Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
*
J ’
by
W. Harry Douglas
I NASA Manned Spacecraft Center
GPO PRICE $
CFSTI PRICE^) $
Center.
Gemini spacecraft.
W. Harry Douglas*
NASA Manned Spacecraft Center
1. SUMMARY
t o optimize t h e r e l i a b i l i t y and q u a l i f i c a t i o n e f f o r t .
confirm t h e r e l i a b i l i t y a t t a i n e d .
2. INTRODUCTION
learned.
system.
dundant f e a t u r e .
were i n s t a l l e d i n t h e spacecraft.
f a i l u r e could be c a t a s t r o p h i c t o t h e crew or t h e s p a c e c r a f t .
i s r e l a t e d t o t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e e a r l y s p a c e c r a f t c o n f i g u r a t i o n s
encounter them i n f l i g h t .
i n t a b l e I.
6
tempts .
Planned mission success, gross mission success, and crew s a f e t y
and s a f e l y .
evaluation o f :
(1) Mode of f a i l u r e
t h e crew.
7
rence.
4. DESIGN REVIEWS
quired f o u r of t h e s i x f u e l - c e l l s t a c k s , t h r e e s t a c k s t o a s e c t i o n , t o
. meet mission o b j e c t i v e s . The f a i l u r e of a s i n g l e supply pressure regula-
p r i o r t o t h e f a b r i c a t i o n of t h e f i r s t production prototypes.
5. DEVELOPMENT TESTS
e l e c t r i c a l - e l e c t r o n i c i n t e r f a c e , radiofrequency i n t e r f e r e n c e , and
system-design compatibility.
e l e c t r o n i c i n t e r f e r e n c e , radiofrequency i n t e r f e r e n c e , s p a c e c r a f t com-
first f l i g h t vehicle.
packaging of t h e equipment.
s u c c e s s f i l l y completed q u a l i f i c a t i o n .
command system was located in the adapter and did not experience such
completed the test, and the S designates that the equipment has been
analysis that design changes have not adversely affected the qualifica-
8. RELIABILITY TESTING
phase and realized through a strict quality control system. It was not
Gemini hardware was established by analyzing the results of all test data
derived from the integrated ground and flight test program, and by con-
pli shment .
14
tion
ging.
used.
9. QUALITY CONTROL
. a s p o s s i b l e t o t h e q u a l i f i e d configuration.
(1) Configuration c o n t r o l
time it was i n s t a l l e d i n t h e s p a c e c r a f t .
t i v e because of m a t e r i a l deficiency.
r e g u l a r i n t e r v a l s t o r e t a i n q u a l i t y workmanship.
17
t a i n e d by r i g i d i n s p e c t i o n methods. A l l d e f i c i e n c i e s , discrepancies,
a f f e c t t h e performance of t h e equipment.
Receiving i n s p e c t i o n
I n - l i n e production t e s t s
P r e i n s t a l l a t i o n acceptance t e s t s (PIA)
Countdown
graphs, and f u n c t i o n a l t e s t s .
acceptance t e s t .
witness t h e t e s t f o r i n i t i a l d e l i v e r i e s .
i n s t a l l a t i o n acceptance t e s t t o v e r i f y t h a t the f u n c t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
a r a p i d d e t e c t i o n of t h e s l i g h t e s t change i n t h e performance of t h e
e quipment .
Spacecraft systems t e s t s were performed on t h e systems a f t e r i n s t a l -
would i n v a l i d a t e system i n t e r f a c e s .
20
performance.
Degradation i n t h e i n h e r e n t r e l i a b i l i t y of t h e s p a c e c r a f t systems
r e c t i v e action.
21
Comprehensive f a i l u r e - a n a l y s i s l a b o r a t o r i e s were e s t a b l i s h e d a t t h e
a t e l y p r i o r t o s p a c e c r a f t d e l i v e r y o r launch.
t e c h n i c a l s k i l l s , and s o p h i s t i c a t e d t e s t equipment.
pending missions.
analysis.
The final tests conducted to support the manned missions were the
tem was monitored by special telemetry and cameras that photographed the
t e s t r e s u l t s , formed t h e b a s i s f o r d e c l a r i n g t h e s p a c e c r a f t q u a l i f i e d f o r
manned space f l i g h t .
f l i g h t - c o n f i g u r e d equipment.
equipment was i n s t a l l e d i n t h e s p a c e c r a f t .
24
cum
m d
mm
..
mm
0
co
d m
m m
m m
0
cum
O d
\om
..
mm
0
cu P-
L n \D
m m
0
d
0
k
-P
E:
0
0
m
0
.rl
C
0
k
::
a,
d
w
26
27
c
.d 0
bo
a
0
3
\o
o\ M
i
0
V 3
0
0
8 - a3
0
M O
M C U
0 0
4 J - 9
I
n o
H o c o
M d
H
H
2
B
n
aJ
bo
aJ
c 4J
0 d
.d
4J
c ld
0 k
.d P 8
4J
ld
k
*
.rl d
a
aJ El aJ
d 0 .d
aJ a d
0 c pc
ld
2 P; 4
20
pT7qT-
w
W
In W
C O N 0
m r l
*'I
m 0
rl N
O N C U
t - m n
N
t - m w
W
c u f r l
PI N
I I I I I I I I I
m c o
f m t -
~m I I I I I I I I
N
9
9
m
rl
rn
9
m
1
rl
4
w-
9
m
rl
4 .P
VI
a,
-P
9
m
rl
a,
cv
9
m
8
rl
v)
4
v)
aJ
v) 4
v)
4
U
ln v) E In
aJ aJ aJ 4
4 U 4 v)
v) aJ
U S h
S
aJ .-0
4
v)
4
E 0
m
.- H
.- .-
-0aJ ‘c n
.-m .-
S
.-
S
>
aJ
m -aJ % 5
n 3 bc c3 c3
Hydrogen
container
Circuit contro I
Oxygen
container
-
Y
5 1.00
0, With regulator crossover capability
a
Q
7
t
4
.-h
-4
.-m
-2! Without regu Iator
crossover capability
5 0*99
4
v)
m 0.98 9
1o -~
Regulator failure rate, per hr
1 .oo c
I k
With regulator
0.99
U
S
cro ssover capab iIity
aJ
E
X 0.98
$ 0.96 -
U
v)
h
v)
0.95 - Without regulator
crossover capab iI i t y
n -94 1
Regulator failure rate, per hr
v)
-u
S
m
E
E
0
0
Y
S
m
II
F
44
S
a
a
oi
c ----.
L, 0
J
34