' ••-•• ..j....
"-
till
• • • Г •' '• 1 ' ' J :
-1.0
' Time from 87FS2 (sec) 87FS
\ +
+ 1.0
I
Fig. III-8. S/A 2 Shutdown Transient
•CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
ONFIDENTIAL III-15
f. Engine prelaunch malfunction detection system (PMDS)

All PMDS switches actuated within specified actuation times and
pressures as shown in Table III-6. As a result of the later than ex-
pected OPPS actuation on GLV-7 launch, the oxidizer pressurant back
pressure orifice diameter was changed from 0. 50 inch to 0. 46 inch.
The smaller back pressure orifice increased the oxidizer pressurant
orifice inlet pressure (POPOI); consequently, the OPPS actuated earlier
than on previous Gemini flights and substantially earlier than the inter-
rogation time (T-0 + 2 . 2 seconds), as shown in Fig. III-9.
TABLE III-6
Stage I PMDS Operation
TCPS OPPS FPDPS

Actuation time
Measured time from
87FS (sec) 0. 981 1. 578 0. 912
Measured time from
T O (sec) 1. 043 1. 640 0. 974
Required time (sec)* T+2. 2 T+2. 2 T+2. 2
Actuation pressure
Measured (psia) #* 424 **
Required (psia) 600 to 640 360 to 445 46 to 79 (psid)
*The shutdown'timers start from T n .

**Not instrumented.
2. Stage II Engine (YLR91-AJ-7 S/N 2007)

a. Configuration and special procedures
The GLV-6 Stage II engine configuration was identical to that of GLV-7.
During the time of GLV-6 storage, after the 25 October 1965 launch
attempt, the Stage II gas generator was removed and returned to Aerojet,
Sacramento, for cleaning.
ER 13227-6
- 1-
III-16 -/6
600
Ml'
;
'
•
, .
- ,
•'.
1 *
.'
1 0 i — .
—
.
•3PPS "make II •
a Isresst п .*
~ange *
•
О
рц
т: i
_ ()xidiz sr pre SSI
r
_— irant
'
pre 3SU re sw itch i (OPPS) •_ 1
•
-.1 — —I
.)
(Лleas 2105 • •
i
о
• i :
L
-
1 "~~ÔPPS' inter rogati on
300 • • 1
' 1 i
1
"с • 1
L : .
1 • :
J '
I-
'
1
,
3
•
.
•
-
i
•
-- POPOl 2 (Meas 0026) —
- • .
_.
i, 150
• '
• .
. ..
— —
•
• .
. *
-
0
Э I + 0.5 + 1.0 + 1. 5 + 2.0 +2. 5 + 3.
87FS, Time, from T-0 (sec)
Fig. III-9. S/A 2 Start Transient
CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
A f t e r the 1 2 D e c e m b e r 1965 launch a t t e m p t , Stage I1 r e c y c l e r e q u i r e -
m e n t s w e r e b a s e d on A e r o j e t Engine T e s t Directive 2 , 1-3. 4E. The TPA
oil rvas changed a s a p r e c a u t i o n a r y m e a s u r e . The p r e v a l v e s r e m a i n e d
installed, and reloading the propellants d i r e c t l y on the t h r u s t c h a m b e r
valves had no a d v e r s e effect on the engine s y s t e m .
. b. Start transient
Stage I1 engine s t a r t t r a n s i e n t was n o r m a l , a s i l l u s t r a t e d by the

t h r u s t c h a m b e r p r e s s u r e i n Fig. 111-10. Significant engine s t a r t events
a r e p r e s e n t e d i n Table 111-7.
TABLE 111-7
Stage I1 Engine S t a r t P a r a m e t e r s
Parameter Flight P e r f o r m a n c e
FS1 to initial PC r i s e ( s e c ) 0. 651
3
PC ignition spike ( p s i a )
3
/
1
pc3 overshoot ( p s i a )
I
Not available::<
I
1
:::Staging blackout period.
c. Steady-state p e r f o r m a n c e
Stage I1 engine s t e a d y - s t a t e flight p e r f o r m a n c e was s a t i s f a c t o r y

throughout flight and a g r e e d closely with preflight predictions. The
э
CONFIDENTIAL JJTOFfflENTIAL
1000
800
л
00
600 -
м
j
go
r.
i
-
-
л 400
и
200
+3.0
Time from 91FS1 (sec)
Fig. 111-10. S/A 3 Start Trsmsient
CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
CONFIDENTIAL
a v e r a g e S t a g e I1 engine p e r f o r m a n c e i n t e g r a t e d o v e r s t e a d y - s t a t e o p e r a -
tion ( f r o m FS1 + 1. 2 s e c o n d s to 9lFS ) is c o m p a r e d to the p r e f l i g h t
2
p r e d i c t i o n i n T a b l e 111-8.
T h e engine flight p e r f o r m a n c e c a l c u l a t e d with the 1Uartin-Baltimore

PRESTO p r o g r a m is shown i n Fig. 111- 1 1 a s a function of t i m e f r o m
91 FS T h e p r e f l i g h t p r e d i c t i o n is a l s o p r e s e n t e d f o r c o m p a r i s o n .
Engine flight p e r f o r m a n c e c o r r e c t e d a t the 9lFS1 + 55 s e c o n d t i m e

s l i c e to s t a n d a r d i n l e t conditions is shotsln i n Table 111-9. T h i s is c o m -
p a r e d with the a c c e p t a n c e t e s t and the p r e d i c t e d flight p e r f o r m a n c e a t
s t a n d a r d i n l e t conditions and the n o m i n a l t i m e a s u s e d i n the p r e f l i g h t
p r e d i c t i o n . T h e p r e d i c t e d flight p e r f o r m a n c e a t s t a n d a r d i n l e t condi-
tions was obtained b y adjusting the n o m i n a l a c c e p t a n c e t e s t d a t a f o r a
900-pound a c c e p t a n c e - t o - f l i g h t t h r u s t growth obtained f r o m a n a l y s i s
of p r e v i o u s T i t a n I1 and G L V flights.
d. Shutdown t r a n s i e n t
S t a g e I1 engine shutdown w a s i n i t i a t e d b y guidance c o m m a n d with

91FS o c c u r r i n g at 91FS1 + 181.575 s e c o n d s . T h e c a l c u l a t e d shutdown
2
i m p u l s e f r o m 91FS + 20 s e c o n d s w a s 36,170 l b - s e c ; p r e d i c t e d i m p u l s e
2
*
w a s 37,000 7000 l b - s e c . T h e i m p u l s e obtained f r o m t h e * 10 g
a c c e l e r o m e t e r a n d i l l u s t r a t e d by the PC d e c a y i n Fig. 111-12 w a s
3
24,255 l b - s e c , u s i n g a n a v e r a g e s p a c e c r a f t / S t a g e I1 weight of 14,203
pounds. 'This w a s f o r the t i m e i n t e r v a l f r o m 91FS to 91 FS + 0.687
2 2
s e c o n d . I m p u l s e f r o m OlFS + 0.687 s e c o n d to 91FS2 + 20 s e c o n d s
2
w a s 11,915 l b - s e c , utilizing the i 0. 5 g a c c e l e r o m e t e r d a t a a n d a n
a v e r a g e weight of 14,13 5 pounds. T h i s t h r u s t tailoff is i l l u s t r a t e d i n
111- 13.
T h r u s t a t S E C O + 20 s e c o n d s w a s e s t i m a t e d a t 30 pounds (below the

s p e c i f i e d m a x i m u m of 60 pounds).
e. Engine malfunction detection s y s t e m s
T h e S t a g e I1 engine M D S o p e r a t e d s a t i s f a c t o r i l y throughout flight.

F i g u r e s 111-10 a n d 111- 12 i l l u s t r a t e the r e s p o n s e t i m e s and c h a m b e r
p r e s s u r e c o r r e l a t i o n of the malfunction detection fuel i n j e c t o r p r e s s u r e
Ш-20
CONFIDEN1
-miBENTIAL
"о 104
Average Engine Performance Integrated

from First Steady-State to 91FS0
-.о Preflight Flight

Symbol Prediction Average
I Fc(lb) 101954 101334
4(sec) 311. 54 311. 09
MRe 1.7448 1.7628

и
01 W (Ib/sec)
.: oo 208. 19 208.00
s W f o (lb/sec) 119.06 117. 74
о 1.85
rt
(К
1.80
0)
1ч
-
- 1.75
-
.
и 1.70
ьо
215г- с
W
210
- --
_
<:
С 205 — Preflight prediction
О Flight performance
125 — 200
(н
•< 120 - Я
-
195
1н
- fti
И 115 - О 190
t,
I ф
_ N
с X
..
- 105 -о
-
h
а 100 L_
: 160 180 200
i Time from 91FS (sec)
u
Fig. III-ll. Stage II Engine Flight Performance
CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
CONFIDENTIAL
111-21
CONFIDEN
TABLE III-8
Predicted and Average Stage II Engine Performance
Preflight
Predicted Flight Difference
Parameter Average Average (%)
Thrust, chamber (Ib) 101,954 101,334 -0. 61
Specific impulse, engine (sec) 311. 54 311. 09 -0. 14
Mixture ratio, engine 1. 7448 1. 7628 +1. 03
Oxidizer flow rate, overboard
(Ib/sec) 208. 19 208. 00 -0. 09
Fuel flow rate, overboard
(Ib/sec) 119. 06 117. 74 -1. 11
TABLE III-9
Stage II Engine Performance Corrected to Standard Inlet
Conditions at 91FS +55 Seconds
Predicted Flight
Acceptance (including 900-lb Flight
Parameter Test thrust growth) Performance
Thrust, chamber (Ib) 100,033 100,933 101, 198
Specific impulse, engine 310. 91 310. 91 310. 76

(sec)
Mixture ratio, engine 1. 7736 1. 7736 1. 7810
Oxidizer flow rate, 205. 91 207. 76 208. 72

overboard (Ib/sec)
Fuel flow rate over- 115. 84 116. 88 116. 93

board (Ib/sec)
NFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
т-22 JJ^bTOENTIAL '7-
-ННЕНН
1000 . 1
Р (Meas 0502) :
с
з
^.\П*Л/А v<n/-fcffrg*>A<l>*V4
1~PtJiJv JVruti *«ЛиЛ,
800
1
i
-
*l ,
1I
i " '
It
!
L
1 .
i
60
g. ° 1
о,
о
т
• |
I
ui
: * Г*
CO
со 1 у
\
IH
Ш
1 >
л
g j\
rt 400
; Л ,
U
MDFJPS (Meas 0855) V
X
i • \
\ V
• i • i : V
\
; v
200 -t \\v 1
NA*Y> _.-
,
V»y
• : | •
v>
"За
Vл •
1
F "--«•ч —_-тar—hr-ixt 1 ф
.0 0 +1 0 +2
91FSr Time from 91FS? (sec)
Fig. 111-12. S/A 3 Shutdown Transient
CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
CONFIDENTIAL ГПМГШ CfW -
ш 23
5000 — ^—
4000
3000
•
•
2000 h
1000
Fig. 111-13. Stage И Engine Thrust Tail-Off
СПЕ1Ш CONFIDFMTi A i
III-2 4 CONFIDENTIAL
switches (MDFJPS) during the start and shutdown transients, respec-

tively. The fuel injector pressure is not instrumented and, therefore,
is not available. A summary of the significant switch parameters is
presented in Table III-10.
TABLE III-10
Stage II MDS Operation
Parameter
Actuation time (sec) 91FS. + 0. 737
P at actuation (psia) 520
Deactuation time (sec) 91FS + 0. 140
P at deactuation (psia) 450
С. PROPELLANT SUBSYSTEM
1. Propellant Loading
a. Loading procedure
Five propellant loadings were performed on GLV-6, consisting of
the RTP and WMSL exercises, two launch attempts and the actual
launch. (See Table III-11.)
TABLE III-11
GLV-6 Loadings
Operation Description Date

RTP Dual loading 28 September 1965
WMSL Dual loading 7 October 1965
1st launch attempt Dual loading 24 October 1965
2nd launch attempt Dual loading 12 December 1965
Launch Dual loading 15 December 1965
All loadings were made using the tandem flowmeter system installed
after the launch of GT-5. No serious ground or airborne hardware
CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
p r o b l e m s o r c u r r e d d u r i n g t h e five propellan!. Inadings; h o \ \ c v ~ : - ~
2,
!i~nl!3~:r of fluv:rneters \rVerer e n l o v e d folio\ring the 15.21SL a n d ai;a.iil
follc\~:inethe 1 2 O c t o b e r 1965 iaunch a t t e m p t .
Tile c h e c k c a l i b r a t i o n results of the flow meter^ removecl fro111 t h e

s ~ ~ s t e na :r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a l ~ l e111- 13. These data h a ~ ~ e upplietl
11een
to t h e i i f f c r e n c e s obserl-ecl b ~ t ~ x . e efloxvmeter
n a n d t a b r.un ~ v h e r c \ . ~ r
applicable.
Flowmeter Verification Results
-1'est i \ f t e r lleter
[Vhich \letel* AIeter
[['as Checked Position No.
IVlISL Stzge I f u e l 2 0 2 146 3Iarti11-
Denver Denver
WXISL Stage I fuel 109 172 Martin- XIartin -
Denver Denx~er
LVMSL S t a g e I1 f u e l 206361 hlartin- filartin- +O. 3 9
Denver Denver
\YITS1- S t a g e I1 fuel 20636 1 Martin- Lf'yle +O. 14
Denver
StageIIfuel \la rtin -

Denver
- 1 Denver
-
StageIfuel
-.
Llartin-
- I1 +0.4 1
1st !at:nch Denver Denver
attempt
i
I
S t a g e I1 f u e l 199 170 / Martin- Martin- +@.27
I j Denver Denver
The tab r u n s u s e d f o r the five loading o p e r a t i o n s lx!ere d e r i v e d a s
follows:
(1) RTP Obtained f r o m D e n v e r t a n k c a l i b r a t i o n data.
2 W?;ISL Obtained f r o m D e n v e r tank c a l i b r a t i o n d a t a .
( 3 ) First Launch O r i g i n a l tab r u n c o r r e c t e d f o r R T P and

:Ittempt WAISL r e s u l t s including f l o w m e t e r v e r i f i -
c a t i o n s a f t e r the W!lISJ,.
Ill-26
Stage I Stage II Stage I Stage II

Fuel Fuel Oxidizer Oxidizer
No change -0. 31% +0. 14% No change
(4) Second Launch Tab runs revised to account for results of

attempt first three tests, flowmeter verifications
after the first launch attempt and the differ-
ence between Denver and Wyle calibration
facilities. Changes below are from original
tab run.

Fuel Fuel Oxidizer Oxidizer
+0. 04% -0. 30% -0. 11% -0. 23%
(5) Launch Tab run pounds changed to account for open

prevalves; otherwise same as that for sec-
ond launch attempt.
Tests at the Denver and Wyle calibration facilities have established
that, if a fuel or oxidizer flowmeter calibrated at Martin-Denver is
assumed to be correct, a corresponding Wyle meter will read about
0. 3% higher. It is not known which facility is more nearly correct;
however, the launch loading was based on the Martin-Denver calibrated
flowmeters being correct. This, in effect, decreased the Wyle cali-
brated flowmeter/tab run errors by 0. 3% and established the least
probability of pay load loss.
A detailed summary of results of the five propellant loadings made
for GLV-6 is shown in Table III 13.
ER 13227-6
NFIDENTIAL Ш-27
TABLE III-13
Summary of Propellant Load Verification
Difference Differnece
Flowmeter Between Between Allow-
Flowmeter Flowmeler able Average
Connected Calibra- Hi -Lite and Actual and First Toler- Load-in
Loading Serial FTPS t o C P 2500 tion Facil- Temper- Tab Run Nom Tab Run ance Flow Rate
Event Tank No. No. Counters ity (1) ature (*F) (%) (2) (%) (3) (%) (gpm)
RTF Stage I fuel 202194 441 D 44.0 +0. 141 -0.025 to. з 243
199172 4411 X D 44.0 +0.398 -0. 192
Stage II fuel 206361 445 D 46.9 +0.086 -0.304 121
199170 4419 X D 46.9 -0.070 -0.340
Stage I oxidizer 204277 442 X W 48.6 +0.168 +0.168 205
206359 4412 W 48.6 +0.318 +0.318
Stage II oxidizer 206168 446 W 49.8 +0. Ill +0. Ill 97
199173 4420 X W 49.8 +0.152 + 0.152
WMSL Stage I fuel 202146 441 X D 29.9 +0.358 +0. 192 230
199172 4411 D 29.9 +0.645 + 0.065
Stage II fuel 206361 445 D 30.8 +0.174 -0.216 109
199170 4419 X D 30.8 +0.008 -0.262
Stage 1 oxidizer 204277 442 X W 26.9 +0.082 +0.082 175
206359 4412 W 26.9 +0.084 + 0.084
Stage II oxidizer 199168 446 W 29.4 +0.032 +0.032 85
199173 4420 X W 29.4 -0.109 -0.109
First Stage I fuel 199169 441 D 34.5 +0. 584 +0.174

Launch 202146 4411 X D 34.5 + 0.006 +0.006
attempt Stage II fuel 199171 445 X D 33.8 + 0.065 -0.245
199170 4419 D 33.8 +0.170 -0.410
Stage I oxidizer SPOOL 442 - 36.2 -- --
202164 4412 X W 36.2 +0. 153 +0.293
Stage II oxidizer 199168 446 X W 37. 5 + 0.147 + 0. 147
199173 4420 W 37.5 + 0.081 + 0.081
Second Stage I fuel 206362 441 W 28.2 +0.469 + 0.509

Launch 202146 4411 X D 28.2 -0.022 +0.018
attempt Stage II fuel 206361 445 W 29.0 + 0.477 +0.177
204278 4419 X D 29.0 +0.243 -0.057
Stage I oxidizer 206360 442 W 26.6 + 0.274 + 0.164 tO. 1
202164 4412 X W 26.6 + 0.378 +0.268
Stage II oxidizer 199168
199167
446
4420 X
W
W
27.6
27.6
+ 0.355
+ 0. 113
+ 0. 125
-0. 117
1
Launch Stage I fuel 206362 441 W 29.2 + 0.497 + 0.537 ±0.3
202146 4411 X D 29.2 -0.001 +0.039
Stage II fuel 206361
204278
445
4419 X
W
D
30.0
30.0
+ 0. 516
+0.268
+0.216
-0.032
1т
Stage I oxidizer 206360 442 W 29.4 +0.288 + 0.178 *0. 1
202164 4412 X W 29.4 +0.420 +0.310
Stage II oxidizer 199168 446 W 29.8 +0.364 + 0. 134
199167 4420 X W 29.8 +0.183 -0.047
(1) W » Wyle laboratories D = Martin-Denver
(2) Actual difference observed during loading, not corrected for meter verification where applicable.
(3) Difference from RTF or WMSL tab run corrected for flow rate and meter verification results where
applicable. (Does not include any meter bias.)
CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
Ill-2 8
The sequence of propellant loading events is given in Table III-14.
TABLE III-14
GT~6 Launch Propellant Loading Schedule
Time (EST) 14 Dec, 1965

Event Oxidizer Oxidizer Fuel Fuel
Start pre chill 1935 1935 2205 2205
Start load 2012 2013 2230 2230
Hi-lite 2142 2050 2325 2302
Load complete 2155 2108 2333 2307
Mission loads for the oxidizer tanks were obtained by using the
K-factor ratio technique. This was in accord with a Martin Company/
SSD agreement that an oxidizer flowmeter/tab run error of more than
+0. 1% at hi-lite would constitute an out~of-tolerance condition.
A flowmeter-to-tab run comparison is shown in Figs. Ill-14 and

1П-15. In each figure, the data are referenced to the tank calibration
made at Denver (which is synonymous to the special loading tab run).
The data for Wyle calibrated meters are not corrected for the differ-
ence between Denver and W y l e facilities. In Fig. Ill-14 the application
of the -0. 3% correction to all Wyle results will account for the place-
ment of the launch tab shift.
b. Total propellant loads
Total mission loads for the launch, as determined from flowmeters,

are shown in Table III-15. The flowmeter totalizer readings were cor-
rected by subtracting propellant vaporized and propellant remaining in
the fill lines. Oxidizer flowmeter loads reflect the use of the K-factor
ratio method to obtain mission loads. Total propellant loads as deter-
mined by flight verification are also shown in Table III-15. The flight
verification loads were calculated from a propellant inventory, using
actual level sensor uncover times and tank calibration data to determine
flow rates. Total, integrated, in-flight overboard propellant con-
sumption was found using the engine analytical model. Engine start
transient consumptions were derived from Aerojet summary reports.
Other transient propellant consumptions and pressurization gas weights
were calculated from flight data (Tables Ш-36 and Ш-37).
CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
CONFIDENTIAL 111-29
Data are corrected for flow rate and meter verification results, where
available. All data are referenced to original tank calibration and represent
the percent error of the flowmeter result at hi-lite from the original calibration.
Stage I Stage II
-r 0.5 -г 0.5
-- 0.4 -- 0.4
202164 L •206359 RTF

-r 0.3 -- 0.3
202164 LA 1 199173 RTF
202164 LA 2 199168 LA 1
-- 0.2 0. 2 —
199168 LA 2
206360 L 204277 RTF
206168 RTF
•206360 LA 2 199168 L-
-- 0.1 -- 0. 1
-206359 WMSL 199173 LA 1
•204277 WMSL •199168 WMSL
-- 0 -- 0
199167 L
Launch , r v ---o. 1 0. 1
tab s h i f t ' 199173 WMSL
199167 LA 2
---0.2 -—0.2
Launch , r^
tab shift 1 - u'
-"--О. 3 -"--0.3
Note: All meters are Wyle calibrated
LEGEND
RTF = first loading
WMSL = wet mock
LA 1 =25 October 1965 launch attempt
LA 2 =12 December 1965 launch attempt
L = launch
Fig. III-lA. GLV-б Loading Summary—Oxidizer
CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
111-30 CONFIDENTIAL
Data are corrected for flow rate and meter verification results, where
available. All data are referenced to original tank calibration and represent
the percent error of the flowmeter result at hi-lite from the original calibration.
Stage I Stage II
-i-O. 6 -T-0. 6
W 202362 L
05*- W 202362 LA 2 --0. 5
•-0. 4 --0. 4
--0.3 --0. 3
W 206361 L-
0.2-=, О 2
D 202146 WMSL W 206361 LA 2
D 199169 LA 1
D 202146 L --0. 1 --0. 1
Launch ,-- D 199172 WMSL
tab shift ' ' D 202146 LA 2
D 202146 LA 1 D 204278 L
D 204278 LA 2
D 202146 RTF
0.1 0.1
D 206361 WMSL
_ 0 2 _r D 199172 RTF -0. 2-j
D 199171 LA 1
D 199170 WMSL
Launch , J -0. 3
0. 3 D 206361 RTF
tab shift L i
D 199170 RTF
0.4 -0.4-- D 199170 LA 1
L
-"--О. 5 - -0. 5
LEGEND
D = Denver
W = Wyle
RTF = first loading
WMSL = wet mock
LA 1 = 25 October 1965 launch attempt
LA 2 =12 December 1965 launch attempt
L = launch
Fig. 111-15. GLV-6 Loading Summary--Fuel
CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
CONFIDENTIAL Ш-31
s§!
Ф 0 гЧ
1-Н :| - О5
W ^ч ** г О
Ч> ^ и tS 0 - 3 СМ
О г' ~ 0
Р 4J О 1 : i
7 -С Г1
^ аоРч
Q Ьч "с
0)
с
о
01
о •_: см
со О
со
-
ю
тз <l
п) §"8-
0) 0 5
Г) оэ
см
3 >г4~ g
О
г.
г—1
см
о
•гЧ ш
м •гЧ
и Е -.
СГ
0 т) см 'И
pq с CU со -г
м
оз
О)
-С
о и
•гН 0 П1
3 О i—i
_Q
см И - 1-Н и
rt -- CN
3
о О) "~ •-н
51ч
и
0) гН
|> •о О
, п)
--
-*-> *4 оз СО ИI
оз -г DO
Д8 -в -я
ф ЛЭ
м
ОЭ
оз --
см :: г—1
г^
О гН ^~*
о f- -•- ^г
'• см -
&ч -о —
С V
Г-Н
>и
id
^
(н -
(ч 1 :
Ш
N .— < —
•гЧ
ТЗ
а— гН
)— 1
0)
cd
о
1)
—аi
X
rt О
~^
Н
i
Г-Н ! Г-Н
0) ш и
7.
Щ) ~
-I ас Ш)
ев cd - о)
ся ся ся м
CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
Ill-32
с. Propellant assay
Prelaunch data from the propellant assay report (sampled on

6 December 1965) for oxidizer and fuel are presented in Table III-16.
Specification values are also listed. Good agreement was obtained
between the analysis and specification requirements. Data are from
the p r i m a r y RSV propellants w h i c h were used to load the vehicle.
TABLE III-16
Propellant Assay Summary
Fuel A I I L - P - 2 7 4 0 2 (USAF) Test Requirement
Hydrazine 51.7% 51 ±. 0. 9%
UDMH 47. 9% 4 6 . 9 % min
H9O 0.4% 2. 0% max
Total X 0 H 4 + UDMH 99. 6% 98% min
Solids 0. 2 mg/liter 25 m g / l i t e r
Particles on 50 mesh screen 0 0
Density ( g m / c c ) at 77° F 0.8999 --
Oxidizer MIL-P-26539 (USAF) Test Requirement
Nitrogen tetroxide (N 9 O.) 99.8% 99. 4% min
Chloride as NOC1 * --
H 9 O equivalent 0.01% 0.2%
Solids 0 10 m g / l i t e r
Nonvolatile ash Ф --
Particles on 50 mesh screen 0 0

;
Not reported.
ER 13227-6
Ill-33
2. Propellant Temperature
a. Weather
A comparison of the F-45 day prediction, the F~l day prediction

and the actual weather for the 15 December launch of GT~6 is presented
in Table III-17. The F-45 day prediction was based on weather for a
hot December through March day. There was, in general, better agree-
ment between the F-45 day prediction and actual weather than between
between the F-l day prediction and actual.
Predicted wind speed average was approximately 52% higher than

actual.
TABLE III-17
Predicted and Actual Weather Conditions for GT-6 Launch
Dry Bulb Dew Point

Temperature (°F) Temperature (° F) Wind Speed (kn) Cloud Cover
Time
(est) F-45 F-l Actual F-45 F-l Actual F-45 F-l Actual F-45 F-l Actual
2100 0
71.2 67.0 68.0 65.8 61. 0 66. 0 7 7 3 0. 5 0. 2 0.8
2200 Q 70. 7 68. 2 65.3 66.0 7 1 0.5 0. 6
2300 2 70. 1 68.4 64. 9 66. 0 7 4 0. 5 1.0
0000 69. 8 63.0 68.8 64. 6 58.0 66. 0 7 6 4 0. 4 0.2 1.0
0100 69. 5 68. 5 64. 4 66.0 7 7 0. 5 0.8
0200 69.3 69. 0 64,2 66. 0 7 4 0.5 0. 8
0300 69. 0 59.0 69.3 64. 0 53.0 66.0 7 6 6 0. 5 0. 2 0. 6
0400 ю
68.8 70. 5 63. 9 66.0 7 7 0. 5 0.8
0500 £ 68. 7 69,2 63. 7 66. 0 7 7 0.5 0. 8
0600 о 68.5 59.0 68. 4 63. 6 55. 0 65.0 7 6 6 0.5 0. 3 0.6
о
0700 Q 68.4 67. 3 64. 9 64.0 7 5 0. 6 0. 6
ю
0800 - 70. 9 67. 3 66. 1 64.0 7 6 0. 6 0. 5
0900 72. 8 63.0 70. 1 67.2 57. 0 66. 0 9 9 7 0. 6 0. 4 0. 4
1000 75.0 66.2 10 0. 6
1100 76.4 68. 8 12 0. 6
1200 77.2 68. 0 69.2 60. 0 12 13 0. 6 0.4
b. Propellant loading temperatures
Table 111-18 compares the requested propellant temperatures at the

RSV (at start of loading) and the tank bottom probe (at hi-lite) with the
measured propellant temperatures.
ER 13227-6
Ш-34
TABLE Ш-18
Propellant Temperature Comparison--
RSV and Tank Bottom Probe
Tank Bottom Probe
RSV Temperature (° F) Temperature (° F)
System Requested Actual Д Requested Actual Д
Stage I fuel 26. 7 26.5 0.2 28.4 28.2 -0.2
Stage II fuel 26. 7 26.5 0.2 28.5 28. 5 -i.o

Stage I oxidizer 25.5 25.5 0 27. 9 29. 8 + 1.9
Stage II oxidizer 25. 5 25. 5 0 29. 7 28.8 -0. 9
The requested oxidizer RSV temperatures were matched exactly,

and the fuel RSV and fuel and oxidizer tank bottom probe readings were
within an acceptable range of accuracy.
RSV and flowmeter temperatures recorded during loading are shown

in Figs. Ill-16 and III-17.
c. Liftoff temperatures
A comparison of predicted, actual and reconstructed propellant

bulk temperatures appears in Table III-19.
TABLE III-19
Propellant Bulk Temperature Comparison
F-45 Day F-l Day

Prediction Prediction Actual Reconstructed
System (°F) (°F) (°F) (°F)
Stage I fuel 38.7 38. 1 41.1 40.8
Stage II fuel 37.8 38.2 41.8 39.2
Stage I oxidizer 39.8 39.8 42.0 41.6
Stage II oxidizer 42.4 43.6 44.2 44.0
irrr m in
ER 13227-6
111-35
-
-
-
-
:
'
.
.
i-
I
:
(Л о) элгцвjadutej.
CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
111-36
-"'Uuii и и, ill 'i 11 T*
Time of event
П-Jtage I load complete
Stage I fuel Hi-Lite
Stage II load complete
-! Stage II fuel Hi-Lite
Resume load
Start leak check
Start loading
3 5;
:Meas 4432
'(Stage П
'flowmeter)
30
Meas 4431
(Stage I)
flowmeter)
2100 2130 2200 2230 2300 2330
Eastern Standard Time (hr)
Fig. III-1T. Fuel Temperature During Loading
ER 13227-6
Ш-37
Actual bulk temperatures at liftoff were obtained from a computer

program analysis of flight data. The positions of the reconstructed,
actual and predicted temperatures in the mixture ratio band are shown
in Figs. Ill-18 and III-19.
Figures Ш-20 through 111-23 show a comparison of the F-l day tem-
perature prediction, the reconstructed temperature and actual propel-
lant probe temperatures during the countdown for each propellant tank.
Correlation of actual and reconstructed temperatures was excellent.

The difference between the F-l day prediction was due to the differences
between predicted and actual weather conditions. Average actual dry
bulb and wet bulb temperatures were 5. 5° F and 8. 3° F higher, respec-
tively, than predicted. Predicted winds averaged 3 knots higher.
The maximum deviation between actual and reconstructed tempera-

tures (10. 3% of total rise) occurred in the Stage П fuel tank. All others
were 3. 8% or less.
d. Suction temperatures
The actual pump inlet temperatures were in good agreement with

the predicted temperature profiles. These data are shown in Figs.
111-24 through 111-27. The trends of the actual temperature curves
were in good agreement with those predicted. Deviations may be as-
cribed to differences in predicted and actual weather and the differ-
ences between optimum and T~0 temperatures. In Table 111-20 a com-
parison is made between the suction and tank bottom probes at various
times after FS,
TABLE Ш-20
Propellant Temperature Comparison--Tank
Bottom Probe and Pump Inlet
Tank Bottom
Suction Probe Temperature Delta
Time Temperature Probe Temperature
System (sec) (°F) (°F) (°F)
Stage I fuel FS1 + 5 40. 2 40. 9 -0. 7

Stage II fuel FS. + 25 39. 1 38.3 + 1. 4
Stage I oxidizer FS1 + 6 39. 9 39. 0 +0. 9
Stage II oxidizer FS. + 22 42. 8 43. 3 -0. 5
ER 13227-6
111-38
.--
50
ш
;
F-45 days predicted
launch window
.-
.
45
40
•
~
Reconstructed
MR (optimum)
-
•
,
;
:
2
!5
, ; шНй30 •. :
35
•, '
40
:
45 i>0
. 5^
Bulk Fuel Temperature (° F)
Fig. III-18. Propellent Bulk Temperatures at Liftoff, Stage I
ER 13227-6
_Li H IIII il Ml ITT Ш-39
F-45 days predicted

__launch \yindqw
.
F-l day pre
•
V
-.
•
-.
.
.
я
i : : ;
:
- :
MR (maximum)
• MR (optimum)
ii
MR (minimum) '
35 40 45
Bulk Fuel Temperature (° F)
Fig. 111-19. Propellant Bulk Temperatures at Liftoff, Stage II
.CONFIDENTS
ER 13227-6
111-40
о Л.
о
СО ф
о g
о
и
•О I
•о
_
const
•о •
fe i
(До
ER 13227-6
111-41
-F-l day- Fday •
45,
о Actual
Reconstructed
F-l day prediction
ю
i
"•SP.
-
-
'
0800
Eastern Standard Time
Fig. Ill-21. Stage I Fuel Tank Bottom Probe Temperature (Meas
CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
111-42
- F - l day— — Fday
• •
О О О Actual
Reconstructed
F-l day prediction
- . I '
- ^
15
i
.
-
-
.
30
2000 2400 0400
Fig. 111-22. Stage II Oxidlzer Tank Bottom Probe Temperature (Meas
ER 13227-6
3NFIDENTIAL 111-43
•F-l day — F day-

10
45 ^
0 О 0 Actual
•
F-l day prediction
10
' Ф *J
<^-<Г-- - ""
35
a
: ' ^^^"'
00 2400 0400 0800

Fig. 111-23. Stage II Fuel Tank Bottom Probe Temperature (Meas l|60l)
.CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
111-44
Q
Q П QActual (Meas 0023) И
и Б
О О ©Actual (Meas 0024) О
F-45 day prediction
: A Tank bottom probe е
в
о
;
- Шн
_
,-,
Щ?
45 'i ID 0В UJ
I р Ши «,•0°
- G
•сГ
£
О G G G©
4
°i<b оо е о о о
1
0 ,: 100 120 140 160
87FS, Time from 87 FS, (sec)
Fig. П1-24. Stage I Oxidizer Pump Inlet Temperature (Meas 0023 and 0024)
ER 13227-6
ÔNJf DFNT IAI ш-45
©ОО Actual
F-45 day prediction
A Tank bottom probe
IF-
— 50
v
-
v 45
H
0 о о о оо e
•«
1 оооооос
20 40 60 80 100 140 IBO

87FS
1 Time from 87FS1 (sec)
Fig. HI-25. Stage I Fuel Pump Inlet Temperature (Meas 0013)
CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
111-46
NFIDENTIAl
- s
&
.-л.
,v
vD.
0
ё
Ф
•Ф
О ф
i
,4
•
1 "2 Ф\ о
см
о
1*
ti d I — СП
о О
-4
^ s
Т) .fl
о\ /Г«
£
о i § Д 2 ао
< ь н vy
о : О4
о о\ с
О г-.\ 0
СО
."
ЕН
0 «
•
X 1i
0
•3 |
ii
'
о ю о о 0
Л\ СЛ
^1
eONFiOENTtAL
ER 13227-6
CONFIDENTIAL HI-47
:
-
-
0
ч
00
GO
0
& \
о \
о
\
о --
& 4J
с
0
I »
g
Q S
f-н 1
<U I
н « Л
• О.
^ -p
• w »>
а
^О6 О гн
>, £ . О О)
-а .о
\
S
:
0 и
i
:
. •
\
0
0 -
•
0)
••
••
•
(Л
- ю - -£ О,
с - -
CONFIDENTIAL «
ER 13227-6
Ш-48
3. Propellant Feed System
a. Feedline transients
The maximum transient pressures recorded at the pump inlet in-

strumentation bosses are listed in Table Ш-21.
TABLE Ш-21
Maximum Transient Pressures at Pump Inlet
At At Design
At Initial At TCV Operating
Prevalve Pressure Ignition Closing Pressure
Measurement Opening Wave (psia) (psia) (psia)
Stage I oxidizer No data Negligible 124 Negligible 215

(0017)
Stage I fuel No data Negligible Negligible Negligible 55
(0014)
Stage II oxidizer No data Negligible * 68 260
(0510)
Stage II fuel No data Negligible * Negligible 80
(0507)
*Not available due to telemetry staging blackout.
No data were available on the prevalve opening pressure transients,

since these valves were opened during the 12 December 1965 launch
attempt and were not replaced. Ignition transient pressures were, in
general, similar to those of GLV-5 and GLV-7 flights. Telemetry
blackout normally experienced during Stage П ignition eliminates data
on sustainer engine ignition transients.
b. Pump inlet suction pressures
Stage I and Stag3 II static suction pressures at the suction measure-

ment boss locations are shown in Figs. IH-28 through 111-31, which
present the preflight predicted, postflight reconstructed and best esti-
mate of actual flight pressures. The postflight reconstructed curves
were based on flight measured values of ullage gas pressure, axial
load factors, propellant temperatures and propellant loadings.
The Stage I oxidizer best estimate curve of the static suction pres-
sures at the measurement boss (Meas 0017) consists of an average of
the measured pressure and the two oxidizer standpipe pressures
ER 13227-6
111-49
110
•Preflight prediction
100 • Postflight reconstruction
АДА Best estimate o f flight suction pressure
о.
80
70
о 100 120 140 160

87FS,
Time from 87FS. (sec)
Fig. 111-28. Stage I Oxidizer Suction Pressure (Meas 0017)
NFIDENTI
ER 13227-6
IH-50
•
' 1
•- Postflight reconstruction
'
A АДА Best estimate of flight
>^
suction pressure
ДА -
0
Pressure (psia)
4 А
С л
со
СП
А А д
Ад
-— д
со
tO
^Х\
ЬГТ"^^ ^
00
(\э
\ i
•' ;
1\з
i^
i
!
to
О
1 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

~]
-рс
со
1 Time from 87FS. (sec)
Fig. HI-29. Stage I Fuel Suction Pressure (Meas OOlU)
CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
111-51
NFIDENTIAL
-
« ;\ - :
Б .
"f. •' . г ,;
0 -
тз ;
0) г
.
<3
.
m
,
? - ::
(X
О Л
i i:
!
j? -
•ч 1 сг
'
Sn .
С i
i
•
.7
/
•
1 Ю
I л о о о
-А: О Ь
о ... 1 О -н
- - - •'. 05
(Btsd)
ITIAL
ER 13227-6
m-52
ihiriDLMTIAL
о
' CD
а
ся
м Рч
о
-о
f-, О
(X Он
1Л
-.:....:__ о fc
О ^
(Etsd)
ER 13227-6
111-53
(Meas 0033 and 0034) adjusted to the Meas 0017 boss location. The
Stage I fuel suction pressure best estimate at Meas 0014 boss location
is an average of measured pressure and the two fuel accumulator pres-
sures (Meas 0037 and 0038) adjusted to the Meas 0014 boss location
from 87FS, to 87FS. + 70 seconds. After this time, the best estimate
of suction pressure is made up of the average of Meas 0014 and Meas
0037 adjusted to the Meas 0014 location. The Stage II oxidizer and
fuel best estimate suction pressures are the pressures measured by
Meas 0510 and 0507, respectively.
The Meas 0038 S/A 2 fuel accumulator pressure transducer indi-
cated an erroneous pressure after 87FS, + 70 seconds. At this time
the indicated pressure increased slowly until, by 87FS.. + 140 seconds,
it was 7 psi higher than Meas 0037. Fuel accumulator piston displace-
ment was similar on both subassemblies, indicating approximately equal
pressures at the accumulator locations.
c. NPSH supplied
The NPSH supplied at the engine turbopump inlets during the start
phase and during steady-state operation is shown in Table 111-22.
4. Propellant Utilization
a. Level sensor uncover
Figures 111-32 and 111-33 show the predicted, actual and reconstructed
level sensor uncover times for Stages I and II. Measured level sensor
uncover times are tabulated in Table П1-23.
Slosh, as indicated by on and off signals at the time of level sensor
uncovering, was minimal on this flight. Except for the Stage II fuel
high level sensor, all sensor uncoverings were clean.
b. Best estimate level sensor uncover times
Table Ш-24 contains the best estimate average level sensor uncover
times for the GT-6 flight. Also shown are the integrated average tem-
peratures between level sensor uncoverings and the corresponding
densities. The measured average uncover times shown in Table III-13
were decreased by 0.058 second to allow for the built-in level sensor
delay of 0.033 second and for the PCM digital sampling rate of 0. 05
second by adding 0.025 second.
ER 13227-6
Ш-54
rep-
ТЗ С
0) 0 ._
W а
—^
i
-м .г-i Е тз п -^
-гЧ
"ь> гл UJ м
т— t гН -~ -
.
S 2 РН .Ь со ;.-' - ^ t
values
ГО
-i
С JX О4^ -
5О ^
« а!
LH -
.
И, •
С
тз .
тз ш Щ .JJ 1J ю : : ю a j •
2 * CU 'о.'м ,_; г , со
-|-> у^ 2 a d, ю у; 1 : - " -
i.
i
172
ел" ^ В а- -
;
• -
i . •
0 о UJO с ::
0) i - 0) cd +j' н ~
со м 1 со a tn ;: 1
cd 5
ю г - о
• и v£*i/ ГО -' :• см со" M 1 -"> -
. ^-^ .—i Э '
. S D
L
-
--
..
-
•
|р|
^.2щтз
2
2
d
(ч
:
гН
О
Ю Й
0) 'gj
СЛ G
1
• ,'
'; '
-
1
;
:
t/ ^||к и
id
-н
со
а
•
d
н
С
а
td
со
а
•;
—
.
-
-.
:
- см -- : со
и rt
3 :- н
3 1
W .J тз з : D
- со
см г
•
"
О)
С ~ r l
••
-
I
ч ГО
cd ™ |
3
.:
•
: ;g - -:
,
^1— 1 ...
СО)
r* "1 ^ •
.
с щ тз ,-. a
TJ сл ^ .2 -^ - со cd тз И ' CO
?н £LI .у со ac
X аэ cd '. . :
-•- го "- .''
.-.'
w irT --и '
ш" 1 1
И О [У) 0 > -
ю - 1
t» -^ rt
-<
СЛ
Щ :
СЛ +^
И -!-> 2s
&н^
" 1
-
:
-
2 ^3 cd С u-g
ел 5- .
'
.
a
.
го ~ •
rj
W :
^ Д '^ U
G, Ш) д (го) (го) -
м
0° - -' 1 3
И 3 'н
•gOT зн
2 -3е см -
а^
SB
•«со С 1
_
*
i.
.
d
Q ТЗ Рн s - .
s +-> ^
^_ d v
О ч-> а
cd С - -'
—
ance
1ч CU
б. 1—1 0 и
i—I CD
^ >—1| ^Ш
1— Г-Н
X m с
<u.S 0) ф ." ш W SH н -
:/, сиотз bJDT3
cd ш td Ч)
СЛ СЛ О СЛ 5 СЛ О СЛ =2
' ONFIDENTtAI
ER 13227-6
CONFIDENTIAL Ш-55
'
• .
i
-•
-
-
.
.
в
--
•-
ТЗ
CD
41
та
4)
•о
£
ТЗ
.
-.
:.
J т е-
-
W
см
fa
о •
| > : О
CO
-
- 1 |
О
Р
о
-
I
-
\
4 4
-
4
4 ,—
i
g a -
н Н
1-е-
.
• •
0
1 -
• -
•
d uncover ti
DO
- • - -
Я '
-
4 -
-
•
1
1
е- CO
e
•--,
:
и .,
С ' :
-
onstruc
:
о
- ;:
'
h
V ': :
- j ТЗ
.
-. v J 01 0)
Й —i ч '- 4) V
ТЗ
0>
ТЗ
. 4)
LO
-4
•
-;.
•о
-
•
Т3
41
in
Ш
.£
о
О
и •и
о .
и
си
о
и
Ян
0)
о
"
: -. О
- и О
-
- со
ш
го
ю
о о о S
о о со
с см т 0 . 0
о о
- • о о 0) ев
- -- 0 о си си со СП
'. 7
*
1Л и § § а> си
id ; ; гв. гё
CD 1> (ч
CU 41
. -; S 5 N N
'си -TJ
Т)
ТЗ
'5
iizer
' г-1
HI
X
D - 3
о о ' с с
: ш ' 0) 0) ' ш
0
я ад
i te
ад ад ад
ев
• 3
1
-С
~ iJ.
и О и
от И
--
-
, CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
Ш-56
со
•
.
5
ч- со
-1
см
со
СО
0)
a - - со
^-
jncover •
о
overed
overed
overed
overed
overed
overed
со
~н СЧ
со
от — Ь
С~ i-H
и ^н ОТ
тз с
CU со
Ш t>
0> з »-<
rt Ь
£ ш t-
& С г '
0 0
и ° - - •'
«5
Г-
|4
о
«
ю
"о
^
cti ^
з s t~ Ьч
2 а r-t ГН
от
•о
0 •£ _ со с
^ с- Я
га щ ^н О
3 > S-,
Ч-ч
М 0
ш о
§ S
1
•*-" -а 4 со Н
ТЗ ТЗ ТЗ ТЗ ТЗ ТЗ
м ^ Ф
0)
>
"ц
-гЧ
е- CD
i,
Ф Ф 1)
1ч
ф
0 ТЗ Ф ' Ф Ф ф QJ ф ю
CJ 1) тз тз >
С и CD О о 0 0 О о
D а, ; CD
1ч !н
Ф
и и и и и и о
Л- О ~o 0
>
<^г ^ О
f~i и и от
p>
. 0 tn S
-а и •*? ю
ш - ^^
со ю ю
Ян о 0
ю
is
и -^- —
о
СО
0
ш
со
п)
0)
СО
ni
ш
,-.
^
3
0
ю
ю
о
с-
•e-g п!
0) ш
§ ю
о
ю
о со со
о ' CO - s (ч со со
л
Ф
пЗ
ф 1
CD
|о
nj
0) ~ Ф ш OJ
Ф
л
си S Si
!
ъ
oxidizer (M
tage oxidize
;age oxidize
- -а со
nj ф ф
Ф о
X
о Ф СО а г
с - с с с (М
£ Ф
CD о о ао
ф
ас о 0
ТЗ
3 ТЗ ТЗ ТЗ
а п)
3
3 .с
И М § О СО со 0 (5 со со vT
^ь
^Г^М LQPM' I AI
ER 13227-6
CONFID HI-57
1ч 1ч i-l (-4 Si Ь
0) 0) 0) 0> 0) 0)
со 0 0
•38 с
О м
0) 0 0 о о
о о Тл о •* О О о и
Ц с с So с с с с
cti 3 3 о о 3 3 3 3
g — > -4-> щ *н с Ч-> -*-> Ч-» -*->
0 0 гп 1) 3 0 0 о о
0)
К
с с с с с с с с с СС > с с с с с с
cd cd cd cd cti cti я cd cti ю о т! cti cd
0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) -о -о 0> си 0) г- о 4{ Ш 0) •а тз Т) -0
и UU и ии QQ и UU о 2 'cti ии Q Q QQ
о
'о **
0) 1ч 0) ^j*
со 0) •—' см
*"^ Ш cti i—i
i— <
И Н i—i
со
1 с-
0) SH
со
со
0) CD о
Н л
г- СП 0
h я! > С S о' со (J 0
0)
*> 0) О ;^ f5 о ю ю о
6
о
> сНи о 0)
со
см со
со со со со
N И
1 ^*
1-1
г
1—1 м
"-• О см о г- см t> f- ю СМ СМ 1-й см см
W с со со со со r* t-
со t>
со со со
J ш о со ^ •* 1> СО СТЭ О5 CD Г-
и c« 1> 0
о si
L^
со 0 0 i-Ч СО 00 ,-н С- t- О 0 0
<J
Г
Г| 0 со оо юю о ю ю см 0 0
Н SJ с Й
HUгт
t> 0 0 ^
t> О) СО т— t см см о со со
0) р со со со Tjl
•^
J со со со со со со со со ^
со -ф
со со со
0)
ti
3 с с
со
cd 0) 0)
о> 0 0
Ш 0) tuO ад
ьо ад
§
4 $2
с с
£ £ § 55
0) 0)
ч-> -*->
3 3
с с
£ £
ьв ад
h _, 32 tl cti cti Яч î •£ ti
о CU Ш О) ья
ей ей
4-> -1-> 3 3 0) о)Ян «и(н •£
.ад 3 3 0) 0) _£Ч j-Ч
со о о со со
с •гЧ • *Ч -гЧ .с
"О •а "О "О "П
ш • гн .г-1 0) •Г-( -1-Н
со 'bd 'И 'S
0) 0) 0) 0) 0 X 3 3 X X 3 3
о 0 О =2 5 <2 5 «2 1— ( НН ЦН 1—1 1—Ч hH I—I I—I I—I I—I
0) 0) 0> 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) Ф Ш 0) Ш 0) 0)
СЦ) tUO СиО сш ЪД tJ3 Си Ш) Ш) ад ад ад CUD bJO СШ tuO ад ад
cd cti cd cti cti cti
5 4J
cti cti cti cti cti cd cti cti cti cti
СО СО СО со со со со со со CO CO СО CO CO со со со со
со CD со от см со оо см СО СЛ О CO t> ю о -ф -ч
Ю юю ю юю ю со
ш О оо ^
о 0 0 0 0 ю Ю Ю Ю Ю Ю юю юю
§ 0 О 0 о оо оо 0 0 О 0 0 0 0 0 оо
CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
111-58 ENTI.
ю см со
'о ю
Ю -ч СО СЛ
ш п го -н [> С +->
СО
см ^ со с: 'О
С —
Х2 т}< СМ Ю 'ф
, * Г О - Н Ю о ^н го
см
ю см го
см о см
<] ^ rt _ ^ а ~
W >>
CM I> CM D-
и •-
р ся UJ
0)
и
с О а)
•и U Q
н —--v^«-.
•"ФОЭ
—
^ГО
— •- -», __
!>• Oi
-». ^^_
ГО О}
1>СМ СМГО СМО Ю ^
OJ слго -^r^ t*-cr> coco
о 5 ооо ^<ю ою смо
- с
ро D~O t~O3 •—1 СМ ОГО
0) РООО ГОСО ГОГО ООГО
tuO t-Н т—< -Н-Н 1—1-н -ч, —1
0)
- rt
- tn
0)
3
- rt
< 1ч -^
-
с с g .S
и ^
- 0) 0) tUD CJ3 "О TD
. н
tuo ^
0) Я
у о —| t> t>
пЗ С
3
!н СМ —1 ^ -н
Л) _
L, S. с
о ^ h^"Sl-55 ^3 0) 0)0) ^ Р ч ' з 0 )N0 )
N г? > 0)
со о) « и щ . и ' з з х х : N NN^ оо w w <| 0)
.
с d ~ ^ Т З Т З Т З ^ н ^ ч ^ н Т З " О1 - 1н г - 1 тзВ
0) U UU, —1 |—l i —I I—l i — i . r ^ . , - 1 . ^ nj QlCD*^' - CUCD
от v v ш x x>< 3 xx « 0
'x'x'x ^ ^ Зз зз rt
3
!н
Ы)
0)
0) 0 ) 0 ) 0) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0) 0)1) 0 (1)0) 0 ) 0 ) 0)0)
4->
UO СШСШ Ш) ЬВШ) bJOtuO СШ tUDbD tUO СЩЬД tuOUO tuOtuO с
- ol nioj ni nlni njnj ni nirt ni oJcfl ctini ninJ
от отот от слот отот от отот от отот отел отот
-
L
СП CD CQO) -^ СМГО ОО СМ СОСП О СОС~ ЮО -ф-н
гё Ю Ю Ю Ю Ю Ю ЮСО ^ 'Ф'^ ^ ^^ <фЮ *фЮ
0) О ОО О ОО ОО Ю ЮЮ Ю ЮЮ ЮЮ ЮЮ
§ о оо о оо оо о оо о оо оо оо
щ 0)
a
0)
"О
•rj
-4
о) х
-гН 'щ
з
с 4->
и
О CIH
Н-1 Ь—1
rt 1-4 1—1 1—1 1—1 1—1 1—1
(н к^ 1—( 1^ 1—4
тз от 0) 0) 0) 0)
п) ~~- ЬЧ 1—1 1—1 1—1 >> 1—1 1—1 1—1 р» |_| р> ЬС Ш) ЬВ СО)
1—1 1-41-4 1—1 1—II— 1 1—II— 1 1—1 1-ЧЬН 1—1 1—II— 1 1—II— 1 1—II— 1 cd cti cti ей
О" от от от от
~П[ (Г|[|П_П
ER 13227-6
„.CONFIDENTIAL IH-59
Table Ш-25 lists the level sensor volumes and delta volumes used
in the level sensor flow rate analysis. The Stages I and II oxidizer and
fuel high-level sensor volumes were reconstructed to reflect the volumes
which were determined by calibration at Cape Kennedy using the propel-
lant transfer and pressurization system. The Stages I and II outages
and shutdown level sensor volumes were calculated using the actual
counts of flowmeter pulses obtained during the special loading and the
WMSL exercises.
TABLE 111-25
Averaged Volumes at Level Sensor Locations
Averaged Volumes
(stretch included) Volume
3 3
Tank Sensor (ft ) (ft )
Hi-level 1708.20
Stage I oxidizer 1670. 35
Outage 37. 85
Hi-level 1402. 54
Stage I fuel 1336. 74
Outage 65. 80
Hi-level 285. 51
Stage II oxidizer 263. 10
Shutdown 22.41
Hi-level 350.08
Stage II fuel 331.00
Outage 19.08
с. Flow rates
Table 111-26 presents the predicted and the actual volumetric flow
rates between level sensors.
TABLE III-26
Propellant Volumetric Flow Rate
Predicted Actual
3
Tank (ft /sec) (ft 3 /sec)
Stage I oxidizer 11. 751 11.734

Stage I fuel 9.821 9.735
Stage II oxidizer 2.269 2.265
Stage II fuel 2.087 2.071
CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
III-60
d. Mixture ratio
Table 111-27 compares the Stages I and II predicted and actual engine
mixture ratios (between level sensors) for the GLV-6 flight.
TABLE 111-27
Engine Mixture Ratio
Predicted Mixture Mixture Ratio

System Ratio Actual
Stage I 1.9280 1.9418
Stage II 1.7470 1. 7578
Sensitivity coefficients applied to the delta between the predicted

and actual variations in average suction pressure and temperature be-
tween sensor uncoverings yield the information shown in Table III-28.
TABLE III-28
Mixture Ratio Pressure and Temperature
Pres- Д Mixture Tempera- Д Mixture Mixture

sure Ratio ture Ratio Ratio
System (psi) (Pressure) (o ) F (temp) (total)
Stage I oxidizer -0.5 -0.000810 + 0.9 -0.002086 -0.002514
Stage I fuel + 2. 5 -0.006250 + 1.0 +0.001627 -0.003028
Total Stage I -0.007060 -- -0.000459 -0.007519
Stage II oxidizer -i.o -0.004200 + 1.4 -0.003661 -0.006002
Stage II fuel -1.5 +0.005310 +3.2 + 0. 005325 +0.008277
Total Stage II +0.002760 -- +0.001664 +0.004424
By applying the delta mixture ratio (total) shown in Table 111-28 to

the predicted (F-45 Day) between-sensor mixture ratios, the run-to-
run variation can be calculated. The mixture ratio deviation along with
the allowable run-to-run dispersions are shown in Table 111-29.
ER 13227-6
III-61
TABLE III-29
Mixture Ratio Deviation
Predicted Mixture Ratio
(corrected for pressure Actual Allowable
and temperature vari- Mixture Deviation Run -to- Run
System ations) Ratio Dispersion (%)
Stage I 1.9205 1.9418 + 1.11 + 1.38
Stage II 1. 7426 1.7578 +0.87 + 2.28
e. Outage and trapped propellant
Table 111-30 shows the mean and maximum (99%) outages predicted
for GLV-6. Also shown are the actual outages as calculated using the
information contained in the reconstructed propellant inventories of
Tables 111-36 and Table 111-37.
TABLE III-30
Outage Prediction
Predicted (F-45 day) Predicted (F-0 day)
Max Max
System Mean (99%) Mean (99%) Actual
Stage I 0.221% 0.645% 0.224% 0.643% 0.424% fuel
571 Ib 1669 Ib 578 Ib 1664 Ib 834 Ib
Stage II 0.343% 1.029% 0.335% 1.042% 0.323% fuel
205 Ib 614 Ib 200 Ib 622 Ib 255 Ib
All outages are presented as percent of total steady-state propel-
lants (taken from Ref. 10) and in pounds. The value used for total
steady-state propellants are 258, 623 pounds for Stage I and 59, 695
pounds for Stage II.
The predicted and actual trapped propellants for Stages I and II are
given in Table 111-31.
CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
Ш-62
TABLE Ш-31
Trapped Propellants
Oxidizer (Ib) Fuel (Ib)

System Predicted Actual Predicted Actual
Stage I
Above interface 0 0 20 20
Below interface 235 235 309 309
Stage II
Above interface 0 0 0 0
Below interface 20 20 14 14
f. Start and holddown propellant consumptions
The predicted and actual propellant consumptions during the Stage I

start and holddown period are shown in Table 111-32.
TABLE 111-32
Stage I Ignition and Holddown Propellant Consumptions

Stage I Predicted Actual Predicted Actual
Start consumption
(87FS. to TOPS) 209 208 44 44
Holddown consumption
(TCPS to Liftoff) 2131 2174 1127 1171
The predicted and actual start consumptions listed in Table III-32

were selected from Ref. 15 and were modified tc allow for the differ-
ence between propellant out of the tanks (as listed in the report) and
propellant overboard. The predicted holddown consumption was derived
from the engine analytical model and previous flight test data, whereas
the actual value was derived from the Post Test Rocket Engine System
Total Operation (PRESTO) engine performance reconstruction program.
The Stage II predicted and actual propellant consumptions between

91FS1 and 9IPS, + 1.2 seconds are listed in Table Ш-33.
CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
NFIDENTIAL Ш-63
TABLE 111-33
Stage II Start Propellant Consumption

Predicted Actual Predicted Actual
Start Consumption
(91 FS. to 91FS. + 1.2 sec) 135 135 53 53
The predicted and actual consumptions were obtained from Ref. 15

and modified as on the Stage I start consumption.
g. Vapor retained
The predicted and actual values of vapor retained in the tanks as a

result of pressurization gases and propellant vaporization during flight
are shown in Table III-34.
TABLE 111-34
Pressurization Gas Inventory

System Predicted Actual* Predicted Actual*
Stage I
Vapor Retained:
Oxidizer tank 325 322 0 0
Fuel tank 8 8 90 91
Vaporized 5 5 0 0
Stage II
Pressurization
Fuel tank 5 5 51 49
Vaporization
Oxidizer tank 9 9 - -
*The actual values were obtained from the reconstructed flight pres
sure profile of the pressurization computer program runs.
NFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
111-64 А
h. Shutdown
Stage I shutdown was due to oxidizer exhaustion. The predicted and

actual values for the propellants consumed during shutdown are pre-
sented in Table 111-35. The actual values were obtained by integrating
a curve (derived from PRESTO) of flight flow rate versus time after
87FS 2 .
Stage II shutdown was initiated by a guidance command; therefore,

the propellants were not exhausted as in Stage I. The predicted and
actual values for the propellants consumed during shutdown are shown
in Table 111-35. The actual values were computed using altitude shut-
down impulse data.
TABLE 111-35
Propellant Shutdown Consumption

Predicted Actual Predicted Actual
Stage I 0 0 145 164
Stage II 78 76 62 60
i. Propellant inventory
The reconstructed propellant inventories for GT-6 are shown in

Tables III-36 and 111-37 for Stages I and II, respectively. The inven-
tory consists of both nonusable and usable propellants. The burning
time margin for Stage II was 2. 348 seconds.
5. Components
a. Prevalves
During the launch countdown, all prevalve functions were performed

without incident. Prevalves installed for the flight are identified in
Table 111-38.
CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
III-65
TABLE Ш-36
GLV-6 Stage I Reconstructed Propellant Loading
I. Predicted in-flight engine mixture ratio 1. 9248 + 1. 54%

II. Average in-flight mixture ratio (engine) 1. 9381 + 1 . 7 1 %
III. Outage (percent of total usable propellants) 0. 32%
Oxidizer Fuel Total

(lb) (lb) (lb)
IV. Nonusable propellants

A. Fuel bleed 0 11 11
B. Start consumption (87FS 208 44 252
to TCPS)
C. Holddown (TCPS to liftoff 2, 174 1, 171 3,345
(2 sec))
D. Trapped above interface at 0 20 20
shutdown
E. Trapped below interface at 235 309 544
shutdown
F. Vapor retained at shutdown
1. For pressurization
a. Oxidizer tank 322 322
b. Fuel tank 8 91 99
2. Vaporized 5 5
G. Total nonusable 2,952 1,646 4,598
V. Usable propellants
A. Steady-state overboard 169,828 87,705 257, 533
(liftoff to 87FS )
B. Shutdown transient 0 164 164
(FS to 0% thrust)
C. Outage 834 834
D. Total usable 169,828 88,703 258,531
VI. Total propellant loaded 172,780 90,349 263, 129
VII. Propellant load at liftoff 170,398 89, 134 259,532
VIII. Weight of initial pressuriz-
ing gas
A. Fuel tank (NJ 8
B. Oxidizer tank (N2 + NO ) 17
ENTIAL
ER 13227-6
Ш-66
CONFIDENTIAL
TABLE Ш-37
GLV-6 Stage II Reconstructed Propellant Loading
I. Predicted in-flight engine mixture ratio 1. 7448 + 2. 52%

II. Average in-flight mixture ratio (engine) l. 7628^1. 55%
III. Outage (percent of total usable propellants) -t-Q. 424%"
IV. Burning time margin 2". 348 sec
Oxidizer Fuel Total

(lb) (lb) (lb)
V. Nonusable propellants
A. Fuel bleed 0 11 11
B. Trapped above interface 0 0 0
at FS? + 20 sec (0% thrust)
C. Trapped below interface at 20 14 34
FS + 20 sec (0% thrust)
D. Vapor retained after FS
1. Pressurization (fuel tank] 5 49 54
2. Vaporization (oxidizer 9 9
tank)
E. Total nonusable 34 74 108
VI. Usable propellants
A. Start consumption (FS. to 135 53 188
90% thrust)
B. Steady-state overboard 37,518 21,236 58,754
(90% thrust to FS )
C. Shutdown consumption 76 60 136
(FS? to 0% thrust)
D. Steady-state residuals
(after FS )
1. Burning time margin 493 274 767
2 . Outage 255 255
E. Total usable 38,222 21,878 60, 100
VII. Total propellants loaded 38,256 21,952 60,208
VIII. Weight of initial pressurizing
gas
A. Fuel tank (N ) 5
B. Oxidizer tank (N_ + NO ) 32
& £
ER 13227-6
CONFIDENTIAL III-6 7
TABLE 111-38
Prevalve Identification
Description Part No. Serial No.
Stage I oxidizer S/A 1 PS47510007-139 0700067

(fill and drain)
Stage I oxidizer S/A 2 PS47510007-159 0700016

(drain)
Stage II oxidizer S/A 3 PS47510005-199 0600041

(fill and drain)
Stage I fuel S/A 1 PS47510005-159 0600044

(fill and drain)
Stage I fuel S/A 2 PS47510005-169 0600033

(drain)
Stage II fuel S/A 3 PS47510006-059 0400015

(fill and drain)
b. Level sensors
GLV-6 incorporated 18 Bendix optical-type propellant level sensors.

These are identified in Table Ш-39. All sensors performed satisfac-
torily during propellant loadings and in flight.
TABLE III-39
GLV-6 Propellant Level Sensor Identification
Stage I Stage II
Volume* Serial Quad- Volume* Serial

Quad- figu- 3
figu-
3
Location Meas rant (ft ) ration No. Meas rant (ft ) ration No.
Oxidizer Tank
High level 0056 I 1708. 61 -039 000241 0542 IV 284.27 -039 000326
Outage 0058 I/IV 38.39 -039 000203 0548 I/TV 21. 76 -039 000239
Outage 0059 II/ Ш 38.21 -039 000433 0549 II/ III 22.88 -039 000201
Shutdown - - - - - 0545 II 4.99 -039 000342
Shutdown - - - - - 0550 IV 4.95 -039 000260
Fuel Tank
High level 0054 I 1401.86 -059 000256 0540 I 350. 15 -049 000248
Outage 0052 III 66.20 -049 000242 0546 I 18.01 -049 000242
Outage 0053 I 65.92 -049 000240 0547 III 18. 19 -049 000229
Shutdown 0050 I 7.96 -049 000249 0544 II 1. 57 -049 000228
Shutdown 0060 III 8. 20 -049 000216 0551 IV 1.61 -059 000263
*Volume to interface including tank stretch at uncover time.
CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
ni-68
c. Oxidizer standpipes
The oxidizer suction line standpipes were charged at T-39 minutes

during the launch attempt countdown on 12 December 1965. For the
recycle operation, the airborne and AGE portions of the remote charge
system were drained and purged according to procedures established
as a result of the standpipe recycle problem on GT-5 (Ref. 2 ). The
remote charge system was used at T-125 minutes during the launch
countdown and no problems were encountered. Flight data obtained
from pressure Meas 0033 and 0034 located in the standpipes show per-
formance to be normal and consistent with the very low longitudinal
oscillatory levels experienced on this flight.
d. Fuel accumulators
Performance of the spring-piston fuel accumulators was normal.

Response of the pistons to pressure perturbations was similar to that
on GLV-3, -4, -5 and -7, the primary frequency of the piston being
22 cps. As on previous flights, S/A 1 accumulator evidences a high
amplitude response at approximately 5. 5 cps. Figure 111-34 shows the
accumulator piston response from 87FS.. to 87FS 2 . The S/A 1 level
change at 87FS1 + 51. 5 seconds has been observed at about this same
time period on all previous flights. The abrupt changes are believed to
be due to time variant local pressures within Compartment 5. Local
static pressures in the vicinity of the fuel accumulators are a function
of the airflow entering Compartment 5 through the airscoops. No data
are available to establish the static pressure variation at the accumulator
vent hole; however, past analysis (Ref. 16) indicates the existence of
significant velocity profiles near the accumulator.
Pressure on the feedline side of the accumulator does not vary in

level at FS1 + 51. 5 seconds; consequently, any abrupt change in piston
position is most likely due to a change in local Compartment 5 pressure.
Dynamic friction levels for dry accumulators were measured prior

to installation of accumulator assemblies at Martin-Baltimore and
again prior to flight at ETR. A summary of these friction measure-
ments is presented in Table 111-40 as peak-to-peak values (twice the
equivalent friction force in one direction). Observed flight data do not
indicate significant differences in friction levels between accumulators.
ER 13227-6
CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL
87FS Time from 87FS. (sec)
Fig. III-31+. Fuel Accumulator Piston Travel
ЛИШЦШ CONFIDENTIAL
ЕЕ 13227-6
III-70 CONFIDENTIAL
TABLE 111-40
Dynamic Friction Levels for Dry Accumulators
Peak-toPeak Friction* (psi)

S/A Serial No. Bench Pre flight
1 В 014 0.7 0.8
2 В 017 1.1 1.0
*Maximum acceptable value = 2 . 0 psi
6. POGQ Performance
The Stage I longitudinal oscillation level between LO + 1 0 0 seconds

and BECO was very low. Flight data do not indicate significant struc-
tural responses in propulsion measurements at any time. In particular,
oxidizer suction pressure (Meas 0017) and oxidizer standpipe pressure
(Meas 0033 and 0034) do not increase in amplitude near BECO. Addi-
tional details on POGO appear in Chapter XII of this report.
D. PRESSURIZATION SUBSYSTEM
1. Prelaunch Pressurization
At approximately T-215 minutes, three of the four propellant tanks

were pressurized, through AGE, from blanket pressure level to flight
pressure levels. The Stage I fuel tank was not pressurized until T-200
minutes because the required hand valve was not open at T-215 minutes.
The resultant time-pressure profiles (Fig. 111-35) indicate that the
process was normal. The tank ullage lockup pressures obtained from
landline measurements made at T-0 and the related normal operating
pressure ranges are presented in Table 111-41.
TABLE 111-41
Tank Ullage Lockup Pressures
Normal Range Measured

Meas Parameter (psia) (psia)
4125 Stage I fuel tank 2 7 . 5 to 31.5 28.7

4129 Stage I oxidizer tank 30. 5 to 3 4 . 5 32.6
4602 Stage II fuel tank 49. 5 to 54.5 53.1
4605 Stage II oxidizer tank 53. 5 to 57.5 55.8
CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
CONFIDENTIAL III-71
60
Meas
Stage II f u e l
. - 4li05
Stage II oxidizer
Meas 4129
Stage I oxidizer
\_ Meas 4125
Stage I fuel
10
1 2 3
Time After Initiation of Flight Pressure Signal (min)
Fig. 111-35- Tank Pressurization Cycle (blanket to flight pressure)
CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
Ш-72 CONFIDENTIAL
2. Flight Pressurization
Stages I and II ullage gas pressure time histories appear in Figs.

Ш-36 through Ш-39. These plots show flight-measured pressures,
preflight predicted pressures and postflight reconstructed pressures.
The flight-measured pressures were obtained by averaging the teleme-
tered output from each pair of pressure transducers in the individual
tanks. The preflight predicted curves were taken from Ref. 10. The
postflight reconstruction was based on flight measured values of engine
performance, propellant temperatures and propellant loadings. A
comparison of significant pressurization system parameters taken at
FS1 + 1 0 0 seconds is given in Table 111-42.
TABLE 111-42
Comparison of Significant Pressurization System
Parameters at FS1 + 100 Seconds
Preflight Flight Postflight

Predicted Data Reconstructed
Stage I Fuel Tank Ф

Tank pressure, Ртргр (psia) 22.1 22.6 22.4
Nozzle inlet temperature, 245.0 -- 212.0 ®

T ( F)
FPOI °
Flow ratio, W p p /Q F S 0.06302 0.06428
3
(lb/ft )
Stage I Oxidizer Tank ©

Tank pressure, РПТ, (psia) 18.8 17.6 17.7
Orifice inlet specific 334.9 -- 337.8 ®

enthalpy, Hopol (Btu/lb)
Flow ratio, W o p /Q o s 0.17422 — 0.17391

3
(lb/ft )
Stage II Fuel Tank ^

Tank pressure, P^y, (psia) 50.6 48.7 48.9
Nozzle inlet temperature, 225.0 -- 232.0 ®

Т
1 (°F)
POIl * '
CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
CONFIDENTIAL III-73
(Bisd) a j n s s a j j звд
CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
Ш-74
CONFIDENTIAL
aanssaaj SBQ
CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
CONFIDENTIAL Ш-75
1
•
1
.
(Bisd)
CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
III-76
CONFIDENTIAL
.
-
•
•
.
.
"
(Bisd) ajnssajj SBQ
CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
CONFIDENTIAL III-77
TABLE 111-42 (continued)
Pre flight Flight Postflight

Predicted Data Reconstructed
Flow ratio, W p p/Q F S 0.14728 -- 0.14425

3
(lb/ft )
Stage II Oxidizer Tank

Tank pressure, PQT (psia) 14.3 14.2 14.1
Propellant flow rate, QOo 2.26317 2.25984

3
(ft /sec)
1 Nozzle diameter, FPN Stage I fuel--0.480 in.

2 Estimated, temperature not instrumented.
3 Flow control Venturi coefficient--0. 0509.
4 Nozzle diameter, FPN Stage II fuel--0. 260 in.
Figures 111-40, 111-41 and 111-42 present the preflight-predicted and

the in-flight-estimated pressurization parameters at the orifice or
nozzle inlet.
3. Component Performance
All tank pressure sensors functioned normally. The maximum and

mean pressure differences between pairs of sensors in each of the in-
dividual propellant tanks are shown in Table 111-43.
TABLE Ш-43
Pressure Difference Between Tank
Pressure Transducer Pairs
Maximum
Maximum Mean Allowable
Difference Difference Difference
Tank (psi) (psi) (psi)
Stage I oxidizer 0.28 0.13 1.50

Stage I fuel 0.34 0.11 1.50
Stage II oxidizer 1.04 0.40 2.25
Stage II fuel 0.48 0.33 2.25
CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
Ш-78 NFIDENTIAL
290
С
S
11
1ч
*-.
-
I
Г.,
•:
id
Д Preflight prediction
О Flight performance T estimated
NOTE: All times from 87FS
0.050 0.055 0.060 0.065 0.070 0.075 0.080
Flow Ratio, W-p/Q, (Ib/sec pressurant gas/^ - propellant)
Pig. Ill-to. Stage I Fuel Tank Pressurant Performance
CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
CONFIDENTIAL Ш-79
ВЦ
410 ттг
:
':
: 1 I I
\
I
A 370
It Ч
Hi
350 160
1
i s!;
1 ,.;
II
н ш- :g Wffit 55
•; - ч :!4 Jtll Prr
sec i^
I
i - 1
5
N f н
s 290
DO
A Preflight prediction
О Flight performance, Topol estimated
;••
250
0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19
W
Flow Ratio, Qp/Qo4 ^ l b / s e c pressurant gas/^^ propellant)
Fig. Ill-111. Stage I Oxldizer Tank Pressurant Performance
CONFIDENTIAL*
ER 13227-6
Ill-80
" • • в It::::: fff i:± ::i S-'Si i

1 11 :•• I ::::
290 Ц
:
1•
. :.
:•'.- ,••• ц ;•;
,
• iHit ^H :Hi HE H^ Ш1 4^ *Ht f н Ш Ш Ш Щ Щ Ш а

I 55 55 55 55 pf SH Ц
F
|
.
• • • '. ; • : у :£rt tat :u: ;::•: :::; ;;;i ;^tt. i;:t ;1шШЩшШШ|
Я 270 : ::Щ
: '.;
:
Л
.-: . : ; - gg :Hr gH ;Hl ;gt :H1 Ш1 ;gr :
liiiilil
5igJHa(igl|«
TgttttttSHtttttrHftrrtttrTrl
н"
; .... g (-— < :
Ц
;
— i
:: • :
- •
1
I
...-. :•: Л::::
:
:::: -, . ::::
250 -=1 1 :
| jiH. t--r *"r r-;- :-•! 2 ;* f :Ш Si t

к 1 •: ^H HTt Щ :::: jH! Ш НН Ш t
ф
N
Е
: Hq
.
[
щ :
• . :: V
\ ffi
:
1
::.
BE
iliiiipi! Ч 601*?''
: :
i 160 ЭР £
2 г)ОГ\
t к—
ttnrt ••-
Е
• •
a , \ : ,: ;
:
Щ Ifiioipin ТрйШШ
Ц :.: :: .. V Ш 5Гп i!» Щ |^ДР I'ssjg ё::шш||шИЩ1р1
*;
гё £ : ;• • ШЬ'-н л .;: 1Ш gt H§ H3 !•» Щ О з е 5Ж5
я H t~ 55 ЩШ Й-t 55 11 1
^ Н:ЩН*
! 210 \Л
Ф
6
Ё
I 55
55
5=Ш:Н
v1 iSl
ггтгп ;г:г -тп 53 тт" ;;тНггг
t: HS :ht :::: д:? t5t ;t:iiii;
м 1 qn
i9 £ : ': :
EH |Щ1|11К|
rt я н? .:::
гЧ 1
« :;!: ~=ШЩШнШ5:-жЩ
S НЕ:Н pj
$и 170 »
^ШШн Hfj^te
и ttt tttt tnt ::tt :5: :::t ^tt 5
4) i О Flight performance, Г . estiriated
fPOI
150
Д Preflight prediction
Q1 T7Q ШШШ
iili 1
1111"
ш 11
0. 1 0 0. 11 0.12 0 . 1 3 ' 0 . 1 4 0.1 5 0.16 0.]
Flow Ratio, (Ib/sec pressurant

cu ft propellant)
Fig. 111-^2. Stage II Fuel Tank Pressurant Performance
/^/^~\Ю
ER 13227-6
^^S*
Ill-81
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
1. Launch Vehicle Air-Conditioning System

This system, which serves launch vehicle Compartment 2 and all
engine start cartridges, was operative continuously during the pre-
launch activities until vehicle liftoff. The system operated satisfac-
torily. Table 111-44 presents a summary of the system parameters.
TABLE 111-44
Air-Conditioning System Performance Summary
Meas Description Observed Range Specified Range Remarks

4403 GLV supply 48° to 50. 5° F 48° to 56° F Temperature of air sup-
air temperature (Compartment 2), plied to GLV Compartment
48° to 58° F 2 and the engine start
(engine start cartridges
cartridges)
4405 Compartment 2 Approximately 82 Ib/min
supply air mass 91 Ib/min (minimum)
flow rate
4418 Compartment 2 55° to 61° F 40° to 75° F Manual hold parameter
exhaust air (61° F at
temperature liftoff)
4045 Start cartridge 54. 5° F 35° to 74° F S/N 0002510 manual hold
temperature (at liftoff) parameter
S/A 1
4046 Start cartridge 56° F 35° to 75° F S/N 0002749 manual hold
S/A 2
4612 Start cartridge 53° F 35° to 83° F S/N 0001455 manual hold
S/A 3
CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
iv-i
IV. FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEM
Analysis of the GT-6A flight control system (PCS) measured param-

eters indicated satisfactory system operation during both Stages I and II
flights. The primary PCS was in command throughout and no switchover
to the secondary system was required.
A. STAGE I FLIGHT
1. Ignition and Liftoff Transients
Peak actuator travels and rate gyro disturbances recorded during

the ignition and holddown period are presented in Table IV-1. The 4.
actuator transducer anomaly during this period inhibits accurate deter-
mination of 4. travel.
TABLE IV-1
Transients During Stage I Holddown Period
Maximum During Ignition

Actuator Travel Time from LO Maximum During Hold-
Designation (in.) (sec) down Null Check (in.)
Pitch, 1. -0. 122 -2.26 -0.03

Yaw /roll, 2 +0.209 -2. 25 + 0.01
Yaw /roll, 3. + 0. 169 -2.28 -0.01
Pitch, 4 1
Maximum Rate, Maximum Rate,

Stage I Gyro Stage II Gyro
Axis (deg/sec) (deg/sec)
Pitch 0.5 0.5

Yaw 0. 7 0. 6
Roll 1. 1
The combination of thrust and engine misalignments at full thrust

initiated a roll transient at liftoff. The PCS response to correct these
misalignments, shown in Fig. IV-1, kept the roll rate to a maximum
of 1.9 deg/sec clockwise (CW) at 0. 14 second after liftoff. The rate
oscillation, at a frequency of 4. 5 rad/sec, damped out in 1. 8 seconds.
A roll bias of 0. 69 degree CW was introduced at liftoff by the equiva-
lent engine misalignment of 0. 14 degree.
ER 13227-6
IV-2
0.10
0.20^
о
P'M
И <u
U
0.4
2.0
U 1.5
о
<U 0)
ьо
•j
и
1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0

Fig. IV-1. Liftoff Roll Transients
ER 13227-6
iv-з
The pitch and yaw liftoff transients indicated by the rate gyros
were: Stage I gyro 0. 5 deg/sec and Stage II gyro 0. 3 deg/sec for pitch
and Stage I gyro 0. 6 deg/sec and Stage II gyro 0. 2 deg/sec for yaw.
2. Roll and Pitch Programs
The TARS roll and pitch programs performed nominally as shown

in Table IV~2. The maximum roll and pitch overshoots which occurred
at the initiation of their respective programs were 1. 6 deg/sec clock-
wise for roll and 0. 9 deg/sec nose~down for pitch.
TABLE IV-2
TARS Roll and Pitch Programs
Torquer
Time from Nominal Rate Gyro Monitor Nominal
LO Time Average Indication Rate
Program (sec) (sec) (deg/sec) (deg/sec) (deg/sec)
Roll
Start 17. 66 17.68 + 1.24 + 1.25 + 1.25
Stop 20.46 20.48
Pitch Step 1
Start 22. 99 23.04 -0. 70 -0. 68 -0.709
Pitch Step 2
Start 88.20 88.32 -0.52 -0.55 -0.516
Pitch Step 3
Start 118.83 119.04 -0.20 -0.25 -0.235
Stop 161. 70 162. 56
3. TARS-IGS Comparison (Stage I)
The TARS and IGS attitude error signals during Stage I flight for
the pitch, yaw and roll axes are presented in Figs. IV-2, IV~3, and
IV-4, respectively. The dispersion between the TARS and IGS signals
was caused by a combination of TARS gyro and IGS-IMU drifts, errors
in open-loop guidance programs, and reference axis cross-coupling.
The dispersion (TARS attitude minus IGS attitude) at BECO was --0. 49
degree in the pitch axis, +0. 18 degree in the yaw axis and +1. 26 de-
grees in the roll axis.
ER 13227-6
IV-4
-2.0
Г
; ШШ111Р
•••• i
+ 2.0
IGS
(Meas 0743)П
+ 1.0
т
-1.0
- Step 1 i •\ • ' : Step 3 ft—

ШжШ'
-2.0 Ишш ш
:О 40 60 80
Fig. TV-2. Pitch Attitude Error History During Stage I Flight
ER 13227-6
IV-5
+2. Ок;
-2.0'
-
+ 2.0
•
+ 1.0
-1.0
-2.0
120 140
Time from Liftoff (sec) BE CO
Fig. IV-3. Yaw Attitude Error History During Stage I Flight
ER 13227-6
IV-6
+1 0
it^^y^y. ".-. \ _>^v J:: — ^т4^^^
£о f
'
0 •P Л DQ
£ H
l 1ЛП.О
/ЦЛ„, , Л-7СОХ Г
:J (Meas 0768) 1
и
л и :|': :: : ' • ( . '
:
• ; :. .
ад
з -1-0
t,
--
-~
-.-
W
1Ь ( + 1 . о IGS
« f
И N
""V'*"V_; / _ % . rt - (Meas 0745))
- ^
О !>
! : ; :
СИ О
1 - -H':'
! -!:; ' : »4 .i_t-
^^^""v— ' ''' " \^_
:
:-; . К -:.' i ''
-1 0
£о _^ Roll program
f :: '1"Ж
: i ;BECO i— •*
и
1 ' .' Ш33:--р^|
1 -2.0С
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 16
Fig. IV-4. Roll Attitude Error History During Stage I Flight
ER 13227-6
IV-7
4. Stage I Flight Disturbances
Vehicle disturbances during flight were caused by prevailing winds

aloft. The speed and direction of the winds are plotted in Fig. 11-25.
The flight control system response to these disturbances was nor-
mal and well controlled. The TARS and IGS attitude error signals dur-
ing Stage I flight for the pitch, yaw and roll axes are presented in
Figs. IV-2, IV-3 and IV-4, respectively. In addition, a comparison
of the yaw component of wind and the yaw attitude error is shown in
Fig. IV-3. The maximum rates and attitude errors recorded during
Stage I flight are shown in Table IV-3.
During the wind disturbances, oscillations between 1.0 and 1.6

rad/sec with an average peak-to-peak overshoot amplitude of less than
0. 2 degree of attitude error occurred in pitch and yaw at the predicted
GT-6 rigid body oscillatory mode frequencies, varying with flight con-
dition. Since the level of pitch and yaw excitation was of large magni-
tude, there was evidence of inertial coupling producing excitation in
the roll channel and thereby causing maximum peak-to-peak roll oscil-
lations of 0. 35 degree.
The time for control system gain change on GT-6A was changed from
LO + 105 seconds to LO + 1 1 0 seconds to improve stability margin. At
the actual time of gain change (LO + 109. 8 seconds) there was a .small,
but highly damped, pitch transient which reached a maximum of 0. 52
degree nose-up. Prior to gain change, the pitch attitude error was 0. 35
degree nose-up. The attitude error in yaw at the time of gain change
was less than 0. 1 degree yaw left. The exact amount of yaw overshoot
due to gain change cannot be determined since the vehicle was experienc-
ing disturbances caused by changing winds at the time of gain change.
The pitch transient overshoot was much less than for previous flights,
on which the gain change occurred at LO + 105 seconds. There was no
structural stability degradation because of the later gain change time
on GT-6A.
5. Stage I Static Gains
As determined from telemetry data, the primary FCS static gains

were within the instrumentation accuracy of preflight evaluations and
indicate that no static gain deterioration was experienced during
Stage I flight.
ER 13227-6
IV-8
нч
нч
0
CD ^ч о ^н СЛ
too
^ cd t со С- (N
L со о00
С~ 00 'о
и
cd
ТЗ
£
ш
со
С
О J_ о со Ю 00 0О
H Чч
CJ
0)
со
ш СО 00
too о о
Tfi СО ^ч ^ч as
О и
c~ о
ОЗ CM СО ^ч
^t* о
ю
О cd t> см о t> ,—1
7jJ -ь> СО С- 00 ю
•H Чн СО 1—1
r^ • гН 0)
fe
r— 1
0)
а
о
И ей Н
0) см оз со О) СО
nj ЬО
•H cd о t> оо с- см
CO О 00 СО о оо
M
£
а
•г-1
со
•H H а
Q И^ ш
ЭХ
оо
СМ 00
о со
оо см
-|-;
о г-
со
i 00 D- 00 ю
о со Т-Ч
!ч
И и I—I
1—1
с о О ^ч О О)
3 too
0) i—1 *-Ч ю см
H
*J
• rH 0 cd 0 ^ч
+ 1
О i-ч
т- # со со #
"о fj
<
CD cd
ю тз
нч
§2
С
rt
^ Ш) о ^ч о О (N 00 ОЭ со со 0
Ш о 0) см о ОЗ <-ч со ю см о
о ш too g^-a
со cd 0 -<'
Attitud
Maxirru
fjj О --ч* ,-4 ^-t (d -ч о ^ч 0

К со со + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1
ш
В cd
1—1
g Иа
3
0 ^ч оз см
о CD 0О •^ со
too
X 3 cd О ^ч" О ^ч"
о
g Xа • гН
И + 1 + 1
cd cd
g нч
•гН
Ш СП СМ ОЗ ^ч 00 О
too Т-Ч 1—1 00 --Ч
^ Рч cd О .-ч" О т-Н* .-Ч i-Ч о
ОТ + 1 + 1 + 1 £
о
?н
ло га
га
'х
<!
о
+J
рц
cd
к*
и
о
и
со
•1-1
X
Е
1 i—i
i—i
О
се
и
•-4
pq
ER 13227-6
IV-9
В. STAGE II FLIGHT
1. Staging Transients
During staging, moderate sustainer vehicle rates and attitude errors

were observed. The maximum attitude error, measured from the pre~
BECO level, and the maximum vehicle rates are given in Table IV~4.
2. Stage II Attitude Errors and Biases
The pitch and yaw attitude errors are shown in Figs. IV-5 and
IV-6, respectively; the roll attitude error remained constant at -0.52
degree after staging transient. The predicted pitch and yaw attitudes
account for the center-of-gravity displacement from the vehicle longi-
tudinal axis and for the position of the roll thrust off the longitudinal
axis. The additional biases from the predicted attitudes, -0.07 degree
in pitch and +1. 25 degrees in yaw, are caused by engine thrust vector
misalignment due to structural deformation at the engine gimbal as-
sembly. These biases are of the same magnitude noted on previous
flights and are within predicted limits. The deviation from the biased
predicted attitudes was due to system hysteresis and gain sensitivity.
3. Response to Radio Guidance Commands
The TARS timer generated the guidance enable command at LO +

161. 64 seconds. Response to the first pitch command was at 168. 33
seconds and consisted of a small down command followed by a 0. 55
deg/sec down command for 1.05 seconds. After the first 24.4 seconds
of pitch guidance, all ensuing pitch commands were less than 0.25 deg/
sec. Response to the first yaw command was at 169. 23 seconds and
consisted of a small right command followed by a 0. 25 deg/sec right
command. After the first 31.5 seconds of yaw guidance, subsequent
yaw commands were less than 0. 06 deg/sec. The rate gyro signals
substantiated correct response of the FCS to the guidance commands.
4. Stage II Static Gains
The primary FCS static gains as determined from telemetry data

were within the instrumentation accuracy of preflight calculations.
C. POST-SECO FLIGHT
1. Vehicle Motions
Prior to SECO, the pitch actuator was retracted, producing a sus-

tainer engine gimbal deflection of 0. 19 degree to correct for a pitch
error of -0.84 degree nose-down. In yaw, the error was +0. 17 degree
ER 13227-6
IV-10
TABLE IV-4
Maximum Staging Rates and Attitude Errors
Separation Telemetry
BE CO to to Telemetry Blackout to
Separation Blackout Plus One Second
Time Time Time
Maximum from Maximum from Maximum from
Rates BE CO Rates BECO Rates BECO
Axis (deg/sec) (sec) (deg/sec) (sec) (deg/sec) (sec)
Pitch
Primary +0.87 0.053 +2.36 0. 734 +0. 19 1. 135
-1.60 0. 126 -2.25 0. 744 -1. 12 1. 148
Secondary + 1. 16 0.053 +3. 10 0. 734 +0.40 1. 148

-2.04 0. 145 -2.45 0. 744 -1.31 1. 133
Yaw
Primary +0. 70 0.078 + 1.50 0. 742 +2. 62 1.60
-0.71 0.068 -1.52 0.730
Secondary 4-0.60 0.078 + 2.04 0.750 +2. 73 1.60

-0.48 0.068 -1.69 0. 740
Roll
Primary +0. 10 0. 179 +0. 70 1.51
-2. 19 0. 154 -3. 67 0.733 -1. 19 1.07
Secondary +0. 10 0. 179 +0. 59 1.51

-2.20 0. 154 -3.28 0.733 -1.07 1.07
Attitude Error Flight Time

Axis (deg) (sec)
Pitch -0.21 158. 5
Yaw +2. 76 159. 7
Roll -1.57 158.4
ER 13227-6
IV-11
и
-
У,
5
С
-
3
5с
(Зэр) Joaag эрщтцу
ER 13227-6
IV-12
(gap) aoJjg эрщгну
ER 1 3 2 2 7 - 6
IV-13
with an equivalent engine gimbal deflection of -0. 07 degree. At SECO,

the roll error was nearly zero.
Pitch, yaw and roll TARS and IGS attitude errors and rates, while
operating on primary system during the period from SECO through
spacecraft separation, are shown in Fig. IV-7. The maximum rates
measured during the period following SECO appear in Table IV-5.
TABLE IV-5
Vehicle Rates Between SECO and Spacecraft Separation
Rate
Pitch Axis (deg/sec)
Maximum positive rate at 91FS? + 2.4 sec +0. 59

Maximum negative rate at 91FS9 + 0.09 sec -0.29
Rate at 91FS2 + 20 sec -0. 10
Rate at spacecraft separation (91FS2 + 2 2 . 2 9 sec) 0.0
Yaw Axis
Maximum positive rate at 9.1FS9 + 12. 7 sec +0.59

Maximum negative rate at 91FS? + 3.7 sec -1. 11
Rate at 91FS2 + 20 sec +0.49
Rate at spacecraft separation (91FS2 + 2 2 . 2 9 sec) +0.49
Roll Axis
Maximum positive rate at 91FSo + 2.3 sec +0.49

Maximum negative rate at 91FS,, + 5. 4 sec -0.39
Rate at 91FS2 + 20 sec +0.39
Rate at spacecraft separation (91FS2 + 2 2 . 2 9 sec) +0. 19
Successful spacecraft separation was accomplished at 22. 29 seconds

after 91FS?. Vehicle rates did not exceed 1. 1 deg/sec and the sustainer
residual thrust at SECO + 20 seconds was less than 60 pounds. Success-
ful spacecraft separation could have been accomplished at SECO + 20
seconds.
ER 13227-6
IV-14
-]
Meas 0766 (TARS adapter) •
Mea« 0743 (IGS)
Effi Меав 0768 (TARS adapter) ;
• ! •
—тр. ф. + 0. 49 6eg/sec Э: r^-flf* ф» -0. 3 9 < t e g / » c ' - H j
V
,
1
г- Ф = <-0. 48 deg/sec I—
3
" Fl 03
---
Meas 0767 (TARS adapter)
Ч7с
91FS- + 20 вес Spacecraft Separation

Fig. IV-7. Pitch, Roll and Yaw Attitude Errors During Post-SECO Flight
ER 13227-6
IV-15
2. Post-SECQ Transients
Low magnitude vehicle disturbances were measured on the low level

axial accelerometer (Meas 0699) at 91FS? + 5. 1 seconds and again at
91FS,, + 6.6 seconds. During the first disturbance, the maximum change
in axial acceleration was less than 0.01 g, peak-to-peakj the second
disturbance caused a maximum change of less than 0. 02 g peak-to-peak.
These phenomena were not similar to the conventional post-SECO dis-
turbances as exhibited on GT~1, -2, -4 and on various Titan II flights.
The two perturbations had no discernible effect on any of the FCS
parameters.
A third disturbance of larger magnitude occurred at 91FS9 + 17.49
seconds and indicated a maximum peak-to-peak acceleration of 0. 089 g.
The measured actuator and vehicle motions during the time of this dis-
turbance are shown in Fig. IV~8. The axial acceleration response in-
dicated an initial pulse followed by a few milliseconds of damping then a
second pulse followed again by damping. This disturbance resembled
the conventional post-SECO phenomenon, only in that the common
double pulse was observed.
At the time of the disturbance, a definite change of level was noted

on yaw actuator 5„ with an equivalent -0. 024-degree engine deflection.
There were no discernible changes in vehicle rates, and it was impos-
sible to determine the natural resonant response frequency from the
axial accelerometer trace alone. On the basis of the 5~ actuator motion,
the engine gimbal hinge moment due to the disturbance was estimated
to be 3283 in.-lb.
The fourth and largest disturbance was noted at 91FS9 + 27. 95

seconds, or at spacecraft separation + 5.75 seconds. Time histories
of this perturbation appear in Fig. IV~9. The maximum peak-to-peak
acceleration was 0. 093 g and the perturbation persisted for 0. 28 sec-
ond. In addition to the axial accelerometer transient, the disturbance
was observed on the pitch (6„) and yaw (5 ? ) actuators (0. 05 and 0. 097
degree, respectively, of equivalent engine deflection) as well as on
the pitch and yaw gyros. The natural resonant response frequency
measured was 7. 7 cps. The peak-to-peak changes in pitch and yaw
vehicle rates were 0.67 and 0.51 deg/sec, respectively. The equiva-
lent engine gimbal hinge moment due to the disturbance was 14, 892
in.-lb. Table IV~6 summarizes the post-SECO engine disturbances
on all Gemini flights and various Titan II flights.
ER 13227-6
IV-16
Meas 0650
2 "2 +0. 004 —-
Meas 0651
2~ +0. 144|
я с
о "с +0.143
+0. 142
Meas 0652
-0. 02
-0.04
z~ -0.06
<§
3 -0.08J
S
«
-о. ю*
-0. 12^
Меав 0699
3> +0.06|
•2 +0. 04
Л
Л-\_ i LA, Л. Л/
Д +0. 02
-0.02
Меав 0723
« -3 +0. OSff
,
с >»
S О -о. 10
! :' !
Meas 0724
я м +0.64
м
И о +0.60|
JL J_l
Meas 0725
3 + 0. 40
Й ff
>,г +". 39
a p
g £, +0.38
ti О 17.386 17.486 17. 586 17.686 17.786 17.886
Ttme After 91FS, (sec)
Fig. IV-8. Post-SECO Disturbance at 91FS2 + 17-^9 Sec
ER 13227-6
IV-17
0650
-0.3 I
-0.306J
-о лояН
+ 0.270
35 h 0.265
о с
• +0.260
Is
E +0.255
-0.220
О .
-0.240
IS .5
ig -0. 260
-0.280
-0.300
+ 0.08
sg +0.06
Г"1
+ 0.04
•fO. 02
<
•3 о
|
-0.02
« + 1. 40 Meas 0723 U
£ S +1.20
I'M
E^ + 1 . 0 0
g ^ +0.80
н rl
£' +0.60
+ 2.0
s eas 0724 ; "
57 + 1 . 9 B
:
1
v +1.5
'и
--0.32
5 -0.36
ltff-Ш
27.95
Time After 91FS2 (sec)
Fig. IV-9. Post-SBCO Disturbance at 91ГЗ„ + 27.95 Sec
ER 13227-6
IV-18
о
iJ-e
^
С
си'ЗГ
з о. о in
Ю
см
CO
in
1
Ю
.
см
СО 1 1 С~ СО || с-
0) -^ 1П Ю --«СО СО СО
2 о1 г-'
тз с
4
О з
2 о-
'd
•0-S си
0 0 0 0 0 о о о о о о о см
В "^ О Ю СМ СО О о
~&
со о о
in О 1П
о о о оз
с § ' 4f t- СО ^ -^
СМ СП 1 1 1 СО 00
•£ д <и с г^ ~-< in со о СО СМ О СМ Ю СО -ф •*"
1П СО СО ч ^ Ю СО СП
W с1 с^
5
о О о о о о
i со
см
j
^
О
О
О О О
О 1П
О
Оо
^н
О
о
СО
i
1
О
[>
О
О 1 1
-i О
**" О
Ю
Г-
j
• о
rt щ
'Д !н 2 i i 4
Т + Г ? 2 ? Г 2 :• • .'. и
(1) Ю ..н
tn СО СП
о о 0 0 0 0
^< о о о о о о о О О О -- О О _.<
-
5
см ^ Ю 1П О СО со о о ОШ О Ю ^< О t> ^
Q^ Ю 7"Г 00 СП Ю ~н СМСМ О —1 ~ СО •-! „
2 i i i + + + ' || см i 2 i + 2 2
- D,
сх
0) Л 1П О
о.
0 Ю 0 0 00 0 О5
СО -н со см г>
... > .И
CS
Ё СО
Ч< -н СМ СМ 0 О
о о о о о О 0 ' о о о 0
^ -м DJO
11+ 1 + + + 1
. t, с си
И
i S rt4" а
0 3 . - а.
о о о о О in in EX -
<& irT
1
Ю
со
О
см
Ю
см
О
*-*
О
см О1 ^ <-1 in ^ со о
1П
о
о о о do о -' d
+ ? + + 1 + + + +
•
И
1и
fe
э ^^ 1П О ^ СО О
0
Ю О Ю . Г- 1П
in
0)
<U
Ш
СМ СО ^ ~ч ~н Ю СМ О1П СЛ . С О О Г - . 1П _Q
О) Ч со г-' •§
d 1П 'Ф 1П СО СО СО СО —1 in со см со со i CM. ^-« CO' ° ,
0)
Н
.• •
•
CM CO
см со С- СО 1< i n t ~ ~ H 1 П С О < ^ ' 1 1
. -и ^н СМ CM CM CO -н CO CO H н н H • ''•
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 222 W 2 2 О о о : :
ER 13227-6
IV-19
D. PRELAUNCH ACTUATOR POSITION ANOMALY

At T-20. 7 seconds, the Stage I pitch actuator ( 4 . ) position indica-
tion suddenly changed from a normal 2. 57 volts to 3. 0 volts. The
voltage gradually increased to 3.4 volts prior to engine ignition at
which time the voltage increased to 3. 74 volts and then suddenly de~
creased to 2 . 0 7 volts. This was followed by an increase to 2.4 volts
at umbilical drop. From T-20. 7 seconds to umbilical drop, the trace
exhibited approximately 20 millivolts of noise. From umbilical drop
to approximately LO +16 seconds, the voltage output was 2. 40 volts.
The VDA command did not change until liftoff + 1 . 4 seconds. Com-
paring the original 2. 57~volt transducer output to 2. 40 volts after
liftoff shows an apparent negative voltage shift of 0. 17 volt, which is
equivalent to 0.085 inch of actuator movement (the amount of actuator
null shift caused by engine ignition is unknown).
This anomaly is still under investigation. The transducer-shutdown
printed circuit board, from the CP 2644 chassis used during the count-
down, has been X-rayed and functionally tested in the ASFTS. To date,
no abnormal function has been found. Simulated failures of this cir-
cuit board have not completely duplicated the problem. For example,
shorting the Q1 , transistor collector-to-base will simulate the failure
only up to the point of engine ignition.
A functional position transducer has been partially disassembled
and breadboarded such that various junctions within the electrical cir-
cuitry are available as test points. Various failure mode simulations
have shown that a variable resistance shunt between the primary and
tertiary transformer coils could conceivably reproduce the anomaly.
However, the transformer coils in question are not wound adjacently.
The transformer of another unit is presently being disassembled to
permit observation of all construction details.
ER 13227-6
v-i
V. HYDRAULIC SYSTEM
Analysis of the telemetered data revealed that GT-6A hydraulic sys-

tems performed satisfactorily during Stage I and Stage II flight.
Prior to SFT, the engine-driven hydraulic pumps were replaced
with newly cleaned units, thereby minimizing the probability of con-
tamination during vehicle systems tests requiring hydraulic power.
The newly installed pumps were checked with a Gaussmeter to verify
free motion of the compensator.
A. STAGE I
1. Primary Subsystem
The final Stage I hydraulic system pressure and level check in the
countdown was performed automatically by the sequencer. At T-180
seconds, function control A-7 initiated the motor-driven pump run,
which pressurized the secondary system. Approximately 70 seconds
later, AGE, using the motor pump, automatically selected and pres-
surized the primary system. Electric motor pump pressure was a
normal 3210 psia at T~0. Engine start transients, starting at 87FS1
+ 0. 76 second, produced flow demands which dropped primary pressure
to 2530 psia at 87FS, + 0. 86 second. Pressure recovery occurred im-
mediately, indicating proper pump compensator response. The pres-
sure overshoot on recovery peaked at 3270 psia at 87FS. + 1. 14 seconds.
A steady-state pressure of 3020 psia was reached at 87FS, + 1.7 seconds.
There were no significant pressure perturbations either at liftoff or
during flight. Pressure decayed normally during flight to 2800 psia at
staging.
Prior to T-110 seconds, the static reservoir level was 59. 6% full,
and it decreased to a normal 34. 8% full at T~0. The level increased
during flight to 50. 3% full at staging. This 15. 5% increase is a result
of normal fluid expansion with increasing fluid temperature.
The steady-state reservoir levels and the level changes during sys-
tem pressurization were normal.
Primary and secondary system pressures and pressure switch actua-
tion points are shown in Fig. V ~ l . A comparison of primary system
pressures for GT~7 and GT-6A launches during engine start and holddown
is presented in Fig. V~2.
ER 13227-6
V-2
ER 13227-6
V-3
•*
i
j
! :
\
•с
ю
01
•£
-И
,
1 ш И
i Н *
см
ю
t-
H
k £
V/ ? 0
s
( со
£
-•
•
о о
ок
O
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
to о о о
о о о о
ю о ю о
со со см см
ER 13227-6
V-4
и
i
у
-
- : - X
э г
•- • ! '
(Bisd)
ER 13227-6
V-5
2. Secondary System
The final Stage I secondary hydraulic system pressure and reservoir
level check was performed during a sequencer "initiated, motor-driven
pump run from T-180 seconds to T-110 seconds. The indicated accumu-
lator precharge was 1840 psia. Motor pump pressure was normal at
3200 psia at T-110 seconds.
The static reservoir level, which was a normal 55% full prior to
pressurization at T-3 minutes, decreased to 28% full at T-110 seconds.
These levels and the level changes during pressurization and depressuri-
zation of the system were normal.
At T-O, the system was unpressurized (soft). Pressure began to

develop immediately as start cartridge energy rotated the engine turbine.
Pressure overshoot reached a maximum of 3380 psia, indicating very
good pump compensator response. A steady-state pressure of 3015 psia
was reached at 87FS. + 1. 36 seconds. At the pressure shutdown inter-
rogation point, the pressure remained steady at 3015 psia.
There were no pressure perturbations during flight since the system
remained in a standby condition. Pressure decayed normally during flight
to 2850 psia at staging.
The reservoir level stabilized at 34% full after engine start, increasing
during Hight to 42% full at staging. This 8% increase is a result of normal
fluid expansion with increasing fluid temperature.
A comparison of secondary system pressures during engine start and

holddown for GT-7 and GT-6A launches is presented in Fig. V-3.
B. STAGE II
The final Stage II hydraulic system pressure and level check was per-
formed during a sequencer-initiated motor-driven pump run from T-240
seconds to T-180 seconds. The indicated accumulator precharge was 1800
psia. Electric motor pump pressure stabilized at a normal 3230 psia.
The static reservoir level was 62.4% full, decreased to 36.2% full after
pressure application and again increased to 61. 0% full upon removal of
pressure at T-3 minutes.
During engine startup at staging, the indicated accumulator precharge

was 1800 psia, and pressure overshoot was to 3819 psia. Steady-state
pressure after engine start was 2895 psia, decreasing to 2769 psia at
SECO. No significant pressure perturbations occurred during flight.
After SECO the pressure fluctuated with the engine rpm, a normal re-
action to the low and variable turbine speeds occurring during this period.
ER 13227-6
v-e
The reservoir level was a normal 61. 1% full prior to staging. After
staging the level stabilized at 38. 3% full, gradually increasing to 40. 6%
full at SECO. This 2. 3% increase is normal.
The reservoir levels and changes during pressurization and depres-

surization of the system were normal.
ER 13227-6
vi-i
VI. GUIDANCE SYSTEMS
A. RADIO GUIDANCE SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

1. Rate Beacon
Rate beacon performance was satisfactory. Good lock was main-
tained up to engine ignition and from approximately LO + 45 seconds to
SECO + 40 seconds, except for the normal momentary loss of lock at
Stage II engine ignition. The loss of lock at Stage I engine ignition is
also considered normal; relock occurred as the primary antenna was
brought into favorable ground station view.
Values of the rate beacon telemetered functions during flight are
listed in Table VI-1.
TABLE VI-1
RGS Telemetered Functions
Function Meas Maximum Value Minimum Value

Rate beacon
Received signal No. 1 0750 4. 18 vdc* 4. 10 vdc*
Phase detector 0751 3. 24 vdc* 2.80 vdc*
Power out 0752 4. 18 vdc* 4. 14 vdc*
30 -volt supply 0746 2.84 vdc 2. 80 vdc
Pulse beacon
Magnetron current 0753 3. 72 vdc** 3. 66 vdc**
AGC 0754 -9.2 dbm** -41. 1 dbm**
15- volt supply 0747 4. 18 vdc 4. 14 vdc
Decoder
10-volt supply 0748 4.48 vdc 4. 44 vdc
*Does not include normal periods of unlock discussed in Section

VI-A-1.
**Does not include antenna crossover period.
ER 13227-6
VI-2
2. Pulse Beacon
Pulse beacon performance also was satisfactory. Good lock* was

maintained through Stage I engine ignition and up to approximately SECO
+ 40 seconds.
Normal oscillations during the antenna crossover period were ob-

served in AGC from approximately LO + 40 seconds to LO + 80 seconds.
During this time, the minimum signal level received by the beacon was
~51 dbm. A small percentage of messages were not received by the pulse
beacon in the period from LO + 58. 5 seconds to LO + 59. 5 seconds. These
misses occurred when the AGC oscillations were at peak (during the an-
tenna crossover period). This condition has occurred on four of the
seven Gemini flights to date and is considered normal. The normal
ground station signal level increase occurred at LO + 90 seconds and
was observed on telemetry to be approximately 20. 8 dbm.
Values of the pulse beacon telemetered functions during flight are
listed in Table VI-1.
3. Decoder
Decoder performance was satisfactory. Comparisons of the decoder
telemetry data with the Burroughs computer-generated output data (10
pps) indicate that pitch and yaw steering signals and the SECO discrete
were received and executed properly.
Values of the decoder telemetered functions are listed in Table
VI-1.
4. Guidance Commands
a. Pitch steering
A profile of early closed-loop pitch steering in terms of Burroughs
computer pitch steering commands, airborne decoder pitch steering
commands, TARS gyro torquer monitor, and primary Stage II rate gyro
is shown in Fig. VI 1. The decoder pitch steering output is also shown
in Fig. VI~2 for the entire Stage II flight period.
TARS discrete No. 3 (RGS enable) was issued at approximately LO
+ 161. 64 seconds, thereby energizing the airborne guidance initiate re-
lay. At the same approximate time, pitch program No. 3 was terminated.
This effect can be observed on Curves (c) and (d) of Fig. VI-1.
An initial decoder pitch-down command of about 0. 10 deg/sec, lasting
approximately 0. 5 second, was issued at LO + 168.23 seconds. Following
*Good lock is defined as the condition in which no messages are missed by
the pulse beacon. The ground station does not lose lock, however, unless
a number of consecutive messages are missed.
ER 13227-6
3-1 VI-3
; "
1.0 (1 rte)
itch- up
• •
<и л
8
I
К со
•8 • '
• • — (a) Cc п puter Pitch Command -
,
-1.0
---
'
i •
1.0 (]г ate)
.
4) ^
: .
'
•8?
gи
. г
1 ~^— ——
— 1
-. : э) D ecod Oi itput -Pitc MM<;as 0 7J 5J
'
u( pitch- down ч
rate) .
-
"(в
Он СО
u
-, -.-
i•
т
;
/ "•-
(с Pil ch Torqu г Monitor

• (M cas t )732)
• ; Г
<u _
( Ditch up -
I rate)
Т".'
.
лч
Он CO
•
• II Primary Rate Gyro- Pitch (Meas 0723)
-1.0
160 165 170 175 180 185 190 195

Fig. VI-1. GT-бА Stage II RGS Pitch Guidance Flight History
ER 13227-6
VI-4
+3.0
,IGS pitch error (Meas 0743)
t Primary system pitch error (Meas 0766)!
-1.0
• .
.•
• ' '
1
— —— , 1
••.!
г
tf и , ; RGS pitch command (Meas 0755 1
-1.0
О о?
и-о • • 1
(pitch-down
-2.0 rate) I
•
L L—L_i__ •.
155 165 175 185 195 205 215 225 235 245 255 265 275 285 295 305 315 325 335
Jig. VT-2. Stage II IGS Pitch Flight History
ER 13227-6
VI-5
this, a 0.56 deg/sec pitch-down command was issued for approximately

0.3 second. Thereafter, the pitch steering command decreased to 0.25
deg/sec within two seconds. Throughout the remainder of flight, the
pitch commands remained between 0.05 and 0.25 deg/sec pitch-down.
In the latter portion of Stage II flight, very small magnitude oscillations
built up and became noticeable at about SECO - 60 seconds, and lasted
until SECO. These oscillations, which are attributed to atmospheric
noise effects, were approximately the same amplitude as those observed
on the flight of GT-7 and were much smaller than those observed on GT-5
night.
b. Yaw steering
Decoder yaw steering commands began at LO + 169. 23 seconds. The

command peaked at 0. 20 deg/sec, yaw right, at approximately LO + 180
seconds, and then decreased to 0. 025 deg/sec, yaw right, by LO + 215
seconds. The yaw commands remained between 0 and 0. 04 deg/sec,
yaw right, for the remainder of the Stage II night period. The decoder
yaw steering output is shown in Fig. VI-3 for the entire Stage II flight.
c. Discrete commands
The times for the computer-generated SECO/ASCO command and
the vehicle reactions are shown in Table VI-2.
TABLE VI-2
SECO/ASCO Events
Time from Liftoff
Signal Meas (ms)
Ground station SECO/ASCO -- 338.681 ± 3
Decoder discrete output 0777 338. 717 ± 5
91FS2 0519 338.737 ± 5
ASCO 0799 338. 770 ± 25
The data shown in Table VI-2 indicate that the SECO time delay from
ground station issuance to 91FS9 was 56 ± 8 milliseconds. The time
delay between 91FS? and ASCO reception was 33 ± 30 milliseconds.
5. GT-6 and GT-6A Launch Attempts
There were no anomalies in radio guidance system performance
during either the GT-6 25 October 1965 launch countdown or the GT-6A
12 December 1965 launch countdown and launch attempt.
ER 13227-6
VI-6 - /
(у aw-right
error)
2.0
Primary system yaw error (Meas 0767)
IGS yaw error (Meas 0744)
0.10
«--• command)
RGS yaw command (Meas 0756)
-2.0 (roll-CCW
error) :91FS0
155 165 175 185 195 205 215 245 255 265 275 285 295 305 315 325 335
Fig. VI-3. Stage II IGS Yaw/Roll Guidance Flight History
ER 13227-6
VI-7
В. SPACECRAFT INERTIAL GUIDANCE SYSTEM

ASCENT PERFORMANCE
1. Prelaunch Nulls
The prelaunch IGS attitude error null signals were as follows:
Pitch -0.185 degree

Yaw -0. 249 degree
Roll -0.064 degree
These null signals were well within the specification values of

± 0. 37 degree in pitch and yaw, and ± 0. 25 degree in roll.
2. Stage I Performance
IGS performance during Stage I flight correlated well with the primary
system, as shown by a comparison of IGS and corresponding primary
system attitude errors in Figs. IV~2 through IV~4. The BECO dispersion
between IGS and primary system attitude errors is discussed in Chap-
ter IV.
The IGS Stage I gain change discrete was issued at LO + 109. 829
seconds ± 0 . 0 2 5 second, which was well within the specification time of
110.00 seconds ± 1%.
3. Stage II Performance
IGS pitch, yaw and roll performance during Stage II flight was normal.
The attitude error dispersions which had built up between the IGS and
primary system during Stage I flight in pitch, yaw and roll were apparent
in the early portion of Stage II flight as shown in Figs. VI~2 and VI-3.
a. Stage II pitch
IGS Stage II pitch attitude error appears in Fig. VI~2. Primary

system pitch attitude error and RGS pitch steering commands are shown
for comparison.
IGS closed-loop pitch guidance began at LO + 168. 13 seconds. IGS

pitch attitude error peaked at + 2. 75 degrees shortly thereafter and re-
mained there for approximately 0.45 second. Figure VI-2 shows that,
due to the RGS pitch rate command, the TARS pitch attitude error builds
up during this same time period to about +0. 55 degree. IGS pitch be-
havior during this period was normal and compares well with primary
system behavior in correcting the vehicle trajectory errors.
ER 13227-6
VI-8
IGS pitch attitude error decreased to null within 45 seconds as the

RGS pitched the vehicle down. For the remainder of Stage II night,
IGS pitch remained within limits of 0. 0 to -0. 5 degree.
b. Stage П yaw
IGS Stage II yaw attitude error is shown in Fig. VI-3. Primary

system yaw attitude error and RGS yaw steering commands are shown
for comparison.
IGS yaw performance throughout Stage П powered flight appeared

normal. Steering began approximately at the same time as pitch. IGS
yaw attitude error was approximately + 1.4 degrees just prior to initiation
of closed-loop steering. Shortly after steering began, IGS yaw attitude
error peaked at approximately -4. 9 degrees and remained at this level
for about five seconds. The direction and magnitude of the IGS yaw at-
titude error change at guidance initiation is approximately the value that
would be predicted due to the effects of biased azimuth steering. There-
after, the IGS yaw attitude error decreased to -0. 35 degree in approxi-
mately 40 seconds as the RGS command yawed the vehicle right. Sub-
sequently, the IGS yaw attitude error remained within approximately
-0. 20 to -0. 35 degree of null until about LO + 320 seconds. At this
time, the IGS yaw attitude error began to slope in the negative direction,
and by SECO it had built up to about -0. 95 degree, which would be a
GLV yaw-right command. The amplitude of the attitude error was not
excessive and the direction of the attitude error buildup was as expected
due to center of gravity drift. In Fig. VI-3, a similar effect is apparent
in primary attitude error in that the error is building up negatively and
also in the small RGS yaw steering command, which commands the GLV
to yaw right.
c. Stage II roll
IGS roll attitude error for Stage II is shown in Fig. VI-3, with TARS
roll attitude error shown for comparison. There was a small apparent
drift rate between TARS and IGS roll as shown by the small increase in
IGS roll output between approximately LO + 3 1 0 seconds and SECO. The
drift rate was CCW, IGS with respect to TARS, and the buildup in IGS
error between the referenced times was about -0. 25 degree. The dis-
persion is predominantly due to TARS roll gyro g-sensitive drift; this
type of dispersion has been noted on all flights to date.
4. GT-6 and GT-6A Launch Attempts
There were no anomalies noted in IGS attitude error data during

either the GT-6 25 October 1965 launch countdown or the GT-6A 12
December 1965 launch countdown and launch attempt.
ER 13227-6
VII-1
VII. ELECTRICAL SYSTEM ANALYSIS
A. CONFIGURATION
The launch vehicle airborne electrical system components installed

for the GT-6A flight were similar to those used on GLV-5 and GLV-7
except for the flashing beacon light assembly, which was a special
GLV-7 feature.
The launch attempt countdown of 12 December progressed through

power transfer to airborne batteries and into engine ignition. Since the
airborne batteries had experienced partial discharge, they were replaced
for the successful launch and flight of 15 December.
B. COUNTDOWN AND FLIGHT PERFORMANCE
The airborne electrical system functioned as designed during the

launch attempt of 12 December and through the entire flight of 15 Decem-
ber, with all parameters within specifications. Liftoff on 15 December
occurred without incident.
During staging, the IPS current trace indicated that one separation
nut on the Stage I side shorted to structure, maintaining a current in-
crease of 18.7 amperes for approximately 0.4 second. Comparable
staging shorts were encountered on GT~1, GT~2 and GT-5 flights, and
no staging shorts were encountered on GT-3, GT~4 and GT-7 flights.
Currents to the Stage П redundant shutdown squibs at SECO were

not detectable on either the APS or IPS traces, although squib operation
was confirmed by Meas 0521.
At spacecraft separation, the launch vehicle/spacecraft electrical

interface was cut by a guillotine in the adapter. This caused a 21-
ampere rise in APS bus current for approximately 100 milliseconds,
indicating a momentary shorting of GLV interface signals to structure.
No similar increase was noted on the IPS bus. Guillotine shorts are
expected and have occurred on all spacecraft separations to date; they
have created no detrimental effects.
A summary of electrical system parameters measured at power

transfer and at liftoff signal for the launch attempt of 12 December is
presented in Table VII~1. A summary of these parameters measured
at power transfer and during flight for the launch of 15 December is
presented in Table VII-2.
ER 13227-6
VII-2
TABLE VII-1
GLV-6 Launch Attempt Measurements
At Power Transfer
Meas Parameter Before During After At Liftoff
0800 IPS (volts) 29.8 27.5 29. 1 29.2
0804 IPS (amp) 28.4 26.4 27.9 26.0
0801 APS (volts) 30.0 29.8 30.2 29.8
0805 APS (amp) 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0
0802 400 cycle, Phase A (volts) 113.9 113.9 113.9 113.8
0803 400 cycle, Phase A (cps) 400.8 400.8 400. 8 400.8
0726 25-vdc power supply 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3

(volts)
ER 13227-6
VII-3
с t-
0
и
CNJ а
Q
£ j.
•a oi
CJ
tl
0)
0
w c-
<:
•: S И Ё
. •*
Ш
с
'51}
i Ш
CM
Н -
a
w
w о с.
O) - 00
5
(M
t,
Г-
Before
•
<
: is' '
-
1
1
(
a
•'
u Ol
<M 1
-•
'
w
-1
pq с
-; (4
(U
Oi -
-
Power Transi
,
I
^
„ „
CM
-
<
Before
00
o> •
-
25-vdc power supply (volts)

.
.
Parameter
•
APS (volts)
1я
"о
>
от .
cu
Meas
о
о
СО
о
ER 13227-6
VIII-1
VIII. INSTRUMENTATION SYSTEM
A. AIRBORNE INSTRUMENTATION
1. Prelaunch and Countdown Status
The airborne instrumentation system operated within specified limits
during the GT-6A launch attempt and during the GT-6A prelaunch testing
and countdown. No components in the system were replaced after the
simulated flight test.
Ambient checks during the launch countdown verified that all measure-
ments were operating prior to T-0.
2. Data Acquisition
The measurements program for this launch consisted of 149 PCM
analog signals and 42 PCM bilevel signals. All channels functioned
throughtout flight.
S/A 3 oxidizer pump discharge pressure (Meas 0509) displayed
approximately a 3% oscillation around the ambient level during Stage I
flight. After Stage II ignition, the data appeared normal.
Actuator 4 position Meas 0153 at T-21 seconds started drifting off
null. At liftoff, the measurement returned to its normal position and
functioned normally for the balance of the flight.
3. Instrumentation System Parameters
Instrumentation system parameters, as measured in flight, are
compared with specified limits in Table VIII-1. All data were within
the required limits.
4. Telemetry Signal Strength (244. 3 me)
Telemetry signal strength records indicated satisfactory signal
levels for data acquisition from the launch vehicle from liftoff to
approximately SECO + 114 seconds. The anticipated staging blackout
lasted approximately 300 milliseconds.
A drop in telemetry signal strength of approximately 15 db occurred
at LO + 289. 3 seconds for a period of 2. 5 seconds; as recorded on
signal strength records from Tel II, Grand Bahama Island and Grand
Turk station, however, there was no loss of data on any programmed
measurement, and the signal level recovered to the normal level
following the 2. 5-second interval.
ER 13227-6
VIII-2
со
о о
см
о
О5 СО
CD 1
<0 ю ю ю со
и о см о о
о о ^
ГО
W со со СО CD
о ГО О со CM CD О СО О
см ю OJ ^ t- —I .-i СО ^ч со
СО
0
см 0
^ ел 05 СО
CD
й
ю со
*-> CD 0 CM . - со о о
с £> со о 0 СО СО
з , о со о CM CD О со о
о У см ю см ^ С- —1
Г- »-i t> «-ч —1 СО
и .S 1
§ S
и g
k -и, t- ГО
с м о
ы СМ
<л « 0 о
О5 СО
t- fe со
i СМ о ю со
+j ОТ
о со со 1 0 о
со о О) со со со со CD
о см1 о О] 04 СО ^
О со о
см ю : - - со со
0 1Л СО со
*j О о СО со о О
, со о
о
О>
о
со ] СП
. о
CD
0*
см см о 1> г- со со
'
га
- , с
- с £>
^
g ^ о к"
"^ - > > со
ю со 0
S 41 со CD t- о
- О
со
С5
о
со
о СО
ТЗ С -н
cu у ,_, > 2 0
со •*-*
о
-н о 0 uO см
'з "°
о* £ со 0
о
0
см о
2 со со
со
со
со
н со
col 05
1П
СО СП
« '3.
О*
см ю см •* t- —I t- -ч С- -н -< CM ~н (М
и
h (ч b
01
PCM mercu
PCM mercu
PCM mercu
С 01 "о. 'а
о о а
о а « з
о, о, .-н СО
It
о
га "о о.
1! 1
> 01
^ ? И£
cell
cell
ceU
о £ о
0) 0 3 со о со о
О ю со + а 1 а
^ W
га ю г-
п! 0 со CD
01
со со со CO со со со
s о о о о о о о
ER 13227-6
VIII-3
The Cape Kennedy Tel II and Tel III ground stations monitored the
entire flight of the launch vehicle. The Grand Bahama Island station
acquired data from approximately LO + 40 seconds to the end of flight.
The Grand Turk station acquired data during Stage II flight, beginning
at approximately LO +181 seconds.
В. LAND LINE INSTRUMENTATION
1. Countdown Status
The landline instrumentation system operated satisfactorily from the

start of propellant conditioning through the launch countdown up to lift-
off. All instrumentation holdfire functions monitored in the blockhouse
remained within specification throughout the countdown.
2. Data Acquisition
During propellant loading and launch countdown for GT-6A, a total

of 133 measurements consisting of 55 landline measurements on strip -
chart recorders, 23 landline measurements on magnetic tape, and 55
airborne measurements in real-time on chart recorders were moni-
tored and recorded.
Data acquisition for all landline monitored data was 100%.
ER 13227-6
DC-1
IX. RANGE SAFETY AND ORDNANCE
A. COMMAND CONTROL RECEIVERS
1. Countdown Performance
The command receiver shutdown and destruct test and the ASCO
test were successfully completed. Telemetry indicated a stable signal
strength level of greater than 160 microvolts from T~3 minutes through
liftoff.
2. Flight Performance
Command receivers S/N 33(APS) and S/N 36(IPS) were flown on

GLV-6. The RF carrier level increased to about 1400 microvolts at
LO + 13.5 seconds, fluctuated between 500 and 1200 microvolts until
LO + 60 seconds, at which time the carrier dipped sharply to 2. 6
microvolts. The total excursion during the carrier dip was approxi-
mately 5 seconds. At LO + 67 seconds, transmissions from Cape
Kennedy were switched from low power to high power, and at LO + 73
seconds the signal level reached approximately 2400 microvolts, maxi-
mum for the flight. At LO + 1 1 9 seconds, the RF carrier was trans-
ferred from Station 1 to Station 3 (Grand Bahama Island). The RF
carrier level dropped to a range from 100 to 165 microvolts and re-
mained at this level throughout the Grand Bahama pass. At LO + 259
seconds, the RF carrier was transferred from Station 3 to Station 7
(Grank Turk), with no change in signal level at transfer. The RF
carrier level remained between 100 and 160 microvolts until LO +
370. 5 seconds, at which time the carrier was transferred from Station
7 to Station 3 and the level dropped to about 8 microvolts. At LO +
393 seconds, the RF carrier again was transferred to Station 7, and
the level increased to a range from 60 to 120 microvolts. Signal level
at the time ASCO was transmitted was 135 microvolts, and the time
between SECO and ASCO was about 50 milliseconds.
В. MISTRAM
1. Countdown Performance
The MISTRAM open-loop checks with the MACK station were com-
pleted successfully. Telemetry indicated that the transponder was
locked onto the MACK station from T-3 minutes until LO + 1. 6 seconds,
when the MACK station signal was manually removed.
ER 13227-6
ГХ-2
2. Flight Performance
Airborne transponder. Transponder S/N 116 was flown on GLV-6.

Telemetry data indicated that performance was very good. MISTRAM
I (Valkaria) acquired and locked on both channels at LO + 5 . 6 seconds
and started active track at LO + 24. 7 seconds. During the first 100
seconds of flight, there were two calibration channel unlocks and
several sweep changes indicative of poor received data at the ground
station. There was no loss of reconstructable data during this period.
Yaw attitude disturbances due to winds aloft and yaw guidance commands
have been correlated with calibration channel unlock and sweep changes.
The transponder did not unlock when the staging power transient occur-
red.
3. MISTRAM I Station (Valkaria)
The Valkaria station obtained reconstructable data from LO + 24

seconds until LO + 63 seconds, LO + 64. 5 seconds to LO + 1 5 8
seconds, and LO + 1 6 8 seconds to LO + 385 seconds. Over the pro-
grammed prime use of MISTRAM data for impact prediction, LO + 60
seconds to spacecraft separation, the Valkaria MISTRAM data were
used for a total of 266. 7 seconds, or 88. 6 % of the time. Utilization
of data for the primary and secondary impact prediction plots is in-
cluded in Table IX-1.
4. MISTRAM II Station (Eleuthera)
The Eleuthera station acquired the vehicle at handover, LO + 388

seconds, at elevation angles less than 0. 5 degree. Three active
sweeps were obtained before the station lost the signal. MISTRAM
data from Station II were not used for impact prediction.
C. ORDNANCE
The prevalves used during the GT-6A launch attempt on 12 December

were not replaced for the GT-6A launch on 15 December; therefore,
actuated prevalve pressure cartridges were left electrically connected.
The Stage I engine start cartridges and dropweight ordnance operated
satisfactorily. All four holddown bolts and all lower launch nuts were
recovered after the launch, indicating proper operation of all launch
release ordnance.
Stage separation pressure cartridges and explosive nuts and the

Stage II start cartridge operated as required. The TARS staging arm
timer signal occurred at LO + 144.41 seconds and the IPS staging
arm timer signal occurred at LO + 144. 97 seconds. Both times are
compatible with GLV-6 trend data.
ER 13227-6
к-з
TABLE IX-1
Range Safety Plotboards Impact Prediction
Primary Plotboard Secondary Plotboard
System Usage Time (sec) System Usage Time (sec)

MISTRAM I 300. 6 Mod III 330. 1
Patrick AFB 32.4 Patrick AFB 14. 1

TPQ-18 TPQ-18
Merritt Island 5. 1 Merritt Island 33. 3

TPQ-18 TPQ-18
Cape Kennedy 56.3 Cape Kennedy 3. 6

FPS-16 FPS-16
Grand Bahama 3.6 Grand Bahama 5.7

TPQ-18 TPQ-18
Grand Turk 1.0 Grand Turk 16. 5

TPQ-18 TPQ-18
Bermuda 8.7 Bermuda 4.4

FPS-16 FPS-16
TOTAL 407.7 TOTAL 407.7
ER 13227-6
X-l
X. MALFUNCTION DETECTION SYSTEM
A. CONFIGURATION
The malfunction detection system (MDS) hardware installed on

GLV-6 for the launch attempt countdown on 25 October 1965, the launch
attempt on 12 December 1965, and the flight on 15 December 1965 is
presented in Table X-l.
There were no MDS hardware changes from the time of the GT-6
launch attempt countdown until the flight of GT-6A.
TABLE X-l
MDS Components
Nomenclature Part Number Manufacturer Serial Number
Rate switch PS830600015-027 Giannini 4010

package
Malfunction 424-7569205-189 Martin B001

detection
package
Tank pressure PS746000002-023 Servonics Fuel A, 1065
transducers, Fuel B, 1068
Stage I Oxidizer A, 1097
Oxidizer B, 1078
Tank pressure PS746000002-025 Servonics Fuel A, 2101

transducers, FuelB, 2075
Stage II Oxidizer A, 2107
Oxidizer B, 2108
Stage sepa- CCI8119A1-5 Cannon 00110

ration CCI8119A1-6 00104
connectors
MDS engine 284321 Aerojet S/A 1 primary,

switches, 0000559
Stage I S/A 1 redundant,
0000007
S/A 2 primary,
0000035
S/A 2 redundant,
0000726
MDS engine 711049-1 Aerojet S/A 3 primary,

switches, 0000837
Stage II S/A 3 redundant,
0000569
ER 13227-6
X-2
В. SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Performance of the MDS during the countdowns, launch attempt and

flight of GT-6A was satisfactory.
1. Engine Pressure Switches
Operation of the Stage I engine malfunction detection thrust chamber

pressure switches (MDTCPS) and the Stage II engine malfunction de-
tection fuel injector pressure switches (MDFJPS) for the launch attempt
and the flight is summarized in Table X-2 and Table X-3, respectively.
These switches are required to "make" in a pressure range of 540 to
600 psia and "break" in a pressure range of 585 to 515 psia. During
both the launch attempt and the flight, the Stage I engine start transient
was of sufficient amplitude and time duration to cause the S/A 2 MDTCPS
switches to respond momentarily to the thrust chamber pressure. All
MDS engine pressure switches operated properly and within specification
requirements.
TABLE X-2
GT-6A Launch Attempt Operation of MDS Engine Pressure Switches
S/A 1 S/A 2 S/A 3

(Meas 0356) (Meas 0357) (Meas 0855)
Make 1454:04. 222 1454:04.312 N/A*

(540 to 600 psia) at 600 psia at 580 psia
Break 1454:04. 775 1454:04. 472

N/A*
* Not applicable; the Stage II engines were not started.
ER 13227-6
х-з
TABLE X-3
GT-6A Launch Operation of MDS Engine Pressure Switches
S/A 1 S/A 2 S/A 3

(Meas 0356) (Meas 0357) (Meas 0855)
Make 1337:24. 092 1337:24. 112 1340:04. 370*

Break 1340:03. 586 1340:03. 588 1343:05. 348*

* S/A 3 fuel injector pressure is not instrumented on the Gemini

Launch Vehicle; hence, make and break pressures were un-
available.
2. Switchover
The MDS switchover circuitry functioned properly throughout the

flight. There were no switchover commands and no switchover was
executed--indicating proper performance of the switchover circuitry.
3. Vehicle Rate Detection
The spin motor rotation detectors (SMRDs) contained in the mal-

function detection package functioned properly. The SMRDs monitor
rate switch package (RSP) gyro rotational speed and thereby its rate
sensing capability.
The rate switch package operated properly throughout the countdowns

and flight. There were no vehicle overrates detected by the MDS, and
none occurred during flight from liftoff through SECO + 20 seconds.
Table X-4 compares the maximum launch vehicle rates, measured
during the period from liftoff through SECO, with the RSP switch settings.
ER 13227-6
X-4
TABLE X-4
Maximum Vehicle Rate Compared with Rate Switch Settings
Flight Stage II Flight
Axes Stage I Flight Event Flight Event
Rate Pitch + 2. 5: -3. 0 N/A ± 10 N/A

switch
settings Yaw ± 2. 5 N/A ± 10 N/A
(deg/sec)
Roll ± 20.0 N/A ± 20 N/A
Pitch - 1. 12 Wind +2.36 Staging
Shear
Maximum
vehicle Yaw - 1.41 Wind + 2. 62 Staging
rates Shear
(deg/sec)
Roll + 1.90 Roll - 3. 67 Staging
Program
During Stage II flight there was a closing and opening of the yaw A
low-rate switch in response to the vehicle rates. A switchover signal
was not initiated since at stage separation the rate switch settings that
must be exceeded to generate an overrate and switchover signal are
changed from the Stage I values to the higher Stage II values as shown
in Table X-4.
Following SECO + 23 seconds (after spacecraft separation), there
were ten operations of the rate switches. The rate gyro outputs veri-
fied that the rate switch performance was in agreement with the RSP
calibration data. Table X-5 summarizes the rate switch operations.
ER 13227-6
X-5
TABLE X-5
Rate Switch Operation
Specification
Switch RSP Calibration Data Rate Gyro Output
Operation Time of
Limits Primary Redundant Rate Switch Primary Redundant
(cleg/sec) (deg/sec) (deg/sec) Operation (deg/sec) (deg/sec)
Yaw close Stage separation

"A" switch 2. 50 N/A + 0. 885 sec 2.28 2.46
(2. 08 to 2 . 9 2 )
Yaw open Stage separation

"A" switch 2.26 N/A + 1.035 sec* 1. 74 2.08
(2. 50 to 1. 88)
Yaw close SECO + 31.362
"A" switch 2. 50 N/A sec 2.23 2.46
(2. 08 to 2 . 9 2 )
Yaw close N/A 2.47 SECO + 32. 512 2.48 2. 56
"B" switch sec
(2.08 to 2 . 9 2 )
Yaw open SECO + 36. 162
"B" switch N/A 2.29 sec 2.08 2.41
(2.47 to 1.85)
Yaw open SECO + 36. 562
"A" switch 2.26 N/A sec* 2.04 2.36
(2. 50 to 1. 88)
Pitch close SECO + 48.812
"B" switch N/A 2. 38 sec 2.23 2. 52
(2.08 to 2.92)
Pitch close SECO + 48.932
"A" switch 2.47 N/A sec 2.28 2. 53
(2.08 to 2.92)
Pitch open SECO + 48. 962
"A" switch 2. 16 N/A sec* 2. 18 2.43
(2.47 to 1.85)
Pitch open SECO + 49.012
"B" switch N/A 2.24 sec 2. 18 2.43
(2.38 to 1.78)
Pitch close SECO + 49. 562
"A" & "B" 2.47 2.38 sec 2.28 2.53
switches
(2.08 to 2.92)
* Time is 0.40 second less than the TLM indication. This is due to a 0. 40-second R-C time delay
associated with the monitored circuits.
ER 13227-6
X-6
4. Tank Pressure Sensors
All MDS tank pressure transducers operated properly throughout

the countdowns and the flight. iThe maximum difference between the
transducer pairs on each tank is presented in Table X-6.
TABLE X-6
Maximum Voltage and Pressure Differences
Between Tank Pressure Transducer Pairs
Maximum Difference
Percent of Percent of
A Volts Transducer Transducer
(telemetry) Full Range A psi Full Range
Stage I fuel 0. 040 0. 80 0. 35 0. 70
Stage I oxidizer 0.060 1. 20 0. 28 0. 56
Stage II fuel 0.090 1. 80 0. 78 1. 04
Stage II oxidizer 0. 060 1. 20 0. 87 1. 16
Figure X-l presents the calibration curves for the Stage I fuel tank
pressure transducer pairs (A and B) to clarify the percentage varia-
tions between voltages and psi (shown in Table X-6). The maximum
difference of 1. 80% of transducer full-range output voltage is well
within the transducer and telemetry system errors.
ER 13227-6
Voltage
. - 1 C N i b r a t i o n Curves f o r S t a ~ eI h e 1 Tznk P r e s s u r e Trm.st!ccers

XI-1
XL CREW SAFETY
A. GT-6A LAUNCH ATTEMPT
On the GT-6A launch attempt, the astronauts received a series of

cues during the pad shutdown event which severely tested the effectivity
of their abort training. Figure XI-1 shows: (a) a normal start and
liftoff sequence, (b) the sequence of events which occurred during the
GT-6A pad shutdown and (c) a pad fallback event which would require
immediate abort action. As noted in Fig. XI-1 (a), the Stage I engine
lights are normally on until engine chamber pressure exceeds 68% of
nominal at which time the S/A 1 and S/A 2 engine lights go out and
remain out until BECO. Trajectory liftoff normally occurs 2. 1 sec-
onds after the engine lights go out (approximately 0. 25 g increase in
acceleration), and the spacecraft event timer starts running approxi-
mately 0. 2 second after trajectory liftoff. The launch nut fire signal
is sent 0. 03 second prior to trajectory liftoff, and at this signal
CAPCOM announces to the astronauts, "Liftoff. "
Figure XI-1 (b) depicts the GT-6A launch attempt events. The
astronauts felt the vibrations and heard the audible backup cues of
engine start and shutdown. The engine light was observed to wink
out and then on again.* However, even though an event timer start
was noted, the required second liftoff cue of a verbal comment from
CAPCOM indicating liftoff did not occur. Therefore, the 2. 3-second
early start of the event timer was interpreted (correctly) to be a
false signal and no abort action was taken.
For comparison purposes only, a pad fallback event is depicted in

Fig. XI-1 (c). It should be noted that this abort event is quite different
from the GT-6A shutdown.
B. PRELAUNCH WINDS OPERATIONS
All wind profiles for the GT-6A launch attempt and the GT-6A
launch were mild quartering tail winds with light shears through the
high dynamic pressure period of the trajectory. All profiles were
well within the design specification. The vehicle load simulations,
using the measured profiles, predicted peak vehicle loads well within
the launch winds load criteria.
The mild winds and low predicted peak flight loads resulted in a
launch winds go status throughout the wind surveillance period for
both the launch attempt and launch.
The prelaunch winds operations ran smoothly except for one com-
puter and one communication problem prior to the GT-6A launch. The
Only one engine light was observed to wink out.
ER 13227-6
XI -2
I I
ьв
a
S
<D .
ао
:
I
ш
1ч
Н -
•
-
о "о
•н •
-Р 0
<и о
О Ю
01
о
-Р -Р
•н Я
> D
м в
i
£н Н .
о -н
-
О) > :
^ о
ей Л
га
g^
О О
га
О
М TJ
<и
с ^
•Н Я
Ен о)
ER 13227-6
XI-3
7094 digital trajectory program failed while trying to obtain a check

run using the F-l day wind data. This card reading problem was cor-
rected prior to the flight day operations. The F-2 day and F-l day
Datafax messages to Houston were delayed until late on F-l day be-
cause of a Datafax failure at Houston. The major details of these
messages were telephoned on schedule, and the problem was corrected
for the flight day operations.
The prelaunch wind profiles released by the Air Weather Service

(AWS) for the GT-6A launch attempt and the GT-6A launch are pre-
sented in Figs. XI-2 through XI-7. The T-0 hour profile (Figs. XI-2
and XI-7) was not used in the launch winds program and is shown for
reference only. The wind profiles are summarized in Tables XI-1
and XI-2 which indicate run number, time of the sounding release,
operations performed, messages sent, ratio of peak vehicle load to
limit load, a wind in or out of specification statement and the launch
winds go or no-go status.
Figure XI-8 presents a block diagram of the prelaunch wind opera-

tions and indicates the data flow between Cape Kennedy, Martin-
Baltimore and MCC-NASA, Houston.
TABLE XI-1
Summary of Prelaunch Operations--GT-6A Launch Attempt
(12 December 1965)
Time of Data
Run Release to
No. Martin-Baltimore Operation
I F-2 days Wind comparison to specification. Sent to

1100 EST Cape Kennedy and MCC-Houston. Wind in
12-10-65 specification; status go.
F-l day Wind comparison to specification and
1100 EST trajectory simulation. Sent to Cape
12-11-65 Kennedy and MCC-Houston. Wind in
specification; status go.
T-7 hours Wind comparison to specification, trajec-
0250 EST tory, vehicle loads, vehicle response,
12-12-65 tank underpressure constraints, switch-
over load constraints and switchover tem-
perature constraint were determined by
computer programs. Data sent to Cape
Kennedy and MCC-Houston. Wind in
specification; load ratio 0. 85; status go.
ER 13227-6
XI-4
GT-6A Prelaunch Wind Profiles

12-12-65 Launch Attempt
О 10 20
W i n d Velocity (fps) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 1 280 300 320 340 360
Wind Azimuth (deg)
Fig. XI-2. Launch Attempt F-2 and F-l Day Wind Profiles
ER 13227-6
XI-5
relaunch Wind Profile

Wind Velocity (fps) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360
Wind Azimuth (deg)
Fig. H-3. Launch Attempt T-T and T-5 Hour Wind Profiles
ER 13227-6
XI-6
GT-6A Prelaunch Wind Profiles

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

1 1 I I 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
20 40 60 80 10
Wind Velocity (fps) ° ° 12° 14° 16
° 18
° 20
° 22
° 24
° 26
° 28
° 30
° 32
°
Wind Azimuth (deg)
Fig. XI-4. Launch Attempt T-4 and T-3 Hour Wind Profiles
ER 13227-6
XI-7
I GT-6A Prelaunch Wind Profiles

12-15-65 Launch
'О 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ПО 120 130 140 150 160 170 180

I 1 i i | 1
Wind Velocity (fps) 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360
Wind Azimuth (deg)
Fig. XI-5. F-2 and F-l Day Wind Profiles
ER 13227-6
XI-8
40 fc
& Т
Т-7 &Т
щ
20 \-
ш Run
Prelaunch Wind Profiles
12-15-65 Launch
Time
No. Observation EST
3 T-7 hr*
Date
0240 12-15-65
1
4 T-5 hr* 0440 12-15-65
5 T-3 hr 0640 12-15-65
•]*T-7 Ь Т-5 hr are identical above
I 5000 ft
О 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160

I I I I I I i I I I I
Wind Velocity (fps) 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Wind Azimuth (deg)
Fig. XI-6. T-T, T-5 and T-3 Hour Wind Profiles
ER 13227-6
XI-9
'•] M i s s i n g j ,
[data GT-6A Prelaunch Wind Profiles
12-15-65 Launch
T~0 sounding release by the AW;

Balloon release at 1239Z
0 10 20 30 4C 80 200 220 240 260 280 300 320
Wind Velocity (fps) Wind Azimuth (deg)
Fig. XI-T. T-l ала Т-0 Hour Wind Profiles
ER 13227-6
XI-10
Cape Kennedy Mar tin-Baltimore
Launch Complex
Data
Data
card Launch Datafax IBM 1620
card
trans* officials digital computer
receiver
mitter
0 Transmissions at F-2, F-l, T-7, T-5, T~3, T-l

(2) Transmissions at F-2, F-l, T-7, T-5, T~3, T-l
(3) Transmissions at F-l, T-7, T-5, T-3 Twind PToT*""'
0 Transmissions at T~7, T-5, T-3 | Wind plot Ь
-i comparison of
(5) Transmissions at T-l if completed before launch
I wind to specifi-
ication
MCC NASA-Houston |"L"o7d~p'lot*~

| Flight load plot, Г
tank constraints, L
\ Datafax
I SW /O load & SW /OI
I temperature |
I constraints
Launch
\ tn'=.^ = = = -=:-=-=-J
I Analog Traces*
officials Datafax
Vehicle response Ь
to wind profile
Trajectory Tab* IBM 7094

7094 trajectory digital
printout computer
j Trajectory**
card output
Data
card
Philco trans- SW/O load &**
Tank Guidance & Data
scribe mitter SW/O temperature
pressure yaw card
monitor monitors
plotboard
slides receiver
constraints
j card output
I
L_
*Launch winds Datafax messages prepared by launch winds personnel

**Launch winds data card messages prepared by launch w i n d s personnel
Fig. XI-8. Prelaunch Wind Operations
ER 13227-6
XI-И
TABLE XI-1 (continued)
Time of Data
Run Release to
No. Martin -Baltimore Operation

over load constraints, and switchover tem-
Kennedy and MCC-Houston. Wind in speci-
fication; load ratio 0. 85; status go.
over load constraint, and switchover tem-
Kennedy and MCC-Houston. Wind in speci-
fication; load ratio 0. 79; status go.
T-l hour Wind comparison to specification. Launch
0850 EST attempt occurred before the other simula-
12-12-65 tions were completed. Wind in specifica-
tion; status go. Status phoned to Cape
Kennedy and MCC-Houston.
TABLE XI-2
Summary of Prelaunch Operations --GТ -6A Launch
(15 December 1965)
Time of Data
Run Release to
No. Martin-Baltimore Operations
F-2 days Wind comparison to specification. Sent to

1100 EST Cape Kennedy and MCC-Houston. Wind in
12-13-65 specification; status go.
F-l day Wind comparison to specification and tra-
1100 EST jectory simulation. Sent to Cape Kennedy
12-14-65 and MCC-Houston. Wind in specification;
status go.
ER 13227-6
XI-12
TABLE XI-2 (continued)
Time of Data
Run Release to
No. Martin-Baltimore Operations
Т-7 hours Wind comparison to specification, trajec-

over load constraint and switchover tem-
T-5 hours Wind data identical to T-7 hour release
0440 EST except for ground winds. No computer
12-15-65 runs. No-change status phoned to Cape
Kennedy and MCC -Houston.
over load constraint and switchover tem-
perature constraints were determined by
T-l hour Wind comparison to specification. Launch
0840 EST occurred before other simulations were
12-15-65 completed. Wind in specification; status
go. Status phoned to Cape Kennedy and
MCC-Houston.
С. SLOW MALFUNCTION MONITORING
1. Prelaunch Activities
From 6 December to 11 December, the guidance monitor activities

included slide preparation, scriber data checks, plotboards for the
staff service room and coordination with Philco and NASA.
2. Launch Day Activities (GT-6A Attempt)
All data card transmissions from Martin-Baltimore to NASA-

Houston were received on schedule along with Datafax material. Four
payload margin predictions were made by MRL and received from
ER 13227-6
XI-13
Cape Kennedy verbally and by Datafax. Transmission No. 2 yielded

the pay load margin corresponding to the 600-pound Stage I pitch and
500-pound Stage II pitch and yaw payload constraint lines. The T-5
and T-3 hour structural temperature constraints were scribed on the
10 x 10 plotboard.
3. Launch Phase (GT~6A Attempt)
The liftoff signal was received at the Mission Control Center in
Houston approximately 1. 0 second after engine start; the subsequent
shutdown signal followed immediately. Information based on the dis-
plays manned by the booster systems engineer and the tank monitor
indicated that the thrust did not reach 35%. However, guidance mon-
itor displays indicated that the programmers started in both the TARS
and IGS.
Guidance monitor displays and communication were adequate for
the GT-6A launch attempt.
4. Prelaunch Phase (GT-6A Launch)
Prelaunch activities started by scribing the T-3 hour trajectory on
the 10 x 10 plotboard. All data card transmissions from Martin -
Baltimore to NASA-Houston were received on schedule along with
Datafax material; three payload margin transmissions and two sets of
target data transmissions were received from Cape Kennedy. Plot-
board switchover lines were identical to those determined for the 12
December launch attempt. At T-22 seconds, Meas 0153 indicated that
actuator 4 started drifting from null in a command nose-down direc-
tion. The guidance monitor attempted to verify the validity of the
telemetry system with Tel 3; however, a reply was not received prior
to liftoff. At engine ignition the trace indicated normal operations.
5. Launch Phase (GT-6A Launch)
No indication of IGS gain change was present; however, if subsequent

malfunctions had occurred, switchover would have been recommended.
The Stage I lateral plotboard indicated a -200-ft/sec velocity at BECO,
which probably resulted in the 0. 074-degree wedge angle at insertion.
Stage II pitch and yaw inboards were nominal. All analog displays and
parameters were nominal except for the thrust attitude error in pitch,
6/3 , which was not received from Burroughs, and a roll thrust misalign-
ment of approximately 0. 6-degree attitude error.
From the guidance monitor's viewpoint, GT-6A was the best flight
to date. The V-A and III-A plotboards are shown in Figs. XI-9 and
XI-10, respectively. Telemetry III yaw-roll and pitch axis recordings
are shown in Figs. XI-11 andXI-12, respectively.
ER 13227-6
XI-14
- /
PLOTBOARD I LAUNCH —"•" TIME CRITICAL INERTIAL VELOCITY ft/sec GEMINI

SSR FORMAT 0005
NFID A l
Fig. H-9. Houston-MCC Plotboard VA, Pitch Plane
ER 13227-6
Т go TIME TO GO TO SECO sec
Ш-15
CONFIDE™
RSO action Stage 1
PLOTBOARD Ш LAUNCH V INERTIAL VELOCITY ft/iec

Tt ELAPSED TIME sec
иивтк
Fig. XI-10. Houston-MCC Plotboard III A, Lateral Velocity
ER 13227-6
XI-16 _
CONFIDENTIAL •-к,-г-
Spacecraft separation
1-Sec Marks from Liftoff
Quid Init TARS 740
Lift off SCR No. 2
Fig. XI-11. Telemetry III Yaw-Roll Axis Recording
ER 13227-6
Spacecraft separation
1-Sec Marks from liftoff
Stage II-,
Nose I A
Down IT
Stage I-D
Quid Init TARS 740

т
б Guid Start GE/B
Stage I—-
Nose A I
Down Т I
IIJ
ШШ#НШ
6 ? SSCO GE/B
:
дащЙ :ШЙ
SCR No. 1
Fig. H-12. Telemetry III Pitch Axis Recording
ER 13227-6 "ШИШ
XII-1
XII. AIRFRAME SYSTEM
A. STRUCTURAL LOADS
Analysis of GT-6A flight data indicates that the loads experienced

were well within the structural capability of the launch vehicle. The
most critical loading occurred, characteristically, at pre-BECO where
the load aft of Station 320 reached 103. 6% of design limit load in com-
pression (DLL ). Instrumentation for dynamic response data consisted
of rate gyros for lateral dynamic loads and axially mounted accelerom-
eters for longitudinal dynamic loads. No major anomalies affecting the
airframe occurred during flight; unusually high amplitude third struc-
tural mode lateral oscillations occurred just prior to BECO but were
not considered to be detrimental.
1. Preignition
The 1 g deadweight distribution is the only contribution to steady

axial loading in the preignition period. Ground winds were approximately
7 mph from a direction of 210 degrees, resulting in steady bending of
330,000 in. -Ib and wind-induced oscillatory (WIO) loads of ±40,000 in. -
Ib (Fig. XII-1) at Station 1224. The WIO response represents approxi-
mately 2% of the WIO design limit bending moment; Table XII-1 shows
the comparison of GLV WIO experience to date.
TABLE XII-1
Comparison of GLV WIO Loads
WIO Load at Station 1224

Flight (% of WIO design limit bending moment)
GT-1 52
GT-2 5
GT-3 29
GT-4 3
GT-5 2
GT-7 40
GT-6A 2
2. Launch Prerelease
Ignition transients were normal, and the attendant dynamic axial

loads as measured by the BLH system are shown in Fig. XII-2 together
with the steady axial load. The prerelease lateral dynamic loading was
ER 13227-6
XII-2
440 •
400
Oscillatory loads
; Steady-state loads
360
320
280
X
,
с 240
и
а
200
щ 160
120
80
0I
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Vehicle Station (in.)
Fig. XII-1. Bending Moments Due to Ground Winds: Preignition
ER 13227-6
XII-3
- -600
э
i
_ OLV
3.
2 -500 /
э /
•.J
j " /
< Launch
; stand
-400 •
:
О
k
X -300
Л
-а
а
о
J -200
^—Interface
1
3о -100 /
; '
J— '
— о
:
i
100 ,
1 1
:
-,
- 200 Г ^ лп спл опп 1 ПГт n
1 *•
1400
Fig. XII-2. Dynamic Axial Load Envelope: Prelaunch
ER 13227-6
XII-4
0. 8
0.7
0.6
-
:
0.5
'
0.4
0. 2
0.1
О 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Fig. XII-3. Lateral Dynamic'Bending Moment Envelope: Prerelease
ER 13227-6
XII-5
due to the combined effects of ground winds and engine start transients;
this loading is shown in Fig. XII-3.
3. Launch Postrelease
A comparison (Table XII-2) of the GT-6A liftoff load factor with

those of previous launches indicates that this flight experienced the
lowest initial steady acceleration to date. This can be attributed to
the low thrust class Stage I engine.
TABLE XII-2
Comparison of GLV Liftoff Load Factors
Liftoff Load Factor

Flight (g)
GT-1 1.27
GT-2 1. 27
GT-3 1. 27
GT-4 1. 27
GT-5 1. 28
GT-7 1. 26
GT-6A 1. 25
Dynamic deformation modes in evidence at postrelease consisted of

the first and third structural bending and Stage I engine modes in the
lateral plane and the first axial mode in the longitudinal direction.
Frequency correlation between calculated and observed modes during
the flight is given in Fig. XII-4; the resulting dynamic bending moment
in the postrelease condition is shown in Fig. XII-5.
4. Stage I Flight
The most significant periods of Stage I flight for airframe loading

occurred at Max C,, qa and at pre-BECO. Max C^ qa occurred at
a oc
LO + 80 seconds, the same time in flight as on GT-7. A 35-fps wind
shear spike at an altitude of 43,000 feet accounted for this late occur-
rence.
In comparing loads at LO 4- 80 seconds with loads at the traditional

LO + 69 seconds Max Слт qa flight time, several interesting observa-
NQ
tions can be made:
ER 13227-6
XII-6
2 t
,
a
:-
V 12
О"
-
I
.-.
-
-,
: :.!:.:::_!
:alculated Mode 1-д
Calculated Stage II fuel slosh mode-

fbf-
22
^ 18
CO
a, (Calculated Mode 1
>
g 14
10
X
--
•
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Fig. XIX-U. Stage I Flight Vibration Frequency Correlation
ER 13227-6
XII-7
0.4
Stage I engine mode
0.3
, First structural mode
Interface;—v
0.2
g o.i
.
:
-
-o.i
Third structural mode

-0.2
Frequency (cps)
Mode GT-6A Calc • Total
I 0.4 1 2.50 2.40

э
3 9. 1 9.45
Stage I 17. 5 17.46
engine
с 0.3
Interface
2
I °-
:
W 0.1
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Fig. ХП-5- Total Lateral Dynamic Load Envelope: Postrelease
ER 13227-6
XII-8
(1) All of the lateral dynamic responses noted at LO + 69 seconds

were also observed at LO + 80 seconds. The amplitudes of
the individual vibration modes at LO + 69 seconds were sig-
nificantly greater than for corresponding modes at LO + 80
seconds to the extent that the total lateral dynamic load in-
crement at LO + 69 seconds was three times that at LO +
80 seconds.
(2) The steady axial acceleration at LO + 80 seconds was greater

than at LO + 69 seconds. Because of the low thrust of the
GT-6A Stage I engine and the additional depletion of pro-
pellants in that 11-second period, the resultant quasi-steady
axial load at LO + 80 seconds was somewhat less than on
previous flights at LO + 69 seconds.
(3) Winds aloft were the most severe since the flight winds ex-
perienced on GT-3. The wind magnitude at LO + 80 seconds
was 2/3 of the design specification level, a wind shear spike
was superimposed on the steady wind profile, and the wind
azimuth was closer to the critical azimuth than on any flight
subsequent to GT-3. Since the bending load peak moves for-
ward on the launch vehicle as the vehicle eg moves forward
with depletion of propellants, the quasi-steady bending loads
at critical Station 935 were partially reduced from the extreme
loading induced by the effects of the magnitude, shear spike,
and azimuth of the winds.
The net result of the foregoing considerations was the attainment of

a lower than average airframe loading at Max С лт qa. This comparison
a
is shown in Table XII-3.
TABLE XII-3
Structural Loads Comparison of Gemini Flights
At Max C N qa,
a At Pre-BECO
Station 935 Station 320+
(% of DLL ) (% of DLL )
Flight
GT-1 82.3 95. 5
GT-2 80.1 100
GT-3 78. 5 97
GT-4 85.4 101
GT-5 71.6 98. 5
GT-7 72.8 98. 5
GT-6A 74.8 103.6
ER 13227-6
XII-9
Dynamic bending moments obtained from the rate gyro responses in

the Max CM qa and pre-BECO regions of flight are shown in Figs. XII-6
'N a
and XII-7, respectively. Steady axial acceleration at pre-BECO is
given in Table XII-4.
Lateral oscillations associated with the third structural mode of the

launch vehicle and occurring three seconds prior to BECO were approxi-
mately three times greater than those experienced on any previous
flight. The cause of this unusually high level of oscillation, although
at present unexplained, may be due to modal cross-coupling of the 16. 7
cps lateral vibration and the inherent longitudinal oscillations (at 16. 8
cps) during this time of flight. An analysis of the oscillations shows
that the resultant dynamic load was 7% of the vehicle design limit load
and is not of great concern since ample load margin remains.
TABLE XII-4
Steady Axial Accelerations at Pre-BECO
Pre-BECO Axial Acceleration

Flight (g)
GT-1 5. 61
GT-2 5. 69
GT-3 5. 63
GT-4 5. 63
GT-5 5. 55
GT-7 5. 56
GT-6A 5.46
5. Stage II Flight
Propellant slosh oscillations, associated with the calculated Stage II

fuel slosh mode, occurred continuously from LO + 230 seconds to LO
+ 320 seconds; the amplitude of the oscillations was small (less than
±0. 1 deg/sec), as indicated by both pitch and yaw rate gyros. No re-
currence of the large amplitude (±0. 6 deg/sec) GT-7 slosh oscillations
was noted; the GT-6A oscillations were consistent with those on pre-
vious flights other than GT-7.
The steady axial acceleration at SECO is shown in Table XII-5 and

was one of the lowest of any GLV flight. This can be attributed to a
lower than predicted Stage II thrust level, to one of the lowest thrust
levels at SECO on flights to date and to trajectory differences.
ER 13227-6
XII-10
0.4
Stage I engine mode-
First structural mode
s
-3
I -o.i Second struc-

~ tural mode
-0.2
Frequency (cps)
Mode GT-6A Calc
-0.3 2.99
1 3.3
2 7. 5 7. 53
-0.4 Stage I 18. 2 17.49

engine
Total
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Pig. ХП-б. Total Lateral Dynamic Load Envelope: Max C-. q.a
ER 13227-6
XII-11
Third structural
mode \
!_First structural
' mode
Stage Г
fuel slosh
mode
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Vehicle Station (in. )
'Fig. XII-T- Total Lateral Dynamic Load Envelope: Pre-BECO

XII-12
TABLE XII-5
Steady Axial Accelerations at SECO
SECO Axial Acceleration
Flight (g)
GT-1 7. 35
GT-2 7. 70
GT-3 7. 50
GT-4 7.42
GT-5 7. 56
GT-7 7. 23
GT-6A 7. 33
There were four indications on the low range (±0. 5 g, Meas 0699)
axial accelerometer of post-SECO disturbance. The times of occur-
rence of these disturbances and their associated levels are:
(1) Less than 0. 02 g at SECO + 5. 1 seconds
(2) Less than 0. 02 g at SECO + 6.6 seconds
(3) Less than 0. 1 g at SECO + 17. 5 seconds
(4) Less than 0. 1 g at SECO + 28. 0 seconds.
The first two occurrences were noted only on the low range accelerom-
eter, the third occurrence was noted on the low range accelerometer
and one of the Stage II actuator measurements, and the last occurrence
was noted on the low range accelerometer and on all actuators and rate
gyros. Spacecraft separation from the sustainer occurred at SECO +
22. 2 seconds.
6. Total Airframe Loads
A summary of the total airfrarne loads (quasi-steady axial, dynamic

axial and equivalent axial loads from quasi-steady and dynamic bend-
ing moments) for significant structural loading conditions at critical
stations is presented in Table XII-6. Complete vehicle loading at sig-
nificant flight times is shown in Figs. XII-8 through XII-12. The maxi-
mum load at any station and the loading condition for which it occurred
are shown in Fig. XII-13.
ER 13227-6
XII-13
Design envelope
Design envelope code
Д Prerelease
D Postrelease
О Transonic buffet
О Max CN qa
-700 a
Т ВЕСО
^ -600 1
он \ Desigr 1 limit | ! :*\
• <
X <(
л •
=1 -500 •
ТЗ
ев ';•:'
"rt
•И -400
1 h -a
-£ ^ —^- -
ш
*rt 1
Z3 -зоо 1
1
о 9-^ _^« ^ ~~!
W .
л
-200 л \
--- ---; \\
lPrerelease-i
-100 Interface •
.-"' Tension
^ (67,000 lb max)
0
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Fig. XII-8. Equivalent Axial Load: Prerelease
ER 13227-6
XII-14
i
.
. :
Design envelope
m_n_ws —O-O
Д Prerelease
-700
D
О
Postrelease
Transonic buffet
.
О Max C,T qa
Т ВЕСО
о •
-600 .
,
о
0
i-(
ё -500
Design limit
•
-
К ,
•о
3 -,
r
| -400 ;
*в i ° 11
"ti
ш r-
> -300 1
э ^^1
0* _^-Л— ^.У
l!
W 1
-200 j ^ ii
i ii
|. Postrelease
Interface —•-
-100 .
A Tension
i (36,000 Ib max)
11
0
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Fig. XH-9- Equivalent Axial Load: Postrelease
ER 13227-6
XII-15
Design envelope

Д Prerelease
О Postrelease
-700 О Transonic buffet
О Max CN qa
a
V BE CO
-600
0^
0
гН
Design 1 i m i t — \
X
и -500 ^
i
0
Ц
J T^f *^ »,_
IS -400
11
< * ,,
1
£ -300 I
cr r^' ^r"-° —^
д
1
W r^
_i*T-
-200
"" \\
-^' .Max CN qa •*
-100 Interface---.^. a
< ~ -" -
200 40(J 600 800 1000 1200 140

Fig. XII-10. Equivalent Axial Load: Max CL, Qa

a
и
ER 13227-6
XII-16
Design envelope
Д Prerelease
П Postrelease
-700 О Transonic buffet
О Max CN qa
a
V BECO
-600 •Ч.
о
X
Design limit — ч <,
~ -500
•a
rt
-~--„
rf
•jj -400
I ^
с
0)
"rt
£ -300 1
1
0"
H м--^
-200
' Pre-BECO •
-100 Interface •
i
L —
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Fig. XII-11. Equivalent Axial Load: Pre-BECO
ER 13227-6
XII-17
,
;••. • - . • ; : : ;
-700
Design envelope

i
-600 ' Д Prerelease
П Postrelease
О Transonic buffet
^ . . О Max C 4°
N
2 -500 ' Т ВЕСО

и
5 t—— г :
,
о -400
J • r\~. ign limit •
rt
3
с ~ 300 \ и™
|
cr
H -200
-100
Interface —.J
и
\-
щ f- SECO
ч
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Vehicle Station (in. )
Fig. ХП-12. Equivalent Axial Load: SECO
ER 13227-6
XII-18
Design envelope •

Д Prerelease
D Postrelease
О Transonic buffet
-700 О Max CN qa
• о
Т BE CO
•
•Г -600
о
К
.
Design limit
\ ;
,
•о -500
п)
О -^
а
«! -400 '
'
с:
0) ~^
i
п)
'§. -зоо •
И 1
^-^"^
1
-200
•*:
,_-- —
!i_-
Max C N qo-.
a
Interface — —J 1
-100 V
11
Ц " "
200 400 600 HOI) 1000 4200 14(
°0
Fig. XU-13. Maximum Structural Load Envelope
ER 13227-6
XII-19
TABLE XII-6
Summary of GT-6A Total Airframe Loads
Total Airframe Load
Critical
Flight Condition (% of DLL at critical station)
Station
Prerelease 70.6 1188*

Postrelease 62.7 1188*
Max CN qa (LO + 80 sec) 74.8 935
a 89.0 1188*
Рге-BECO (LO + 156 sec) 103.6 320*

Pre-SECO (LO + 338 sec) 71.7 276. 8*
*Just aft of station.
В. POGO
Analysis of GT-6A telemetry data showed that the POGO suppression

devices (fuel accumulators and oxidizer standpipes) operated satis-
factorily. No pressure oscillations which could be associated with air-
frame structural resonances were detected in either the oxidizer or the
fuel feedline.
Bandpass filtering of the analog reconstruction of PCM/FM telem-

etry (Meas 0670) indicates that the maximum intermittent longitudinal
oscillation at the spacecraft-launch vehicle interface occurred at LO
+ 146. 8 seconds and again at LO + 153. 9 seconds. The amplitude of
these oscillations was 0. 115 g zero-to-peak, with corresponding
response frequencies of 13. 7 cps and 16. 8 cps, respectively, and
lasted approximately one to two seconds in each instance. The time
history of POGO response amplitude for Compartments 1 and 5 is
shown in Fig. XII-14.
Figure XII-15 is a comparison of longitudinal oscillations for the

last four Gemini flights. The GT-6A level represents the lowest POGO
occurrence to date.
ER 13227-6
XII-2 О
•
•
.i
•
ER 13227-6
XII-21
а
О
0)
ч
'asuodsay
ER 13227-6
XIII-1
XIII. AGE AND FACILITIES

A. MECHANICAL AGE
1. Precount Operations
The mechanical AGE utilized prior to countdown is primarily for

transport and erection of Stages I and II. Both stages of GLV-6 were
airlifted successfully to Cape Kennedy by B-377PG aircraft. During
erection, all equipment functioned as designed.
2. Launch Attempt (12 December 1965)
The countdown proceeded normally through T-0 and engine ignition,

but was followed by an automatic shutdown via holdfire С-4. This was
caused by premature separation of umbilical 3D1M, one of two pad
disconnects which provide a liftoff signal to start the TARS program-
mer.
As a result of subsequent failure analyses, vibration tests and pull

tests, the following corrective action was incorporated into pad dis-
connect umbilicals 3D1M and 3D2M:
(1) The fairing covering the airborne half of the disconnect was
cut back for improved visual inspection.
(2) An index stripe was added to ensure that proper mating of

ground and airborne halves is made.
(3) Aluminum lock wire to secure the ground half to airborne

half was added to prevent a premature disconnect.
3. Launch Operation (15 December 1965)
Analysis of magnetic tape recordings of functions carried through

the umbilicals and inspection of films confirm that all launch vehicle
electrical umbilicals separated cleanly in the planned sequence in
0. 853 second, as indicated in Table XIII-1.
TABLE XIII-1
Electrical Umbilical Disconnect Sequence
Umbilical Time of Disconnect At

Designation (GMT) (sec)
3D1M/3D2M 1337:26.464 0
3D1E 1337:26.692 0.228
ER 13227-6
XIII-2
TABLE XIII-1 (continued)

Umbilical Time of Disconnect At
Designation (GMT) (sec)
3D2E 1337:26. 878 0.414

3B1E 1337:27. 123 0. 659
2B1E 1337:27. 287 0. 823
2B2E 1337:27. 317 0. 853
B. MASTER OPERATIONS CONTROL SET (MOCS)
1. Launch Attempt (12 December 1965)
Analysis of the MOCS automatic sequence records indicated that

the shutdown was initiated by holdfire C-4 (HF-C4, programmer re-
set check) at T» + 1. 2 seconds. The shutdown occurred due to a pre-
mature disconnect of umbilical pad disconnect 3D1M which started
the TARS programmer prior to true liftoff. The holdfire and shut-
down circuitry operated properly as designed for this occurrence.
All other MOCS functions prior to shutdown occurred in their prop-

er sequence.
MOCS Т„ occurred at 1454:03. 20 GMT, followed by HF-C4 no-go

at 1454:04.40 GMT.
2. Launch Operation (15 December 1965)
Analysis of the MOCS automatic sequence records shows that all

functions were performed properly. The automatic sequence was
picked up at T-35 minutes and proceeded on schedule to the programmed
25-minute hold at T-3 minutes after which the count was resumed and
continued through a successful liftoff. MOCS TQ occurred at 1337:23. 13
GMT followed by TCPS "make" 1. 04 seconds later, The launch opera-
tion was completed in 3. 04 seconds.
The recorders were changed to high speed mode at T-2 minutes.

During the automatic portion of the count, the operation of the sequencer
has been compared to the real-time trace and patch list. All traces
were checked for times of occurrence and found to be correct and con-
sistent with the planned operation of the sequencer.
ER 13227-6
XIII-3
С. ELECTRICAL AGE
The launch and checkout equipment operated satisfactorily during

GT-6A prelaunch and launch operations. No problems were encountered.
1. Power Distribution Control Set--PDCS (CP 2800)
The PDCS equipment functioned properly throughout prelaunch and

launch operations. The APS, IPS, 25-vdc and inverter monitors did
not indicate a hold or shutdown condition, thereby verifying satis-
factory operation of the transformer/rectifiers and associated equip-
ment before, during and after power transfer. The interface cabling
and umbilicals also functioned satisfactorily.
2. Flight Control System Test Set--FCSTS (CP 2600)
With the exception of the Stage I pitch actuator (4 ), the hydraulic

system performed satisfactorily during the launch countdown. At
approximately T-21 seconds, the 4. position transducer indicated
about a 0. 8-degree step from null (extend), increasing to 1. 7 degrees
at Stage I engine ignition. The shutdown null light on the launch moni-
tor and test sequence control panel of the flight control test set went
red; however, the actuator position null light remained green. Follow-
ing Stage I engine ignition transients, the 4 1 position transducer output
settled to near null (about 0. 2 degree of indicated displacement--extend)
and remained at this position through liftoff and umbilical disconnect.
The MOCS, properly, did not generate a shutdown.
The flight controls test set actuator position null light indicator is
the summation of the four Stage I actuator null switch positions, and
the shutdown null light indicator is the summation of the four Stage I
position transducer outputs. The MOCS evaluates these two param-
eters for a shutdown within a specified time period after Stage I igni-
tion. The MOCS generates an automatic shutdown only if both of the
following conditions are satisfied:
(1) Any one of the four Stage I actuators is off its null land
(2) Any one of the four Stage I pressure transducers indicates

more than 0. 7 degree displacement from the null position.
In this case, even if the 4 position transducer output displacement

had not returned to near null after Stage I engine ignition, the MOCS
would not have generated a shutdown.
ER 13227-6
XIII-4
An investigation of the 41 actuator anomaly is in process. A re-

view of the data showed the following:
(1) The flight control test set recorder data and launch vehicle
telemetry data agreed.
(2) The flight controls test set circuit involved has been sent
to Martin-Baltimore and is undergoing special testing, in-
cluding piece part analysis in the ASFTS facility.
(3) A circuit analysis and piece part analysis of similar posi-
tion transducers are also being performed.
D. FACILITIES
All facility items functioned properly throughout the GT-6A count-

down and launch.
1. Pad Damage
Damage to AGE and facility items caused by engine blast and heat
was minor. All damaged components will be refurbished to their
original configuration. The most significant damaged items follow:
Deck Area
The flame shield attached to the inside of the thrust mount ring
(east side) was damaged by the engine blast. The damage was con-
fined to one corner of the shield.
Complete Vehicle Erector (CVE)
(1) Personnel elevator rail on east side was broken at the

bottom.
(2) Over-speed governor, tension weight support, on the

personnel elevator was damaged.
(3) Spacecraft elevator traveling cable duct cover was damaged

at the lower end.
(4) Ground strap on the east pivot point was damaged.
(5) Weather curtains were damaged at the 9-foot 8-inch level

on the south, west, and northeast sides. At the 15-foot
6-inch level, the curtain on the east side was damaged.
ER 13227-6
XIII-5
(6) Electrical damage consisted of the following:
(a) The communication J-box conduit on the spacecraft

elevator ramp handrail was torn loose.
(b) A light fixture on the northeast corner at the 26-foot

7-inch level was torn loose.
Complete Vehicle Umbilical Tower (CVUT)
(1) One boom cover stiffener angle was blown off boom No. 1.
(2) Elevator cable guard screens attached to the tower were
damaged on CVUT levels 1, 2, and 4.
Second Stage Umbilical Tower (SSUT)
(1) Cable duct cover was blown off at level No. 1.
(2) Spacecraft elevator cable guard screen was bent inward at

level No. 1.
(3) All lights and conduits were damaged on top of the tower in
back of Panel S32L.
ER 13227-6
XIV-1
XIV. RELIABILITY
Based on countdown experience through GLV-7, the average number

of holds per countdown (h) was calculated to be 0. 125, i. e. , one hold
per eight countdowns. The probability of GLV-6 (12 December 1965
attempt) completing the countdown without a hold was predicted to be
=
C/D °' 88
Including the GLV-6 (15 December 1965 launch) countdown, the

average number of holds per countdown (h) is shown in Table XIV -1
to be 0. 1, i. e. , one hold in ten countdowns. The probability of GLV-8
completing countdown without a hold is predicted to be
P c / D ( h = 0 . 1 ) = 0.90
h is based on the countdown period from T-240 minutes to T-0, except

for the GLV-5 attempt which was scrubbed at T-10 minutes due to
weather but which counted as one countdown without a hold. Spacecraft
holds and SCF tests were not counted.
The GLV-6 (12 December 1965 attempt) was scrubbed due to a shut-
down that occurred after T-0. The shutdown was caused by an umbilical
prematurely disconnecting (a dust cap was later found in the oxidizer gas
generator line). Since the shutdown occurred after T-0, GLV-6 (12
December 1965 attempt) was used in Table XIV -1 as one countdown
without a hold.
Countdown experience for all GLVs is included in Table XIV- 1.
ER 13227-6
XIV-2
TABLE XIV-1
Countdown Experience Including GT-7 Launch
Vehicle No. of No. of

No. Countdowns Holds* Remarks
GLV-1 1 0
GLV-2 1 0 3 S/C holds. Tandem actuator
(attempt) failed after T-0
GLV-2 1 0 1 S/C hold
GLV-3 1 0 1 hold- -not Martin responsi-
bility (oxidizer leak in Stage I
engine transducer)
GLV-4 1 1 Erector stuck during lowering

GLV-5 1 0 1 S/C hold. Incomplete count-
(attempt) down- -scrubbed at T-10 min
due to weather
GLV-5 1 0
GLV-6 0 0 Incomplete countdown- -scrubbed
(attempt on at Т -4 2 min due to Agena failure
25 Oct 65)
GLV-7 1 0
GLV-6 1 0 Umbilical failed (prematurely
(attempt on disconnected) after T-0, and
12 Dec 65) dust cap in oxidizer gas gen-
erator line
GLV-6 1 0
(launch
15 Dec 65)
Total 10 1
*Based on Martin holds only.
ER 13227-6
XV-1
XV. RANGE DATA
A. LAUNCH ATTEMPT DATA AND FILM DISTRIBUTION

1. Launch Attempt Data
The following GLV-6 launch attempt (12 December 1965) data were
supplied to Martin-Baltimore within 24 hours after the attempt:
(1) Range supplied quick-look data
(a) Telemetry magnetic tapes

(i) Tel II, post-detected, PCM/FM
(ii) Tel II, formatted
(2) Martin data
(a) Landline records (events, Bristol, Multipoint, Sanborn)

with associated calibrations
(b) BLH tabulation (fueling and defueling)
(c) Fueling and oxidizer loading and detanking records

(d) CP 2600 records (2612, 2650 and 2660)
(e) Sequencer records and code sheets
(f) Dub of Complex 19 landline tape
(3) Range supplied data
(a) Surface weather observations

(b) Upper triple theodolite
(c) Weather tower 700/701.

2. Film Distribution
The following launch attempt film was supplied as a follow-on re-

quest to be made available as soon as possible.
1. 2-14 16mm, explosive bolts and first motion

1.2-15 16mm, explosive bolts and first motion
ER 13227-6
XV-2
1. 2-16 16mm, east launch ring engine

1. 2 - 1 7 16mm, west launch ring engine
1. 2-18 16mm, north launch ring engine
1. 2-19 16mm, south launch ring engine
1. 2 - 2 0 16mm, 3D1E and 3D2E umbilical plugs
B. LAUNCH DATA DISTRIBUTION
1. Quick-Look Range Data
All available quick-look data from the 15 December 1965 launch

were supplied by ETR to Martin-Baltimore as shown in Table X V - 1 .
The PCM serial tape was of good quality and exhibited minor drop-
outs. The quick-look formatted tape was of good quality except for
bad time words from LO + 294 to LO + 297 seconds. The final for-
matted magnetic tape was of excellent quality and contained no re-
dundancies. Except for approximately 300 milliseconds of transmis-
sion blackout during booster staging, the Tel II formatted tape showed
that there were only five bad data words and one bad frame from LO -
10 seconds to LO + 420 seconds.
TABLE XV-1
Range Supplied Quick-Look Data
Time Time Time Received

Description Requested Received (ETR) (Baltimore)
Telemetry magnetic tapes:
Tel II, Post-detection Т + 1 hr Т + 1 hr Т + 10 hr

PCM/FM (1 roll)
Station 1 formatted Т + 4 hr Т + 4 hr Т + 10 hr
(3 rolls)
2. Martin Data
Test data and records acquired and generated by Martin at Cape

Kennedy were received in Baltimore within two days after launch.
These data consisted of the following items:
(1) One set of quick-look records from RCA tape
(2) High speed records of engine parameters
ER 13227-6
xv-з
(3) Landline records (events, Bristol, Multipoint and Sanborn)

with associated calibrations
(4) BLH tabulation
(5) CP 2600 records (2650, 2660 and events)
(6) Sequencer records with code sheets
(7) Summary of flight events
(8) Dub of Complex 19 landline magnetic tape
(9) Fuel and oxidizer loading records.
3. Range Data
All data supplied by the ETR are summarized in Table X V - 2 . The

time requested for delivery to Martin-Canaveral (Ref. 6555th ATW
Form 1-116, dated 7 December 1965) and the time received at Baltimore
are shown in this table.
TABLE X V - 2
Range-Supplied Data
Time Time
OD Requested Received
Item No. Description (Canaveral) (Baltimore)
8 Position, velocity and 4 CD 12 CD

acceleration, and spe-
cial parameters
19 Position, velocity and 5 CD 7 CD

acceleration, MIS-
TRAM I
20 Position, velocity and 11 WD 16 WD

acceleration, MIS-
TRAM I and MISTRAM II
5 Attitude, camera 3 CD 7 CD
4.9/29.9 MISTRAM function re- 3 WD 6 WD

cordings
ER 13227-6
XV-4
TABLE X V - 2 (continued)
Time Time
26 Best estimate of tra- 15 WD 18 WD
jectory
1.5.2 Serial PCM, post -de-
tection magnetic tape,
FR 600: Quick- look 1 hr 1 hr
Final 24 hr *
b. PCM formatted, quick-

look 4 hr (See item с
final)
c. PCM formatted final 9 hr 3 WD
e. PCM formatted 1 CD 7 CD
3.5-2 Serial PCM, post-de- 3 CD *
tection magnetic tape
1. 5-7 Signal strength (center 24 hr *
frequency) recordings
1.5-53 Signal strength (center 24 hr *

3. 5-5 Signal strength (center 3 CD 1 CD
7. 5-3 Signal strength (center 3 CD *

55 Tracking system com- 7 CD 12 CD

parisons, MOD III /MIS -
TRAM I
56 Comparisons involving 20 CD 26 CD
adjusted trajectory
1.5-9 Oscillograph records, 1 CD 1 CD

near real-time
ER 13227-6
XV-5
TABLE XV-2 (continued)

Time Time
Hem No. Description (Canaveral) (Baltimore)
1. 11-4 Instrumentation data 3 CD *
logs
1. 18 Range safety plot charts 4 hr 4 hr

4.7.3. 1 Real-time computer 24 hr *
facility metric data
1. 11-1 Command control 3 WD *

function records

function records

function records

function records

function records

function records

function records
2.4. 1 Preliminary test re- 2 hr 16 WD

port
5.4. 1 Propellant analysis 2 WD *

report
60(e) Weather surface 1 WD 6 hr

observations
60(g) Weather upper theo- 1 WD 24 hr

dolite, triple
ER 13227-6
XV-6
TABLE XV-2 (continued)

Time Time
60(k) Weather upper 1 WD 6 hr
Rawinsonde
60(a) Weather tower 700/702 1 WD 6 hr
34 Trendplots, QLAP, 32 hr 7 CD
Part I
36 Transient plots, 32 hr 7 CD
Part I
1. 5-9 Bilevel oscillographs, 1 CD *
Stations 1 and 3
3. 11-25 Command control an- 3 CD *
tenna position (GBI)
Error analysis report 60 CD *
* Data not received by 18 January 1966

CD = Calendar days
WD = Working days
4. Agency/Contractor Supplied Data
Table XV-3 presents data received from associated contractors and
NASA-MSC.
TABLE XV-3
Agency/Contractor Supplied Data
Received
Description Supplier (Baltimore)
Mod III-G, AMRO guided missile GE, ETR 2 CD
control facility
Mod III-G, radio guidance system GE, Syracuse 4 CD
S/C re-entry TLM recordings NASA 20 CD
ER 13227-6
XV-7
С. LAUNCH FILM COVERAGE
Photographic conditions at Cape Kennedy preceding and during the

GT-6A launch (15 December 1965) were excellent, and motion picture
coverage was very good. Table XV-4 contains a listing of the films
obtained from the fixed cameras and the tracking cameras.
The 70-mm tracking films (Items 1. 2-40, 1. 2-41 and 1. 2-42) were
reviewed for information pertaining to the booster staging event. In-
spection of these films shows that the normal breakup of the first stage
transportation section occurred after Stage II had separated from Stage I.
ER 13227-6
XV-8
н
"1
2
и
X
-г
i
~
ТЗ
р
'l-t
СИ
ьс
ш
ей
о
0)
м
а
с
о
:
с
If
•о
о-"
м
V
еа
<Ц "(3
<и с
О
Description
t-l
Q
g
о
Missile centered, 50 -ft tower 19
•a
•.-
a
-
-
00
О
:i
DO
<
I
•
>
1
Spacecraft centered, 50-ft tower
-J
0
I-
CO
N
£ is
a
00
_-
§
'.. Й
-• -~
,:
i
i
~ Spacecraft centered, 50 -ft tower
'•"J
14
03
д
00
м
N
7
с
a a1 а a•:
a
a
1
Explosive bolts and first motion,
«
in
-т
>
Д
*
-1
in
и
с
т
I
t
tower 19-7A
И
—
7 j
ее
1-1
'-
о о
<
Q Q
~~ *
a •0 - - •a
a
о
.1
,~,
V
-J
i
a
0
j.
West launch ring, engine
"
[-
—
^
[Д
-7'
N
- и V ;
North launch ring, engine
a
&
--
EC
_
-
DO
DO
-
:i
:- J
i a1 a
d в
,
ER 13227-6
South launch ring, engine

a .a
-
•--
Q
:: i
in -f
in 0
X
-
4
3D1E and 3D2E umbilical plugs,
is
Q
О
1-1
^
EC
«
71
umbilical tower, first level

2DFVT umbilical plug, umbilica!
ТЗ
.£
-г
'•£
д
-
1-Н
1-1
т
:i
о
^
5
а
щ
и
-
second level
1DOVT umbilical plug, umbilica]
is
а
"J
rt
CO
EN
0
О
—
т
•-
aa
i
-
1
tower, fourth level

3B1E umbilical plug, umbilical t
—
f
-'
7-7
in
0
Q
X
я
N
i
aa аа
С
•-
:.
1
.
fifth level
2B1E and associated umbilical p]
—
со
Q
•:
•т
X
0
-
и
71
i
1
umbilical tower, sixth level

Umbilical Boom 3, "J" bars and
я
-т
in
"
-
El
00
Q
EN
э
a
С^
a
1
'
yards, umbilical tower, sixth lei

••'.
Spacecraft upper umbilical plug,

^
•--i
Q
JJ
0
70
Г !
IH
I
a
:
level
Spacecraft lower umbilical plug,
1-
ее
-'
•r
-r
<
Q
О
аа
и
0
a
о
•j
,'
0
-
1
level
LO to LOV pad emergency, spac
a
-"
cc
~1
—
Q
70
я
a
i.
a
L
..,
л
i'
и
•
-1
L
centered, U191L122
LO to LOV, spacecraft centered,
•-'
in
•s
q
-•7
::
s
;:
-
71
r
:
-•:
:
1
U1761.46
т»<
»s
LO to LOV, spacecraft centered,
CO
00
~
CO
to
<M
о)
и
ttt
s
g
(ч
U122L29
XV-9
•о
0>~,
*я> ^
оо) 2 Q Q -
Б is £ <
а р р - D Q p - Р Q
Г-- < -• <
<u "cd
Tf CO -- - CO CO X - CO
an
н
(0
0)
и CO
5-^ о ю
-
-
С
г - -
X
-
-
CM
со
CO
о и
г г
3 -:
а en
00
-1 И И -т i-i о -
о
Ьн CO
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
a-. г
1
-: в
.
а. с с В В q
V О) 0) - V си ш
о со - _ - о о и и
°ю о И
I « in . <u g
я-i . 4> •*!
я 3 •2 f£ ,2 Д JH U ,2 S
с
-— DO 'га О1 "га О га га га ~- 'со И 'га ^~* 'ra ^
f-4 ^
. 73 -O
-. • m "- И ьн га CN со см со « СО * га К CO DH
с
ion to LOV, m
9 'с *" '3 *ч

ion to LOV, m
ion to LOV, m:
staging (IGOR)
nissile centere
nissile centere
S
staging (ROTI)
staging (ROTI)
1 В ю и со
- • -и .и -о
Description
:"
— § 1 §1
_] ал
в&. б".
-J M J ЬС J 00
.- S . O.S
^м
O.S O.S
*" Ы> ^ 0В 2'й
X
И
- W Ы
с
о •&
£
С со
О ч
J
О
с *
3«
.tJ ja
13 1« 1«
•м J3 И -С
q2
.^ J3
га сч и£ га ьс со ьс га м .^
га Л
оо CO 00
PQ IS •3§P | з
8-3 Is
з § '3 §
--
§§' cd
1з
cd rt
§•2
S A sl
СТ р СУ 1н |
| |° II
2 2 •*-• т?
£»" «? *" ТЗ ** Т)
со щ га tu «U и"0 «•g ra^S
3 3 ei iSe
ш ^ .Ь "-• Н t. Ь it (н t,
ei её Й2 £2 вя е! вя £ e
DJOi .
с с в
00
в в
.
в
. a
. 00
q
00
q
. а
M
-
00
q
!Я !й
и и
•- a
U
a • О 0
JJ
и
g
и
':
U
3
и
о
cd
Ь Ц
cd
-.-. -
ц L ц
1 -.
ц
се
bl
cd
tc
-
L
-
L Ц
cd
С
g S S а £ 1 a а а а а g
a
0)
Я
а а §
со со с
9
|
3 з 0 а а 3 3
—
1 a
к С _ - со о с о
Q
-н
— гч м
~ " И •и t- —^ г- — t~
о Tf
СО
Ш
СО и
^ п вч
9
Я
Э 0 0
-г -г
CM
1 1 1 1 1 1 ( 1
СМ СМ г; 7
: ": 71 M ем см м г: M CM
ER 13227-6
XVI-1
XVI. PRELAUNCH AND COUNTDOWN OPERATIONS
A. PRELAUNCH
1. Simulated Flight Test
The GT-6A simulated flight test (SFT) was performed successfully
on 8 December 1965 in accordance with the Martin test procedure
(Ref. 8). The flight crew was in the spacecraft during the primary
run, and the backup crew was aboard during the secondary run for
spacecraft monitoring and training.
The countdown for the secondary run was started at T-45 minutes
(1302 EST) and was successfully completed at T+6 minutes (1353 EST).
The primary run was started at T-3 minutes (1448 EST) and was suc-
cessfully completed at T+6 minutes (1457 EST).
2. Launch Attempt Precountdown Activities
Final power application to the launch vehicle occurred at 0800 EST,
11 December 1965. The precountdown tests were started at 1200 EST
with the range sequencer at T-770 minutes. The tests were success-
fully performed and the range sequencer was secured at T-530 minutes
(1630 EST).
Propellant loading started on schedule at 1800 EST and was completed
in record time at 2110 EST. The range sequencer was restarted at
T-530 minutes (on schedule) at 0104 EST, 12 December 1965.
B. LAUNCH ATTEMPT COUNTDOWN SUMMARY
The countdown was picked up on schedule at 0529 EST on 12 December
1965. The 240-minute countdown was performed in accordance with the
Martin test procedure (Ref. 9). The countdown progressed smoothly and
astronaut ingress occurred at approximately T-100 minutes. A pro-
grammed 25-minute hold was initiated at T-3 minutes (0926 EST).
The countdown resumed at T-3 minutes (0951 EST) and progressed
through T-0 (0954 EST) engine ignition, followed by an automatic shut-
down at T+l. 2 seconds because of tail plug 3D1M disengaging prior to
liftoff. The propellant tanks were vented immediately, and preparations
were made to raise the erector for astronaut egress. The erector was
raised at 1128 EST, and the astronauts left the spacecraft at 1133 EST.
After the launch vehicle had been secured, the ground half of Dis-
connect 3D1M was removed for failure analysis and a replacement dis-
connect installed and safety wired.
ER 13227-6
XVI-2
Evaluation of the launch attempt data showed that performance deg-

radation was occurring in S/A 2 prior to engine shutdown. Consequently,
the gas generator and bootstrap lines were removed for inspection. In-
vestigation revealed that a plastic dust cap had been inadvertently left
in the gas generator assembly.
C. RECYCLE AND PRELAUNCH ACTIVITY
1. Recycle
Recycle started immediately in preparation for a launch scheduled
for 0837 EST on 15 December 1965. The recycle was performed in
accordance with GLV Test and Checkout Specification 424-1430002,
with minor exceptions as noted in Ref. 14.
2. Precountdown Activities
Final power application to the launch vehicle occurred at 1700 EST
on 14 December 1965. Oxidizer loading started on schedule at 2012
EST and was completed at 2155 EST. Fuel loading started at 2230 EST
and was completed at 2332 EST.
The range sequencer was started on schedule at T-530 minutes at
2322 EST on 14 December 1965. All precountdown tests were com-
pleted prior to starting the 240-minute countdown.
D. COUNTDOWN SUMMARY
The launch countdown was picked up on schedule at 0412 EST on
15 December 1965. The 240-minute countdown was performed in
accordance with Martin test procedure (Ref. 9). The countdown pro-
gressed smoothly and astronaut ingress occurred at approximately
T-97 minutes. A programmed 25-minute hold was initiated at T-3
minutes (0809 EST). The countdown resumed at T-3 minutes (0834
EST), and liftoff occurred exactly on schedule at 0837:26 EST.
The countdown schedule is shown in Fig. XVI-1.
ER 13227-6
XVI-3
Propulsion
p
Propellant loading ropellant Loading
Propellant tank pressure

Blanket Pressure ^^^^Щ^ЩЩ^Щ^^^^Щ^^Щ*;^ Pressure ^ W//W/7//^/7////^//^^^^
П SC shutdown ASCO and range shutdown 1 -" г-, f
Flight Controls
Abbreviated ascent test D Drift test | |
Drift test Drift test | ]
Gain test | |
Gain test
П Programmed sequence test Programmed sequence test |
РГЯ No. 2 у | 1
Switchover tept
П П р т Nos. 1 and 2 Programmer t e s t ] ~]pm Nos. 1 and 2
Programmer test
| | Mod III-G interface test
Mod III-G interface test
/-Beacon check ~ . Mocl
щ_£ interface test
rGDT Beacon check-. x— Airborne guidance on GCT-i r
PST
Guidance \ / \ /
lib* RF silence ^ Y ^RF silence Airborne guidance on I 1 1
Airborne guidance on
| | "T Abets RF on \Ш Abets RF on ^**F silence Abets RF on 1 . —.
Abets RF on
П ППССТ RF silence^ GOT | Interface Ц ^RF silence Liftoff | | | GCT | J
Mod Ш-G
^-GDT
MDS *- Interface
| | Switchover Tank sensor Q configuration Л
Interface test
\ V- Tank sensor Ц SMRD Simulated malfunction 1 Tank sensor 1
System test (noninterface)
\\— Overrate
Airborne power -,
Electrical
Ground power |
LV power on
Sequencer /MOC on Sequeucel /MOC on |..\uton,atu- UK m o n i t o r s
LVSS
1 gjJRF silence upen loop test д |Command carrier on
Command carrier on
MISTRAM on Open loop test | \/fl\ RF s i ence ^RF silence MISTRAM on , J ,

^RF silence Command receivers on[~
Command receivers on
Destruct battery check П IASCO shutdown and destruct test ASCp|
Shutdown and destruct test
RF silence -,
.. Ambients ^^
Instrumentation bient ^ ^^^__
AmDiem
Airborne/ground station Bangerejd 1 t— -Ambients -\ Ran,,, redout | |
PCM FM transmitters on Ш( 1 \/ЩШ\ t— i— i

Calibrations RF silence-^ FM off -^ A u t o n j a t i c c a l i b r a t i o n ->
Landline recorders
Start cartridge connector^ Destruct connection ^

Ordnance
t— Tank sensor Transit J Lowered
Erector
/ JTLittoff
Interface test Tank sensor checks Г" Liftoff Г~ | PST |
Countdown
\ \ ^* Aboi'l
. and shutdown ^F s
V/Л x/s/////s///i
*- Power up RF silence^ Pad clear Pad clear
Status check Л (blockhouse sealed) ckhouse sealed)^ Status
Countdown Operationa
Status check Status check Г Ordnance crew only^. / Status check M Status check П \
[ Restricted Propellant load crew only | Restricted Restricted

Pad access
*-Pad clear {blockhouse roadblocks) Range countdown
Range Sequencer Time Т- 530 480 420 360 300 240 230 220 210 200 190 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 О
(min)
<hr)
9:15 8:25 7:25 6:25 5:25 4:25
25-min planned hold- J°
Fig. XVI-1. Planned Precount and Countdovn
ER 13227-6
XVII-1
XVII. CONFIGURATION SUMMARY
A. LAUNCH VEHICLE SYSTEMS DESCRIPTION
The Gemini Launch Vehicle (GLV) is a modified two-stage Titan II

intercontinental ballistics missile (ICBM) which has been "man rated"
for Gemini usage. The propulsion system in each stage uses hyper-
golic (self-igniting upon mixture) propellants. Modifications to the
basic Titan II vehicle to achieve the ' man rated" GLV follow:
(1) Addition of a completely redundant malfunction detection

system (MDS).
(2) Replacement of the Titan II inertial guidance system (IGS)

with the Mod III-G radio guidance system (RGS).
(3) Addition of a three-axis reference system (TARS) to provide

attitude reference and open-loop programming to the auto-
pilot.
(4) Addition of a secondary flight control system (FCS).
(5) Addition of a secondary Stage I hydraulic system.
(6) Addition of the capability of switchover to the secondary

guidance, flight control, and hydraulic systems.
(7) Provision of redundancy in electrical sequencing by APS

and IPS power.
(8) Provision of an engine shutdown capability from the space-

craft.
(9) Provision of a 120-inch diameter cylindrical skirt forward

of the Stage П oxidizer tank for mating the spacecraft to the
launch vehicle.
(10) Removal of the retrorockets, vernier rockets and asso-

ciated equipment.
(11) Addition of fuel line spring-piston accumulators and oxidizer

line tuned standpipes for suppression oi POGO vibrations.
(12) Capability for redundant Stage II engine shutdown (GLV-3

and up).
Significant GLV-7 changes from the GLV-5 configuration are listed

in Table X V E - l .
ER 13227-6
XVII-2
CU со
f-< о 7tш CO 1 0)
<u CO и bjO
cu CU Ш h g
h Л CQ cd cu
ю £3 ~~ 'U a "*~* .— Д ч->
1 +? CO H £ч О CQ
CQ
о 5s
^ а
IIо cu ,D
о
cd §5
•гЧ
43
а Д! Ш
CQ
^
. CJ О G <£
и G cd CQ
о ^3 "So cd -2 со -*-1 G
(ч а rj cd
pressu
motor
|° и2 CL) чт« 1 ^
со
ш
tm
i-H (U
^ .-j
+j
0)
а°
•и т-1 CU
^ cd
^
С
i.
cd T3 g S Д о Я
Ш
fn С cd О 0
и ri
2J 2 &w cu д
ro .!^
I—I
CU Д
£j
5 ш
^
а
о
splices in all compartment
Reduced diameter of oxidi:

Added conduit vacuum test
orifice from 0. 50 to 0. 46 i
Changed location of drain 1
Provided tandem flowmete
о
Significant Configuration
Provided redundancy in pr
hydro changed from high p
from between dome chord
С
я
и
тз ""
о
CU
I—I
CU
CU
с
•и
fj
Stages I and II
о о
!Й
T.S о
ю cd со
:
о
:
ТЗ ° -о
cu cu cu
1*
Ш
•8S С с с G G
тз ti О 0 о О О
3 <] ц,
-J т—)
~ - rH CM*
cu
о
§
•1-1
G
T3
о
о
a
0) со
0)
"cu 0
T3
cd
CQ 'о тз •гЧ .
£ со
cu
с
о
•и 1 Ш
CQ
о 1—1
cd
о
I
+4
"cd
"G
cu
"cu
Чн
cd
i
СО о О о CO
3
Electri
Guidan
+•»
Malfun
cd cu
Ои
3b
О ею
•гН
тз Ш
bfl
с И
cd 0
CO рц i—Gi К
ER 13227-6
XVII-4
ЗЛ£- -3
LAUNCH
• -
ERECTOR
LAUNCH VEHICLE UMBILICAL SYSTEMS INTERFACE
VEHICLE PLATFORM
STATION ELEVATION
• FUNCTION SYSTEM LOCATION
г ел AIRCOND GUIDANCE AIR COND STG Д STA 371522
QUAD I 82VOFFBL.O
SJBOV OXID VENT O X I D STGH STA 371 122
OL.AD. П9УОП ILO DESIGNATION
2В2Е ELECTRICAL E L E C T R I C A L STGD. STA 402472

OUAOne2.2GFFe.LO
ELECTRICAL STEPS | STA6I
2BIE ELECTRICAL STGH. STA 402472.
QUADtr65-j3FFBLO
2BFVT FUEL VENT TOPPING FJELSTAGEO STA 406.491 ..
pôjMftrfo" BLB 1 1
S2BFV FUEL VENT FUEL STGH ST1P . Ъ1«И .
OUAOJ 37 i O F F B L O
«-«
н
S3BH HYDRAULIC HVDPAULIC STG П STA 470 125 XCLUDfi
UUADU И" CFFBLO «ПЮР*С»
ЗВА AIR CONDITIONING ENGINE AREA STG Л STA 4 74 875
Г •SPACECRAFT ««с з
CuAOfJ. ЗС 9 F F B L O
535? FUEL FILL AND DRAIN FUEL STGn STA 192250 TITAN П LAUNCH
.„«,,.
ST GE
ОиАОП IS' OFF1LO SUB VEHICLE CONTROL vEWCLE * V "
3BFD
FUEL PRESS SEO V A L V E FUEL STG П STA 4V. COMPARTMENT STATION STATION NTESFACE STRUCTURE POINT STAGE
С
рп]я*г"- ""«»"
DRAIN биАОДЗй* :FFBLO
53ВО OIID. FILL AND DRAIN OXID SIGH 5ТА4ЙЙО
ОУАРД72' O T F 8 L O
2BOVT
38IE ELECTRICAL ELECTRICAL STGU Sf A 452 250 COMPARTMENT N01 < .,,„
ОЖКИМИ Т4И« гмго 1ИЛТ rjso
ICIFD TUBO PUMP FUEL DRAIN FUEL STGI

ОуАрД45' OFFBL3
STA 554 7^0
QUACtI 1717'OFFBLO r ;;?5n — -«,«.*-«,—\ —i~— -o«i»2tB т*м« *FT «urn MM
.Ь'.°
iCOD TU80 PUMP OXID. DRAIN OXID STGI STA 554 750 2BFVT BETWEEN TANKS J »'"» —'
QUAD I i7 iOFf BLO COMPARTMENT NO 2 1 44»l»i-| «Fi >«..« 1 .-•'ik"^."'
LOUin.c.TInuKIJ, „„
Wl
sioov OXID VENT ОХЮ STGI STABJOTjr 11UM
0 S tlO
S2DFV FUEL VENT FUEL STG.I

QUADIiQ
ст»"9бззгв
WL6OO
QUAD П 40' O F F 6 L O
,'В ' ;f GE n
*"\[* , ~
3DIM MALFUNCTION MALFUNCTION STG.I STAj2l4873 . SI»itn»G«[ I»oio SXt 2 INT[«fAC44
DETECTION SYS. QUAD I м З/ЛГГЛО — -».
302М MALFUNCTION MALFUNCTION STGI STAI2I4 874 Ж ??o° -'
• ""•• «-*^^
DETECTION SYS. QuAomie(JFF8LO
3DIE ELECTRICAL ELECTRICAL STG I STAI2I669I COMPARTMENT NO 3* ^-g/\ ;
; 1 i K3LL Nome
auAonzo OFFRLO sr*cci'ST*cca

S3DF FUEL FILL AND OPAIN FUEL STG.I STA.I243 560
QUAD I
S3DFO FUEL DRAIN PRE -VALVE FUEL S T G I STA 1244.123
"*"' I
X mi-ftrii
QUAOffl 0171 ?t? n "".si°J?"e" HJ..--QDCJL •;
S3DOD OXID. DRAIN PRE-VALVE O X I D STGI STAI250.560
>»'" J *"•'" [Tc"'«
auADn
S30IH HYDRAULIC SUPPLY
AND RETURN
HYDRAULIC STG 1 PRIMARY STA 1255. 835
QUAD!
9 •j.
S3DO 0X10 FILL AND LWAIN 0X10 STGI ST* 1249.560 ...,,.
QUAD И •ran
2BOVT
OXID VENT TOPPING OXID STGJI STA ЗЯ ВО2
QUAD П4' Of FW1 60
IOOVT 0X10 VENT TOPPING OXID STG I STA 630. 727
1
QUAOnbO'OFF BLO ct ••OUITMOl (TT»)
2DFVT FUEL VENT TOPPING FUEL STAGE I STA 963 326

OUADD 50'OFFaLO
3D2E ELECTRCAL ELECTRICAL STG.1 STA 1216 691
S3D2H HYDRAULIC SUPPLY AND HYDHAULIC STG.I SECONOABY STA. 1251135

HETUPN QJADJ ri. ^ STAGE I
STM
зоюс OXID- 4 S ^ O T l STA. :1 2+ 3M BETWEEN TANKS J '^SoDs'J *"'" »'«•>•*« — 8020 HMCl
CHARGING SYSTIM OXID. &T«. I COMPARTMENT N04 ] TO t 030
ЗОШ OXID. «IMOTt

СМАЯ41Ы4 S Y S T E M OXID. ST5. I
SUAOm Jl'VOFF «.L.O.
STA.I21».JH
uuADmnyi«of>ft,L4.
R"tF
4. A ULV * < UP
1 A! OLV I ТИМ 4 ONLY
2 THIS DRAWING RELEASES NO PARTS

REF ONLY
I NEW GEMINI LAUNCH VEHICLE DRAWING

c" J Mi '"*' ""TtlFACt -^^_ * В SCOO»
NOTE
c6M*P«nTMENT N NO b Л "
\7
[ _ (\ — ..UNOVIUCLI STS I t««,. «Ч» j
'О» 0» ST»i_(OCC«)u*H4.iL£>*0 SA-2
СНСШС «I
SCOOP «1
TAR6ET Wbtto I fOX T*N« A» '
Fig. XVII-1. Gemini Launch Vehicle General Arrangement
ER 13227-6
XVII-3
A detailed description of all GLV systems is presented in Martin

Engineering Report, "Launch Vehicle No. 4 Flight Evaluation" (Ref. 3).
B. MAJOR COMPONENTS
The two major GT-6A components were as follows:
(1) Spacecraft
(a) Manufacturer: McDonnell Aircraft Corporation
(b) Serial Number: Spacecraft Number 6
(2) Gemini Launch Vehicle
(a) Manufacturer: Martin Company
(b) Serial Number: GLV-6
(c) Air Force Serial Number: 62-12561.
Figure XVII-1 shows the general arrangement of the GLV.
ER 13227-6
xvin-i
XVIII. REFERENCES
1. "Launch Vehicle No. 7 Flight Evaluation. " Engineering Report

13227-7, Martin Company, Baltimore, Maryland, January 1966.
Confidential
2. "Launch
" Vehicle No. 5 Flight Evaluation. " Engineering Report
13227-5, Martin Company, Baltimore, Maryland, October 1965.
Confidential

13227-4, Martin Company, Baltimore, Maryland, July 1965.
Confidential

13227-3, Martin Company, Baltimore, Maryland, May 1965.
Confidential

13227-2, Martin Company, Baltimore, Maryland, March 1965.
Confidential
6. "Launch Vehicle No. 2 Launch Attempt Evaluation. " Engineering

Report 13227 -2X, Martin Company, Baltimore, Maryland,
January 1965. Confidential

13227-1, Martin Company, Baltimore, Maryland, May 1964.
Confidential
8. "Martin-Canaveral Test Procedure. " 424-876-ETR, Revision F.
9. "Martin-Canaveral Test Procedure. " 424-875-ETR, Revision N.
10. "GT-6A Pre-flight Report. " LV-326-6, Martin Company, Balti-

more, Maryland, November 1965. Confidential
11. "Gemini Launch Vehicle Performance Specification. " MB -104 6,

SCN-10, Martin Company, Baltimore, Maryland, 20 December
1965. Confidential
12. Letter from SSD to MMB, dated 19 October 1965, subject:

"Transmittal of RGS Dispersions for GT-6. "
13. "Flight Weight Coordination Report, Post-Flight Weight, GT-6. "

LV-165-6B, Martin Company, Baltimore, Maryland, 19
January 1966.
ER 13227-6
XVIII-2
14. Martin letter MG-2012 to SSD, dated 14 December 1965, subject:

"Test and Checkout Specification Waiver. "
15. "Subsystem Engineering Analysis YLR 87-AJ-5 and YLR 91-AJ-5

Rocket Engines. " AGC 521-3. 15 Q-15, Aerojet-General Corpora-
tion, Sacramento, California, 22 July 1964. Confidential
16. "Stage I Base Environments Analysis. " LV-163, Martin Company,

Baltimore, Maryland, January 1963.
17. "Master Measurements List. " LV-220, Revision N, Martin

Company, Baltimore, Maryland, 24 January 1966.
18. "Aerojet Engine Test Directive. " 2. 1-3. 3E, Aerojet-General

Corporation, Sacramento, California, 22 July 1964.
ER 13227-6
A-l
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF GEMINI LAUNCHES
ER 13227-6
A2
' CObtftDENTIAL
«W.
Summary of Gemini Launches
Launch Launch
Vehicle Burning Time Time in Orbit ^ Evaluation
Launch Inertia! Velocity (fps) Orbit (naut mi)
Date and Payload Stage I Stage II Altitude (ft) Inertial Plight Path Angle (deg) (hr) Report
Mission Time (hr EST) (lb) (sec) (sec) BECO SECO SECO + 20 Sec BECO SECO SECO + 20 Sec BECO SECO SECO + 20 Sec Stage II Spacecraft Apogee Perigee Number
GT-1 4-8-64 7029® 157.5 185.3 9,752 25,679 25, 786 208,262 531, 500 528. 184 20.00 0.0 -0.03 95.2 ® 95.2® 173 86.6 ER 13227-1
1100 (64 orbits) (64 orbits)
GT-2 1-19-65 6890 ® 155.1 180.4 9,916 25,611 25, 738 229, 743 546, 960 526,380 26.219 -2.4523 -2.3431 N/A^ N/A® N/A® N / A ® ER 13227-2X®
0904 ER 13227-2
GT-3 3-23-65 7112 155.8 181.3 9, '981 25,587 25,688 224,777 531,417 532,338 21. 79 0.0 0.0323 18 4.6 121 87 ER 13227-3
GT-4 6-3-65 7868 155.7 181.3 9,844 25,670 25, 745 214,775 531, 522 532,886 18.66 -0.0235 0.059 47. 7 97. 7 152.3 87 ER 13227-4
GT-5 8-21-65 7947 156.8 179.7 9,848 25,713 25,806 215,607 531,276 531, 118 19.90 -0.0279 -0.0129 72 190.9 189 87 ER 13227-5
0900 (51 orbits) (12 7. 9 or bits
GT-7 12-4-65 8085 159.1 181.4 10,049 25,735 25,789 207,088 529, 583 529,738 18.66 0.0500 0.0285 66 330.6 177. 1 87 ER 13227-7
1430 (46. 6 orbits) (2 19. 8 orbits >
GT-6A 12-15-65 7821 160.4 181.6 9,992 25,634 25, 728 202, 186 529,891 530,201 17.94 0.08 -0.054 31 25.8 140. 4 87 ER 13227-6
0837 (21 orbits) (17. 1 orbits)
Spacecraft and Stage II inserted into orbit as a unit.
Suborbital mission (spacecraft impact 2125 miles downrange).
Inertial orbit.
Launch attempt report.
CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-6
NFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL
1DENTIAL
3
Kl
J
MARIETTA

Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Launch Vehicle No. 6 Flight Evaluationx

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

NASA-MSC-G-R-65-5

Published as Supplemental LAUNCH

PREPARED BY Engineering Report 13227-6

U. S. Government Agencies Only

, в. "" г <• т-1 Т"'

Published as Supplemental Report 2

LAUNCH VEHICLE NO. 6

MARTIN COMPANY, BALTIMORE DIVISION SPACE SYSTEMS DIVISION

Under CONTRACT AF 04(695)-394 UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

II. System Performance П-1

A. Trajectory Analysis .... II-1

B. Payload Capability 11-40

D. Weight Statement 11-41

III. Propulsion System Ш-1

A. Launch Attempt (12 December 1965) Ш-1

B. Engine Subsystem III-2

C. Propellant Subsystem Ш-24

D. Pressunzation Subsystem Ш-70

E. Environmental Control Ill-81

IV. Flight Control System IV-1

A. Stage I Flight IV-1

B. Stage II Flight . . IV-9

C. Post-SECO Flight IV-9

V. Hydraulic System . V-l

A. Stage I .... V-l

VI. Guidance Systems VI-1

RECEDING PAGE BLANK NOT FILMED.

The scheduled launch of GT-6A on 12 December 1965 was terminated

On 15 December 1965, Gemini-Titan 6A (GT-6A) was launched suc-

The 240-minute countdown was picked up at 0529 EST on 15 Decem-

Stages I and П engines operated satisfactorily throughout powered

The flight control system (FCS) maintained satisfactory vehicle

Performance of the radio guidance system (RGS) was satisfactory.

The hydraulic system operated satisfactorily during launch opera-

The ordnance system umbilical drop weight release, explosive launch

The flight environment encountered by GT-6A was within design re-

The longitudinal oscillation (POGO) on GT-6A reached a maximum

GLV-6 Test Objectives and Results

P-l Demonstrate satisfactory P-l Orbit insertion was

P-2 Evaluate launch vehicle P-2 All systems performed

P-3 Demonstrate the effec- р-з GT-6A was erected

s-i Evaluate trajectory per- s-i Vehicle flight was

S-2 Demonstrate ability to S-2 Tanks were loaded

This report presents an engineering evaluation of Gemini Launch

Propellant tanking test

Transport to satellite building foi

Launch vehicle re -erection

Launch vehicle and spacecraft re

Simulated night test (SFT)

II. SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

Gemini Launch Vehicle No. 6 (GLV-6) performed as predicted and

GLV-6 was steered in the lateral plane during Stage II flight to a

A comparison of the predicted and observed insertion conditions is

Altitude (naut mi) 87. 128 87.260 +0. 132 ±0.346

#Relative to Complex 19.

Rate Time from Liftoff

Step 1 -0.709 23.04 to 88.32

A comparison of the planned and actual sequences of events is con-

Reconstruction of the BECO condition (Table II-5) shows that a

A Y,-, coordinate displacement at BECO results in an approximate

Table П-6 presents the trajectory parameters computed from the

Time from Liftoff (sec)

<5- - ' '

Fig. II-1. GT-бА Boost Flight Path Profile