, abort trajectories from the profile - nasa · altitudes and shown on figure lowith the nominal...
TRANSCRIPT
:-.%-.• ;' . NATIONAL AERONAUTICS /_ND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
:~ ,
MSC INTERNAL NOTE NO. 67-FM-132
_:_ September 15, 1967
EXCESSIVE ENTRY LOADS FOR,_ _ , ABORT TRAJECTORIES FROM THE
"i_[ _ : NOMINAL AS-205/101 LAUNCH
i PROFILE
/ __ By Edward M. Hendersonz and
o x* |_'_1:_ Alfred N. Lunde
I _ _1_ Flight Analysis Branch
g09 WllOt xlnl3vt
:.:...:.'.'.:.".'./.'.'.'-'. MISSION PLANNING AND ANALYSIS DIVISION
°, , ,'q I_. --':: _,_ MANNED SPACECRAFT CENTER
,''...,. ._ _,_pllr. HOUSTON, TEXAS
S;. * • • ° • • • ,• • • , ° • ,° ° • ° , ° ° °
° • • ° • • °
,°..° ° °.°°°°.'_.. ; ,. ° • ° * • • ° •
._. _; // ' , °°o°°.°°°°,°°".... . ° • ° •
]970025352
I
MSC INTERNAL NOTE NO. 67-FM-132i
PROJECT APOLLO
EXCESSIVE ENTRY LOADS FOR ABORT TRAJECTORIESFROM THE NOMINAL AS-205/101 LAUNCH PROFILE
_. By Edward M. Henderson and Alfred N. Lunde_ Flight Analysis Branch
• September15, 1967
'_:
MISSION PLANNING AND ANALYSIS DIVISION
" p NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
_; MANNED SPACECRAFT CENTER1_
,_i HOUSTON, TEXAS
i
Ap,,ov_=<', p/.V<_,-J-_-__) ..C. R. Hicks, Jr., ChiefFlight Analysis Branch
Approved:_ T= _.-_,._ -.,JohnI_._Vlayer, ChiefMissioit_lanning and Analysis Division
i
1970025352-002
_i_
•_ - FIGURES
Figure Page
i Maximum entry load factors versus abort time for
£! different launch profiles ................ 6
i_, 2 Maximum entry load factors versus abort velocity for
different launch profiles ................ 7
3 Comparison of launch altitude versus range profiles. 8
4 Comparison of launch altitude versus velocity profiles . 9
5 Comparison of velocity and flight-path angle versus
altitude profiles .................... lO
6 Comparison of flight-path angle versus velocity
profiles with associated abort limits .......... ll
i_ 7 Comparison of flight-path angle versus velocity at entry
interface profiles with current abort limit ....... 12
_ 8 Entry load factor variation with lift-to-drag ratio at
entry interface ..................... 13t
9 Desired limit for launch trajectory design at entry_ interface ........................ lh
..... i0 Desired limit for launch trajectory design for differ-_' ent altitudes ...................... 15
ll Comparison of sustained accelerations for aborts from: different launch profiles with human limits ....... 16
12 Load factor variation during entry with differentL/D's ........................ 17
13 Comparison of sustained accelerations for aborts ofdifferent L/D's with human limits ........... 18
lh Different entry load factor limits at entry interfacefor reduced L/D ..................... "19
15 Different entry load factor limits for reduced L/D . . . 20 L
,i|
] 970025352-003
J
I
16 Effects of SPS burn attitude on maximum entry loadfactor and free-fall time................ 21
17 Effects of SPS burn-time on maximum entry loadfactor and free-fall time................ 22
18 Abort limit with maximum launch vehicle dispersions... 23
' , , .
• , • , ."
, ,_ 2. " -2 *'
E_
'':";;L..T.','*'
iIi _ , . j III_
] 970025352-004
f
EXCESSIVE ENTRY LOADS FOR ABOI_ TRAJECTORIES
_j' FROM THE NOMINAL AS-20_/IOI LAUNCH PROFILE
...., By Edward M. Henderson and Alfred N. Lunde
SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION
Current abort trajectory studies for the nominal AS-_Og/lO1 launchtrajectory have produced entry load factors (g's) exceeding the estab-lished 16-g limitation for aborts initiated from the nominal launchprofile. This condition is caused by the steep profile dictated by the120-n. ml. Insertlcn altitude necessary to achieve the 120/150-n. mi.(perigee altitude to apogee altitude) orbit. The higher altitudes alongthe launch trajectory tend to pull the g boundary down such that thenominal ascent trace violates the current 16-g limitation. This viola-tion occurs for the current llft-to-drag ratio (L/D) of 0.33. Loweringthe L/D increases the g's accordingly but does not cause the violation.As it now stands, current operational procedureswould inhibit such alaunch.
Four methods are now being investigated in an attempt to alleviatethis situation:
I. Reshape the launch profile.
2. Raise the 16-g abort limit to 18 g.
3. Use the spacecraft propulsion to improve entry conditions.
4. Use the maximum launch vehicle dispersion envelope as the abort/
guide and fly through the high g region. ,
The simplest solution (method 2) would be to raise the g limit to ._ .a higher value of human tolerance; however, there is insufficient bio-dynamics data available to make this decision. The most practical solu-tion (method 4) would be to use the maximum dispersion envelope of thelaunch vehicle that makes it possible to obtain orbit (hp > 75 n. mi.)as the guide for flping through the high g region.
?
1970025352-005
DISCUSSION OF METHODS
As can be seen from figures i and 2, g's for aborts from the
120/150-n. mi. orbit launch profile are much more severe than those forthe other Apollo missions investigated. Note that the L/D used for
these aborts is based on current data specification (L/D = 0.33) and
not the speculated lower value (L/D _ 0.2_).
Figures 3 through 7 show trajectories from which the various launchconfigurations can be compared. The higher altitude profile is obvious
in figures 3 and 4. A composite of the trajectory parameters is plotted
on figure _. Figure 6 shows each launch trajectory with its associated
16-g abort boundary. (Note: The 120/l_O-n. ml. orbit profile violatesits abort boundary.) The reason for the shifts in the g boundaries is
contributed prlmari_y to the changes in altitude of each trajectory
(though it is not obvious from this plot). A valid comparison of each
launch trajectory can be made at entry interface (h = 300 000 ft),figure 7. This display enables an analysis of velocity and flight-path
angle based on constant altitude, and each trace can be compared to a• • • .}
given g boundary. Figure 8 shows the effects of L_ variation on a
_ 14-g and 16-g boundary with the nominal 120/l_O-n. mi. trace at entry, interface.
Reshape the Launch Profile
A possible solution could be to reshape the launch trajectory to
_ , allow satisfactory clearance of the 16.g abort boundary. For lack ofsufficient data, it was arbitrarily decided that a 19-g boundary
(L/D = 0.242) would provide the necessary pad below the 16-g limit.
.. Therefore, if MarshallSpace Flight Center (MSFC) can design a launchprofile not to violate this 13-g limit, it would be operationally
feasible to flY that trajectory. Figure 9 depicts this limit (lO g) at
' entry interface with the current launch profile. Based on the conditionsat entry interface this limit was analytical_y calculated for constant
altitudes and shown on figure lOwith the nominal trace. These plots
have beenmade available to_FC for launch trajectory redesign con-siderations. However, it is highly dubious that M_BFC can help the
situation. The current desSgn is perfo_mmnce critical for the 20_ launch
into a 120/150-n. mi. orbit, and any reshaping would definitely degradeperformance.
_N
1970025352-006
Raise the Abort Limit
Another solution could be to raise the current 16-g limit to a
higher value, thus widening the corridor above the current trajectory,
that is, if the limit could be raised and not J_.opardize the safety ofthe crew. Present limits are based on peak g's; however, the controlling
factor is the time the crew is exposed to given g values (load factor
ii_ duration). An emergency limit and performance limit were obtained from_, references I and 2. The g-time histories for critical abort times from
_ the basic launch with these limits iI.profiles are compared on figure
! _i Figure 12 shows the effects of reduced L/D on a high g abort from the^_ 120/I_0-n. mi. orbit profile and can be compared to these limits on
_ figure 13. As can be seen, none of these loadings violate the emer-gency limit. How valid is this emergency limit? A phone conversation
with Dr. William R. Carpentier, Program Support Branch of the }:_dical
Operations Office, indicated that no work was being done in this areaat MSC. Dr. L. L. Hammangren was working in this area but has since
left the Center, and no one presently is specializing in bio-dynamics.
The Flight Operations Directorate has already made a request (ref. 3)
, for an investigation of this area but no response has been given. An-other phone conversation with Dr. Shropshire at Wright-Patterson AFB
indicated that he had researched this area thoroughly and is forwardingsome of his results.
It appears from the current emergency limits (fig. II, 12, and 13)
that the peak g value could be raised to 18 g's. This increase would
allow more trajectory freedom even with reduced L_, as indicated onfigures 14 and 15. However, the medical and crew personnel would have
to concur on this limit. Also, consideration _hou/d be given the space-
craft's structural limit (presently defined as 20 g's).
Use Spacecraft Propulsion System to Improve Entry Conditions
Another proposal to aid the current high g area of the 120/150-n. mi,_ orbit launch was devoted to spacecraft performance. This procedure :
_' would be to use the service propulsion system (SPS) to burn out of the
hi@h g region if the booster failed in this region. It would be an
additional launch abort mode - flxed ignition time (delay from S-IVB
cutoff) and fixed SPS burn duration and attitude. This would be anadditional procedure to learn and train for but would be much less
costly than reshaping the launch trajectory.
Preliminary studies have indicated that entry g's could be reducedby i or 2 g's by optimizing delay time, burn time_ and burn attitude.
A Burn attitude survey in the vicinity of a high g abort was investigated
and is shown on figure 16. This study showed that an optimum burn at-
titude of pitching along the radius vector would reduce g's and increase
• •
] 970025352-007
free fall the most. Note that the scribe on the window (31.7° between
the llne of sight to the horizon and the spacecraft's X-body axis) is
s less desirable attitude. Also, the attitudes using the horizon in
the spacecraft's window are not optimum. Unfortunately, the villain inthis type procedure was the current constraint of a 12_-second delay
time from booster cutoff to SPS burn ignition. As can be seen from
figure 17, the free-fall limit (tff = lO0 seconds to 300 000-ft alti-
tude) is violated for a 27-second burn and g's were reduced from 16.1
to 15.1. Also shown are other delay times and it can be seen that the
delay time corresponding to the time when free fall is no longer vio-
lated appears to be the optimum delay time to reduce g's for this case.
Therefore, a shorter sequence (td < lO0 seconds) would enable a longer
; burn, thus reducing g's more. Also, less delay wou_t allow more flex-ibility in burn attitude.
Reducing the L/D would result in longer spacecraft burns and
further optimization to decrease entry g's. A precision maneuver could
i be helpful to reduce g's a small amount. However, a booster failure inthe high g regime would result in a mandatory SPS burn and any failure
._ in performing this burn would result in excessive g's. r_erefore, due
to the mandatory requirement to use the SPS, it is not a recommendedoperational procedure for the first manned mission but could be em-
ployed for future missions.
: Use the Maximum LV Dispersion Envelope and Fly the High g Region
The final proposal _s to use the maximum launch vehicle dispersion
!_ _ envelope as an abort guide to fly through the high g region (g > 16).This procedure would require _FC to construct a dispersion envelope
, which stipulates launch vehicle capability to achieve an orbit with at
least a 75-n. mi. perigee altitude. The envelope (fig. 18) would be
used to assess the launch vehicle trajectory and an evaluation of the
launch vehicle systems would be made before making a commitment to f_v
through the high g region (similar to GO/N0 GO). If launch vehi-'letrajectory or systems are nonco_mlttal, the mission would be aborted at
a convenient time prior to exceeding 16 g. Once the commitment has
been made, no abort action should be initiated in the high g regionunless an inadvertent cutoff or an extremely deviated trajectory occurs
within this region. For all other failures or deviations, abort actionshould be delayed until g's are reduced below 16. For the very _-emote
cases of cutoffs inside the high g region, an emergency spacecraft pro-cedure could be devised to reduce g's as shown above.
i
$ ,I •
i,°. ,-,
1970025352-008
CONCLUSIONS
It has been shown that the current launch trajectory (120/150) isoperationally unacceptable because excessive g's are inherent for someof the aborts. Four methods to eliminate this problem are being in-vestigated:
_ i. Reshaping the launch profile around the high g r:_gion.
i__ 2. Raising the g limit to avoid the violation.
_;_ 3. Using the spacecraft's SPS to burn out of the high g region
i!_ should a failure occur...... 4. Using the maximum launch vehicle dispersion envelope as the
abort guide and fly through the high g region.
It is very optimistic that MSFC can reshape the launch trajectory_ to avoid the nigh g'_ and still maintain adequate performance to insert
_i the CSM/S-IVB configuration into a 120/150-n. mi. orbit. Increasingthe g limit from 16 to 18 would be the simplest method to relieve theproblem, but it would subject the crew and spacecraft to higher entryloads. Further study needs to be done to Justify the increase. Addinga new abort mode to reduce g's is advantageous because it is cheaperthan sacrificing performance to reshape the boost trajectory. This :procedure would be mandatory, which would be operationally undesirable,if the LV failed in a high g region. Using the maximum launch vehicledispersion envelope to commit to flying through the high g region isthe most practical solution. This method requires MHFC participationin generating the envelope, and a flight control procedural change inallowing flight in the regime where entry g's could exceed the abortlimitation.
As indicated, the higher g's for this launch are contributed to: the steeper launch profile and not decreasing L/D. The ever decreasing
L/D tends to aggravate the problem and g's increase correspondingly.Unless one of the methods mentioned is acceptable, the current120/l_O-n. mi. insertion orbit cannot be achieved under current opera-
_ tiona! control procedures.
1
d,
1970025352-009
.7
E
7
,i
1970025352-011
•... 8
.., ; ... ;
10
36 - 40 X..103.......=...,..i.i .J..::ir":. :i .!I........i"-.'--':.... : " :.......................: : '-.....
;.:.....l........i.......i ' _-_B%%--12o/iso..m,._i .......... 5-1B (hp/ha = 100/100 n. rnl.)
32 - 36 .....:'. S-].B (hp/ha= 87/133 n. ml.)i"""! , • .,
i " S- V (hp,/ha = 100/100 n. ml.) !---• • i • ; "
28 32 ._'ili......._;.......,i:.;.........' .,i......................... i._"= . , i . i...[ ......_.......:.... !....... ! "" I
24 28 [ .!--..... =. = • .i ..=.... i :Velocity: . .... i• I ,_...... -I..
,= L:'.L...!.i .....I20 - 24 ""'+"': "'"'f"-";_
....... : _J. .J ...j ......j
__=" _- F,,g,t-p=..g,e '. :;_::i....i..'...,i..... .....J.:•.= -- ' I j ,t_l-_-_:8 ........... i....." • _ . ! ;...'1 ......_--.-. :....:....I..
"_ ,_:.i:i": I .. i =._..._.:;12- _ 16 . : T:!::: :
: ! : j ' .. ."_ -_ 7"[:_.i!: !"_, i 77 7 i...._ ......L_....l
"_ -=_ 'i I,;..... tl :...i ...:....iii:._...:i"_ [" "_ ' .[.............If:-.":'.i 8 - 12 i.lii,iiE..i.,ll!iln, i "
:11,IIIIIIIIII,h,linlll"":q=::l'"Ii"IIII , I : ql.,iI.iFn,'- = = "."..i pt, • .-....:; .......:4.....; i_"_'.n_"_'_.._'_H_h_:.:._:"_:.:_'_h_:_._.L%L :: J..!
•:!ii!i[[i!'iiqli=.'P,!!llPill!llle,qlB!:lli::ilhiil!l;n!i=.nq':;=.=":i=::"-" ,-"i .%i "" F .....:i'_'_ ==i:;:ll,l:|:l,-=.-':||i:!|lllll|" ,=,=,,i lllllllU||:|-'|,|:-illt[|l||: "" .=',:'=':,,t : " , .... .'._ ;._
""'- _ i"":i!i;"i'::i'!I "!r !' " II Illir'm:'"'"'" -" " .: • : _. . .:....l...v•, :,_,.,,,!,,,l,,,:,,,l,,,dl,,Idllll.,Ihilllli.. ._,..; I._.._...I "i_, ::..-,.' _; 4 - 8 : ! I :j,"iF. '. . " :"" ";-"_. "-'" ; -.: 1 :-:"r-I;--'!"'_'...i ....... L ..[:. r ...':...! ....... _.... i .:....I... : ..... : !.:IE...., ..... ".... "...'.':..L...'....::...
•., I :.. : . : • • : • : ! : ,..,,.,'_.- .:..:!..: t •, !- - ........I:., :/_.:._:,.;..i......i....;.;..::F!.i.. i......i-...t_¥.H-"::_....=.--.=
0 - 4 • :, ::.Jr.;' ." !..--7... :'r";";- .-- ,- ";-'T-':"-r"'-1I--'T-T-I_I'_....: :.l_ .L: 1: :..""'":.' ".."t:i:.l::::'-.i...... ; ..... !... -... i....;. :.: !......... ' : .:... : ..l:...i.L:'- ;".."'.:: ;.I_;_-ii:.._:.:__ !:i :..I:;..! : ,: _! i::_:[.._[::_!_
-4 - |_il[!ilE
,I
.f
12
/
.. ;, ;.
"; -' 13•#9
+,
ill,_ Nm m
1970025352-017
14
XQ
! ...... ._... : : .o } • : .....
m
. ..-" ..: _ : ........ 4' - ............... _ ° .....0 • ; " , "" 0"-: 0 "1 ..... !... • f ............. f _ ' • ,, w
::.._ .' ., ..i.......... i......:. : ...i . , _ ..o .I.." _ : _'"" i ' i • : '_. "_
,-4 _ .--..:.-=L - ........ _ ......... "._.! .... _........ ._: .....:..-" . ...,!" li _ :" .i : . _ : : "_' ' i ' :'lr ' "_ ": ,a_} e_ , ", .... , ................... I • ; -Fi ...,r . .,_
'. i ,- _= "= _ L_L_J__ ....... .i.--- .... :......._...,,,,.r._.........|_._/..:........... _ .-.-:.-:.-...._.__ ....... T-'." ; • ; , : i • i-.q: f • "_ ._'._ i:... ,-. c • """!'"': : ' "':...... :" ":" -i ..... I.... :'=:l" i ....
: .. ,._ -- i , . . : • . , .
,' L_ ,.,, _ ...... i .-.-..='.... ...L.........--_.._;___!_:....,.__,....__ ...... ir _.. _ .__ _..• : :-- "" '_ ' i ' i : ' i I "-'_ L!, , .= -..J ....... , .......... •.....].......I"l ....z...... ,
:----"---'f--.: . ...-'...".... L.:L..:........, -.__.-...._,L.L.:_JLI...,. _ ,. ,"-x-i-., ....,,....._,_..... _L..:...: . : ..... • _---'.:"•....... :...... I • 1........_.... _• _'_..•_-........ _......, -_ : I/ I I. i i • ' _ i .i ..I _ "hl.,F' i _ ,_
.......;.;_.:.:.;..._.:.:....,........... :_ ::=_...... :............: .......:..... , .: , ._ ,_...:....., , ..: , • .., ...... . . .., , , ..' I:...'..l I " , • ". ": "I "" I • : : I " I " : • I • . • I " " • ,--I ._._ ...._.....-..----+.-_....._-,..,--_--4.:::__-,---+.....' _:.:}:.-- " .:-:-i..--=:il-: i:-'-i:':': "!- ...... ! ....... :-': t........ I .: "'i:'" ='11 --':' -t .... : :'-'t--'i" !
.:...:Z.4-:,L:=_.+--_----,---.,--_ ..._::::_ .... ----,--- .........I _: : "'.+...'..:.. I ". i' .. • '. :. . : ," ... ! i ". I " ". . : I ": ".:" ":':" : ' '' : . . I. ":':':;" P.'I " • : . . . _:...:--.i.::-:._:.:_.:_=.'--_+-I........l...:--i-.-:..!.....:--=!_ .........i---:.-I: I" I -._.-.! :i !_!;._! ! ! .-.-_-..-i...._-." " ' ....'.... '--'....i_.:.:i:-.i:...4---.:-::._i_:._.-_-..-i."....:.........I.L.:...."...F,r.,t_'-..i......i..i ......i.... i.... _
i _..,..._ .....! ,.:_!-:.'. ' _:....._---..-:l--.-...z_-..'.-,-.._--4--.:--:.----..i..... o ...,:. ::-;:-.i:..i:::i:_=--;i..,..i:.::_.:!i.i ......i...: ,. -;;; .,'....._.i.... ! .... I.......: ..j .. • . _ "_
" ' . ' ." I ::::'"'-':'I'"':::'I ,..L_: ' " " " .:...._ ' " I
• :"---.-:r__.'-,--- •.......-..-4....-..-1...-,:=_.'-.,_.'--...t..:.'...--i--+:--,............. ............+---*---"-....____ i
_i.:;,:L:_;:::.i-::L:.i_I-=I..1-=J i...:!....:.-.I._.:.:.._..._I : .L."--:i.._•. | i :..::1:..11:"!:".t:.T.I-:/ i.. i " i • ir _."_ I • i :.ji . : i-..: l .:r."::-i:-:'l": [!.-::-:.I:.....:J.i .'l, !'. i:: ! !, l.'iii_.l ...... i. J ..:[ • i.. : l."":":_l:::'i:
.. .,.'. _.,::,:!.._,_ _,:ik,:,.,:..I......._.._._i_"-.I:..!.,,._.:_. _.._.:,:.I....:.:'"TT"i'"I ::i":'" i. : !.'.':::.:.:_'.x_.:,. I "'.._.L:::l::..,.r: I , I :::,'.-:....
"- ii!_i_::_:::;:i'::"=:T:_k:.I-T:!I'!_T:I:::I;__:I::;:i:_ii!fi-'I,: :-;"Fiihi:ff-- ._-.i:::l _' ....i_.:_:::i......:!./.i .:' . !!::i:_.-:-i:i_! I .-_.:l_:,_:__ t ::..:..:.1 ;,,::,:...-::_...:-.1.......:,-I._-.,--__.,--:1......•..,._-._..-.--..,..:.-i......:.1.............-....::.4:"|':':""I :"•! "".:::.I•,l...-1,1r.l..:,•I...:I"'":_.'I", i •:.::I..:.I • • I.=.-' 1"
'.::.'. : .... : .... ":' ": • i .::I:--.:_..... .,::.,-::_l.;t._ • ::::._ _1:1::' I:-_.... _ __1':-t-: ,.,o,.,,:':'q "'"' :="-' ....= ".... ...................,.:._,.,.............,--,-,, .... ,i,:- ;.!:: .::.. ::i ".::.:'l;.."_m_.. .i: ".:: _":':':..... :.!': • '" !.: ..:: _:: "'::" ... !! • : • :
I .I ........... iili i ' • i, I . • • [i._ ill • i.. I ...... ., .
":::' :" ::':: ii-- % -, Z _l .
4 0 I
.........i-::'"=._:::,=::.::=i_iit_i_ i_i : '-!:'I!_:,,.!h!ii!ii!iii!iiiii_:':"::":
Sip ,13j, 'i0i_u_lul_lui II ilSU__,l_-lqSllt llWlUl , . ,I I • Iiiiiiii
,. - . %,/.
• '_ . • ' ,_Lf'" .'
.! '_',.:,._,,, . ,__,,,,,,.,'_
1970025352-018
1970025352-019
].6
i
1970025352-021
z8
,f
19
2O
21
22
%;,'.
ii, 23
0.,
0i.-I
x.0
_. o : , , {_..i-:-'..-.-T. : . . ._._ ....... :. .............. ..'...... i . ..
_ o ..... .....: ...... . ................. i_>. . • . • . • - •--_1._ . .
.. _',i _ ._ _ .... : . ! : ..... .-- .._- i;_ I :._ __ . . . ; ...... . . _.'_a I w-4 J
'.iJ _,-.I .......................................... .-.-..-......,.. • !_, • ! : 1#J .... , .... ; : • ! •i__ _-" ,F__ • o
"__ : ! • .'' -- (/_
_- ; . j • , .... : ...... . ,........ ;_LLJ " ' u CO
:.. _ • _,_ ....... : . . .; . i _
_;_ .--x _ID
_.- ,. _.. _ ....... !.... ,......, ....._ ..!......:.___. .._-_..: . i ..... ! "" ' ! ' - .I, ,
• :_ ....._.:......_................ :....._...._ _ _•- ; I ......i • ,," "_" "_ ' • :....., .... _ __
_i ' .........,_": '4-....... : [................... • • | ........... ,...-4 .-_
, _ , I
b. ........ ;.... : ....._.... _ : ......__-.__
._: i • "; ' i _ - - I ...... __
..l..',.........,. ,. , i ....-,-..,..........-........:................ "_.._"- .. • .. . ..... !....,_.,., .. ! ............_-1--_. t.......; ..... ,....... -_ : .--,---...... '. ........ .... 1......._:+ i "-_: I , _... i....., .., :' i._ ......i .! , • • : .......... i •
..... _.... " / "E " " I ! ..., , ,_' . ......... . o ....... _.... , ... : .... i" " : ;"_J_,i ..,...-......i : i ! :. j *.,_+. ,....._..........._..............____-- :.......r--! ...........-. ........... . . • _i , ', ....... "'_ ...... I..... _ ". .... .- ...... i • : • - : , • : - .,_;--., ._ ............ _ ......... ; i ............. _ .................... i ...---..
; '_[ I I / • : I " . . / .'"I =
i"................."_ _ "_-" ..t.-i ' '|' • il " ;I """ J' ...... "'-'_ ......._i; .... _ ! " " ' _"' ! '" " ' "_.--._--i ..-_--------_.-.-i-- ...... -4-- -_------4- ......... ,............ I - e_ I • :1 l • i .
t, I '. _. . . i ! . |i_,i............ t........ ,..--_.... _ ..... I';; ...... ' . I ".'"', • • ' .............. ' .... ' .........r-'-i : I I " ] i ; , , ;---! .... I , ]_--t"- --I--_"':--.'- I I t .... r ......,......----f--+ ......;............. --I-- ........ Io - .i ....._.....,.... _ ....... i.......... i'" ;......... t......,.........,.-.I...'...'-.....4- ..... i. i ....l-.. o_:,I I " . , , • = I i • I. I ; ; • • . I , . ; . : r • f _ . I . . .. r r _ _ _"_4-_
lop '11 'OI6UllI,Iled-lq61hiI|ll.,IOUl ; |I,_.,.._"_
• .'J
J_
1970025352-027
f '
24
REFERENCES
i. MSC memorandum: Entry Load Factors Following Apollo Launch Aborts.
MSC memorandum 66-FM34-281, December 16, 1966.
2. North American Reports SID 64-/237 and SID 64-1345.
5. MSC memorandum: Load Factor Duration Encountered During the AS-504
Entry Using the Backup Control Mode. MSC memorandum 67-FM53-182,June14,1967.
t
J
1970025352-028