Launch Vehicle No. 7 Flight Evaluation

428
i-MSC-G-R-66-1
Supplemental Report 2
January 1966
(NASA-CF-83088) L A U N C H VEHICLE NO. 7 FLIGHT

E V A L U A T I O N ( M a r t i n Co.) 289 p
sued as: Supplemental Report 2

FOR NAS.
To: Gemini Program Mission Report
Gemini VIE
MSC-G-R-66-1
PERSONNEL ONLY
By: Gemini Vn Mission Evaluation Team
National Aeronautics and Space LAUNCH
Administration rVEHICLE NO. 7
Manned Spacecraft Center
Houston, Texas t
FLIGHT
EVALUATION (U)
U. S. Government Agencies
January 1966
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE . . . Los Angeles, California

&
ER 13227-7 January 1966
NASA-MSC-G-R-66-1
Supplemental Report 2
January 1966
GEMINI
LAUNCH
VEHICLE
LAUNCH V E H I C L E NO. 7
FLIGHT
EVALUATION (U)
DOCUMENT. _™,.J INFORMATION
AFFECTL . W ' -EN'SE OF THE UNITED
STATES WITH... _ ЧЙ OF THE ESPIONAGE
LAWS, HUE 18, U. ,743 ANC /94. ITS
TRANSMISSION OR
A p p r o v e d by IN AMY MANNE"
PROHIBITED
it C
L. J. Rose I. C. C u r l a n d e r
A s s i s t a n t T e c h n i c a l Director T e c h n i c a l Director
Test Evaluation
By: Gemini УП Mission Evaluation Team

Issued as: Supplemental Report 2 National Aeronautics and Space
To: Gemini Program Mission Report Adm inistration
Gemini VII Manned Spacecraft Center
MSC-G-R-66-1 Houston, Texas
Down year
Prepared by For inte
afti
MARTIN COMPANY, BALTIMORE DIVISION SPACE SYSTEMS DIVISIO
Baltimore, Maryland 21203 AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND
Under CONTRACT AF 04(695)-394 UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
PRIORITY DX-A2 Los Angeles, 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 13227-7
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword u
Summary vii
I. Introduction I-1
II. System Performance II-1
A. Trajectory Analysis II-1
B. Pay load Capability 11-39
C. Staging 11-39
D. Weight Statement 11-39
III. Propulsion System III-l
A. Engine Subsystem III-l
B. Propellant Subsystem 111-22
C. Pressurization Subsystem 111-67
D. Environmental Control 111-78
IV. Flight Control System IV-1
A. Stage I Flight IV-1
B. Stage II Flight IV-8
C. Post-SECO Flight IV-13
V. Hydraulic System V-l
A. Stage I V-l
B. Stage II V-5
VI. Guidance Systems VI-1
A. Radio Guidance System Performance VI-1
ER 13227-7
L\
CONTENTS (continued)
Page
B. Spacecraft Inertial Guidance System Ascent
Performance VI-5
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. Landline Instrumentation VIII-2
IX. Range Safety and Ordnance IX-1

A. Command Control Receivers IX-1
B. MISTRAM IX-2
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. Prelaunch Winds Flight Simulations XI-1
B. Slow Malfunctioning Monitoring XI-6

XII. Airframe System XII-1
A. Structural Loads XII-1
B. POGO XII-19
C. Recovered Stage I Oxidizer Tank XII-27
XIII. AGE and Facilities XIII-1
A. Mechanical AGE . XIII-1
ER 13227-7
CONTENTS (continued)
Page
B. Master Operations Control Set XIII-1
C. Facilities ХШ-2
XIV. Reliability XIV-1
A. Environmental Criteria XIV-1
B. Countdown Probability XIV-2
XV. Range Data XV-1
A. Data Distribution XV-1
B. Film Coverage XV-5
XVI. Prelaunch and Countdown Operations XVI-1
A. Prelaunch XVI-1
B. Countdown Summary XVI-2
XVII. Configuration Summary XVII-1

A. Launch Vehicle Systems Description XVII-1
B. Major Components XVII-3
XVIII. References . XVIII-1
Appendix A: Summary of Gemini Launches. A-l
ER 13227-7
Page intentionally left blank
vii
SUMMARY
On 4 December 1965, Gemini-Titan No. 7 (GT-7) was launched suc-
cessfully and on schedule from Complex 19, Cape Kennedy, Florida.
Launch vehicle/spacecraft separation was completed 368.7 seconds
after liftoff. Spacecraft re-entry was accomplished after completion
of 13.8 days in orbit.
The 240-minute countdown was picked up at 1030 EST on 4 December

and continued without incident through liftoff at 1430 hours EST. The
spacecraft was inserted into an elliptical orbit with a perigee of 87
nautical miles and an apogee of 177. 1 nautical miles; all test objectives
for the launch were achieved.
Stages I and II engines operated satisfactorily throughout powered
flight. Stage I burning time was 159. 121 seconds, with shutdown ini-
tiated by oxidizer exhaustion. Stage II engine operation was terminated
by a guidance command after 181.403 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. 7 deg/sec, and the maximum attitude error was 1. 1 degrees.
The maximum rate and attitude error that occurred during staging did
not exceed 2.9 deg/sec and 2. 1 degrees, respectively.
The radio guidance system (RGS) performance 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.
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 flight, resulting in 100% data acquisition. The
landline 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 count-
down.
ER 13227-7
Vlll
The ordnance system umbilical dropweight release, propulsion sys-

tem prevalves, explosive launch nuts and stage separation nuts operated
as designed. 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-7 was within design re-
quirements. Flight loads were well within the launch vehicle1 s struc-
tural capabilities. The most critical loading (which occurred at pre-
BECO, aft of Station 320) reached 98. 5% of design limit load.
The longitudinal oscillation (POGO) on GT-7 reached a maximum
value at Station 280 of 0.125 g zero-to-peak at a frequency of 11.8 cps
at LO + 133. 3 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 for the launch.
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.
Two electrical umbilicals, 2B1E and 2B2E, disconnected out of
sequence by 0. 015 second; however, this is not detrimental to any
system. Engine blast and heat damage to the launch stand was minor.
ER 13227-7
IX
GLV-7 Test Objectives and Results
Objective Results
Primary
P-l Demonstrate satisfactory P-l Orbit insertion was within
boost by the launch ve- the predicted tolerance for
hicle system of a manned V, h and V.
Gemini spacecraft into
the prescribed orbital
insertion conditions.
P-2 Evaluate launch vehicle P~2 All systems performed
subsystem performance satisfactorily throughout
during powered flight flight. The POGO oscilla-
for mission success and tion (0. 125 g zero-to-peak)
crew safety. was the lowest encountered.
Secondary
S-l Evaluate trajectory per- S-l Vehicle flight was within
formance of the launch the 3~ sigma predicted tra-
vehicle system for re- jectory.
fining capability and
predictions for future
missions.
S-2 Demonstrate ability to S~2 Tanks were loaded within
load propellants to the the required tolerances of
weight and tempera- weight and temperature.
ture limits imposed by
payload and vehicle re-
quirements.
ER 13227-7
1-1
I. INTRODUCTION
This report presents an engineering evaluation of Gemini Launch
Vehicle No. 7 (GLV-7) systems performance during the countdown,
launch and powered flight phase of the Gemini 7 mission.
The Gemini-Titan No. 7 (GT-7) vehicle was launched on schedule
from Complex 19, Cape Kennedy, Florida at 1430 hours EST on 4
December 1965.
Gemini 7 was the sixth mission and the fourth manned flight of the
program, with astronauts Frank Borman and James Lovell aboard the
spacecraft. The 14-day mission, which included a rendezvous with
Gemini 6, was completed successfully on 17 December 1965.
The GT-7 vehicle was comprised of the two stage GLV-7 (similar
to GLV-5) and the Gemini 7 spacecraft. The spacecraft was injected
into an elliptical orbit having a perigee of 87 nautical miles and an
apogee of 177.1 nautical miles.
Significant events and tests for GLV-7 at ETR are summarized in
Fig. 1-1.
ER 13227-7
1-2
IT)
OJ
CD
Events
1
2
a
О
и
о
V
>
Ф
g
h
и
о
0)
^
со
GLV-7 on dock, ETR
N
О)
Erection of GLV-7
I
0
Р
W
Subsystem reverification (
:
Pre -spacecraft mate verif
P
-
I
'
-
ER 13227-7
-
Spacecraft electrical mate
•4
---
-^
И
—
Electrical integrated valid
f.
-
с-
•4
--.
Joint guidance and control
•-*
.-..
'•
-
Г-
-
^
л
P
Joint combined systems te

0
-
-
t-
GLV propellant tanking tes
X
'
.
и
С J
Spacecraft mechanical ma1
.
Г)
•-
Simulated flight test (SFT)
Launch
II-1
П. SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
A. TRAJECTORY ANALYSIS
1. Orbit Insertion
Gemini Launch Vehicle No. 7 (GLV-7) performed as predicted and

inserted the Gemini 7 spacecraft into earth orbit well within the allow-
able tolerance limits.
A comparison of the predicted and observed insertion conditions is

given in Table II-l. In this table and in all succeeding references to a
predicted (nominal) trajectory, the data have been obtained from the
GLV-7 45-day prelaunch report (Ref. 16), updated to reflect a space-
craft weight of 8069 pounds (liftoff spacecraft weight--8085 pounds), T-l
hour wind and atmosphere data, and the -1. 64% pitch and -1. 69% roll
programmer biases. The observed trajectory parameters are those
derived by the Martin Company from the final GE Mod III-G 10 pps
radar data. These data have been smoothed and corrected for both re-
fraction errors and systematic biases by the General Electric Corpora-
tion before submittal to the Martin Company.
TABLE П-l
Comparison of Insertion Conditions at SECO + 20 Seconds
Observed
Planned GE Minus Preliminary
Nominal Mod Ш-G Planned Tolerance
Altitude 87.106 87.183 +0.077 +0.346

(naut mi)
Inertia! ve- 25,806 25,789 -17 +30.38
locity (fps)
Inertial flight -0.0004 0.0765 -0.0769 +0.1251
path angle
(deg)
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 prelimi-
nary tolerance, the total tolerance may be computed by the arithmetic
ER 13227-7
II-2
addition of the preliminary tolerance to the 3-sigma data error of the

instrumentation source being considered. Thus,
I 2 9
Preliminary tolerance = V(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. Geodetic and Weather Parameters
Significant geodetic and weather parameters are shown in Table II-3.
The winds were relatively strong, and atmospheric pressure and tem-
perature were nearly standard. Winds were essentially sidewinds at
very low altitudes, shifting to westerly (almost pure tail wind) direction
above 3000 feet.
4. Flight Plan
The primary objective for GLV-7 was to place the Gemini 7 space-
craft into an elliptical earth orbit with an 87-nautical mile perigee* and
183-nautical mile apogee. * Having achieved orbital insertion at 25, 806
fps, ** the spacecraft then separates from Stage II (with no net change
in velocity) 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 lift-
off, during which time a programmed roll rate of 1.25 deg/sec is initi-
ated to roll the vehicle from a pad orientation of 84. 908 degrees to the
flight azimuth of 83.608 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 as shown in
Table II-4.
Guidance commands from the radio guidance system (RGS) are initi-
ated at liftoff + 168.35 seconds and continue until two seconds prior to
*Relative to Complex 19.

**Does not include the separation velocity imparted by the spacecraft.
L
ER 13227-7
ц-з
CO COС
ГЧ i-l 2
•tf .° .° Ю ^ч
*r* *m со
•^ о
^ СО СЛ t-l СО Ю
tw
Ш f- TJ< t- CO О «-I 1Л СО СО Ю »-« 'l* СМ
° b- S
СЛ " £•
• CO O3 lO O3 • • . о о со «п ю .
со T}< .H rH ,-H CO CO CM t- см со с- ем t-i о
с +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1
я) м
.2
со
(ч
DO 0)
~
О, ^
: га СО Ю
•i-i i-i en i-i ем
CJ Q 3 ** . **< ^J СО О О О т}< ,-н
i О .-и . СО ОЭ .-и .-1
ТЗ
~ о* 1-н. ем. т* сп о* о*
-4
о,^
tf .25 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1
т1 Q
СО
2 J-,
0
со .2^ <*
со
^
о
ем о
оз со со •*
° £ *" Tj< l> 00 О iH ю ^< со ю гн со ю
^t 1О • - • • О
T3 (1) X3
• со ел ю о) • • . Ю С- СО СО Ю .
'Jl .-) r-t «-I CO CO CM С- i-H ,-t ^ CM t-< О
Ed +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1
Q""
w О
J CM со
3 -
я
S
q и) Д
^
д »™<
л t> СО
Ю
CD
Ю
Ю
CO
00
CO
,-н
rH O5
,-н ОЭ СО
С- ^ СО
СМ .-ч
О
СО
со
^}*
'Ф
со
Ю
.
оз
ю
СО СО t>
со о
т(* СО
...
,-н Ю С- t~
со
Ю
t- о о
1—I
см о
rj«
^
.О
.
.-И СМ О5 ОЗ -Ф Ю ^н со ем ем со со ю о
DO 1 1 i i i
(ч
0)
p 'So 'So
и Ш OJ
^ ТЗ — ТЗ
h Ю *•" со ^*
0)
1 'о ^ *^ ^5 "Йо
IJ
о
...
1 Я) +J Т^ ^> С и 'о х-х ^^ "Г" 'д ^
0] га Ъ Я и се
"• f-l СО vti И ."и *U
I)
I га- *•".„«" ° 3 X! со vii X ^о) •*^-; rH
ри
со
О !Й _S* -м СО ^
-jj ТЗ +5 ем >
О. ТЗ о
С
-я ^> ^
Ч
ш3 а •aи
о О !tj сб i *~* ш -i-"
•Я ™ 0
|—1 w О Ш ^
S
" °
0) •£
СЮ ^
•"-• 5 » 8»
С сJ3 S
та а
сН ё
И
О
с о ° & & | cd
§ .
b g is 2 2 ^ о Сч
О
«д
-*-"
'^
д ГЗ^ L "
Св ^
i ?ч ^3
тз ^
H
«2
FH
Сч С
0
и
.2
' ТЗ "ей СМ
СО СО И -3 Ш •" со со С .3 I
J j O - ' - ' C Q C n S - ' - ' + £ о +-• со ю з t"
0) g 0 ^. 0 0 0 ft
Pu .!н cu £ ь t, ^ и
riHOtSouOiS ^
и EH б £ О U О £
PQ от
ER 13227-7
II-4
TABLE П-3
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) 84.908 true azimuth
Weather
Ambient pressure (psi) 14.736

Ambient temperature (°F) 68
Dew point (°P)
Relative humidity (%) 72
Surface wind:
Speed (fps) 16.9
Direction (deg) 340
Winds aloft (max):
Altitude (ft) 43,500
Speed (fps) 176
Direction (deg) 258 true azimuth
Cloud cover 0. 5 cumulus, base at 16, 000 ft
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 _l_ X-axis
Positive Z-axis Forms a right-handed orthogonal
system
Reference ellipsoid Fischer
Launch
Initial flight azimuth (deg) 83.608 true azimuth

Roll program (deg) 1.3 cw
ER 13227-7
II-5
SECO; however, velocity cutoff computations continue to SECO. Be-

tween SECO and SECO + 20 seconds, the engine shutdown impulse con-
tinues to add velocity to the vehicle (approximately 84 fps), and the
spacecraft is considered to be separated from the sustainer at SECO
+ 20 seconds, nominally.
TABLE II-4
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-5, and a profile of the GT-7 flight superimposed on
the range planning map appears in Fig. II-1.
5. Trajectory Results
Analysis of the range data and Mod III radar data indicates that
GLV-7 liftoff 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, where at BECO
the vehicle was 741 feet high.
Table H-6 contains a simplified reconstruction of the BECO condi-

tions. This table lists the primary factors contributing to the pitch
plane trajectory dispersions at BECO and summarizes the effect of
each. Although the reconstructed BECO does not match the flight data
quite as well as for previous Gemini flights, the differences are well
within allowable tolerance limits.
In the yaw plane the flight did not deviate significantly from the
predicted trajectory; hence, a reconstruction was considered unneces-
sary.
A comparison of the predicted nominal (with wind) trajectory with

flight results is shown in Table II-7. Inspection of the various radar
data indicates that the Mod III, MISTRAM and С-band radars were
consistent at BECO. At insertion, however, MISTRAM produced the
most accurate results. This is verified by the Bermuda' data which
produced very similar values of velocity, altitude and flight path angle.
ER 13227-7
и-6
л
TABLE II-5
GT-7 Flight Events Summary
GMT Time from Liftoff (sec)

Measurement Event (hr-min-sec) Actual Planned
0800/0801 Power transfer 1928:34.6 -89. 1 -89.
FC B-10 MOCS T-0 1930:00.09 -3.61 -3.43
2104 87FS (T-0) :00. 190 -3.512 -3. 37
0356 Stage I S/A-1 MDTCPS make :01. 137 -2. 565 -2.27
0357 Stage I S / A - 2 MDTCPS make :01.277 -2.425 -2. 27
2101 TCPS S/A-1 and S/A-2 :01.403 -2.299 -2. 20
0169 Launch nuts :03. 51 -0. 19 -0.20
4421 First motion :03. 584 -0. 118 -0. 10
:
4422 Shutdown lockout (backup) :03.601 -0. 101 0. 10
4423 Liftoff :03.702 0 0
0734 Start roll program :23.05 19.35 19.44
0734 End roll program :24.09 20.39 20.48
0732 Start pitch program No. 1 :26. 64 22.94 23.04
0732 Stop pitch program No. 1 1931:31.74 88.04 88.32
0732 Start pitch program No. 2 :31.74 88.04 88.32
0728 FCS gain change No. 1 :53. 30 109. 60 110.00
0732 Stop pitch program No. 2 1932:02.36 118.66 119.04
0732 Start pitch program No. 3 :02.36 118.66 119.04
0735 Staging enable (TARS discrete) :27.85 144. 15 144. 64
0741 IPS staging arm timer :28. 86 145. 16 145.00
0356 Stage I S/A-1 MDTCPS break :39. 268 155. 566 155.51
0357 Stage I S / A - 2 MDTCPS break :39.276 155. 574 155.51
0032 87FS /91FS (BECO) :39. 311 155. 609 155.57
0502 Start PC. rise :39.956 156.254 156.22
0169 Stage separation :40. 01 156.31 156.30
0855 Stage II MDFJPS make :40. 001 156.299 156.47
0732 Stop pitch program No. 3 :45. 72 162.02 162. 56
0740 RGS enable :45. 69 161.99 162.56
0755/0756 First guidance command :52. 04 168.34 168.35
0739 Stage II shutdown enable 1935:20.03 316.33 317.44
0777 Guidance SECO :40. 704 337.002 338.43
0519 91FS2 :40. 714 337.012 338.45
0522 Shutdown valve relay :40. 711 337.009 338.47
0521 Shutdown squib :40. 742 337.040 338.47
0799 ASCO :40. 767 337.065 338.48
0855 Stage II MDFJPS break :40. 869 337. 167 338.75
AB-03 Spacecraft separation 1936:12.4 368.7 358.45
ER 13227-7
IAL Ы-7
TABLE II-6
Reconstruction of GT-7 BECO Conditions
At Д Altitude AVelocity ДУ
(sec) (ft) (fps) (des)
Measured Parameters
Thrust (+0. 264% = +868 Ib) -0. 25 + 530 + 0. 10

Wind (T-l hr) -- -2300 + 59 -0.25
Outage (45 lb)# (compared + 0.28 +765 + 41 -0.02
to nominal)
PropeUant loading (+ 102 Ib) + 0.06 -- +2 -0.02

Inert weight (+ 146 Ib) -- -340 - 11 --
Trend Indications
Pitch programmer error -- -470 +4 -0. 10
(-1.46%)**
Pitch engine misalignment -- - 1030 + 10 -0.25
(+0.07 deg)
Specific impulse (+0. 253% + 0.26 + 370 + 19 + 0.05
« +0.70 sec)
Pitch gyro drift (+5. 0 deg/hr) -- + 700 -7 + 0. 16

Apparent A's (A + B) + 0.35 - 1775 + 117 -0.33
Measured Д'з + 0.044 + 733 + 145 -0.19
*Mean outage = 570 Ib, nominal outage = 452 Ib
**Nominal = -1.64% (bias)
ER 13227-7
И-8
с
«1 s
1
в
И
V
СП
ci ° ~"
£
+
°>
CM
a
•о . -- *f CM
en
en to -i< CM ^ 1П —с.ШГ-
- О to rf to -ч -
- —1 О» Ч" Ш 00 CO .
1 "1
о
to со см со i-i ем
,o -to о ~* . t-
ю
о
00
О *-H 00 О С- CO С»
. со -о
Г- .00 «СП
in in ем о со -н .
.т <*
.СО -
-'
1
1
1
1
- ^H ^H CM ^н 1П CM CO i 1 CO СО СМ Л 1 Ш СМ СО i
j а to t- to
с CO 00 rl
- оen с- со
en to.00to 1C
CM CO
-н см to in со со . -
.i-l
•
Н «а со со о to •-! CM - о en in со со со о . -[ - :
<° en
t Щ >-* in -t- • • -en о • CO . - -
_ 1ПО О CO CM — 1 i-H N 1 in ю см .со -н . - - 1 1
" rf i4 CM ч 1П CM CO •-- N X -"
1 0CO СО СМ Ш О Ю СМ СО N
.
- а
- О
о ш
SH . а
м to
CO
ю со
о.-н
ю
О) en со .in , СМ 00
to о en со to en i
:
CO ^ О to -H CM о со с- to со со о
,O .to О >-i . • . f- . t~ . ^ 1П
-
enО Г- « СП О СП .СО CO 1
О И in о о со CM -^ ^н
гн tH CM -H in CM CO
-
:
rH
1 CO -
1П Л СМ . СО ч .
со см ш о in см со
•
О
TABL
TD
-
тз CM .
CO СП Г-
0) CO in to
с "° "м О to
в) 2в **
с о ч in
to
о
to
«со
со •* -
to en ^j*
•Ф to to о ч со .
.со
in о о ч со •^< о см о см со см
.en .to •* ч . t-. in
Ю -^ тг . . .in CM Л 1
1П СП О СО »-l r~t i-H- • Tf 0 .
-н СП СМ -н in СМ СО 1 CO СО СМ Ю 1 Ю СМ СО О ч
- ё
„ >
"ш
0 « tb "ел о. -
to 0) & *-* -2"
01
г §
Ц) IV
"* лto 3
ш
£ь. !* "о
> 5
Biased yaw steering ve

Vertical position, Zp (
Ground range (naut mi)

Ground range (naut mi)
Vertical position, Z_ (
Vertical velocity, Z (
Cross-range velocity, ^
Performance Pai
Vertical velocity, ZF (
Down-range velocity.X
Inertial flight path angl
Time from liftoff (sec)
Inertial flight path angl

Down -range position, X
Time from liftoff (sec)
Down-range position, X
Down-range velocity, X
Yaw steering velocity.
Yaw steering velocity.

Cross-range position.
Cross-range velocity.
Cross -range position.
Geocentric radius (ft)
Geocentric radius (ft)
Inertial velocity (fps)

Inertial velocity (fps)
Altitude (ft)
Altitude (ft)
ECO
w
ER 13227-7
П-9
Fig. ГГ-1. GT-7 Boost Fligit Path Profile
ER 13227-7
II-10
The actual, as well as the predicted, nominal trajectory is presented

in graphical form in Figs. II-2 through 11-24. On these graphs, the
nominal trajectory is that documented in Ref. 16 , updated to reflect a
spacecraft weight of 8069 pounds (liftoff spacecraft weight = 8085 pounds),
T-l hour winds and atmospheric data, and the - 1. 64% pitch and - 1. 69%
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.
Figures 11-25 and 11-26 describe the atmospheric and wind conditions
existing at Cape Kennedy at the time of launch. A list of the primary
tracking sources with the trajectory time interval covered by each is
contained in Table II-8.
6. Look Angles
Upon initiation of closed-loop guidance at LO + 168. 34 seconds, the

RGS commanded an initial pitch-down command of about 0. 16 deg/sec,
lasting approximately 0. 5 second. Following this, a 2 deg/sec pitch-
down command was issued for 1. 9 seconds to compensate for the
slightly higher-than-nominal BECO condition. As shown in Fig. 11-20
the maneuver resulted in moderate negative angles of attack during
this period. The maximum look angle in pitch (LAP) occurred at
LO + 324 seconds when it attained a value of 21 degrees. This maxi-
mum value was well within the 40-degree boundary at that time as
shown in Fig. 11-27. The corresponding look angle in yaw (LAY) was
also within the established limitations (+ 7 degrees) as shown in Fig. II-
28. The maximum value of LAY was 4. 2 degrees, which occurred at
BECO.
7. Maximum Dynamic Pressure
Due to the basically westerly winds which prevailed at altitude, the
dynamic pressure environment through which the vehicle flew was
reduced. The nominal (no wind) trajectory showed a maximum dynamic
pressure of 749 psf, while the nominal (with wind) trajectory indicated
699 psf. The actual maximum value of 704. 5 psf occurred at a slightly
lower altitude and Mach number than expected. Other trajectory
parameters pertinent to the maximum dynamic pressure region are
shown in Table II-9.
8. Angles of Attack and Sideslip
Predicted and observed histories of angles of attack and sideslip

during 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
atmospheric information obtained from the 1330 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 aforementioned weather data.
ER 13227-7
1
^шшиНЙУУ^ II-11
i !
<^R
В ECO
(155. 609 sec)^ ~"~~"tt,--
to
"' Predicted nominal wind run 81 -GT-7 (final)*'
• I GE Mod III-G final flight data* / \l Predicted BECO

f 1!) (155. 565 sec)
i -ТПл-гЗа
| *Includes -
Rawinsonde balloon data
С ape Kennedy
i t30 EST, 4 December 1965
• •• ' ."",*•" i'!-'
• «'.
*
•
с
1 т
• X
Ш
ff \
' n
!'.X; ^'
•
;trf*№
_^Jie<eî
*•»*•»•• Lu ' a k!V" I .»»«-.
л^*Ч
i
:
:
•'. ;| -"... 1 :'.' .
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Time from Liftoff (sec)
Fig. II-2. Inertial Velocity Versus Time: Stage I Flight
ER 13227-7
Predicted nominal wind run 81-GT-7 (final)*
GE Mod III-G final flight data*
Rawinsonde balloon
Cape Kennedy
80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180

Fig. II-3. Inertial Flight Path Angle Versus Time: Stage I Flight
щщцщтщ
yum WW*"
ER 13227-7
411
ui kHMH
THl 11-13
-2-
240
220
— Рг« nomina win
1
ЛЯлЯ TTT-/" final fli rrb\
•
... ,,... 1. ц_„ :
-
•• •
180
I
..-.:-•
•; \.
160
140-
0)
тз
2
100'
Încludes
Cape Kennedy
1330 EST 4 December 1965
so-:
40-
I 120 130 140 150 160 170 180

Fig. Il-k. Altitude (h) Versus Time: Stage I Flight
ER 13227-7
И-14
400

360
GE Mod Ш-G final flight data*
320
* Includes
Rawinsonde balloon
pe Kennedy
.
• 280
Predicted BECO
(155. 565 sec)
240
'
200
-
P
160
.
120
110 120 130 140 150 160

Pig. II-5. Downrange Position Coordinate (XF) Versus Time: Stage I flight
ER 13227-7
AL
•Predicted nominal wind run81-GT-7 (final)*
•GE Mod III-G final flight data*
01
0)
с : Încludes
о Rawinsonde balloon data
Cape Kennedy
ii 1330 EST, 4 December 1965 |
:
^vviTr.'Tirr.T,? ' :*4~ • t^TTTtrrs'.Trvr: '.Cinf •*>•'>*•*•
tn ' :
о
ад
из
ш
• 3j (155. 56E
.
Ее
И
3
0
,•
-5 Т +. r - : '••}. — 1
::
!/:
10 20 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 ISO 170 180

Fig. II-6. Cross-Range Position Coordinate (T ) Versus Time: Stage I Flight
ER 13227-7
II-16
I
Ш мшнн
ШИШ,
320
Predicted nominal wind run81-GT-7 (final)*

280
-
155.609 sec)
240
*Includes
- Rawinsonde balloon data
Cape Kennedy Predicted BECO
1330 EST, 4 December 1965 (155.565 sec)
200
d
•'-•
•-
-
J 160
о
•
£i 120
•:
-
I
I
•
I
-
70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170

Fig. II-7- Vertical Position Coordinate (ZF) Versus Time: Stage I Flight
ER 13227-7
L "-17
Predicted nominal wind run 81-GT-7 (final)*]

GE Mod III-G final night data*
''Includes
Cape Kennedy
.
».»*••:
120 130 140 150 170

Fig. II-8. Mach Number (M) Versus Time: Stage I Flight
I
ER 13227-7
.
II-18 -
I i I il II IMf I III I
-I
1000
Predicted nominal wind run 81-GT-7 (final)

900
GE Mod III-G final night data'*
*Includes
Cape Kennedy
1330 EST, 4 December 1965
ТТГГ1
100 110 120 130 140 150 160

Fig. II-9. Dynamic Pressure (q.) Versus Time: Stage I Flight
ER 13227-7
И-19
TIAL
30
•Predicted nominal wind run 81-GT-7 (final)*
\
«Includes
х 2(
X) Cape Kennedy
к •;aBECO
1(155.609 sec)
Predicted BECO
(155.565 sec)
60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160

Fig. 11-10. Axial Force Versus Time: Stage I Flight
_ not iUXMhv
*НЛЯ ТНГ
*,
11-20
^ Ш U_
И!^^
Predicted nominal wind run 81-GT-7 (final) (155.609 sec)
GE Mod III-G final flight data* .
| Rawinsonde balloon data

Cape Kennedy Predicted BECO
1330 EST, 4 December 1965 (155.565 sec)
70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160

Fig. 11-11. Aerodynamic Heating Indicator Versus Time: Stage I Flight
• *****
ER 13227-7
Г ПИ СИ
ии! ••••••••
•

GE Mod III-G final flight data
*Includes
Cape Kennedy
BECO
(155. 609 sec)
Predicted BECO
(155.565 sec)
-40
70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170
Pig. 11-12. Stage I Angle of Attack History
L
ER 13227-7
11-22
"ч LI il ШММ'ТП I
•""•'• -.• ;ГРЫ£<ГТ

GE Mod Ш-G final flight data
] *Includes
Cape Kennedy
-50P
-60й
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Fig. 11-13. Stage I Angle of Sideslip History
Л1 B^Ml?
^П
L
ER 13227-7
П-23
g^^^^ /
^Bl
•
SECO + 20 (357. 012 £
GE Mod in-G final flight data*
i *Includes
Cape Kennedy
Ur—l
140 Ш 220
Fig. II-lA. Resultant Inertial Velocity (V ) Versus Time: Stage II Flight

m Ll
**fl| ffli
ER 13227-7
*Includes
Cape Kennedy
SECO + 20 (357. 012 sec)
Predicted SECO + 20 (358. 446 sec
220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460
Fig. 11-15. Inertial Flight Path Angle (y,.) Versus Time: Stage II Flight
ER 13227-
п 25
-
-д
Predicted SECO + 20 (358. 446 sec)
560 -•-••\\::\t-.\&r&-i
520
480
SECO + 20 (357. 012 sec)

440
400
i
320
280
\/ \
240
200
160 IBS
120 bU <iaU ,300 320 340 360 380
Fig. 11-16. Altitude Versus Time: Stage II Flight
^
•ml
ER 13227-7
II-26 ^-
SECO + 20 (357. 012 sec)
*Includes
-
: Rawinsonde balloon
-
Cape Kennedy
'
Fig. II-IT- Downrange Position Coordinate (X_) Versus Time: Stage И Flight
•
ER 13227-7
11-27
+ 8r-
1
-41
L2
- :
{'•• \ " ~ t " ~
-16
• Predicted nominal wind run ; ЁЖ
• GE Mod III-G final flight
-20,
to
о
U
I-H-H-^
•Л -24
.j *Includes
Hawinsonde balloon data
Cape Kennedy
1330 EST, 4 December 1965 SECO + 20 (357.012 sec)
-28 -
-40'
120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 42J 180
Fig. 11-18. Cross-Range Position Coordinate (Y ) Versus Time: Stage И Flight
ER 13227-7
*Includes
Cape Kennedy
SECO + 20 (357. 012 sec)
140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480
Fig. 11-19. Vertical Position Coordinate (Zp) Versus Time: Stage И Flight
дпгвтот ЩЩЬ| ER 13227-7

РПМППСМТШ П-29
''В^Ч'Ь
-2.
щп.
,п: —
- :'"\: \ •
\ .:
GE Mod III-G final flight data and IGS gimbal data * [
Predicted SECO
:-
if '' 'Л' ' - • '!; '
-8 + 20 (358.446 sec)
. '• ' ° : ' i. '. ; Л : '. 1 ''

!
' Г"!-- •' ':
• .:.!. •"' Т' • j" "
д '.. \ -.: :.' i

и -12 ^ф-Т:';
т 4-j:— i :— '-'.
~!' т :l.- К 3 *Includes "•••• ч. •: \
i^jef? Rawinsonde balloon data "• 1 j_- .;. .'
-16
Cape Kennedy .::,,:
• :. | .. ; •; . •
:о -
. . :
140 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 360 380 400 420 440
Fig. 11-20. Stage II Angle of Attack History

II-30
SECO + 20 (357. 012 вес)

GE Mod III-G final flight data
*Includes
Cape Kennedy
160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360
Fig. II-21. Angle of Sideslip Versus Time: Stage II Flight
ER 13227-7
-г/
^тй лл
^^ 11-31
1UU esu -200 214.7 1.0
600 -250 214.6 0.5 25.80
"So
0 0) со
*-t T3 0
irf^
X ~ 1o 0 01 X
S о- 6 550 - £• -300 и 214.5 t o.o -- м
» 25.75
§
я•^ П!
С 'о
CM
<
s:
6>>
о CO 01
CO
ь
ocentric Radiu
Inertial Veloc
Ground Range
О
(X
&
01
no 1
t—1
§ 3 fe
Й i 'rt
1
10
ш
ID
CO
О
h
О 0)
^
o>
" -50
и
500 -350 ° 214.4 " -0.5 25.70
-inn - 4. Fin— -/inn — 914 Ч - -in 25.65
344 346 348 350 352 354 356 560

Fig. П-22. GE Mod III-G Flight Data from SBCO to SECO + 20 Seconds
| || I I I I H I III '
ER 13227-7
П-32
•2- L
400

300
GE Mod ni-G final flight data*
200
Cape Kennedy
100
.
-•:•
:-
-
1
I
I-100
I
SECO + 20 (357. 012 sec)
_:
J -200
-300
-400
-500
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360
Fig. 11-23. Cross-Bange Velocity (Yp) Versus Time
ER 13227-7
33
^^П mi "-
^ff
Predicted nominal wind run 81-GT-7 (final)'

50СГ
4 *Includes i
Rawinsonde balloon data 1
Cape Kennedy • Т-
iber 1965 ; ,_'-•: ..[::•
IT"! .'
г ' Т' ' 1—
:
•
~- Predicted SECO + 20 (358. 446 sec) ^
-
SECO + 20 (357. 012 sec) Ш
-10
ю 60 во 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360
Fig. 11-24. Yaw Steering Velocity (Vy) Versus Time
L
ER 13227-7
II-34
1 ':
ide balloon data

Cape Kennedy
20 40 80 250 290 330

Wind Speed (kn) Wind Azimuth (deg from north)
Fig. 11-25. Wind Speed and Azimuth Versus Altitude
ER 13227-7
II-35
110
...:,
100
ii
(Pressure

Cape Kennedy
••Temperature &
ЗОЕ
0 2 4 8 10 12 ;; LG
Pressure (psi)
-80 -60 -40 -20 О 20

Temperature (°C)
Fig. 11-26. Ambient Temperature and Pressure Versus Altitude
ER 13227-7
H-36 Tl,
и
"
•
3, и
и;
a
О
ER 13227-7
II-37
(ЛУЧ)
ER 13227-7
П-38
TABLE Ы-8
Data Available for Trajectory Analysis
Flight Coverage
Source Type Station (sec from Range-0)
AFETR MISTRAM posi- Valkaria I + 55 to +375

tion, velocity Eleuthera II + 170. 6 to +375
and acceleration
FPQ-6 radar MILA 19. 18 + 146.25 to 377. 65

position, veloc- GBI 3. 18 + 170 to 380
ity and accelera-
tion
GE Mod III-G radar Cape Kennedy LO to 392

position, veloc-
ity
NASA-MSC Spacecraft IGS LO to 365

aspect param-
eters
TABLE II-9
Trajectory Parameters at Maximum Dynamic Pressure
Planned*
(nominal) Observed**
Dynamic pressure (psf) 699 704. 5
Time from liftoff (sec) 76.62 76.6
Mach number 1. 53 1. 56
Altitude (ft) 39,514 40,250
Relative flight path angle (deg) 50.39 50.45
Relative wind velocity (fps) 1471 1495
Wind velocity (fps) 132 141
Wind azimuth (deg from north) 250 250
Angle of attack (deg) - 1.8 -2. 5
Angle of sideslip (deg) 1.7 0.8
*Ref. 16, updated (see Table II-7)

**Mod III-G 10 pps radar data
ER 13227-7
И-39
В. PAYLOAD CAPABILITY
Propellants remaining onboard after Stage II low level sensor un-

cover indicated that a burning time margin (BTM) of 2. 066 seconds
existed to a command shutdown. The total propellant weight margin
was 686 pounds, and the corresponding GLV payload capability was
8835 pounds. These values and the predicted nominal and minimum
values appear in Fig. 11-29. The predicted capability curves were
taken from the GLV-7 preflight report (Ref. 16), updated to reflect a
spacecraft weight of 8069 pounds (liftoff spacecraft weight =8085 pounds),
T-l hr wind and atmospheric data, and the - 1. 64% pitch and - 1. 69%
roll programmer biases. The predicted propellant weight and burning
time margins are based on the difference between these curves and
the 8085-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
73 pounds more than the spacecraft weight, and the nominal payload
capability was 658 pounds greater than the spacecraft weight at the pre-
dicted launch time. The actual (postflight reconstructed) GLV capability
was 750 pounds greater than the spacecraft weight.
C. STAGING
The staging sequence was normal, and physical stage separation

occurred as planned. The time interval from staging signal (87FS-/91FS )
to start of Stage II engine chamber pressure (Pr ) rise was 0. 645 sec-
C
3
ond. This compares favorably with the nominal expected time of 0. 70 +
0. 08 second. Stage separation occurred 0. 06 second following start of
Р„ rise.
D. WEIGHT STATEMENT
Table 11-10 shows the GT-7 weight history from launch to orbital
insertion.
The postflight weight report (Ref. 10) 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.
ER 13227-7
II-40 IAL
GT-7 Flight Test Values
-iMinimum'H
I? 8200 'I .]. I I I ."'
(X
;:• :i
8000
700
acecraft weight = 8085 It
Minimum*
год -,
iJTTTl Г ;щтт?ггтттт*-
с Spacecraft weight = 8085 Ib
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Time in Launch Window (hr)
Fig. 11-29. Payload Capability
ER 13227-7
П-41
TABLE II-10
GT-7 Weight Summary
Weight (Ib)
Step I Step П Step HI Stage Total
Loaded weight 272,436 65,716 8,085 346,237

Start and grain losses -3,659
Trajectory liftoff weight 268,777 65,716 8,085 342,578
Propellant consumed to 257,891
BECO
Coolant water 3
Fuel bleed 11
Weight at BECO 10,886 65,705 8,082 84,673
Shutdown propellant 113
Stage I burnout 10,773 65,705 8,082 84,560
Stage II engine start 10,773 188
Stage II liftoff 65,514 8,082 73,596
Propellant consumed to 59,191
SECO
Ablative, covers and 20 4
coolant water
Stage II at SECO 6,303 8,078 14,381*
Shutdown propellant 140
Weight at SECO + 20 6,163 8,078 14,241*
seconds
*Includes 686 Ib usable propellant
ER 13227-7
Ш-1
III. PROPULSION SYSTEM
A. ENGINE SUBSYSTEM
The Stages I and II engines operated satisfactorily throughout the
flight, and all launch objectives were met. Stage I burning time was
159.121 seconds and shutdown was initiated by oxidizer exhaustion.
Stage II engine operation was terminated by guidance command after
181.403 seconds of burning time.
Several abnormalities occurred during the flight, none of which
adversely affected engine performance. These were as follows:
(1) The oxidizer pressurant pressure switch (OPPS) was actuated
at 87FS, + 2.022 seconds (MOCS TQ + 2.122 sec), which was
only 78 milliseconds short of an automatic shutdown command.
(2) At 91FS., + 1.25 seconds, the Stage II engine chamber pressure

(P ) data depicted a pressure spike of approximately 190 psi.
C
3
1. Stage I Engine (YLR87-AJ-7, S/N 1002)

a. Configuration and special procedures
The GLV-7 Stage I engine configuration differed from the GLV-5
engine configuration in the following areas:
(1) To satisfy interface requirements the oxidizer feed line

installation was extended 0.14 inch.
(2) The oxidizer pump discharge pressure fitting and the Natorq
seal were replaced with a one-piece adapter to minimize the
possibility of an oxidizer leak.
(3) The complete engine instrumentation system was thermally

protected by providing an additional insulation wrap. This
was the first vehicle to utilize the double wrap technique in an
attempt to minimize flight temperature effects on engine in-
strumentation.
Additional procedures instituted were:
(1) The thrust chamber valve through-bolts were replaced at Martin-

Baltimore to minimize the possibility of an intergranular
stress corrosion failure similar to that experienced on the
Titan III program.
ER 13227-7
Ш-2
(2) The GLV-7 preflight checkout procedures were identical to

those of GLV-5. The necessary AGE was available for per-
forming certain automatic electrical checks.
b. Start transient
The S/A 1 and S/A 2 thrust chamber start transients were normal,
as shown in Figs. III-l and III-2. S/A 2 start was slower than S/A 1,
and after 70% thrust it was slower than previous Gemini flight experi-
ence. However, S/A 2 start was well within the range of Titan II
experience.
The make time for the oxidizer pressurant pressure switch (OPPS)
during the start transient occurred at 87FS, + 2.022 seconds, within
0.078 second of initiating an automatic engine shutdown (see section
II-A-l-f). Significant engine start parameters 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) 0.775 0.798
P ignition spike (psia) 700 665
P step (psia) 460 415
P overshoot (psia) None None
с. Steady-state performance
Stage I engine flight performance agreed closely with the preflight

predictions. Flight integrated average performance parameters were
within 0.4% 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
was also used in the preflight predictions.
ER 13227-7
ш-з
1000
P (Meas 0003)
c
l
!
800
+2.5 +3.0
Time from 87FS. (sec)
Fig. Ш-l. S/A 1 Start transient
^ MA^Î^ |^У^^^ с
ER 13227-7
^^^m
BE || || ii || ц щ^
+2.5 +3.0
Time from 87FS (sec)
Fig. Ш-2. S/A 2 Start Transient
ER 13227-7
Ill-5
The Stage I engine average flight performance, integrated from

liftoff to 87FS?, is compared with the preflight prediction in Table III-2.
TABLE III-2
Steady-State Stage I Engine Performance
Preflight* Flight* Differ-

Parameter Average Average ence (%)
Thrust, engine (Ib) 457,693 458,902 +0.26
Specific impulse, engine (sec) 276.54 277.24 +0.25
Mixture ratio, engine 1.9284 1.9209 -0.39
Oxidizer flow rate, overboard (Ib/sec) 1089.59 1088.26 -0.12
Fuel flow rate, overboard (Ib/sec) 565.48 567.02 +0.27

^Martin-Baltimore modified thrust coefficient relationship used.
Engine performance calculated throughout Stage I flight is presented

in Fig. III-3. The preflight prediction is also shown for comparison.
Stage I engine flight performance calculated at the 87FS1 + 55 sec-

onds time slice and corrected to standard inlet conditions is shown in
Table III-3. This is compared to the acceptance tests and the predicted
flight performance at standard inlet conditions and the nominal time as
used in the preflight prediction. The predicted flight performance at
standard conditions was obtained by modifying the nominal acceptance
test data for a 4850-pound acceptance-to-flight thrust growth obtained
from analysis of previous Titan II and GLV flights.
TABLE III-3
Performance Corrected to Standard Inlet Conditions at 87FS, +
55 Seconds: Stage I
Predicted Flight
Acceptance (including 4850-lb Flight
Parameter Test* thrust growth)* Performance*
Thrust, engine (Ib) 429,200 434,050 431,278
Specific impulse, 259.95 259.95 260.18

engine (sec)
ER 13227-7
III-6
Average Engine Performance Integrated

from Liftoff to 87FS_
Pre flight Flight

Symbol Prediction Average
Ft(lb) 457.693 458. 902
I8pe<sec) 276. 54 277. 24
MR
e 1. 9284 1.9209
Woo(lb/sec) 1089. 59 1088. 26
W fo (lb/sec) 565. 48 567. 02
Preflight prediction
О Flight performance
~ 600
fc S
•o -7- 580
fi 560
» « 540
Iй 100 120 140 160

M
Lift- Time from 87FS. (вес)
|off
87FS,
Fig. Ш-3. Stage I Engine Flight Performance
ER 13227-7
Ш-7
.
TABLE III-3 (continued)
Predicted Flight
Acceptance (including 4850-lb Flight
Parameter Test* thrust growth)* Performance*
Mixture ratio, engine 1.9465 1. 9465 1. 9342
Oxidizer flow rate, 1090. 42 1102. 74 1092.38

overboard (Ib/sec)
Fuel flow rate, over- 560.66 566. 99 565. 24

board (Ib/sec)
* Martin- Baltimore modified thrust coefficient relationship used,
d. Shutdown transient
Stage I engine shutdown was initiated by oxidizer exhaustion. Fig-

ures III-4 and III-5 show the S/A 1 and S/A 2 chamber pressure decays.
All other engine parameters were normal for an oxidizer exhaustion
shutdown. The engine thrust at staging was approximately 18, 000
pounds.
Significant events during shutdown are presented in Table III-4.
TABLE III-4
Stage I Engine Shutdown Parameters
Parameter S/A 1 S/A 2

Time from P decay to 87FS0 (sec)
С &
1. 31 1. 03
P at 87FS0 (psia) 250 225

с £
Time from FS9 to data dropout (sec) 0. 71 0. 71
P at data dropout (psia) 32 30
e. Engine malfunction detection system
The Stage I engine MDS operated satisfactorily and within the

specified limits throughout the flight. Figures III-l and III-2 illustrate
the response times and actuation levels of the malfunction detection
thrust chamber pressure switches (MDTCPS) for S/A 1 and S/A 2,
ER 13227-7
Ill-8
A
1000
MDTCPS (M*ks 0356
+ 1.0
Time from 87FS- (sec)
Pig. III-4. S/A-1 Shutdown Transient
ER 13227-7
I
ш 9
-
.
.
.
.
'
P (Meas 0004)
C
2
800
"
•
*v- р*|гЛ«-»« Srt Чг/wVw- .V" vvw >V*J W vwv«.V, */
Staging
blackout
"И 600
ft
-
I)
.
-•.•„-•„.. 1
---
400
U MDTCPS (Meas 0357)
1
-
200
'
Tt
:
•Wv^ i • I
0
-2.0 -1.0 +1.0
Time from 87FS? (sec)
xuu Pig. III-5. S/A 2 Shutdown Transient
^^^^ИИ "L L
ER 13227-7
m -ю
respectively. Figures Ш-4 and Ш-5 illustrate the deactuation times

and levels for S/A 1 and Si A 2, respectively.
A summary of the operating characteristics of the switches is pre-
sented in Table III-5.
TABLE Ш-5
Stage I MDTCPS Operation
Actuation Deactuation
Time Pressure Time Pressure
Switch (sec) (psia) (sec) (psia)
S/A 1 FS. + 0. 945 590 FS2 - 0. 045 575
SI A 2 FS. + 1. 085 550 FS0 - 0. 035

A
540
Specification requirements:
Actuation 540 to 600 psia
Deactuation 585 to 515 psia
f. Engine prelaunch malfunction detection system (PMDS)
All PMDS switches actuated within the specified actuation times and
pressures as shown in Table III-6. However, the OPPS actuated later
than on previous Gemini flight.
The OPPS is used to monitor the Stage I oxidizer autogenous system
operation prior to release of the launch vehicle and to furnish a no-go
signal to AGE if (1) the switch does not actuate by Tn + 2. 2 seconds or
(2) the switch deactuates in the period from TQ + 2. 2 seconds to TCPS
+ 1. 8 seconds.
On GLV-7, the OPPS actuated at 87FS. + 2. 022 seconds (TQ + 2. 122
seconds) as shown in Fig. Ш-6. The OPPS actuation times for GLV
flights are tabulated in Table III-7.
ER 13227-7
500
>-'/-*• япяг •
UL-ч-г, ^ймИС^ L Ill-11
. .
* .
'
.
; :
•
...
•
. .*. /""•••. .. « • .' «
**
.* * "•••.
400
• OPPS "make"
pressure
range .
я• •
*.
•'••
» • ••
i .- .
: ... • >
• •' •
3
ш
. • •• : .
; . j
а
~
о"
.
.' '
•
.
•
.
ё
i
: . .
* ' ..
.
:.
" ..
о"
i- 300
• '
• •
• -
" ' ' " • * i
2
S
£л
Oxi d i z e i • pressurant press»ire s witch (OPPS) .
-_- •
Sс
' ' (Meas 2102)"
1
• ,
. .
i
•
о
a§ • i
, ;
-4-»
• L . --.- :— — -_
rt 200 , - -т :
-
•
3
со
•
-
' • • • г
О)
£ Р(DPOI 0 (Meas 0026) . .

- * -i
ь
ш
• • -
.
. » • .
1 .
о '• _• • • OPPS interro
gallon :--:•!.;:
«
' • • •. • •
100 1
•
-
- •
'
. •,
1
ж • •
» . j
.* .
• • '" '
. . 1
..*••• • • .
... • «. •.... • • • •
.... .
.
о '
°0 + 0.5 + 1 .0 + 1.5 + 2.0 + 2.5 • з.о - -3.5
87FS, Time from T-0 (sec)
Pig. HI-6. S/A 2 Start Transient

nni
VflWfl
ER 13227-7
• Ш-12
TABLE Ш-6
Stage I PMDS Switch Operation
Parameter ТС PS OPPS FPDPS
Actuation time
Measured (sec) 87FSj + 1. 213 87FSj + 2. 022 STFSj + 0. 988
MOCS TO + MOCS TQ + MOCS TQ +
1.313 2. 122 1.988
Required (sec)* Т +2.2 Т + 2. 2 Т + 2.2
Actuation pressure
Measured (psia) ** 405 **
Required (psia) 600 to 640 360 to 445 46 to 79 (psia)

*The shutdown timers start from MOCS TQ;87FS1 is 70 to 100
milliseconds after T n .
**Not instrumented.
TABLE III-7
Summary of all GLV OPPS Actuation Times
OPPS Actuation Time
Vehicle From 87FS. (sec) From T-0 (sec)
1 1. 817 1. 942
2 1.675 1. 775
3 1.625 1. 717
4 1. 722 1.816
5 1. 768 1. 868
7 2. 022 2. 122
Average = 1. 772 seconds Average = 1. 873 seconds
from 87FSJ from T-0
Average + За = 2. 192 seconds Average + За = 2. 305 seconds
ER 13227-7
Ill-13
A detailed discussion of the engine start transient will be necessary

to fully explain the cause for the late actuation of the OPPS; however,
in summary, the start cartridge performance has the greatest influ-
ence on engine start transients. For a given engine, on a run-to-run
basis, the start cartridge burning rate and duration (which are differ-
ent for every cartridge) determine the time and rate at which the
engine bootstraps to steady-state conditions. The GLV-7 S/A 2 start
transient (for example, chamber pressure buildup in the bootstrap
corridor) was well within the Titan II/GLV experience, but on the
lower side of the GLV experience.
Factors, other than start cartridge performance, that affect the
OPPS actuation time are:
(1) Pressure setting of the OPPS switch
(2) Pressure level within the autogenous system as governed by
the back pressure orifice diameter
(3) Rupture characteristics of the engine burst diaphragm
(4) Overall steady-state pressure level within the engine.
In addition to the late actuation of the OPPS, the oxidizer pressurant
orifice inlet pressure (POPOI) remained within the specification limits
for OPPS actuation (360 to 445 psia) until approximately Tn + 4 seconds,
well beyond the time of OPPS interrogation. Had the switch actuating
pressure been on the high side of the band instead of at 405 psia, an
automatic shutdown signal would have been initiated.
Following the GLV-7 flight, a change in the oxidizer pressurant
back pressure orifice diameter from 0. 50 inch to 0. 46 inch was made
on GLV-6. This change provided increased confidence that the OPPS
would make within the critical time period and also increased the
steady-state level of POPOI by approximately 80 psia.
Investigation will continue in the area of start transients to better
define the corrective actions for GLV-8 succeeding vehicles.
2. Stage II Engine (YLR 91-AJ-7, S/N 2008)

a. Configuration and special procedures
The GLV- 7 Stage II engine configuration was identical to that of
GLV-5.
ER 13227-7
Ш-14
b. Start transient
Evaluation of Stage II engine data (Fig. Ill-7) indicated a normal

start transient except for a disturbance in chamber pressure (P ) at
91FSj + 1. 26 seconds. The remainder of the start transient was

normal. The initiation of the disturbance was followed by the charac-
teristic ringing of the P measurement when incorporating a CEC
C
3
transducer. These oscillations are similar to those normally experi-
enced following the rapid chamber pressure rise of the ignition spike.
The disturbance in P was not observed in any other engine para-

C
3
meter. If the disturbance had been an actual indication of the pressure
conditions in the combustion chamber, the pressure disturbance would
have been transmitted hydraulically through the engine and would have
been observed in the pump discharge pressures. There were no per-
turbations in any flight control or hydraulic actuator parameters at the
time of the indicated P disturbance.
It is concluded that the pressure disturbance was not in the com-

bustion chamber but was caused by ignition of propellants or vapors in
the P instrumentation line. Similar start transient pressure disturb-
ances occurred on Titan II flights N-22, N-24, N-28 and N-29 with no
detrimental effect on the engine. Pressure disturbances have also
been observed by Aerojet on ground tests during both the start transient
and steady state.
Significant engine start events are presented in Table III-8.
TABLE III-8
Stage II Engine Start Parameters
Flight
Parameter Performance
PS, to initial PC rise (sec) 0.64

3
ignition spike (psia) 635

Ч
P step (psia) 490
C
3
ER 13227-7
1000
-
a
-
и
-.
-
i
:.
-•
-;
^
U
MDFJPS (Meas 0855)
+2.0 +3.0
Time from 91FS. (sec)
Fig. HI-7- S/A 3 Start Transient
__-^^|^м|
ER 13227-7
Ш-16 NTlAb—
TABLE III-8 (continued)
Flight
Parameter Performance
P overshoot (psia) *Not available
FS. to P disturbance (sec) 1. 26

C
3
P disturbance (psid) 187

C
3
*Staging blackout period.
c. Steady-state performance
Stage II engine steady-state flight performance was satisfactory

throughout flight and agreed closely with preflight predictions. The
average Stage П engine performance integrated over steady-state
operation (from FS. + 1 . 2 seconds to 91FS9) is compared to the pre-
flight prediction in Table III-9.
TABLE Ш-9
Predicted and Average Stage II Engine Performance
Preflight
Predicted Flight Difference
Parameter Average Average (%)
Thrust, chamber (Ib) 101,979 102, 888 +0. 89
Specific impulse, engine (sec) 313.63 313. 24 -0. 12
Mixture ratio, engine 1. 7621 1. 7785 +0. 93
OxLdizer flow rate, overboard 207.61 210. 41 +1.35

(Ib/sec)
Fuel flow rate, overboard 117. 55 118. 05 +0.43

(Ib/sec)
The engine flight performance calculated with the Martin PRESTO

program is shown in Fig. Ш-8 as a function of time from 91FSr The
preflight prediction is also presented for comparison.
_ illlllllUPI
ER 13227-7
IIb17
^CONFIDENTIAL
^^^^»
-17-I
w^*
-
: 104
o о о о о о о о о о о о оооо
102
—— F
c
,
98 Average Engine Performance Integrated

from First Steady-State to 91FS9
. 96 Preflight Flight
• sp Symbol Prediction Average
315 I 94
5 О О О О О 0~ё!Го О G О (Ь € Fc(lb 101979 102888

rt
1-5
о g
о?"
310 О S2
4(sec) 313. 63 313. 24
и м 305 MRe 1. 7621 1. 7785

ел
- 300 W oo (lb/sec) 207.61 210. 41
1
о 1.85 W f o (lb/sec) 117. 55 118. 05
--
"-•
1.80
Ф
!н
. 1.75
-
I
:
1.70
С
215,- с1
W
<S*>GGOGOQ<DOO
:
' 210
и 205 — Preflight prediction

E О Flight performance
125 ,- тз 200
(ч
•:
120 195
115 -о 190
Ll
О)
_ N
--
110
D
X
105 h О
-
:, 100 I—
о 20 • во 100 120 140 160 180 200
91FS, Time from 91FS1 (sec)
1
-
-
Fig. III-8. Stage II Engine Flight Performance
ER 13227-7
Ill-18
Engine flight performance corrected to standard inlet conditions at

the 91FS- + 55 second time slice is shown in Table HI-10. This is
compared with acceptance test and the predicted flight performance at
standard inlet conditions and the nominal time as used in the preflight
prediction. The predicted flight performance at standard inlet condi-
tions was obtained by adjusting the nominal acceptance test data for a
900-pound acceptance-to-flight thrust growth obtained from analyses of
previous Titan II and GLV flights.
TABLE III-10
Stage II Engine Performance Corrected to Standard Inlet
Conditions at 91FS1 + 55 Seconds
Predicted Flight
Acceptance (including 900- Ib Flight
Parameter Test . thrust growth) Performance
Thrust, chamber (Ib) 100, 383 101,283 103,085
Specific impulse, 312. 72 312. 72 312. 75
engine (sec)
Mixture ratio, engine 1. 8039 1.8039 1. 8040
Oxidizer flow rate, 206. 59 208. 54 212. 23
overboard (Ib/sec)
Fuel flow rate over- 114.31 115.34 117.38
board (Ib/sec)
d. Shutdown transient
Stage II engine shutdown was initiated by a guidance command after
181. 4 seconds of burn time. The calculated shutdown impulse from
91FS£i0 to 91FS&0 + 20 seconds was 37, 177 Ib-sec; predicted impulse was
37, 000 + 7000 Ib-sec. The impulse obtained from the + 10 g acceler-
data, and illustrated by the P C decay in Fig. III-9, was 25,658 Ib-sec,
3
using an average spacecraft/Stage II weight of 14, 325 pounds. This
was for the time interval from 91FS2 to 91FS? + 0. 631 second. Im-
pulse from 91FS2 + 0. 631 second to 91FS2 + 20 seconds was 11, 519 Ib-
sec, utilizing the + 0. 5 g accelerometer data and an average weight of
14, 257 pounds. Tbis thrust tailoff is illustrated in Fig. Ill-10.
ER 13227-7
1000
MDFJPS (Meas 0855)
-1.0 +1.0 +2.0

Time from 91FS? (sec)
Fig. III-9. S/A 3 Shutdown Transient
ш
L
^^И1 ^ ER 13227-7
'
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
Time from 91FS2 (sec)
Fig. IH-10. Stage П Engine Thrust Tail-Off
ER 13227-7
Ш-21
The time of zero thrust occurred at approximately 91FS9 + 26. 0

seconds. Thrust at SECO + 20 seconds was estimated at 40 pounds,
within the specified maximum of 60 pounds.
e. Engine malfunction detection systems
The Stage II engine MDS operated satisfactorily throughout flight.

Figures III-7 and III-9 illustrate the response times and chamber
pressure correlation during the start and shutdown transients, respec-
tively, of the malfunction detection fuel injector pressure switches
(MDFJPS). The fuel injector pressure is not instrumented and, there-
fore, is not available. A summary of the significant switch parameters
is presented in Table III-11.
TABLE III-11
Stage II MDFJPS Operation
Parameter
Actuation time (sec) 91FS..+ 0.690
P at actuation (psia) Invalid
Deactuation time (sec) 91FS2 + 0. 155
P at deactuation (psia) 460

с
Ш-22
В. PROPELLANT SUBSYSTEM
1. Propellant Loading
a. Loading procedure
A special loading in addition to the launch loading was made for

GT-7. The special loading was performed to correlate propellant
tank volumes at the various sensor locations with previous tank cali-
bration data. A flow verification test was performed prior to each
loading to evaluate the readiness of the FTPS for the subsequent load-
ing. The operational sequence is given in Table III-12.
TABLE III-12
GT-7 Loading Summary
Operation Description Date

Flow verification Fuel and oxidizer flow up to dis- 11 November 1965
tribution area; forward through
four flowmeters
Special loading a. Stage II oxidizer through 16 November 1965
four flowmeters
b. Dual (Stages I & II) oxidizer
loading
c. Stage II fuel through four
flowmeters
d. Stage I fuel through four
flowmeters
Prelaunch flow Flow up to distribution area; 27 November 1965
verification forward through four flowmeters
Launch loading Dual loading 3 & 4 December 1965
±ropeiiant loading for GT-7 was accomplished through the tandem

flowmeter system installed after the launch of GT-5. No serious hard-
ware problems occurred during any of the events leading up to the
launch; however, two flowmeters were changed because out-of-tolerance
results were obtained during the special loading test and the prelaunch
flow verification.
Stage I fuel meter S/N 202146 was removed from the system fol-
lowing the special loading and sent to Martin-Denver for check cali-
bration and acceptance testing. The check calibration results verified
that the meter was in calibration and verified results obtained during
the special loading.
Flowmeter S/N 199169, used on the Stage I fuel auxiliary position
during the second flow verification test, was removed because its accu-
racy was questionable. Check calibration results showed a flowmeter
error of 0. 1%. Flowmeter S/N 202146 replaced meter S/N 199169 in
the Stage I fuel auxiliary position for the launch.
ER 13227-7
Ш-23
The tab runs used for launch loading were established by using the
data contained in Table III-13, and the bias derived from the differences
between Martin-Denver and Wyle calibration facilities. Checks of the
two calibration facilities have established that, if a flowmeter (fuel or
oxidizer) calibrated at Mar tin-Denver is assumed to be correct, then a
corresponding Wyle-calibrated flowmeter will indicate about 0. 3%
higher. Presently, it is not known which facility is more accurate;
however, the launch loading was based on the assumption that the
Martin-Denver calibrated flowmeters were correct. This, in effect,
decreased the Wyle-calibrated flowmeter/tab run errors recorded
during the special loadings by 0. 3% and established the least proba-
bility of payload loss.
Many combinations of possible meter errors were considered be-
fore the decision was made to bias the loading tab runs as shown in
Table III-14. The most significant cases evaluated were as follows:
Case 1: Bias all Wyle meters by 0. 3%
Wyle Martin- Denver

Oxidizer Fuel Fuel Payload Change
Wrong Wrong Right 0
Right Right Wrong +44
Right Wrong Right -15
Case 2: Bias no data (average raw results)
Wyle Martin- Denver

Oxidizer Fuel Fuel Payload Change
Right Right Right 0
Wrong Wrong Right -52
Right Right Wrong -4
In general, Case 1 is more desirable than Case 2.
A graphic display of the flowmeter-to-tab run comparison is shown

in Figs. Ill-11 and III-12. 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 meters are not corrected for the
difference between Denver and Wyle facilities.
CONFIDENT!
ER 13227-7
Ш-24
•|AL
йеД-г
о
Ь 1з * s S ^" 2 *" 22 да да
< Jb
Ц
+l
5о~ ?1
ш а
o^
501 -о b"-'
С Ь Ш О ео г- r- тГ СО О Л
™"5| о см о 2 slii ем 05
t- ю ^ о
г- о •* сч
8 5 Ч" CM
с 5' Я *
О ОО 0 o о оо
?+ + ? ?? ?¥ ° ? ? ? ? ? + +
:•?£
alii
.-
:
—
—
-: 3
-
2^ CM 00 со ПЭТ Ю Ш СО Ю о о о ю
--
-
ai. эт со 33 5 33 СО
N
со
ем S S S см см ем
: H
- rt
с с
•§ь N —
2^ >-Q^Q £Q £Q ££ ££ & а S Q & % £ S
•л (2 ^^ ^
И и
рр
< __
;- - V
t>0
d " "яа ~~ ЯЯ -"-• ая аа « » я а « « а а
V tn
"
—: Ё
••
о
a. o 5= 52 to О
5 - Л СП см ем
£ °
v
^. ^н
^ тР -ф -ч* ^ TT
», * * •* ^ Ф
^ TJ.rr^
" * Ч" •ч*
в
=
z
ssss
206362
204278
199168
206361
206360
0 ^ 00 C-
202164
202146
199167
CO -H CO -H ^ ^
CO CM OS 05
л о ооо оо СТ> Oi
ем еч
и
„
Stage II oxidizer
Stage II oxidizer
0)
(through 4 mete
Stage I oxidizer
Stage I oxidizer
-
0)
а
(dual loaded)
...
rt
3 т»<
^f
о
л
а
и
а§
ЬО t.
*0) 3
M'd
0)
м
I
3
ел 3 и 2
с
Ш
За
Л V If о
А
Q
ER 13227-7
III-25
TABLE III-14
GT-7 Launch Loading Tab Run Correction

Special Loading
Average Error Bias to Account Correction to
Between for Wyle Meters Original Tank
Flowmeter and in System Calibration
Special Loading for Special Tab Run for
Tank Tab Run (%) Loading (%) Launch (%)
Stage I fuel -0. 11 -0. 15 -0. 26
Stage II fuel -0. 46 -0. 15 -0. 61
Stage I oxidizer +0. 24 -0. 30 -0. 06
Stage II oxidizer +0. 62 -0. 30 -0. 32
The sequence of launch propellant loading events appears in Table

III-15.
TABLE III-15
GT-7 Propellant Loading Schedule
Stage I Stage II Stage I Stage II

Oxidizer Oxidizer Fuel Fuel
(3 Dec (3 Dec (4 Dec (4 Dec
Event 1965) 1965) 1965) 1965)
Start prechill (EST) 2145 2145 0006 0006
Start load (EST) 2210 2210 0030 0030
Hi-lite (EST) 2340 2248 0124 0102
Load complete (EST) 2355 2307 0134 0107
Mission loads for the oxidizer tanks of both stages 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 condi-
tion.
b. Total propellant loads
Total mission loads for the launch, as determined from flowmeters,

are shown in Table III-16. The flowmeter totalizer readings were
ER 13227-7
III-2 6
Data are corrected for actual flow rates and represent the percent error of the
flow meter result at hi-lite from the original tank calibration data.
Stage I Stage П
Launch Special loading Launch Special loading
-г 0.8
8
" °' 199, 168
-0.7 -199,168
-"О. 7
-206,360
-0.6 -0.6
199, 167 •• •199, 167
-0.5 - 0.5
-202, 164
- 0.4 ь 0.4
Launch r^
- 0. 3 tab shift ' \'- - 0.3
°0° 161 i • °06 360
• , 202, 164
-0.2 - 0.2
206, 360 •
- 0. 1 - 0.1
- 0 -0
r
Launch | ^,
tab shift '""I --0. 1 --о. i
--0.2 --0.2
Note: All meters are Wylie calibrated
Fig. III-ll. GLV-7 Loading Summary--Oxidizer
«ШИНРЯНР
ER 13227-7
Ш-27
Data are corrected for actual flow rates and represent the percent error of the
flowmeter result at hi-lite from the original tank calibration data.
Stage I Stage II
Launch Special loading Launch Special loading

-0.3 г 0.3
°06 36°W •
-0.2 - 0.2
-0.1 - 0.1
- 0 - 0
j оо6 3 6 1 W
--0. 1 --0. 1
_^ -204 278D
9Qg 351 VV ••
202.146D 1 - --0.2 --0.2
Launch . |-r^v
+ oK oViift 1 -— -202.146D
--0.3 --0.3
_-Q 4 9nd
n
6 V i , 67 to и
f l Г» •
— 206.361W
=л0.4_
206, 362 W
--0.5 -Ч. 5 204, 278 D
202, 146 D.
~0.6 -j --0.6
x
tab shift —u
--0. 7 --0. 7
Legend:
W Wylie calibration flowmeter

D Denver calibration flowmeter
Fig. 111-12. GLV-7 Loading Summary--Fuel
ER 13227-7
Ш-28
corrected by subtracting propellant vaporized and propellant remain-

ing in the fill lines. Oxidizer flowmeter loads reflect the use of the
K-factor ratio method to obtain mission loads.
Total propellant loads as determined by flight verification are also

shown in Table III-16. 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, and overboard propellant consumptions were 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 Щ-37 and Щ-38).
The differences shown in Table III-16 indicate the comparison be-

tween preflight data and postflight verifications.
TABLE Ш-16
Verification of Propellant Loads
Difference Between
Flow mete r Requested Flight Flight Verification
Indicated Load Load Verification Load and Flow meter Load
Tank (lb) (lb) (lb) (%)
Stage I oxidizer 172.747* 172,747 172,531 -0.125
Stage II oxidizer 38,479* 38,479 38, 609 +0.338
Stage I fuel 90,201 90, 181 90, 164 -0.041
Stage II fuel 21,988 21, 972 21,957 -0. 141
*Mission load obtained by K-factor ratio technique.
c. Propellant assay
Prelaunch data from the propellant assay laboratory report (sampled

on F-4 day) for the oxidizer (nitrogen tetroxide) and fuel (50% hydrazine
and 50% UDMH) are presented in Table III-17. Specification values are
also listed. Good agreement is shown between the laboratory data and
specification requirements. The density was determined by a pycnometer.
ER 13227-7
I III-29
TABLE Ш-17
Propellant Assay Summary
Fuel MIL-P-27402 (USAF) Test Requirement
Hydrazine 51.4% 51 + 0.9%
UDMH 47. 8% 46. 9% min
н2о 0.8% 2. 0% max
Total N H + UDMH 99. 2% 98% min

2 4
Solids 0. 12 mg/liter 25 mg/liter
Particles on 50 mesh screen 0 0
Density (gm/cc) at 77° F 0.9009 --
Oxidizer MIL-P-26539 (USAF) Test Requirement
Nitrogen tetroxide (N2O4) 99. 5% 99. 4% min
Chloride as NOC1 # --
H 9 O equivalent 0. 06% 0.2%
Solids 0. 40 mg/liter 10 mg/liter
Nonvolatile ash * --
Particles on 50 mesh screen * 0
*Not reported.
2. Propellant Temperatures
a. Weather
A comparison of the F-45 day prediction, the F~l day prediction

and the actual weather for the 4 December launch of GT-7 appears in
Table Ш-18. The F-45 day prediction is based on weather for a hot
December through March day. The F~l day prediction was in good
agreement with the actual weather except for the predicted wind speed,
which was high.
ER 13227-7
ш-зо -/^\KJ Л^Я ^&*
-.^^*"Ч
Actual
юю
0 0
(-,
i
о
и —
тз
fa
-, ~ ~ ^ - -
5
G in
Tt<
Tl«minminmintOCO«OCOtpCDt-r-<O
l oooooooooooooooo
fa
Actual
- т о •* •*
ceôoco^c-rfcocMtoeow—i-H—i*-*
и
с 1
§ *О
- 0)
8. i со со о о см ю
от fa ^ч ~н ~н ^н
•а
о jj Tf
Ю
fa
X
fa
Actual
0
•^•^••tCOr-l—I C M I N O ' ^ C M I M I N O O C O
V
1
и
(-.
1
tl
8.
Ы
J и aт fa
СО -и О СО Ч* 1<
PQ н
*->
'о Ю tt>'^<INOa5t-U3O3^HCMIMCOlN'1<'fCM
Tf
Р^ ^^Т^^СОСОСОТ^СОС-СОСОСЛСПСЛСЛ
? fa
0)
Q
£
1 OJt-Tj<CDincOC>aC>JCO'HO5COCOO3O5rO
srature
и О505О5[-ОЗ-^<СП(ОСО«5т><СОООСОЮ«Э
<!
~ a
0)
6 1
О
t-
СО
со
С-
со
О
t-
—"
t-
-и
^-
a>
H fa
.a
л СОЮСООСОГ-ЮЧ'СПООО'^СМОО^
Tt<
И 1 оэоэоэсяоосососооодшсог-сосос-
>> fa «)«OCOtOCD«DtDCOr-t-t~C-t~t~t~t^
LI
С.
a P oooooooooooooooo
| ОТ oooooooooooooooo
O'HCMCOTj'ineDC-ОООЗО'-нСЧСОЧ'Ю
f. W О 0 0 0 О
ER 13227-7
Ш-31
b. Propellant loading temperatures
Table III-19 compares the requested propellant temperatures at the

RSV (at start of loading) and the tank bottom probe (at hi-lite) with the
actual propellant temperatures.
TABLE Ш-19
Propellant Temperature Comparison--RSV and Tank Bottom Probe
RSV Tank Bottom Probe
System Requested Actual д Requested Actual Д
Stage I fuel 26.0 26.0 0 29.6 28.6 -i.o

Stage II fuel 26.0 26.0 0 28,5 29.7 + 1.2
Stage I oxidizer 20.0 20.0 0 23.0 23.9 +0.9
Stage II oxidizer 20.0 20.0 0 25.0 25.5 +0.5
The requested RSV temperatures were matched exactly, and tank

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

in Figs. Ш-13 and III-14.
c. Liftoff temperatures
A comparison of predicted, actual and reconstructed propellant

bulk temperatures is shown in Table Ш-20.
TABLE Ш-20
Propellant Bulk Temperature Comparison
F-45 Day F-l Day

System Prediction Prediction Actual Reconstructed
Stage I fuel 44.0 48.9 42.6 43.8

Stage II fuel 39.5 43.2 40.6 41.0
Stage I oxidizer 42.8 46.4 41. 1 41.6
Stage П oxidizer 44.8 47.1 44.4 43.9
Actual bulk temperatures at liftoff were obtained from a computer

program analysis of flight data. The position of the reconstructed
temperatures in the mixture ratio band is shown in Figs. Ill-15 and
III-16.
ER 13227-7
Ш-32 L
!
О 4>
° £
"'
i
.
со со
(Л о) aanveaaduiaj.
1 чгчгк ITI А I
ER 13227-7
ш-зз
m
Time of event
45-
.j Stage I load complete,. Meas 4432
r>
Resume 1„„,1
load (Stage II
Stage I fuel Hi-Lite flowmeter)
• Stage II load complete r»
Resume load —
40 .
Stage II fuel Hi-Lite
Resume load
,._ ш
:. Meas 4431
Start leak check _ (Stage I)
- Start loading—•- flowmeter)
I
I
8
:
.
30
25
0100
Eastern Standard Time (hr)
Fig. 331-14. Fuel Temperature During Loading
ER 13227-7
III-34
65PH
60
i ..
:F-45 days predicted

: launch window
Z^ 50
-
.,
:
л
-
-
D
--
:
•.
: I
з, V- MR (maximum):-;.
10
25 j
25 30 35 40 45 50
Bulk Fuel Temperature (° F)
Pig. HI-15. Propellent Bulk Temperatures at Liftoff, Stage I
ER 13227-7
Ш-35
F-45 days predicted

launch window
0) 50
h
•
.-
1)
а
<а
Н 45
и
N
MR (maximum
MR (pptim
MR (minimum
- "25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Bulk Fuel Temperature (°F)
Fig. III-16. Propellent Bulk Temperatures at Liftoff, Stage II
ER 13227-7
Ill-36
Figures П1-17 through П1-20 show a comparison of the F~l day

temperature prediction, the reconstructed temperature and actual
propellant probe temperatures during the countdown for each propel-
lant tank.
Correlation of actual, F~l day predicted, and reconstructed tem-

peratures is good, which indicates that the analytical methods used in
the propellant temperature monitoring operation are satisfactory. The
difference between F-l day prediction and reconstruction is due to the
lower-than-predicted wind speeds. The average wind speed was 3.9
knots lower than the average of the wind speeds used in the F-l day
prediction.
A polyethylene curtain was wrapped around the Stage II fuel tank at

0700 EST and was removed at 1300 EST. This information was in-
cluded in the reconstruction, the computer program now having been
modified to accept and operate on changes of this sort.
d. Suction temperatures
The actual pump inlet temperatures were in good agreement with

the predicted temperature profiles. These data are shown in Figs.
Ш-21 through 111-24. The trends of the actual temperature curves are
in good agreement with those predicted. The deviation may be as-
cribed to differences in predicted and actual weather and differences
between optimum and T~0 temperatures.
In Table Ш-21 a comparison is made between the suction and tank

bottom probes at various times after FS,.
TABLE 111-21
Propellant Temperature Comparison--
Tank Bottom Probe and Pump Inlet
Suction Probe Tank Bottom Probe Delta
Time Temperature Temperature Temperature
System (sec)
Stage I fuel FS+ 5 42.2 42.3 -0. 1

Stage П fuel FS+ 25 38.2 39.4 -1.2
Stage I oxidizer FS+ 6 36.9 36.6 +0. 3
Stage II oxidizer FS+ 22 42.8 43. 1 -0.3
^ГГЦ 1Г1ПП IT! ГI

ER 13227-7
Ш-37
\
о
.о
§
.
-
•
-
id
Т!
TJ ..и
О) ТЗ
-
о [-.
I 2 °-
ш Î
о
О i-i I
0) I [
л t
:
I
о
(Ло)
ER 13227-7
Ill-38
' о ;
.
и
Й
I •,
t3
ц
id
'---
a
I
f
p
с
Ь
ill
I 1
1)
м
ER 13227-7
m-39
о
о
в
о:
-
I
fi
*. ,
:
'
: •
:
- .
-7 0
-
a
h '
•• :
-•
.:
-
1
•-:
-•
и 1
•"• a
О !
-
.
о
:
-г
":
о
с
:
ER 13227-7
III-40
'
•
(Л о)
ER 13227-7
Ш-41
П П QActua L (Me as 0 323)

:.j :
! О О OActua L (Me as 0 324)
60
F-45 <Jay p redii :tion
3 • ill
"Т .-: ..' • —в
3 •
• if!
'3
Г
/0
50
i ...._;.-.;-—... jf &
- 1 ~. "t.:.
, т§ J
1
I
I
1 :
^^
• .•- ^ "в ш га сэ
и а шш и
ifg -й-ит^ TtTra
©0
сз о
с3
t
) Q
' f Ф о сJ 0 О 0 О
40
ф ф ф О ф О
(Э Q '
; э
Tank bottom probe
3
20 40 60 80 100 12U 140 160
' FS, ТЧггю fVr>rn Я7 T?Q ( согЛ
Fig. 111-21. Stage I Oxidizer Pump Inlet Temperature (Meas 0023 and 002k)
ER 13227-7
Ш-42
F-45 day prediction
-.,; :. ;;- :...!„:. ;;

1
: !
~ 50
1
шшШ-Вф^--
OJ
- . г-Н) >:;:.: ! ; '
; : /
' HJIpi! " ••т; ; X
:
~,—*—л~~*
i
: '. ::!!:•
a
§ 45' |Ч\— U':;'i__®
[ 9 ::
э {'
Ф
Ф
У Q 0 0 0 * ° ^ Т Т1
°%& о о ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 (Э О О О О О ^ '
:,.
\
N
: Tank bottom probe
. :!Гм'.. ::. г .::-.: • ::~
20 Ю (10 во 100 120 140 160

87FS,
Fig. HI-22. Stage I Fuel Pump Inlet Temperature (Meas 0013)
ER 13227-7
Ш-43
Г
г
Г!
....!..:.. ..:
:
О i ~ ::
и i в
•0 1
i
а е -^
.
Св "| -
» 0
2 ю
Ч— 2 п- \ -в
1
< Ь , ? i
-г -
о ] i о
О
01 1 О
е !
1 : !
: J
Г-1
Р"Г--- г— ~ ~~1— т~- тг "~— т — '- —р —:—г|-—1-в| ---J :—т4т—г"—f - '
V
1
' •
Ьц .
\
\
\
о
еX; • • -t 1
:
—
В
ii
о
,
-
н
в
\
\ у; о
- s ;
\ ®
\ О и
: -
•
t>
: :
е-- "§
0 а
G S С
о 3
г> л
^
О л; *
С! .1
е -:
:
о J? 1 1
*k^
^} •
Е
Q 1
0
0
---'О с/
j
! ' •- • . --гГ'" « ° •
tJ 10 о ю о
Ш 1П Ю ^< Tf с
ER 13227-7
111-44
-
:
Hit
.. 515 t ' .:. i' :: ?. .:.' .|. .: • ! . . -~f-..: •
L ebi^-.-r'.'. j -„--.;„ .^. .
-
ш "V '
.::'.:; -1 _;.,- -_> { .; -^_ _i
X
Q V
„^ : X\_
.
е В о
i :
" [ЩЩЩШЩРЩ :; ;
. 2
"*
S"
0
^ V\ • \' 1ГЧ
0
. ..| •:. ; ; • ' ' ' - ! -" :
'•}'•• i ", -j '•' { '••' •- 0- • " ' -I - t '
. . . . Wm
,: ; --. ]•• >: piiiiil •••.;-• ч - : ;.. Ф .'
• ; • г.\
ш
\у }•. -r~.i**7*::'-::i лгтггг
з
s<D
. йИ ЩИ
с
.2-5 ЩШд_ШМ
ГЩвЩЩ;
'.':l:'--.l}
1 \° I0
К
\.Q
- 1a t i ..••)., • , • • . : ; . .
&ъ ° "(J &
JH EH
^> ,;W; 1 ;.: .-н -p
^ -S :
;Г
^0...
-1 - I : : - ' !
. , ...,..,j СЛ ^
й
S Ю о
1 feТ
< --T.j^t-:;f- 01
•-
03
H
ft
V0 ;- ; p • : • S |
' \ о о fi
0 . -:-" — s
1ч
"" И
«в-
s
^_
0
i • i g 1
0 ; v: ^ H
:
• 0)
' л "•
î- ьо
;
! i о ! н'®И о
M
i i\
S Ш :& __^
. i— ,— ;„ о Op;. ;L; [^ OJ
«
! •!-> H
i Q H
H
о
; •5 •Ф
11
E
1 •H
^ : L_ 0
i. * л
*v
,
Й
Ф
О
CD
О
•
is A :
Ю
со
w
ER 13227-7
Ш-45
3. Propellant Feed System
a. Feedline transients
The maximum transient pressures recorded at the pump inlet in-

strumentation bosses are listed in Table 111-22.
TABLE III-22
Maximum Transient Pressures at Pump Inlet
At At At Design
Pre valve Initial At TCV Operating
Opening Pressure Ignition Closing Pressure
Measurement (psia) Wave (psia) (psia) (psia) (psia)
Stage I oxidizer (0017) No data Negligible 130 Negligible 215

Stage I fuel (0014) 44.0 Negligible Negligible Negligible 55
Stage II oxidizer (0510) 75.0 Negligible * 65 260
Stage П f u e l (0507) Negligible Negligible * Negligible 80
*Not available due to telemetry staging blackout.
No data were available on the Stage I oxidizer prevalve opening

pressure transient. To facilitate setting the ullage volume in the oxidizer
standpipe, these valves were opened before telemetry recording was
started. Ignition transient pressures were, in general, similar to
those on GLV-4 and GLV-5 flights. Telemetry blackout normally ex-
perienced during Stage II ignition prevents obtaining data on sustainer
engine ignition transients.
b. Pump inlet suction pressures
Stages I and II static pressures at the suction measurement boss

locations are shown in Figs. 111-25 through 111-28, which present the
preflight predicted, postflight reconstructed, and best estimate of
actual flight pressures. The postflight reconstructed curves are 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
(Meas 0033 and 0034) adjusted to the Meas 0017 boss location. The
Stage I fuel suction pressure best estimate at Meas 0014 boss lo-
cation is an average of measured pressure and the two fuel accumu-
lator pressures (Meas 0037 and 0038) adjusted to the Meas 0014
boss location. The Stage II oxidizer and fuel best estimate suction
pressures are the pressures measured by Meas 0510 and 0507, re-
spectively.
ER 13227-7
111-46
• Preflight prediction
100 • Postflight reconstruction
АЛА Best estimate of flight suction pressure
90
a
о,
~ 80
01
--
ш
1
£ 70
60
50
о 10 Ю 60 80 100 120 140 160

87FS,
Time from (sec)
Fig. HI-25. Stage I Oxidizer Suction Pressure (Meas 001?)
ER 13227-7
Ш-47
40.
36 Postflight reconstruction
•АДД Best estimate of flight

suction pressure
24
20
0 20 60 80 100 120 140 160

87FS (sec)
1 Time from
Fig. 111-26. Stage I Fuel Suction Pressure (Meas OOlU)
ER 13227-7
Ш-48
:
-
1
•
г -
в0
-.
г В
-
:
- •
от
ER 13227-7
Ш-49
-
:
:
-1
i
-
:
:
[
-
L
э
:: s
С
tt
--
•-
:
-
о _
(Bisd)
ER 13227-7
Ш-50 _JJuil IIIULI '111ЯГ
1)
и
X
•о с в г |
Ф О -о г а
Г V
и
| 2 £ -b 3«—i - -т
*
S-
OD 4
'д г. И
stf
О* О.
£-
со
•*
W
N
CN
CN
со
1 8
^ CTJ
•ис
- 1)
0) с
В% -о N с и
•г*
з со Д .2 U л
1Й11 <—1
со
ю
-.
г-'
00
со* ф О
~* со Ь
ф
бе С G «
о 0 0 о cd С
•гЧ
ф 0) QJ ф CL СЛ
га га С
II
Л И 2
гЧ 4-1
?
TD ю 0 0 о СО
/—\ со С-1 см О 5
0)
г-1 ^J -о
С \2у
IS
^^ г-Ч •—1 О
Я Ю
a TJ 0 TI
a
Я
Ф £ Д Ф
S-,
л
i «
0
Чч
cd
(ч
О
«м
cd
со
ГЛ
Рч » 1
*£ ^ fc '3 cd
v
-г
л СХ ST 'га (Я а га с (ц
а, О г£ а а а а и .S
СО ЬО
DJ 5и ф
<м .-ч см 00
g [-" 0)
pq 00
см ^н
о"
гЧ
oi
со 6* (ч
О
п
а (т—Л
^ га
ф
•H
С
i ^ч оо
Ф 3
DJ01—'
cd 5
аg-g2 и
О
о. •* 'Л
?н рн '^ га [ -' со OS* о
.5 'z о* ^ ^9 гН СО со
ю
СО Ф^
И СЯ
с-
Ф
ь га
. ! со
<D
Д ю
СО -^ «1
*ф -
g-тз ™ с fe ф •—I
-с
U хз Д
ЯД 'га ^ ем (JJ ел cd со О О)
| etc с 'гасо* (со) (со) -5
с-
см
•5 $ Ь > ' CVJ
0)
•1
Q
3 тз о*
ф ф |1
ш
а
Н-1 ф
N
Д Ф
N
н Ни S3
ф .,-. ф ф -гЧ ф 00
с ЬОТЗ СЛТЗ cd
43 Я 45 'И cd1 ф
З'Й cd ф :•-
•I- ч
СО О СО «м со о СО «2
ER 13227-7
Ill-51
Good agreement was obtained between predicted, measured, and

reconstructed pressures at Stage I fuel and oxidizer and Stage II oxi-
dizer measurement bosses. Stage II fuel measured and reconstructed
pressures agree well but, due to lower tank gas pressure, they both
differ from the prediction.
c. NPSH supplied
The NPSH supplied at the engine turbopump inlets during the start
and steady-state operation is shown in Table 111-23.
4. Propellant Utilization
a. Level sensor uncover
Figures 111-29 and 111-30 show the predicted, actual and reconstructed
level sensor uncover times for Stages I and II. Measured sensor uncover-
ing times are also tabulated in Table 111-24. The relationship of the pre-
dicted to the actual times of sensor uncover reflects the higher-than pre-
dicted flow rates experienced on Stages I and II.
Reconstructed level sensor uncover times show closer agreement

to the actuals in most cases. The reconstructed times have been
derived utilizing the propellant loadings reconstructed from flight con-
ditions, ullage gas pressures, and propellant temperatures input to
the propulsion system performance program.
Slosh, as indicated by on and off signals at the time of level sensor
uncovering, was not evident on this flight. All sensor uncoverings were
clean.
b. Best estimate level sensor uncover times
Table 111-25 contains the best estimate average level sensor uncover
times for the GLV-7 flight. Also shown are the integrated average
temperatures between level sensor uncoverings with the corresponding
densities. The measured average uncover times shown in Table III-14
were decreased by 0. 058 second to allow for the built-in level sensor
delay of 0. 033 second and modified for the PCM digital sampling rate
of 0. 05 second by adding 0. 025 second.
Table III-26 contains the level sensor volumes and delta volumes
used in the level sensor flow rate analysis. The Stages I and II oxi-
dizer and fuel high level sensor volumes were reconstructed to reflect
the volume which was determined by calibration at Cape Kennedy using
the propellant transfer and pressurization system. The Stages I and II
oxidizer outage and shutdown level sensor volumes were calculated
using the actual counts of flowmeter pulses recorded during the special
loading.
ER 13227-7
Ш-52
см С.
.
,
• -I
г
-
^•Hletu
ч_Ч_7Г PWML
ER 13227-7
Ш-53
.
со
t ~
со
ч
.
-
..
: -4 со
. -•
см
^
со
—' е
— t-Ч
°
2
•- •
[ - сч
1 . - - от
;• •:
! - ' 2 "™~Й
rt 0)
- в В
С - - . со
in
0)
a -4 <
(ч £i С!
•е- ^
—| -Н
+J
С А [2 ^Ч
0)
Н[
1 t~н
3
и '
~~~
^га ёh1
о 1 S £к
_ ..
^
_с-
СЛ
fe
ц>
тз '43 i
<и со sе ^
>
и fe îo >J
з > b ._.
01 0
4) О
<° С 0)
ш
*• TS -ч E-I
£
ь
"
у ч <0
оО =3
(D
0
<о "^
н
ф
С t, j; QJ
Covered'
т
b
.
8) Covered
_О5 н
Covered
: Covered
Covered 1
Covered '•'.]
... 1П
ТЗ
. о
i
- о - о
OJ и ю со
Э)
ш
>
* 0
ю :•
„ 0
1Л • СП —. r ю
и 0 . rt - • со -'• Ю . t-
т СП . си
п)
1
а § in ! in
;
:Ю
о о
~^о гё
м " !ч (Я ш - ": си ^ч
Т*
(в : ed S
S <и ,
О)
N V • 85 •
§ 7^<и
S
• N
•3
<ш
N
3
.-" X
о
5 1? - . ш
Ю
s 0 'х . и з .3 .
5
С!
3 м
о
ьв •
о
•а
•- u>
ас ЗС -о
cd
• 3 • 3
::-Т- 3 .с 3 3
— — - АО И '/: - и ь
^
ER 13227-7
Ill-54
t, h
- ф
СИ ': о
Л! - о
(ч С с
Э
sЛ -
3
-t->
ф
и с с с
rt
Ф ф ф
8- С
rt
Ф
С
rt
Ф
с с
rt rt
Ф Ф
л
.
С
rt
Ф
С
rt
Ф
г.
d
-
с с
rt
Ф
rt
Ф
С
Л
Ф
С
rt
Ф
a §
D •а
и и и и и и и и и и и J и и и и Q Q
'о 0
-м
(Л Ф in
~-" Ф "п ^
^
Н Ф 0) Л
И нз
n Ф
i
s оН 1П •Г.: ш т. -•- х
CJ *£
с *5 м И 1C -г 00 prj
- - и -г -•- X
•a >
-' г ;.-' 00 -:' - ::
ц til " W -•- и -•-. и -г
i OJ И г ?i
-: - - -
': и И и -•-. М
- Ф Н э
.—
I г
- -
:"
.—
Г
W а
- а ю ю «t ю in ю ю
со со -•• со со со ^ 'П
оо
СО
со
^н
in оо оо
in о ю
со
Ю -ч
со
PQ •/ н г^
[н
оо
т^Н
о о •- о о оо оо к t- -н M
со •* 1> ОЭ
- ^
I •ф со со • со со оо оо я со со £ со со 0 0
<и 2 •н со со - со со со со к со со 1П со оо
1 >и
>*
О ч~'
ГИ
О ем см - см см см см -•- 1П Ю ю ю ю ю
со со со со со со со со со -• со со со со
£3 оз 05 05 .-" О5 ОЗ О5 О5 3 ОЗ О5 - 05 05 оз оз
а &
.
-
- С С
':
oxidizer shutdo\
oxidizer shutdov
'.
oxidizer outage
oxidizer outage
jxidizer outage
jxidizer outage
fuel shutdown
fuel shutdown
oxidizer high
лде! shutdown
'uel shutdown
jxidizer high
fuel outage
fuel outage
ф ф
OJD OJO
Sensor
51
л л a
и
:
3
о о
3 aн•
-
:
г-1
ф
1—1
ф i
• 3 3
ьн 1—1 >—1 —i 1—1 t—1 t— 1 1—1 Q
ф
OJO
Ф
OJO
Ф
OJO
-
J
ф
OJO
ф
OJO
ф
OJO
ф
OJO
.
ал OJD OJO i
ф ф i ф ф ф ф
OJO OJO UO OJO
.
0
_
OJO
rt 0) Oj Я rt rt rt rt Ed rt rt nj rt rt л rt rt
ОТ ОТ ОТ ОТ ОТ ОТ ОТ ОТ :/; со от от ОТ ОТ от от 1, от
со со CO O5 •* ем со О О CM со en с CO t- Ю О
а} ю л ю ю ю со -т •* ю ю
Ф о О О Q о о 0 О in in ю 1П in in in in in in
f О о о 0 о о О 0 ~ 0 0 г 0 0 0 0 э о
ER 13227-7
Ill-55
ТЭ ТЗ С
си с о> а,
со
h
cd ?t|lll
a
0) г-н С г^н
<3 Cd ^шО
0) 1/5 X
C
tf Ti о) ^ ьо 5
J3 0) rn Cd
со *J J3 nj ti ю
2 --
T3
и
с™1 чн -iH <н cd О см со со о
С Л
о о оэ t-
a *•" со см оэ см
0) CO >>
I 0) *" CM t> -н t>
оэ ю ел ю
Н и ••H ^H 00 CM 00 L °^
— . 0) CM CO Ю О О) О 4)
- 2 CO •
i-H Tj<
•
-Ф
•
О
• •
<-Н
U Q
0> Tjt CO гн CO CM
: Q rH t-H i—1 «—* •—1
: со
и 0>
h h
13 V 3
оН cot- cot~ t- сою t-ю о cj
о *j CO СГ) СО ОЭ О СЗ СО СО СМ СО ^ ^T\
-
sI-Î
г, tÔi соо> оо t*co смсо t—
DO
- г ^^ •^«ю оосм оо coco coco о"
г; ЕЙ hn ^ t—» со f-нсо со coco юсо ^ 0) M
T . 0)
cd Й осм осм см сою емю ю
И coco coco со coco coco со •-I Ю О Ю
—i 0) 0
0) i-i G)O оэо) со со со со со со
w I tuo U
•* см ю о*
_ **•
- 1)
-.J
.-.
(4
0) СО
С С!
О О
Q) r-i
г С
> 0)
< 0)
^ ^^^
I
0) 0) DJO ЬВ ТЗ ТЗ _, 0) m
ТЗ ^
JH cdJ 4cdJ *• A
J 3 c d < 2 5 o j o * ? ? cd£
-
ofititi ?>.,нЗЗ CUOI-^^HOO tn ^^
OJO
• й 5 Э Ш Ш О О Л О О DJODJOMCO-o-o
i sst mi 111 til ц ii
- Л 00 DJDOJOT3T3 г , ь Л Й Й ^ 1 , - 2 - 3 0)
(4 •M
0
CO I-H
И
с
0> ТЗ ТЗ ТЗ i—i i—i r—I i—i I-H -F-I -гн -и ni -и -i-i m'
И CO 'Г!'Й'Г! 1 ) <U<U «I» (н
м x xx
О ООчнЧнЧнЧнЧн
з 33 X XX
3 3 о o o « 2 < 3 « S X8X3
3 33 33
«« 0) м
П
и N .3
рр 0)
OJO
0 ) 0 ) 0)
bBOJO OJO
0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0)
OJOQJO OJOOJ3 OJO
0 ) 0 ) 1)
OJOOJD OJO
0 ) 0 ) 0)0) 0)0)
OJOOJO OJOOJO OJObJO
а
0) 2 1! 'd ^
cd cdcd cd cdcd cdcd cd cdcd cd cdcd cdcd cdcd о «21—° 1*"
1—1
CO COCO CO COCO COCO CO COCO CO COCO COCO COCO 1—1 1-Н 1—1 1—1
CO
^ 0) 0) Ш 0)
QJO OJO OJD OJO
со CO COO5 ^ CMCO OO CM OOO3 О COt» ЮО Î-H cd cd cd cd
Ю ЮЮ Ю ЮЮ ЮСО т}< ^t1'* TJ< Tt<Tj< rf if) if Ю
So о оо о оо оо ю юю ю юю юю юю со со со со
о оо о оо оо о оо о оо оо оо
«
cd
h
T3 Cj *""* I- *""*
cd •— ZH нн I-H Ц > — ьн О I-H > I-H >
i—i t—it— I I-H Mi— I t—I I-H M I-H I-H I-H ьнМ t—I M i—it— I
§
;ONFIDENTIAL »
ER 13227-7
Ill-56
TABLE Ш-26
Averaged Tank Volumes at Level Sensor Locations
Averaged Volumes, Delta
Stretch Included Volumes
Tank Sensor (ft 3 ) (ft3)
Hi -level 1708. 61
Stage I oxidizer 1670.31
Outage 38.30
Hi -level 1401.86
Stage I fuel 1335.80
Outage 66.06
Hi -level 284.27
Stage П oxidizer 261.95
Shutdown 22.32
Hi -level 350. 15
Stage II fuel 332.05
Outage 18. 10
с. Flow rates
Table 111-27 presents the predicted and the actual volumetric flow
rates between level sensors.
TABLE III-2 7
Propellant Volumetric Flow Rate
Predicted Actual
Tank (ft3 /sec) (ft3 /sec)
Stage I oxidizer 11.8630 11.820
Stage I fuel 9.9136 9.923
Stage II oxidizer 2.259 2.286
Stage II fuel 2.057 2.075
d. Mixture ratio
Table 111-28 shows the Stages I and П predicted and actual engine
mixture ratios between level sensors for GLV-7.
I
ER 13227-7
Ill-57
TABLE Ш-28
Engine Mixture Ratio
Predicted Mixture Ratio Actual Mixture

System (Ref. 16) Ratio
Stage I 1.9284 1.9223
Stage II 1. 7621 1. 7702
Sensitivity coefficients applied to the delta between the predicted

and actual variations in average suction pressure and temperature
between sensor uncoverings yield the infprmation shown in Table
111-29.
TABLE Ш-29
Mixture Ratio Pressure and Temperature
Delta Delta Delta

Mixture Mixture Mixture
Pressure Ratio Temperature Ratio Ratio
System (psi) (pressure) (OF) (temp) (total)
Stage I
oxidizer +2.5 +0.002143 -3.5 +0.004307 +0.006450
Stage I
fuel + 1.5 -0.002793 -3.2 -0.002748 -0.005541
Total Stage I -0.000650 -- +0.001559 +0.000909
Stage П
oxidizer -0.5 -0.001170 -1.7 +0.002420 +0.001250
Stage II
fuel -2.0 +0.003936 +0.3 -0.000256 +0.003680
Total Stage II +0.002766 — +0.002164 +0.004930
By applying the total delta mixture ratio shown in Table 111-29 to

the predicted (F-45 day) mixture ratios, the run-to-run variation can
be calculated. The mixture ratio deviations along with the allowable run-
to-run dispersions are shown in Table Ш-30.
ER 13227-7
Ill-58
TABLE Ш-30
Mixture Ratio Deviation
Predicted Mixture
Ratio (corrected for Allowable
pressure and tem- Run-to-Run
perature varia- Actual Mix- Deviation Dispersion
System tions) ture Ratio
Stage I 1.9293 1.9223 -0.70 + 1.38

Stage II 1.7670 1.7702 +0.32 +2.28
e. Outage and trapped propellant
Table 111-31 shows the statistical mean and maximum (99%) outages
predicted for GLV-7. Also shown are the actual outages as calculated
using the information contained in the reconstructed propellant inven-
tories of Tables III-37 and Ш-38.
TABLE III-31
Outage Prediction
Predicted (F-45 days) Predicted (F~0 day)

System Mean Max (99%) Mean Max (99%) Actual
0.221% 0. 645% 0.257% 0.671% 0.0714% fuel

Stage I
570 Ib 1667 Ib 663 Ib 1733 Ib 45 Ib
0.343% 1.026% 0. 365% 1.041% 0.413% fuel

Stage II
206 Ib 616 Ib 219 Ib 625 Ib 248 Ib
All outages are presented as percent of total steady-state propel-

lants (taken from Ref. 16) and in pounds. Total steady-state propellant
weights were 258, 360 pounds for Stage I and 60, 012 pounds for Stage II.
The predicted and actual trapped propellants for Stages I and II are
given in Table III-32.
^MMMi
PMMb
ER 13227-7
Ill-59
TABLE III-32
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 periods are shown in Table 1П-33.
TABLE Ш-33
Stage I Ignition and Holddown Propellant Consumptions

Predicted Actual Predicted Actual
Start consumption 209 208 44 44
(87FS, to TCPS)
Holddown consumption 2144 2205 1131 1182

(TCPS to liftoff)
The predicted and actual start consumptions listed in Table Ш-33

were selected from Ref. 18 after modification to allow for the difference
between propellant flow out of the tanks (as listed in the report) and pro-
pellant 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.
ER 13227-7
Ш-бО
The Stage II predicted and actual propellant consumptions from 91FS.

to QIFS1 + 1.2 seconds are listed in Table 111-34.
TABLE Ш-34
Stage II Start Propellant Consumption

Start consumption 135 135 53 53
(91FS, to QlFSj + 1 . 2 sec)
The predicted and actual consumptions were .obtained from Ref. 18

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-35.
TABLE Ш-35
Pressurization Gas Inventory

System Predicted Actual* Predicted Actual*
Stage I
Vapor retained
Oxidizer tank 324 322 0 0
Fuel tank 9 7 99 98
Vaporized 5 5 0 0
Stage II
Pressurization
Fuel tank 5 7 52 52
Vaporization
Oxidizer tank 9 9 -- --
*Actual values were obtained from the reconstructed flight pressure

profile of the pressurization computer program runs.
ER 13227-7
111-61
h. Shutdown
Stage I shutdown was due to oxidizer exhaustion. The predicted and

actual values for the propellants consumed during shutdown are shown
in Table III-36. 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; consequently,

the propellants were not exhausted as in Stage I. The predicted and
actual values for the propellants consumed during shutdown are also
shown in Table III-36. The actual values were computed from the actual
altitude shutdown impulse.
TABLE III-36
Propellant Shutdown Consumption

Stage I 0 0 145 113
Stage II 78 78 62 62
i. Propellant inventory
The reconstructed propellant inventories for GT~7 are shown in

Tables Ш-37 and Ш-38 for Stages I and II, respectively. The inventory
consists of both the nonusable and usable propellants, with the utilization
of each itemized. The burning time margin for Stage П was 2. 066 seconds.
TABLE III-37
GLV-7 Stage I Constructed Propellant Loading
I. Predicted inflight engine mixture ratio 1. 9284 +1. 54%

II. Average inflight mixture ratio (engine) 1. 9223 +1. 71%
III. Outage (percent of total usable propellants) 0. 0174%
Oxidizer Fuel Total

(Ib) (Ib) (Ib)
IV. Nonusable propellants

A. Fuel bleed 0 11 11
B. Start consumption 87 FS. to 208 44 252
TCPS)
ER 13227-7
Ш-62 AL
TABLE Ш-37 (continued)
Oxidizer Fuel Total

(lb) (lb)
С. Holddown (TCPS to liftoff 2,205 1, 182 3,387
(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 7 98 105
2. Vaporized 5 5
G. Total nonusable 2,982 1,664 4,646
V. Usable propellants
A. Steady-state overboard 169,549 88,342 257,891
(liftoff to 87FSJ
B. Shutdown transient 0 113 113
(FS~ to 0% thrust)
C. Outage 0 45 45
D. Total usable 169,549 88,500 258,049
VI. Total propellant loaded 172,531 90, 164 262,695
VII. Propellant load at liftoff 170, 118 88,938 259,056
VIII. Weight of initial pressurizing
gas
A. Fuel tank (N9) 8
B. Oxidizer tank (N2 + NOJ 16
TABLE Ш-38
GLV-7 Stage II Constructed Propellant Loading
I. Predicted inflight engine mixture ratio 1.7621 +2. 52%

II. Average inflight mixture ratio (engine) 1.7702 +1. 55%
ш. Outage (percent of total usable propellants) +0.410%
IV. Burning time margin 2. 066 sec
~l| Illl II III il

ER 13227-7
Ш-63
TABLE Ш-38 (continued)
Oxidizer Fuel Total

(lb) (lb) (lb)
V. Nonusable propellants
A. Fuel bleed 0 11 11
B. Trapped above interface at
FS_ + 20 sec (0% thrust) 0 0 0
C. Trapped below interface at 20 14 34
FS2 + 20 sec (0% thrust)
D. Vapor retained after FS~
1. Pressurization (fuel tank) 7 52 59
2. Vaporization (oxidizer 9 9
tank)
E. Total nonusable 36 77 113
VI. Usable propellants
A. Start consumption (FS1 to 135 53 188
90% thrust)
B. Steady-state overboard (90% 37,916 21,275 59, 191
thrust to FSJ
C. Shutdown consumption 78 62 140
(FS_ to 0% thrust)
D. Steady-state residuals (after
FS2)
1. Burning time margin 444 242 686
2. Outage 248 248
E. Total usable 38,573 21,880 60,453
VII. Total propellants loaded 38,609 21,957 60,566
VIII. Weight of initial pressurizing
gas
A. Fuel tank (N ) 5
B. Oxidizer tank (N + NOJ 30
5. Components
a. Pre valves
During the launch countdown, all prevalve functions were performed

without incident. Pre valves installed for the flight are identified in
Table 111-39.
NTIAL
ER 13227-7
Ш-64
TABLE Ш-39
Prevalve Identification
Description Part No. Serial No.
Stage I oxidizer S/A 1 PS47510007-139 0700027
(fill and drain)
Stage I oxidizer S/A 2 PS47510007-159 0700030
(drain)
Stage II oxidizer S/A 3 PS47510005-199 0600021
(fill and drain)
Stage I fuel S/A 1 (fill PS47510005-159 0600026
and drain)
Stage I fuel S/A 2 (drain) PS47510005-169 0600039
Stage II fuel S/A 3 (fill PS47510006-059 0400016

and drain)
b. Level sensors
GLV-7 incorporated 18 Bendix optical-type propellant level sensors;
these are listed in Table 111-40. All sensors performed satisfactorily
during propellant loadings and flight.
c. Oxidizer standpipes
The oxidizer standpipes on GT-7 were charged with the remote charge
system at T-39 minutes. No problems were encountered prior to or
during the actual charging process. Flight data obtained from pressure
Meas 0033 and 0034 located in the standpipes show performance to be
normal and consistent with the low longitudinal oscillatory levels ex-
perienced on this flight.
d. Fuel accumulators
The fuel spring-piston accumulators used on GLV-7 were identical
in configuration to those on GLV-4 and -5. Response of the piston dis-
placement (Meas 0035 and 0036) was satisfactory throughout flight as is
evident from Fig. 111-31. The amplitude of S/A 1 was generally higher
than that of S/A 2 because of a superimposed low frequency motion char-
acteristic of S/A 1. Low frequency, high amplitude motion has been
characteristic of the S/A 1 accumulator motion on all GLV flights. The
primary frequency at which the accumulators respond is 22 cps; the
low frequency evident on S/A 1 was approximately 6 cps.
ER 13227-7
Ш-65
^н ^
t- 41 СО 4
1
03 со г- г-1 ~*
41 со 1 см со 4 СО
CO CO CO со со - CN Ч< см см
Ю
'SI о
о
0
оо
оо
оо
0 0
оо
оо
:
-
:
О
0
0
О
0
0
оо
00
00
с
о
сЗ
ОЗ ОЗ ОЗ ОЗ ОЗ ОЗ ОЗ ОЗ ОЗ
со со со со со - 41 41 41 Ю
0 0 0 оо 0 0 00
ас
о
и
#
t- со со аз ю ч 03 Г- -н
"Т см t- со аз оз О —i ю со
Нсо~
ьо ч< ^ см 4* Ч»' со со
СИ о *•" со см см ^н ~н
>
(М
ОТ
.
:
.
- >3
•а
л
• с5 « я я tz «а я&
СУ
-
и ю см со аз ю о со t- 41 —1
~ т-
•
ч» ю
1—1 Ю 1Л
§ о оо оо - оо оо
о со со со с ою со со
м « . со о1 0 см со СО СО
-t- с о
со Ч
оо -
1 СМ 41
0 0
41 41
00
0 0 0 - оо оо
Л от 0 0 0 : оо оо
I
0) с
И .2 1
-4 о
a
ГО J 03 ОЗ ОЗ - ОЗ ОЗ ОЗ ОЗ
3
ьо
СО
о
со со
00
if,
-
4< 41
оо
41 41
оо •-.
rt
р—i
с
о \
i и ~-1
а
:,
-
рц
<и со
03 —i
со см
- о см
СМ 03
СО О
ОЗ СМ
--
i-
з и со
о
со со
со со с
со ю
СО СО
t-^ со .,
i ф
ао
о г- - i
0]
a
ОТ
с 9
С а)
•а г* 3 :
а
а« _я '
Of
со со СО ОЗ - см со оо к
л юю ю со
о оо : оо
s о оо оо
00
00
:
1ч
и
«Volume to i
.
Oxidizer tan
High level
,
Location
Shutdown
Shutdown
Shutdown
Shutdown
i
Fuel tank
33 0) 0) ф
ьл ы> OJD OJD
..
23
II :;: 66
ER 13227-7
Ш-66
-I Pf lOg |жI
**w ППЩ
•
• • - - . . f
•
Meas 0035 S/A 1
! -
'
-i
с
и
3
_иа***ШйЖ; Л1р№^
t
и
о) 202
V
•a. 1
«ьиЬ *^^^ M
4ййЛ^
BD
! Я> 7 '' • ' • ,•£.' V •'• • , ". 1'тРЧ? T*Tff

1
0
}!
» /^V
^WiV^'^ .
•'! I ' 1
; . -
»
'.
I i 1 i 1 i 1 i 1 t 1 i 1 • 1 i 1 i i . i . i • i i i
1-7 pc 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 87F£
Meas 0036 S/A 2
u
и
и
rt
•аи
4— 7
87FS, 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 во 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 87FS,

Fig. 111-31. GT-4 Fuel Accumulator Piston Travel
ER 13227-7
Ш-67
Dynamic friction levels for dry accumulators were measured prior

to installation of the accumulator assemblies at Mar tin-Baltimore and
again prior to flight at Complex 19, ETR. A summary of these friction
measurements appears in Table Ш-41 as peak-to-peak values (twice the
equivalent friction force in one direction).
TABLE 1П-41
Dynamic Friction Levels for Dry Accumulators
Peak-to-Peak Friction (psi)*

S/A Serial No. Bench Preflight
1 ВОЮ 0.9 0.8
2 B011 0.6 0.8
*Maximum acceptable value = 2.0 psi
Flight data do not indicate significant differences in friction levels

between accumulators.
6. POGO
The Stage I longitudinal oscillation levels for this flight were the
lowest experienced. Flight data do not indicate significant responses
in propulsion measurements until immediately prior to BECO. Oxidizer
suction pressure (Meas 0017) and oxidizer standpipe pressures (Meas
0033 and 0034) show a buildup at the structural frequency beginning 3.5
seconds before BECO. This buildup has been observed on previous flights
and is predictable analytically; i.e., the system gain at zero phase angle
crosses unity at 95% of Stage I flight time from liftoff.
Additional details on POGO appear in Chapter XII of this report.
C. PRESSURIZATION SUBSYSTEM
!. Prelaunch Pressurization
At approximately T-192 minutes, all propellant tanks were pres-

surized, through AGE, from blanket pressure level to flight pressure
levels. The resultant time-pressure profiles (Fig. 111-32) 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 Ш-42.
L
ER 13227-7
Ш-68
:
Meas 4602
Г' Stage II fuel
:: Meas 4605
Stage II oxidizer !
Ф 40
a
l
--
3
a
л
С
.
j Meas 4129
id Stage I oxidizer
2 3
Time After Initiation of Flight Pressure Signal (min)
Fig. 111-32. Tank Pressurization Cycle (blanket to flight pressure)
TIAL
ER 13227-7
Ill-6 9
TABLE III-42
Tank Ullage Lockup Pressures
Normal Range Measured

Meas Parameter (psia) (psia)
4125 Stage I fuel tank 27.5 to 31.5 29.4
4129 Stage I oxidizer tank 30.5 to 34.5 *
4602 Stage II fuel tank 49. 5 to 54.5 51.4
4605 Stage II oxidizer tank 53.5 to 57.5 55.6
*Not available
To prevent inadvertent actuation of the pressure switch (low launch

light) when the prevalves are opened, the lockup pressures for Stage II
fuel and oxidizer tanks were increased by +0. 5 psi. This practice will
be followed for all future Gemini Launch Vehicles.
2. Flight Pressurization
Stages I and II ullage gas pressure time variations appear in Figs.

111-33 through Ш-36. These plots show flight-measured pressures,
preflight predicted pressures, and postflight reconstructed pressures.
The flight-measured pressures shown were obtained by averaging the
telemetered output from each pair of pressure transducers in the indi-
vidual tanks. The preflight predicted curves are taken from Ref. 16.
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 FS, + 100 seconds is given in Table III-43.
Figures Ш-37, 111-38 and 111-39 present the preflight-predicted and

the in-flight-estimated pressurization parameters at the orifice or nozzle
inlet. Removal of certain instrumentation from GLV-5 and up necessitated
estimation of in-flight pressurization parameters.
3. Component Performance
All MDS tank pressure sensors functioned normally. The maximum

and mean pressure differences between pairs (A and В sensors) of sen-
sors in each of the individual propellant tanks are shown in Table Ш-44.
ER 13227-7
Ill-70
,
-
!
(Bisd) aanssa-id етзд
ER 13227-7
Ill-71
~_i <u
ел~ Д
c-
00
s
,
(Btsd) эдпззэла SBQ эЭвпп
ER 13227-7
Ill-7 2
p.
v
I
и
i
J £
О i-l
о
-.;
H
•11
9
• :
:i \
:• I
I-l
> I
1
I
С171Г|1ПРГМТ||'1Г
ER 13227-7
Ш-73
о rt с-
•а со
О 4->
1S о ьо
•о? -
I ел со
С rt rt
.
[ ш
£
i
О :
I- С
(Bisd) SBQ эЗвпЛ
-Q^CM-П
ER 13227-7
III-74
•a
ш
X! О -
CUD 3 £ • -. с: CD
со
л
-
=
её
CO С
oo
CO
• *Ф
i-i
£
Г
IT
! -
CO
. 0)
CO
: -
—
:i
со
oo
. Ю
со
<t
—
г~
:
. CM
: 0 0 (M CM d Z •^ см г - - ^
CM
-
- «
-
с
О
: '- CD
:- - -- X -г a чф
fcJD îrt о ее со [ - оо со t-
:- F"
1
. 1 о i i —' CM
со и
(M - - О Э i-H CM
a•
.
cd +-> -a
FH
a :: с
ад-g !
1-Н
и '•"* о - DO У. |- г X
« g
O5
oo to I> -- Ю SO
«j ^ о . rj< г - . Ю •— CM
-1-" CO• I-H
^ t— CO -| СО со
CO CM CM о ^H CO о ID СМ Э
.;.
С
0
н
M
cd
i
^.
•-
-
fe
о
0
-
е
о о
M
to 0 CO
к =
0 И 5 --' г «
fc -' .3
;-- 3
о
H 0 5- ratio, WOP /QOS (Ib/
р_| '-^
ratio, WFP/QFS (Ib/
pressure, POT (Psia'

pressure, PQT (psia)
pressure, P FT (psia)
pressure, P™ (psia)
ce inlet specific entha

ratio, WFP/QFS (Ib/
от
le inlet temperature,
le inlet temperature,
о
o^
Ы
•и оГ
[ oxidizer tank
со 4->
cd
oxidizer tank
- (н
о
-: '-
fuel tank
О О
и
- 5
M
с^
и +->
п 11 с
a i—cdi
Ib)
r—t
cu
О h- 1 -. n -*J N i— -. Q.
J с .H 5 С Ы с о
ш § § ° 0)
cd
1 н oS
СЙ SH m
0 1
DJ
cd H
cd
2
О i—0i M
cd
cd
- £
от Ь ОТ от
ER 13227-7
Ш-75
290
270
С 250
230
210
190
i \
: 170
150
Д Preflight prediction
О Flight performance T f p n r estimated
-
130
NOTE: AU times from 87FS,
110 i I
0.050 0.055 0.060 0.065 0.070 0.075 0.080
Flow Ratio, W-p/Q f (Ib/sec pressurant gas/— - propellant)
Pig. Ill-37. Stage I Fuel Tank Pressurant Performance
ER 13227-7
Ill-76
430
:
u
и
id
О
1 iI Д Preflight prediction } '
О Flight performance, TQpoI estimated
270
Note: All times from 87FS1
250
0.12 0.13 0.14 0 15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19
Flow Ratio, W O p/Q os (Ib/sec pressurant propellant)
Fig. 111-38. Stage I Oxidizer Tank Pressurant Performance
ER 13227-7
Ill-7 7
290
О Flight performance,
150 Note: All times from 91FS
0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17

ft
Flow Ratio, W-p/Q-o (Ib/sec pressurant propellant)
Fig. 111-39. Stage II Fuel Tank Pressurant Performance
ER 13227-7
Ill-78
TABLE 111-44
Pressure Difference Between Tank Pressure Transducer Pairs
Maximum
Difference Mean Allowable
Maximum Difference Difference
Tank (psi) (psi) (psi)
Stage I oxidize r 0. 15 0.09 1.50
Stage I fuel 0.35 0.20 1.50

Stage II oxidizer 0.40 0.16 2.25
Stage II fuel 1. 62 1.32 2.25
D. 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 prelaunch
activities until vehicle liftoff. The system operated satisfactorily.
Table Ш-45 presents a summary of the system parameters.
ER 13227-7
Ill 79
TABLE 111-45
Air-Conditioning System Performance Summary
Observed Specified
VIeas Description Range Range Remarks
4403 GLV supply 48° to 48° to 56° F Temperature of air

air temper- 50. 5° F (Compart- supplied to GLV
ature ment 2) 48° Compartment 2 and
to 58° F the engine start
(engine cartridges
start car-
tridges)
4405 Compart- Approxi- 82 Ib/min

ment 2 sup- mately 88 (minimum)
ply air mass Ib / min .
flow rate
4418 Compart- 54° to 40° to 75° F Manual hold param-

ment 2 ex- 58° F eter
haust air
tempera-
ture
4045 Start car- 54° F (at 36° to 84° F S/N 0636763

tridge tem- liftoff) Manual hold param-
perature eter
S/A 1
4046 Start car- 53. 5° F 35° to 84° F S/N 0859574

tridge tem- (at lift- Manual hold param-
perature off) eter
S/A 2
4612 Start car- 52. 5° F 35° to 70° F S/N 0859190

tridge tem- (at lift- Manual hold param-
perature off) eter
S/A 3
ER 13227-7
IV-1
IV. FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEM
Analysis of the GT-7 Flight Control System (FCS) measured param-

eters indicated satisfactory system operation during both Stages I and
П flights. The primary FCS was in command throughout and no switch-
over 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.
TABLE IV-1
Transients During Stage I Holddown Period
Actuator Maximum During Ignition Maximum During

Designation Travel Time from LO Holddown Null Check
(in.) (sec) (in.)
Pitch, lj -0.094 -2.75 +0.02
Yaw /roll, 2j -0.090 -2.75 -0.04
Yaw /roll, 3j +0.200 -2.80 -0.02
Pitch, 4 X -0.071 -2.80 -0.01

Maximum Rafe, Stage I Maximum Rate, Stage П
Gyro (deg/sec) Gyro (deg/sec)
Axis
Primary Secondary Primary Secondary
Pitch -0.20 -0.30 +0.39 +0.47
Yaw +0.39 +0.19 -0.19 +0.19
Roll +0.38 +0.40 -- --
The combination of thrust misalignment and engine misalignment

at full thrust initiated a roll transient at liftoff. The response of the
FCS to correct the offset kept the roll rate to a maximum of 0. 9 dee/
sec counter-clockwise (CCW) at 0. 22 second after liftoff (Fig. IV-1).
The rate oscillation had a basic frequency of 5. 4 rad/sec, damping out
in 1.7 seconds. As shown on the roll error curve in Fig. IV-1, a roll
bias of 0. 16 degree CCW was introduced at liftoff by the equivalent en-
gine misalignment of 0. 04 degree.
ER 13227-7
IV-2
Extende
о'м 1 y-v KMeaa 0151, 0152)i
Is
Д ев
/ v\^_/ v
Retract
°£
J
' ' :
0. 2
u
•a
^ч [ГД
N
>"' 'V ^^
ШШШШ
-0.2 X.
V /~
у
(Meas 0768) j
^
О
0-0.4
1 [:::: -. j : ' !
I 0
'о о
;;| (Me as 0232) I
4> П Ъ
т U-
° _-/•—•"ч • '" — '
ьо / N. i
ш л
5
^ '°- \
U
U
\ / /
-1.0
i 0.5 1.0 I.: 2.0 2.5 3.0 3
Fig. IV-1. Liftoff Boll Transients
ER 13227-7
iv-з
2. Roll and Pitch Programs
The TARS roll and pitch programs performed nominally as shown

in Table IV-2. The 1. 04-second roll program was of insufficient dura-
tion for the vehicle to reach steady state; however, the torquer monitor
indicated that the proper program was achieved. The maximum roll
and pitch overshoots which occurred at the initiation of their respective
programs were 1. 6 deg/sec CW for roll and 0. 9 deg/sec down for pitch.
TABLE IV-2
TARS Roll and Pitch Programs
Time from Nominal Rate Gyro Torquer Monitor Nominal

Program Liftoff Time Average Indication Rate
(sec) (sec) (deg/sec) (deg/sec) (deg/sec)
Roll
Start 19.35 19.44 —— + 1.26 +1.25
Stop 20.39 20.48
Pitch Step 1
Start 22.94 23.04 -0.71 -0.69 -0.709
Pitch Step 2
Start 88.04 88.32 -0. 50 -0.50 -0.516
Pitch Step 3
Start 118.66 119.04 -0.23 -0.25 -0.235
Stop 162.02 162. 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.
The dispersion between the TARS and IGS attitude was caused by a com-
bination 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. 78 degree in the pitch axis,
+0. 31 degree in the yaw axis and +0. 10 degree in the roll axis.
4. Stage I Flight Disturbances
Vehicle disturbances during Stage I flight were caused by the pre-

vailing winds aloft. The flight control system response to these dis-
turbances was normal and well controlled. The yaw component of wind
ER 13227-7
IV-4
+2.0
+ 1.0
S?
1ч
и
+2.0
«
о
.•и I + 1.0-
ьI
60 80 100
Time from Liftoff (sec) BECO
Fig. IV-2. Pitch Attitude Error History During Stage I Flight
ER 13227-7
IV-5
+ 2.0
:
-
:•
-
I
•B +2.0
20 60 80 100 120 140 J160

Fig. IV-3. Yaw Attitude Error History During Stage I Flight

IV-6
.
a
-.-
и
•
-.'
:
t
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Fig. IV-U. Roll Attitude Error History During Stage I Flight
ER 13227-7
IV-7
Ь-1
1—1
1> ю см со со
fr
d)
(4
•и
СЛ
О СО
со
0
00
t>
СО
И
*rj Т!
С
2
4-1
0) О ой •гЧ
со О Н-1
со
0) <и ю см со оэ ^ч ем ю
чГ
«м ьо о ю о t- о ою
ю оо со см ю о
с^« см о тН 0
ел i-Ч оэ со °^ cd 03 CM
1
i J ш
/
. а .д г со^ О)
о 1— 1 f-ч
<ь И-1
0)
ЬО
СО О СО СО
01 0 t>
•наi-i
- О СО
>> 43 со оо со
(4
- 0]
i
a
1—1
1 О)
ю ю г- со О Ю
0)
= ьо
cd о ю
со
о с-°
00 СО
О
см
Ю
ю
гН
•о
з
С/3 • гЧ
:
И о со Ь- t^
-: - со
О 0)
00
см
О
о
оз
со
о
г- §|| i-ч СО ^ со
оэ оэ
1 ьо о
т о
(ч • • • • тН О О О
I + ? +
О ел•*-> ? V §И~ +
'
' '
'о t>i
ь-1 о>
Р
- со cd
•о 1—1
-
.-
tU)
ф
с
о
D
UO
оо
со
о
го
О ^-1
1> 00
о оэ
со О
аX
N_^
0) д Q О о о •Н I—1
СУЗ СУЗ + 1 + 1 + 1
СО
^
си
эa i (Я
о
ОЭ
см
т-Ч
о
03 СО
imum
ф Ю t~
I Сн ьо -'
-
a о
at
ел ? f 0
к
ей
!>ъ £
§ о! 1—1 ц
ш 00 i-н 00 ОЗ 00 r-t
д '.
со с- ю о со -
'(ч OJO ч О
•1-1 CJ d ._.
Рн
СЛ ? V ?? •-Ч
+
i-H
1 £ >s^ "
л
.
J
о
cd
я
к
•«И
^ И
ER 13227-7
IV-8
derived from the Rawinsonde Run AN/GMD-T-1 Hour Cape Kennedy

wind profile compares very favorably with the yaw attitude error
curves in Fig. IV-3. During these wind disturbances, oscillations
between 1. 0 and 1. 6 rad/sec with a peak-to-peak overshoot amplitude
of less than 0. 3 degree of attitude error occurred in pitch and yaw at
the predicted GT-7 rigid body oscillatory mode frequencies, which
varied with flight condition. The maximum rates and attitude errors
recorded during Stage I flight are shown in Table IV-3. Since the level
of pitch and yaw excitation was of high magnitude, causing up to 2 de-
grees peak-to-peak pitch and yaw attitude errors during the max q
region, there was inertial coupling which produced excitation on the
roll channel.
The time for FCS gain change on GT-7 was changed to LO + 110
seconds on the basis that inadequate stability margins would exist for
the previous gain change time (LO + 105 seconds). At the actual time
of gain change (LO + 109. 6 seconds), there was a pitch attitude error
of 0. 45 degree nose up. The small but highly damped pitch transient
reached a maximum of 0. 75 degree nose up. Preflight stability calcu-
lations indicate that, with an error of 0. 45 degree, the pitch transient
for gain change at LO +110 seconds would overshoot to a maximum of
0. 79 degree pitch error. The reduction in gains reduced the amount of
engine deflection, thus causing the transient to occur.
Since the error in yaw at the time of gain change was almost zero,
there was no noticeable resultant transient.
Analyses indicate that the control system reacted properly to the
flight conditions in existence both before and after gain change.
5. Stage I Static Gains
The primary FCS static gains as determined from telemetry data

were within the instrumentation inaccuracy of preflight evaluations and
indicate that no static gain deterioration was experienced during Stage I
boost flight.
В. STAGE II FLIGHT
1. Staging Transients
During staging, moderate sustainer vehicle rates and attitude errors

were observed. The maximum attitude errors, measured from the pre-
BECO level, and the maximum vehicle rates are given in Table IV~4.
ER 13227-7
IV-9
TABLE IV-4
Maximum Staging Rates and Attitude Errors
Rates (deg/sec) Flight Time (sec)
Axis Primary Secondary Primary Secondary
Pitch +2.39 +2.82 155.77 155.77
-2.43 -2.32 156.32 156.32
Yaw +1.77 +1.70 156.88 156.96
-0.69 -0.90 159.26 156.01
Roll +1. 18 +1.22 157. 14 157.01

-2.00 -2.24 155.98 156.38
Attitude Error Flight Time
Axis (deg) (sec)
Pitch -1.37 157.9
Yaw +1.78 158.0
Roll -1. 10 156.7
2. Stage II Attitude Errors and Biases
Pitch and yaw attitude errors are shown in Figs. IV-5 and IV-6;
after the staging transient, the roll attitude error remained constant
at -0. 14 degree. The predicted pitch and yaw attitudes are for the
center-of-gravity displacement from the vehicle longitudinal axis and
the position of the roll thrust off the longitudinal axis. The additional
biases from the predicted attitudes, -0. 85 degree in pitch and +1. 25
degrees in yaw, are caused by engine thrust vector misalignment due
to structural deformation at the engine gimbal assembly. These biases
are of the same magnitude noted on previous flights and are within pre-
dicted limits. The deviation from the biased predicted attitudes is due
to system hysteresis and gain sensitivity.
3. Response to Radio Guidance Commands
The TARS tinier generated the guidance enable command at LO +

161. 99 seconds. Response to the first pitch command was at LO +
168. 37 seconds and consisted of a small down command followed by
a full 2.0 deg/sec pitch-down command for 2.0 seconds. The remain-
der of the pitch commands was less than 0. 25 deg/sec. Response to
ER 13227-7
IV-10
.
(Зэр) aojjg эрщтну
ER 13227-7
IV-11
<I
\s
\ u^ I
•Js " ,.;„ \
о
-г
• ия
э
•i ^ 0 71 ~<
(Зэр) эрщтпу
ER 13227-7
IV-12
\
Meaa 0766 1 He F -0, 40 deg/эес
Meaa 0744
• 345 355 • 365 | 370

91FS0 91FS,
91FS. + 20 sec Spacecraft Separation
Time from Liftoff (вес)
Fig. IV-7. Pitch, Roll and Yaw Attitude Errors During Post-SECO Flight
ER 13227-7
IV-13
yaw commands was of low magnitude, not exceeding 0. 06 deg/sec for

the entire flight. The rate gyro signals substantiated the correct re-
sponse to the guidance commands.
4. Slosh Induced Oscillations
Flight data indicate that from LO + 250 to LO + 320 seconds the
propellant slosh mode coupled with the rigid body mode cause vehicle
limit cycle oscillations in pitch rate, varying between 1. 5 and 1. 7 cps.
The maximum peak-to-peak pitching rate experienced was 1.2 deg/sec
as indicated by the primary and secondary Stage II rate gyros. There
was an indication of low magnitude oscillations of the same frequency
in the yaw channel with a peak-to-peak rate of 0. 25 deg/sec. Roll rate
oscillations of 0. 3 deg/sec were induced by the pitch rate oscillations
through inertial coupling. There were no appreciable vehicle attitude
errors due to the rate oscillations. Engine deflection was at the same
frequency as rate oscillations, with a maximum pitch amplitude of 0. 2
degree at the engine to correct for this disturbance.
5. Stage II Static Gains

The primary FCS static gains as determined from telemetry data
were within the instrumentation inaccuracy of preflight calculations.
C. POST-SECO FLIGHT
1. Vehicle Motions
Pitch, yaw and roll attitude errors and rates while operating on
primary control system during the period from SECO through space-
craft separation were less than those observed on previous flights;
the time histories are shown in Fig. IV-7. Maximum rates measured
during the period following SECO appear in Table IV-5.
Successful spacecraft separation was accomplished at 31.7 seconds
after 91FS . Vehicle rates did not exceed 0. 3 deg/sec at SECO + 20
seconds.
2. Post-SECO Transients
None of the GT-7 flight control system parameters indicated any
occurrence of the conventional "green man ' phenomenon.
ER 13227-7
IV-14
TABLE IV-5
Rate
Pitch Axis (deg/sec)
Maximum positive rate at 91FS_ + 2. 5 sec +0.99
Maximum negative rate at 91FS0ft + 16. 1 sec -0.40
Rate at 91FS2 + 20 sec -0.30
Rate at spacecraft separation (91FS9 +
31.7 sec) -0.20
Yaw Axis
Maximum positive rate at 91FS2 + 12. 7 sec +0.20
Maximum negative rate at 91FS2 + 0. 6 sec -0.38
Rate at 91FS- + 20 sec +0. 19
Rate at spacecraft separation (91FS_ +
31.7 sec) +0. 19
Roll Axis
Maximum positive rate at 91FS- + 0. 3 sec +0.38
Maximum negative rate at 91FS- + 6. 5 sec -0.31
Rate at 91FS- + 20 sec +0.27
Rate at spacecraft separation (91FS_ +
31.7 sec) -0.21
ER 13227-7
V-l
V. HYDRAULIC SYSTEM
Analysis of the telemetered data revealed that GT-7 hydraulic sys-
tems performed satisfactorily during Stage I and Stage II flights.
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 3240 psia at T-0. Engine start transients, starting at 87FS,
+ 0. 81 second, produced flow demands which dropped primary pressure
to 2631 psia at 87FS1 + 0. 92 second. Pressure recovery occurred
immediately, indicating proper pump compensator response. The
pressure overshoot on recovery peaked at 3355 psia at 87FS, + 1. 18
seconds. A steady-state pressure of 3139 psia was reached at 87FS.
+ 1.3 seconds. There were no significant pressure perturbations
either at liftoff or during flight. Pressure decayed normally during
flight to 2956 psia at staging.
Prior to T-110 seconds, the static reservoir level was 59. 9% full,
and it decreased to a normal 38. 4% full at T-0. The level increased
during flight to 52. 6% full at staging. This 14. 2% increase is a re-
sult of normal fluid expansion with increasing fluid temperature.
The steady-state reservoir levels and the level changes during
system pressurization were normal.
Primary and secondary system pressures and pressure switch
actuation points are shown in Fig. V-l. A comparison of primary
system pressures for GT-5 and GT-7 launches during engine start
and holddown is presented in Fig. V-2.
ER 13227-7
V-2
н ?
<D -d
'
(Bisd)
ER 13227-7
V-3
-' i£ ! б
;
1
j
••' ;
: : Г
Т-::: }::: :ц: S
Ш
. *
: ' 1
s |
-•'•-т
^р i^!
га
S
со
« e5
•н
H о
ок
1
:
о
til о'ТГГ: 0 о
-
(Bisd)
ER 13227-7
V-4
I
I
3
I
3
--
о о
О W
(Bisd) aanssaaj э
ER 13227-7
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 1710 psia. Motor pump pressure was normal at
3150 psia at T-110 seconds.
The static reservoir level, which was a normal 60% full prior to
pressurization at T-3 minutes, decreased to 34% full at T-110 seconds.
These levels and the level changes during pressurization and depressuri-
zation of the system were normal.
At T-0 the system was unpressurized (soft). Pressure began to develop
immediately as start cartridge energy rotated the engine turbine. Pres-
sure overshoot reached a maximum of 3375 psia, indicating very good
pump compensator response. A steady-state pressure of 3015 psia was
reached at 87FS., + 2. 81 seconds. At the pressure shutdown interroga-
tion 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 2880 psia at staging.
The reservoir level stabilized at 34% full after engine start, increas-
ing during flight to 46% full at staging. This 12% 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-5 and GT-7 launches is presented in Fig. V-3.
B. STAGE П
The final Stage II hydraulic system pressure and level check was per-
formed during a sequencer-initiated, motor-driven pump run from Т-240
seconds to T-180 seconds; the indicated accumulator precharge was 1800
psia. Electric motor pump pressure stabilized at a normal 3190 psia.
The static reservoir level was 63. 8% full, decreased to 34% full after
pressure application and again increased to 61. 8% 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 3852 psia. Steady-state
pressure after engine start was 2900 psia, decreasing to 2760 psia at
SECO. No significant pressure perturbations occurred during flight.
After SECO the pressure fluctuated with engine rpm, a normal reac-
tion to the low and variable turbine speeds occurring during this period.
The reservoir level was a normal 61. 9% full prior to staging. After
staging the level stabilized at 39% full, gradually increasing to 41. 8%
full at SECO. This 2. 8% increase is normal.
The reservoir levels and changes during pressurization and de-
pressurization were normal.
ER 13227-7
VI-1
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 + 46 seconds
to SECO + 68 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 occurs as the primary antenna is
brought into favorable ground station view.
An anomaly occurred in the telemetry function of rate beacon power
out at approximately SECO + 38 seconds. The voltage level of this
function rose from 3. 84 vdc to a constant value of 4. 04 vdc over a
period of 5. 6 seconds. No other rate beacon functions indicated any
change during this time period. General Electric Company has been
notified of this phenomenen.
2. Pulse Beacon
Pulse beacon performance also was satisfactory. Good lock* was
maintained through Stage I engine ignition and up to approximately
SECO + 69 seconds.
Normal oscillations during the antenna crossover period were ob-
served in AGC from approximately LO + 42 seconds to LO + 79 seconds.
During this time the minimum signal level received by the beacon was
-58 dbm; there was no evidence of missed messages during the period
of peak AGC oscillations. The normal ground station signal level in-
crease occurred at LO + 89. 2 seconds and was observed on telemetry
to be approximately 17. 3 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 de-
coder telemetry data with the Burroughs computer-generated output
indicate that pitch and yaw steering signals and the SECO discrete
commands were properly executed.
* 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 13227-7
\
VI-2
Values of the decoder telemetered functions 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. 10 vdc 4. 04 vdc
Phase detector 0751 3. 34 vdc 2. 95 vdc
Power out 0752 3. 90 vdc 3. 85 vdc
30- volt supply 0746 2. 85 vdc 2. 81 vdc
Pulse Beacon
Magnetron current 0753 3. 64 vdc 3. 57 vdc

AGC 0754 -10.6 dbm* -41.6 dbm*
Decoder
* Does not include antenna crossover period.
4. Guidance Commands
a. Pitch steering
A profile of early closed-loop pitch steering in terms of computer

commands, decoder pitch telemetry, TARS gyro torquer monitor, and
primary Stage II rate gyro is given 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 + 1 6 2 seconds, thereby energizing the airborne guidance initiate
relay. At the same time, pitch program No. 3 was terminated. This
effect can be observed on curves (c) and (d) of Fig. VI-1.
An initial pitch-down command of about 0. 16 deg/sec, lasting approxi-

mately 0. 5 second, was issued at LO + 168. 2 seconds. Following this,
a 2. 0 deg/sec pitch-down command was issued for 1. 9 seconds.
Throughout the remainder of flight the pitch commands were relatively
ER 13227-7
-з-Х VI-3
0) — (a) Computer Pitch Commands
•s?
й-0
*j о
05 га (b) Decoder Output Pitch (Meas 0755)
a-
(pitch-down)
(pitch-down)
: M :::| :.:!:;::!:•:.I.:
-1.0 (c) Pitch Torquer Monitor (Meas 0732)!

«•а
ge Л Primary Pitch Rate Gyro (Meas 0723)

05 га
-1.0
м i
-2.0
160 165 170 175 180 185 190 195

Fig. Vl-1. Stage II Pitch Guidance Flight History
ER 13227-7
VI-4
+6. of (pitch"UP
rror)
+5.Q
+4.0
IGS pitch error (Meas 0743)

+3.0
+2.0
+ 1.0
-1.0
Primary system pitch error (Meas 0766)
ШЕ т щ т щ? щ т g т шт ц
-1.0
RGS pitch command (Meas 0755)
-2.0 (pitch-down
155 165 175 185 195

1шШшш{:;
205 215 225 235 245
i:ii:{;i:U;:.:|:::;|
255 265 275 285 295 305 315 325 335
Fig. VI-2. Stage II IGS Pitch Flight History
ER 13227-7
VI-5
small. In the latter portion of flight 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 much lower in amplitude than seen on GT-5.
b. Yaw steering
Yaw commands began at LO + 168. 7 seconds. Throughout the flight

the commands were of very low magnitude, i. e., <0. 05 deg/sec, and
were predominantly yaw right. The decoder yaw steering output is
shown in Fig. VI-3 for the entire Stage II flight period.
c. Discrete commands
The times for the computer-generated SECO/ASCO command and

the vehicle reactions were as follows:
Signal Meas Time from Liftoff
Ground station SECO/ASCO -- 336. 961 + 3 ms

Decoder discrete output 0777 337. 002 + 5 ms
91FS2 0519 337. 012 + 5 ms
ASCO 0799 337. 065 + 25 ms
The data shown in this tabulation indicate that the SEC О time delay
from ground station issuance to 91FS9 was 51 _+ 8 milliseconds. The
time delay between 91FS2 and ASCO reception was 5 3 + 3 0 milliseconds.
B. SPACECRAFT INERTIAL GUIDANCE SYSTEM

ASCENT PERFORMANCE
1. Prelaunch Nulls
The prelaunch IGS attitude error null signals were as follows:
Pitch -0. 087 degree
Yaw +0. 039 degree
Roll -0. 008 degree
These null signals were well within the specification values of

+ 0. 37 degree in pitch and yaw, and + 0. 25 degree in roll.
ER 13227-7
VI-6
(,-2-
(у aw-right
error)
+2.0
Primary system yaw error (Meas 0767)
+ 1.0
1ч
ь'ад
f
W ш
IGS yaw error (Meas 0744)

-1.0
(yaw left
• r. i error)
-2. О иишшнпдщ)
(yaw-riît
command)
RGS yaw command (Meas 0756]
m >—.
«8
'command)
Primary system roll error (Meas 0768)
1ч
>н "So
W ш 3
I
-з.о
Maximum and minimum output envelope
-4.0 [(roll-CCW
error)
155 165 175 185 195 205 215 225 235 245 255 265 275 285 295 305 315 325 335
Fig. VI-3. Stage II IGS Yaw/Roll Guidance Flight History
ER 13227-7
VI-7
2. Stage I Performance
IGS performance during Stage I flight correlated well with the pri-
mary system, as shown by a comparison of IGS and corresponding
primary system attitude errors in Figs. IV-2 through IV-4. The
BECO dispersions between IGS and primary system attitude errors
are discussed in Chapter IV.
The IGS Stage I gain change discrete was issued at LO + 1 0 9 . 803

seconds + 0. 025 second, which was well within the specification time
of 110. 000 seconds + 1%.
3. Stage II Performance
IGS pitch, yaw and roll performance during Stage II flight was nor-
mal. 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. The spurious post-SECO (SECO + 4. 6 seconds) yaw
attitude error step experienced on GT-5 was not present on this
flight.
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 + 167. 967 seconds.

IGS pitch attitude error saturated at + 5. 9 degrees shortly there-
after and remained on saturation,for approximately 0. 25 second.
Figure VI-2 shows that the TARS pitch attitude error builds up during
this same time period to about + U. 65 degree due to the RGS -2. 0
deg/sec pitch rate command. The reason for the large difference in
IGS and TARS attitude errors during this period is that, in the pri-
mary system, the steering command is limited to a rate of +2. 0 deg/
sec, whereas the IGS limits attitude error only to a nominal~6-degree
value. Therefore, IGS pitch behavior during this period is normal and
compares well with primary system behavior in correcting the vehicle
trajectory errors.
IGS pitch attitude error decreased to null within 40 seconds as the

RGS pitched the vehicle down. For the remainder of Stage II flight,
IGS pitch remained within limits of +0. 8 to -0. 4 degree. The peak
in IGS pitch at SECO-2. 5 seconds (shown in Fig. VI-2) corresponds
with the RGS pitch command at this time and also would have com-
manded the vehicle to pitch down.
ER 13227-7
VI-8
b. Stage II 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 II powered flight appeared
normal and correlated well with the primary system. Steering began
approximately at the same time as pitch. Thereafter, the IGS yaw
attitude error decreased to null in approximately 30 seconds as the
very small RGS command yawed the vehicle left. Subsequently the
IGS yaw attitude error remained within approximately +0. 12 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 had built
up to about -1.3 degrees, which would be a GLV yaw-right command.
The amplitude of the attitude error is not excessive and the direction
of the attitude error buildup is as expected due to center-of-gravity
drift. A similar effect is apparent in Fig. VI-3 in primary attitude
error, which is building up negatively, and also in the small RGS yaw
steering command, which is commanding 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 +160 seconds and SECO.
The drift rate was CW, IGS with respect to TARS, and the buildup in
IGS error,between the referenced times,was about +0. 60 degree. The
dispersion is predominantly due to TARS roll gyro g-sensitive drift,
and this type of dispersion has been noted on all flights to date.
Figure VI-3 denotes areas and upper and lower limits of apparent
oscillations seen on the IGS roll output. These oscillations are simply
the effect of indecision due to quantization (0. 12 deg/quanta) in the IGS
computer and, therefore, do not reflect any actual GLV oscillations.
Similar motions are not apparent on the TARS roll output shown on
Fig. VI-3.
d. IGS SECO
The IGS SECO discrete was issued at LO + 336. 984 + 0, -0.1 seconds.
This compares to the RGS SECO time of 337. 002 + 0. 005 seconds.
Therefore, if shutdown had occurred by IGS command, the GLV velocity
would have been slightly lower (approximately 4. 3 fps) at SECO.
*Note: Behavior of the IGS yaw attitude error during the referenced time
period results from the difference in out-of-plane velocity components
of the two systems. The IGS indicated a null in the out-of-plane veloc-
ity component at about LO + 320 seconds and a value of 12 fps at SECO;
whereas the primary system indicated zero out-of-plane velocity at SECO.
Since the IGS yaw steering commands generated during this portion of
flight are computed by dividing the out-of-plane velocity by an
ER 13227-7
VI-9
"effective" time-to-go to SECO, the IGS steering signal diverges, rather

than converges, to zero as the RGS signal does. This behavior is normal
as evidenced by previous flights.
VII-1
VII. ELECTRICAL SYSTEM ANALYSIS
A. CONFIGURATION
The launch vehicle airborne electrical system components installed

for the GT-7 flight were similar to those used on GLV-5 except for the
flashing beacon light assembly, which was not incorporated on GLV-5.
Four beacon lights were installed on Stage II of GLV-7; two similar
beacon lights were installed on GLV-4.
В. COUNTDOWN AND FLIGHT PERFORMANCE
The airborne electrical system functioned as designed through the

entire flight, and all parameters were within specifications. Power
transfer to airborne batteries was comparatively smooth, and liftoff
occurred without incident.
During staging, examination of the APS and IPS current traces in-
dicated that no stage separation nuts or Stage II engine start squibs
shorted to structure. This compares favorably with GT-3 and GT-4,
on which no staging shorts were noted.
Currents to the Stage II redundant shutdown squibs at SECO were

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

interface was cut by a guillotine in the adapter causing a l.'5-ampere
spike on IPS and a 9-ampere spike on APS for approximately 100
milliseconds. These guillotine shorts are expected and have occurred
on all spacecraft separations in varying degrees; however, on the
GT-7 flight the cleanest spacecraft separation to date was experienced.
As required, the flashing beacon light assembly began operating

after SECO at a rate of approximately 71 pulses per minute. Orbital
operation was confirmed by astronaut observation.
A summary of electrical system parameters measured at power

transfer and during flight is presented in Table VII-1.
ER 13227-7
VII-2
С
0 «
'*-> 0) со го е- ш оз го ем
cd
LI if о» -г оз со^ го 0 ю
cd см гз г; г: —1 0 ем
Q 1—1
CO
Г5 со ОС •* 03 го см
«Й _p —
cd О2 \г. •~, г; го 0 ю
(ч СМ ?: тз го о ем
о «н
0) 0
о ^
CO
s _c СО
оэ'
ем
го
-г
N
t-
-.'
г:
ю
со
с.
го
Г-Н
го
О
0
см
ю
см
7^ -ч -г
<
"Sb
с
•iH
—
r^
со г-. О -г С. ГО см
bC -i: 02 г-' ОЭ г." со' с" ю
cd «и СМ Г! см сч г—
0 см
со Т-Н
ц
со1"" - т—1 С- £
^ -т •г. и i—i
DO T-l
ОЭ 0 00 PJ СО 0 ю
ем го го г-1 0 см
v O3 1 т—1
CM
0) и
s CO
Еч
c-
м
о
со 1-4
о -I1
с. го ем
02 с- 03 оэ со о" ю
co 0) СМ . —1 0 см
nj
Рн
pq гН -
6
1)
<J-I
со 00 I- т— 1 ОЭ ГО см
ч-» О
Ш <3 fi оз со оз еа го" о ю
о -i ем С-'! см см I—i о см
-и -г
pq cd м
0
•и V со СО с- со С. со ем
JH
cu оэ со аз" т-Н со О ю
0 «H см см см О см
Ш CQ Г-Н
U cd 01
rH С ю го со ю С. го ем
EH .
v ,-j с-' -t< с.. 1П ГО 0 ю
Q ем г; см см 0 см с
J Ш гН
О)
О о !ч
0-' 1ч
Рч
со ш С: го см 3
;Э
•ГО'
и
<t] - оз со с." ю" оо 0 ю
см а см с: о см
pq гН
г-Н
я
о
>
с
V 0) (ч
00 DO 0)
з
сь
L,
0)
яШ
a
01
"S "со
'о
"5
"и
'о
"а
К
0
i—i
О и
V
^н
1а -С
со
cd >
Ll О
от от LT1
л
ЕН
cd со
Рн
г—1
PL,
г—(
сх §!
и^. •ф^ Ю 3
см со
ы
CQ
^ ^
cd 0 t iH ю 01 со со О
Ш 0 0 0 0 0 0 см
со СО СО со со со с-
о 0 0 0 0 0 о
2
ER 13227-7
vni-i
VIII. INSTRUMENTATION SYSTEM
A. AIRBORNE INSTRUMENTATION
1. Prelaunch and Countdown Status
The airborne instrumentation system operated within specified

limits during prelaunch testing and countdown. No components in the
system were replaced after the simulated flight test.
2. Data Acquisition
The measurements program for this launch consisted of 150 PCM

analog signals and 42 PCM bilevel signals. All channels functioned
properly throughout flight, resulting in 100% data acquisition.
During first stage flight, at LO + 79. 5 seconds, there was a loss

of data for a period of 39 milliseconds. Subsequent analyses indicated
that word sync, frame sync and digital data words were present during
the dropout and that only the digitized analog data words were lost.
This condition (loss of analog data words only) was similar to that which
occurred when special low voltage tests were run on GLV-3 in the
Vertical Test Facility in Baltimore. Since only three minor frames of
data were lost during the GT-7 flight, not all analog channels were
affected, and the data loss was considered to be of little significance in-
sofar as data recovery is concerned.
3. Instrumentation System Parameters
Instrumentation system parameters, as measured in flight, are com-

pared 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 from the launch vehicle from liftoff to approximately SECO + 89-
seconds. The anticipated staging blackout lasted approximately 250
milliseconds.
The Cape Kennedy Tel II and Tel Ш ground stations monitored the
entire flight of the launch vehicle. The Grand Bahama Island (GBI)
station acquired data from approximately LO + 40 seconds to the end
of flight. The Grand Turk station acquired data during Stage П flight,
beginning at approximately LO + 181 seconds.
ER 13227-7
VIII-2
В. LANDLINE INSTRUMENTATION
1. Countdown Status
The landline instrumentation system operated satisfactorily from

the start of propellant conditioning through the launch countdown up to
liftoff. All instrumentation holdfire functions monitored in the block-
house remained within specification throughout the countdown.
2. Data Acquisition
Data acquisition was 100% on both the 51 recorded channels and the
37 observed or recorded backup channels. The new temperature measure-
ment associated with the auxiliary propellant conditioning system
functioned satisfactorily.
ER 13227-7
VIII-3
и
<1)
от
0 t~
см оэ оэ in Ю m со
t- см со in со оэ
<+ . оэ : со со оз
0 о* со «-4 со со CM со оэ" оэ
- г- г- t- см
и -
w
от
^
ел с-
оэ in in ш со оз
'с от с- со in со 03
1о рм зь CM
о
CM
оз оэ
см о см со со
см с- гЧ с-
CO
CM
Г-
со оз
CD оэ оэ
см
оэ'
см
и с
Ф
и с ОТсм тН г-
-•'
-u
'йо Ь w
w
С-
СО
-м ^
fc
^н
CO
о
CM
I
in
оэ
см о* см
см
тЧ
со
с- f-H
ю
со
со со
t-
in
in
—
CM
in
со
со оэ
СО
со
оэ
оэ'
см
оэ
03
см
-
d
ч
с-
Чн •<* f4 in in in CD 03
О о со ю in 03
CO о оэ со CO со оэ
оз
<S о см о* см f4 СО CO со оз* оэ см
-
I CM in см t- г- r4 t- см
J
н :а
.J о (Я
pq >н
'с
-' '
^ р со
2 «*
о с о
0 -5 ^ >. > t> :, ^
о
S <" со in in
о
' о ю t- с-
со
ч U С со CO со
о
Сч 'Зо
с
о* со о" ,-н со со со о
•о
ш Н -H -н о *-н 0 о -н -н -
со -н -н -H оз см in
•И тз о о оэ о со in со in CO ю со оэ
см со оэ оэ
3 в)
СГ м CM
о см о с- со с- CO
CO t> со
со оз
Ф 'И ю о оз см
-
1-1
*"H см i
(К о-
I
И
(ч
- в в
РСМ mercury
PCM mercury
PCM mercury
(н и
Description
Ф
0 а
а а
a - '
>
'o о. а "аа Э,
а
:
-.
И - -
- а
in -•• 0 -. - .
0 - - -т с ! -
- -
i CO X
§ о - 3 - -
ER 13227-7
IX-1
IK. RANGE SAFETY AND ORDNANCE

A. COMMAND CONTROL RECEIVERS
1. Countdown Performance
The command receiver shutdown and destruct and ASCO tests were
successfully completed. Telemetry indicated a stable signal strength
of approximately 100 microvolts from T-5 minutes through liftoff.
2. Flight Performance
Command receivers S/N 3(APS) and S/N 8(IPS) were flown on
GLV-7. The RF carrier signal increased to approximately 1500 microvolts
at LO + 13.5 seconds, which was maximum for the flight. At LO + 66. 2
seconds the RF carrier signal was transferred from the Station 1 (Cape
Kennedy) low-power transmitter to the high-power transmitter with an
attendant rise in signal strength. Transfer of the RF carrier signal from
Station 1 to Station 3 (Grand Bahama Island) occurred at LO + 118.4
seconds, at which time the RF carrier stabilized at about 150 microvolts
and continued at this level through staging until the carrier was trans-
ferred to Station 7 (Grand Turk) at LO + 258.3 seconds,. At the time of
the switch to Grand Turk, the RF carrier level was approximately 120
microvolts, and within 15 seconds the signal dropped to approximately
20 microvolts. The signal oscillated between 20 and 10 microvolts until
LO + 320 seconds, then dropped to an oscillatory level which centered
around 5 microvolts which lasted through SECO to LO + 400 seconds. The
signal level at the time of ASCO was approximately 2. 5 microvolts.
The time between SECO and ASCO was 63 milliseconds, which is as ex-
pected; hence, there was no delay as a result of the low signal level.
The signal level was below the threshold of both receivers for four
discrete periods of time; the durations were 0.3, 0.1, 0.1, and 0.25
second.
Similar signal dropoffs and fluctuations in signal levels were noted
on the spacecraft DCS receiver T/M signal. Antenna elevation angle
was below 5° at the Grand Turk Station at this time, and slant range was
approximately three times that from GBI. The transmitting antenna
utilized at Grand Turk was an AGA high gain (25 db) parabolic antenna
with an 8° conic radiation pattern. The possibility of slight error in
tracking data obtained from this antenna must be considered as a
factor in the degradation of signal strength. Operator logs showing
antenna pointing data for this flight will be reviewed when available.
ER 13227-7
IX-2
В. MISTRAM
1. Countdown Performance
The MISTRAM open-loop checks with the MACK station were com-
pleted successfully. Telemetry data from T-5 minutes until liftoff
indicated that a multipath condition existed which manifested itself in
the erratic operation of the calibration channel AGC voltage proportional.
This situation has been observed during other open-loop tests using the
MACK station and has been identified as a signal unbalance caused by
the multipath. As expected, the condition was corrected when the MACK
station was turned off and Valkaria acquired.
2. Flight Performance
Airborne transponder. Transponder S/N 118 was flown on GLV-7.

Telemetry data indicated that the MISTRAM system performance was
very good. MISTRAM I acquired the transponder at LO +10 seconds,
started active track at LO + 21. 5 seconds and continued in this mode
until handover at LO + 396 seconds. There were three unlocks in the
calibration channel but none in the range channel; hence, there was no
loss in continuity of data. The transponder did not unlock due to the
staging power transient.
3. MISTRAM I Station (Valkaria)
The Valkaria station obtained reconstructable data from LO + 17

seconds until LO + 396 seconds. The primary use of the MISTRAM
system for impact prediction (IP) was from Т + 60 seconds until
spacecraft separation which occurred at LO + 368. 7 seconds. Thus,
MISTRAM was utilized as the source of IP data for 98. 9% of the time.
Utilization of the primary and secondary IP plots is shown in Table
K-l.
4. MISTRAM II Station (Eleuthera)

The Eleuthera station operated intermittently in passive track mode
from LO + 1 1 9 seconds until LO + 151 seconds. There was solid pas-
sive track from LO + 1 5 1 seconds until LO + 396 seconds. Active
track was intermittent from LO + 394 seconds through LO + 440 seconds,
but the Eleuthera data were not used as an IP source during the flight.
C. ORDNANCE
Stages I and II prevalves, Stage I engine start cartridges and drop-

weights ordnance operated satisfactorily.
Launch release ordnance nuts operated properly, with all nuts

detonating, as evidenced by recovery of all four holddown bolts and all
lower launch nuts.
ER 13227-7
IX-3
Stage separation explosive nuts and Stage II engine start cartridge

ordnance operated as required. The TARS timer arm signal occurred
at LO + 144.15 seconds and the IPS staging arm timer was actuated
at LO + 144.16 seconds. Both times were compatible with GLV-7
trend data on these timers.
TABLE IX-1
Range Safety Plotboards Impact Prediction
Primary Plotboard Secondary Plotboard

Usage Time Usage Time
System (sec) System (sec)
MIST RAM I 335.6 Mod Ш 371.2
Patrick AFB 45.8 Patrick AFB 11.4
TPQ-18 TPQ-18
Merritt Island 18.8 Merritt Island 21.2
TPQ-18 TPQ-18
Grand Bahama 0.3 Bermuda 4.5
TPQ-18 FPS-16
408.3
Grand Turk 0.8
TPQ-18
Bermuda 7.0
PPS-16
408.3
ER 13227-7
x-i
X. MALFUNCTION DETECTION SYSTEM
A. CONFIGURATION
The malfunction detection system (MDS) hardware flown on GLV-7
on 4 December 1965 is listed in Table X-l.
TABLE X-l
GLV-7 MDS Components
Manufac-
Nomenclature Part Number turer Serial Number
Rate switch PS8306 00015-027 Giannini 4018
Malfunction 424-7569205-189 Martin B028
detection
package
Tank pressure PS746000002-023 Servonics Fuel A, 1118
transducers, Fuel B, 1102
Stage I Oxidizer A, 1111
Oxidizer B, 1108
Tank pressure PS746000002-025 Servonics Fuel A, 2113
transducers, Fuel B, 2110
Stage II Oxidizer A, 2111
Oxidizer B, 2109
Stage separa- CCI8119A1-5 Cannon 00064
tion con- CCI8119A1-6 00028
nectors
MDS engine 284321 Aerojet S/A 1 primary,
switches, 0000562
Stage I S/A 1 redundant,
0000558
S/A 2 primary,
0000567
S/A 2 redundant,
0000859
MDS engine 711049-1 Aerojet S/A 3 primary,
switches, 0000503
Stage II S/A 3 redundant,
0000531
ER 13227-7
X-2
В. SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Performance of the MDS during preflight checkout and during the

flight of GLV-7 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 detec-
tion fuel injector pressure switches (MDFJPS) is summarized in Table
X-2. 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.
The Stage I engine start spike was of sufficient amplitude and time dura-
tion to cause the S/A 1 MDTCPS switches to momentarily respond to
the thrust chamber pressure. All MDS engine pressure switches oper-
ated properly and within the specification pressure requirements.
TABLE X-2
Operation of MDS Engine Pressure Switches
S/A 1 S/A 2 S/A 3

(Meas 0356) (Meas 0357) (Meas 0855)
Make 1930:01. 137 1930:01. 277 1932:40. 001*

(540 to 600 psia) at 595 psia at 550 psia
Break 1932:39. 268 1932:39. 276 1935: 40.869*
(585 to 515 psia) at 570 psia at 540 psia
*S/A 3 fuel injector pressure is not instrumented on the Gemini Launch

Vehicle; hence, make and break pressures are not available.
2. Switchover
The MDS switchover circuitry functioned properly throughout the

flight. There were no switchover commands and likewise no switch-
over executed--indicating proper performance of the switchover cir-
cuitry.
3. Vehicle Rate Detection
The spin motor rotation detectors (SMRDs) contained in the malfunc-

tion detection package (MDP) functioned properly. The SMRDs moni-
tor rate switch package (RSP) gyro rotational speed and thereby its
rate-sensing capability.
The RSP operated properly throughout the countdown and flight.

There were no vehicle overrates detected by the MDS rate switches
and correspondingly none occurred during flight from liftoff through
spacecraft separation. Table X-3 compares the maximum launch ve-
hicle rates, measured during the period from liftoff through SECO,
with the RSP switch settings.
ER 13227-7
х-з
TABLE X-3
Maximum Vehicle Rates Compared with Rate Switch Settings
Stage I Flight Stage II Flight
Axes 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
Maximum Pitch -1.01 Wind -2. 02 Staging
vehicle Shear
rates Yaw Staging
(deg/sec) -0. 81 Wind + 1. 59
Shear
RoU +1.60 RoU -1. 40 Staging
Program
N/A = not applicable.
Following spacecraft separation and before loss of telemetry, there

were no operations of the rate switches; the vehicle rates during this
period were below the rate switch settings.
4. Tank Pressure Sensors

All MDS tank pressure transducers operated properly throughout
the countdown and flight. The maximum differences between the trans-
ducer pairs on each tank are presented in Table X-4.
TABLE X-4
Maximum Voltage and Pressure Differences
Between Tank Pressure Transducer Pairs
Maximum Difference
Percent of Percent of
Д Volts Transducer Transducer
(telemetry) Full Range Д psi Full Range
Stage I fuel 0.040 0. 80 0. 72 1. 44
Stage I oxidizer 0.050 1. 00 0.35 0. 70
Stage II fuel 0. 090 1. 80 1.65 2. 20
Stage II oxidizer 0.050 1. 00 0.63 0. 84
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 voltage and psi (shown in Table X-4). The maximum
difference of 1. 80% of transducer full-range output voltage is well
within the transducer and telemetry system errors.
ER 13227-7
X-4
Fig. X-l. Calibration Curves for Stage I Fuel Tank Pressure Transducers
ER 13227-7
XI-1
XI. CREW SAFETY

A. PRELAUNCH WINDS FLIGHT SIMULATIONS
Prelaunch wind measurements from Cape Kennedy were transmitted
by data card to Martin-Baltimore and were used as inputs to three com-
puter programs. One digital program evaluated wind conditions by com-
paring actual wind measurements with specification wind speeds and
wind shears; a second digital program was used to compute the wind-
affected trajectory; and a third analog program determined the vehicle
bending loads and the control system transients for the wind-affected
trajectory. Subroutines were then used to establish the first-stage
propellant tank underpressure constraints and the slow malfunction
action thresholds for flight control system (FCS) switchover. The re-
sults were sent periodically by phototelegraphy and data card trans-
mission to Martin-Canaveral and to NASA-MSC prior to the launch.
All portions of the program worked smoothly except on the T-7 hour
run. A late release by the Air Weather Service and a 1620 computer
failure caused the T-7 hour documents to be released 5 to 10 minutes
late. All other runs were released on schedule.
A brief summary of all computer runs is presented in Table XI-1.
Run No. 3 was moved from T-12 hours on previous launches to T-7
hours for the GT-7 and subsequent missions.
TABLE XI-1
Summary of Prelaunch Operations
Time of Data
Release to
Run No. Ma rtin - Baltim ore Operation
F-2 day Wind comparison to specifica-
1100 EST tion. Sent to Cape and MCC-
12-2-65 Houston.
F-l day Wind comparison to specifica-

1100 EST tion. Sent to Cape and MCC-
12-3-65 Houston. Digital trajectory
simulation sent to MCC.
T-7 hr Computation of wind comparison,
0730 EST load, analog and trajectory simu-
12-4-65 lations and constraints. Data
sent to Cape and to MCC-Houston;
winds were "go. "
ER 13227-7
XI-2
TABLE XI-1 (continued)
Time of Data
Release to
Run No. Martin- Baltimore Operation

sent to Cape and to MCC-Houston;
winds were "go. "

sent to Cape and MCС-Houston.
Winds were "go. "
T-l hr Computation of wind comparison;

1330 EST minor wind change; simulations
12-4-65 canceled; unchanged data veri-
fied by telephone to Cape and
MCC-Houston; winds were "go. "
1. Trajectory Simulation
Of the seven wind profiles (Figs. XI-1, XI-2 and XI-3), the soundings
released by the Air Force at F-l day and at Т-7, Т-5 and T-3 hours were
programmed into the IBM 7094 Gemini Trajectory Program. Results of
the trajectory simulations were delivered to MCC-Houston in time for
use in plotboard revisions of the nominal trajectory as affected by winds.
2. Loads Simulation
The winds-aloft launch recommendations for the GT-7 flight were

based upon the results obtained from analog computer load simulation
runs performed at Martin-Baltimore. Three simulations were run using
winds data released at T-7, T-5 and T-3 hours. These loads were 79%
of limit strength; thus, all recommendations were "go. "
3. Analog Transient Simulations
The engine gimbal angles, attitude errors, and pitch and yaw angles
of attack as obtained from the wind load analog simulations were sent to
the Monitors in MCC-Houston for use as a preview of vehicle and con-
trol system responses to the winds aloft.
4. First-Stage Propellant Tank Underpressure Constraints
The Stage I tank underpressure constraints for GT-7 were selected

to maintain structural integrity for the simulated loads. The constraints
ER 13227-7
XI-3
a 30
•о
Run
1
Observation
F-2day
Time
EST
1100
Date
12-2-65
,,
2 F- 1 day 1100 12-3-65
vr
О 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Wind Speed (fpe) Wind Azimuth (deg)
Fig. XI-1. Launch Winds Forecast for T-0
ER 13227-7
XI -4
120 160 200 240 280 320

Wind Azimuth (deg)
Fig. JH.-2. Launch Winds Soundings
ER 13227-7
XI-5
••С2 32
X
£ зо
Time
Run Observation EST Date
T-3 hr 1130 12-4-65
T-l hr 1330 12-4-65
T-0 hr 1430 12-4-65
10 "M 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 240 260 280 300 320 340
Wind Speed (fps) Wind Azimuth (deg)
Fig. XI-3. Launch Winds Sounds
ER 13227-7
XI-6
used were lower than the constraints required to withstand the design
wind. The selected constraints were transmitted expeditiously to MCC~
Houston.
B. SLOW MALFUNCTION MONITORING
1. Prelaunch Activities
From 1 December to 3 December, the Guidance Monitor activities
included Flight Dynamic Officer crew training runs, slide review, slide
scribing, data checks and plotboard preparation.
2. Launch Day Activities

All data card transmissions from Martin-Baltimore to NASA-Houston
v/ere received on schedule along with data fax material; four payload
margin transmissions were received from Cape Kennedy. Transmission
No. 2 yielded the payload margin corresponding to the 500-pound payload
constraint line used on the plotboard.
3. Stage I Flight
Good agreement existed between IGS and TARS in the pitch axis.
Since no thrust misalignment or drift was apparent in pitch, this was
the best Stage I flight in pitch to date. Small thrust misalignment existed
in roll. The IGS parameters agreed perfectly with the Radio Guidance
System in yaw. No drift was apparent in yaw or roll. As in previous
flights, rigid body oscillations of approximately ±0. 5 degree in yaw were
observed. Yaw-roll operation was very satisfactory. A slight loft oc-
curred at max q.
4. Stage II Flight
A two-second saturated nose-down command yielded nominal pitch
steering. A eg drift buildup of approximately 1. 0 degree in pitch and
yaw existed at SECO. Pitch and roll engine oscillations began at LO+250
seconds, maximized to 0. 1 degree and decayed to zero degree at LO+300
seconds. IGS was in perfect agreement with RGS to SECO, and little
cross-coupling was apparent. At LO+310 seconds, Burroughs parameters
were lost. Subsequent switching by Goddard to biomedical lines created
this situation. The tailoff in pitch was approximately 0. 8 deg/sec, and
in yaw it was very mild.
5. Stages I and II Plotboards
Plotboard predictions were excellent. During Stage I, the flight was
nominal except for a slight loft at max q. The flight followed the pre-
dicted Stage II trajectory perfectly. The II-A and III-A plotboards are
shown in Figs. XT-4 and XI-5, respectively. Telemetry III yaw-roll
and pitch axis recordings are shown in Figs. XI-6 and XI-7.
ER 13227-7
XT-7 Xl-7
PLOTBOARD LAUNCH TIME i riCAL INERT1AL VELOCITY ft/tec

NOTE: Actual V--T is not presented
Fig. XE-4. Houston-MCC Plotboard VA, Pitch Plane
ER 13227-7
XI-8
Tgo TIME TO GO TO SECO
Fig. XI-5. Houston-ШЗ Plotboard ША, Lateral Velocity
ER 13227-7
9-/ CONFIDENTIAL XI-9
(revised 2-66)
Stage II Stage I 10 Sec Spacecraft separation
1-Sec Marks from Liftoff

Г
. . 4 ,- . . , . .
-. -, ' ' i- ' -* i '.
"!~i~T . 1
Nose 0 743 ± 6° 8 • 743 ± 6° I. I • ] ГГ " Г " - ' *
,j_i3->-i-v r ^- • ... ^^
Down : — ---—'• -£*• - - —'— —^ . . . . _ . .—_.— . _. . . —rî~^ i"t > ^ -т—* i— i i • -4 +-< т *- ~ \ •т - ' I '*
trrt -
- •• _i p —
. i •. • 1
/ i -\ ;J
SWO 872 - 874 . . . . . . . .
t
Ft-fH-H .: j_. : : . -. , .
'. f 4 • • • • . • t -• •<- -•• • t
Н-г-И-Н —->- • -<•-; "" i 1
:
Diff 6 - 6 Diff e -e i i : •
• '-'
1 4 . .
es ep H- н • Щ.Н ; 1. tn 4-^4-4
нТГТТ
.1
. .u; . , ; • • • ч •
—r
, 4 . 1 I I I I ' '
1 : .1 . .
. . . . . . .-t-<-
:
' 4 - I
743 - 766
743 - 766 -
GCP 728
±*tt±i ! -r+r: 4-r —i - - . . ' -
: - ri±h
Stage II, i• j-t .*
^ i MTai:i-i i.Tji, i j ; ; i ' i ir; tn j;. i . -. . . . . . . -: . • :.. ... . i: : i lЧ г Г
—
; l
t I—f--* J_4_i_ : . ! • ; ' 1^44 ! Ч ' ' 4. i Ц •[ -Н *. Ч t ; ; ' »Ч ; , . : i t
6B •
Nose I A --M- —1г=Й:
ттт i §"
T : :
p с 1 t-H - ' ' • ^- I : ' '- ! .' «I •
Down IT
Stage I —I
GE/B ± 5'
GCS 773
732 MSB
Ш-
±i±rr:
Г-^<'' i > i 'т : - НТО jîre-^fV
1
\ t-4 4 Ч *- *- ч —
н- ]
••i
:.
' l i i 4-t-j Uf-
Quid Init TARS 740

Я
f i I ПТТТП U-Ч- ITT! м
M-t-f+ии MM 4-1
4-1 ••i •
. TT: I -l-^CU^ ; i i , . --4--U I, I
; -И 441 i-1^-
"
г г~ . -t ii±±±L±ib_ ' • \1
-M-
i ' - t-t 1 •»
bcrh !.J Tli
&ШЗ
ffm^mffffi иг : :
' nKl itnm Ж
Шптп!! i > шгииишшй
г
т
№+ЗД*Ф Ш|-
I - • : ' - • • Н-++4-
frawttHfbrH-*^
I I I I -t~{- *— -M M— -4-
i
ft-.''
i ; i i•; :
L 1_. . ih^^
-j . I ..i .i t
Ii
i •т : . -^ '.—..u.^ji ;i [ ;;Tt4-P- 4 : ; : : : : ; : i l l " i
ЕЕ u-d-l:--
, ; ii Ii iTTTPti
'J-j т i iнi {i r£ \ ' 1i ;1!1uЦ-:....-|
ч.4 —t| -
i t - П--ГГ
t$&
. | . . . , . , i . . . , Л
• t:t ffit!
^.i L . i .
. гг^ц: H-
TTTj
-+- — '
, CT
~' •*-
4
4.
' <
- . .
ЕПЕ
...
' !" И"
' '. . i t
_L
•
±Г гт! ulJ.I-!4-: i я : Т 1L it r t i - : i r ,-гч .
SECO SCR No. 1

Lift off
Fig. XI-6. Telemetry III Pitch Axis Recording
CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-7
-10'£ • XI-10 _ -7
-It-* > ЧЧМ^иЕУВ (revised 2-66)^
^"WfWBF"* Spacecraft separation
Stage П Stage I 10 sec
1-Sec Marks from 1 tftoff
*
mrftffl
ffiftffl
•• I I II (-*- *•)
Guid Init TARS 740

M I I'M '4 ' 1 ' 1 ' I ' ' ' "-' i ' l
шж^ааш^ ±т1 - ' ' L u L L i ' )Ш 1
'-' i -It t rf tTT
..
ГГ±^
' *
' •—I Т 1 Г"*" I • г ) ' • i • ! : i- ! | -•
--h'-H- -t-<— - Н~Н H- '-rJ-4~H -j—v^t-i-fiî"T
- - ) ! . - ( . - , ! . . , - . ., i . . . ! . , . . I (- l J ,.
:±4_trh-r-
т • : .
rrtrrHi
-
SCR No. 2
SECO
Fig. XI-T- Telemetry III Yaw-Roll Axis Recording
ER 13227-7
XII-1
XII. AIRFRAME SYSTEM
A. STRUCTURAL LOADS
Analysis of GT-7 flight data indicates that the loads experienced

were well within the structural capabilities of the launch vehicle. The
most critical loading occurred, characteristically, at рге-BECO where
the load aft of Station 320 reached 98. 5% of design limit load in com-
pression. Instrumentation for dynamic response data consisted of rate
gyros for lateral dynamic loads and axially mounted accelerometers
for longitudinal dynamic loads. No major anomalies affecting the air-
frame occurred during flight; unusually high amplitude propellant slosh
oscillations occurred during Stage II midflight 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
14 mph from a direction of 320 degrees (critical wind azimuth for ground
winds), which produced steady bending of 220, 000 in. -Ib and wind induced
oscillatory (WIO) loads of ±765, 000 in. -Ib (Fig. XII-1) at Station 1224.
The WIO response represents approximately 40% of the WIO design limit
bending moment; Table XII-1 shows the comparison of all 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
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
due to the combined effects of ground winds and, most significantly,
engine start transients; this loading is shown in Fig. XII-3.
ER 13227-7
XII-2
— Steady-state loads
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Vehicle Station (in.)
Fig. XII-1. Bending Moments Due to Ground Winds: Preignition
ER 13227-7
XII-3
с -600 ..:.-.
о
I г . ! : • I•
i
В -500
1 .::•[.:.
GLV
/
: : : . i r : t:
• Launch
1; stand
p . :
-400
г т.
4 .
и
: • -J
-300 ~ liii •
И
- т t
'
• '
. :••• '.
iH
::, .:. .: :!
::':::: ••• ; '
В
. . . .
г
-
-200 1
.):::
— Interface?:;;
'
а /
и
-
-
-100 i/ i
L
• -- • • - - ;
^
100 t-i
1
Н 200 1200 1400
200 400 600 800 1000
pig. ХП-2. Dynamic Axial Load Envelope: Prelaunch
ER 13227-7
XII-4
•••
:,
I
и
pq
0.4wn
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Fig. ХП-3- Lateral Dynamic Bending Moment Envelope: Prerelease
ER 13227-7
XII-5
3. Launch Postrelease
A comparison (Table XII-2) of the GT-7 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 coupled with increased propellant and space-
craft weights.
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
Dynamic deformation modes in evidence at postrelease consisted of
the first and fifth 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
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 CN q a and at pre-BECO. On this flight, Max CN qa
a a
occurred at LO + 80 seconds, slightly later in flight than on previous
vehicles. A 25-fps wind shear spike at an altitude of 44, 000 feet ac-
counted for this late occurrence.
In comparing loads at LO + 80 seconds with loads at the traditional

LO+ 69 second Max С лт qa flight time, several interesting observations
.•
can be made:
(1) All of the lateral dynamic responses noted at LO + 69 seconds

were also observed at LO -I- 80 seconds, and, in addition, the
ER 13227-7
XII-6
alculated Mode 6
f:Calculated Mode 1
[^Calculated Stage П fuel slosh
bU 80 100 120 140 160

Fig. ХП-U. Stage I Flight Vibration Frequency Correlation
ER 13227-7
XII-7
ее
-
Г
а:
3
I
и
а n structural mode
v
РР
с
э
I
cJ
0
i
ч
1
£
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Fig. ХП-5' Total Lateral Dynamic'Load Envelope: Postrelease
ER 13227-7
XII-8
Stage II fuel slosh mode was evident at the latter time. The
amplitudes of the modes at LO + 80 seconds, however, were
reduced from their values for corresponding modes at LO + 69
seconds. Thus, the GT-7 lateral dynamic load increment at
LO + 80 seconds was less than that observed on previous
flights at LO + 69 seconds.
(2) While the steady axial acceleration at LO + 80 seconds was

greater than at LO + 69 seconds, because of the low thrust of
the GT-7 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, although of greater magnitude than on some pre-

vious flights, were from a less critical azimuth (tail wind) at
LO + 80 seconds than at LO + 69 seconds (right quartering).
In addition, the bending load peak moves forward on the launch
vehicle as the vehicle eg moves forward with depletion of pro-
pellants. Thus, quasi-steady bending loads at critical Station
935 will be minutely affected by the canceling effects of load-
increasing wind shear and the aforementioned load reducing
characteristics.
The net result of the foregoing considerations is the attainment of one

of the lowest airframe loadings to date. This comparison is shown in
Table XII-3.
TABLE XII-3
Structural Loads Comparison of Gemini Flights
At Max CN qa, Station 935

a At Pre-BECQ Station 320 +
Flight (% design limit load) (% design limit load)
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
ER 13227-7
XII-9
Dynamic bending moments obtained from the rate gyro responses in

the Max C,^ qa and pre-BECO regions of flight are shown in Figs. ХП-6
N •
and XII-7, respectively. Steady axial acceleration at pre-BECO is given
in Table XII-4.
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
5. Stage П Flight
Significant amplitude oscillations occurred during Stage II flight in
the time interval between LO + 250 seconds and LO + 320 seconds.
These oscillations, at a frequency of 1. 6 cps and an amplitude of 1.2
deg/sec peak-to-peak as indicated by rate gyros, were predominantly
in the pitch plane (yaw plane amplitude was approximately 1/5 of the
pitch plane response). The GT-7 oscillations were two to three times
larger than on any previous flight. Analyses indicate the following:
(1) The 1.2 deg/sec peak-to-peak rate amplitude at 1.6 cps is
equivalent to +1/3 inch and +0. 05 g at the crew station (Launch
Vehicle Station 185). The slosh oscillations were barely per-
ceptible to the astronauts.
(2) Structural loads resulting from these oscillations were not
appreciable (approximately 0. 1% of design limit load at critical
Station 276.8+) and are, therefore, of no concern.
As indicated by high and low range axial accelerometers, sustainer

engine shutdown was normal, and there was no evidence of post-SECO
disturbances on any structural dynamic instrumentation.
Based on comments made at debriefing session at Cape Kennedy on

23 December 1965.
ER 13227-7
XII-10
First structural mode
Stage П fuel Second struc

slosh mode tural mode
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Fig. XU-6. Total Lateral Dynamic Load Envelope: Max С„ q.or

a
ER 13227-7
XII-11
is Third structural
: mode
Stage I 19.4
engine
О 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Fig. XH-7. Total Lateral Dynamic Load Envelope: Pre-BBCO
ER 13227-7
XII-12
The steady axial acceleration at SECO is shown in Table XII-5 and

was the lowest of any flight to date, primarily because of Stage II and
spacecraft weight increase and trajectory differences.
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
6. Total Ai][•frame Loads

A summary of the total airframe loads (quasi-steady axial, dynamic
axial and equivalent axial loads from quasi-steady and dynamic bending
moments) for significant structural loading conditions at critical sta-
tions is presented in Table XII-6. Complete vehicle loading at signifi-
cant flight times is shown in Figs. XII-8 through XII-12. The maximum
load at any station and the loading condition for which it occurred are
shown in Fig. XII-13.
TABLE XII-6
Summary of GT-7 Total Airframe Loads
Total Airframe Load (% of Critical
Flight Condition DLL at critical station) Station
Prerelease 73.3 1188*

Postrelease 64. 5 1188*
Max CN qa (LO + 80 sec) 72.8, 87. 9 935, 1188*
a
Pre-BECO (LO +155 sec) 98. 5 320*
Pre-SECO (LO + 337 sec) 73. 1 276. 8*
*Just aft of Station
ER 13227-7
XII-13
Desig n envelope
№&— o-o—
Desig n envelope code В
Д Pr erelease
a PO strelease
0 Tr ansonic buffet
О MEix CN qa
-700 a
Т ВБ:co
-600
j: :).; ; ,•: . • t. г-; '
1
: :
:r!:; !
i : f: Design limit ЧГ
0
- • w^~. 1 -~j— '
XI
С -500
•о
rt
О i— ,_ii- : =
>-* —
1 d- i i': I; : I
|l
—
•jj
-*-»
-400
ip iiliiii
Ii——1
ш
'rt
1
.5 -зоо • sntss
0"
: J
T: f '?
Т "> • r^ •
S-Й
'
:
1
ill
-200 i : :i ; '" ( ' : • ; •"•
|
tt:: Rt:
; i "ilifvfl
; : : j : -jjb
•; ;
; i - : i . •::-•:
Prei el easefJ-
-100 Interface-riî • iiiiiMi
щ
:
; " 1
Tens n
(80, 10 3 Ib maX )
0 \ ' : :
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 14C

Fig. XII-8. Equivalent Axial Load: Prerelease
ER 13227-7
XII-14
Etesign envelope
Design envelope code
Д Prerelease
D Postrelease
О Transonic buffet
О Max CN qa
о
я
I
Э
-r
-
Postrelease
-10
Tension
(45,000 Ib max)
600 800 К 1400

Fig. ХП-9- Equivalent Axial Load: Postrelease
ER 13227-7
XII-15
Design envelope

Д Prerelease
D Postrelease
-700 О Transonic buffet
О Max C-.J qa
a
Т ВЕСО
о
-600
:
•<
0 j Design limit Ц—' —
fH
X
S -500 I 1
T3
И! • ;.. [:••.': ' i - •:.•.:
2 -400
x :
• ГЛ;Г t-- T"T~ рШЩГ^
*' .."Ч Г"

<^
•*-»
1
- - • ; - - • 4— r~
ifciS 1
£ -300 Г*Йй •
-''
И
o-
^H ^^~^
f
[
-200
^ \ 'HfH
~ '— — — —-_ i \\
щМах С,т дорШШ
-100
] i ei ~i V
1
200
Hi J 400 800 1000 400
V e h i c l e Station (in.)
Fig. XII-10. Equivalent Axial Load: Max С q«
ER 13227-7
XII-16
Design envelope

Д Prerelease
П Postrelease
О Transonic buffet
О Max CN qa
a
V BECO
Design limit
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Fig. XII-11. Equivalent Axial Load: Pre-BECO
ER 13227-7
XII-17
-700 ~Ё г*'] —
Design envelope
V—Q—A—o— Л—
Desig i envelope cod •
lib '.'•!'":
-600 :- ::•; Д Pr erelease
О Postrelease
О Tr ansonic buffet
О Мах С-j q«
o~~
2 -500
1 1: ! V BECO
X : j
ШШ5
НЩНг: :;п;. ::
1 :
-:'..
S 1
»—Д
•:• 1
о -400
•a . : *— Цщ Design limit ;
•H
::';!::''
•£ - 300 pj •::;• •:::
7^-
. ..::. • --
.' -
И -200
; ;
SEC О iii .:.. '. '
Interface^-J •
w
1
/
-100
4 •;::(:•;
•.': [ijililii
;•;; зщз-;
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Vehicle Station (in. )•
Fig. XH-12. Equivalent Axial Load: SBCO
ER 13227-7
XII-18
liJDesign envelope
Д Prerelease
П Postrelease
О Transonic buffet
-700 О Max CN qo
00 -600
о
та -500
-•
:
-
3 -400
и I-300
-200 fe
jgfgMax CN qa
Postrelease
-100
Pre-BECC
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Fig. ХП-13- Maximum Structural Load Envelope
ER 13227-7
XII-19
В. POGO
GT-5 experienced an unusually high level of sustained longitudinal

oscillation (POGO) near the end of Stage I flight. As a result, an ex-
haustive investigation was conducted (Ref. 17) leading to the conclu-
sion that an unsatisfactory "charge" (gas pressurization) of the oxidizer
standpipes caused the instability. This problem did not occur on the
GT-7 flight.
Analysis of GT-7 telemetry data showed that the POGO suppression

devices (fuel accumulators and oxidizer standpipes) operated satisfac-
torily. No pressure oscillations which could be associated with struc-
tural resonances were detected in either the oxidizer or fuel feedlines.
Bandpass filtering of the analog reconstruction of PCM/FM telemetry
(Meas 0670) indicates that the maximum intermittent longitudinal os-
cillation in Compartment 1 (Station 280) occurred at LO + 133. 3 seconds.
The amplitude of this oscillation was 0. 125 g zero-to-peak at a frequency
of 11.8 cps and lasted approximately three seconds. The time history
of POGO response amplitude for Compartments 1 and 5 is shown in
Fig. ХП-14.
Figure XII-15 is a comparison of longitudinal oscillations for the

last four Gemini flights. The GT-7 level represents the lowest POGO
occurrence to date.
ER 13227-7
XII-20
: ;
-
-
; . _ - •
i i—1 *~''
~ ^---! -, -
"*'•-»
< uj
\ -
1 .-
! .
'— г~п — i 1 -
-
•
-
•
::
•
•
t
i ;; I i 1
- •
-
/
•
>
' i : ТГ
1 •
- ^
i | :
.
-
-+----- 2
g
: '' с 1
Г -—ft- cs
«
•
1
t - a
' г
я) с
oi ?t
•s
Q
s
•a -
IL ^ « -
-
±- - Я ^
^
It и
XI " ,
t ± ixcn:
• ГГ
;
С- CD ю
о" о"
(}]тзэс1-о:)-сиэг)
ER 13227-7
XII-21
3 '
ER 13227-7
ХШ-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-7 were
airlifted successfully to Cape Kennedy by B-377PG aircraft. During
erection, all equipment functioned as designed.
2. Countdown and Launch Operations
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 0. 823 second. As indicated
in Table XIII-1, the umbilicals disconnected in the planned sequence
except for 2B2E, which separated out of sequence, 0. 020 second ahead
of 2B1E. This deviation from the normal sequence does not present a
problem and has been included as part of the usual pull tests of elec-
trical umbilicals.
TABLE XIII-1
Electrical Umbilical Disconnect Sequence
Umbilical Time of
Designation Disconnect (GMT)
3D1M-3D2M 19:30:03.692
3D1E 19:30:03. 871
3D2E 19:30:04. 083
3B1E 19:30:04.374
2B1E 19:30:04. 515
2B2E 19:30:04.495
The oxidizer standpipe remote charging system disconnects were
disconnected manually and stowed prior to liftoff.
B. MASTER OPERATIONS CONTROL SET (MOCS)

Analysis of the MOCS automatic sequence records shows that all
functions were performed properly. The automatic sequence was
picked up at T-35:00 minutes and proceeded through a successful lift-
off. MOCS T-0 occurred at 1930:00. 09 GMT followed by TCPS at
Т + 1. 3 seconds. The following MOCS generated time functions
occurred as specified:
ER 13227-7
XIII-2
TCPS + 1. 6 seconds
TCPS + 1.8 seconds
TCPS + 2. 0 seconds (fire launch nuts)--1930:03. 39 GMT
The launch operation was completed in 3. 3 seconds.

The recorders were switched to high speed at T-2 minutes. During
the automatic portion of the count, the operation of the sequencer was
compared to the real-time trace and patch list. All traces were checked
for time of occurrence and were found to be correct and consistent with
the planned operation of the sequencer.
C. FACILITIES
All facility items functioned properly throughout the countdown and
launch.
1. Pad Damage
Damage to AGE and facility items caused by engine blast and heat
was minor. The damage was less than that which occurred on previous
Gemini launches. Items damaged previously have (where possible)
been reinforced or relocated away from the intense blast and heat area.
All damaged items will be refurbished to their original configuration.
The most significant damaged items follow.
Deck Area
(1) Hydraulic fluid leaked around "B" nut on the west leg lock.
(2) Deck grating in front of the west elevator hoistway gate was
loose.
(3) Two floodlight standards on west side were bent over.
(4) Emergency shower on the east side was damaged.
Complete Vehicle Erector

(1) Nitrogen system gage glass on south side of erector 5 feet
above deck level was broken and tubing was bent.
(2) Corrugated aluminum siding on east side of CVE was blown
loose at 9 foot 8 inch, 26 foot 7 inch, 35 foot 4 inch and 53 foot
2 inch elevations.
ER 13227-7
хш-з
(3) Elevator entrance door on the 9 foot 8 inch level was blown
off, and the door track was torn loose on south end.
(4) Spacecraft service elevator (east side)
(a) Traveling cable duct was blown in and broken loose at

lower end.
(b) Elevator gate post on west side of elevator ramp was

bent.
(5) Ground strap on the west pivot point was torn apart.
(6) Weather curtains were damaged as follows:
(a) Curtains at lower levels sustained damage similar to

that encountered on previous launches.
(b) Curtain track at the 9 foot 8 inch level (southwest side)

was torn loose from erector.
(7) Spacecraft cable duct cover, near the southwest pivot was
damaged at lower end.
(8) Spacecraft cryogenic lines were damaged at the southwest

pivot.
Electrical Damage
(1) Spacecraft elevator control conduit cable was torn loose from
junction box at deck level.
(2) Communication J-box conduit on spacecraft elevator ramp

was torn loose.
(3) Several lights and globes were broken on lower levels.
(4) A light fixture was torn loose at northeast corner beneath the
35 foot 4 inch level.
Complete Vehicle Umbilical Tower (CVUT)
(1) White room air-conditioning duct insulation was damaged near

deck handrail.
(2) Two boom cover stiffener angles were blown off Boom No. 1.
ER 13227-7
ХШ-4
(3) Elevator cable guard screens attached to handrails on platform

levels I, 2 and 3 were bent.
(4) Spray nozzle mounted above Boom No. 1 was missing.
(5) Mitoc box mounted on Platform No. 3 was missing.
(6) Outboard end of oxidizer line attached to boom just above
Platform No. 4 was bent.
(7) Air-conditioning duct underneath Platform No. 7 was damaged.
ER 13227-7
XIV-1
XIV. RELIABILITY
A. ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA
Measurements relative to launch vehicle environmental criteria

were not made on GT-7. A comparison of qualification test limits,
analytical data, GT-1 thru GT-5 flight data, and Titan II R&D flight
data appears in Table XIV-1 of Ref. 1.
В. COUNTDOWN PROBABILITY
Based on GLV countdown experience (through GT-5), the average

number of holds per countdown (h) was calculated to be 0. 143, i. e. ,
one hold per seven countdowns, h is based on the countdown period
from T-240 minutes to T-0, except for the GT-5 attempt, which was
scrubbed at T-10 minutes due to weather but which has been counted as
one countdown without a .hold; spacecraft holds and the SCF test were
not counted. Countdown experience including the GT-7 launch is shown
in Table XIV-1.
TABLE XIV-1
Countdown Experience Including GT-7 Launch
No. of No. of
Vehicle No. Countdowns Holds Remarks
GLV-1 1 0
GLV- 2 (attempt) 1 0 3 SIC holds

Tandem actuator failed after T-0
GLV- 2 1 0 1 SlC hold
GLV-3 1 0 1 hold- -not Martin responsibility

(oxidizer leak in Stage I engine
transducer)
GLV- 4 1 1 Erector stuck during lowering
GLV- 5 (attempt) 1 0 1 SlC hold

Incomplete С /D-- scrubbed at
T-10 min due to weather
GLV- 5 1 0
ER 13227-7
XIV-2
TABLE XIV- 1 (continued)
No. of No. of
Vehicle No. Countdowns Holds Remarks
GLV-6 (attempt) 0 0 Incomplete С /D-- scrubbed at

Т -42 min due to Agena failure.
GLV-7 1 0
TOTAL 8 1
The GLV-6 attempt which preceded GT-7 and which was scrubbed
at T-42 minutes due to the Agena failure was not considered in count-
down experience.
From Ref. 14, the probability of GLV-6 completing the countdown

without a hold was predicted to be Р Г / П (h = 0. 143) = 0.87. Since GLV-7
was launched out of the planned sequence, the GLV-6 prediction of 0. 87
is applicable to GLV-7.
Including the GLV-7 countdown, the average number of holds per

countdown (h) is calculated to be 0. 125, i. e. , one hold in eight count-
downs. The probability of GLV-6A completing its countdown without a
hold is predicted to be P C / D (h = 0. 125) = 0. 88.
ER 13227-7
xv-i
XV. RANGE DATA

A. DATA DISTRIBUTION
1. Quick-Look Range Data
All available quick-look data were supplied by ETR to Martin-
Baltimore as shown in Table XV-1.
The PCM serial tape was of good quality and exhibited minor drop-
outs. The quick-look formatted tape was completely redundant and un-
readable. The final formatted magnetic tape was of excellent quality
and contained no redundancies. Except for approximately 250 milli-
seconds of transmission blackout during booster staging, the Tel II
formatted tape showed that there were only 11 bad data words from
LO - 10 seconds to LO + 420 seconds.
TABLE X V - 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 + 6 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
(3) Landline records (events, Bristol, Multipoint and Sanborn)
with associated calibrations
(4) BLH tabulation
ER 13227-7
XV-2
(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
(10) Fuel and oxidizer loading and detanking records for the
launch attempt.
3. Range Data
All data supplied by the ETR are summarized in Table XV-2. The
time requested for delivery to Martin-Canaveral (Ref. 6555th ATW
Form 1-116, dated 4 December 1965) and the time received at Baltimore
are shown in this table.
TABLE XV-2
Range-Supplied Data
Time Time
OD Requested Received
Item No. Description (Canaveral) (Baltimore)
53 Position, velocity and acceleration, 10 CD
radar, magnetic tape, maximum
overlap BECO and SECO
8 Position, velocity and acceleration, 4 CD 10 CD
radar
19 Position, velocity and acceleration, 5 CD 5 CD
MISTRAM I
20 Position, velocity and acceleration, 11 WD 18 WD
MISTRAM I and MISTRAM II
5 Attitude, camera 3 CD 5 CD
8 Special parameters, radar 4 CD 10 CD
4 . 9 / 2 9 . 9 MISTRAM function recordings 3 WD 8 WD
ER 13227-7
xv-з
TABLE X V - 2 (continued)
Time Time
OD Requested Received
Item No. Description Canaveral) (Baltimore)
26 Best estimate of trajectory and 15 WD 24 WD

special parameters
1.5.2 Serial PCM, post-detection mag-

netic tape, FR 600: Quick look 1 hr 1 hr
Final 24 hr 24 hr
b. PCM formatted, quick look 4 hr (See Item с

final)
c. PCM formatted final 9 hr 6 hr
e. PCM formatted 1 CD 2 CD
3.5-2 Serial PCM, post-detection mag- 3 CD 2 CD

netic tape
1.5-7 Signal strength (center frequency) 24 hr 2 CD

recordings
1.5-53 Signal strength (center frequency) 24 hr 2 CD

recordings
3.5-6 Signal strength (center frequency) 3 CD 6 CD

recordings
7.5-3 Signal strength (center frequency) 3 CD 5 CD

recordings
55 Tracking system comparisons, Mod 7 CD 10 CD

IH/MISTRAM I
56 Comparisons involving adjusted 20 CD *

trajectory
1.5-9 Oscillograph records, near real time 1 CD 1 CD
1. 11-4 Instrumentation data logs 3 CD 2 CD
1.18 Range safety plot charts 4 hr 4 hr
4.7.3. 1 Real-time computer facility metric 24 hr 2 CD

data
ER 13227-7
XV-4
TABLE XV-2 (continued)

Time Time
Requested Received
Item No. Description (Canaveral) (Baltimore)
1. 11-1 Command control function records 3 WD 4 WD
2.4. 1 Preliminary test report 2 hr 2 hr
5.4. 1 Propellant analysis report 2 WD *
60(e) Weather surface observations 1 WD 24 hr
60(g) Weather upper theodolite, triple 1 WD 4 hr

60(k) Weather upper Rawinsonde 1 WD 4 hr
60(a) Weather tower 700/702 1 WD 4 hr
34 Trendplots, QLAP, Part I 32 hr 2 CD
36 Transient plots, Part I 32 hr 2 CD
1.5-11 Bilevel oscillographs, Stations 1 1 CD 4 CD
and 3
3. 11-25 Command control antenna position 3 CD 2 CD
(GBI)
Error analysis report 60 CD *
*Data not received by 10 January 1966

CD = Calendar days
WD = Working days
ER 13227-7
XV-5
4. Agency/Contractor Supplied Data
Table X V - 3 presents data received from associated contractors and

NASA-MSC.
TABLE X V - 3
Agency/Contractor Supplied Data
Description Supplier Received

(Baltimore)
Mod Ш-G, AMRO guided missile GE, ETR 2 CD
control facility
Mod III-G, radio guidance system GE, Syracuse 4 CD
IGS ascent parameters NASA 5 CD
B. FILM COVERAGE
Photographic conditions at Cape Kennedy preceding and during the

GT-7 launch were marginal, and because of clouds, motion picture
coverage was lost prior to staging. Table XV~4 contains a listing of
the films obtained from the fixed cameras and the tracking cameras.
ER 13227-7
xv-e
T5
§ С
Ш с
P р с p с р
р P P с p р p p p p с p p
«•5 !> > t? t> > г> > > t> > > t$ > t» > t5 ES ? >
ю 1П in m in ш - m in in in •-" m in in 1П in ю
68*3я
'-••-
0)
ьс
сб ^-ч. ю см с о - С с О с о 0 0-1 Q 0 0 CD со CD о
о£ оо ее с о с .— • 0 in с с CO -г -— <
— о -}1 ^r 0
^ —' гН —1 .— i 01 1-1
-4 •*
1-1 .— 1
rH г; 01 01 rH
о ^^ 1-1 01
fa
д CJ
п)
о
с
3 г-
i г— 1
с
3
п)
CJ
ЭЭ
'Я
M
2
1 о
i— i 0)
33
*jj rH
с с a 13
о
-*-> —н 0
о о У fcfl 0)
-t
0) =: ш li g 3 3 а
LOV pad emergency, s

•н
and associated umbilics
Missi le centered, 50-ft towei
+J craft upper umbilical pi

craft centered, evaluate
craft centered, 50-ft to-
and 3D2E umbilical plu
craft lower umbilical pi

le centered, movement
I 0 0
> а a M
X
launch ring, engine
launch ring, engine
•н •н
launch ring, engine
Launch ring, engine
ш DQ
De scription
s FH
a
2DFV Т umbilical plug
Т umbilical plug
pq
umbilical plug
тз •л
0!
§
m
5
m
•го"
a
и Я о
о
a .5 и0
О)
~ed
Ю
•rJ •Г-Н n
и Ш
с о
•гЧ
со
со u
3
U
cd
0
1—1
а а,
0
г— 1 -M
M s rC .£ н 6 rH
И И 3 >!> i:
О и
cd cd
•tH
CO
a
7
а X
СП И W
X cd
И
ш
X
0
СЛ
3
0 3
со
P cq
DO 0-1 от ел
a а
°l
J U
тз тз -a тз тз -a T3- тз тз
£ тзXи тз
"0 T3 ТЭ "0 Т-
0) V 0) 0) ш CD ш U 9) 0) 0) ш 5 0)
. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
•гН •гН -rH -гН •гН •н •H •r-l •H •H •и •r-1 чЧ •H
| •н
о
S а а a a a a а a a а a a a а а e a S
s со
S
со
а а a a a a а a a а a a a а а
ш со со со со со со со1
а a s
•$
ни
CO 'CO CD CO •CD CO CD -CD CO
гН гН *~ч ,н -1 rH -H rH •— > i-4 гН 1-1
H •-< гН •- —i »н ад
—1
Q о гН yg СО -г Ю CO I- o- 33 О .— I CM CO -г Ю CD' t-
о f-H гН ^н -— )
1
?—(
i
—1
1
rH
1
т
-J ^H rH
1
01
i
C-.1 CM
i
01
1
01 OJ
i
01
1
01 CO "Й
i "3
(М CN CN CN CN С-1 CN 01 01 01 01 01 N OJ 01 0-1 01 01 IN Д)
-• гН rH гН гН гН t—I г-1 • --< rH -н rH i— I I—1 гН t—I »-4 rH rH £
ER 13227-7
XV-7
"С
If Q О О Q - с Q P P P Q Q Q
s5
с CQ
• гЧ >—•
ю ю со со ее г
Г-Н
л •л ю о
i—i
о
—i
en en
н
0)
Ш)
со ,-. 0 -н Ю О 1- и ~ ~ о о о ю со
-I-" +-> со СО «-I СП .—• о л ю ш о со
о j*i
о со СО СМ ^н — ^> г:
Еч
! ! i 1 i i i i i
с - С С с с с с с с
с Ш 1 V 1 и Q) 0) ф О) (U
0) - и и J и О О 0 О 0
0 (1) и 0 V a. Ш СО ф Q> <1)
TJ
0) >^ -^ •и •гН 4-1 .гН ЧН 4-1
*со ф Ю
ю
и GO 00 т. со га со ш со
с (ч ь 'Л •л 00 OQ со оз со fQ т лл
и
о
Ш
о
"с
0) Ш
^ В в 5 3 £
ft Ь Ь Н Ь
о СО
а и KÎ-I СК СК СК ^К
с>
^
•*
ю £ <и О 3; С 0 О ОСТ O^ Og- ОС- ОС?
^ ^
i С
^
о ^ oft оО оо OQ оО О
о О г-н О 0 0 0
ti
д м
to staging К
о с с^ Qс'"' с^ с^ с^
acquisition
acquisition
acquisition
acquisition
и
_
'С
0 о со .2 о _OUO UO ОСШ ОЬС ОЬС
со
VJ
м
ф
ов б 2 1
О « '^
•н(а
«Э
'И
'и 'S° 'и '5 'и 'из
СО .r-i СО -г-1 СО -н СО
-1 > > 3 1
ст™ о-'™ о ™ ст" ст™
со
J
3 3 f У О
СОчн
У О "
СО чн
о
СОч->
" о
СОчм
"о
Си НН
О О +-> т-1 w
J2 а •^ *" « <и 'S иm ю ш M 0) w"S m > S ra>
S ra
"S мГ
си
Я Я g* «и£S sS £ш[^а) ГоЗ " oj '£ со
В ^ Е^ Ь ^
м Ьй ЬВ bD ьо м м DC ЬС ЬО ЬЛ bJQ UC
с с с с с Е с с с с с с с
Й И
0 О О 0 и и и 0 О CJ О О О «2, ^Г
cd cd со со cd - cd cd со со со ей сб jy я
h Si
•*->
t*
Н->
Ян
-4^
- fj
•J5 е в в е E 5 £ в в е в в с|
S в в в в £ в £ в в в в в з|
со со со со л со п |~|
яШ i—t CO
ЕО
-J
CO
r-^
ю
СО
со
^н
о
С-
со
^н
о
Г- >~ ™
SО
А см со •* со cc е- DO r СЛ i—I 1—1 СМ СМ
со со со со '•-
О 1 1 1 1 1 V 1 1 1 1 1 1 " "
см см см 71 Г! ~1 см см см см см "} г*.
~| W
1-4 т—( 1—1 .— 1 . —' iH '—1 1-Н 1-Й i—* i—1 1-Н t> О
^
ER 13227-7
XVI-1
XVI. PRELAUNCH AND COUNTDOWN OPERATIONS
A. PRELAUNCH
1. Simulated Flight Test
The GT-7 simulated flight test (SFT) was performed successfully
on 29 November 1965 in accordance with Martin Test Procedure 876/
ETR (Ref. 7). 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 Т-45 minutes
(1025 EST). A manual hold was initiated at T-3 minutes (1107 EST)
after an inadvertent switchover was observed during the programmed
sequence test. Investigation showed that the contacts on relay K14
located in the CP2625 chassis had failed. A new chassis was installed
and the programmed sequence test was rerun successfully.
During the hold time, the compressor for the GLV air conditioner
became inoperative. Power was removed from the launch vehicle
until conditioned air could be restored. This was accomplished by
switching to the secondary compressor. Power was then reapplied to
the launch vehicle, and the MOCS sequencer was recycled to T-45
minutes for a rerun. The countdown resumed at 1220 EST and pro-
ceeded into plus time without a hold, but due to a communication
problem the thrust chamber pressure switch (TCPS) was not vented.
Consequently, staging did not occur. After communications were re-
stored, the MOCS sequencer was recycled to T-3 minutes. The count-
down resumed at 1444 EST and was completed successfully at T+6
minutes (1453 EST).
The countdown for the primary run was started at T-3 minutes
(1547 EST) and was completed successfully at T+6 minutes (1547 EST).
2. Precountdown Activities
The precountdown tests were started at 1200 EST on 3 December

1965 with the range sequencer at T-770 minutes. All tests were per-
formed successfully, and the range sequencer was secured at T-530
minutes at 1600 EST.
Oxidizer loading was started on schedule at 2200 EST and was com-
pleted at 2355 EST; fuel loading was started at 0006 EST on 4 December
and was completed at 0134 EST.
The range sequencer was restarted on schedule at T-530 minutes at

0540 EST on 4 December.
ER 13227-7
XVI-2
В. COUNTDOWN SUMMARY
The launch countdown was picked up on schedule at 1030 EST on

4 December. The 240 minute countdown was performed in accordance
with Martin Test Procedure (Ref. 8). The countdown progressed
smoothly and astronaut ingress occurred at approximately T-95 min.
Recharging of the oxidizer standpipes were performed at approximately
T-39 minutes. Liftoff occurred on schedule at 1430 hours without any
holds and a successful launch resulted.
The countdown schedule is shown in Fig. XVI-1.
ER 13227-7
XVI-3
•3 -I
Propulsion
Propellant Loading
Propellant loading
Propellant tank pressure Blanket Pressure шштшшшшшшш^///%ш™#* г****™^////////////шшшшшшшь
Airborne operations
П SC shutdown ASCO and range shutdown
. ff _ f
Engine shutdown test | Open Stage I oxidizer prevalves—' ASCO | |
Manual bleed - in —1
Flight Controls
Abbreviated ascent test D
Drift test Drift test | | Drift test Q
Gain test [ ~\
Gain test
П Programmed sequence test Programmed sequence teat | |
Programmed sequence test
РШ No. 2 7 ( 1
Switchover test 1 [Switchover test
ШШрт Nos. 1 and 2 Programmer test I "JpFR Nos. 1 and 2
Programmer test
Mod Ш-G interface test
rL^-pm NO. i | | Mod Ш-G interface te«t
аСТ
/-Beacon check Mod Ш-G Interface test Л
/-GDT GCT Beacon checks , — Airborne guidance on GCT-i /- PST
Guidance \ / \ 1
Airborne guidance on ' ™L I_PST RF silence^] •-• — ' Y ^RF silence Airborne guidance on | 1 ' 1 1
1 | "T Abets R F o n | \Ш Abets RF on ^RF silence Abets RF on ( j

Abets RF on
П П[]ССТ RF silence^ GOT | InterfaceQ ^RF silence Liftoff | 1 1 GCT | PST-'
Mod Ш-G
\ ^-GDT
MDS <- Interface Radio guidance
ГП Switchover Tank sensor | | configuration Л
Interface test
\ 'Л- Tank sensor [j SMRD Simulated malfunction Q Tank sensor | |
System test (noninterface)
\ \— Overrate
*— Abort and shutdown Airborne power -v
Electrical
LV power on Ground power |§^ШШ
Se uencer/MOCon Sequencer/MOC on I Automatic HF monitors
LVSS
Command carrier on 1 ^RF silence upen loop test ^ (command carrier or
Command carrier on
MISTRAM on Open loop test | gg/j RF si ence ^RF silence MISTRAM onl | —|
Command receivers on ^RF silence Command receivers onf~
Command receivers on
Destruct battery check П IASCO shutdown and destruct test ASCo|
Shutdown and destruct test
RF silence -•
Ambients -^
In st r ume nt ati on Ambient ^ ^^~^_ I
Airborne/ground station I îange readout 1 [• Range readout .—^_| . I | j "mDlem R ^_, J 1 1 Ambients- —\ | Range readout | |
PCM FM transmitters on WL 1 КШ1Ш i 1 i— i

Calibrations 1 RF silence^ FM off — Automatic calibration -"
Mechanical
Start cartridge connector ^j Destruct connection ^
Ordnance
<— Tank sensor Transit] ] Lowered
Erector
Liftoff
/ jf~
/ /fl ^Switchover
Spacecraft
Interface test ] ППШОПО^ Tank sensor checks [~ Liftoff 1 1 PST 1
Countdown Ш///////Л
\ »- Abort a 1 UI RF silence KTJ
<• Power up RF silence^ Pad clear Pad clear
Status check /~ (blockhouse sealed) (blockhouse sealed)^ SUtus
Countdown Operations
Status check [ Ordnance crew only^. / Status check ^ Status checkQ \
Status check
1 К icted Propellant load crew only Restricted | | [ Restricted
Pad access
v
Range countdown *-P«d clear (blockhouse roadblocks) Range countdown
Range Sequencer Time T-770 710 650 590 530 -530 480 420 360 300 240 230 220 210 200 190 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 ПО 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 О
(min)
Time from Launch 8:50 8 7 6 5 4

<hr)
Fig. XVI-1. Planned Precount and Countdown
ER 13227-7
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 П 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 Ш-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 of 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 XVII-1.
ER 13227-7
XVII-2
н
<
pq
J
-
ti
О
01
Significant Configurati .on Changes from GLV-5
"ю
0)
s
Added conduit vacuum t est and helium leak test after
гН
|
5
Ф
со
h
hydro changed from nig h pressure to low pressure о
с
Stages I and II
СМ
Changed location of dra in holes at skirt-to- dome we]
^
from between dome cho rd splices to dome chord
splices in all compartm ents
ER 13227-7
Reduced cutout for teleinetry antennas from four to
СО
two (cover plates were installed on two cutouts on
GLV-2 through -6).
1-Н
•гН
£
О
0)
со
О
С
С
0.
3
S
"о
S|
-о о
О'щ
тз *"
•н
ю '3
•43 ^
о ^
X! со
1
•8 со
•*->
со
в{ ф
?&
§5
Ф т*
ьо
о о
о IS
1) «Д
ЬОо
Ф°
ф ф
§2
ь 05
0 О
Т5
О
и
С
СП
5
•гН
Т)
§
ф
ст)
с
о
32
•St
тз
я
1-1
1—1
ectric motor pump discharge
гН
< °а
8
ф
ф
СО
о
о
ф
о
а)
о
h
I—I
W
73
Added four flashing bea

'С
яU
73
1-4
1
(-4
ф
со
о
01
ф
а)
UO
73
1—1
S
«с*3
•и
^
"ф
S
ф
<л
§
ф
С
с
Ь-1
1
• гН
со
о
С!
о
ф
§
с
73
•о
1
0
ф
§
сЗ
h
ас
о
Ф
ф
со
0)
О
Provided tandem flowmi eters for each tank

W
rH
CM
Provided redundancy in propellant transfer system

XVII-3
A detailed description of all GLV systems is presented in Martin

Engineering Report, "Launch Vehicle No. 4 Flight Evaluation" (Ref. 2).
В. MAJOR COMPONENTS
The two major GT-7 components were as follows:
(1) Spacecraft
(a) Manufacturer: McDonnell Aircraft Corporation
(b) Serial Number: Spacecraft Number 7
(2) Gemini Launch Vehicle
(a) Manufacturer: Martin Company
(b) Serial Number: GLV-7
(c) Air Force Serial Number: 62-12562.
Figure XVII-1 shows the general arrangement of the GLV.
ER 13227-7
XVII-4
LAUNCH VEHICLE UMM.ICAL SYSTEMS INTERFACE
CODE FUNCTION SYSTEM LOCATION

гвА AIRCONO GUIDANCE AIR COND STG П STA 371522
QUAD! «2SOFFBL.O
S2BOV oxia VENT 0X10 STGtt STA 37i522
QUAD. П85* OFF BLO
2B2E ELECTRICAL ELECTRICAL STGH STA 402 472
OUADne2*zC.FF»LO
2BIE ELECTRICAL ELECTRICAL STun.
QUADIfesVOFFBLO
2BFVT FUEL VENT TOPPING FUEL STAGE ii
ajAp^îrtwM
S2BFV FUEL VENT FUEL STGI
OUAt>n37?10FFBLO
S3BH HYDRAULIC HYDRAULIC STG D STA470 125
QUADn I5* OFFBLO
ЗВА AIR CONDITIONING ENGINE AREA STGTJ. STA 474 8751
auAon so OFF. no
S3BF FUEL FILL AND DRAIN FUEL STGD STA 492250
OUADTJ IS OFFBLO
FUEL PRESS. SEQ. VALVE FUEL STG П COMPARTMENT
3BFD DRAIN ОЦАОГГЗр' OFF1.LO
S380 OXID. FILL AND DRAIN OXID 5ТйП
QUAD^rFoFFBLO ?BOVT TMNSITION
3BIE ELECTRICAL ELECTRICAL STGJ1 COMPARTMENT N01
ШАПП45' OfFBL
ICIFO TuBO-PUMP FUEL DRAIN FUEL STGI STA К А ПО.
ICOD TUBO PUMP OXID. DRAIN OXID STGI 5ТА-554.7ЭО 2BFVT 8ET«EEN TANKS
QUAD irHlOFF BL 0
COMPARTMENT NO 2
SIDOV 0X10 VENT OXID STGI
OUApUn W.L600
S2DFV FUEL VENT FUEL STG.I
QUAD П 40* OFFBLO
3DIM MALFUNCTION MALFUNCTION STG.I STAJ24873 л
DETECTION SYS. QUAQI M i*ftwi?
3D2M MALFUNCTION MALFUNCTION STG I STAJ2I4 873.
DETECTION SYS. QuAomaeliOFF BL о
3DIE ELECTRICAL ELECTRICAL STG, I STAI2I6.69I
QUADH20 OFFB.LB
S3DF FUEL FILL AND DRAIN FUEL ST6.I STAJ243560
QUAD I
S3DFD FUEL DRAIN -PRE -VALVE FUEL STGI STAI244.I23
QUAD HI
S300D 0X10. DRAIN - PRE-VALVE OXID.STGI STAI2SOJ60
S3DIH HYDRAULIC SUPPLY HYDRAULIC STG I PRIMARY STAI255.835

AND RETURN QUAQI
S3DO OXID FILL AND DRAIN 0X10. STGI STA.I249.560
OUAQS
CettD.VENT TOPPING OXID.STGJI
2«OVT
OUAOlVorF»U.60
IDOVT 0X10 VENT TOPPING OXIO.STG.I STA 630. 727
QUAD П60* OFF BLO
2DFVT FUEL VENT TOPPING FUEL STAGE I STA963.326
OUAOB 50!OFF»L.O
3D2E ELECTRCAL ELECTRICAL STG.I STA. 12 16 691
QUAD ПЮ* OFF tLO
HYOHAULC STG.I SECONDARY STA 1255. 835
S3D2H HYD^LC SUPPLY AND
QUAD. П
3DIOC
ОУЮ. MMOTt
0X10. ST«. I STA. 1124. Jll
СИАЯ61М6 IYCTIM QUADffi 22'A/orr txe.
3020C O»IO. «1MOTI
CHAJI4I44 SYS TCM OXID. bit,, i STA^22^>>H
4.A 4LV 4 < UP

S Al OLV I THRU 4 ONLY
2 THIS DRAWING RELEASES NO PARTS
REF ONLY
I NEW GEMINI LAUNCH VEHICLE DRAWING

NOTE:
UMXLiCAL TQWf» (ЙСГ) STAGE I ENGINE
COMPARTMENT NO5'
TARGET
th»M' ^STA6I I
Fig. XVII-1. Gemini Launch Vehicle Generai Aгraлgement
ER 13227-7
XVIII-1
XVIII. REFERENCES
1. "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
5. "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
7. "Martin-Canaveral Test Procedure." 424-876-ETR, Revision F.
8. "Martin-Canaveral Test Procedure." 424-875-ETR, Revision N.
9. "Revised GLV Trajectory Dispersion Analysis GT-4." LV-274-4,

Martin Company, Baltimore, Maryland, 24 June 1965. Confidential
10. "Flight Weight Coordination Report, Post-Flight Weight, GT-7."

LV-165-7B, Martin Company, Baltimore, Maryland, 22 December
1965.
11. "Gemini Launch Vehicle Performance Specification." MB-1046,

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. "GLV-7 Incentive Catalog." IM-107, Martin Company, Baltimore,

Maryland, 5 November 1965.
ER 13227-7
XVIII-2
14. "Mathematical Model for Countdown Availability Study." Engineer-

ing Report 13225, Martin Company, Baltimore, Maryland, April
1964.
15. "Master Measurements List." LV-220, Revision L, Martin
Company, Baltimore, Maryland, 13 July 1965.
16. "GT-7 Pre-flight Report." LV-326-7, Martin Company, Baltimore,

Maryland, November 1965. Confidential
17. "Investigation of Oxidizer Standpipe Charging of GLV~5. " LV-396,

Martin Company, Baltimore, Maryland, October 1965.
18. "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
ER 13227-7
A-l
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF GEMINI LAUNCHES

Summary of Gemini Launches
Launch Launch
Launch Vehicle Burning Time Time in Orbit " Evaluation
Date and Payload Stage I Stage II Inertial Velocity (fps) Altitude (ft) Inertial Flight Path Angle (deg) (hr) Orbit (naut mi) 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 25,688 224,777 531,477 532,338 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 orbits
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 I
Spacecraft and Stage II inserted into orbit as a unit.

Suborbital mission (spacecraft impact 2125 miles downrange).
Inertial orbit.
Launch attempt report.
ER 13227-7
и
~
to
N)
MARIETTA

Launch Vehicle No. 7 Flight Evaluation

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. 7 Flight Evaluation

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

428

(NASA-CF-83088) L A U N C H VEHICLE NO. 7 FLIGHT

sued as: Supplemental Report 2

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE . . . Los Angeles, California

By: Gemini УП Mission Evaluation Team

A, Airborne Instrumentation VIII-1

B. Landline Instrumentation VIII-2

IX. Range Safety and Ordnance IX-1

X. Malfunction Detection System X-l

B. System Performance X-2

B. Slow Malfunctioning Monitoring XI-6

C. Recovered Stage I Oxidizer Tank XII-27

XIII. AGE and Facilities XIII-1

A. Mechanical AGE . XIII-1

XVII. Configuration Summary XVII-1

The 240-minute countdown was picked up at 1030 EST on 4 December

The flight control system (FCS) maintained satisfactory vehicle

The hydraulic system operated satisfactorily during launch opera-

The electrical system functioned as designed throughout the launch

All channels of the PCM instrumentation system functioned satis-

The ordnance system umbilical dropweight release, propulsion sys-

GLV-7 Test Objectives and Results

Joint combined systems te

Gemini Launch Vehicle No. 7 (GLV-7) performed as predicted and

A comparison of the predicted and observed insertion conditions is

Altitude 87.106 87.183 +0.077 +0.346

2. Derivation of Trajectory Uncertainties

The expected maximum vehicle dispersions and RGS dispersions

addition of the preliminary tolerance to the 3-sigma data error of the

*Relative to Complex 19.

Ambient pressure (psi) 14.736

Reference Coordinate System

Initial flight azimuth (deg) 83.608 true azimuth

SECO; however, velocity cutoff computations continue to SECO. Be-

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-

Table H-6 contains a simplified reconstruction of the BECO condi-

A comparison of the predicted nominal (with wind) trajectory with

GMT Time from Liftoff (sec)

Thrust (+0. 264% = +868 Ib) -0. 25 + 530 + 0. 10

PropeUant loading (+ 102 Ib) + 0.06 -- +2 -0.02

Pitch gyro drift (+5. 0 deg/hr) -- + 700 -7 + 0. 16

*Mean outage = 570 Ib, nominal outage = 452 Ib

**Nominal = -1.64% (bias)

Biased yaw steering ve

Ground range (naut mi)

Time from liftoff (sec)

Inertial flight path angl

Yaw steering velocity.

Inertial velocity (fps)

Fig. ГГ-1. GT-7 Boost Fligit Path Profile

The actual, as well as the predicted, nominal trajectory is presented

Upon initiation of closed-loop guidance at LO + 168. 34 seconds, the

Predicted and observed histories of angles of attack and sideslip

• I GE Mod III-G final flight data* / \l Predicted BECO

Fig. II-2. Inertial Velocity Versus Time: Stage I Flight

80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180

I 120 130 140 150 160 170 180

Fig. Il-k. Altitude (h) Versus Time: Stage I Flight

Predicted nominal wind run 81-GT-7 (final)*

110 120 130 140 150 160

•Predicted nominal wind run81-GT-7 (final)*

•GE Mod III-G final flight data*