Saturn V Launch Vehicle Flight Evaluation Report, SA-513, Skylab 1

GEORGE&.
ATURN
MPR·SAT ·FE· 73· 4 AUGUST 1. 1973
73-33 8 48
CSCL 229 Unclds

G3/3 1 1984 3
SATURN V LAUNCH VEHICLE

FL'GHT EVALUATION REPORT -SA-513
SKYLAB 1
,i
PREPARED BY
~ A 1URN FLI6HT EVALUATION WORKIN6 6ROUP
N A TION A L AER O NA U T IC S A ND S PA C E ADM I N I STR A T IO N
S F C • F o rm 774 (Re v Oc t ober 1 967)

GEORGE C. MAR SHALL SPACE FLIGHT CEN TER
MPR·SAT ·FE· 73· 4 AUGUST 1, 1973
SI~ TURN V LAUNCH VEHICLE

FLIGH T EVALUATION
REPORT·SA·513
SKYLAB·l
PREPARED BY
SATURN FLIGHT EV ALUA TlO N
WORKING GROUP
MPR-SAT-FE-73-4
SATURN V LAUNCH VEHICLE FLIGHT EVALUATION REPORT - SA-513
SKYLAB-l
BY
Saturn Flight Evaluation Working Group
George C. Marshall Space Flight Center
ABSTRACj
Saturn V SA-513 (Skylab-l) was launched at 13:30:00 Eastern Oaylight

Time (EDT) on May 14, 1973, from Kennedy Space Center, Complex 39,
Pad A. The vehi cl eli fted off on a 1aunch azimuth of 90 degrees
east of north and rolled to a flight azimuth of 40.88 degrees east of
north. The launch vehicle successfully placed the Saturn Work Shop in
the planned earth orbit.
All launch vehicle objectives were accomplished. No launch vehicle
failures or anomalies occurred that seriously affected the mission.
Any questions or comments pertaining to the information contained in
this report are invited and should be directed to:
Director, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center
Huntsville, Alabama 35812
Attention: Chairman, Saturn Flight Evaluation Working
Group, SAT-E (Phone 205-453-1030)
,.
.,
I':
':,
,
Ii
t.1
,\,j
~
j ::l
PRECEDING PAGE BLANK ~UT r ll.JJ.V.l.cdJ
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii SECTION 5 - S-IC PROPULSION
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS vii 5.1 SlJl1f11ary 5-1
LIST OF TABLES xi 5.2 S-IC Ignition Transient 5-1
Perfonnance
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT xiii
5.3 S-IC Mainstage Perfonnance 5-4
ABBREVHITIONS xiv
5.4 S-IC Engine Shutdown Transient 5-6
MISS ION PLAN xvi i Perfonnance
FLIGHT SUMMARY xix 5.5 S-IC Stage Propellant 5-6 ~,
;I
MISSION OBJECTIVES ACCOMPLISHMENT xxv Management t1

5.6 S-IC Pressurization Systems 5-B ¥d
FAILURES AND ,ANOMALIES xxvii
5.6.1 S-IC Fuel Pressurization System 5-B ,!~
SECTION 1 - Introdudi on 5.7 S-IC Pneumatic Control Pressure 5-10 ;~
1.1 Purpose 1-1 System ;,)
ii
1.2 Scope 1-1 5.B S-IC Purge System 5-10 ;\
Ii
1-1 5.9 S-IC POGO Suppression System 5-10 1\
1.3 Perfonnance Predictions P
Baseline 5.10 S-IC Hydraulic System 5-10 i,1
i~
SECTION 2 - EVENT TIMES SECTION 6 - S-II PROPULSION iJ
,::f
2.1 Summary of Events 2-1 6.1 Summary 6-1
2.2 Variable Time and Commanded 2-2 6.2 S-II Chi11down and Buildup 6-2 ~1
Switch Selector Events
6.3
Transient Perfonnance
S- II' Mai ns tage Perfonnance 6-3
1
i~
SECTION 3 - LAUNCH OPERATIONS
3.1 St.mnary 3-1 6.4 S-II Shutdown Transient
Perfonnance
6-7 'i
i1j
3.2 Prelaunch Milestones 3-1 6.5 S-II Stage Propellant Management 6-B
r~
3.3 Terminal, Countdown 3-1 System

, 3.4 Propellant Loading 3-1 6.6 S-II Pressurization System 6-10
i
,1 3.4.1 RP-l Loading 3-1 6.6.1 S-II Fuel Pressurization System 6-10
'I
, 3.4.2 LOX Loadin!! 3-3 6.6.2 S-II LOX Pressurization System 6-13
:; 3.4.3 LH2 Loading 3-3 6.7 S-II Pneumatic Control Pressure 6-13
q 3.5 Ground Support Equipment 3-3 ~ystem
3.5.1 Ground/Vehicle Interface 3-3 6.B ~-II Helium Injection System 6-16
~l 3.5.2 MSFC Furnished Ground 3-4
:1 Support Equipment 6.9 pOGO Suppression System 6-16
",j t,
6.10 S-I~ Orbital Safing Operations 6-1B
'f SECTION 4 - TRAJECTORY 6.10.1 Fuel Tank Safing 6-1B
~
'i
4.1 Summary 4-1 6.10.2 LOX Tank Safing 6-1B
H
,i 6.10.3 Engine, Start Sphere Safing 6-Hl '
Ii 4.2 Trajectory Evaluation 4-1 6.10.4 Engine Control Sphere Safing 6-20
H 4.2.1 Ascent Phase 4-1
'.1 4.2.2 Earth Orbit Phase 4-2 6.11 S-II Hydraulic System 6-20
~ 4.2.3 Meteoroid Shield Debris 4-11
'I
i1 Impact Trajectory SECTION 7 - STRUCTURES
;i 4.2.4 Spent S- II Orbit 4-11 7.1 St.mnary 7-1
,1
I.
l!
tl:i
II
'{
b
,I
,I
i!
,i
"
4 .':·i
q
l iii t.-1
·t
TABLE OF CONTENTS ( CONTINUED)
Page Page
7.2 Total Vehicle Structures 7-1 SECTION 11 - VEHICLE PRESSURE ENVIRONMENT
~h
Evaluation lU Summary 11-1
7.2.1 Longitudinal Loads 7-1
7.2.2 Bending Moments 7-3 11.~. Base Pressures 11-1
7.2.3 Combined Loads 7-3 11.Z,1 S-IC Base Pressures 11-1
7.2.4 Vehicle Dynamic Charac- 7-4 11. z.e S-II Base Pressures 11-1
teri s ti cs 11.3 S-Il Forward Skirt Pressures 11-4
7.2.5 Vibration Evaluation 7-9
7.3 POGO Limiti'n9 Backup 7-9 11.4 S-IC/S-Il Separation Pressure 11-B
Cutoff System SECTION 12 - VEHICLE THERMAL ENVIRONMENT
i SECTION B - GUIDANCE AND NAVIGATION 12.1 Summary 12-1
i 8. 1 Summary B-1 12.2 S-IC Base Heating 12-1
! 8.2 Guidance Comparisons B-1 12.3 S-II Base Heating 12-4
1 8.3 Navigation and Guidance 12.4 Vehicle Aeroheating Thermal 12-9
1
'j
8-6
:1 Scheme Evaluation Environment
8.3.1 Major Differences From Past 8-6 12.5 S-IC/S-l1 Separation Thermal 12-11
Schemes Environment
t
, 8.3.2
8.3.3
Guidance Event Times
Yaw (Z) Axis Resolver
Unreas~nable Indication
B-7
B-7 SECTION
13.1
13 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL SYSTEMS
Summary 13-1
8.3.4 Pitch Axis Resolver 8-8
!i
, Switchover 13.2 S-IC Environmental Control 13-1 i
:......
i
,~
8.3.5
8.3.6
8.3.7
8.4
Attitude Commands
Termi na 1 Condi Uons
Orbi ter Phase
Navigation and Guidance
8-8
8-9
8-9
8-10
13.3
13.4
13.4.1
System
S-II Environmental Control
IU Environmental Control
Thermal Conditioning System (TCS)
13-2
13-2
13-2
?:
)7
.,
"
.,
"q System Components 'I
8.4.1 Stabilized Platform System 13.4.2 Gas Bearing System Performance 13-8
8-11 13.4.3 Component Temperatures 13-8
8.4.2 Guidance and Navigation 8-11
Computer SECTION 14 -DATA SYSTEMS
SECTION 9 - CONTROL AND SEPARATION 14.1 Surrtnary 14-1
9.1 Summary 9-1 14.2 Vehicle Measurement Evaluation 14-1
9.2 S-IC Control System 9-1 14 3 Airborne VHF Telemetry Systems 14-1
Evaluation .Evaluation
9.2.1 Liftoff 9-1 14.4 C-Band Radar System Evaluation' 14-2
9.2.2 Inf1ight Dynamics 9-1
9.2.3 63-Second Anomaly 9-8 14.5 Secure RarigeSafety Command 14-10
9.3 5-11 Control System 9-15 Systems
Evaluation 14.6 Command and Communications 14-11
9.4 Instrument Unit Control 9-18 System Evaluation
Components Evaluation 14.6.1 Summary of Performance 14-11
9.5 Separati on 14.7 Ground Engineering Cameras 14-11
9-18
9.5.1 S-IC/S- II Separati on 9-18 SECTION 15 - MASS CHARACTERISTICS
9.5 •.2 S-H Second P1 ane 9-18
Separation Evaluation 15.1 Summary 15-1
9.5.3 S-II/SWS Separation 9-23 15.2 Mass Evaluation 15-1
.\J SECTION 10 - ELECTRICAL NETWORKS AND SECTION 16 - SATURN WORKSHOP SUMMARY 16-1
i EMERGENCY DETECTION SYSTEM
10.1 Summary 10-1 SECTION 17 - 63 AND 593 ~ECONDANOMALIES
10.2 S-IC Stage Electrical System 10-1 17.1 SUII1It]ary 17-1
,i
I 10.3 s-u Stage Electrical System 10-2 17.2 63 Second Anomaly 17-1
1 17.2.1 Initial Vehicle Response 17-1
.1 10.4 Instrument Unit. Electrical 10-3 17.2.2 Ini tia1 Orb; tal Work Shop (OWS) 17-2
Systems
:j 10.5 Saturn V EmergenCr
Detection System EDS)
10-4
Measurement Response
17.2.3 Meteoroid Shield Structural
-Failure
17-2
j
i,
,1
I
I
l
;i iv ~
I ~
:1
~j,
ti
H TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
il"
i1 Page
H
H,'J; .17.3 593 Second Disturbance 17-12
U
P'
17.4 Meteoroid Shield Failure 17-22
l;
17-26 I
'I 17T5 Conclusions
~
'I 17.6 Impact of Anomalies on Launch 17-27
\i
d
Vehicle
f
,< 17.7 Investigating Committee 17-27
~1
tl
J'
APPENDIX A - ATMOSPHERE
;,1
111
A.l Surrmary A-l
i~ A.2 General Atmospheric Condi- A-l
14 tions at Launch Time
il A.3 Surface Observations at A-l
I
Launch Time
A.4 Upper Air Measurements A-l
A.4.1 Wind Speed A-l
~ A.4.2 Wind Direction A-6
A.4.3 Pitch Wind Component A-6
i A.4.4 Yaw Wind Component A-6
Ii
A.4.5 Component Wind Shears A-6
A.4.6 Extreme Wind Data in the A-6
High Dynamic Region
A.5 Thermodynamic Data A-14
A.S.l Atmospheric Temperature A-14
A.S.2 Atmospheric Pressure A-14
A.5.3 Atmospheric Density A-14
~ A.S.4 Optical Index of Refraction A-14
~
fi A.6 Comparison of Selected A-14
~I Atmospheric Data for Saturn
!,~
V Launches
J APPENDI~ B - SL-l/SA-S13 SIGNIFICANT

CONFI URATION CHANGES
I'
I
~t
J},
~l
B.l
B.2
B.2.1
B.2.2
B.3
B.3.1
Intrl:~uction
\\ ,v
S- II;. SJag.e
S-}C ~bn i(~gu ra t ion
SliI C;;,S ys tems
s-d Stage'
S~;{I Configuration
B-1
B-1
B-1
B-4
B-4
B.3.2 ~::::1I Systems B-S
B.4 if ns trument Uni t (IU) B-7
B.4.1 IU Configuration B-7
B.4.2 IU Systems B-9
B.S Saturn Work Shop (SWS) B-9
B.S.l SWS Configuration B-9
v/vi
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page Figure Page

2-1 SA-513 LVDC Clock/Ground 2-2 6-8 S-U LOX Tank Ullage Peessure 6-14
Time Di fference 6-9 S-II LOX Pump Inlet Conditions 6-15
4-1 SA-513 Ascent Trajectory 4-3 6-10 S-It Center Engine LOX Feed1ine
Position Comparison 6-17
Accumulator Bleed System Perfor-
4-2 SA-513 Ascent Trajectory 4-4 mance
Space-Fixed Velocity and 6-11 S-II Center Engine LOX Feed1ine
Flight Path Angle 6-17
Acc:~mulator Fill Transient
Comparisons
6-12 S- Ir Center En9i,ne LOX Feed1 ine 6-18
4~3 SA-513 Ascent Trajectory 4-5 Accumlilatci' He1iuiIJ Supply System
i Acceleration ~omparison Perfonnance
I
I 4-4 SA-513 Dynamic Pressure and
Mach Number Comparisons
4-6 6-13 S-II Fuel Tank Ullage Pressure 6-19
I Duri ng Safi ng
4-5 SA-513 Launch Vehicle 4-13 6-14 S-II LOX Tank Ullage Pressure
Groundtrack 6-19
1 Duri ng Safi ng
! 4-6 Impact Footprints for SL-1
Meteoroid Shield Debris
4-14 6-15 S-tI Engine GH2 Start Tank Safing 6-20
I
j 5-1 S-IC LOX Start Box 5-2 6-16 S-It Engine Helium Tank Safing 6-21
, 1
Requirements 7-1 SA-513 Longitudinal Acceleration
I 7-2
I, 5-2 S-IC Engines Thrust Buildup 5-3 at IU During S-IC Thrust Buildup
and LaUnch
5-3 S-IC Stage Propulsion 5-5
-, { '<
Perfonnance 7-2 SA-513 Longitudinal Acceleration
at IU at Time of S-IC Engine
7-2
;:.
1 5-4 S-IC Outboard Engine Thrust 5-7 Cutoff ~
Decay 7-3 t
j'
1I SA-513 Longitudinal Acceleration 7-3 "

I'
,
~
5-5 S-IC Fuel Tank Ullage 5-8 at IU During S-II Thrust Decay
'
Pressure and S-II/SWS Separation

~
) 5-6 S-IC LOX Tank Ullage 5-9 7-4 SA-513 Longitudinal Load Distri- 7-4
J Pressure bution at Time of Maximum Bending
i
~
~j
6-1 S-Il Engine start Tank
Perfonnance
6-2
7-5
Moment, CECO and OECO
SA-513 Maximum Bending Moment 7-5
6-2 S-Il Enaine Pump Inlet 6-4 7-6 SA-513 Lateral Acceleration During 7-5
i 6-3
Start Requirements
S-II Engine Thrust Buildup 7-7
Thrus t Bui 1dup and Launch
SA-513 Envelope of Maximum
~ Transients
6-5
Combined Loads
7-6
i
El
6-4
6-5
S-11 Steady State Operation
S-II Outboard Engines Thrust
6-6
6-8
7-8
7-9
SA-513 Modal Activity (Longitiduna1)
SA-513 Modal AcUvity (Lateral)
7-7
~ 7-8
~u 6-6
Decay
S-1I Fuel Tank Ullage 6-11
7..:10 IU, Upper Mounting Ring DataPSD
Comparison
7-10
~ Pressure
•"
q
8-1 SA-513' Trajectory and ST-124M 8-2
6-7 S-11 Fuel Pump Inlet 6-12 P1atfonn Velocity Comparisons, f
• Conditions Boost7 to-Orbit Insertion (Trajectory ,Ii
i MlnuslVDC «
~
1 ~
1~
j 1i
j ~
II
1;, .... _:",
j
I
I
'1
i 1
I
i
vii "
f" .~
,,~
Ii:'..'!
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (CONTINUED)

B-2 SA-513 Actual and Predicted 8-5 '11-4 S-11 Heat Shield Aft Face Pressure 11-6
Velocity Gained After GCS il-5 S-lljOWS Interstage Pressure 11-7
8-3 Attitude Commands 8-9 12-1 S-IC Base Region Total Heating 12-2
9-1 Pitch Plane Qynamics During 9-3 Rate
5- lC Burn 12-2 S-IC Base Region Gas Temperature 12-3
9-2 Yaw Plane Dynamics During 9-4 12-3 S-IC Thermal Environments Ambient 12-4
S-IC Burn Gas Temperature Under En;Jine Cocoon
9-3 Roll Dynamics During S-IC 9-5 12-4 S-11 Heat Shield Aft Heat Rate 12-5
Burn
9-4 Pitch and Yaw Plane Free 12-5 5-11 Heat Shield Recovery ,12-5
9-6 Temperature
Stream Angle of Attack
During S-It Burn 12-6 S-II Heat Shield Aft Radiation 12-7
9-5 SA-513 LH2 Peak-to-Peak 9-9 Heat Rate
Slosh .Mass Displacement 12-7 S-II Thrust Cone Forward Surface 12-7
• <
9-6 Pitch Plane Dynamics During 9-10 Temperature
63-Second Anomaly 12-8 Estimate of Maximum Predicted S-II 12-8
9-7 Yaw P1ane Dynamics During 9-11 Thrust Cone Temperatures
63-Second Anomaly 12-9 S-II Engine Compartment Gas 12-8
9-8 Roll Plane Dynamics During 9-12 Temperature (C674-206)
the 63-Second Anomaly 12-10 S-II Engine Compartment Gas 12-9
9-9 Lateral IU Acceleration Dur- 9-13 Temperature (C676-206)
ing 63-Second Anomaly 12-11 5-11 Engine Actuation System 12-10
9-10 Pitch and Yaw Plane Free 9-14 Reservoir Oil Temperature (Engine
Stream AnQle of Attack 4 Typical)
1
·1
1 During 63:Second Anomaly 12-12 SA-513 Predicted Location of 12-11
1
9-11 Pitch Plane Dynamics During 9-16 Separated now
I
11 s- II Burn 13-1 :IU Sub1imator Start-Up Parameters 13-3
9-12 Yaw Plane Dynamics During 9-17 '(Initial Cycle)
~
I S-II Burn 13-2 IU TCS Coolant Control Parameters 13-5
:I
l 9-13 SA-513 S-II Base Region 9-20 13-3 IU TCS Hydraulic Performance 13-6
j Pressures 13-4 IU TCS GH 2 Sphere Pressure 13-7
J
9-14 SA 513 .S-II Thrust Cone 9-21 (025-603)
1 Forward Surface Temperature
~., 9-15 5-11 Interstage Separation 9-24
13-5 IU Inertial Platform GH 2 Pressures 13-9
i Diagral!' 13-6 IU GBS GH2 Sphere Pressure 13-10
(010-603)
i; 9-16 S-II-13 Interstage Station
196 Tension Strap Analysis
9-25 13-7
13-8
·IU Selected Component Temperatures
IU Selected Component Temperatures
13-11
13-12 !
9-17 Attitude Errors at S-II/SWS 9-26
~ Staging 14-1 S-II Stage VHF Telemetry Gi'Ound
Station Coverage Time
14-4 ~
t
9-18 S-II ~istance Relative to
Sky1ab at. S-II Safing
9-27
14-2 Instrument Unit VHF Telemetry 14-5
t
~
1 Ground Station Coverage Time ,t..
10-1 . IU 6010 Battery Parameters 10-5 }l
10-2 IU 6020 Battery Parameters 10-6 I
14-3 'C-Band Acquisition and Loss Times 14-6 §
\~
11 10-3 IU 6030 Battery Parameters 10-7 14-4 CCS Coverage (Sheet 1 of 3) 14-7 f;
!i.
17-1 Propagation of the 63-Second 17-3 "
I
10-4 IU 6040 Battery Parameters 10~8

Transient ~
11-1 . 5-tC BCiSe'Heatshield 11-2 17-2 SA-513 R 11 Inertial Attitude 17-4
I,~
l'
Differential Pressure
11-2 S-II Heat Shield Forward Face
Pressure
11-3
17-3
Angle Transients During 63-Second
Anomaly
OWS Instrumentation Timeline for 17-5
I
11-3 S-II Thrust Cone Pressure 11-5 63-Second Anomaly
viii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (CONTINUED)

17-4 OWS Instrumentation Location 17-6 A-7 Pitch (Sx) and Yaw (Sz) Component A-ll
OWS Meteoroid Shield Instru- 17-7 Wind Shears at launch Time of
17-5 SA-513 (Sl-l)
~{ mentation External View
j
,I
17-6 OWS Configuration During 17-8 A-8 Relative Deviation of Temperature A-15
~
~ Meteoroid Shield Structure and Pressure from the PRA-63
,
Failure (Artist Concept) Reference Atmosphere, SA-513

I (Sl-l)
H
J!
'-1
17-7 S-II Stage Engine No. 1 17-10 A-9 Relative Deviation of Density and A-16
Actuator Response to the
~ 63-Second Transient Absolute Deviation of the Index
ji
,t of Refraction From the PRA-63
17-8 OWS Exterior DUring SL-2 CSM Reference Atmosphere, SA-513
~
17-11
Flyaround Inspection (Sl-l)
:j
~ 17-9 Simulated Force and Total 17-17 B-1 Skylab Space Vehicle. Configuration B-2
~J Impulse B-2 S-IC Stage Configuration 8-3
'j
fj 17-10 Comparison of Pctul and 17-18 B-3 S-II Stage Configuration B-6
lJ! Simulated Lateral IU Accelera-
Jl tion.During 63-Second Anomaly Instrument Unit Configuration B-a
~ B-4
~,.
n 17-11 Comparison of Actual and 17-19 B-5 Saturn Work Shop (SWS) in Orbital B-ll
Simulated Roll Rate During Configuration
fl 63-Second Anomaly B-6 Saturn Work Shop Habitable Area B-13
~~j 17-12 SAS Wing 2 Instrumentation 17-21
q
n
Timeline for 593 Second
Ii Anomaly
~:'-1 17-13 Instrumentation Location 17-23
;1
~l
andOWS ,Configuration Near
~i 593 Seconds
~
17-14 Interpretation of IU Control 17-24
i Measurements During 593-Second
Period
~~ 17-15 Meteoroid Shield-Flow 17-25
T~rough Auxiliary Tunnel
4
~
"1
,I 17-16 Meteoroid Shield Response 17-25
~
;,;
17-17 SL-l Auxiliary Tunnel Cal-
culated Pressure Distri-
17-26
~
'1 bution at 63 Seconds
!l
R A-l Surface Weather Map A-2
Approximately 5 lIZ Hours
H Before Launch of SA-513
~J
i A-2 500 Millibar Map Approxi-

mately 5 1/2 Hours Before
A-4
Itl" A-3
Launch of SA-513
Scalar Wind Speed at Launch A-7
Time of SA-513 (st-l)
.
~ ,
A-4 Wind Direction at Launch A-8

I Time of SA-513 (SL-l)
Pitch Wind Velocity Com-
I A-5
ponent (Wx) at Launch Time
A-9
~ of SA-513 (SL-l)
I l'
A-6 Yaw Wind Velocity Com-
ponent (Wz) at launch .Time
of SA-513 (Sl-l)
A-10
I
I
i i
4
h
:1
!I ix/x
~
,',i
:1
'j
l
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page Table Page
Mission Objective xxv 8-3 SA-513 Navigation Comparisons 8-5
Accomplishments (PACSS-13)
2-1 Time Base Summary 2-1 8-4 SA-513 Start Times for IGM 8-7
2-2 Significant Event Times 2-3 Guidance Commands
SlI1ll1ary 8-5 SA-513 End Conditions 8-10
2-3 Variable Time and Commanded 2-7 8-6 SA-513 Orbital-Phase Commanded 8-10
Switch Selector Events Attitude Angles
3-1 SA-513/SL-l Prelaunch 3-2 9-1 SA-513 Liftoff Conditions Mis- 9-2
Milestones alignment SlI1ll1ary
4-1 Comparison of Significant 4-7 9-2 Maximum Control Parameters 9-7
SA-513 Trajectory Events During S-IC Burn
4-2 Comparison of SA-513 S-IC 4-8 9-3 Maximum Control Parameters During 9-15
Cutoff Events S-II Burn
4-3 Comparison of SA-513 S-II 4-9 10-1 S-IC Stage Battery Power Con- 10-1
i Cutoff Events sumption
,
1
S-II Stage Battery Power Con- 10-2
4-4 Comparison of SA-513 Separa- 4-10 10-2
I j 4-5
tion Events
Compari,son of SA-513 Earth
Orbit Insertion Conditions
4-12 10-3
sumption
IU Battery Power Consumption 10-4
~
, 14-1 SA-513 Measurement Summary 14-2
'1
4-6 SA-513 Comparison of Spent 4-15 14-2 SA-513 Flight Measurements Waived 14-3
J S-II Stage Orbital Parameters Prior to Flight
El at 2 Hours Range Time
~~ 4-7 SA-513 Spent S-II Stage
Orbital Parameters on Sixth
4-16 14-3
14-4
SA-513 Measurement Malfunctions
SA-513 Questionable Flight
14-3
14-3
~ Revolution Measurements
'~"L
5-1 F-l Engine Systems Buildup 5-2 14-5 SA-513 Launch Vehicle Telemetry 14-10
!! Times Links
~ 5-2 S-IC Individual Standard Sea 5-4 14-6 Command and Communication System 14-12
~ Level Engine Performance Command History. SA-513
H 5-3 S-IC Propellant ,Mass History 5-7 15-1 Total Vehicle Mass - S-IC Burn 15-::'
~ 6-7 Phase -, Kilograms

6-1 S-Il Engine Performance
15-2 Total Vehicle Mass - S-IC Burn 15-3
:1 6-2 SA-513 Flight Flight S-II 6-9 Phase - Pounds
f! Prnpellant Mass History
~ 15-3 Total Vehicle Mass - S-11 Burn 15-4
M 8-1 SA-513 Inertial Platform 8-3 Phase - Kilograms
!iri'{'" Velocity Comparisons
15-4 Total Vehicle Mass - S-11 Burn 15-4
~
8-2 SA-513 Velocity Gain After 8-4 Phase - Pounds
fi Guidance Cutoff Signal
I
I '
~
;f
~
I
I 'I
'(
,!
xi
LIST OF TABLES (CONT!NUED)
Table Page
15-5 Flight Sequence Mass Summary 15-5
15-6 Mass Characteristics 15-6
Comparison
17-1 Meteoroid Shield Failure 17-9
Event Correlation
17-2 OWS' Meteoroid Shield Torsion 17-13
Rod Indicated Positions
17-3 Sequential Summary of Events 17-14
Related to 63-Sec~nd Anomaly
17-4 Sequential Summary of Events 17-20
Related to 593-Second Anomaly
A-l Surface Observations at A-3
SA-513 Launch Time
A-2 Systems Used to Measure A-5
Upper Air Wind Data for
SA~513
A-3 Maximum Wind Speed in High A-12

Dynamic Pressure Regi on for
Apollo/Saturn 501 through
Saturn 513 Vehicles
A-4 Extreme Wind Shear Values in A-13
the High Dynamic Pressure
Region for Apollo/Saturn
501 through Saturn 513
Vehicles
A-5 Se.lected Atmospheric Obser- A-17
vations for Apollo/Saturn
501 through Saturn 513
Vehicle Launches at
Kennedy Space Center,
F,lorida
S-IC Significant Configura- 8-5
tion Changes
S-II Significant Configura- B-7
tion Changes
IU Significant Configura- 8-10
tion Differences Between
IU-512 and IU-513
xii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This report is published by the Saturn Flight Evaluation Working Group,

composed of representatives of Marshall Space Flight Center, Kennedy
Space Center, and MSFC's prime contractors, and in cooperation with the
Johnson Space Center. Significant contributions to the evaluation have
been made by:
George C. Marshall Space Flight Center
Science and Engineering
Aero-Astrodynamics Laboratory
Astrionics Laboratory
Computation Laboratory
Astronautics Laboratory
Saturn Program Office
Skylab Program Office
John F. Kennedy Space Center
The Boeing Company
International Business Machines Corporation
Rockwell International/Space Division
Rockwell International/Rocketdyne Division
General Electric Company
~ i
xiii / xiv
ABBREVIATIONS
ACN Ascension Islano DAC Data Acquisition Camera

ACS Alternating Current Power DDAS Digital Data Acquisition
Supply System
J\t~ Airlock t~odule DEE Di gi tal Events Evaluator
ANT Antigua EBW Exp 1odi ng Bri dge Wi re
AOS Acquisition of Signal ECO Engine Cutoff
ARIA Apollo Range Instrument ECP Engineering Change Proposal
Ai rcraft ECS Environmental Control
ATM/DIl, Apollo Telescope Mount System
Deployment Assembly EDS Emergency Detection System
ATM Apollo Telescope Mount EDT Eastern Daylight Time
BDA Bermuda EMR Engine Mixture Ratio
CCS Command and Communications ESC Engine Start Comnand
System
CCW Counter Clockwise EST Eastern Standard Time
1
CDOT Countdown Demonstration FAS Fixed Airlock Shroud
I
1 Test FCC Flight Control Computer
CECO Center Engine Cutoff FM/H~ Frequency t~odul at; on/
CIF Central Instrumentation Frequency Modulation
i
,1 Facil ity FRT Flight Readiness Test
CG Center of Gravity FWD Forward
CM Command ~1odu 1e GBI Grand Bahama Island
CNV Cape Kennedy GBS Gas Beari ng Sys tern
CRO Carnarvon GCS Guidance tutoff Signal
eRP Computer Reset Pulse GDS Goldstone
CSM Corrrnand and Servi ce Module GG Gas Generator
CT4 Cape Tel emetry 4 GOX Gaseous Oxygen
CVS Contfnuous Vent System GRR Guidance Reference Release
I CW, Clockwise GSCU Ground Service Cooling
j
t
. I
CVI Canary Island Unit
\I
1
J
. 1
·. 1
i
I r'l
t xv
I
\
.~
:1
t~
.
;1
\;:
I;
~.
~I
t' ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED)
~j
~I
"~ GSE Ground Support Equipment MAD Madrid
i,
~j
GTK Grand Turk Island MAP Message Acceptance Pulse
j
1 GWI'1 Guam MDA Multiple Dockin9 Adapter

1
1 HA\~ Hawaii MILA Merritt Island Launch

~
J HDA Holddown Arm Area
ML ~1obi 1e Launcher
HE Helium
HFCV Helium Flow Control Valve MLC Mobile Launcher Compu~er
HSK Honeysuckle Creek r~R Mi xture Ratio
I
ICD Interface Controli MRCV Mi xture Ratio Control
! Valve
l Document
1 MS Meteoroid Shield
j IGM Iterative Guidance Mode
I1 MSFC Marshall Space Flight
IMU Inertial Measurement Unit Center
--
I
!
IS Interstage MSFN Manned Space Flight
IU Instrument Unit Network
L1SC Johnson Space Center MTG Mounting
KSC Kennedy Space Center NASA National ,o,eronauti cs and
KW Kilowatt Space Administration
Liquid Hydrogen NFL Ne\"foundl and
I
LH2
LMR Launch Mission Rule NPSP Net Positive Suction
I,;
Pressure
·1 LOR Lunar Orbit Rendezvous NPV Nonpropulsive Vent
! LOS Loss,of Si gnal Orbital Assembly (SWS
OA
1 LOX Li qUi; d Oxygen Plus A CSr~)
•
! LSC Linear Shaped Charge OAT Overall Test
1
LUT Laun1ch Umbil i ca 1 Tower OECO Outboard Engine Cutoff
1 LV Launich Vehi cle 01 Orbit Insertion
II LVDA Launch Vehicle Data
OMPT Observed Mass Point
I
i
Adapter Trajectory
1
LVDC taunch Vehicle. Digital Operational Trajecto.ry
CO!'1puter OT ,\
LVGSE Launch Vehi cl e Ground OWS Orbital Work Shop (A
,
i
Support Equipment -~""-
. Modi fied S-IVB Stage)
i.
\
1
t
icl xvi
ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED)
PACSS Project Apollo Coordinate SL Skylab

System Standards SM Servi ce Module
PAFB Patrick Air Force Base SRSCS Secure Range Safety
PCB Printed Circuit Board Command System
PCM Pulse Code Modulation STDV Start Tank Discharge
PCM/FM Pulse Code Modulation/ Valve
Frequency Modulation SV Space Vehicle
PIO Process Input/Output SWS Saturn Work Shop (OWS,
PRA Patrick Reference AM, MDA, ATM, PS and IU)
Atmosphere TACS Thruster Attitude Control
PS Payi oad Shroud System
PTCS Propellant Tanking TCS Thermal Conditioning
Computer System System
PU Propellant Utilization TCS Terminal Countdown
Sequencer
PWM Pulse Width Modulator TEX Corpus Christi (Texas)
q Free Stream Dynamic TM Telemetry
P·ressur'e
RACS Remote Automatic TS~1 Tail Service Mast
Calibrat~.on System TVC Thrust Vector Control
RF Radi 0 Frf.'quency USB Unified S-Band
RP-l H.vdrocarbot\,,, Fuel (S-IC UT Universal Time
Stage) .
VA Volt Amperes
SA Saturn VAN Vangu'ard (Ship)
SA Service Arm VDC Volts Direct Current
SACS Servi ce Arm Control VHF Very Hi gh Frequency
Switches
SAS Solar Array System VIB Vibration
SC Spacecraft WLP Wallops. Island
SCFM Standard Cubic Feet per
Minute
SCIM Standard Cubic Inch per
Minute
xvii/xviii
~1fSSION PLAN
The Suturn V SA-5l3 (Skylab-l) is to place the Saturn Work Shop (SWS)
in d nearly circular earth orbit at an altitude of 234 n. mi. and inclined
50° to the equator. SA-5l3 is comprised of the S- IC-13, S-II-13, and the
[nstrument Unit (IU)- 5l3 . This is the first flight in the Skylab Program
and the onl y planned flight incorporating the SWS payload.
Launch is scheduled to occur on the 14th of May 1973 from Launch Complex
39 , Pad A of the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) at 1:30 p.m., EDT. The
veh icle is aligned along a 90 ° azimuth at liftoff. Following liftoff
the vehicle rolls to a flight azimuth of approximately 41 ° measured eas t
of north. Vehicle weight at ignition is nominally 6,297,336 lbm.
The S-IC stage powered fli ght lasts approxi ma tely 158 seconds. The S-II
stage provides powered fli ght f or approximately 430 se conds inserting
the SWS into its circular orbit. Separation of the SWS from the S-II
will be accomplished through the use of retro-motors located on the
S-11 stage whose thrust places the S-II into an elliptical orb it of
234 x 197 n. mi. altitude. Vehicle weight at Guidance Cutoff Sig nal
(GCS) i s nominally 319,129 lbm. SWS weight after separation is nominally
197 ,180 1bm .
A maneuver of the SWS to the local vertical attitude will be commanded
from the IU at 599 seconds. The payload shroud (nominally 25,640 lbm)
will be jettisoned from this attitude at approximately 908 seconds.
The next planned attitude change will place the SWS into a solar inertial
body attitude with the positive Z body axis pointed at the center of the
sun and the X body axis in the orbita l plane and pointing in the direc-
tion of the sunset terminator. This orientation is to be maintained
until control is transferred to the Apollo Telescope Moun t (Jm1).
ATM and associated solar array deployment are accomplished under the
direction of the IU nominally at 998 and 1492 seconds, respectively.
ATM telemetry is activated at approximate ly 2208 seconds.
Orb ital Work Shop (OWS) solar arrays are to be deployed at 246~ seconds,
and the meteoroid shield is to be deployed at 5763 seconds to rJrovide
OWS t hermal control capability. Command of the Thruster Atti~ ude
Control System is transferred to the ATM digital computer at 17,400 seconds.
No experiments are assigned to the SA-513 launch vehicle.
xi x / xx
FLIGHT SUMMARY
The first launch vehicle of the Skylab series, SA-S13 (Skylab-l), was
l aunched at 13:30:00 Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on May 14, 1973 , from
Pad 39A of the Kennedy Space Center. The performance of the launch
ve hicle was satisfactory and all t~SFC objectives were accomplished.
The ground systems supporting the SA-S13/Skylab-l countdown and launch
performed satisfactorily except f or the occurrence of LVGSE Mobi l e
Lau ncher compute r drum read errors . This malfunction ca used no l aunch
del ay. There were no unschedu l ed holds in the countdown . Damage to the
pad, Launch Umbilical Tower (LUT) and support equipment 'las considered
min imal.
The vehicle was launched on an azimuth 90 uegrees east of north. A
rol l maneuver was initiated at 12.2 seconds that placed the vehicle on
a flight azimuth of 40.880 degrees east of north. The trajectory para-
meters were close to nominal except the S-IC velocity which was 18.0
meters per second greater than nominal at the ourboard engine cutoffs.
The largest contributors to this velocity have been identified as the
tai lwind and higher stage specific impulse. S-II stage performance
dev iated from nominal because the aft interstage failed to separate.
The Saturn Work Shop (SWS) insertion conditions were achieved 0. 64
second later than nominal with altitude nomina l and ve l oci ty 0.6 mete r
per second greater than nominal. Orbital insert ion pa rameters of t he
spent S-II stage deviated slightly fr om nominal but reco ntact wi t h t he
SWS was precluded for at least eight months.
All S-IC propulsion systems performed satisfactorily. The propulsion
performance vias very close to the predicted nominal . Overall stage site
thrust was 0.07 percent higher than predicted. Total propellant con-
sumpt ion rate was 0.11 percent lower than predicted and the total
consumed mixture ratio was 0.46 percent higher than predicted. Specific
impul se was 0.18 percent higher than predicted . Total propellant con-
sumption from Holddown Arm release to Outboard Engines Cutoff (OECO)
wa s low by 0.18 percent. The F-l engine model specification LOX pump
inlet total pressure upper limit of 150 psia was exceeded by all engines
at Center Engine Cutoff (CECa) as predicted. Engine 5 exceeded the
specification by 4 psia and Engines 1, 2, 3, and 4 by 2 psia. The
hi gher pressures are attributed to the higher boost acceleration
sched ule for the Skylab mission tha n for Apollo and caused no problem
for f light. The F-l engine shutdown sequence was changed from t he 1-4
seque nce used on prev ious f l i ghts to a 1-2-2 sequence (E ngi nes 5, 1-3 ,
2-4) to reduce vehicle dynami cs. CECa was initiated by the Instrument
Unit (IU) at 140.72 seconds, 0.02 seconds later than planned. DECO was
initiated by the LOX depletion sensors for engine pair 1-3 at 158.16
xxi
seconds and for engine pair 2-4 at 158.23 as predicted. At DECO of
engine pair 1-3, the LOX residual was 30,582 lbm compared to the pre-
di cted 37,175 lbm and the fuel residual was 27,727 lbm compared to the
predi cted 31,337 i bm. The S-IC hydraulic system performed satisfactorily.
The S-II propulsion systems performed satisfactorily throughout the
fl ight. The S-II Engine Start Command (ESC), as sensed at the engines,
occurred at 160.61 seconds. CECO was initiated by the Instrument Unit
(I U), based on characteristics velocity, at 314.05 seconds. DECO,
in itiated by an IU velocity signal, occurred at 588.99 seconds giving
an outboard engine operating time of 428.38 seconds or 0.7 seconds
longer than predicted. Engine mainstage performance was satisfactory
th roughout flight. The total stage thrust at the standard time slice
(61 seconds after S-II ESC) was 0.13 percent below predicted. Total
propellant flowrate, including pressurization flow, was 0.18 percent
be low predicted, and the stage specific impulse was 0.05 percent above
predicted at the standard time slice. Stage propellant mixture ratio
wa s 0.54 percent below predicted. Engine thrust buildup and cutoff
transients were within the predicted envelopes. The propellant manage-
ment system performance was satisfactory throughout loading and flight,
and all parameters were nominal. Propellant residuals at DECO were
16,616 lbm LOX, 2319 lbm less than predicted and 5878 lbm LH2, 319 1bm
less than predicted. Control of Engine Mixture Ratio (EMR) was accom-
pl ished with the two-position pneumatically operated mixture ratio
co ntrol valves. The low EMR step occurred 1.1 seconds later, relative
to ESC, than predicted. The performance of the LOX and LH2 tank pres-
su ri za ti on systems 'wer'e sati sfactory. Ull age pressL!r~ in bot h tanks
wa s adequate to meet or exceed engine inlet net positi lle suction
pressure minimum requirements throughout mainstage. The engine ser-
vi cing, recirculation, helium injection, and valve actuation systems
perfo rmed satisfactorily. All orbital safing operatio~s were performed
sat'isfactorily. Safing of the LH2 and LOX propellatl!, tanks was verified
by ullage pressures which decayed to less than 50% of design burst val ue s .
The engine helium and hydrogen pressure spheres were safed success fully
when the vent valves were opened at 805.1 seconds. S-II hydraulic
system performance was normal throughout the flight.
Evaluation of the structural performance of the launch vehicle shows no
area of concern for the SA-513 vehicle, and all conditions were well
within the envelope observed on recent Apollo flights. The maximum
structural loads were experienced during the S-IC boost phase and were
be low the design values. The maximum bending moment was 82 x 106 1bf-in
at the S-IC LOX tank (approximately 40 percent of the design value).
The maximum longitudinal transient responses at the IU were +0.15 g and
~0.05 g and occurred at S-IC CECO and DECO, respectively. Tnese values
are lower tha n those observed on recent flights . During S-IC boost
phase the expected sma ll osc i llat ory response i n the fi rs t long i tud i nal
mode (6 Hz) was observed from approximately 95 seconds urti1 CECO. The
Instrument Unit sensors reached ~a.a6 g just prior to CECa. This is the
xxii
same level experienced on AS-512 and AS-511. POGO did not occur during
S-11 boost. The SA-513 vibration levels were similar at liftoff and
lower during subsequent flight as compared to those experienced on
prev ious missions.
The Guidance and Navigation System successfully supported the accomplish-
ment of all guidance and navigation mission objectives with no discre-
~ancies in performance of the hardware. The end conditions at orbit
in sertion were attained with insignificant error. An anomaly related to
the flight program occurred at 3805 seconds, during the first orbital
revo lution. This \las a switch from the inertial platform pitch axis
gimbal fine resolver to the backup gi mbal resolver. A single test
fa ilure of the ya'vl axis gi mbal resolver "Zero Reasonableness Test"
occurred at 190 seconds. Guidance and navigation system components
responded to the physical excitations experienced by the vehicle at 63
and 593 seconds. A change in the navigation scheme was instituted on
th is flight to avoid the possibility of introducing significant errors
because of lateral acceleromete~ pickups limiting against their mechani-
cal stops during liftoff. However, telemetry data indicated that no
limiting occurred. The guidance scheme was modified to include inertially-
referenced pitch, as well as yaw, cOrTlllands for the t ower clearance maneuver
because of the orientation of the platform coordinate system, required ~y
the northerly flight azimuth. A yaw steering command profile based on
increased anticipated cross-wind components was added to the atmospheric-
boost phase of guidance.
The control systems functioned correctly throughout the flight of SA-513.
Engi ne gimbal deflections were nominal. Bending and slosh dyanmics were
adequately stabilized. No undue dynamics accompanied any separation,
however, t he S-IC/S-Il interstage failed to separate and caused high
temperature and pressures in the S-Il thrust cone region during the S-II
burn. The failure is attributed to damage to the linear shaped charge
or its cover resulting from Orbital Work Shop (OWS) meteoroid shield
debr is.
The SA-513 launch vehicle electrical systems performed satisfactorily.
The emergency detection system, in an open loop configuration, functioned
properly. The operation of the batteries, power supplies and switch
selectors was normal. All exploding bridge wire firing units performed
normally including the S-II second plane separation EBW firing units.
The SA-513 base pressures were similar to Apollo flights except for t he
effect of the S-II second plane separation failure. The S-IC base heat
shield was instrumented with two differential pressure measurements.
The S-IC flight data show trends and magnitudes similar to the Apollo
flight data. The S-II base region contained three absolute pressure
measurements. The measurement on the aft face of the heat shield showed
a similar trend and magnitude to Apollo flight data. Measurements on the
xxiii
forward face of the heat shield and thrust cone surface agreed with
Apollo flight data up to the time of second plane separation. Following
t he time of second plane separation, however, the data from these measure-
ments remain at a higher level than that seen during the Apollo flights.
These higher levels, along with other anomalous data led to the conclu-
sion that the S-IC/S-II interstage had failed to separate. S-II forward
skirt pressure showed a mo re rapid decrease in pressure than was expected
after 67 seconds, indicating a leak in t hat area probably caused by
damage from meteoroid shield debris.
The thermal environments of the base regions of the SA-513 stages were
nominal except for the effect of S-II stage second plane separation
failure. The S-II base region thermal environment was expected to be
about the same as that experienced on Apollo flights. However, the
S-IC/S-II interstage failed to separate; consequently, the thrust cone
region temperatures following scheduled time of separation were greater
than experienced during Apollo flights. Aerodynamic heating environ-
ments were not measured on SA-513. Since the S-IC/S-II separat i on
dynamics for SA-513 were nomina", the heating rates to the S-JC forward
dome and S-II base area during separation were well below maximum allow-
ab le values.
Environmental control system performance was satisfactory. The S-IC
st age forward compartment and aft compartment thermal environments
were adequately maintained throughout the launch countdown and S-IC
boost phase. The S-II stage engine compartment conditioning system
mai ntained the ambient temperature and thrust cone surface tempera-
tures within design ranges throughout the launch countdown. The system
al so maintained an inert atmosphere within the compartment. The IU
stage environmental control system maintained coolant temperatures,
pressures, and flowrates continuously within the required ranges and
design limits.
Al l data systems performed satisfactorily throughout the flight. Flight
measurements from onboard telemetry were 99.7 percent reliable. Tele-
me try performance was satisfactory and no hardware anomalies were
obs erved. Radio Frequency (RF) propagation was satisfactory, though
the usual interference due to flame effects and staging were experienced.
Usable Very High Frequency (VHF) data were received until 67,620 seconds
(18:47:00). The Secure Range Safety Command Systems (SRSCS) on the
S- IC and S-II stages were ready to perform their functions properly,
on command, if flight conditions during launch phase had required
des truct. The system properly safed the S-II destruct system on a
corrrnand transmitted shortly aftar completion of powered flight (589
seconds). The performance of the Command Communications System (CCS)
was satisfactory from liftoff thro ugh 151,200 seconds (42:40:45. Good
t racking data were received from the C-Band radar, with Hawaii (HAW)
ind icating last record of i nterrogat i on at 16,915 seconds (4:41 :55).
In general, ground eng i neering camera coverage was good; however, there
was no coverage of the 63 second anomaly because of cloud cover .
xxiv
Total vehicle mass, determined from post-flight analysis, was within
1. 91 percent of prediction from ground ignitio n through S-II stage
shu tdown. This larger than anticipated difference was due mainly to
the S-IC/S-II interstage not separating as expected. Had the S-II
stage residuals and OWS not been 4900 pounds less than predicted,
t hi s percentage would have been greater.
Skylab-l launch vehicle instrumentation recorded unusual disturbances
at approximately 63 and 593 seconds during flight. The first evidence
of anomalous behavior was an increase in S-II stage antenna reflected
power beginning at 59.87 seconds. At 62.76 seconds the Work Shop film
vault vibration measurement recorded a structural transient which
propagated up and down the space vehicle. At approximately 593 seconds,
immediately after S-II/OWS separation , another transient was recorded
on the IU and Orbital Work Shop (OWS) instrumentation. The cause of the
tra nsient at 63 seconds was structural failure and release of the Orbital
Wo rk Shop (OWS) meteoroid shield, and premature fracture of the OWS Solar
Array System (SAS) Wing No. 2 t~e down fittings, permitting Wing No.2
t o partially deploy. The 593 second transient was caused by the
partially deployed SAS Wing No.2 being rotated past its fully deployed
position and torn from its hinges by impingement of the S-II retro
pl ume. The vehicle reacted properly to the disturbances originating
at the OWS. The origin of this anomaly was in a unique payload and
external to the launch vehicle; therefore, no launch vehicle corrective
action is planned. The only significant effect was the damage causing
the S-II second plane separation failure.
The pl anned Saturn Work Shop (SWS) activation and deployment functions
occurred as scheduled except for the solar ~~ray wing problems, with
transfer of attitude control from the IU to the ATM at approximatel y
4 hours and 50 minutes. The payload shroud was jettisoned. and the
Apollo Telescope Mount (ATM) and its solar array were deployed as
pl anned during the first orbit. The OWS solar array Wing No.1
rel eased as planned during the first orbit but stopped after only a
few degrees of movement. This array was restrained from further move-
me nt by debris from the meteoroid shield.
The first astronaut crew arrived at the SWS on May 25. 1973. After a
fl yaround inspection and a soft docking. the crew undocked and attempted
to free the solar array Wing No. 1 using special tools while standing in
the open command module hatch. This activit~' was not successful. A
later attempt on mission day 14 using Skylab extravehicular activity
fa cilities was successful in deploying the wing which subsequently
operated normally.
The crew completed the deactivation procedures and left the SWS on
June 22, 1973, after a ~ tay of 28 days.
xxv/xxvi
MISSION OBJ ECTIVES ACCOMPLISHMENT
Table 1 presents the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) launch vehicle
ob jectives for Skylab 1 as defined in the "Satu rn Mission Implementation
Pl an SL-l/SA-51 3," MSFC Docume'lt PM-SAT-B010.21, Revision A, dated
March 30, 1973. An assessment of the degree of accompl i shment of each
objective is shown. Discussion supporting the assessment can be found
in other sections of this report as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Mission Objective Accomplishments
DEGREE OF SECTION IN
NO . LAUNCH VEHICLE OBJECTIVES ACCOMPLISHMENT DISCREPANCIES WHICH DISCUSSED
1 Boost and insert the Saturn Work Comp lete None 4
Shop (SWS) into,a circular earth
orbit of about 234 n mi. alti-
tude at an inclination of 50°
with a descending node of 153.25°.
2 After earth orbit insertion, Complete None 4

separate the S-II stage from
the SWS so as to preclude
recontact with the SWS for
at least eight months.
3 After separation, vent the Complete None 6
S-II stage residual pro-
pellants and pres surants to
make the stage safe from
explosive overpressure.
4 Provide attitude control signals Comp lete None 9
to the Thruster Attitude Control
System (TACS) until SWS attitude
control is switched to the Apollo
Telescope Module Digital Com-
puter (ATMDC).
5 Provide switch selector Complete None. Orbital Work 2 and 17
commands to initiate SWS Shop deployment prob-
deployment operations. 1ems were not re-
lated to swi tch
se lector commands.
xxvi i /xxvi;;
FAILURES AND ANOMALIES
Eval uat ion of the Skylab-l launch vehicle and Launch Vehicle Ground
Support Equipment data revealed the four failures and/or anomalies
summarized below, the first and fourth of which are considered
significant.
SECTI~
VEHiClE CORRECTI VE ACTI~
In:M ANOIW.Y O~ FAILuRE (CAUSE) SIGNIFICANC. (CLASSIFICATION) REFERENCE
SYST£M
1 ; -11 SECOHO AFT INT£RSTAG£ FAILED TO SEP~RATE NOME ON THIS MISSI ON. HOWEVER. SI MILAR ENGINEERING CHANGE PROPOS AL 9.5.2
PLANE WHEN ~ AN DED AT 189 . 9 SECONDS . OCCURRENCE ON MANNED MISSION COULD ' ( ECP ) 7129 ACTION PENDING . 10 . 3
SEP ARATION (IN(OMPLET£ PROPAGATION OF THE RESl'LT IN CATASTROPHIC FAIL URE IF NOT 11.0
~ I N E AA SHAPE D CHARGE DUE TO DETICTED OR MANDATORY ABORT If DETECTE D. 12 . 0
O~ AGE fROM OWS DEBRIS .) (APr 19C SIGN i fiC AN T f AILURE, APO CC
NON· CONFO RMAN CE CATEGORY (NCC] I)
2 LVGSE/ESE ERRONEOUS READOUTS fROM THE H08ILE PRECl UOED EXECUTI ~ Of fO UR NON- CRITI CAL NOME . 3.3
LAUNCHER COMPUTE R MAGIIET IC STORAGE LAlJICH f (TiONS. ( AP D 19C fAIL URE.
DII!14 STAATI NG AT T-l HOUlI 58 APD U NCC C)
MINUTES. ( I""ROP ER SEATI NG Of
PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARD.)
3 GUIDAN CE , IN ERTIAL PL ATFO ~ PITCH AXIS GIM8AL LOSS or REOON OAN CY . ( APD 19( ANOMALY . REASONABLENESS TEST CONSTANT B.O
NAV IGATION FINE RESOL YER SWITCHeD TO THE APD C. NCC C) WILL BE CHAIIGED fROM 1.4· TO
BACKUP RESOLVER AT 3805 SECONDS . 2. 0· fOR SL- 3 AND SL- C.
( IMPROPER SETTI NG Of TEST CONSTANT CHANGED TEST CONSTANT PROHIBITS
AN D NUlL SHIFT IN CONTROL SIGNAL ZERO REASONABLENESS TEST fAILURE
PROCESSOR. EITHER SUfFICIENT TO WITHIN THE MEASURED CONTROL SYS-
CAUSE f AILURE Of ZERO REASONABLE- TEM DE~OBAND . IN THE EVENT
NESS T£ST IN CONTROl DEAOBAND.) ANOTHER MISSION SIMILAR TO
SL-l WERE PL ANN ED . CONSIOE RA -
Tl ON WO lA.D BE GIVEN TO INHI-
BIT ING THE TEST DUR ING
ORB ITAL OPERATIONS .
4 LAUNCH LA CH VEHICLE INSTRlMENTATION THE LA!I4tH VEHI CL E REACTED PROPERL Y NO COR RE CTIVE ACTION PLANN ED 17 . 0
VEHICLE RE COR DE D UN USUAL DISTURBAN CE AT TO TH E EXT£ RNAL DIS TU RBAN CES WITH NO fO R THE LA CH VEHICLE S Y S T£~ .
APPROXI MATELY 63 AN D 593 SECONDS SIGH lf lCAIIT Eff ECT ON LAUNCH VEHICLE
DUl!ING fliGHT . ( AT APP ROXl MAT£LY PERFORMANCE EXCEPT SECON D PL AII E
63 SECONDS THE OR81TAL WORK SNOP SE PAAATION FAI LURE. (APD 19C
(OWS) II£T£OROID SHIELD STRut- SIGN IFI CAIIT AIIOIW. Y)
TURAL LY FA' LED AII D OWS SOLAR AR RAY
SYST£M (SAS) WING NO . 2 UN LATCH ED
PREHATUltELY . AT AP PROXlHAT£L Y
593 SECONDS. THE PARTI AL LY
DEPLOYED SAS WING NO . 2 WAS TORN OF F
AT THE HI IIGE . APPM£N n Y BY
I""I _ " T FROM ~E S-II RETIIO
PLlI4E . )
xxix/xxx
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE
This report provides the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) Headquarters, and other interested agencies, with the launch
vehicle evaluation results of the SA-513 flight (Sky1ab-1). The basic
objective of flight evaluation is to acquire, reduce, analyze, evaluate
and report on flight data to the extent required to assure future
mission success and vehicle reliability. To accomplish this objective,
actual flight problems are identified, their causes determined, and
recommendations made for appropriate corrective action.
1.2 SCOPE
This report contains the performance evaluation of the major launch
vehicle systems, with special emphasis on problems. Summaries of launch
operations and Saturn Work Shop performance are included.
The official George C. Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) position at
this time is represented by this report. It will not be followed by a
similar report unless conti'ilued analysis or new information should prove
the conclusions presented herein to be significantly inco.rrect.
:. !
i
1.3 PERFORMANCE PREDICTIONS BASELINE
Unless otherwise noted, all performance predictions quoted herein for
comparison purposes are based on the SL-1 Launch Vehicle Operational
Trajectory Data for May 14 1aunch, transmi tted by S&E-AERO-MFT -59-73,
dated May 3rd.
. !
I
.;
:1.· ·1-1/ 1-2
SECTION 2
EVENT TIMES
2.1 SUMMARY OF EVENTS

Range zero occurred at 13:30:00 Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) (17:30:00
Universal Time [UT]) May 14, 1973. Range time is the elapsed time from
range zero, and is the time used throughout this report unless otherwise
noted. Time from base time is the elapsed time from the start of the
indicated time base. Table 2-1 presents the time bases used in the
flight sequence program.
Table 2-1. Time Base Summary
VEHICLE TIME* GRoUrlD TINE**

TIME BASE SECONDS SECONDS SIGNAL START
To -16.95 -16.95 Guidance Reference Release
Tl 0.59 0.59 IU UlObil i ca 1 Di sconnect

Sensed by LVDC
T2 140.79 140.79 Initiated by LVDC 0.1
Seconds after S-IC CECa
COIIVIland
T3 158.25 158.25 S-IC DECO Sensed by LVDC
T4 589.17 589.17 S-II DECO Sensed by LVDC
T4A 919.27 919.27 Vehicle Achieved Gravity
Gradient Attitude
Withi n 5°
T5 29,399.53
t'
-29,399.42 fi rst Computation Cycle
After T4 + 28810 Seconds
*Range Time of occurrence as indicated by uncorrected LVDC c~ock,

i.e., the time of event as tagged onboard, converted to range time,
**Range Time of ground receipt of te1emetered signal from vehicle.
Inc1 udes telemetry transmi ssi on time and LVDC c10c'k correcti on.
See Figure 2-1.. --
The start of time bases TO' Tl' T2 and T3 were nominal. T4 was initiated
approximately 0.7 seconds late, after receiving the S-II velocity cutoff
and S-II engines out interruot as discussed in Sections 6 and 90f this
document. Start time of T4 A was approximately 13.1 seconds earlier than
predicted, initiated when the vehicle achieved an attitude within 5° of
being parallel with the local vertical. Time base TS was initiated
by the Launch Vehicle Digital Computer (LVDC) during the first computation
cycle to exceed T4 + 28,810 seconds and was approximately 0.9 seconds
later than predicted.
2-1
40
20
Vl
0
Z
'"
u
w
0
~
............. --
~~
Vl
:J
-" -20
;:
...
w -40 ------ --
::E:
;:: "---
-60
~ t"--.....
u
c
>
-"
v.
:::> -80 r - - - - - - - ----
~
;;.:
E
..
~
w
::E:
-100
~
<:>
z:.:> -120 -- ----. .-- I--
'"
a:
<:>
-140 ~
o 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30.000 35.000
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
o 2:00:00 4:00:00 6:00:00 8:00:00

RANGE TIME, HOURS :MINUTES :SECONDS
* RANGE TIME OF GROUND RECEIPT OF TELEMETERED SIGNAL FROM VEHICLE.

** lVDC TIME OF OCCURRENCE.
Fi~ure 2-1. SA-513 LV DC Clock/Ground Time Difference
Figure 2-1 shows the difference between telemetry signal receipt at a

ground station and time of occurrence of an event as indicated by the
LVDC clock. This curve includes the adjustments for LVDC clock speed.
A summary of significant event times for SA-5l3 is given in Table 2-2.
The preflight predicted times have been adjusted to match the actual
first motion time. The predicted times for establishing actual minus
predicted times in Table 2-2 were taken from 40M33633B, "Interface Control
Document Definition of Saturn SA-513/Skylab 1 Flight Sequence Program ll
and from the Skylab-l Launch Vehicle Operational Trajectory Data for
May 14 launch as transmitted by S&E-AERO-MFT-59-73, dated May 3, 1973.
2.2 VARIABLE TIME AND COMMANDED SWITCH SELECTOR EVENTS
Table 2-3 lists the switch selector events which were issued during the
flight, but were not programmed for specific times.
2-2
Table 2-2. Significant Event Times Summary
RANGe TIME TIME FROM BASE
ITEf.! EVENT CESCR I PT ION ACTUAL AC T-PRED AC Tl,JAL AC T-PRED
SE--' SFC SEC SEC
1 ~UIDANCE PEFERENCE RELEASE -17.0 0.0 -11.5 0.1

(GRR)
2 S-IC ENGINE STAR T SEQUENCE -8.9 0.0 ';q. '5 -0.1

,,COMM AI. C (GROUN D)
3 S-IC ENG I NE NO.5 START -<>.8 0.1 -7.3 0.1
4 S-IC ENG I NE NO.1 START -6.5 0.0 -7.0 0.0
5 S-IC ENGINE NO.3 START -f,.7 '0.0 -1.2 0.0
6 S-IC ENG r NE NO.2 START -6.7 0.0 -7.2 0.0
1 S-IC ENGII\E NO.4 START -6.3 0.0. -6.8 0.0
8 ALL S-IC ENGINES THRUST OK -1.8 -0.3 -2.4 -0.3
9 RANGE ZERO 0.0 -0.6
10 ALL HCUHJOWN ARMS RELEASED 0.2 0.0 -0.4 -0.1

(FIRST MOT [ON)
11 IU UMBILICAL DISCONNECT, START 0.6 0.1 C.~.O, 0.0

OF TIME BASE 1 tTl)
12 BEGIN TOwER CLEARANCE PlTCH

AN C V AW MANEUV ER
1.6 0.1 -(.1)
I '0.0
13 END P]TCH ~ANEUVER 5. '8 0.1 5.2 0.0
14 BEGIN PITCH AND ROLL ~ANEUVER 12.2 1.0 1l.6 0.9
15 S-IC OUTBOARD ENGINE CANT ON 20.5 0.0 20.0 0.0

'A'
16 MACH 1 ..
61.1 -0.4 60.5 -0.4
I
11 END ROLL MAN EUVER 63.5 0.0 62.9 0.0 ,r '
1
18 MAXl"'U~ DYNAfoIlC PRESSURE 71.5 -1.5 12.9 -1.5 l
(MAX Q) I
19 ~lIGHT CONTROL C OMPlITER SWITCH 105.5 0.0 105.0 0.0

POINT NO. 1
20 FL IGHT CONTROL COMPUTER SWlTCH 130.6 0.1 130.0 0.0

POINT NO. Z
21 S-IC CENTER ENGI NE CUTOFF 140.7 0.1 140.1 0.0

CCMMANC
22 S-IC CENTER ENGINE CUTOFF 140.12 0.02 140.14 -0.04

·i (CECO)
, , '.
". .
2-3
Table 2-2. Significant Event Times Summary (Continued)
RANG E TIM~ TI"'E FRnM R~SE
ITEI' EVENT DESCRIPTION .aCTU AL ACT-PR ED AC TUAL AC T-PREO
~Fr. ...5£1: ..£.E1: " Fr
23 START OF TI ME SA SE 2 (T2 ) 140.8 0.1 0.0 0.0
24 S-IC OUT BOAR C ENGINES CUTOFF 152.5 0.1 11.7 0.0
ENABLE COMMhND
25 BEGIN II LT ARREST 15q.l 1.0 11.3 0.9

26 S- IC OUT130hRC ENGINE CUTOFF 158.16 0.01 11.37 -0.05
(OECO)
27 5- IC ENGINES NO. 1 ~ 3 CUTOFF 158.16 0.00 17.37 ; -0 .07

28 S-lC ENG I fl:E S NO. 2 ~ 4 CUTOFF 158.23 0.00 17.44 -0.01
29 ST ART OF T I ME SASE 3 IT3 ) 158.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
30 ST .'RT s- II U'Z TANK HIGH 15ft.3 0.0 0.1 0.0
1 PRESSURE VENT MODE
I
l
J
31 S-II lH2 REC IRCULAT ION PUMPS
OFF
158.4 0.0· 0.2 0.0
32 S-lCI S- I I SEPARATION cm·,MAND 159.9

II
0.0 1.6 -0.1
TO FIRE SEPARATION DEVICES
AND RETRO MmORS
I,i 33 S-IC RETRO MOTilR EBw fIRE

SlGNhL
34 SE PARA TI ON STRUC TURE

159.9 -0.1 1.7 0.0
',1
159.9 -0.1 1.7 -0.1
COMPLETEL Y S,EVERED
*
~
I 35 S- II ENGINE STAR T SEQUENCE

COMMANO (ESC)
160.6 0.0 2,.4 0.0,
II
II
36 S- II ENGINE SOLENOI f1 hC TI VAT-
3,1
ION (AV ERAGE OF F IV E)
s- II IGNITION-STDV OPEN
160.6
161.6
0.0
0.0
2.4
3.4
0.0
0.0
38 S-11 CHILLOOIolN VAL VE S CLOSE 163.5 0.0 5.3, 0.0:
I
1
39 S-II MAINSTAGE 3 SEC AFTER ESC
40 S- II t-IIGH ( 5.5)
41 S- II HIGH (5.')
EMR NO. 1 ON
EMR NO.· 2 ON
163.6
166.1
1~6.3
0.0
O.Q
o.d
5.4
7.9
8.1
0.0:
0.0
0.0
I 42 S-ll AFT INTEPSTAGE SEPARAT ION
43
ARM NO. 1
ARM NO. ?
'.
193.2
193.3
0.0
0.0
25.0
2 5.1
O.Q
0.0
44 IS-II SECOND PLANE SEPARATION 189.9 0.0 31.1 0.0

COMMAND (JETTISON S-I1 AFT
INTERSTAGE SEPARATION II 11
,f'
2-4
.~
i
.\
Ta b1e 2 - 2, Significant Event Times Summary (Continued)

RANGE TIME TIME FRor~BASE
ITEM EVENT OEseR IPT [ON ACTUAL ACT-PRED ACTUAL ACT-PRED-
SEC SEC SEC SEC
45 S-II SECOND PLANE SEPARATION 190.0 0.1 B.8 0.1
EBW FIRE SIGNAL Nl (M86-206)
46 S-II SECOND PLANE SEPARATION 190.0 0.0 31.8 0.0
COMMAND (JETTISON S-I! AFT
INTERSTA(;E SEPARATION 1/ 2)
47 S-II SECOND PLANE SEPARATION
EBW FIRE SIGNAL 1/2 (M81-206)
48 ITERATIVE GUICANCE MODE (IG~' 1H.l 0.8
PHASE 1 INITIATED
49 STEERING MISALIGNMENT (SMC) 216.4 -0.4 58.1 -0.5
INt TI AT ION
~O FL IGHT CONT ROL COMPUT ER SW ITCH
i
220.6 0.0 0.0
POI NT 1#3
51 5-11 CENTER ENGINE CUTOFF 314.C -0.2 155.8 -0.2

COMMAND
VELQCITV DEPENOENT EVENT
52 S-II CENTER ENGINE CUTOFF 314.05 -0.19 155.79 -0.21
(CECO)
53 START OF TRANSITIONAL TAU 315.1 0.8 156.8 0.7
~ODE BEGIN IGM PHASE 2
54 FL IGHT CONTROL COMPUTER s.w.l TCH 350.6, 0.0 192.4 0.0

FeiNT 114
55 ~-1I lOW ENGINE MI XTURE RATIO! 403.7 245.4 1.0
(E"1R) SHIFT (ACTUAL)
VELOCITY DEPENDENT EVENT
56 START OFARTIFIClAL TAU MOD.E 4/)4.5 2.0 246.3
BEGIN IGM PHAsE 3
57 BEGIN TERMIN~l STEERING 568. B 5.1 410.6
58 GUICl\NCE CUTOFF SIGNAL (GCS) 58S.96 0.64 430.71 0.63
59 S-11 OUTBOARD ENGINE CUTOFF '0.67 430.74 . 0.66

(DECO)
60 START OF TIME BASE 4 58~.2 0.7 0.0 0.0
61 S-II/SWS SEPARATION CCM~ANO 591.1 0.6 .:!.o 0.0

TO FIRE SEPARATION DEVIces
AND RETRO MOTORS t 1
(,2 15:-111 SWS
SEPARATION COMMAND 591.2 0.6 2.1 0.0
... TO FIRE SEPARATION DEV ICES
AND RETRO MOTORS" 2
2-5
Table 2-2. Significant Event Times Summary (Continued)
RANGE TIME TIME FROM BASE
ITE~ EVENT'DESCRIPTION ACTUAL AC1-PREO ACTUAL ACT-PREIJ
SEC SEC SEC SEC
63 S-II RETRO MOTOR EBW FIRE 591.1 0.6 2.0 0.0
SIGNAL (M84-206.M85-206)
64 SEPARATION E6W FIRE SIGNAL 0.7 2.1 0.1
(HI01-206,MI02-206)
65 SEPARATlnN STRUCTURE 591.1 0.5 2.0 -0.1
COMPLETELY SEVERED
66 INITIATE S-It TIMER 591.2 0.6 2.0 -0.1
67 S-II NPV FIRING UNIT CHARGED 592. C -0.1 2.8 -0.8
68 ORBIT INSERTION 599.0 0.7 9.8 I 0.0
69 BEGIN MA~EUVER TO LOCAL 599.6 10.4 0.4
VERTICAL ATTITUDE
j
j
l 70 **INITIATE All SII SAFING VENT 805.1 4.5 216.0
I **SEOUENCED BY S-II ONBOARD
!
1
ceNTROL AFTER SEPARAT ION
71 START OF TIME. BASE NO 4A (T4A) 919.2 , -13.1 0.0 0.0
Ii
1i PAYLOAD SHROUD JETTISON
13 INITIATE MANEUVER TO SOLAR
INERTIAL ATTITUDE
920.4
958.8
-13.6
-13.5
-0.5
-14.2
"~ 74 INITIATE AT~ DEPLOYMENT 999.1 0.6 410.0 0.0
i
~
75 INITI.tlTE ATM SOLAR ARRAYS
DEPLOYMENT
1492.3 0.6 903.2 0.0
76 ATM TELEMETRY ON 2209.1 0.6 1620.0 0.0

77 IN IT I ATE
OWS SOL AR ARRAYS 2465.7 0.6 1876.6 0.0
DEFlOYMENT
78 INITIATE METEOROID SHIELD 5H4.1 0.6 5175 •.0 0.0
DEPLOYMENT
~9 TACS (OMM TRANSFER IU TO ATM 17400.7 0.6 16811.6 -0.1
80 START TIME BASE NO.5 (T5) 0.8 0.0 0.0
t
I·
I
I
:1·1
2-6
Table 2-3. Variable Time and Commanded Switch Selector Events
RANGE TIME
TIME FROM REMARKS
FUNCTION STAGE (SEC) BASE (SEC)
Telemetry Calibrator IU 672.4 T4 +83.3 Newfoundland
In-Flight Calibrate ON
,
Telemetry Calibrator IU 677.4 T4 +88.3 Newfoundland
In-Flight Calibrate OFF
Water Coolant Valve IU 949.2 T4 +360.1 Newfoundland
CLOSED
Water Coolant Valve IU 3349.2 T4 +2760.0 Newfoundland
CLOSED
Telemetry Calibrator IU 3360.5 T4 +2771.3 Carnarvon
In-Flight Calibrate ON Revolution 1
Telemetry Calibrator IU 3365.5 T4 +2776.3 Carnarvon
In-Flight Calibrate OFF Revolution 1
Telemetry Calibrator IU 5704.5 T4 +5115.3 Texas
Telemetry Calibrator IU 5709.5 T4 +5120.3 Texas
Water Coolant Valve IU . 5749.2 T4 +5160.0 Texas
OPEN
Water Coolant Valve IU 6049.2 T4 +5460.1 Texas
CLOSED
AM Deploy Buses OFF . SWS 11 ,038.7 T4 +10,449.5 LVDC Command
Telemetry Cal ibrator IU 11,096.5 T4 +10,507.3 Hawaii
Telemetry Cal ibrator IU 11,101.5 T4 +10,512.3 Hawai i
Water Coolant Valve IU 12,949.2 T4 +12,360.1 Madrid
CLOSED Revolution 3
Te 1emetry Cal i brator IU 15,480.5 T4 +14,896.3 Honeysuckle
.'
Telemetry Calibrator IU 15,485.5 T4 +14,896 ..3 Honeys uck 1e·
Telemetry Calibrator IU 17,384.5 . T4 +]6.795.3 Goldstone
In-Fl ight Calibrate ON Revolution 3
Telemetry Calibrator IU 17 ,389.5 T4+16 ,800.3 Goldstone
In-F1 ight Calibrate OFF Revo1uti on 3
2-7
Table 2-3. Variable Time and Commanded Switch Selector Events
(Continued)
RANGE TIME
F~NCTION STAGE TIME FROM REMARKS
(SEC) BASE (SEC)
Water Coolant Valve IU 17.749.3 T4 +17,.160.1 Go1 dstone
OPEN Revolution 3
Telemetry Calibrator IU 18,688.5 T4 +18,099.3 Canary
Telemetry Cal ibrator IU 18.693.5 T4 +18,104. 3 Canary
Water Coolant Valve IU 25.249.3 T4 +24,660.1 Ascension
OPEN Revolution 5
Telemetry Calibrator IU 29,216.5 T4 +28.627.3 Goldstone
Telemetry Calibrator IU 29,221. 5 T4 +28,632.3 Goldstone
Command Ra te IU 34.986.2 T5 +5586.7 LVDC Command
Measurement Switch Goldstone
Revolution 6
Water Coolant Valve IU 35.449.3 T5 +6049.7 LVDC Command.
OPEN Goldstone
Revolution 6
Telemetry Calibrator IU 35,728.5 T5 +6329.0 Texas
Telemetry Calibrator IU 35,733.5 T5 +6334.0 Texas
In-Fl ight Calibrate OFF Revolution 6
2-8
h,
SECTION 3
LAUNCH OPERATIONS
3.1 SUMMARY
The ground systems supporting the SA-513jSkylab 1 countdown and
1aunch perfonned sati s factorily wi th the excepti on of the Launch
Vehicle Ground Support Equipment (LVGSE) Mobile Launcher computer
drum read errors. This malfunction, which is discussed in para-
graph 3.5.2 caused no launch delay. The:;pace vehicle was launched
at 13:30:00 Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) (17:30:00 UT) on May 14, 1973,
from Pad 391\ Of the Kennedy Space Center, Saturn Complex. There were
no unscheduled holds in the countdown. Damage to the pad, Launch
Umbilical Tower (LUT) and support equipment was considered minimal.
3.2 PRELAUNCH MILESTONES
A chronological summary of prelaunch milestones for the SA-513
launch is contained in Table 3-1. All stages, S-IC, S-II, and IU,
performed normally during the countdown except during S-IC LOX
load i ng, when the vent valves vlere bei ng cycled to rna i nta ina 2-4
psig ullage pressure, the open position switch on the LOX vent
valve exhibited intermittent pickup or chatter. This occurred on
the middle 4 of 6 valve cycles, and did not occur during the
remainder of the countdown. It is believed that the chatter was
due to the effect of the hi~her vent flowrates during this period
when only one vent is used to vent the tank, at 4 psig. This chatter
has occurred during this same time period on previous countdowns.
The chatter did not cause any problem nor affect valve operation.
3.,3 TERMINAL COUNTDOWN
The SA-513/Skylab 1 terminal countdown was pitkedup at T-123 hours
on May 9, 1973. Scheduled holds were initiated at T-7 hours for a
duration of 30 minutes, and at T-2 hours for a duration of 1 hour.
The space vehicle was launched at 13:30:00 EDT on f1ay 14, 1973.'
At T-l hour 58 minutes, it was determined that the readout of the
Mobile Launcher Computer U,1LC) magnetic drum during the execution of
the SE89 "Alternate Memory Checker Program" waS erroneous. This is
discussed in paragraph 3;5.2.
3.4 PROPELLANT LOADING
3.4.1 RP-l Loading
The RP';:'l system successfully supported countdovm and launch without
incident. Tail Service Mast (TSM) 1-2 fill and replenish was accom-
3-1
Table 3-1. SA-513/SL-1 Prelaunch Milestones
DATE ACTIVITY OR EVENT
January 1, 1971 S-II-13 Stage Arrival

July 26, 1972 S-IC-13 Stage Arrival
August 2, 1972 S-IC Erection on Mobile Launcher (ML) - 2
September 20, 1972 S-II Erection
September 29, 1972 Saturn Work Shop (SWS) Erection
October 27, 1972 Instrument Unit (IU) - 513 Arrival
November 1, 1972 IU Erection
January 3, 1973 Launch Vehicle (LV) Electrical Systems
Test Completed
February 6, 1973 LV Propellant Dispersion/Malfunction
Overall Test (OAT) Complete
February 28, 1973 LV Service Arm OAT Complete
March 21, 1973 Space Vehicle (SV) OAT No.1 (Plugs In) Comp"ete
March 26, 1973 SV Electrical Mate
t4arch 30, 1973 SV Flight Readiness Test (FRT) Completed
April 26, 1973 SV /ML Transfer to Pad 39A
April 26, 1973 RP-l Loading
t4ay 2, 1973 Countdown Demonstration Test (COOT)
Completed (Wet)
~1ay 3, 1973 COOT Completed (Dry)
r4ay 9, 1973 SV Terminal Countdown Started (T-123 Hours)
May 14, 1973 SVLaunch
3-2
plished at T-50 hours and S-IC level adjust and fill line inert
occurred at about T-30 minutes. Both operations were satisfactory,
there were no failures or anomalies. Launch countdown support
consumed 211,373 gallons of RP-l.
3.4.2 LOX Loading
The LOX system supported countdown and launch satisfactorily. The
fill sequence began with S-II chilldown at 7:02 EDT, May 14,1973,
and was completed 2 hours 5 minutes later with S-IC main fill complete
at 9:07 EDT. Replenishment \'Jas automatic through the Terminal Count-
down Sequence without incident. LOX consumption during launch count-
down was 532,000 gallons.
3.4.3 LH2 Loading
The LH2 system successfully supported countdown and launch. The fill
sequence began at 9:21 EDT, May 14, 1973, and was completed 45 min-
utes later when normal replenis~ was established at 10:06 EDT. S-II
replenish was automatic until terminated at initiation of the Termi-
nal Countdown Sequencer. Launch countdown support consumed approxi-
mately 335,000 gallons of LH2'
3.5 GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
3.5.1 Ground/Vehicle Interface
In general, performance of the ground service systems supporting all
'Stages of the launch vehicle was satisfactory. Overall damage to
the pad, LUT, and support equipment from blast and flame impingement
was considered minimal.
The Propellant Tanking Computer System (PTCS) adequately supported all
countdown operations and there was no damage or system failures.
The Environmental Control System (ECS) successfully supported the
SA-513 countdown. All specifications for ECS flow rates, tempera-
tures, and pressures were met and flow/pressure criteria were
satisfactory during the air to GN2 changeover.
The Holddown Arms and Se,rvice Arm' Control Switches (SACS) satisfac-
torily supported countdown and launch. All Holddown Arms released
pneumatically within a 12 millisecond period. The retraction and
explosive release lanyard pull was accomplished in advance of ord-
, ;
nance actuati on with a 33 mi 11 i second margi n. Penumatic release
valves land 2 opened within 18 milliseconds after SACS armed signal.
The SACS primary switches closed at 399 and 387 milliseconds after
commit. SACS secondary switches closed 963 and 966 milliseconds
,after commi t.
3-3
"
Overall performance of the Tail Service Masts and Hydraulic Charging

Unit was satisfactory. Mast retraction times were nominal; 2.163
seconds for TSM 1-2, 2.625 seconds for RSM 3-2 and 2.522 seconds for
TSM 3-4, measured from umbilical plate separation to mast retracted.
The preflight and inflight Service Arms (S/A's 1 through 6, 6A, 7 and
8) supported the countdown in a satisfactory manner. Performance was
nominal during terminal count and liftoff.
The primary damping system was retracted before propellant loading as
a precautionary measure to preclude occurrence of a ruptured hose problem
similar to that on SA-206 during Countdown Demonstration Test (COOT).
It was maintained in operational status so reconnect could be accomplished
should it be needed before the completion of propellant 10ading. The
requirement for the Auxiliary Damping System was deleted for SL-l launch
countdown.
The Digital Events Evaluation (DEE)-3 and DEE-6 systems satisfactorily
supported all countdown operations. There were no system failures and
no launch damage.
3.5.2 MSFC Furnished Ground Support Equipment
MSFC furnished electrical and mechanical ground support equipment
successfully supported the Skylab 1 launch.
At T-l hour 58 minutes, it was determined that the readout of the
Mobile Launcher Computer (MLC) magneti c drum duri ng theexecuti on
of the SE89 "Alternate Memory Checker Program" was erroneous. A
subsequent drum-read incorrectly altered the MLC alternate memory.
The MLC alternate memory was restored successfully by operator
intervention. Drun-read problems were then experienced during the
S-IC propellant monitor program. At T-l hour 30 m-inutes, a decision
was made to continue the countdown without the Use of the MLC mag-
netic drum. This decision precluded further execution of the
foll owi.ng non-criti cal 1aunch functions:
FT49/FE50 ST-124M Accelerometer Monitor Programs
BEOl S-ICPropellant Temperature Monitor
BE02 S-IC P~opellantLevel Monitor
SE89 Alternate Memory Checker
Real time work-arounds utilizing telemetry and Digital Data Acquisi-
tion System data were implemented to provide equivalent monitoring
functions.
Dudng postlaunch trouble shooting a failed diode in a flip-flop
circuit in the MLC drum address circuitry was found. However,
analysis showed this failure was probably not related to the
observed erroneous drum-read symptoms. During further trouble
shooting, a printed circuit board (PCB) in the MLC drum address
3-4
circuitry was removed and reinserted, clearing the failure and
indicating that the cause was improper seating. Additional site
testing verified that no intermittent component failure was involved
and confirmed improper seating of the PCB as the cause of the
anomaly.
Computer test and maintenance procedures were reviewed and determined
to be adequate. Improperly seated printed circuit boards are an
infrequent occurrence, and are normally revealed in early testing
so that the countdown is not materially affected. Therefore, no
corrective action was taken.
H
G
a
r
U
f
;~
•
"
o
•
!'
3-5/3-6 't
, 4
SECTION 4
TRAJECTORY
4.1 SUMMARY
The vehicle was launched on an aximuth 90 degrees east of north. A roll
maneuver was initiated at 12.2 seconds that placed the vehicle on a flight
azimuth of 40.880 degrees east of north. The trajectory parameters were
generally close to nominal except the S-IC velocity which was 18.0 meters
j per second greater than nominal at the outboard engine cutoffs. The
largest contributors to this velocity have been identified as the tailwind
and higher stage specific impulse. The Saturn Work Shop (SWS) insertion
conditions were achieved 0.64 second later than nominal with altitude
nominal and .velocity 0.6 meter per second greater than nominal. S-11
stage performance deviated from nominal in large part because the aft
interstage failed to separate.
Orbital insertion parameters of the spent S-II stage deviated slightly
from nominal but recontact with the SWS was precluded for at least eight
months.
A study to determine the impact footprint of the meteoroid shield's debris
is reported herein. Also, the orbital parameters of the spent S-II stage
are provided.
4.2 TRAJECTORY EVALUATION
The reconstructed trajectory was generated by merging the ascent phase and
the orbit phase trajectory segments. The analysis for each phase was con-
ducted separately with appropriate end point constraints to provide trajectory
continuity. Available C-band radar and USB tracking data plus telemete.red
guidance velocity data were used in the trajectory reconstruction.
4.2.1 Ascent Phase
T~e ascent phase spans the interval from guidance reference release through
ear'th orbit insertion. The ascent trajectory was established by using
telemetered guidance velocity data as generating parameters to fit tracking
data from three C-band stations (Merritt Island, Patrick Air Force Base,
and Bermuda 'FPQ-6) and one S-band station (Bermuda). Approximately 22
p~rcent of the C-band tracking data and 31 percent of the S-band tracking
data were eliminated due to inconsistencies. The launch phase portion of
the ascent phase (liftoff to approximately 20 seconds) was established by
constraining integrated te1emetered navigation data to the best estimate
trajectory.
4-1
Actual and nominal altitude, surface range, and crossrange for the ascent
phase are presented in Figure 4-1. Actual and nominal space-fixed velocity
and flight path angle during ascent are shown in Figure 4-2. Actual and
nominal comparisons of total non-gravitational accelerations are shown in
Figure, 4-3. The maximum acceleration during S-IC burn was 4.45 g.
,'i
fl
",(
:1
Mach number and dynamic pressure are shown in Figure 4-4. These para-
"! meters were calculated using meteorological data measured to an altitude of
62.5 kilometers (33.7 nmi). Above this altitude, the measured data were
merged into the US Standard Reference Atmosphere.
Actual and nominal values of parameters at significant trajectory event
times, S-IC and S-11 cutoff events, and separation events are shown in
Tables 4-1, 4-2, 4-3 and 4-4, respectively.
The S-IC velocity at cutoff, although well within the 30 limits, was
noticeably higher than predicted. A limited investigation as to possible
causes yielded the following information: The winds on launch day were
higher than the prediction used in the Operational Trajectory. Being princi-
pally tailwinds, this would effectively improve S-IC performance and add
approximately 8 mls to the S-IC velocity at cutoff. It was also found
that tncreasing the S-IC stage specific ihlpulse used in the Operational
Trajectory by approxim.ately 0.2% would produce an additional 6 mls in
velocity. Other contributors, which were not simulated but would result
in increased S-IC performance are: lower-than-predicted RP-l density,
lower S-Il weight (propellant and payload), unpredicted S-11 insulation
ablation, and the separation of the meteoroid shield.
From extensive data evaluation and flight radar observations it was
concluded that the S-11 aft interstage failed to separate completely when
commanded at 189.9 seconds. A discussion of these analyses is presented
in paragraph 9.5.2. '
4.2.2 Earth Orbit Phase
Orbital tracking was conducted by the NASA Spacecraft Tracking and Data
Network. Two C-band stations (Merritt Island and Bermuda) provided two
data passes at the beginning of the fi rst orbit. ' Ten S-band stations
(Merritt Island, Bermuda, Canary, Ascension, Madrid, Carnarvon, Honeysuckle,
Hawaii, Goldstone and Texas) furnished twenty additional tracking passes
during the first three revolutions.
Telemetered guidance velocity data were used to derive the orbital non-
gravitational acceleration (venting) model. The orbit trajectory was
obtained by integrating a comprehensive force model (gravity plus venting)
with ,corrected insertion conditions forward to 16,200 seconds {4:30:00}
which is near Transfer to ATM Control. The insertion conditions were
obtained by using the force model and a differential correction procedure
to fit the available tracking data.
4-2
',,'
.--- -
450 180
2250] LEGEND:
- ACTuAL II !--
- - - - NOI1INAL r-
2000 400 160 \i7 S-IC OEC.O
/ -
W . /'"
S-II GCS
. I ~/ 1
/
1750~
350 140
V /
-
; V .- I,,'
1500 300 120 ,
... , V It/
E
... ALTITUDE
'50~
E
-'-
\OJ
...
<=
\OJ
:
i / V
1250 100
'" '"c:c
Z
<
""
W
C1
....=>
Z
cr
I
I i V //
p)ij~
w
~
....
c:c
....a: 1000
....
--'
cC
In
In
b
IX
80 V SURFACE RAN5E V j
II
I
W ~
Vl
u
I /'1 V J
750 150 60
I
J
I L l
V
./
V V
I I
-'-
! ,
L :~:J~S RANGE /
500 100 40 X :
V / t--.. . _- '"--_ .
I L! I
: I
./
i-'
./ ... - -- - .-
250 50 20
I
L 1
i/ ~
V ! ~
·V ,./' 1
-
V
0'" 0 o v V
----
I--- ~ 1 -- ~
~
lWl
6 100 200 300 400 ,,00 000
RANGE TillE, SECONDS
Figure 4-1. SA-513 Ascent Trajectory Position Comparison

., ~',.,:
~",,_",-._~.~. __ ..., "..w~._...-.:.._.?<*""-'~~t!~.~;;~;~~-.....:>~:.,",~--·.-~:;"'- .-.~-.--~~ ..........~.: ~ •. -~.~ ..... - -, .-~ - ,-, .. -- '-'~--~'-- ~-",,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,-~p-,,,,,,,,,,,~,,
40 9000 LEGE!W:
lr" ~ -W
- - ACTUA.l
1
rW~lINAl
:5-JC OECO
35 8000
/ ~, FLIGHT PATH ANGLE W S-II GCS ~
30 7000 I t\. /
'"
..... 1/ \ /
.... e
'0
25
>
..... 6000
"\ SpJCEJIXE1 VE10CITV ./
..;
V
....
'"
z
e
%
.....
e
20
u
.......,..
0
...
0 5000
1
I
I
'" ""-" "- ........ /
./
I
"
....
~ >C
/
~
,
.....
%
.......'" 15
~
u
e
~
4000 r
1/
1'-.. / V
V ~"
-l--
III
./
V V
..........
10 3000 .J ~
I V- ~ !'.:"- I
5 2000 I I ~r, .....

] 1/ I i"--.
a 1000
II V """ r-....
-'
V i
-5 W W
100 200 300 400 500 600
RANGE TIME. SECONDS
Figure 4-2. SA-5l3 Ascent Trajectory Space-Fixed Velqcity and Flight Path Angle Comparisons
'\i'
~"""'~'_.~""'..-,~~.,,~.......~~~':''"oI4.1!ti1l'<~;'l- ..~,..~n~:r..;u;.'i.:.\'~--"i4';;''~'¢.·'::l'''''....&.:'~"''''-'~~~_.-"_<"..~:",~,"",~,*'~~~~~c:.·.:r~;~;£:l«:.:~:c'.!"'::·"""":';-::~:..lr_"X;:~.:;r<~"4:~<.!..;:;::;.;..;t'~_'._.';""';:;""'C __ "",,".J. __ •. ;-_.
45 ... LE:GE:<O:
- - ACT:J,"IL
40 1 -r=,-NOI1INAl
\V S-!C CECO
41 II W S-IC OECO
V ~ S-Il CECO
35 \67 EMR SHIFT
J ~ 5-11 GCS
3
30 1
II
N
0 ~
E
i ~ )
i....... S 25
....., ......~
<>0
-' / /
:i co V ~ I
:II! 2 20
~
z: -'
co
C>
~ z / i
•
U'1
j:!
~
C>
S
... / //
iac: ;;: 15
."
~
, ~
." , ~~ ~ L~-"Y
.' z
z:
i ~vf-"'" L~~ 1-
10
I~ I
5
o r-~~--~;-~~J
l~~ ~ w W
100 200. 300 400 500 600
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 4~3. SA-5l3 Ascent Trajectory Acceleration Comparison
'1"- ..... " •••~..,.".,'-~~-~,. ~~..:C<~~'~~+'_'*""""':~<;'f:!>:C;~~lit~~~WN'SU~~.,.'-t1:~:T"t!';f\-;.'t:;r.::.,:~:'.:H::-::J..1:;~;".:t:._ .:,~

"
~j~t.;;.,""......-....,-,.....,. .-_.,,_,,~ _____ '::__ ";'::"'~.....~~d_!it·:~:g,Jtli:Jiti.!'l'!I!\:t_~~~~~!j.~~;Rc~~~~~~~."-,,-,,,,-,,",_. ___ \_~_.< __ '~"'''''''''~-'-'*'~_~~__ ~ ___-4''_-''~ _ _ -'''~ __ ''""'"_'~_'"___ ' . ' ' . _ ' ' ' ' _ '••'-,• .---..,.._...." ...... _ ....... _.", .. ,
4.5... 9 -
LEGEND:
_ ACTUAL
4.0-1 81-
- - - NOMINAL
W MACH 1
; . rl
W MAXIMUM DYNAMIC
PRESSURE
j
'0
7
..... /
N,
E
u
..... 6
,; "\ , II
z
DYNAMIC PRESSURE II 1\' / MACH NUMBER
,
W
\ II
'III:
::;:I « )
en IU
en
....., a:l 5
III:
Q.
2:
::;:I
Z / J
~
I
0'1 ':C
...
1;,)
2: :::1. :x:
u
<
2: 4 II ~ V
z
>-
Q \ /
3 / \
)V
/
II 1/
2
j /
I /
V
\
It ../V ~
1/ ~ -- V W'w \
o
o
./
20
~
40 60
I
80 100 120
" r-.......
140 160 180
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 4-4. SA-513 Dynamic Pressure and Mach Number Comparisons
Table 4-1. Comparison of Significant SA-5l3 Trajectory Events
[VE'I PARAME TE? J CT UA L ~dj V. : \ .1 ~ . J"
Fi rst Motlon Ra nge 11m e. se ~ I; . : 2 v.~2 .:>. -0

otal ~ on - G rav i tat ion a l
Ac c e l ~ ra t l on . m/~ £ II .
( ft / s- ) (30 . 3 \ j ~ • ;1'1 I
, , ~
(g) I . ; \ i . 12' \ C. J J
MA CH I Ran ge Tlm e . s e c 1. 0 c 1. , - J .5
Alti tu oe . k .1 ~.~ J. :
(nm 1 ) ( J .2) ( l . ; • ). 1 )
Max im um Dyn amlC Pr essu re Rang e Ti me . s e c 73.5 , 0 .

Dynam lC Pre ss ure, n / c ~ 3. ;; : J. J~ - J . C-
( lb f / ft Z ) : tJ i 0.78 J ( 6 ':l5. J 3, - 16.7 a)
Al t itudp. , km 1 2.0 12.3 - 0.3
~
I ( nmi) (6.51 (';'. 6 ) \ - ). 1 •
......,
·Maxi mum Total Non- Grav it at ion a l
Acce l era tion : S-IC Ra nge Ti me . se c 14 0 . 72 l J ... . ,;2 ) . ;0
Acc e l erat i on . m/ ~ 2 43 .0 J ~. cO .J , .06

(ft / s' ) i 143. 2 4 ) ( 143 . OJ I . a. 20 I
( g) ( J . 45 ) \4.J5I (0 . 00 i
S- I I Ra nge Ti me, s e c 5::. 9. JO ") 31"!i . J" J 00

Acc e l erat lon. m/ s 2 23. , l . E - :) . Jj
( ft / s ') ( 78 . t J • r n. ( - 1 . 25 I
(g) ( 2.4 J ) i. 2 . .l n , , -o. aJ j
t art h-,i xe c
·Max i ~ u w.
Vel oclty : S - IC Rang e Tim e, sec 159. 0G i 59. :2 - ~ .2'
Ve loci t y , m/ s 2 . 565. 3 . 547 .0 .0: • J

( ft l s ) ( 8 , ~ I Ii . 3) ( 8 .3 56. 3) ( oJ . i) I
S- I I Ran QP Time . sec 59 0.5 0 5 9 0.53 - C. D)
Ve locity. m/s 7 .3 33. 3 , . 332. 1

( ft l s ) (2 J . J53. l 2 ~. 05 5.~ , ~ .J .
"1ear es t , 1me ?oln t Ava ll ab l e

Table 4-2. Comparison of SA-5l3 S-IC Cutoff Events
PARAMETER ACTUAL NOMINAL ACT-NOM,~

S-IC CECO (ENGINE SOLENOID) ,
Range Time, sec 140.72 140.62 0.10

Altitude, km 62.4 61.9 0.5
(nm i) (33.7) (33.4) (0.3)
Space-Fixed Velocity, m/s 2,214.4 2,201.1 13.3
( ftl s ) ,
(7,265.1) (7,221.5) (43.6)

Flight Path A'ng 1e , deg 32.446 32.589 -0.143
Heading Angle, deg 50.494 50.393 0.101
I
Su rface Range, km 54.1 53. 1 1.0
( nm i ) , (29.2) ( 28.7) (0.5)
Cross Range, km 0.4 O. 1 0.3
(nmi) (0.2) (0. 1 ) (0. 1)
Cross Range Velocity, m/s -1.4 -6.9 5.5
( ftl s ) (-4.6) (-22.6) (18.0)
I
S-IC OECO (ENGINE SOLENOID)
Range Time, sec 158.16 158.16 0.00
Altitude, km 85.2 84.7 0.5
(nmi) (46.0) (45.7) (0.: 3)
Space-Fixed Velocity, m/s 2.800.5 2,7132.5 18.0
( ftl s ) (9,188.0) (9,128.9) '(59.1)
Flight Path Angle, deg 30.581 30.697 -0.116
Ii
Surface Range, km 85;7 84.7 1.0
. ( nm i ) (46.3) (45.7) (O.tU
Cross Range, km 0.4 0.0 0.4'
(nmi) (0.2) (0.0) (0.2)
Cross Range VelOCity, m/s -1 .7 -9.8 8. 1
(ft/s) (-5.6) (-32.2) (26.6)
4-8
Table 4~3. Comparison of 5A-5l3 5-11 Cutoff Events
r---------------------------~------------~---------------r--------,
PARAMETER ACTUAL NOMINAL ACT-NOM
S-II CECO (ENGINE SOLENOID)
Range Time, sec 314.05 314.24 ··0. 19
Altitude, km 273.2 272.4 0.8
(nmi) (147.5) (147.1) (0.4)
Space-Fixed Velocity, m/s 3,860.6 3.849.9 10.7
( ftl s ) (12,666.0) (12.630.9) (35.1)
Heading Angle, deg 48.1'11 48.107 0.004
Surface Range, km 493.5 490.1 3.4
( nmi) (266.5) (264.6) ( 1 .9)
Cross Range, km 2.5 1.1 1.4

(nmi) (1. 3) (0.6) (0.7)
,
t,;
Cross Range Velocity. m/s 55.2 54.6 0.6

(ft/s) (181.1) (179.1) (2.0)
S-II GUIDANCE CUTOFF SIGNAL
Range Time. sec 588.96 588.32 0.64
Altitude, km 442.1 442.0 O. 1
(nmi) (i38.7) (238.7) (0.0)
Space-Fixed Velocity, m/s 7.641.9 7.642.2 -0.3
(ftl s) (25.071.9) (25,072.8) (-0.9)
Flight Path Angle, deg 0.013 0.013 0.000
Heading Angle. deg 56.383 56.329 0.054
Surface Range, km 1,810.7 1 ,801 .6 9. 1
(nmi) (977.7) (972.8) (4.9)
( nm1) (45.6) (45.1) (0.5)
Cross Range Velocity, mls 709.9 709.1 0.8
(ft/s) (2.329.1 ) (2,326.4) (2.7)
Inclination. deg 50.029 50.030 .. 0.001
Descending Node. deg 153.249 153.252 -0.003
Eccen.tri city 0.0021 0.0020 0.0001
Cfft~~~~~ . -58,638,675
(-631,181,445)
-58,635,937
(-631,151,973)
-2.738
(-29.472)
4-9
Table 4-4. Comparison of SA-513 Separation Events
PARAMETER ACTUAL NOMINAL ACT-NOM

S-IC/S-II SEPARATION
~:-
Range Time, sec 159.9 159.9 0.0

Altitude, km 87.7 87.3 0.4
( nm;) (47.4) (47.]) (0.3)
Space-Fixed Velocity, 'm/s 2,807.0 I 2,789.1 17.9
(ft/ s) (9,209.3) (9,150.6) (58.7)
Surface Range, km 89.4 88.4 1.0
{nmi} (48.3) (47. 7) (0.6)
(nmi) (0.2) (0.0) (0.2)
Cross Range Velocity, m/s -1.7 -9.8 8. 1
(ft/ s) (-5.6) (-32.2) (26.6)
Geodetic Latitude, deg N 29.213 ~9.210 0.003
Longitude, deg E -80.001 -80.010 0.009
S- II/S·WS SEPARATION
Range Time, sec 591. 1 590.5 0.6
Altitude, km 442.1 442.0 0.1.
(nmi) (238.7) (238.7) (0.0)
(ft/s) (25,092.5) (25,092.5) (0.0)
Flight Path Ang 1e, deg 0.003 0.002 0.001
,.
Surface Range, km 1,825.4 1,816.7 8.7
(nmi) (985.6) (980.9) (4.7)
Cross Range, km 86 .• 0 85.1 0.9
(nmi) (46.4) (46.0) (0.4)
Cross Range Velocity, m/s 712. 1 711.5 0.6
(ft/s) (2,336.3) (2,334.3) (2.0)
Geodet~c Latitude, deg N 39.772 39.732 0.040
Longitude, deg E -66.000 -66.076 0.076
j
j 4-10
j
A comparison of actual and nominal earth orbit insertion parameters is
presented in Table 4-5. The groundtrack from insertion to near Transfer
to ATM Control near the end of the third orbit is given in Fi~ure 4-5.
4.2.3 Meteoroid Shield Debris Impact Trajectory
.! A three degree of freedom simulation was used to model the probable
,
'j
impact trajectory of the meteoroid shield debris (see Section 17) and
t1 - the resulting impact footprints are shown in Figure 4-6. The following
I
,
1
items characterize the essential elements used for the simulation:
a. Initial velocities and positions were taken from the 7-Day Observed
Mass Point Trajectory (m~PT) data.
b. The Cape Kennedy wind data frpm the SA-513 postflight meteorological
data tape was used to represelht the wi nds acti ng on the debri s.
c. A mass of 270 kg with an area of 70 m2 (mass per unit area = 3.86 kg/m 2)
was taken to represent the aluminum shield.
d. Impact footprints were determined parametrically assuming drag varying
from 5 percent to 100 percent of flat plate drag, and time of separation
varying from 60 to 65 seconds.
The 70 percent flat plate drag case is estimated to be the best represen-
tation of the fa:11ing meteoroid shield, and the associated point for the
63-second separation represents the most likely impact point.
4.2.4 Spent S-II Orbit
Skin tracking data of the spent S-II stage were received from the Merritt
Island, Bermuda and Carnarvon C-band radars for portions of the second and
sixth orbits. Separate orbit solutions were done on the second and sixth
orbits using a gravity-only model. Comparisons of the actual and nominal
orbits at two hours range time are presented in Table 4-6. At two hours,
the SWS and S-II are in the same orbital plane and the SWS trails the S-II
by three degrees; the separation distance is 298 kilometers. Table 4-7
presents the spent S-II stage orbital parameters at the midpoint of the
sixth orbit. A comparison of these parameters to the mission plan show that
the apogee altitude was actually 239.5 rather than 234 n.mi •. and the perigee
altitude was 201.0 instead of 197 n. mi. The differences are a result of
vehicle attitude errors during separation and are discussed in paragraph
9.5.3. Recontact with the SWS has been precluded for at least eight months
by the. phasing relationship between the orbits, the trim burns raising the
orbit of theSWS, and the more rapid decay of the S-II orbit due to the
smaller ballistic coefficient of the S-IIstage.
,-,
"
4-11 ... J
I
Table 4-5. Comparison of SA-513 Earth Orbit Insertion Conditions
PJ\RAr4E TE R ACTUAL NOMI r~AL ACT -NOM
Range Time, sec 598.96 598.3.2 0.64

A1 ti tude, km 442.2 442.1 O. 1
( nm i ) (238.8) (238.7) (0 •1)

(ft/s) (25.096.1) (25,094.2) ( 1. 9)
Flight Path Angle, deg -0.007 0.001 -0.008

lnclihation, deg 50.030 50.028 0.002
Descendi hg Node, deg 153.252 153.248 0.004
Eccentricity 0.0002 0.0003 -0.0001
Apogeel\ 1 t i tude, km * 433.8 433.3 0.5
( nm i ) (234.2) (234.0) ( 0.2 )
Perigee Altitude) km* 431 .5 429.5 2.0
. ( nm i ) (233.0) (231.9) ( 1. 1 )
Period, min 93.23 93.21 0.02
:Geodetic Latitude, deg N 40.051 40.009 0.042
'Longitude, deg E -65.484 -65.564 0.080
*Based on a Spherical Earth with Radius = 6,378,165 km.
4-12
" ... ~~.ilf't1t.I::It~~;~",~,~.:.r_ ....... ~..,."......., .......~,e.:.."""'~~~"''''''''.'''''_:l''''''_:;:''''''''.z",~-,"..,.; ............. ,.--'-"" ..., c~<~..,~ .......... _.-" ....__ . . k __ ........." __... ,.....c,~1<41L.-<:.1.!'-.;:;~....::,4'<~~~ ......... ~_..... _ _ :...~-' __ • ...,:...·~; ••!~~;..,:.".: ....":.'~.~.,:1..::.!:;..;"::.:<,,;, :-::::.o--<_!.... _,,:-;..:~~:
60 i a )-. -....... .• i < • d >. J~1' FI RSr REVOLUTION

2 SECOND REVOLUTION
3 THIRD REVOLUTION
40 'I / ' I ftC I F' 7.a: ... ~~n!".n?'d Ic-.# ~ I
(/
20
.,at ell
"U
...
CI
0
:;,
~ .S
~
c
~
I
.... -20
""""
w
-40 STATION LEGEND:
1. HAWAII 5. BERMUDA 9. CARNARVON
~. GOLDSTONE 6. CANARY ISLAND 10. HONEYSUCKLE
3. CORPUS CHRISTI 7~ MADRID 11. GUAM
-
60' I 4. MILA
i ., i i i
S. ASCENSION
I
t180 -160 -140 -120 -100 -SO -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 ! ISO
LONGITUDE. deg
Figure 4-5. SA-5l3 Launch Vehicle Groundtrack
-, [~J.iliJrj.n;.'.FiirtiHlll!ii"'-ililijWTII·.·".iiI:iOio"·····ic"'Iil-~~:c"""-'C«,,,;;<;;",,,,,:~...,.,,,:;;.;:c-.;:;o:,,c:::;:-. __ ,;·~",,·; ..;~;;.""c.". c::,;,',

',1' "'
~'4,J.:~~_~~,""..,_ •• ~_< • •_ · ; , _ _ ~"" _ _~ _ _ ~~""""-~=~~~~~;-~c;""~;:;;,,,,,",.c.:i-/=~"""~1.:4""""" _ _ _~"""'-""' _ _ "'"""-~'''"''.~.-. ...... ~,,..._ ...,-,-,,.-.... __ -,~~...ul"~""""".:r¥,~ ..... ,.•~~ ............. -,-,.,.,...~_~._
Z8. f, .... CEGE:ND:

NOTE:
• 60 SECOND SEPARATION
• 63 SECOND SEPARATION PERCENTAGES INDICATE PERCENT
9 65 SECOND SEPARAT I 011 Of, FLAT PLATE DRAG.
VEtllCLE
~ !
MOST PROBABLE IMPACT POINT
%
t-
.
IE
C>
z:
~
...
'
co
I
,--I
'~
=
t-
t-
....
C
Z8.61
CAPE KENNEDY
28.6"1
-80.61 - 8 O.'60 80'
- . 59 80'58
- , 80'
- . 57 -80'
. 56 -80.'55 '
-80.54 80'53
- . -80'52
. i
-BO.S1 ,
-BO.50 I
-80.49
LONGITUDE-EAST
Figure 4-6. Impact Footprints for SL-l Meteoroid Shield Debris

J
~.?,:j t:::-::: ~~.P.t"9tJ.g;QU.lk'.:_JJlfLfi.~J't.@J',~r~!!1.''!1Ul.l1~•.~'''_~!~~~~~~~~"~~~.~~':.e'f~~ltt'~~~'t'j,,~a,'.:'~~..!fJ~~!,ltl'_~.:t!~:''!.;r.U_~:4'''~.4~. _~"_""'_"_''-'.-';''<-''l'~~C .!,.,_~_._~-,~. __L.•~".,...
Table 4-6. SA-S13 Comparison of Spent S-II Stage Orbital Parameters at 2 Hours Range Time
PARAMETER ACTUAL NOMINAL ACT-NOM -

,.
Radius, km 6,796.713 6,795,679 1.034

(n m;) (3,669.931) (3,669,373) (0.558)
'"
Velocity~ mls 7,648.6 7,648.2 0.4

( ft/s) (2,331.3) (2,331.2) (0.1)
Right Ascension - True of
Date (deg) 163.696 163.755 -0.059
Declination (deg) 39.276 39.239 0.037
Heading (deg) 123.929 123.696 -0.040
Path Angle (deg) -0.217 -0.231 0.014
2 2 -58.791200 -58.815334 0.024134
~ C3 km /s
....
I
(J'1
(n mi 2/s 2)' ( -17 . 140791) (-17 .147828) (0.007037) ,
Period (min) 92.58 92.52 0.06

Apogee Radius km 6,,810.6 6,810.1 0.5
(n m;) (3,677.4) (3,677 .1) 0.3
h
Perigee Radius km 6,749.4 6,744.3 5.1
(n mil (3,644.4) (3,641.6) 2.8
Semi -Major Axi s km 6,780.0 6,777 .2 2.8

tn mil (3,660.9) (3,659.4) (1.5)
Eccentricity 0.004517 0.004860 -0.000343

Inclination (deg) 50.037 50.034 0.003
Right Ascension of 26.957 26.950 0.007
Node - True of Date (deg)
Argument of Perigee -112.352 -111. 263 -1.089
True Anomaly {deg} -123.333 -124.360 1.027
~-·~:r~'~~!""t •• 'ftiP'~(jf·!ikn~r-'_·.-¥iG'f_fit~;W;;~~~~m:?l"~~~u...~m~1~':J,. -t~'.~~~-:;:.~n;'S-:Z:::'::-!i;,~':'''';!:;A;f''.:!:r~~:::::".1~;·::·_ ", -,.'::

Table 4~7. SA~513 Spent S-II Stage Orbital Parameters on Sixth Revolution
SIXTH REVOLUTION
PARAt4ETER MIDPOINT
'Time (GMT) May 15 1:54:24
:C3 km 2/s 2 -58.738148
(n mi 2/s 2) (-17.125324)
, i
Period (min) 92.70
,! Apogee Radius km 6,821. 7
I
(n mi) (3,683.4)
; 1 Perigee Radius km 6,750.5
!
j
I
t
(n mi) (3,645.0)
I I
,
!, 1
I
I
1
Semi-Major Axis km 6,786.1
, 1 (n mi) (3664.2)
_.!
, I
•
I
j
Eccentricity '{ 0.005247
, !
!
j Inclination (deg) 50.068
: 1
:," Right Ascension of 25.605
t i Node - True of Date (deg
!
Argument of Perigee (deg) -122.180

True Anomaly (deg -57.820
4.. 16
SECTION 5
S-IC PROPULSION
5.1 SUMMARY
All S-IC propulsion systems performed satisfactorily. The propulsion
performance was very close to the predicted nominal. Overall stage site
thrust was 0.07 percent higher than predicted. Total propellant con-
sumption rate was 0.11 percent lower than predicted and the total
consumed mixture ratio was 0.46 percent higher than predicted. Specific
impulse was 0.18 percent higher than predicted. Total propellant
consumption from Holddown Arm (HDA) release to Outboard Engines Cutoff
(OECO) was low by 0.18 percent.
The F-l En~ine model specification LOX pump inlet total pressure upper
1i mi t of 150 psi a was exceeded by a11 engi nes at Center Engi ne Cutoff
(CECO) as predicted. Engine 5 exceeded the specification by 4 psia
and Engines 1, 2, 3, and 4 by 2 psia. The higher pressures are
attributed to a higher boost acceleration schedule for the Skylab
mission than for ,n,poll0 and caused no problem for flight.
The F-l engine shutdown sequence was changed from the 1-4 sequence
used on previous flights to a 1-2-2 sequence (Engines 5, 1-3, 2-4) to
reduce vehicle dynamics. CECO was initiated by the Instrument.Unit
(IU) at 140.72 seconds, 0.02 seconds later than planned. DECO was
initiated by the LOX d~pletion sensors for engine pair 1-3 at 158.16
seconds and for engine pair 2-4 at 158.23 as predicted. At OECO of
en~ine pair 1-3~ the LOX residual was 30,582 lbm compared to the
predicted 37,175 lbm and the fuel residual was 27.727 lbm comparod to
the predicted 31,337 lbm.
The S-IC hydraulic system performed satisfactorily.
5.2 S-IC IGNITION TRANSIENT PERFORMANCE
The fuel pump in~let prestart pressure of 45.0 psia was within the F-l
engine acceptable starting range of 43.3 to 110 psia.
The LOX pump inlet prestart pressure and temperature were 80.4 psia and
-285.5°F and were within F-l engine acceptable starting region, as shown
by fi gure 5-1.
The planned 1-2-2 F-l engine start sequence (Engines 5,3-1, 4-2) was not
achieved. Two engines' are consi dered to start together if both thrust
chamber pressures reach 100 psig within 100 milliseconds. By this
definition, the starting order was 1-1-1-1-1 (Engines 5-3-1-2-4), The
buildup time'S of all five engines as measured from engine control valve
open si gnal to 100 psig chanter pressure, Table 5-1 ,':.\c: ~e less than
predicted, although within specifications, The l-l-l"":/l,f!tart si2quence
had no adverse affect on either .propulsion system performance or on the
structure.
5-1
LOX PUMP IN~ET PRESSURE, psia
60 80 ~OO 120 140 160 180
108 .-
,
-270
PREDICTED ACCEPTABLE
104 r= ~ STARTING L""- STARTING
REGION
r--- ~I-
REGION
. --1-- ... - 1--- ~- ~- ~-
-- --' ~,
u..
~ I ,ia
o
/
::;)
~
~ 100 I -280 ~
I
I)
~ I-
CL
~
~
~
~ ~
l- ACTUAL CL
I-
I ffi
~
...J It... 96.7SoK (-28S.S oF) l-
~ 96 II"'" I I-
~
...J
"". I 55.43 N/cm2 (80.4 psia) I Z
......
!5 I I
CL
-, I -290. ~
x ::;)
o I
I
CL
...J
X
I o
...J
I
92
I I
I~ I
~,
-300
88
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
•.. LOX TANK ULLAGE PRESSURE. N/an 2
Figure 5-1. S-IC LOX Start Box Requirements
Table 5-1. F-l Engine Systems Buildup Times
BUILDUP TIME, SECONDS

ENGINE 1 ENGINE 2 ENGINE 3 ENGINE 4 ENGINE 5
Predi cted* 3.822 4.. 287 4.004 3.899 3.873
Actual * 3.539 3.913 3.565 3.613 3.476
Di fferer:rce 0.283 0.374 0.439 0.286 0.397 !
Di recti on Fast Fast Fast Fast Fast
I
-\ I
i
*Time from 4-way control valve open signal to 100 psig combustion chamber
II
.1
I
pressure. All times corre'ct~d. to nominal pres:tart.conditions.
~.
il
1.\
\:
I
.j
.1
5-2
I
1
i
J I
The reconstructed propellant consumption during holddown (from ignition
conmand to holddown arm release) was 77 ,099 lbm LOX (67,550 lbm predicted)
and 22,337 lbm fuel (18,674 lbm predicted). The greater than predicted
propellant consumption during holddown was due to the faster engine start
and longer burn before holddown release. The reconstructed propellant
load at holddown arm release was 3,232,480 lbm LOX (3,240,147 lbrn predicted)
and 1,383,759 lbm fuel (1,394,378 lbm predicted). ,
Thrust buildup rates were as expected, as shown in Figure 5-2. The shift
in thy'ust buildup near the 1100 Klbf level on the outboard engines is
attributed to ingestion of helium from the LOX prevalves during startup and
is a normal occurrence. The thrust shift is absent on the inboard engine
(Engine 5) since the POGO suppression ht:lium injection system is not used
on this engine.
The engine main oxidizer valve, main fuel valve, and gas generator
ball valve opening times were nominal.
'p.,
9.0 2.0 3
"
B ~§
8.0 'f;
.,
•
,;)
A 1 ®3 C
- j
7.0 . m i1
xt
~11
1.5 (:
i~
t.
'/
0 ,i
6.0 .... f~
7~ 7 .....
.0 Ii
z
ID
ID
,....
0
J
!)
,.... 5.0
U, Iff .
0 1i
. ENGHIE 3___
...--ENGINE 4 l- 1.0 I-
V')
",,~
l-
V')
;:)
4.0
I I I I ;:)
IX
::
~
j~
IX
I I'
::
I-
3.0 . "
ENGltlE, 5.~ (f-- ~ENG.ItlE. 2
I I
I-
,
:t
i
~, '
! ~l~It---
1
I
~ ENGINE ~
l- 0.5
2.0 '!ii'
I
1.0
o
j) V)J o
- 5.0 -4 .0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 I 1.
RANGE TU£. SECONDS
Figure 5-2. S..;IC Engines Thrust Buildup
, '
k
r~
5.3 S-IC MAINSTAGE PERFORMANCE
S-IC stage propulsion performance was satisfactory. Stage thrust, specific
impulse, mixture ratio, and propellant flowrate were well within operating
limits as shown in Figure 5-3. The stage site thrust (averaged from time
zero to OECO) was 0.07 percent higher than predicted. Total propellant
consumption rate was 0.11 percent lower than predicted and the total
consumed mixture ratio was 0.46 percent higher than predicted. The specific
impulse was 0.18 percent higher than predicted. Total propellant consumption
from HDA release to OECO was low by 0.18 percent.
For comparison of F-l engine flight performance with predicted performance,
the flight performance has been analytically reduced to standard conditions
and compared to ~he predicted performance which is based on ground firings
and also reduced to standard conditions. These comparisons are shown in
Table 5-2 for the 35 to 38-second time slice. The larqest thrust deviation
from the predicted value was -10 Klbf for Engine 5. The 1498 Klbf thrust of
Engine 5 was below the minimum value of 1500 Klbf. This caused no problem
for flight. Engines 1, 2, 3, and 4 had lower thrusts than predicted by 1,
9, 3, and 6 Klbf, respectively. Total stage thrust was 29 Klbf lower than
predicted for an average of -5.8 Klbf/engine. These performance values are
derived from a reconstruction math model that uses a chamber pressure and
pump speed match.
Table 5-2. S-IC Individual Standard Sea Level Engine Performance
STAGE
PARAMETER ENGINE PREDICTED RECONSTRUCTI ON DEVIATION DEVIATION
ANALYSIS PERCENT PERCENT
Thrust 1 1510 1509 -0.066

103 lbf 2 1516 1507 -0.594
3 1530 1527 -0.196 -0.383
4 1516 1510 ~0.396
5. 1508 1498 -0.663
Specific Impulse, 1 265.1 265.0 -0.038
lbf-s/lbm 2 264.9 264.7 -0.076
3 265.9 265.8 -0.038 -0.060
4 265.7 265.6 -0.038
5 264.4 264.1 -0.113
Tota1 Fl ()\(,rate 1 5698 5695 -0.053
lbm/s /' 2 5723 5692 -0.542
3 5755 5745 , -0.174 -0.329
4 5703 5686 -0.298
5 5104
,,, 5671 -0.579 I
Mi xture Ratio 1 2.297 2.294 -0.131
LOX/Fuel 2 2.268 2.265 -0.132
3 2.260 2.257 -0.132 -0.132
4 2.294 2.291 -0.131
5 2.271 2.268 -0.132
NOTE: Performance levels were reduced to standard sea level and pump inlet conditions.
Data were taken from the 35 to 38-second time slice.
5-4
wqllS-Jql '3SlOdHI 3W33dS
...
..;
o
..;
S/Iuql ~Ol '31Yl!"01~ 3~Y1S
'N
... ..
N '"
N
J
D
I , t;>
1 ~ l~ ~
1 n; \
T ,
\ \
1
\ I
1\\ \
\'\
\
\ , , \
~, ,l !....
~ ' ... I I
~ ~, T1 QJ
U
s::
" ,,~ TI ItS
t:
" ~' , T! ce'-
'\'- \ : I QJ
\~ d
,,
I 0-
\\ Ii I s::
I 0
'f""
VI
'" III
'"N on .. III
o
r-
:::s
c.. ;/
'" N
'" '" 0 :4
6~/S-N EOl '3S1ndHI 3J.ll33dS
s/6~ ~Ol '3lYl!M01~ 3~V1S '- :J
0- ~
QJ
C'l A
ItS :1
+oJ
V') , ~
U i~
~
...... ~
f
~
t> j;::'
\( \ \ V')
\ \ J
\ \
\ :>. '" li . ~
\1\ '"'" \
\ \
M
I l~
LO
\1 \
:<l
:E
~
f
\\ 1\
,
\ \
:::s
*r¥
,\ ~
C'l
IT \\ \
\
\
, §
'f""
L.I..
, \\ \
\ i
0
:g
'" 15
1',
i\'~ \. r\ 1:1
" \
\ Ii
~...
"
,'\
" I
,
\ \ '"
'"
'"
f-.\ I', \
.
0
~
'l\ t-. 1\ , \
\
, \\ \ \ \
\
I
1\ :;;:
I
I
,
...
I
I, I I
0
0 0 0 ·0 ... :;;
..,'" '"
0
~ ~ ill ~
~ ~. :li .;
::i ~ N N
'"
'"!
N
'"
::; '"
N gOI 'lsnUHl 3~lS un~/XOl 'OllYl! ]UnikIH
The Rocketdyne F-l engine model speci fi cati on LOX pump inlet total pressure
upper limit of 150 psia was exceeded during S-IC-13 flight. The maximum
val ue of 154 psi a occurred on the center engine just before CECO at maximum
longi tudi nalaccelerati on. Simil arly, maximum pressure for the outboard
engines was 152 psia at the same flight time. Predicted pressures were 155
and 153 psi for the center engine and outboard engines, respectively. The
higher pressures are attributed to the higher boost acceleration schedule
for Sky1ab than for Apollo. LOX pump inlet pressures higher than the
engine specification also occurred on the AS-502 flight which had a high
acceleration at inboard engine cutoff. Maximum pressure for AS-502 was
150.5 pSia. Analysis of engine operating parameters and structural 10a~s
as coordinated between Rocketdyne, MSFC, and Boeing indicated that the high
inlet pressures would not cause a problem for AS-502 flight. Similarly
for SA-513, the high inlet pressure caused no problem for flight.
5.4 S-IC ENGINE SHUTDOWN TRANSIENT PERFORMANCE
The F-l engine thrust decay transient was nominal. The cutoff impulse,
measured from cutoff Signal to zero thrust, was 680,542 lbf-s for the
center engine (0.4 percent less than predicted) and 3,104,683 1bf-s for
all outboard engines (4.9 percent greater than predicted). The total
stage cutoff impulse of 3,785,225 lbf-s was 3.9 percent greater than
predi cted.
Center engine (Engine 5) cutoff was initiated by the IU at 140.72 seconds,
0.02 second later than planned. Engines 1 and 3 were progral11Tled to shut-
down 0.070 second earlier than Engines 2 and 4. This 2-2 outboard engine
."i
shutdown was accomplished and stage shutdown dynamics were significantly
1
{
reduced. Individual engine thrust decay plots indicating the 2-2 shutdown
i sequence are shown in Figure 5-4. Cutoff signal to the outboard engines
I was initiated by LOX depletion and occurred at 158.16 seconds for engine
j
j
!
pair 1-3 and at 158.23 seconds for engine pair 2-4 as predicted.
!
n
~
';I
! 5.5 S-IC STAGE PROPELLANT MANAGEMENT

~ The S- IC stage does not have an acti ve propellant util izati on system.
~,1 Minimum residuals are obtained by attempting to load the mixture ratio
~
expected to be consumed by the engines plus the predicted unusable
~ residuals. An analysis of the residuals experienced during a flight is
~ a good measure of the performance of the passive propellant utilization
system.
ii The res i dua 1 LOX at DECO (fi rstengi ne pai r) was 30,582 1bm compared to
{
it the predicted value of 37,175 1bm. The fuel residual at OECO (first
'r 1
I
engine pair) was 27,727 lbm compared to the predicted value of 31,337 1bm.
J, A sUl11Tlary of the propellants remaining at major event times is presented
1 in Table 5-3.'
!
5-6
10
II
.'\
~i I ENGIflE 1 [ENGIIIE 31 IEIIGINE 21 IENGINE 41
II;1
'.' r 2.0
t~
,~~ 8
"
:·1
~,
7: ,- r-
t,
io;,
z r 1.5
\Q
tf-; 0
6
tl 4-
.CJ
~,
~
1-
~. 'J)
:::>
~.~ c:r: '"0
t· ::I:
I-
L.1J 4
- 1.0 l-
~
..
z V)
I',
~i
~I
......
(!)
Z
L.1J 1\
\ \
:::>
c:r:
:r:
I-
r~
~
:d \ l'l. l- 0.5
~i
2
1\ I
I)
I
,,;
j
fl
~! o 1\ I' o
l{ 158 159 160 158 159 160 158 159 160 158 159 160
li
~\.1
gj RANGE TIr~E, SECONDS
~'I
Figure 5-4. S-IC Outboard Engine Thrust Decay
~
ti
i~
tl~
~
~j Table 5-3. S-IC Propellant Mass History
,
IJ
~
EVENT
LOX
PREDI CTED, IBM
FUEL
LEVEL SENSOR
DATA, LBM
LOX FUEL
RECONSTRUCTED, LBM
(BEST ESTIMATE)
LOX .L FUEL
I~
Ignition
Coomand
3.307,697 1,413,052 ------ 1,406,109 3,309,579 1,406,096
~'I Holddown
Ann Release
3,240,147 1,394,378 3,225,467 1,382,988 3,232,480 1,383,759
I CECO
DECO (First
Pair)
332,664
37,175
156,010
31,337
325,264
30,893
152,019
28,533
325,140
30,582
151,624
27,727
Separation 31,067 28,141 ------- ------ 24,211 24,355

Zero Thrust 30,957 28,064 ------ - ... _---- 24,090 24,271
i: '.1
, . A
·1
1., Predicted and ~constructed values do not include. pressurization gas so they will compare wi th
level. sensor data.
I ~
i!
}
'I
5.6 S-IC PRESSURIZATION SYSTEMS
5._Q,J S~IC Fuel Pressuri zati on System
The fuel tank press uri zati on system performed sati sfactorily, keepi ng ull age
pressure within acceptable limits during flight. Helium Flow Control Valves
(HFCV) No.1 through 4 opened as planned and HFCV No.5 was not required.
The low flow prepressurization system was commanded on at -97.0 seconds and
was cycled on a second time at -3.1 seconds. High flow pressurization,
accomplished by the onboard pressurization system, performed as expected.
HFCV No. 1 was comnanded on at -2.8 seconds and was supplemented by the
ground high flow prepressurizatjon system until umbilical disconnect.
Fuel tank ullage pressure was within the predicted limits throughout flight
as shown by Figure 5-5. HFCV No.'s 2, 3, and 4 were commanded open during
flight by the switch selector within acceptable limits. Helium bottle
pressure was 3031 pSia at -2.8 seconds and decayed to 550 psia at DECO.
i Total helium flowrate was as expected.
I1 ,
W HFCV rIO. 1 OPEN, -2.8 SEC
~'HFCV NO 2 OPEN , 50 0 SEC
W HFCV
\V
NO.3 OPEN, 95.8 SEC
HFCV NO 4 OPEN , 133 0 SEC
I I I I
J i PREDICTED rlAXII·lur1
.~
22
I
i / 32
l
1
/- t--- -- L
V
, ~ ._. " -, I
'" --- .- - '"
" 1'"I r- 30 .~
I ..... 1'''' ...
"" ~I VI
Q.
..i
11 r SP.-513 FLIGHT DATA
a::
::J
U')
J 1 2B U')
.....
a::
~~ -\\1 V
Q.
~ .-\ "" ~ 'L :::. f---

r---... r-' V- r---- - --:::-- 26
UJ
t.!>
<:
....I
...J
V
::J
l ""
'"
..:
..:
....~
....i '" - x
""
I
....I
..... 24 0
....I
::J
..... 16 "
""", I
r - r--....
~,- 1"-_ I
I
I"\ ...... 1"-_
- -- -- '.-L' 22
t-c PREDICTED rmn:tU:l
1 14
W
o 20
. ~t;'
60 BO
~I
100
I I J~ 20
,I
40 120 140 160
RANGE TIME, SECOIIDS
t• Figure 5-5. S-IC Fuel Tank Ullage Pressure

1
I {l I
.
,i
I
f
1,
i
I 5-8
Fuel pump inlet pressure was maintained above the required minimum Net
Positive Suction Pressure (NPSP) during flight.
5.6.2 S-IC LOX Pressurization System
The LOX pressurization system performed satisfactorily and all performance
requi rements were met. The ground prepressuri zati on sys tern maintained
ullage pressure within acceptable limits until launch commit. The onboard
pressurization system performer! satisfactorily during flight.
The prepressurization system was initiated at -72.0 seconds. Ullage
pressure increased to the prepressurization switch band and flow was
terminated at -57.7 seconds. The low flow system was cycled on three .".
j
additional times at -38.4, -12.1, and -4.7 seconds. At -4.7 seconds, the
high flow system was commanded on and maintained ullage pressure within
acceptable limits until launch commit.
Ullage pressure was within the predicted limits throughout flight as shown
in Figure 5-6. GOX f10wrate to the tank was as expected. The maximum
GOX flowrate after the initial transient was 47.2 1bm/s at CECO. Q
,
"
I , I I. I I
t- r·1AXillUM PERFOR~1ANCE LIf4JT
24 /' 35
. I'- . I'- ~ r- r- r- .../ roo ~ l- I'"' 1"'-

....'"
III
N
6
z- 20 I- 30
W
0-
0::
.
~ ........ I :::>
on
t\ ... ..... r r-SA-513 FLIGHT DATA on
W
0::
~"~ It---.. ..... V t- PREOICTED f1Axmur~

25 Q"
w
..... / /
\~ --- - __..1 v
t!l
ex:
-J
r-
--- - -1-1-- ".- --
- t--t-
...J
:::>
PREDICTED rmmlU11 - / - 1--

--- -- -- r---
~
\\
20 ""
~
I-
-- -- -- --
-~
-, .....
....J
x
o
...J
t-- ~- -- - - r- r-- f-- \
15
:::>
......
;-.
"- t-- MINlIIUf·1 PERFORHNlCE Llr1IT
8
10
4
o 20 40 60 80 ." 100 .120 140 160
RANGE nrlE. SECONDS
Figure 5-6. S-IC LOX Tank Ul1 age Pressure
5-9
The LOX pump inlet pressure met the minimum NPSP requirement throughout
flight.
5.7 S-IC PNEUMATIC CONTROL PRESSURE SYSTEM
The control pressure system functioned satisfactorily throughout the S-IC
, flight.
.1
,
Sphere pressure was 3040 psia at liftoff and remained steady until CECa
when it decreased to 2926 ps; a. The decrease was due to center eng; ne
preval ve actuati on. There was .a further decrease to 2551 psi a after OECO.
Pressure regulator performance Was within limits.
The engine preval yes were closed after CECa and OECO as requi red.
5.8 S-IC PURGE.SYSTEMS
Performance of the purge systems was satisfactory during flight.
The turbopump LOX seal storage sphere pressure of 3032 psia at liftoff was
within the prestart limits of 2700 to 3300 psia. Pressure was within the
predicted envelope throughout flight and was 2744 psia at OECO.
The pressure.r~gulator performance throughout the fHght was within the
85 +10 psig limits.
5.9 S-IC POGO SUPPRESSION SYSTEM
The POGO suppression system performed satisfactorily during S-IC flight.
Outboard LOX prevalve temperature measurements indicated that the prevalve
cavities were filled with gas prior to liftoff as planned. The four
resistance thermometers behaved during the SA-513 flight similarly to the
flightof AS-512. The temperature measurements in the outboard LOX pre-
valve cavities remained warm (off scale high) throughout flight, indicating
helium remained in the prevalves as planned. The two thermorreters in the
engine prevalve were cold, indicating LOX in this valve. as planned. The
pressure and flowrate in the system were nominal.
5.10 S-IC HYDRAULIC SYSTEM
The performance of the S-IC hydraulic system was satisfactory. All servo-
actuator supply pressures were within required limits.
Engine control system return pressures were within predicted limits and
the engine hydrauJic control system valves operated as planned .
• 1
i
i
!
!
·-1 5-10
SECTION 6
.i
S-II PROPULSION
6.1 SUMMARY
The S-II propulsion systems performed satisfactorily throughout the flight.
The S-II Engine Start Command (ESC), as sensed at the engines, occurred at
160.61 seconds. Center Engine Cutoff (CECO) was initiated by the Instru-
ment Unit (IU), based on characteristic velocity, at 314.05 seconds. Out-
board Engine Cutoff (OECO) ,initiated by an IU velocity signal, occurred ,
at 588.99 seconds giving an outboard engine operating time of 428.38 1,
seconds or 0.7 seconds longer than predicted.
Engine mainstage performance was satisfactory throughout flight. The
total stage thrust at the standard time slice (61 seconds after 5-II ESC)
was 0.13 percent below predicted. Total propellant f10wrate, including
pressurization flow, was 0.18 percent below predicted, and the stage
specific impulse was 0.05 percent above predicted at the standard time
slice. Stage propellant mixture ratio was 0.54 percent below predicted.
Engine thrust buildup and cutoff transients we~e within the predicted
envelopes.
The propellant management system performance was satisfactory throughout
loading and flight, and all parameters were nominal. Propellant residuals
at OECO were 16,616 lbm LOX, 2319 lbm less than predicted and 5878 lbm
LH2' 319 lbm less than predicted. Control of Engine Mixture Ratio (EMR)
was accomplished with the two-position pneumatically operated Mixture
Ratio Control Valves (MRCV). The low EMR step occurred 1.1 seconds later
relative to ESC, than predicted.
The performance of the LOX andLH2 tank pressurization systems were satis-
factory. Ull age pressure in both tanks was adequate to meet or exceed
engine inlet Net Positive Suction Pressure (NPSP) minimum requirements
throughout mainstage.
Performance of the center engine LOX feedline accumulator system for POGO
suppression was satisfactory. The accumulator bleed and fill subsystems
operations were within predictions.
The engine servicing, recirculation, helium injection, and valve actuation
systems performedsatisfactoril~.
All orbital safing operations were performed satisfactorily. Safing
of the LH2 and LOX propellant tanks was verified by ullage pressures
that decayed to less than 50% of design burst values. The engine
helium and hydrogen pressure spheres were safed successfully when the
vent valves were opened at 805.1 seconds.
S-II hydraulic system performance was normal throughout the flight.
6-1
6.2 S-II CHILLDOWN AND BUILDUP TRANSIENT PERFORMANCE
The engine servicing operations required to condition the engines prior
to S-II engine start were satisfactorily accomplished. Thrust chamber
jacket temperatures were within predicted limits at both prelaunch and
S-II ESC. Thrust chamber cbilldown requirements are -200°F maximum
at prelaunch commit and -150°F maximum at ESC. Thrust chamber temper-
atures ranged between -256 and -287°F at prelaunch commit and between
-205 and -232°F at ESC. Thrust chamber temperature warmup rates during
S-IC boost agreed closely with those experienced on previous flights.
Start tank system performance was satisfactory. Both temperature and
pressure conditions of the engine start tanks were within the required
prelaunch and engine start boxes as shown in Figure 6-1. Start tank
temperature and pressure increase rates were normal during prelaunch and
S-IC boost and no indication of start tank relief valve operation was
noted.
START TANI( TEJI'ERA~, 01(
100 lro 140 160 180

,
-- ,....-
1400 ~
~ r- ENGINE
J
START ,BOX .
I 950
_-1..-1:-f-
PRELAUNCH BOX (-33 SEC)
~ -
1350
/ o~- 0 ~S-II ESC l
.-
/ /' I N
V/ ,;
/
6 .r- - PRELAUNCH
VERIFICATION (-33 SEC)
I
I
~ 900 ~
~
...~
/ P ~I'0 I
......
<II
<II
,;
/ I IX
""~z
~ ::r
~PRESSURI2ATlON (-220 SEC)
! o~<f
---
Ilr,o ~
c
! ..........
,,--V
V ./ o ENG NO.1 t;;
1200 6 ENG NO. 2
J.... - -
I--
... ' ...V o ENG NO.3
<> ENG NO. 4
V ENG NO.5 800
1150 i
-300 -250 -200 -150
START TANI( TEMPERAT~, Of
Figure 6-1. S-11 Engine Start Tank Performance
All engine helium tank pressures were within the prelaunch limits of
2800 to 3350 pSia and engine start limits of 2800 to 3500 psia. Engine
helium tank pressures ranged between 3150 and 3245 pSiaat launch commit
and between 3250 and 3375 psiaat S-II ESC.
6-2 ...
The LOX and LH2 recirculation systems, used to chill the feed ducts,
turbopumps, and other engine components performed satisfactorily during
prelaunch and S-IC boost. Engine pump inlet temperatures and pressures
at S-11 ESC were well within the requirements as shown in Figure 6-2.
The LOX pump discharge temperatures at S-11 ESC were approximately
l2.0°F subcoo1ed, well below the 3°F subcoo1ing requirement.
Prepressurization of the propellant tanks was accomplished satisfactorily.
Tank ullage pressures at S-11 ESC were 40.3 pSia for LOX and 28.6 psia
for LH2, well above the minimum requirement of 33.0 and 27.0 psia,
respectively.
S-I1 ESC was received at 160.61 seconds and the start tank discharge
valve (STDV) solenoid activation signal occurred 1.0 seconds later. The
engine thrust buildup was satisfactory with all engines reaching the 90
percent operating level within 3.4 seconds after S-II ESC. Engine 5 did
momentarily exceed the predicted thrust buildup envelope as shown in
Figure 6-3. This was attributed to a slow second stage ramp during main
oxidizer valve opening. The predicted envelope was based upon the per-
formance of those engines on AS-509 and AS-510 and allowob1e vf.lriations
in other variables (i.e., valve timing) were not included.
6.3 S-11 MA1NSTAGE PERFORMANCE
The propulsion reconstruction analysis showed that stage performance
during mainstage operation was satisfactory. A comparison of predicted
and reconstructed thrust, specific impulse, total flowrate, and mixture
ratio versus time is shown in Figure 6-4. Stage performance during the
high EMR portion of flight (prior to CECO) was very close to predicted.
At ESC +61 seconds, total stage thrust was 1,164,965 1bf which was
1483 1bf (0.13 percent) below the preflight prediction. Total pro-
pellant f10wrate including pressurization flow, was 2760.7 lbm/s, 0.18
percent below predicted. Stage specific impulse, including the effect
of pressurization gas flowrate, was 422.0 lbf-s/lbm, 0.05 percent above
predicted. The stage propellant mixture ratio was 0.54 percent below
predicted.
Center Engine Cutoff was initiated at ESC +153.44 seconds. This action
reduced total stage thrust by 234,734 1bf toa level of 930,507 1bf.
The EMR shift from high to low occurred 243.1 seconds after ESC and the
reduction in stage thrust occurred as expected. At ESC +351 seconds,
the total stage thrust was 795,491 1bf; thus, a decrease in thrust of
135,016 lbf was indicated between high and low EMRoperation. S-II
burn duration was 428.38 seconds, which was 0.7 seconds longer than
predicted.
Individual J-2 engine data are presented in Table 6-1 for the ESC +61
second time slice. Good correlation exists betwee.n predicted and
reconstructed flight performance. The performance levels shown in
Table 6-1 have not been adjusted to .standard J-2 altitude conditions
and do not include the effects of pressuriza1:ion flow.
6-3 ..
LH2 PUMP INLET PRESSURE, N/cm2
20 25 30
-414 ~
0
0
LL.
.. LLJ
..
LLJ
e:::
24 e:::
=>
~
=>
I--
-418 START
~ REQU I.REMENTS LLJ
0-
LLJ
:::E:
0-
:::E: ENVELOPE LLJ
LLJ
I-- PREDICTED ESC 22 I--
I-- ENVELOPE ~
LLJ ....J
....J -422 z:
z: t-4
;
!
I-f FLIGHT DATA 0-
j 0-
:::E:
ENGINES NO. 1 20 :::E:
=>
~ =>
0-
THROUGH 5 0-
1 N
l
N :::r:
1 :::r: -426 ....J
i ....J 25 30 35 40 45 50
.1 LH2 PUMP INLET PRESSURE, psia
1:1 LOX PUMP INLET PRESSURE, N/cm 2
I 21 23 25 27 29 31 33
l -268 ;
105
LL.
0 SATURATION CURVE
.. 0
~.
1
LLJ
e:::
=>
-276 LLJ
.
1 ~
I--
~
e:::
=>
.)
~ LLJ 100 ~
0-
~ :::E:
LLJ
LLJ
0-
! I--
I--
LLJ
-284 START
:::E:
LLJ
I--
I
~
....J
z:
I-f
PREDICTED
RE QU I REMENTS
ENVELOPE 95
I--
LLJ
....J
z:
! 0-
:::E: ESC I-f
=> ENVELOPE 0-
0- -292 :::E:
=>
~
x FLIGHT DATA 0-
0
....J ENGINES NO. 1 ><
0
THROUGH 5 90
....J
-300
30 34. 38 42 ':::> 46 50
LOX PUMP INLET PRESSURE, psia
Figure 6-2. $-11 Engine Pump Inlet Start Requirements

I
I,
i
J ···6:"4
i
".... ~:r;~.!~~~!Pi_JJ.6 ft~!WtdItiUr!Lt'/!t!~'-;'.JLUiLd~"l!J.~ .1.~~~L~':'.~'!I!!"I!;~"':~{1~~:,:~~:!!!:,~~~~...",!i'. . ~~~~1,~.... ~~~~.:~i~If'~~":r";"" -. ~_::~}'!~~~* '1~~~"'::>!"~~F'.i. ¥.!'f'?,' '~r:"""'~ ,-""n",,,
, '
220
. ... 90U
200
r= r-..
----
180 ;
jf(/-- --/"
/£
~
I-- - -
800
160 I L
700
~~ ACTUAL ENGINE l-
''T40 I~ I I
I THRUST BUILDUP
BAND !
600
120 I /1/
! 'I
/
M
"2:
~
0
500 ......
0"1
I
~
..0 J:::::..
I t
PREDICTED ENVELOPE l-
.
0'1 r- 100 , :::>
t/')
M a:::
0
...... / t1.! 400 ::z:
I-
l-
. 80 ! I
/f)
t/')
:::>
a: 300
:I:
I-
,.60
40
I
JIJ
1(;
.... 1
,~,-.
200
20
I rf
100
~
~--
~
o -~ o
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
TIi~E FROM ENGINE START COMMAND, SECONDS
Figure 6-3. S-II E~gine Thrust Buildup Transients
~lf, ; ~.~ ';':'L~:'~_:;~;: ...~;l.i.-~':·~;~~;i-'''i:s;':1r·\·b::;::;~·.:~~-'"'t···rt'~~"''''~~'···'0·.

W5-11 ESC W S-IIEMR SHIFT - - - - -PREDICTED W 5-11 ESC \.V S-U EI'iR SHIfT - - - - PREDICTED
W S-U CECO WS-II OECO ','\ ----RECONSTRUCTED W S~lI CECa W SolI OECO - - - RECONSTRUCTED
: 1.2 -r-----r, 3000
1 II
I
-',.-<'
Ij
1;1
1
I :
t I 5.f)
20001
t
I "
!
-i
1300
I t f
I I
1.0 I <.1
4.5
200011 'I i
1200
I
.,.: I It I
..,!! II I i r-_____ --l '"o
To
' 1 1 ~
~.----,r-, ____
~:... ~__
'.0 . ~ 2400 i i ' ~
I ,.
,~ 0.9 1100
t-
I. ! : ~
.:
I i. . . 1
V>
~ I ; !
~ I ., I i:S
co:
0::
--r---;-" ...co'"
t- I.oJ
~ 2200
) • t I ' ' , 0
I:
H ---.,~t;;;:';.;:;;;;::;;:==;;;;:;;;;;;:;;; 1000 iZ
..,.
....,.
to
0.8
I ' 3.5~
i!I
~ I '
._.' '
'~ II
I I
~~
VI
0.; t •
Ill.'
j
'
·--f·I '-"-r--'~'-'-'-""';' I
'f ).0
;;i!
~20001
I
I
"
i i
:
.:
:
I ;
!
~~
...
0\
I
0\ 0.6
"'f 11
!i
:;; 1800J----~
I
I ; .
I
I . - - . _ _ _-+-- "
I
I
• .l--... "
i
-
I ; i Iii 800
1600 L I I; Ii:
Cld-t~L ~.-.
r. r
L"=t--. -... E
;!!430 ~
'"
~
u~
-, -- ~ ! : ! ! I I, ! 4.2i!
t
~
~~
.....
\-.._-+ !
1J I
3",
- .....,
~ -~I--- -~... _. ~- ._--'--l~-.-=-=..-______==~
~
1': ~ ~4Z0 ~
""'" ! i I ,
I 4.1~M::Z::
,
~ ".6~
VI 0 50 100
I
150 200 250 300 350 400 450
!is
.... '0-
"'~
410
a
I
50 100
1
t
ISO
i
1
200
I
I
250
_L.
300
i _...l
350
I
-!400
_i .50
.V>
~
.
:;;
_
0
TIME FRC14 ENGINE START. SECONDS TIllE FRC14 -£NGINE START. SECONDS
,W ,Sf W W, .W _.W . , w W,
ISO 200 tSO 300 350, 400 450 SOO 550 600 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
~NGt: TIt«. SECONDS RANGE TU'IE. SECONDS
Figure 6-4. S-II Steady State Operation

Table 6-1. S-II Engine Performance
RECONSTRUCTION PERCENT PERCENT

ENGINE PREDICTED ANALYSIS INDIVIDUAL STAGE
DEVIATION DEVIATION
Thrust, lbf 1 236,992 236,410 -0.25

2 231,320 232,278 +0.41
3 230,644 230,166 -0.21 -0.13
4 232,180 ~31,660 -0.22
5 235,312 234,452 -0.36
Specific Impulse, lbf .~ s/lbm 1 425.8 425.8 0
2 423.0 423.4 +0.095
3 423.2 423.5 +0.071 +0.057
4 422;4 422.5 +0.024
5 425.0 425.4 +0.094
Engine FlowI'ate, Ibm/s 1 55tr.58 555.24 -0.24
2 546.91 548.61 +0.31
3 544\q4 543.46 -0.27 -0.18
4 549.6i! 548.27 -0.25
5 553.n
.!
551. 12 -0.47
Engine Mixture Ratio, LOX/LH2 1 5.6;9 5.606 -0.23
2 5•.599 5.563 -0.64
3 5.578 5.552 -0.47 -0.51
4 5·;589 5.570 -0.34
5 5\492 5.445 -0.86
NOTE: Performance values at ESC +61 seconds: Values are site conditions and do not
include effect of pressurization flO\lt. >
'. ,
An in-run shift of -O.6 D F over an 8 second period was exhibited in

enr-~.nec 4 fuel pump di scharge temperature commenci n9 at ESC +285 seconds.
There were no corresponding changes in any other engine data and the
temperature measurement was determ; ned to be i ndi cati ng warm betwe'en
ESC and ESC +285 seconds. The measurement is considered questionable
and no engine performance change was indicated by the flight data.
6.4 S-II SHUTDOWN TRANSIENT PERFORMANCE
The outboard engi ne thrust decay perfor,mar)ce was withi n the predi cted
band as shown in Figure 6-5. As expected, outboard engine performance
di d not exhi bitdeca.v pri or to cutoff as on previ ous fli qhts. Thi sis
attributed to the higher propellan.t head and lower temperature propellant
at the engine inlets due to the hf~{her propellant reserves left in the
tanks wi th the velocity signaled cutoff vers us the prev; (Jus mode of
, operating to oxidizer depletion.
i
1
I.
6-7
1
!
220
200 -
~I
900
I I
180 800
I I --- PREDICTED BArlD
160
I I
- ACTUAL THRUST DECAY 700
I I
\ I ENVELOPE OF 4 ENGINES
140
600
120
\\ M
z
0
.....
I 500 •
I >-
VI
:::>
- ""0 100 ""
:x:
..... 400 >-
I
\
I
II 300
60
II
40
I\: 200
20 ~ 100
.~
o
..... ~;~Io;; - .. -- a
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.< 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8
TIME FROM OUTSOPRD ENGINE CUTOFF, SECONDS
I
589 590 591 592
RANGE TIME,SECONDS
Figure 6-5. S-II Outboard Engines Thrust Decay

At S-II OECO, total ~hrust was down to 795,043 lbf. Stage thrust dropped
to five percent of this level within 0.5 seconds. The stage cutoff
-
impulse through the five percent thrust level is estimated to be 140,544
.! lbf-s .
j
I
I
i 6.5 S- II STAGE PROPELLANT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMtl'
Ij
l
Gro~nd loading and flight performance of the S-II stJge propellant manage-
ll ment system were nominal and all parameters were within normal ranges.
i.
i The Propellant Tanking Computer System (PTCS) and the stage propellant
I management system properly controlled S-II loading and replenishment.

All S-II stage LOX and LM2 liquid level point sensors and capacitance
probes operated without any problems during the propellant loading, Both
LOXiand LH2,ipoint sensor percent wet indications were all within the
loading redlines
" '.
at -187 seconds.
i ;
Open loop cbn1;rol of EMR during flight was successfully accomplished
through use of theengi ne two-positiqn pneumati cally operated Mi xture
Ratio Control Valves (MRCV). At ESC, helium pressure drove the valves
to the engine start position cr;ri'responding to the 4.8 EMR. The high EMR
(5.5) commanq was received at ESC + 5.5 seconds as expected, providing
a nominal high EMR of 5.5 for the first phase of the Programmed Mixture
Ratio (PMR).
6,.;-8
The low EMR shift occurred at ESC +243.1 seconds, which is 1.1 seconds
later than predicted. This time difference is attributed to either IU
computational cycle time or the launch vehicle reaching the preset step
command velocity at a later time than planned. The average EMR at the
low step was 4.84 (4.80 predicted) which is well within the two sigma
+ 0.06 mixture ratio tolerance.
Outboard Engine Cutoff (DECO) was initiated by the IU velocity signal at
ESC + 428.38 seconds which was 0.7 seconds later than predicted, within
tolerance. Based on the 5% point Sen!iOrS and flowmeter data, propellant
residuals (mass in tanks) at DECO wer£\ 16,616 lbm LOX and 5878 lbm LH2
versus 18,935 lbm LOX, and 6197 lbm Ul2 predicted. The open-loop pro-
pellant utilization error at DECO was'22 lbm LH2 which is within the
estimated three sigma dispersion of + 2500 lbm [H2·
upen-Iuop t'U error at ut.w was i::.i::. 10m LH2 wn1cn 1S w1tnln tne estimated
three sigma dispersion of ~ 2500 lbm LH2'
Table 6-2 presents a comparison of propellant masses as measured by the
PU probes and engine flowmeters. The best estimate of full load and
cutoff masses was derived from the engine flowmeter integration and
5% point sensors.
..1
H
Table 6-2. SA-513 Flight S-11 Propellant Mass History

PU SYSTEM ENGINE FLOWMETER
EVENT PREDICTED, LBM ANALYSIS, INTEGRATION, LBM,
LBM (BEST ESTIMATE)
LOX LH2 LOX LH2 LOX LH2
Liftoff 822,200 160,170 822,200 160,134 820,596 160,266
5-II ESC 822,200 160,166 822,649 159,726 820,596 160,252
S-IILow EMR Step Conmand 306,699 65,951 307,002 65,620 303,909 65,626
5 Percent Point Sensor 15,940 16.,818 78,467 16,826 75,940 16,818
S-II OECO ·18,935 6,197 17,240 5,681 16,616 5,878
5-11 Residual After ··18,715 6,081 DATA DATA 16,331 5,777
Thr.ust Decay NOT NOT
USABLE" USABLE
NOTE: Table is based on mass in tanks and sump only. Propellant trapped
external to tanks and lOX sump is not included. PU data are not
corrected for tank/probe mismatch.
6~9
I
$-11 LH2 slosh amplitudes as indicated by the capacitance probes were
nomi na 1 except for the ti me peri od bet\'/een 60 and 90 seconds of $- I C
boost when amplitudes were greater than predicted. Maximum amplitude
reached at the probe was 14 inches peak-to-peak at 80 seconds, compared
to 12 inches predicted. The cause of this difference is not fully
resolved. Just prior to S-IC cutoff, indicated S-II slosh amplitudes
were 4 inches peak-to-peak at the probe for LH2 and 0.5 inches peak-to-
peak for LOX. After $-11 thrust buildup, the amplitudes were 9.5 inches
peak-to-peak for LH2 and 7.5 inches peak-to-peak for LOX. A full dis-
cussion of S-II slosh is given in paragraph 9.2.2.
6.6 . S-II PRESSURIZATION SYSTEM
6.6.1 S-Il Fuel Pressurization Syst~m
LH2.tank ullage pressure~ actual and predicted, is presented in Figure

6-6 for autosequence, S-IC boost, and S-II boost. The LH2 vent valves
were closed at -93.1 seconds and the ullage volume pressuriz~d to 35.4
psia in 17.6 seconds. One make-up cycle was required at approximately
-39 seconds and the ullage presslJre was increased from 34.5 psia to 35.3
psia. Ullage pressure at -19 seconds (launch commit) was 35.3 psia
which is within the redline limits of 33.0 to 38.0 psia. Ullage pressure
decayed to 35.0 psia at S-IC ESC at which time the pressure decay rate
increased for about 20 seconds. The increased decay rate \'Jas attri buted
to an increase in LH2 surface agitation caused by S-IC engine firing and
flight control maneuvers. This decay is normal and seen on previous
1aunches.
Dur~ng S-IC boost, the LH2 tank pressure remained within the allowable
low-mode band of 27;5 to·29.5 psi. Neither LH2 vent valves opened
during'this boost mode. Ullage pressure at S-II engine start was 28.6
psia exceeding the minimum engine start requirement of 27 psia. The
LH2 vent valves were switched to the high vent mode (30.5 to 33.0 psia)
prior to S-II engine start.
During S-II boost, the GH2 for pressurizing the LH2 tank was controlled
by a flow control orifice in the LH2 tank pressurization line with
maximum tank pressure controlled by the LH2 vent valves. For this
flight, the ullage pressure remained within the 30.5 to 33 pSia vent
band. LH2 vent valve No.1 opened three (3) times during the first
29.6 seconds of S-Ilboost. LH2 vent valve No.2 opened at 167.9
seconds and remained open unti.l 591.3 seconds. The LH2ullage pressure
1 was within 0.3 psi of the predicted pressure during S:"U boost.
,-- 1 Figure 6-7 shows LH2 pump total inlet pressure, temperature, and Net
.\
1
Positive Suction Pressure (NPSP) for the J-2 engines. The parameters
were in close agreement with the predicted values throughout the S~II
1 flight period. NPSP remained above the minimum requirement throughout
the S-II burn phase. ' -
-- 6-10
,-~~;4::a;"'pd*~_i"tiMfiitIUtittl!lWAliJL.. t..$:.;;Dt[~~t_J~;lt~:"~.~C~l~~~,:.t:-~£;~~~~~3!~~~:::;:'t'.::·!:,~:,:,~,~:::~:,_:::::!~!~~~~~,,-.~.~~.~.I!!.~~~""'~~~~~!I!:>~~~~~~~t;~~!i:~;",;~':~~"~_>",e'_()i-;. =>-,~.:•.~~.\':~_.-~,::.,~:~:~-:t:.::.\
...
~W
LH2 PREPRESSURIZATlON START - - - - PREDICTED
S-II ESC ---ACTUAL
S-Il CECO
S-II EMR SHIFT
W S-II OECO
36 0 LEfC{ I I I 25
28111'ILAI~IHlllj IIII ~
n:J
.~
II)
I- 20 N
0.. E
u
I.I.J 1\ 'Z -
I I. .111 I I I 11
0::
;0) .::;:)
!.JJ
V)
·1 c::::
.....
.....
V)
MINIMUM ENGINE START =>
I.I.J
0:: 24 ' . I . REQlJI REMENT I I II c.n
c.n
CL I.I.J
c::::
I.I.J
~
I I 0...
~ .-15 w
...J
...J LH TANK ULLAGE VENTING 0
~
ex:
20 I I I .' I VENT RANGE .TIME (SEC)I. I II ...J
...J
N
::r: =>
...J VALVE OPEN CLOSED N
NO. 1 I
174.4. 190.2 I ::r:
...J
16 I" II NO. 21
167.9 1 59 1.3 II
~-~- --4'
J I tz I I I I iii I kI i7 II
-200 -100 0 100 200' 300 400 500
IJIO
600
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 6-6. S-II Fuel Tank Ullage Pressure
_iii UiIlJIIU'-' m T'-P1f?jfIlW!lllilli'il'rnF'5U-'"''''"'''''''''''''''''-'",-''''''''''''"";.""%,a·,,,,,,~;,,~'"'''''~:;' ;::"~~:;,;,;;,;,;,r¥;:,;;~;. ;'" 5',~.""" . L,." .-.

WS-Il ESC WS- I IEMR SHIFT ____ PREDICTED
--ACTUAL
fU W S-11 CECO W S-II OECO - - - MINIMUM NPSP
''-
VI
0..
REQUIREMENT
UJ
. 45
oc
:::> t- 30
V)
V)
UJ
oc 40 ~
28 e:(
...IN
E
a.. ,CENTER ENGINE (CE) I- u
fo- 26 I- z
0
0 ........
...J ~OUTBOARD ENGINES
e:(
I-
0
35 J- (OE) r- 24 I-
UJ UJ
..
l- ...J oc
I-
UJ
30
~--
rr
- -- :\---- -- -- -- ... --- -- - '-
z: :::>
roo 22 ..... V)
V)
-
...J N lLI
fo- 20 :z: oc
Z
~ ...J a..
N I- 18
:z:
...J
25
LL.
0
:.::::
UJ
oc
-420 22 0
.
:::> lLI
I-- oc
e:(
0::
-421 - :::>
I-
~
--
lLI
n.. lLI
:E: a..
UJ -422 A 21 ::E:
""-" lLI
--- ---
l- ,;'
I-- -- - --- -- - I- - - -
l-
I-
-
lLI
lLI
-423
-
...J ...J
z Z
f- 20 N
:z:
C'J -424 :z:
...J
...J
20 ~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~---i 14
.,-
15
.. I- 8 a..
.
0-
V)
10 V)
0-
n.. - 6 Z
z N
N
51--- ... - ' - - - - - -- - 4 :z:
...J
:I:
...J - 2
o ~--~--~--~--~----~--~--~--~--~ 0
o 50 100 150 200 250 300 3GO 400 450
TIME FROM ENGINE START, SECONDS
,W,W "~
iI 150. 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
"
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 6-.7. S-II Fuel PUI!1P Inlet Conditions
6-12
6.6.2 S-II LOX Pressurization System
LOX tank ullage pressure, actual and predicted, i~ presented in Figure
6-8 for autosequ0nce, S-IC boost, and S-II burn. After a 107 second
cold helium chilldown flow through the LOX tank, the chilldown flow was
terminated at -200 seconds. The ve.nt valves were closed at -184 seconds
and the LOX tank was pressurized to the pressure switch setting of 38.6
psia in 50.6 seconds. One pressure make-up cycle was required at -103.2
seconds. The LOX tank ullage pressure increased to 39.7 psia because of
common bulkhead flexure during LH2 tank prepressurization. Ullage
pressure at -19 seconds was 39.7 psia which is within the redline limits
of 36 to 43 psia. The LOX vent values performed satisfactorily during
all prelaunch operations.
The LOX vent valves remained closed during S-IC boost and the LOX tank
ullage pressure prior to S-II ESC was 40.3 pSia. During S-II boost,
the LOX tank pressure varied from a maximum of 41.3 psia at 180 seconds
to a minimum of 39.6 psia at S-II OECO. The GOX for pressurizing the
LOX tank was controlled by a flow control orifice in the LOX tank press-
urization line with the LOX tank vent valves controlling excessive
pressure buildup within a pressure range setting of 39.0 to 42.0 psia.
LOX vent valve No.2 remained closed during S-II boost. LOX vent valve
No.1 cracked open and reseated a total of 75 times between 161.7 seconds
and 3."5.5 seconds. Frequent vent valve modulations indicate the valve
was modulating within a narrow crack and reseat pressure band. This per-
formance is acceptable since the ullage pressure was stable during this
period. .
The LOX tank ullage pressure was within 0.3 psi of the pressure pre-
dicted for S-II boost during high engine mixture ratio (EMR) and was
~ greater than predicted during low EMR engine operation as shown in
Figure 6-8. Comparisons of the LOX pump total inlet pressure, tempera-
ture, and NPSP are presented in Figure 6-9. Throughout S-II boost, the
LOX pump NPSP was well above the minimum requirement.
This was the third flight using the LOX tank pressure switch purge. The
purge system was incorporated to preclude a potential LOX/GOX incompati-
bility situation within the LOX pressure switch assembly. The purge is
connected to the helium injection and accumulator fill helium supply
system. No instrumentation is available to evaluate the purge system.
However, since both the he 1i urn i njecti on and accumul ator fill systems
operated successfully, it is concluded that the purge system also func-
tioned properly.
· ,
6.7 S-II PNEUMATIC CONTROL PRESSURE SYSTEM
The pneumatic control system functioned satisfactorily throughout the
S-ICand S-I1 boost periods. Bottle pressure was 2990 pSia at -30
seconds and with normal valve activities during S-II burn, pressure
decayed to .approximately 2685 pSia after S-II OECO.
6-13
I
PREDI CHD - - - - ACTUAl---
W LOX PREPRESSURIZATION START W S- II CECa W S- II OECO

W S-II ESC W S-II EMR SHIFT
42
f\.; .... ~.
.,
....- .......... """"I
~r ......
38 '"
....,
""
- 25
LAUNCH
34 REDLI NF
..
....
~
0'1
I
'"
0-
-30
"-I
a:
::>
V)
MI NIMUM ENGINE
START REQUIREMENT
~ 20 ~
-
~
u
'Z
::>
~
en V)
"" 26
a: I ....,
en
a:
A.
"-I
LOX TANK ULLftGE VENTING Q.
VENT RANGE TIME (SEC) ....,

~
-' VALVE OPEN CLOSED
t!I
<
::> -'
-'
NO. 1 161. 7 355.5 ::>
S
-'
22
NO . 2 NONE AUTO-SEQ .. 15 ~
-'
18
14 W -_ -_ \~l - 1 . - .. _ - w tv ~ \5j
- 10
-200 -100 a 100 200 300 400 500 600
RANGE TIME. SECONDS
Figure 6-8. S-II LOX Tank Ullage Press ure
W S-II ESC
- -- - - PREDICTED
W S-U CECO - - - ACTUAL
W S-II EMR SHIFT ---,MINIMUM NPSP REQUIREMENT
W S-II OECO
55
VZENTER' ENGINE UJ
.
0:::
:::l
50 r- 34 Vl
--- (I)
~
-,
UJ
r-..,--
~ '" 45
II
I-
.- I-
- - l- 32 0:::
Q..
6- V ~ I- 30
...J
c:CN
I- e
1-lS. 'r--OUTBOARD ENGINE o u
W 40 - l- 28 I-~
tw
-
~
o>••<1
35
I- 26
24
...J
z
.....
><
0
I- 22 ...J
30
-290 I 11
..
V
UJ
94 0:::
CENTER ENGINE ~ ::>
-292 --f- V 93 ~
lJ.J
-294
t'v Q..
:l!:
UJ
I-~
92 0
-296 ~
OUTBOARD ENGINE
I; 91
tw...J
....z
1-1
-298
35
i' __
1--- -- --- "
__ -:A.r-CENTER ENGINE
--- -.- ~--; 90
><
0
...J
....
30 rJr t-
L,
'ttl
.'~. --I---~--~-
f;: 20Ne
u
VI
0..
OUTBOARD
. ENGINE '\
, ......
z
.. 25 ..
~.:C':~ER
Q.. ENGINE Q..
Vl
Q..
z: 20 - .. '----
15 ~
z
><
....
I
I ><
o
0
15
I
- ..... --
.
10
...J:
OUTBOARD ENGINE-?
I I 1
·50 100 150 200250 300 350 400 450
TIME FROM ENGINE START, SECONDS
~~l~,~~,~~NZ~··~,~~W~~,~,~~,~
150 200 250 300350 400 450 500 550 600
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
{
"
Figure 6-9. S-1I LOX Pump Inlet Con'ditions
The pneumatic control system pressure regulator maintained the outlet
pressure at 720 psia, except for the expected momentary pressure drops
when the recirculation valves were actuated closed just after engine
start, and when the preva1ves were closed at CECO and OECO.
6.8 S-lI HELIUM INJECTION SYSTEM
L The performance of the helium injection system was satisfactory. The
supply bottle was pressurized to 3000 psia prior to liftoff and by S-II
ESC the pressure was 1755 psia. Helium injection average total flowrate
during supply bottle b1owdown (-30 to 158 seconds) was 70.3 SCFM. During
the prelaunch countdown, the helium injection bottle decay test results
indicated that no adverse trends existed.
6.9 POGO SUPPRESSION SYSTEM
A center engine LOX feed1ine acc~mu1ator was installed on the $-11 stage
as a POGO suppression device. Analysis indicates that there were no
S-II POGO oscillations.
The accumulator system consists of (l) a bleed system to maintain sub-
cooled LOX in the accumulator through S-IC boost and S-I1 engine start,
and (2) a fill system to fill the accumulator with helium subsequent
to engine start and maintain a helium filled accumulator through S-II CECO.
The accumulator bleed subsystem performance is satisfactory. Figure 6-10
shows the required accumulator temperature at engine start, the preciicted
temperatures duri ng prelaunch and S-IC boost, and the actual tempe'ratures
experienced during AS-513 flight. The maximum allowable temperature of
-281.5°F at engine start was adequately met (-294.4°F actual).
Accumulator fill was initiated 4.1 seconds after engine start. Figure
6-11 shows the accumulator LOX level versus time during accumulator fill.
The fill time was 6.3 seconds, within the required 5 to 7 seconds. The
helium fill flow rate, during the fill transient, was 0.0056 1bm/s and
the accumulator pressure was 44.7 pSia.
After the accumulator was filled with helium, it remained in that state
until S-II CECO when the helium flow was terminated by closing the two
fill solenoid valves. The accumulator bottom temperature measurement
indicated there was liquid propellant splashing on the bottom temperature
probe shortly after the accumulator was filled with helium gas. This
type of phenomena was observed during the ground static firing test of
the S-II-14 vehicle and the splashing presented no danger or problem to
the success of the flight. Figure 6-12 shows the helium injection and
accumulator fill supply bottle pressure during accumulator fill operation.
The supply bottle pressure was withi n the predicted band, i ndi cati ng that
the hel i um usage rates were as predi cted.
6-16
W LO~ TANK PREPRESSURIZATION- - - PREDICTED BAND
W S-II ESC ACTUAL
-260 110
~~
SATURATION- 1/ ~
TEMPERATURE
o
u..
I.LJ
.--270
V
-- MAXIMUM
105
~
""~I~
0::
::::I
~ -280 J ALLOWABLE
AT ESC 100
0
W
.
/
I.LJ
0::
0.. ::::I
95 ~
~
I.LJ
t- I- w
o::
o
-290 ---- --- ~-- 1 - - - -
--- --- '--
0-
E
I.LJ
~
..J
::::I -- --- .... --- --- l ... _ _ _
--- .... _- - I- 90
t-
~ -300
u
u
ex:
85
-310 tw Iw
-200 -100 o 100 200
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 6-10. S-11 Center Engine LOX Feedline Accumulator Bleed System
Perfonnance
V)
I.LJ
::c 12 30 E
-
u
z
..J'"
I.LJ
10
8
~ ~TOP PROBE
, u
..J'"
I.LJ
20 ..J
Gj
~
>
I.LJ
o><
..J
6
><
~MID PROBE
..J
0
..J "-" "
0::
4 ""
0
t;c 2 ~
..J
::::I ~TTO~ PRO~E
E
:J 0 . 0
(.,)
(.,) o 2 4 6 8 10 12
< TIME FROM START Of ACCUMULATOR fILL. SECONDS
164 166 168 170 172 174

, ,
, RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 6-11. S-II Center Engine LOX Feedline Accumulator Fill Transient
6-17
3500 W S-II CECO
~ UMBILICAL LINE VENT - - - - - PREDICTED BAND
3000
-- _...... HELIUM INJECTION STOP
W ACCUMULATOR FILL START
W S-ll OECO -ACTUAL
.... I
-- --"0 I I
2000
"~ , I I
.....
2500
~"
! "'e
" ........
.... I !
I u
.....
-- --
III
Q. i I 1500 z
..j
'"VIVI
::>
2000
1 I i. . . . . . . . .
He INJECTION/ACCUMULATOR ""
---
' ....
t7- -- -- I
I
!I
! !
..j
'"
:::>
VI
, I 1
VI
1500
w
'"
Q.
FILL SUPPLY BOTILE PRESSURE-r -:-- __ ~
, , 1000 w
...""
1000 I I I I
\ He INJECTION PRIMARY
I
! _1 ___ --- _
i J
I !
I 1 1
1
ORlFICE INLET PRESSURE 1:-;; --- --- - I J
500
l i--j--- +-- --~ I...........'>·

500 ACCUMULATOR FILL ORIFICE
INLET PRESSURE I
o - t"W" 1" - -.,. - - - -:;.:t"'\i7 I Iw I w 0
-100 0 100 200 JOO 400 500 600
RA~E TIME. SECONDS
Figure 6-12. S-II Center Engine LOX Feed1ine Accumulator Helium Supply
System Performance
6.10 S-II ORBITAL SAFING OPERATIONS
All orbital safing operations were performed satisfactorily. The engines
hydrogen start tank pressures w(:re slightly higher than expected at start
of safing due to thermal warmup caused by the abnormally high aft inter-
stage temperatures. The slightly higher pressures caused the pressure
decay rate to be on the high side of the predicted band but safing was
achieved successfully.
6.10.1 Fuel Tank Safing
S-II safing was initiated at 805.1 seconds and the two ordnance actuated
fuel tank non-propulsive vent valves were opened at 805.2 seconds. The
fuel tank ullage pressure subsequently decayed within ~he predicted band
from 18.5 psia at the initiation of safing to 9.2 psia at 7200 seconds
as shown in Figure 6-13. The differential pressure across the common
bulkhead was at all times well below the maximum allowable corJapse
pressure of 14.6 psi. ..~
6.10.2 LOX Tank Safing

The two ordnance actuated LOX tank non-propulsive vent values were opened
at 805.2 seconds. The LOX tank ullage pressure subsequently decayed
within the predicted band from 29.7 psia at the start of safing to 9.2
psia at 7200 seconds as shown in Figure 6-14. Comparison of the LOX and
LH2 tank ullage pressures show that the differential pressure across the
common bulkhead was well below the maximum allowable burst pressure of
17.5 psi.
6.10.3 Engine Start Sphere Safing
The hydrogen start tanks were safed by energi z.ing the start tank emergency
vent valves. This allows the tanks to vent overboard at umbilical panel
6-18
40 28
- - - PREDICTED BAND 26
ACTUAL
35 24
I
ttl 30
.,...
I ,,- 50% OF COr~MON
I BULKHEAD COLLAPSE
22
r20
N
E
u
VI
Co. WITH LOX TANK AT ..........
25 -. ZERO PSIA 18 :z:
I.LJ'"
ft
0::
=>
V')
V'J 20 ---
.- "
I 16
14
w
0::
;::>
V'J
V'J
, -~ " -
I.LJ LLI
0:: 12 0::::
0- ~ 0-
---- ~-r-- . . . . I
, w 15 ~ 10
"- , '~
-, (.!j
W
cx:: 1--- ~
-J "-
8 c:t:
-J
-J 10 I" ~- -J
:!:l
.... .... 6
5
"
--- -- - - --- roo
4
2
:::>
0 0
o
~"
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
TIME FROM SAFING, SECONDS
"-----'-' , --""--' , , .
500 1500 2500 3500 4500 5500 6500 7500 8500
RANGE rIME, SECONDS
Figure 6-13. S-II Fuel Tank Ullage Pressure During Safing
40 28
- -, - PREDICTEI) BAND 26
c3~ --,ACTUAL =-- 24
,
-t
\
22
10 N
.,.. 30 E
20
.~ ....u
VI
o. " \ I ~
25 \ I
18 z 1
I.LJ'" \ I '"
0:: - 50%" OF COMMON BULKHEAD 16 w "
\ ~\ it
:::>
V'J
V'J 20 \. I / 0::::
:::>
BURST WITH LH2 TANK AT _~14 V'J
, V'J
~
~
j
,:1
'" ., / - ZERO P~A

I.LJ it
0::: \ ,LL!
12 ~
0-
LIJ ·15 "-, I~,
r- , .....
i
-+--- 10
0::
0_
\\it
J
- -- -" --
~ ~ -::::
C!l ' '
tJ.J
-,;C c.!J ~-..r,
-I
-I
, ...
8 c:t:
-!
:{
"
10 ...
!~,
-
:::J -J
' ....... ....... 6 =:>
5 ~~
..
4
2
l
,"
o 0
"'"
o ·1000 2000 3000 4000 .5000 GOOO 7000 8000
TIME ~ROMSAFING, SECONDS'
., , 'p "irirnzzr-li.. ' . ' ., ..l ",'
500 150.02500 3500; 45005500 6500 7500 8500

• RANGE TiMf ,SECONDS" .
Figure 6-14. S-U LOX Tank Ullage Press~reOur-}ng Safing
6-19
#3A through the LH2 Pump Seal Drain System. The tanks were safed from a
maximum pressure of 430 psia to 65 and 78 psia (Engines N~.'S 3 and 4,
respectively) in 855 seconds as shol<ln irl ;-::igure 6-15. Data subsequent to
the first revolution (5200 seconds ltom initiation of safing) indicated
tank pressures of 12 and 18 psia. The tank pressures at the initiation
of safing were slightly higher than predicted due to thermal warmup caused
by the abnormally high aft interstage temperatures.
~ S-II/SWS SEPARATION
~ S-II SAFING START
250
r-- MAXIMUM PREDICTION LEGEND

~ 300~------+-~~·--+-~----+-------4-------~~~=~~
li 0 ENG 1 200 NO
...J\ 6 ENG 2 i:
~ v- - 1\ 0 ENG 3 •
~ ! '\. 0 ENG 4 150 ~
~ 200~________~I~~__-+~~~-+______-4_______~~~~EN~G~5-4-4 ~
~ w
~ .........~~..... MINIMU,M PREDICTION 100 ~
~
~
~
~ 100 i
I-
50 V>
0 r
\ ,"
200 400 600
1 TIME FROM SAFING, SECONDS
" \
~ Sf
---'-~-----'-------:-"';-----L-----1-6L...~0-----"v
800
I
1000 121JO
I
6000
1400
.
RANGE TIME, SECONDS

Figure 6-15. S-II Engine GH2 Start Tank Safing
6.10.4 Engin,e Control Sphere Safi.ng

The helium tanksweresafed by energizing the engine helium control solenoid
valves which initiates the engine purges (LOX dome, GG LOX injection and
LOX pump intermediate seal) thus depleting the helium in the tanks. The
tanks were safed 1ft'om a maximum pressure of 2890 pSia (Engine No.5) down
to 60 to 120 psia:in 335 seconds as shown in Figure 6-16. Data subsequent
tD the first revolution (5200 seconds from initfation of safing) indicated
tank pressures ;of 0 to 60. psia.
6. 11 S- I I HYDRAULIC SYSTEM
S-II hydraulic_?ystem performance was normal throughout the f1 i ght.
.'. I1
Hydraulid pressures.dUring the countdown and flight were norm,al. Accumu-
1atorgas pressures ranged between 3650 and 3800 psia compc:.f€d to the
'; I
I redl ineof 3000 p$ia mihimum. Accumulator pressures were between 3530
and 3630 psia, which i~ well within the predicted range of 3300 to 3800
j ps;a. Reservoir pressures wer'e, between 98 and 100 psia compared to pre-
di cted values of 78 tel 105 'ps ia. . .
j Ii
if!, ,J
6.. 20'
~ S-II/SWS SEPARATION
3200 "'-_~_ _~_ _--r_ _-.-____--r-_ _-r-_W~_S--..I_I_SA_F_IN_G..,ST_A_RT_--.
..
....
III
Q.
2(1:10 N
o
.......
z:
W 2400~~~n---~-----+----~----~----~----+_----4_--~
~ \/jXIMUMPREDICTION LEGEND 1500 ~
~ \ . OENGI ~
g: 1600t---_+..:"~\r---+------+----~---I------l- A ENG 2 ~
~ C~3 ~
Z <> ENG 4 ~
:: V ENG 5 ~
_
.... ~t--_+-~~r_----+---~----~----~---+_--.--4_-~ 500 ~
!. ~
~ ~
:z:
o o
-214 0 50 100
TIME FROM SAFIHG. SECONDS
~
590
,W
800
,
850
.
900
RANGE TIME. SECONDS
Figure 6-16. S-11 Engine Helium Tank Safing
Servoactuator performance was normal. . The servoactuator piston pos; ti on

was less than 0.25 degree compared to the redline of ~ 1.5 degrees. A
maximum compressi ve force of 6500 1bs was exerted by the pitch actuatoi'
of Engine No.1, well below the maximum predicted force of 19,000 lbs.
The fluid temperatures were nomina~ at liftoff and 5-11 ESC. However,
during S-11 boost the fluid temperatures increased more rapidly than on
previous flights resulting in a maximum temperature of 19S Q F at engine
cutcff compared to 120°F on other fli ghts. The hi gh tempeY'atures are
attributed to a high base heating condition in the engine compartment
due to fciilure of theS-1C/S~II interstage to separate. (Discussed in
paragraph 9.5.2)
The res~rvoir volumes during prelaunch and engine start were well above
the minimum redline limit ofl0 cubic inches. During S~11 boost and
at S-II OECO, the volumes were greater than on previous flights due to
increased fluid thermal expansion caused by 'the unusually high base
heating.
6·... 21/6-22· \.'

t,;
~i
~" " SECTION 7

.'.'
i"\
STRUCTURES
,
"
\,
"
I':
"
7. 1 SUM1'lARY
r~
;i
~1
Evaluation of the structural performance of tne launch vehicle shows
1'; no area of concern for the SA-513 vehicle, and all conditions were well
!\,;
within the envelope observed on recent Apollo flights.
"
"11
til
;;1
k(
The maximum structural loads were experienced during the S-IC boost
t
f:!
phase and were below the design values. The maximum bending moment was
82 X 106 1bf-in at the S-IC LOX tank (approximately 40 percent of the
~ design value). The maximum longitudinal transient responses at the
.~.. Instrument Unit (IU) were .:!=.O.15 £1 and .:!=.O.05 g ~t S-IC Center Engine
I!~ Cutoff (CECO) and Outboard Engine Cutoff (OECO), respectively. These
values are lower than those observed on recent flights.
IIt
ffi
During S-IC boost phase the expected small oscillatory response in the
first longitudinal mode (6 Hz) was observed from approximately 95 seconds
,...
ri until CECO. The Instrument Unit sensors reached +0.06 g just prior to
~ CECO. This is the same level experienced on AS~512 and AS-511. POGO
11
did not occur during S-IC boost.
I
I
~i
hi
The S-II stage center engine LOX feedline accumulator successfully
inhibited the: 16 Hz POGO oscillations. A peak response of +0.2 g was
measured on engine No.6 gimbal pad during steady state ~ngine opera-
tion. As on previous Apollo flights, low amplitude 11 Hz oscillations
were experienced near the end of S-11 burn. Peak ~ngineNo. 1 gimbal
pad response v-Ias.:!=.0.04 g. POGO, did not occur during S-1I boost.
The SA-513 vibration levels were similar at liftoff and lower during
subsequent flights as compared to those experienced on previous
, . missions. .
, ,I . 7.2 TOTAL',;'EHICLE STRUCTURES EVALUATION
7.2.1 Longitudinal LoadS
The structural loads experienced during SA-513 boost were well within
design values. The steady state acceleration of 1.27 g at launch was
slightly higher than predicted (1.25 g) resulting in slightly higher
longitudinal loads but no associated problems. The maximum longitudinal
dynamic response of±.0.20 g (Figure 7-1) at the IU during thrust buildup
is comparable to that experienced on previous Apollo flights.
6
~
... ....,.. J'v.- r--.r- -- - --- ......,--
o
-1 o 2 3
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 7-1. SA-513 Longitudinal Acceleration at IU During S-IC Thrust Buildup

and Launch
The F-l engine thrust buildup rates were nonnal. The ignition sequence
was 1-1-1-1-1 with engines 2 and 3 igniting early relative to the center
engine. While the planned 1-2-2 ~;tart sequence was not achieved
{Reference Paragraph 5.2} the time deltas between pairs of diametrically
opposed engines were within the3cr. dispersion (229 ms) used in the
pre-flight loads analyses.
The maximum longitudinal dynamics resulting from CECO were 2:.0.15 9 at the
IU as shown in Figure 7-2. This value was slightly lower than the
+0.25 ,to +0.20 g which was experienced on previous flights.
6
'\?CENTER ENGINE CUTOFF
en
§
• 4 " ~Y' ~ ,.,/"\,,-~
.- l...
~
...
...J
~ 2
u
cc
"
.'_.
o
140 141 142 143 144 145
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
6
~OUTBOARD ENGINE CUTOFF
en "\.
4
\
25
§...
i:;:l 2
..~
u
u
cc
1----- ~ INVALID DATA
o '\l A '. ..I
158 159 160 161 162
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 7-2. SA-5l3 Longitudinal Acceleration at IU

at Time Of S-IC Engine Cutoff
For DECO the maximum longitudinal dynamics at the IU were to.05 g (Figure
7-2); previous flights were +0.27 to +0.32 g. The significantly lower
dynamics at DECO are due to the staggered 2-2 outboard F-l engine shutdown
sequence.
Maximum IU 1ongitudi nal dynami cs at S-II cutoff and S-II /SWS s2rarati on
are shown in Figure 7-3. The dynamics of +0.1 9 are siC1n;r:ir;(n:tl~.
lower than the preflight prediction of +0.5 g.
6
~ S-II DECO I
en
W$- I I/SWS
.
SF,'ARATlON
I
'\
,.
!
I
I
,.
o
588
W
589
L- 590
Iw
591 592 593
, . RANGE lIME. SECONDS
Figure 7-3. SA-5l3 Longitudinal Ac:ceh~ra.tion at IU During S-II Thrust

Decay and S-II/SWS Separation
The longitudinal loads experienced at the time of maximum bending moment

(66 second~) w~re as expecte~ and are shown if. Figure 7-4. The steady
state longlt~dlnal ac~ele~atl0n was ~.9 g .. Figure 7-4 also depicts
that the maXlmum longltudlhal load~ lmposedon the S-IC stage thrust
structure, fuel tank, and intertank area occurred at S-IC CECO (140.5
seconds) at a longitudinal acceleration of 4.45 g.
7.2.2 Bending Moments
Pe~k bending moments occurring at 66 seconds are shown in Figure 7-5.
,. Bending moment computations are based on measured flight parameters
I
(gimbal angle and dynamic pressure) and reconstructed angle of attack.
The maximum moment of 82 x 106 lbf-in at station 1156 was approximately
40 percent of design value.
The maximum lateral dynamics in the yaw direction at the tu during lift-
off were +0.08 g (Figure 7-6). Accelerations in the pitch direction were
of comparable. ampl i tude .Predi cted 3cr values during liftoff were :!:.O .32 g
at the IU.
7.2.3 Combined Loads
Combined compression and tension loads were cornputedfor the maximum
bending moment, CECO, and OECO conditions using the loads shown in
Figures 7-4 and 7~5 and measured ullage pressures.
7-3
VEHICLE STATION, in
3000 lOOO
, 1000
, 0
I
VEHICLE STATION, m
90 &I 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
------LOAD FACTOR = 1.9 AT TIME OF MAXIMUM BENDING MOMENT

---LOAD FACTOR = 4.45 AT TIME OF CECO
----- LOAD FACTOR = 4.44 AT TIME OF OECO
50
10
",
40 ,
8
o
C§ 30
r --- ,,'
....
-
..Q
...J
...J
..:
....z
c:--=---: -:::::.-= :.:=: - ----- rs" 6
o
::>
t- 20
[
;:; I OJ
Z
o
...J I,
10 2
- ---- ---- --- --

,
"..
0 0
'-..J I II I
~
"'0<oj
I
Figure 7-4. SA .. 513 Longitudinal Load Distribution at Time of

Maximum Bending Moment, CECa and OECO
The envelope of combined loads experienced are shown for each vehicle
station along with the associated capabilities in Figure 7-7. The
minimum factor of safety (Ratio of capability to actual limit load)
was 1.32 at Station 3258 for the CECa condition.
7.2.4 Vehicle Dynamic Characteristics
During S-IC stage boost, the significant vehicle response was in the
expected 6 Hz first longitudinal mode. The IU sensor A2-603 reached
+0.06 g near CECa. This is the same level experienced on AS-S12
and AS-51l. Spectral analysis of engine chamber pressure measurements
shows no detectable buildup of structural/propulsion coupled
oscillations. POGO did not occur during S-IC boost. Figure 7-8 shows
theSA-5l3longitudinal modal frequency correlation (analysis vs. measured).
The analysis is in good agreement with the measured data as the vehi cle
responds ;n the first longitudinal mode (at low amplitudes) throughout t~e
S-ICboost phase except for a few seconds after the 63-secondanomaly
(See Section 17). At this time, the accelerometer which is located on
I
,,'
the IU skin senses longitudinal oscillations as the vehicle responds in
, 'I'
, ,
7-4
VEHICLE STATION. in
3000
, 1000
, o 2000·
I
----------~------------~------------~-----------~
Vf,HICLE STATION. m
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 o
25~~----~----+_--~----_r----+_--~----_r----~--_1
- - - BENDING MOMENT DESIGN LOADS
200 - - SA-513 .10
I I I
FLIGHT TIME: 66 SEC.
20 ANGLE OF ATTACK: 2.8 DEG
c
EFFECTIVE GIMBLE ANGLE: .37 DEG ,"... \
.08
I
,
... E , I \
'"~ 15+--~---+----~----~~/-+----~----~---+_\T-~--~
z:
....a>
'"~ ..:
....z NORMAL LOAD FACTOR
f-
z
....
100
i WITH STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS
i:
f,'
::E
0 '"
z
::E C
z:
I '"
z ....
C
z
'"
....
a> 5 +--~--+-=-'---~--~tJIoAI:'-+-+--~t----+--+-~~--\---1 .02
lr
) i
...
( Figure 7-S. SA-S13 Maximum Bending Moment
1/
0.50
.~
! ,
en 0.25 "
~
r\~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 11
i .,. II-
w
--'
.....
'-'
~ -0.25
0
I·
11'1\
~
1 j
I"
II.
IV ' ~p
I" I' r" r' IW I'
I~
I" If[\. v
"
~
1/1\
I'
I,'
tJ
-
,
-0.50
-1 o 2 3
Figure 7-6 .. SA-S13 Lateral Acceleration During Thrust Buildup

and Launch
the third bending mode.
The SA-5l3 lateral modal frequency correlation (analysis vs. measured)

shows the analysis to be in good agreement with the measured data (Figure
7-9). Early in the flight the vehicle responds in the third bending-mode.
This mode can easi,ly be excited by aerodynamic forces. Later in flight,
t ;
7-5
VEHICLE STATION - METERS
90
I
80
I
70
I
60
I
50
,
40
I
30
I
20
I
10
I
o I
VEHICLE STATION - INCHES

3600 3200 2800 2400 2000 1600 1200 8)0 ' 41)0 (
:z:
...... r-- ACTJAL C~MBIN~D LJAD (II !MIT
......
CQ
12
CAPt !BILliv
-'
'"0
I
10
r- --
~
x
8
!
0
:z:
...... ,__ 1--- J ---
1,1')
....
1,1') 6
0::
Q..
:E
fl
4
ii,
~r~
it
0
U
fl"- "_ ;!
"1 2
r-.--- 1_ "_+J
~, 0 ~
-,
b--' ... ~ "'-
, 2 "< ." ... "\ lr"-r,,

z......
........ i I \ f
\
\
CQ 4 i._ f--_.J \
...I
!
"
I
'"0 6 ", \
~
--- .,
x
z:
0 8
"',. ! : I
......
VI
....
:z:
I'': !i._
I-
10 .-
~1 I I
J II I I ~
Figure 7-7. SA-513 Envelope of Maximum Combined Loads
when the aerodynamic forces diminish, the vehicle responds in the

second mode which can be excited by engine perturbations. The maximum
amplitude (+0.4 g) was recorded in the IU at the time of 63 seconds
anomaly (reference Section 17) in the third bending mode which was
excited externally at the OWS. This mode has its largest structural
gain in this area and essentially zero gain at the engine gimbal pads.
Th,e S- II stage centerengi ne accumul ator effectively suppressed the 16
Hz POGO phenomenon. The flight data show that the 16 Hz oscillations
were inhibited with amplitudes generally less than those on recent
,I Apollo flights. The peak center engine gimbal response was +0.2 g
as compared to +0.4 g on AS-512. POGO did not occur. -
Transients usually present in the center engine.LOX pump inlet pressure
during initiation of accumulator hel i urn fill were not experienced dur-
ing SA-5.l3 flight.
7-6
~TLIFTOFF LEGEND
'0/6 3 SECONDS ~1\~ FLIGHT DATA
Ww\ X Q
W CECO • ANALYSIS
WOECO TH IRD LATERAL ~10DE
FIRST LONG ITUDINAL 63 SECOND ANO~~LY
r-- J Ak-16d3 ~
-
~
~
c-....
J 1/
/
i
/
-....J
I I
-....J II
A2-603 b ~
lul
I U-LONG.
8
....
N
~
QI
>- 6~M§s, ----~

~
~
u
. ~~~-w
\I (f ~~~ MAX. AMPLITUDE
±O.06G NEAR CECO
z: 4 SS'SS
w
~
CT
w
c::
u..
2
a~ i '0/ W , W , W
o 50 100 150
RANGE TIME. SECONDS
Figu re 7-8. SA-5l3 Modal Acti vity (Longitudinal)

'V"L1FTOFF LEGEND
W63 SECONDS ~ FLIGHT DATA
i
MAX Q
CECO • ANAL '( SIS
OECO THIR D MODE SECOND ffiDE
L
[
r--.
~
I-':
./
! ./
~
"
I
~
1/
.
." ,
, I
-....J ,
I
ex> ./
l,./
I\- b b
A7-603 ~j
Ill- YAW
8
....
N
~
~
w 6
>-
u
z
.
4 VSSS\SSSSSSSSSSSSS- . -
tJ
- - ,",""",ss\Ssssssssssss~
/
5"",$» SSS» SSSSS$
w ross! .
::::>
CT
w
0::
2 •
......
0 W \£
0 50 100 150
RANGE TIME. SECONDS
F~gure 7-9. SA- 5l3 Modal Activity (Latera l )

Late in ~~II stage boost phase, the dynamic measurements displayed
very low amplitude 11 Hz response. The Engine 1 thrust pad accelerometer
(E361-206) data show a maximum level of +0.04 g <,t 9.8 Hz near 570
second. -
7.2.S Vibration Evaluation
The SA-S13 vibration and acoustics data fall within the envelope of
previous flight data indicating that these environments were as expected.
Figure 7-10 depicts spectra for E0040-603 for AS-S10, AS-51l, AS-5l2 and
SA-S13 for liftoff, Mach 1 and Max q portions of the flight. The SA-5l3
data are comparable to previous vehicle levels at liftoff, and below
these levels at subsequent flight times.
7.3 POGO LIMITING BACKUP CUTOFF SYSTEM
The POGO limiting backup cutoff system performed satisfactorily during
the prelaunch and flight operations. The system did not produce any
discrete outP!Jts and should not have since there was no POGO.
< I
.;
,
,<
'
<I
. - ~
IU UPPER MOUNTING RING ~ AS- SlO
MACH
(E 40-603) 0.10 ·r-,-----,--- ----r-- 0--0 AS-511
0--0 AS-512
_ SA-513
LIFTOFF MAX Q
1.0 ~i---.......,.---~~.., 0 .a1 l i • ~\ !,fI'If\¥ Ift~, 'PI 1.0 . ""'. "
N
I
N
::z::
"'.......
<.!I 0.001 I ~
• _~
'I~i___ ~ 0.10 t.- IO,h
....... .......
N N
-.....J <.!I <.!I
....
o
I
0 . 001 t y . I .0J" j
o . 000 1 I '" " Jl , I I Wj o.o ll ~ \I I'llit P\ ::I
0 . 0001 ~ I r.\!
0.00001' 'I 0.0000 1' " O.OOl! " ll I 4 " , U) '

10 100 1000 1a 100 woo 10 100 1000
FREQUENCY, HZ FREQUENCY, HZ FREQUENCY, HZ
Figure 7-10. IU, Upper Mounting Ring Data PSD Comparison

SECTION 8
GUIDANCE AND NAVIGATION
8.1 SUMMARY
The Guidance and Navigation Systenl successfully supported the accomplish-
ment of all guidance and navigation mission objectives with no discrepan-
cies in performance of the hardware. The end conditions at orbit
insertion were attained with insignificant error.
An anomaly related to the flight program occurred at 3805 seconds, during
the first orbital revolution. This was a switch from the inertial plat-
form pitch axis gimbal fine resolver to the backup gimbal resolver,
which is discussed in Paragraph 8.3.3.
A single test failure of theya\'1 axis gimbal resolver' IIZero Reasonable-
ness Testll occurred at 190 seconds. This event is discussed in Paragraph
8.3.2.
Guidance and navigation system components responded to the physical exci-
tations experienced by the vehicle at 63 and 593 seconds (see Section 17).
A change in the navigation scheme was instituted on this flight due to
the possibility of lateral accelerometer pickups limiting against their
mechanical stops during liftoff. However, telemetry data indicated
that no limiting occurred.
The guidance scheme was modified to include inertially-referenced pitch,
as well as yaw, commands for the tower clearance maneuver because of the
orientation of the platform coordinate system required by the northerly
flight azimuth. A yaw steering command profile based on increased
anticipated cross-wind components was added to the atmospheric-boost
phase of guidance.
8.2 GUIDANCE COtvlPARISONS
The postflight guidance erro~analysis was based on the comparisons of
position and velocity data generated by guidance,system with cotre-
sponding values from the final postflight trajectory (21-Day Observed
~1ass Point Trajectory, Ot1PT) which was established by consideration of
both tracking and guidance system data (see Section 4). Comparisons of the
inertial platform measured velocities (Project Ap.ollo Coordinate System
Standard (PACSS) 12) with corresponding OMPT data from launch to Orbit
Insertion (01) are shown in 'Figure 8-1. The differences in vertical and cross
. range velocities are very small throughout the flight. The downrange
differences may indicate, in addition to small platform hardware errors,
8-1
~S-IC OECO >-
>
I- W' 5-11 GCS I-
I =:tU~...-
-III
...~E?
.J
..... .
> ...
U
Ci!i5 vee
U'"
-IIJ
.......
I- "-
"'''-
>c
I t--2 ;:: f!j
--.J--3;;;: tt
>c
>-
I-
:F J ____ ______ _________ ____ ___==u~

_1~
__________ J~ v
~ __ ~ ~ ~ ~--'-3~~ 0"-
a::-
!
~Q
.:1£11 I-I
\
i
I
4
!
a 100 200 300 400 SQQ
RANGE TIME. SECONDS
Fi gure 8-1. SA-513 Trajectory and ST-124M Platform Velocity Comparisons,

Boost- to-Orbi t Inserti on (Trajectory Mi nus LVDC)
a small time bias~ or angular error in the transformation of ground tracking

data to the launch site and inertial coordinate system at the time of
gui dance reference release. However, the di fferences are withi n 30' envelopes
and well within the accuracy of the data compared.
The inertial platform velocity measurements at significant event times
are shown in Table 8-1 along with corresponding data from the OMPT.
The small differences between the telemetered and OMPT data reflect
some combination of small guidance hardware errors and trajectory
determination errors.
Velocity gain due t.o thrust decay and S-IT retro-motor plume impinge-
ment after Guidance Cutoff Signal (GCS) was essentially as predicted
until approximately 593 seconds. At that time the guidance and naviga-
tion system responded to the 593-second anomaly (see Section 17 for
detailed discussion of this event). ,~1easured and predicted veloci:ty
gains are summarized in Table 8-2 and shown in Figure 8-2. The velocity
gain from GCS to S-II/SWS separation as sensed by the platform accelet o- 1
meters, was 6.30m/s (20.67 ft/s) or 0.10 m/s (0.33 ft/s) greater than
the Operational Trajectory prediction. The measured velocity gain
8-2
Table 8-1. SA-5l3 Inertial Platform Velocity Comparisons
VELOCITY - PACSS 12
EVENT DATA SOURC~ t4ETERS/ SECOND (FEET/SECOND)
VERTICAL CROSS. RANGE DOWN .RANGE
.
X Y Z
LVDC 3086.77 5.55 2162.82
S-IC (10,127 .20) (18.21) (7095.8])
CECa Postflight 3086.17 5.24 2163.10
Trajectory (10,125.23 ) (17.19) (7056.78)
LVDC 3179.80 517.78 7501 .07
S-II (l0~432.41 ) (1698.75 ) (24,609.81)
GCS Postflight 3180.14 518.05 7501 .07
Trajectory (10,433.53) (1699.64) (24,609.81)
LVDC 3174.85 518.85 7506.95
Orbi ta 1 (10,416.17) (1702.26) (24,629. iO)
Insertion Postflight 3175.28 518.28 7507.39
Trajectory (10,417.59) (1700.39) (24,630.54)
from S-II/SWS spearation to 593 seconds was slightly less:than the OT

values for the same time interval making the total velocity gain from
GCS of 6.76 m/s (22.18 ft/s} for the Launch Vehicle Digital Computer
(LVDC) compared to an OT value of 6.83 m/s (22.41 ft/s). The OT
simulation assumed no thr:ust after this time period (approximately 4
seconds after GCS). How~ver, the LVDC velocity accumulation indicated
a 1.47 m/s (4.82 ft/sec) increase after 593.04 seconds. Since the LVDC
reads the accumulated accelerometer outputs only at the beginning of a
computation cycle (approximately 1 second) for ~avigation purposes,
the velocity accumulations at approximately 593.71 seconds could be
slightly in error. However, only one pulse (0.05 m/s) change in each
component \'/as noted over ten succeedi n9 computati on cycles. The
.~~,;::ce1erometer optisyn signals are in pairs and only one of each pair
'1'{Z:S telemetered which makes it impossible to actually reconstruct
the accelerometer outputs during this transient period. The summation
of the ~ V from poi nt to poi fyl;- is shown in Table 8..;2. The measured
velocity gain from GCS to orbit insertion was 8 .. 35 m/s (27 .. 40 ft/s)
,
.~
'
,
8-3
Table 8-2. SA-513 Velocity Gain After Guidance Cutoff Signal
VELOCITY CHANGE - PACSS 12 - MIS (FT/S)

TIME DATA . .
INTERVAL SOURCE !J.X !J.Y !J.Z !J.V* E!J.V
LV DC -3.25 0.82 5.33 6.30 6.30

From GCS to (-10.66) (2.69) (17.49) (20.67) (20.67)
SWS Separation
OT -3.21 0.85 5.24 6.20 6.20
( -1 0.53) (2.79) (17.19) (20.34) (20.34)
LVDC -0.20 0.10 0.40 0.46 6.76
From SWS Separa- (-0.66) (0.33) (1 .31 ) (1.51 ) (22.18)
tion to 593.04
sec. OT -0 ..33 0.09 0.53 0.63 6.83
(-1. ,J8) (0.30) (1.74) (2.07) (22.41)
From 593.04 sec. LVDC -1.45 0.25 0.10 1.47 8.23

to 593.71 sec. (-4.76) (0.82) (0.33) (4.82) (27.00)
..... "
OT 0 0 0 0 6.83
(22.41 )
LV DC -0.05 -0.10 0.05 0.12 8.35
From 593.71 sec. (-0.16) (-0.33) (0.16) (0.39) (27.40)
to 01 OT 0 0 0 6.83
0
(22.41)
~""
1/2
*!J.V = (!J.x 2 + !J.y2 + !J.Z2)
compared with theOT value of 6.83 m/s (22.41 ft/s). The LVDC total
velocity at 01 \lIas 7649.22 m/s(25094.87 ft/s) \l/hich indicated an
overspeed of 0.49 m/s (1.61 ft/s).
Comp~risons of Navigation (PACSS #13) positions, velocities and flight
path 'angle at significant event times are presented in Table 8-3.
Differences between the LVDC and OT values refl ect the normally
encountered differences between actual and nominal flight environment
and vehicle performance. At S-11 stage cutoff the LVDC total velocity
was 0.07m/s (0.23 ft/s) less than the OT and the radius vector was 3.3
meters (11.0 feet) greater than the OT value. At 01 the LV DC total
velocity was 0.49 m/s (161 ft/s) greater than the OT value which was
mostly due to the unexpected transient after S-Il/SWS separation. Th~
LVDC and OMPT data were in good agreement. The guidance system per·,:'
formed as expected from launch to 01.
8-4
ACTUAL NOTE
-- - ~--PREDICTED THE TOTAL VELOCITY GAINED FROM
l
\VBEGINNING OF COMPUTER CYCLE
GCS IS GENERATED BY CALCULATING -~
j\
WS-II/SWS SEPARATION
Vc = Vc + (6XOM2 + 6YOM2 + 6ZOM2)1/2
- WPPEDICTED END OF RETRO BURN
AT EACH COMPUTER CYCLE. -~
W593.04 ANOMALY
10 - WORBIT INSERTION +-.---+-+-+----+-+-+----+-+-r--+-+-r---i
.....e
VI
V">
U
t!I
!i
0::
LL.
o
UJ
z:
';;;:
t!I
>-
-
I-
U
o
-'
UJ
:>
W \!
597 598 599
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 8-2. SA-5l3 Actual and Predicted Velocity Gained After GCS
Table 8-3. SA-513 Navigation Comparisons (PACSS 13)

POSITIONS VELOClTIES
)1ETERS (FEET) METERS/SEC (rEET /SEC) FLIGHT PATH
EVENT OATA SOURCE ANGLE (OEG)
J(s Ys Zs R Xs Ys Zs Vs () )
S-Ir. Navi gator 6456954.3 66287.8 120905.5 6458426.4 1378 .. 10 305.63 2421.90 2803.24 30.583306
EnDines
Number
(tVDG) (21184233. ) (217480.) (396672. ) (2118906j. ) (4521.33) (HlJ2 .m (7945.87) (9196.98)
Postfl i oht 6456934.2 66286.8 120905.5 6458406.3 1377.67 305.33 2422.08 2803.15 30.57410
2 and 4 Trajectorv (Z1l84167. ) (217476.) (396672. ) (21188997. ) (4519.91 ) (1001.74) (7946.461 (9196.69)
(utoff Operational 6456505. 65924. 1.20046. 64579,,7. 1374.14 297.29 2404.49 2785.35 30.6885
Trajectory (Zll 82759. ) (216.288. ) (3938,2.) (21187:'24. ) (450S.3J) (915.36) (7888.74) (9138.30)
S-II I'avinator 6486939.1 24553/j.7 2062529.7 63114£6 .3 -?329.47 741.27 7240.55 7542.09 0.008392
r,es (LV De) (21282609. ) (805567. ) (6768142.) (22347396: ) (-7642.52) (2431.99) (23755.09) (25072.47)
Postflioht 6486954.7 245'501.6 2063090.3 6311543.5 "232e.97 741. 55 7240.50 7641.91 0.01315
Trajectorv (21232660. ) (80"451-) (6768C69.) (22347600. ) (-76'10.98) {2432.91 r (23754.92) (25071.88)
Operational 6489647. 244654. 2054490. 6811483. -2319.43 74 I. 60 7243.82 7642.16 0.0127
Trajectory (21291492. ) (802670. ) (6740452. ) (22347385. ) (-7609.68) (2433.08) (2J765.8)) (25072.72)
Orbi t Navi~ator 6463197.8 252942.9 2135251 .. 9 6611476.1 ~2416.04 739.28 7219.89 7649.22 -0.013267
Insertion (LVDe) ('~1204717. ) (829865. ) (7005420. ) (22347363. ) (·7926.64) (2425.46 ) (Z3687.30) (25095.87)
Postflight 6463215.3 252906.3 ?135W.9 6811544 6 -2415.45 738.73 . ]220.27 7649.34 ·0.00707
Trajectory (21204775. ) (829745. ) (7005977. ) (22347537 1 (-7924.70) {2423.65} (23688.55) (25096.26)
Operati ona 1 6466005. 252065. 2126861. 6811482. -2404.62 . 739.50 7223.15 7648.73 0.0008 '
Trajectory (21213926;) (826986; ) (6977890. ) (22347382. ) H8S9.19} (2426.19) (23698.01) (2S094.25)
...
8-5
8.3 NAVIGATION AND GUIDANCE SCHEME EVALUATION
The LVDC flight program performed all required functions properly. One
anomaly occurred and is discussed in Paragraph 8.3.3. Several flight
program changes from the Saturn V Apollo navigation and guidance scheme,
as discussed below, were successfully instrumented. A minor discrepancy
occurred and is discussed in Paragraph 8.3.2.
8.3.1 Major Differences From Past Schemes
Major differences between the SA-5l3 guidance scheme and that employed in
recent Saturn V Apollo configurations consisted of the follO\."ing: 1)
inertially-referenced pitch commands to the tower clearance maneuver,
2) addition of yaw steering to the atmospheric boost time-tilt profile,
3) S-II stage CECO commanded as a function of vehicle characteristic
velocity rather than burn duration, and 4) S-II stage OECO commanded on
inertial velocity rather than depletion cutoff. The navigation scheme
was altered to use pre-set accelerations in lieu of y and z accelero-
meter outputs until approximately 10 seconds.
The tower clearance maneuver consists of a rotation about the vehicle
yaw axis. Past Saturn Apollo flights have been such that the inertial
yaw axis was sufficiently parallel to the vehicle yaw axis so that only
an inertial ya~J steering command was necessary. J\lignment of the Z
inertial axis to the northerly flight azimuth of the SL-l resulted
in a change in the inertial axes to vehicle axes orientation such that
an inertial pitch, as well as yaw, was required to obtain a rotation
about the vehicle yaw axis.
Yaw steering as a function of time during atmospheric boost was added
to minimize launch vehicle aerodynamic angle of attack and the attendant
bending moment magnitude. This action was taken because of the increased
magnitude of the anticipated crosswind component due to the more
northerly launch azimuth coupled with the prevailing southwesterly
winds in the launch area.
S-Il CECO was commanded as a function of stage performance as keyed
by a navigator-calculated accumulation of characteristic velocity.
The change resulted in a more optimum S-II stage boost profile.
S-II DECO was. programmed as a guidance controlled event rather than
a propellant depletion cutoff because the S-II was the terminal
booster for the first time.
Modeled lateral acceleration inputs to the navigator in lieu of
inertial Y and Z platform accelerometer outputs, were introduced
into the flight program for the first teh seconds of flight. This
change insured that if limiting did occur, no effect on the flight
would result. Accelerometer limiting has ;n the case of three
8-6
previous flights been caused by the high level of acoustic energy that
accompanies Saturn V liftoff. Limiting is due to the accelerometer
pickup hitting their mechanical stop and cause biases to be introduced
into the accelerometer values used in the onboard navigator. Prior
studies showed that considerable degradation to the SWS orbit could
result from the navigation errors associated with limiting. However,
for this flight no limiting occurred. The modified scheme resulted
in negligible error of -0.15 m/s downrange and -0.05 m/s crossrange.
8.3.2 Guidance Event Times
All guidance events scheduled at preset times occurred within
acceptable tolerances. All flight program routines, including time-
tilt, IGM, navigation and minor loop functions were accomplished
properly. Times of occurrence of major navigation and guidance
events are shown in Table 8-4.
Table 8-4. SA-513 Start Times for IGr~ Guidance Commands
RANGE TIME - SECONDS

EVENT PREDICTED ACTUAL DELTA
IG~1 Initiation 196.220 197.071 0.851
(Phase 1)
IGM Phase 2 314.345 315.089 0.744
IGM Phase 3 402.470 404.545 2.075
fCo Terminal Steering 563.720 565.777 2.057
!
i .
8.3.3 Yaw (Z) Axis Resolver Unreasonable Indication
A single instance of an unreasonable zero output by the yaw axis fine
resolver was indicated at 190 seconds during the inertial.attitude
hold between S-II engine start and IGM initiation. The Zero Reasonable-
ness Test is applied to distinguish between a normal electrical zero
, reading of the gimbal angle resolver, which can occur 64 times in a
'. complete gimbal rotation (every 5.625 degrees), and a power supply
failure which also would cause an electrical zero reading.:When two
successive zero readings occur and the attitude error is sufficiently
8-7
large to be causing control reaction, i.e., larger than a preset constant,
the occurrence of successive zeros is considered unreasonable. Three
unreasonable determinations in 0.8 seconds during boost (one second
during orbit) initiates a switchover to the backup resolVer. In this
instance, only one unreasonable determination occurred.
Analysis of the fine gimbal angle data verified that the error word
was proper and that the zero readings were expectable. The attitude
error output was 0.24° and not changing. This offset in attitude error
of greater than 0.06~ resulted from a combination of rate gyro null
offset and a stage thrust misalignment. It was determined, however,
that the criteria should not be changed since the probability of three
successive test failures without a real system failure is very low, and
because the impact of inadvertent switchover to the backup resolver would
only be loss of redundancy.
8.3.4 Pitch Axis Resolver Switchover
At 3805 seconds, during the first orbital revolution, the Y (pitch) fine
gimbal angle was found unreasonable three times within one second causing
switchover to the backup resolver. The unreasonable readings were deter-
mined by the Zero Reasonableness Test (see Paragraph 8.3.2). The
resolver switchover had no effect on the mission and resulted only in
loss of redundancy. The control system dead band used for orbital atti-
tude control for the Saturn Work Shop has a larger attitude error limit
deadband (2.0°) than in the Apollo system (1.0°) .. The computer test
constant used to represent the deadband should, therefore, have been
increased to reflect the increased attitude error limit. However, the
test constant was set at 1.2°, the Apollo value. In addition, a null
offset (within specification) in the Control Signal Processor effec-
tively moved the control deadband so that an appropriately set test
constant would not have properly represented the edge of the deadband.
These two conditions, either of them sufficient, permitted the Zero
Reasonableness Test to be failed in pitch when the vehicle pitch attitude
was actually within the control deadband.
A repeat of this occurrence for either SL~3 or SL-4 is unlikely. However,
the test constant values have been re-evaluated based on known rate-gyro
null offsets. As a result of this re-evaluation, the test constant will
be increased to ~.Oo.
8.3.5 Attitude COl11llands
,
Vehicle attitude commands issueddu:ring boost are shown in Figure 8-3

along with the predicted values. Yaw steeringcorrnnands are slightly
different from those predicted due to larger than predicted steering
misalignment corrections, and different-from~nominal initial conditions
for IGM initiation.
8-8
8.3.6 Terminal Conditions
A comparison of desired and achieved guidance terminal conditions is
shown in Table 8-5. The small error values indicate satisfactory
performance by the guidance and navigation system.
8.3.7 Orbiter Phase
Orbital guidance and events sequencing were as specified. Commanded
attitudes during the orbital phase are shown in Table 8-6.
- - PREDICTED
----LVDC
..
Ol
"0
8
.~ 6
e(
~
Cl
u
~! 4
fi ~
:::>
I
I-
;:: 2
,1 l-
e(
'3
1 e(
>-
j
0
~}
-2
10
.
Ol
"0
0
-10
/,'
c;;
~
~
-20
II,
P
Cl
u. I
-30
UJ
c
:::>
-40 L
l-
E
e( -sc
-11
-'
-' -60
.~
-70 'i9 W~ Iw W '\OJ

o 100 200 300 400 500 600
TIME FROM FIRST MOTION, SECONDS
I='igure 8-3. Attitude Commands
8-9
Table 8-5. SA-5l3 End Conditions
ERROR
(ACHIEVED-
PARAMETER DESIRED ACHIEVED DESIRED)
Velocity, VT (m/sec) 7648.7198 7648.6326 -.0872

Radius, RT (meters) 68115~,4.0 6811492.5 -41.5
Pat~ Angle, 0T (deg) +.005 ' - .002905 -.007905
Inclin~tion. I (deg) 50.029 50.0284 -.0006
Descending Node. x (deg) 153.25 153.249 -.001
Table 8-6. SA-5l3 Orbital-Phase Commanded Attitude Angles
COMt1J1.NDED ANGLE. DEGREE

EVENT TIt1E ROLL (x) PITCH (Y) YAW (Z)
Attitude Hold T4 +0.0335 -121.0352 +8.0524

Shroud Jettison and T4 + 11.005 Sec 0.0 161. 7026 -2.1296
Initiate Orbital Guidance
Solar Attitude T4 + 370.169 -175.1280 -81.1276 +5.6845
8.4 N/WIGJl.TION AND GUIDANCE SYSTEM COMPONENTS

The navigation and guidance hardware satisfactorily supported the accomplish-
ment of mission objectives.
"
-. t
} ,.
,
8-10 ..
8.4.1 Stabilized Platform System
All three gyro servo loops operated properly. r~aximum deflections of the
pickoffs at various event times are listed below:
Z G~ro X Gyro Y Gyro
Liftoff <+.05° <+.05° <+.05°
-.05° <-.05° <-.05°
'V 63 Sec +0.1 ° +0.1° +.07°
-0.1° -0.1 ° -.06°
'V 593 See +.08° +2.7° +.07°
_ .07° -0.15° -0.1 °
Payload Shroud +.07° <+.05° +0.1°
Jettison <-.05° <-.05° -.05°
All three accelerometer servo loops responded properly to the vehicle
acce1erati ons. r~aximum deflections of the pickoffs at various times are
listed as follows:
Z Accel X Acce1 Y Acce1
Liftoff +1.7° +1.1° +2.0°
_1.9° -1.0° -2.0°
'V 63 Sec +0.4° +0.5° +0.5°
_0.4° -0.3° -0.6°
'V 593 Sec +1.3° +4.5° +2.7°
-1.4° _5.2° _2.9°
Payload Shroud +2.0° +1.8° +1.7°
-3.6° -1.4° -2.1°
8.4.2 Guidance and Navigation Computer
The LVDC and LVDA perfonned satisfactori ly, and no hardware an'lmal ies were
observed during any phase of SL-1 flight.
8-11/8-12
SECTION 9
CONTROL AND SEPARATION
9.1 SU~1MARY
The control systems functioned correctly throughout the f1iqht of SA-513.

En~ine gimbal deflections were nominal. Bending and slosh dynamics were
adequately stabilized. No undue dynamics accompanied any separation,
however, the S-IC/S-II interstage failed to separate and caused high
temperat r~s and pressures in the S-II thrust cone region during the S-II
burn, as dlscussed in paragraph 9.5.2. The failure is attributed to
damage to the Linear Shaped Charge (LSC) or the LSC cover resulting from
Orbital Work Shop meteoroid shield debris.
9.2 S-IC CONTROL SYSTEM EVALUATION

9.2.1 Liftoff
The liftoff tower clearance maneuver occurred as planned. Table 9-1
summarizes liftoff misalignments and conditions.
9.2.2 Inf1ight Dynamics
The SA-513 control system performed as expected during S-IC boost except
during the 63-second anomaly discussed in paragraph 9.2.3. J~msphere
measurements indicate two significant wind peaks. The first wind peak was
29.5 meters per second at 9.25 kilometers altitude with an azimuth of 263
degrees. The second peak was 34.4 meters per second at 12.7 kilometers
with an azimuth of 267 degrees. The first wind peak caused the maximum
)Of,
",:."
"
"
total angle of attack of 2.8 degrees. The control system adequately
stabilized the vehicle in this wind. About 7% of the available pitch
gimbal angle and 8% of the available yaw gimbal angle were used.
Time histories of pitch, yaw, and roll control parameters are shown in
Figures 9-1 through 9-4. The peaks are summarized in Table 9-2. Dynamics
in the reg; on between 1iftoff and 40 seconds resulte,d primari 1y from
guidance commands. Between 40 and 110 seconds vehicle dynamics were
caused by the pi tch and yaw gui dance prog rams, the wi nd, and the 63-second
anomaly. DynamiCS from 110 seconds to S-IC outboard engine cutoff were
caused by center engine shutdown, tilt arrest and high altitude winds.
There is no evi dence of a flow separati on trans; en't as experi enced on
Apollo flights.
The attitude errors indicate that the equivalent thrust vector misalignments
were 0.05 and -0.05 degrees in pitch and yaw, respectively. Roll engine
misalignment was zero degrees prior to outboard engine cant and 0.01
degree after cant. The attitude error transients at center engine cutoff
9-1
Table 9-1. SA-513 Liftoff Conditions ~-1isalignment Summary
PREDICTED 30 RANGE LAUNCH

PARAMETER
PITCH YAW ROLL PITCH YAW ROLL
Thrust Misalign- ±0.31 ±0.31 ±0.37 0.05 -0.05 0.0

ment, deg
Center Engine
Cant, deg
±0.31 ±0.31 - 0.09 0.02 -
Vehicle Stacking ±0.28 ±0.28 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
and Pad Misalign-
ment, deg
Attitude Error at
Holddown Arm
- - - -0.06 -0.06 0.06
Release, deg
,-' 'I
n PREDICTED ACTUAL
~
Peak Soft Release 415,900 (93,500) *
~
~!
Force Per Slow
Release Rod,
N(lbf)
~ vJ i nd 19.55 m/s (38 5.1 m/s (10.0 Knots)
~r'! Knots) at 161.5 at 161. 5 r~eters
f~
Meters (530 Feet) (530 Feet)
1\t'! Thrust to Weight
rl 1 .240 1. 263
~i ,
~ *Data not available

~ indicate that the center enqine misalignments were 0.09 and 0.02 degrees
Ii in pitch andyawrespecti ve 1y.

All dynamics were within vehicle capability. The attitude errors required
to trim out the effects of thrust unbalance, offset center of gravity,
thrust vector misalignment and control system misalignments were within
n predicted envelopes. The peak angles of attack in the maximum dynamic
I ~
~
pressure (Max q )regi on were -2.02 degrees in pitch and 1.96 degrees in
yaw. The peak average enqine deflections requi red to trim out the aero-
dynami c moments in thi s reg; on were -0.34 degree ; n pitch and 0.39 deg ree
1 in yaw.
t
,j
i
i
j
1
n"
9-2
"
5j
~
\Y BEGIN TOWER CLEARANCE MANEUVER VI MAX q
W END PITCH MANEUVER W 1st GAIN SWITCH
W BEGIN PITCH/ROLL MANEUVER W 2nd GAIN SWITCH
VI OUTBOARD ENGINE CANT W CENTER ENGINE CUTOFF
~ MACH 1 ~ TILT ARREST
OW END ROLL MANEUVER "W OUTBOARD ENGINE CUTOFF
- - MEASURED (FILTERED TO 0.3 HZ)
- - - - SIMULATED
1.6
~:
I..LJ
i
.-++t----
I! I
"-'1-"
-+--~
en
1-'
I..LJ>
0 _ QJ
::> I- "'0 0.8
I-
-
i--
-
0VI .........
I- 0. 0.
..
h
1 r
-; -t-._J. "
I '
--+-,---t
I I
c::( '-"::l rt . ;'>'

~1 .f"'\1 ' {'J',
~\i '
Ai ~ ~ If\;J
r,
j
::I:O::I..LJ
0 Ai'\ " 't......... • .'''\! I '"
/"-tt-,*,:: MJ
I
UOV'l
1-0::0 ~'f~ II 'V I \ I
+'1/ ' 'I, '

_o::Z
Q.I..LJ
+-' ;--+--r---+--t- "
, I i I I t
-0.8
... 0.4
........
0.
:::>
I..LJ I..LJ
I- VI
c::( 0 o 1W~~+--+--+--+--~-+--+--+--~-+--~~--~~~
O::ZVl
'........
::I: I..LJ en
u> QJ
1-_"'0
-I-
0.-
VI
o
0.
.......
O. 4 -r---r----t--r---t-----t----t--'---t--·-+----r---r----t----r---T-: I
t--+---+---+-+---+--+---If--+--h--+-+---+---+---t-
j I
-+-' . j
!
o 20 40 60 80 120 140
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 9-1. Pitch Plane Dynamics During S-IC Burn
9-3
~ BEGIN TOWER CLEARANCE MANEUVER VI MAX q
~ END PITCH MANEUVER ~ 1st GAIN SWITCH
\V BEGIN PITCH/ROLL MANEUVER ~ 2nd GAIN SWITCH
~ OUTBOARD ENGINE CANT ~ CENTER ENGINE CUTOFF
v MACH 1 ~ TI LT ARREST
WEND ROLL MANEUVER ~ OUTBOARD ENGINE CUTOFF
- - MEASURED (FILTERED TO 0.3 HZ)
---- SIMULATED
0:: 0.8
~ I 1 I
0:: W
W Vl
o
. A
~
f\ ~
1 .. +- +_.
C'I
JIv bJ'~ 1I\~
f k; '" .. J
L.J.1 Z
Q
QJ
-0
o ~~ l r~ ~ \. -..
--
~\I, , . . ' , .i . . ,
---
::::>W
1--> ..
I- I-- I--
~- -:J:
c::CVl~
0-
'-'" v
I "
if'\,
['9
~ I' 1-"
j
I
~-·+···-1
I
I
,
.. -.
30..0::
c::C-
•
>-
W VI
_
> C'I
........
_I--QJ
-0
Vl
o ..
0..-
-I--
:J:
w~
I-- -
c::C0::
0::
W
3Vl
c::C 0
>- z
-_
W LJ.J
z>
..........
~I--I
Z_u..
W Vl LJ.J
0-.1
30..
c::C - LJ.J Ol
>- VlQJ
Z 0 "0
WOZ
~
c::C1--0::
0:: _ LJ.J
WVlW
-0.4 ~~+--+--+-~~4--+r.7-+-~-~--4--+--~~
>01--
c::Co..Vl
o 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure .9-2. Yaw Plane Dynamics During S-IC Butn
9-4
\VBEGIN TOWER CLEARANCE MANEUVER WMAX q
WEND PITCH MANEUVER \y 1st GAIN SWITCH
~BEGIN PITCH/ROLL MANEUVER ~ 2nd GAIN SWITCH
~OUTBOARD ENGINE CANT ~ CENTER ENGINE CUTOFF
\o/MACH 1 W TI LT ARREST
W END ROLL MANEUVER ~ OUTBOARD ENGINE CUTOFF
-MEASURED
---SIMULATED
0.4
,tv,A A
,
\
I 1 .N ~ rii
~v; ""~A
vv ~ ~ W
l:t~!'
I
0
0
I
: V
...
;)'r ~ . \I v I~ ~
~i
,.
l.IJ .......
:>0: 2.0
.... cr:
I-l.IJ
.... 0:
til
o
-
:E:
0.0
......... 0: 1.0 l'n . ~i\ 11 ~\r'l.l\ Vv1.l
., .ftJI\.
l.IJ
I- Cl 01
cr:l.IJIV
IJ..III
,f IV
~U ~.: ~IMv 1JMp} hAM lM(dr ~A!\
0:3"
l.IJ
...J ...... rMf, rVV-. rt.N1 IJw\
...J>
o'
0:3
u
0
r M "'
--y
-1.0
ZO::E:
Ol.lJO
0.1
..J .... l.IJ 0:
...JI-I-IJ..OI
0 .... II) IV
0:: II)
Ol.lJl.IJ
LLJa.>3
Cl "
. 0
,iI.A
''In·
n,~ ~A IIA [An l"A A 1\(1. 1/'\."
........
, '
;'1':
f)J.,<
\ii~ IVV "'I 'V~ "1 rv
It, L1N ~Jr
~
c.!J .... l.IJ-
cr:l.IJl- .... O:
'''('JoI
11~ ?1
O:z ....
LLJ .... II)
>< I'
- ~
~ W
l.IJ
W
bl tlV1Iw· ~
:>c.!J030:
.
cr:z:a.u
l.IJ-U -0.1 ~5 W ,~
Y' W
o 20 40 ,- 60 80 100 120 140 160
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 9-3. Roll Dynamics During S-IC BUrn
9-5
W BEGIN TOWER CLEARANCE MANEUVER VI MAX q
W END PITCH MANEUVER ~ 1st GAIN SWITCH
W BEGIN PITCH/ROLL MANEUVER ~ 2nd GAIN SWITCH
W OUTBOARD ENGINE CANT ~ CENTER ENGINE CUTOFF
W MACH 1 ~ TI LT ARREST
W END ROLL MANEUVER ~ OUTBOARD ENGINE CUTOFF
-----. ·CALCULATED FROM OBSERVED VELOCITY AND WIND SPEED

-----SIMULATED
.. ,, \ ..... ...... -,~,.........'
, ".. v\"-"" ,
".
...-.. 0 , ,
,\ '\ "\ fi:'; ~-
!!
+-r--
:..:: 0..
u =>
c:(
t
:\
' •:J1 '!fr0JV VV
I'
II.'· , \\
~
't'- -~V
lJJ I- UJ
·--t· .
,tl\ ltV H-l :
\
:z: I- V1 , I
ct: c:( 0
I
ff
.....J Z i\~l
o..u.. en
OUJQ)
-2 , Ii
~ \ t~
' _ --L ': .
::x::
u UJ-
>"0
I-.....JI-
JJ \
\v~
,~ I
+--1-.
-0.. <.!l
Z -V1
c:( 0
0.. -4
J \
\ a~ ~
r··· ~..-.
"-'
j trJ\ :
2 .
.. A I, I ! I ! II
I
!
...-..
j
+--+ j 1--'-+-. .
) L.t-~ IrH,.. ~ t~ " I
l-
' ,
X I :
\
0
lW fi
:..:: <.!l
u_ 1!fl.I~F ~
r~ ~
c:(ct:: I
UJ I-
ZI-UJ
I "
I / -J--:"
~
~
c:( c:( V1
.....J
o..u..ZQ)
o Ol
,J
, - . I
~I-r-'--
3:
0
ct:UJ>
UJ
"0
>- .....J_
<.!l I-
-2
f, ~'\ V I
1 .-t-- - +--- I
z -
c:( v')
0
0.. -4
~w '\AI I
I-
"-'
ff I
o 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

\\
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 9-4. Pitch and Yaw Plane Free Stream Angle of Attack During S-IC Burn
9-6
" ..
, ' "
~~~·!~~!!~llmg~IH. !J:J.. (tllUm: J!_L.~'_ t .Hl¥t!.!l!i!~~~~t.o.~.~tLf!1.I!SJI..;:!t~L~ k~..J!~t"~~'!'1tt~~·~:!.:~~~~~~~:'::~1;:.:l:,!'!;~~~rlt·~Sf~~~~~~-e~.,::?:(~":~,~. ~~ ':\l~ ~-;-~"" .::I:::!'~.-.··'02!"'1:Y
Table 9-2. Maximum Control Parameters During S-IC Burn

- PITCH PLANE*
",
YAW PLANE* ROLL PLANE*

-
PARAMETERS RANGE RANGE RANGE
AMPLITUDE TIME AMPLITUDE TIME AMPLITUDE TIME
(SEC) (SEC) (SEC)
Attitude Error, deg -0.60 109.0 -0.66 2.9 -1.02 13.5
Angular Rate, deg/s -0.70 76.6 0.58 4.1 1.5 to 2.5** 63.0
Average Gimbal -0.37 77 .5 0.45 66.7 +0:09 63.6
Angle, deg -0.09 " 67.3
Angle of Attack, -2.02 66.0 1.96 65.5
.~ deg (During Max q) ..
I
~
Angle of Attack 5.98 66.0· 5.77 65.5
Dynamic Pressure (1250 ) (1210)
I
Product, deg-N/CM2
(deg-1bf/ft 2)
Normal 0.27 76.9 0.31 65.6
Acceleration, m/s 2 (0.90) ( 1.00)
(ft/s2) I
*Corrected for biases ~
**Caused by 63-second anomaly !
I
I
~~~ "1
No divergent bending dynamics were observed. Figure 9-5 shows LH2
slosh mass displacements measured during flight along with preflight
predicted and postflight simulated displacements. The measured data
shown has been reduced by 40% to account for amp1 ification factors in
the capacitance probe during S-IC flight. The deviation between
measured and postflight simulated data may be due to: a) harmonic
beating of the first slosh mode with higher modes not modeled in the
simulation; or b) unpredictable slosh wave rotation out of the plane
of the probe.
Vehicle dynamics prior to S-IC/S-II first plane separation were within
staging requirements.
9.2.3 63-Second Anomaly

The SA-513 launch vehicle instrumentation indicated unusual disturbances
at about 63-seconds. An external moment caused an increase in roll rate
to about 2.2 degrees/second. Pitch and yaw rate transients also were
observed, but the frequency of these trans; ents (about 4 Hertz) indi cate
that these were structural responses. The pitch and yaw accelerometers
in the IU also recorded structural motion.
An analysis has been made of the vehicle dynamics during the 63-second
region of flight. It was found that the rigid-body and structural
motion of the vehicle can be approximated by an external impulse of
26,100 newton-seconds applied in the region of Solar Array System (SAS) wing
number 2. This impulse is produced by a force of 290,000 newtons acting for
0.09 seconds. The force is applied tangentially to the meteoroid shield (at
vehicle station 75.34) at a point 30 degrees from position IV toward
position I with pitch and yaw components of 251,000 and -145,000 newtons,
respectively.
Figures 9-6 through 9-8 show the simulated dynamic responses to the
external forte compared with the measured responses. The measured error
data shown is 100 sample-per-second data. However, the avail abl e
measured rate data shown ;s sampled at 10 samples per second. This low
sampl ;ng frequency si gnificantly affects the qual i ty of the rate measure-
ments. Figure 9-9 shows the simulated and measured I.U. lateral
accelerations. The angles of attack are shown in Figure 9-10.
A more complete discussion of the 63-second anomaly is contained in
Section 17.
9-8
~~~~~'!11~¥f~J~!~t"'m~~~J~H, 4I-1!i!!..IH, u C~!!",~t1f~m~~~c::.,~~"~~~.~~~~~~~:;~~~::;!.:,.:.:.,,,;~,;~~:!t~~~:~:~:-~-::~~~~;.~l~;!~_q~.::: , :.~;'.:'-~~:' - -;'>t"~-~ - •• 1 -:"!" ";'7.-j~
0.5 - ~-~ _. -- . .cc -: . . -
-
E
~
. E
..
z: ......I
......I
LLJ
0.4
::E
LLJ
U
~ 0.6 ~
~
S
0..
V)
t-4
c
I-PREFLIGHT PREDICTED.
WITH A SEVERE MAY
JIMSPHERE WIND, AND
_
I- 0.5 ~
C!:i
V)
0.3 i' - --. ...J} 3cr ENGINE MSIALIGNMENT-
t-4
LLJ
V) ::t:
ex: I - "- .. 0.4 LLJ
::E
I ...' ~
1.0 ::t:
"
. ",.
1 ,..'''... .....
_-
I VI 3
1.0 0
......I 0.2 ' .... ... 0.3
::t:
,.jj \
V) I- V)
~
'"-" o
......I
ex:
LLJ
" ..... ' ... V)
\ / ~ "
0.. ~
0.2 ex:
-
~
~
ex:
I
0.1 f\ .A "',~ ...... LLJ

0..
LLJ
l ~
.- -';;' '1"'1,.1'
D IJ . . .~
.....
" ...... - ~
I
"
0..
N ,.. .- ",& ~
MrUi POSTFLIGHT 0.1 ex:

LLJ
::t:
......I
o " "'-.... ..::- ~... ::"~ ~ - SIMULATED

I I I
~
o
0..
N
::t:
......I
'0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 9-S. SA-S13 LH2 Peak-to-Peak Slosh Mass Displacement
• .: f .·~~~,.;;i::It.is""J61t.t't· t '.f': ., i··~'~i·f~.;:~~~]::z,.::,r~t-:~~:~·'::-7·... \..··,·!.':'=~,.t"""":"~'''''''"'·'- ",,",,""~;-o-r~_'" ,-. >+-' • • ~,

i
FORCE INTRODUCED, 62.88 SECONDS
FORCE REMOVED, 62.98 SECONDS
END ROLL MANEUVER
.MEASURED (RAW DATA WITH BIASES REMOVED)
---MEASURED _(F1LTEREOTO 1.5 HZ) ,
--- - SIMULATED
-----_.
0.3 ,
~
,..~
!
,
... ...-,
! I f\. ~ ~ / WV MA ~~
It
IV
r -v,
it1 JU r I'
M. ~( ~ f\f (ATv ~ .;
l_l \~/
'w h~ lAIr -- IJ J r "1
t jJ ' _.I -"J
I L_
I
L-_
'
I
0.0
1.0 NOTE: MEASURED RATE SAMPLED-
..
,...... AT 10 SAMPLES/SECOND
a..
:;:)
- /
r
'\
,
,
1\
/' \ I l. . I (,I -
, " f.---
~ \\ /; - ,
\
'- ~
I
j
,
\
J, I
I \
\
r--
II l "- ~~
II! \
{ \", !- . / I
\
"" II I I
1\ I
\ I
~' \ : \
\
/ '.I \"
'.../
\ -~l ..
-2.0 I
or----.--.,---,---r---.--,----.--,----.--.,---.,...-.,...--.,--.,...--.,--.,.....,..--r----t
62.6 62.8 63.0 63.2.63.4 63.6 63.8 64.0 64.2

RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 9-6. Pitch Plane Dynamics During 63;..Second Anomaly
9-10
W FORCE INTR09~CED--.! 62.88
~ FORCE REMOVED, 62.98
WEND' ROLL MANEUVER;-63.24
----- MEASURED (RAW DATA WITH BrASES REMOVED)
- - - MEASURED (FILTERED TO 1.5 HZ)
---- SIMULATED
0.30
In
.--.
.
l-
X
c....'1
t---4
~
lLJ
~wVl
c::c: (/) ........
~ 0 en
ZQ)
3: "'0
c::c:W
>- >- ~
I-
~
(/)
o -1.0
c..
Ef-
'--"
0.2
---=j=
-~ t:1~
-----. . . ------:3:
----=-==-= ~~-- -j-~--~, l
. . - . ."r . . . ' . . . . , .. / '" . . .,
-~
.. ,.
- -~-'l'\~l*':':7"""i--r~,- v" -"~,
- . II
\. v" \ I ,/ \ . .'"
W- 1-.
.~ W
- O. 1
62.6 62.8 63.0 63.2 63.4 63.6 63.8 64.0 64.2
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 9-7. Yaw Plane Dynamics During 63-Second Anomaly
9..,11
~FORCE INTRODUCED, 62.88
~ FORCE REMOVED, 62.98
~ E~D ROLL. MANEUVER, 63.24
- MEASURED (RAW DATA WIlli BIAS REMOVED)
- - - MEASURED (RATE FILTERED TO 1.0 HZ,
ENGINE DEFLECTION TO 1.5 .HZ)
--_.- SIMULATED .
i
,I o A~l
,.'
1 ~~f.:If ~"\r~\l - Ilr'..l;-..l..
\
I
I f1~
...
~ ~~ 1 - i--- ...... - -- 1---
.A-
-- I--
Ii .~ ('II , ... ...

"j\ i ~ J'-
I I,~~
1 I
L_
i
r,J~
~rir '·~'~.h&jlt\l I
i I1
11
I I ~fY !
II
I
I
I
I
-1.2
, I i I
I
1
I
! ! I I I I ! I
.
l.LJ ..........
4 . I
NOTE:
1 1
MEASUREMENT
J ! ]
> 0::
..... <C
NO. ROOO6-602-
~,
1-l.LJ
..... 0::
V') !
2
/, .\.'\
O:E:
~
a.. 0 III
_0:: ....... \
L1..tn
l.LJ OJ
\''''~ - ...... I
'V'-~ r-'
1-0"0
<Cl.LJ
0:::;: 0 " " . 1- I\-r ~ -... pc;1"
rv
~~
V~ i~ f f
l.LJ
...J ..... 7-
...J >
0
0:::;:
u
-2 ---
o. 1
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 9-8. Roll Plane Dynamics During the 63-Second Anomaly
9-12
W FORCE INTRODUCED, 62.88
W FORCE REMOVED, 62.98
~ END ROLL MANEUVER, 63.24
--MEASURED (RAW DATA WITH BIASES REMOVED)
----- SIMULATED
4.0
,\ Jf I
11
2.0 !-'
I \
, n
'~\ ('\
-
"
I 1/ / 11'\ /\ Al \
0.0 f\ (\A .!1 f i
I Ai'
\ I it \ ~ N \ / \ II) ~ L
) V\J j \\j tV ~ (,I ~ \ yII "l IN II
I
If I '/
I
IJ I Y
jl
l\
IV\ i
i \1
I
I
~ /
\ J IV1 ... I I
.~.
:~'
-2.0
I
f---
l~ ~I V
~ V
-4.0! .. -f - - -
.-
-6.0
4.0
I -
. ,
~', z
0
. 2.0
,K\ I !~t I; ,}" rr"
0/\
A
3~
c:( iCCN
>- ex: U)
0.0 -;: b .II \\ // ~\ /,/ 1\\ /1 \\ )0ll 1\\ /1 \\
\0Vi \
.
UJ .......
~\ !.j'A \\ VijJ ~I \xVIi \

;::) ~
_UJ
E
u
U
c:(
...
;
J
i ,-2.0
I
-4.0 ~ . ~' lw
62.5 62.7 62.9 63.1 63.3 63.5 63.7 63.9 64.1 64.3
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
:. ;1 Figure 9-9. Lateral IU Acceleration During 63-Second Anomaly

,
~ ;
\
9-13
FORCE INTRODUCED, 62.88
; FORCE REMOVED, 62.98
END ROLL MANEUVER, 63.24
------CALCULATED FROM OBSERVED VELOCITY AND WIND SPEED
-----SIMULATED
.,-.;' po
-
- .,... V
".-
I .\ ,,-" --" ...,..... ~....

-.,' -'" -.....- /' f.---
,,/ ....... v
/' .......
-.
- ----"f"
"'-
" r'--""
....
0 -- V
I.--
"/
~ ......-
s='"
1/ ,"-
2.0
~.
~t.!'
u
c(~
.....
I
- ."" ~~
I.A.JI-
2:1- UJ
<Cc(V')
, /,...- ~ .".-
1.0 /
...J 0 tn
Q.I.I...ZQI
o "t:J V ~.
,r .".
I I~
'~~ ~I_""'J--~
~UJ~ / ~
.......-
;, I
>-...J .....
<!JI-
~- . f..-"";;
~
, >/,- "".I
~
I
I
!
i
z::;;
<Co
0.0
c..
I
I I
3.0 -
. )-- ~ I
~
I
/ -'\,
'" ' . ""
u
c( .I ,
I- 2.0 v- ~,
~ '-
...J I- I
~c( ~ / V ,/ "
01.1...-0 !'-o .....

/"
1-0
1.0 1'---
. ..,/
L&J
...J
t.!'
~
....- ...
..........
1--,
' . -' ~-
f'.-...
...
./
......... ....1
iJ
/ ~ ......
'" .......
' .... r- ..,,- --"
'....:... --
0.0 J 'w
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
RI.NGE TIME, SECONDS
Fi gure 9-10. Pi tch and Yaw Plane Free Stream Angle of Attack
During 63-SecondAnoma1y
9-14
9.3 S-II CONTROL SYSTEM EVALUATION
The S-II stage attitude control system performance was satisfactory. The
vehicle dynamics were within expectations at all times. The maximum values
of pitch parameters and yaw attitude error occurred in response to Iterative
Guidance Mode (IGM) Phase 1 initiation. The maximum values of yaw gimbal
angle and all roll control parameters occurred in response to S-IC/S-II
separation conditions. The maximum control parameter values for the period
of S-II burn are shown in Table 9-3.
Table 9-3. Maximum Control Parameters During S-II Burn

PITCH PLANE· YAW PLANE" ROLL PLANE·
PARAMETER UNITS MAGNITUDE RANGE TIME MAGNITUDE RANGE TIME MAGNITUDE RANGE TIME
(SEC) (SEC) (SEC)
Attitude Error Deg -1. 7 199.5 0.4 226.5 -1.9 163.0

Attitude Rate Oeg/s 0.9 200.8 -0.1 166.0 1.8 164.1
Average Gimbal Deg -1.2 162.8 0.4 163.2 -0.4 163.5
Angle
IrAII biases removed
Between S-IC OECO and initiation of IGM Phase 1, commands were held constant.
Significant events occurring during this interval were S-IC/S-II separation,
and S-II stage J-2 engine start. Pitch and yaw dynamics during this interval
indicated adequate control stability as shown in Figures 9-10 and 9-11,
respectively. Steady state attitudes were achieved within 10 seconds from
S-IC/S-II separation.
At IGM initiation, guidance commands caused the vehicle to pitch up. During
IGM, the vehicle pitched down at a constant commanded.rate of approximately
-0.1 deg/s. The transient magnitudes experienced were similar to previous
flights.
Other guidance command changes which caused dynamic changes were End
Artificial Tau Mode and beginning of Terminal Steering. The engine deflec-
tions in yaw following CECO were the result of change of trim conditions.
The center engine was not precanted to compensate for compliance deflection,
and because of the location of fixed links this compliance effect occurred
in the yaw plane as shown in the maximum yaw attitude rate in Table 9-3.
Flight and simulated data. comparisons, Figures 9-11 and 9-12, show agree-
ment at those events of greatest control system activity. Differences
between the two can be accounted for largely by engine location misalign-
ments, thrust vector misalignments and uncertainties in engine thrust
buildup characteristics. The inflight thrust misalignments were found to
be -0.1 degree about pitch and yaw axes.
9-15
\&7. S-IC/S-II SEPARATION ~ END ARTIFICIAL TAU MODE
W INITIATION OF IGf1 ~ BEGIN TERMINAL STEERING
W CENTER ENGINE CUTOFf ~ OUTBOARD ENGINE CUTOFF
\47 mXTURE RATIO SHIFT, BEGIN - NEASURED
" ARTIFICIAL TAU MODE ------ SINULATED
en
III
2
"'0
o0:: ..
0::-
a.: 0.. 1
w::>
1
LU LU
Cl VI - 1.!~1\ ~- ~--
-- .... -,.... . - ~i
.
::;:)0
:-z:
......
o , 1'1\
I.f¢-.. '\J v fW
I-LU I
1-:> I
<: ......
I-
:t: ...... -1
UVI
I- 0
...... a..
0..-
-2
VI
.......
1.5
en
III
"'0
1.0
-
0 ..
:::l
0.5 ,
LU
o inv J
VI
o:z ",
~'
w ''(
11'1.
Vv ~
~
I-- UJ v
,11
~;::
I--
:x: ......
-0.5
UVI
I- 0
0..
- 0___
..
-1.0
2
....
a ~ ..
....... A",
- - .J."
~
___ W'
v
2
yW ..\3i' YNl IWW·
160. 200 240 280 320 360 400 440 480 520 560 600
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Fi gure 9-11. Pitch Plane Dynamics DuringS-II Burn
9-16
$-IC/5-11 SEPARATION W END ARTIFICIAL TAU MODE
INITIATION OF IGM W BEGIN TERMINAL STEERING
CENTER ENGINE CUTOFF WOUTBOARD ENGINE CUTOFF
MIXTURE RATIO SHIFT. BEGIN
ARTIFICIAL TAU MODE - MEASURED
- - - SIMULATED
en
III
"0 1.0 .
t--
:J:
0:: (!J 0.5
o~ --.,- ....y - --L":.."':""':\
V ....
*
0:: 0:: ~
0~ \~
ft
0::
~~
.... 'Y'
lL/ UJ
V)
w 0
cz
::>
.... w
.... >
t- .....
.... t-
-0.5
~ .....
V)
~o
~n..
>-- -1.0
1.0
W VI
W V)_ 0.5
en
t- 0
~z~
W
>-:>
c ...... -
o t - .....
m .-<:x:
~o
~
V) CJ
n.. 0::
..
.....
o jVv
!
I 1..... .,.-... -
YI'
---I- "III
IA-_
-
- ...,. .... .,...... . "lI'"
--
>-- -0.5
;.!
-1.0 ~,f
J 01
Will
.....
>"0
t- ..
...........
1. 0
o.5
~V)
ZOIJ..
lL/
3
n..
t-
W
....... ...J
- O~
lJ.............
ry 'W -~ , -- --.---
I"" .06'"
~zw
>-0 V)
.... 0
wt-z
~u
~lL/0:: -0. 5
0:: ...JW
Ww600
lL/ IJ.. W
V VI ~
>Wt-
~OV)
-1.0 \3i
160 200 240 280 320 360 400 440 480 520 560
RANGE TIME, SECONDS

i
·1
i Figure 9-12. Yaw Plane Dynamics During S-II Burn
9-17
9.4 INSTRUMENT UNIT CONTROL CO~1PONENTS EVALUATION
All elements of the Control Subsystem functioned properly throughout the
boost phase of the mission. Durin~ the coast phase of this flight, all
error and error rate sionals remained within the deadband. Attitude
Control commands continued to be issued by the IU after S-II cutoff and
vehicle responses indicated proper Thruster Attitude Control System
function.
Discussion of a switch from the ST-l24M inertial platfonn pitch axis
gimbal angle fine resolver to the coarse (backup) resolver at 3805 seconds
is presented in Section 8. Corrective action will be considered for any
additional Orbital Work Shop launch vehicles.
9.5 SEPARATION
9.5.1 S-IC/S-II Separation
S-IC/S-II separation and associated sequencing were accomplished as
planned with eight S-IC retro-motors providing the separation forces.
S- IC and S- II stage clearance was 7 feet better than the 1 foot requi red
when liquid hydrogen was dumped throu~h the J-2 engines.
Durin9 the first plane separation period (159 to 161 seconds), the maximum
S-II roll attitude error and angular rate were approximately -0.7 degree,
and -0.4 deg/sec, respectively. rv1aximum S-II pitch and yaw attitude
errors were -0.6 and 0.2 degree, respectively. Correspondinq maximum
pi tch and yaw rates at thi s time were -0.1 and 0 deq/sec. These rates
result in a lateral motion of the S-IC forward skirt relative to the J-2
engines. This motion is calculated to be 0.02 meters (0.6 inches),
resulting in a clearance between J-2 engines and S-IC stage forward skirt
of 0.9 meters (35 inches). In contrast, the clearance distance is
typically 0.9 meters (36 inches) when pitch and yaw rates are zero. So
the c1 earance in thi s case is normal.
Separation was completed when the J-2 enqines main propellant i~nition
occurred at about 4.1 seconds from S-IC engines cutoff. At that time the
stages are parted a distance of over 50 feet, and the distance continues
to increase with time.
9.5.2 S-II Second Plane Separation Evaluation
The S-II Interstage failed to fully separate, causing elevated temperature
and risk of structural failure as discussed below-.
D/lring S-II fliaht it was observed that the heat shield forward face and
.thrust cone pressure measurements, Figure 11-3; thrust cone forward
i'
(.
//
i
9-18
it
:~
surface temperature Measurements; Figure 12-7: heat shield curtain gas

temperature measurements, Figures 12-9 and 12-10; and en9ine actuation
system reservoir oil temperature measurements, paraqranh 6.11; were much
hi;Jher than measured on previous flights. The thrust cone temperature was
seen to rise at a relatively rapid rate until CECa instead of showing a
distinct change at interstage separation so characteristic of all previous
fliqhts. At S-II OECO, the measured S.A.-513 curtain gas temperatures were
about 234°F hi9her than on previous flights. An analysis of the thermal
environment indicates that thermally induced structural failure in the
thrust structure area of the S-II staqe was approached and would have been
exceeded for a lI one control engine outll condition.
In addition, it was observed that the 5-11 staqe burn time was longer than
nominal at velocity cutoff.
In order to determine the cause of the observed base region anomalies, the
following three. failure modes were considered and analyzed: a) flexible
curtain failure, b) qas leak within the engine mountinr.! circle forward of
the heat shield, and c) failure of the S-II interstage to separate. The
analysis clearly established that neither the flexible curtain failure mode
nor the g~s leak failure mode would have produced a condition which would
result in a reasonable match of the observed data.
The pressure and thermrt1 analYSis based upon the failure of the S-II aft
interstage to separate was based on these assumptions: a) flow field
forward of the heat shield is f~j by the reversed gases deflected by the
aft surface of the heat shield, b) thrust cone and heat shield forward
face pressures are proportional to the heat shield aft face pressure. The
results are shown in Figures 9-1~ through 9-14 which show that the predicted
trends for both the heat shield forward face and thrust cone pressures and
thrust cone temperatures are in agreement with the flight data.
Three other areas of investigation also provided supportive evidence that
the interstaqe did not p~ysical1y separate from the stage. These were:
(1) radar observations, (2) vibration data, and (3) the S-II/SWS separation
relative velocity. .
On previous Saturn V f1i9hts, changes in the radar echo were corre1atible
with the events of first and second plane separation, initiation of IGM, etc.
..j
These same events were observed on the Sl-l f1iqht with the exception of the
!(i second plane separation event. No change was observed in the radar pattern
'Ii,,
.
j during the time frame in which second plane separation should have occurred .
.~ Analysis of radial vibrations at the forward skirt stringer shows that on

three previ ous fl i ghts(AS-510 th rough AS-512) the vibrati on sensor (fl i ght
measurement E0081-219) detected the linear Shaped Charge (lSC) detonation,
responding with a transient damped low frequency (15 to 17 Hz) wave shape
modu1atinq the characteristic (about 100 Hz) frequency. In each case the
9-19
~, S-II IG;IITICN
6 H:TER~TJ\CE s[rf\f;xrro:~
& C[CO
Lh [r~R Sf-! I FT
& S-II OECO
, j
1
,
, 1
1
~ta PR[PICTED - IrHERSTAGt:-ON
l
===- ACTUAL
NOMINAL
HEAT SHIELD FOR\·IARD FAcE PHESSURE ..,.----,
MEASUREMENT 0150-206
0.030
0.010 Hl-_i!-,i
I t-=_C
_-+_---+_?lIZ.._~-._ b.:-;~ ~- 0t~ ~ 0002
0004
'5-...... O. a t---+----=-=-4"'--=-=i-=-'-"-=-F--~~ ~ -= -- --]~ ~

-- 0 00
.....
10
-.
Z III
I
- . 010 I _ _.l--_~_ _J.-_ _ ---...1....:----- - - ..-_. -.,_.-
Q.
LU
.
LU
IX
150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 IX
:::>
:::>
Vl
RI\NGE TH;jE (SECO:WS) Vl
Vl
Vl LU
LU IX
c...
IX
'1 :,'
---r
THRUST CONE PRESSURE
c...
]-i-
LU
LU
Vl
MEASUREMENT 0187-206 Vl
c:c
c:(
CQ 0.030.----;+---1--+----+-- 0.04 CQ
-r--=0.02
~~ __ ~~~_~~7.~.~.~-.~
-=- --c:==: .--=-~-I -- .-. 0.0

. I
!.
I
1 t
- .010 . ~ . . ~-'-_L...-"";' !
150 200 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
RANGE TI~lE (SEco~ms:).
I
!
I
Fiaure9-13.
.... • I~
SA-513 S-II Base Region Pressures
9-20 Ii
~ PREDICTED WITH INTERSTAGE ON
t ~ PREDICTED WITH INTERSTAGE OFF

I
;," - - ACTUAL
ii
~
350
,~
~~
~~
325 L..r-2 CL rill
[l / 1- ,i
~ u.
.I .L- 1 . 100
~ ,
l/!Jr:0 -
7- 0 0
ti~
'i UJ
.. UJ
..
(~: 0:: 300 0:::
~ ~
<' => ::::>
i~
i'
l-
c::(
0::
.. 50 l-
e:(
)) UJ 275 ./ 0:::
u..1
~
0- I'
J! 0-
.' ~
UJ
'(.Y....'ti.:bt":-:L ,C;Z'l. ::I_A" :!':i..'£ bt:z81 . 0
:::E:
~
"",,-/.]~.
lJ.J
I- 1-
250 1 - -
225 - -50
-
Il,i
~\
•• t
~...-:
200
400
- - -100
~
r<
I
"
,~
I~
375
350 /'
vrbL·
V1 V7VllL. --~
- 200
~ ~~ ~
~;~-
V UPPER LIr~IT 01
f-
- 150 t
~I
325 /
V -L r,1EASUREMENT
!
IJJ
u. t
~
0
. EXTRAPOLATED lOa- 0
..
rf
~
UJ 300 1--- w t
,~
~
,
0::
=>
l-
e:(
j V . 50
0:::
::::>
l-
e:(
~
I
j'
0::: 275 0::: ~,
fZ
I'
W
lJ.J
- 0 :a:
0- • ' :<' ·.·;;:,X:- 0-
~
::E: if) ili~~~ "Y UJ
lJ.J
I- 250 I-j-
V
225 - -50
!
, i
i
200 0 -100
15 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700
, j
RANGE TH1E, SECONDS,
Fi qure, 9-14. SA-513 S-II Thrust Cone Forward Surface Temperature
9-21'
peak-to-peak amplitude of the transient is about four times the peak-to-
peak amplitude of the residual vibrations and decays in about 0.5 seconds.
The SA-513 vibration sensor resDonded to a disturbance at the time of
second plane separation command'; however, the transient response was only
about twice the peak-to-peak amplitude of the residual vibrations and
decays in about 0.2 second. The smaller response on SA-513 could indicate
that the source of the disturbance was not as strong as on previous
flights.
The actual S-II/SWS separation delta V was detennined to be approximately
18.5 m/sec. This agrees closely with analysis of separati~n conditions
when S-II aft interstage is attached.
The above evidence shows that the S-11 Interstage failed to separate,
however, the electrical data seemed to indicate that a nonnal separation
had occurred. A detailed analysis was required to resolve this paradox.
The key elements of the second plane separation system are shown in
Figure 9-15. Two Explodin9 Bridge I,~ire (EBH) units located near vehicle
Position II, fire opposite ends of a Linear Shaped Charge (LSC) loop
that passes completely around the vehicle in the separation plane. When
the LSC is detonated by an EBW firing unit the tension straps (199
straps about the vehicle circumference) holding the interstage in place
are severed and the interstage falls away. The normal sequence is for
the EBW unit lA to fi re fi rst with the detonati on propa~ating around the
entire LSC loop in approximately 4 ms, towards Position L As a backup
the second unit fires 100 ms later with the capability of detonating the
entire- LSC loop from the opposite direction. If separation is nominal,
electrical disconnect between the S-II staqe and the interstaqe occurs
prior to the second firina command 100 ms later and since the' EBW units
are located on the interstage the backup EBW is not triggered. Elec-
trical disconnect occurs when the S-11 staqe and the aft interstage are
approximately 1/4 inch apart at the electrical connector panel.
Since the firing sequence occurred normally and electrical disconnect
at the interstage electrical panel was indicated by the nonnal voltage
decay transient of the EBW lB voltage monitor and battery voltage of
units located in the interstaqe at least partial separation was indicated.
Partial separation indicates that some of the tension straps were severed.
Assuming that detonation did not propagate completely around the LSC loop
an analysis was conducted to show where detonation was interrupted. This
analysis considered that a sufficient number of strars were severed to
permit at least 1/4 inch separation at the electrical panel, but that a
sufficient number of straps remained intact to hold th~ interstage on
against inertial forces. The analysis shows that severing a 165 0 arc
(89 tension straps) will provide 1/4 inch deflection for electrical
connector dematinq and a minimum of 100 0 arc (55 tension straps) needed
to hold the interstaae. These. results are shown in Fiaure 9-16 and
indicate that propagation was interrupted between vehicle Position III
9-22
and 20° beyond vehicle Position IV towards Position I. This corresponds
to a location between strinf.jer 12 and stringer 162, Figure 9-15.
Five LSC failure modes were investigated. These included thennal damage,
from aerodynamic heating, LSC failure to propagate, installation/opera-
tional damage, over-pressurization of the fairinq, and debris damage.
The most probable failure mechanism was identifien to be debris damage
from the OWS meteoroid shield which was lost at approximately 63 seconds
(see Section 17).
PIn analysis was performed to determine if the debris could impact the
S-II stage and, in particular, the S-II interstage separation plane LSC.
The analysis determined that the debris could contact the S-II sta~e and
data i ndi cates it di d damage the S-II forward ski rt area i ncreasi ng the
vent area by anproximately lOR in 2 as shown in Figure 11-5. The LH2
tank side\'Jall was protected v.Jith spray foam insulation and probably
incurred no damage from the passing debris. Traveling between 200 and
1000 ft/sec, the debris probably hit the LSC protective cover and
damaged the LSC to interrupt subsequent propagation. Even if the debris
had penetrated the LSC cover only, the resulting temperature of the LSC
would increase to approximately 450 - 550°F because of aerodynamic
heating and auto-ignite. This condition could burn rather than detonate
a short lenath of the LSC and impair detonation propagation.
Vehicle operational or hardware corrective actions are still under

investigation for future missions of either an Apollo or Skylab Program.
The necessity for Apollo vehicle design changes and operational flight
mission rule revisions will be assessed separately from Skylab mission
applications, consistent with unique factors in each review.
9.5.3 S-lI/SWS Separation
All of the S-II/SWS separation cOrTTllands were issued and received

properly. All expected responses from ei ght S-II stage vibrati on and
acoustic measurements were received at the time of S-II/St~S separation
verifying that separation had occurred at 591.1 seconds.
1
..;! ! The attitude errors that occurred duri ng S- II/SWS separati on were 1arger
• 7 than nomi na 1, see Fi gure 9-17 for pi tch, yaw and roll errors. These
i abnormally large values are a result of the 593-second anomaly. The
corresponding attitude rates and accelerations are presented with a
discussion of this anomaly in Section 17.
There is no flight data available to measure separation lateral clearance

between the OWS radiator and the S-II/SWS interstage structure. A
separation clearance analysis was performed based on the known rotation
of the SWS vehicle after separation and the predicted S-II stage rotation
. i
due to center-of-gravi ty offsets. At the, time when the OWS radi ator had
, , moved axially to the top of the S-II/SWS intersta~e, the late~al clear-
'I ance was estimated to be 1.4 meters.
_; ~_"'~ _ _._"_, .. ,." . "" __ ."_~_,, ... ! I .ltil'!l!'!J!IJII.!!E!!!I~~UI!!J.!iU'.!!!!~"':_"""'''--'¥.l!!C''''''''''''''':''~''~'''''''''''''''''==.w",,~,~,~~~~"""",-",,,,,;,,,=,,"...,,,;:r,""=,,,",,,,;.m'''~~'=Q~''"~~-.'-'''.~·-~~, ',-
ZONE LSC
STRINGER NO.'S ~ PROPAGATlON
STOPPED
FIN B FIN C
" "" YAW AXIS /
\0
N
~
I
LSC .
PROPAGATIVE n..:J...n 18
01 RC:CTIO:~
!¥-)/t ""
_
r'~
I
1/ /
PITCH POS IV
e=2ioO~i16
~ 215
~Ol /1
~
FIN A FIN 0,
DETAIL A
j :l.+- pas I
./ CONNECTOR
ELECTRICAL CONNECTOR THAT .-rIO a~ PAilEL
INDICATES SEPARATION ---- 61 54153
VIEW LOOKING FORWARD
Figure 9-15. S-11 Interstage Separation Diagram

POS I II
POS II --t-POS IV
• TENSION STRAP LOAD IS AT END S-II BURN LSC INITIATORS../-
• DEFLECTION IS AXIAL AT SECOND PLANE SEPARATION
ELECTRICAL-
CONNECTOR POS I
PANEL
16 8
VI
14 7 r-;: TENS!" ST1, AlLABJ
Q.
..... t% LSC INTERRUPTION
' 1
.~
12 iLl 6 ...
' ..... LOrATIOl BAND
c ~ _L-_ ~ I
~...........
c:( a.
3 10 ~ 5
"- u
;;::
............ ~TENSION STRAP LOAD
c:(
....
IX. ............ ~
.
I-
V>
8 ~
...l
4 .........
:z
.. ~.
LLJ
0
..... 1"- ........
V>
:z
....
LLl
::E
=>
.....
::E
6
4
~
g
....
I-
h:l
....
...l
2
3 r--
;,.
~
f'.......
lL. DEFLECTI ON
1"--
-- 1-- __
--. ~ --
,
><
c:( ..... -~
--r--- ----
o
::E
2
;,
MIN DEFLECTION~
I"-....
~ . ~~
a F="V-r- ~ .~E~~ .-+- ~ t- . - f--
a
o 90 100 11 0 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 21 o
I I I
POS II POS III POS IV
ARC LENGTH OF TENSION STRAPS ATTACHED, degs .
Figure 9-16. S-II-13 Interstage Station 196 Tension Strap Analysis

An analysis of the S-II/SWS separation velocity (delta V) was made using
S-11 stage weight with and without the S-11 interstage attached. If the
S-11 intersta~e had separated as scheduled then the S-11 weight at S-II/
SWS separation would have been 53,964 Kg and the separation delta V
would have been 20.3 m/sec. If the S-11 intersta~e was still attached
then the S-11 sta~e would have been 5027 Kg heavier at S-II/SWS separation
and the separation delta V would have been 18.5 m/sec. The actual sepa-
.1 ration delta V, as determined by tracking data, was 18.2 to 18.9m/sec
which agrees closely with separation velocity with the S-II interstage
attached.
After successful S-II/SWS separation, the relative distance between the
vehicle elements provided an adequate margin of safety when S-II stage
I •
pressure safing/ventingwas initiated. The safing sequence was scheduled
at 210 seconds after S-II/SWS separation. As can be seen by the dotted
line in Fi~ure 9-18, this interva.l is sufficiently long to insure an
adequate clearance distance during safing.
9-25
1
6
W FIRE SEPARATION DEVICES
- ~ ;NVALo IOAT~ .L f- ~S-II/SWS SEPARATION
~
II-"
I ~~
V·N"
/"
r.-'
V
..; 0 r
V
... .......... \ V
o ... .
>0 t-t-
....... ~ \\ VI-'"
::>Vl'" -2 \ V
......
"'0:1:
...... t!I
~ .....
'\ V
./'
<""
0 .....
"" -4 - ./
=-""Vl "\ V
<""0
>- ..... z
~ --rV
-6
0
\ ~~
""0
0 .....
""""=-.....
.......... t!I
\
Y If'
..... >UJ -2
::>u .
0
V
...o=-
........ ""
~
' I.
\ ,/
~
...........
... >< -4
c ... ""... l/
-IVlE
-100
\ V
0"'''''
""~ ... -6
r;
590 594 598
"\.. h
602
~
606
V
610 614 618 622 626
RANGE TIME. SECO~DS
Figure 9-17. Attitude Errors at S-II/SWS Staging
Since the S-II/SWS has a nominal nosedown attitude \'Jith respect to the
velocity vector at separation, the $-11 stage initially moves upward and
to the rear. Under nominal conditions the spent stage would have Crossed
the 2134 meter safe clearance distance at about 110 seconds after
separation and it would have been 4118 meters from the SWS at the nominal
safing time of 210 seconds.
The actual delta velocity of 18.82 m/s was about 1.1 meters/second less
than the nominal value but the nominal safinq time was about 4 seconds
later than predicted. The net result as shown in Figure 9-18 was that
the separation distance at the safinQ time was 3991 meters rather than
the 4118 meter nominal value. In any case, there was an adequate margin
of safety over the minimum a11o\'1able value of 2134 meters. If the S-II
interstage had separated properly, the S-II/SWS separation distance at
the safing time would have been 4364 meters using the actual retro motor
performance and a safing time of 214 seconds after separation.
9-26
•
,,' ~;f!I.UU.1UIJ.' .I,' ,IIHillllIn 1I!Ii'.II,UJi.!!.u,n.fIIZJ/lIfIkIIQ r.'r'~,1iU¥\I.ii;,\!\';tI~'*!Ii1;fl!'jIlIIJ!Jl\i"1ft1J\f~A!f",,:""'; :,"~ _~~~,~.~_-'i'!<>t~""'.~""':l'li,.,!""",;,'~l,t ,.,:;/;"";,,~ ;~,,,~;:'~!$1.l t
...
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, m
8000
o 1000
J
2000 , 3000
I
4000
I
5000
I
7-'."., •
I
..... ~~
2000 ~ " .. \ .. "
6000 " ':,.. :.• '~~
··~..,M
,
SAFING
::. DISTANCE
'0.:.., 2134m
........
4000 ..
.:\.,
,.
(7000 ft)
"~
1000 w
u
z: I
<
E l- .~::.
w
u -
V)
Q 2000
I.
.~:
~ ~.~
z,
c:i.
~
'I
N
......
"-
~
-
on
Q
..J
-
U
I-
a:
w
:> SKYLAB
nME
~
fROM SEPARATION (SEC)
.Jt
60",
-. ~
~ ~:
.;:
1~
PREDICTED- \
1~
-~
180
-~ 2 V
S-II SAFING DISTANCE
-
~ 4: r"" t -
I u ':A.:'- ~r- ~.! ACTUAL--'" - -_-'" 10_
~ 240
N I- 0 1fi _ "-
00 a: • ~ __210
J
w ,
:>
.... ,".
;.
' l DIRECTlON Of h HORIZONTAl DISTANCE, ft ~;,.
ORBITAl MOTION ~
,.'
I I S-II ......-:; ...
-2000 ,
.,.
~ . SAFING
TI~E (SEC)
SAFING
DISTANCE (ft)
SAFING-
DISTANCE (m)
ft
"(
~1000
PREDICTED 2]0. 13,510. 4118
:G
.:J ACTUAL 214. 13,094. 3991
·4000 I-
~:I'
...,
.;,. .
- - - -
o 2000 4000 6000 . 8000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16~000 18,000
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, ft
Figure 9-18, S-11 Distance Relative to Skylab at S-11 Safing
L ..... ,~~.~, • • ''''"''.'''~'''''''''''''''''''''''''.'''~''''''''''~'''"'.~, ';:·'1-l""'--.1'~";;~:·:._')'·Y~;J;';";:~."""''':;''.. ;~ " ,'::"";" ': .:. ,'.,~;

SECTION 10
ELECTRICAL. NETWORKS AND EMERGENCY DETECTION SYSTEM
,,
t: 10. 1 SUMMARY
The SA-513 launch vehicle electrical systems performed satisfactorily
throughout the required boost and orbital phases. The Emergency Detec-
tion System (EDS), in an open loop confi~uration, functioned oroper1y.
The operation of the batteries, power supplies and switch selectors
were nonnal. All Exploding Bridge Wire (EBW) firing units performed nor-
mally including the S-II second plane separation EBW firing units, which
reacted as expected during the S-II interstage separation anomaly.
10.2 S-IC STAGE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
The S-IC stage electrical system performance was satisfactory. Battery
voltages were within performance limits of 26.5 to 32.0 V during powered
flight. The battery currents were near predicted and below the maximum
limits of 50 amperes for each battery. Battery power consumption was
within the rated capacity of each battery, as shown in Table 10-1.
Tab 1e 10-1. S- IC Stage BatterY Power Consumpti on
POWER CONSUMPTION*
RATED PERCENT OF
BATIERY CAPACITY AMP-HR CAPACITY
(AMP-HR)
Operational 8.33 4.11 49.4
Ins trumentati on 8.33 5.68 68.1
*Calculated from battery activation to end of telemetry (at 517.4

seconds) .
The two measuring power supplies remained within the required 5 ±.,O.05V.
All switch selector channels functioned as commanded by the Instrument
Unit (IU) and were within required time limits.
The separation and retro-motor EBW fi ring, units were anned and triggered
as programmed. Charging time and voltage ch.aracteristics were within
perfonnance limits.
- 1· 10-1
!
i
The range safety comnand system EBW firing 'Units were in a state-of-
readiness for vehicle destruct, had it been necessary.
10.3 $-11 STAGE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
The stage electrical power system was unchanged from previous flights but
electrical control circuits were incorporated for orbital safing of stage
pressure vessels. Redundant switch selector commands were also added to
increase the reliability of the separation systems (reference Appendix
B) •
The S-II stage electri.ca1 system performed satisfactorily. All battery

and bus voltages remained within specified limits throughout the flight
and safing operations. Instrumentati on bus power was avail able well
beyond the minimum predicted battery life to monitor S-I1 stage safing
parameters. All bus currents remained within predicted limits. Main
bus current averaged 30 amperes during S-IC boost and varied from 43 to
51 amperes during S-II boost. Instrumentation bus current averaged 22
amperes during S-IC and S-I'I boost. Recirculation bus current averaged
87 amperes during S-1C boost. Ignition bus current averaged 30 amperes
during the S-II ignition sequence. All battery temperatures remained
within predicted limits.
Battery power consumption and the rated capacity of each battery are
shown in Table 10-2.
Table 10-2. S-II Stage Battery Power Consumption
RATED POWER CONSUMPTION
BATTERY CAPACITY AMP-HR PERCENT OF
(AMP-HR) CAPACITY
Main 35 50.30* 144

Ins trumentati on 35 51.80* 148
Recirculati6n #1 30 11.53** 38.4
Recirculation #2 30 11.57** 38.6
..
*Calculated from battery activation until end of data (at 3960 and
7440 seconds for Main and Instrumentation batteries, respectively) .
: **Ca1cu1ated from battery activation until the batteries were
electrically disconne.cted at time of S-II second plane separation.
-~
l 10-2
All switch selector channels functioned as commanded by the IU. All
stage safing functions were performed satisfactorily. The LHZ reci r-
cu1ation pump inverters operated properly. .
The range safety command system EBW firing units were in the required
state-of-readiness for vehicle destruct, had it been necessary.
The non-propulsive vent EBW firing units which were added to SA-513 for
5-11 safing purposes performed satisfactorily.
All EBW firing units for the stage separation systems performed satis-
factorily including the 5-11 second plane separation units (lA and lB).
Evaluation of the second plane separation EBW firing units arm and dis-
charge characteristics has established that these units did not contribute
to the interstage separation anomaly discussed in Section 9, Paragraph
9.5.2.
The primary EBW Unit lA fired upcn command resulting in only partial pro-
pagation due to the damaged Linear Shaped Charge. This propagation pro-
vided sufficient physical separation of the interstage to cause dis-
connect of the interstage interfacing connectors and interrupt of the
firing command to the backup EBW Unit lB. Thus, electrical signals were
generated, which were typical of the normal separation sequence and gave
no indication of an anomalous interstage separation. 'i.,
The normal separation sequence was initiated with the charging of EBW
firing unit lA and lB following switch selecto\~ commands at 183.217 and
183.317 seconds, respectively. Firing of aft interstage separation EBW
Unit lA was then commanded at 189.917 seconds. This firing resulted in
electrical disconnect of the interfacing connectors at some time between
189.927 and 190.009 seconds. Firing command to the backup EBW firing
unit lB was issued by the switch selector at 190.017 seconds.
10.4 INSTRUMENT UNIT ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS
The IU electrical system remained essentially unchanged from previous
flights except for the incorporation of a heater across the 6020 battery
to increase its load and thereby ensure its passivation (reference
Appendix B, paragraph B.4.1).
The. IU electrical system functioned normally. All battery voltages and
currents remained in the nominal range until battery depletion. Battery
temperature rise was nominal based on available data. Battery voltages,
currents and temperatures are shown in Figures 10-1 through 10-4. Bat-
· !
tery power consumption and rated capaci ty for each battery are shown in
-f
j
Table 10-3.
I
!
:~ Current sharing of the 6010 and 6030 batteries, to provi de redundant power
to the ST-124M, was satisfactory throughout the flight. Current shar-
ing reached a maximum of 22 amperes and 26 ampe.res from the 6010 and 6030
batterY respectively during the S-IC burn as compared to an average of
10-3
Table 10-3. IU Battery Power Consumption
POWER CONSUMPTION
RATED --
BATTERY CAPACITY PERCENT OF
(AMP-HR) AMP-HR CAPACITY
6010 350 231.84"(** 66.2

6D20 350 212.72* 60.1
6D30 , 350 381. 52** 109.0
6D40 350 375.10** 102.8
*Calculated from activation to the loss of telemetry at 6],620
seconds) .
**Calculated from activation until battery voltage decayed below
26.0 V (at 64,987 and 42,503 seconds for batteries 6030 and 6D40
respectively.) ,
***Calculated from activation until loss of current data at 46 374
seconds. Battery voltage indicated depletion at 65,880 sec~nds
L ~s\:.;:; l7isure '10 ... 1 ):
18 amperes and 21 amperes (see Figures 10-1 and 10-3).

The 56 volt power supply maintained an output voltage of 56.1 +0.5 V
which is well within the required to'lerance of 56 +2.5 V. -
The 5 volt measuring power supply performed nominally, maintaining a
constant voltage within specified tolerances.
The'switch selector, electrical distributors and network cabling per-
formed nominally during the boost and orbital phases.
10.5 SATURN V EMERGENCY DETECTION SYSTEM (EDS)
The EDS was flown in an open loop configuration with all abort signals
being inhibited. The system was monitored for vehicle performance para-
meters during the boost phase. An discrete indications for EDS events
functioned nonna·l1y. The performance of all thrust OK pressure switches
and associated voting logic which monitors engine status was nominal.
The Q-Ba1l, which sensed maximum dynamic pressure differ.ences on previous
Apollo flights, was not employed on this flight (see Appendix B).
As noted in Section 9, none of the EDS rate gyros gave any indication
of angular overrate in the pitch, yaw or roll axis.
.',<~
10-4
1:'-
/t
• ...; .... #._ .... " .............. ~_.,..u;:~;.~w-~~~'4*'~~~>l!Ck~l!Z~!t~~tK;~~;.-~X~"'lIt..~!;l\tl.;;~.&• ..z:.;f""~~"'1U'O'U~,.:;.~.......,;;,\<-,~~(UA""~~~_~~'c.;:;"'-... ~~~~,~30~:~ • .z~ ..:.:.r;;.:~·:.::;-.;.:~.,;;;:;.:.n.I:u;.-..!!.~.~;..,P.=--_~,-. .....,. -"--,...:,.x:.;.;z"-o,-.•., ~'V;" .. _~.' .,_~::':.:l.c... _.~· ::o~,;~~ _::;::,-;::;::.,... ;'
31 r-, ---'--r-~--r---'
I
.... :~J:jt::;\lt::::::!
,.»,,,,~~:::::,:::IIIJlt~ill!ill~~'
\I)
--
o
> ~~~- .
. l':.:.
28
W*~~J;,;111i'ljli1:~'I:;!~1!11rill'@iwillmillfr
!..1.1
~
~. 27
o .I::~~:]:::~j~g:. :~~~m::::::::E~:[.~:lmj:~[::;i::r:..._
.
> 26
i j I I b
25~1--~~~~~~
35 ---.-..---r---,---.,
I I I I I I
r-'
~
~301r--r~+--+--l-. 1
I I I I
+
251 . I I 1 I i
,
. I-
~
! I -- 1 I -;--+::-
i ! ~L' I
....
.1 I
-
~~Etttil
Z
!..I.I '-.1 _ -I I •. -'
i-
o
--'
U1
I
0:::
0:::
;::)
U
10 .....
' --'-,.....-1-.1...--'---'
L
,- 1
--+-
I-j
i- -t-
r -I
i
+--
1
'7 -j0
I ! r-t- 1 I
330 I,..--r--r---r----r--.,
~
o 3201
_1.- I J I I I I I
I I 130
120 ~
!..I.I
0:::
;::) 310 I'---+---+~-+-~ r
I
I
._~ __ --l
110 ~
100 ~
1 90 ~
5 I _
~- t ~i
I -r I -
300 I.---+---+~.---+-~
- -;- J.-. - to - _ l...-..
80 ~
r-t
-~ 4
!..I.I
i:
!..I.I
I-
290 1 I I I I I P'I
1 ~ - t,
1 i r-l-I
I i
1,
I I 50
j
I; :-H--l I
;
- 70 ~
60 15
I-
28°b 0.'20.'40.~ 0.'80.10 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 2124 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72
~ REAL TIME DATA RANGE TIME, 1000 SECOND~
L:;;:;:::::;:;I ACCEPTABLE LIMITS W 'W Sf
- ACTUAL o 10:00:00 20:00:00
'9 END OF AVAILABLE
TEMPERATURE DATA RANGE TIME, HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS
. W END OF CURRENT DATA
(AT 46,374 SECONDS)
~ RESULTING FROM DEPLETION OF .1040 BATTERY
v BATTERY DEPLETION (AT 65,880 SECONDS)
Figure 10-1. IU 6010 Battery Parameters

~~",,,,,,,,_~ _ _._~'~it/i~~~~,.,-;:::.~~;;-'::<'~/.:;l:~~~~t*,,,'"W!!;,::= ...............__ ""-''''..... _ _ _ _ ....... ..---~ ........ ___ .~ .".~
31
1/1 30
.....
'0 29 1. .... :.1: ..
>
~ 28
t!)
~ 27
-I
:::::~~::
§; 26
25
25
~20
fij
.- • 15
I-
......
z:
~ 10
a:
-[- -- ~ .r."I
-0~ 1\:1-
,..,.. I~
.- r.o.- ~
<::; ~
Ir.v:i
II.*)
0 ::I ._-I-f-'-. ---
I u 5 -~- -- . --- - .
en
U
330 130
!ooi::
320 --11---+--+---+---1 .120 ~
o.
LIJ .
1-1
..110 ~
, --1~-+---t---t--j
§ 310 ... .100 ~
~
90 ~
~ 300 --+-+--t----t----1 80 ~
-
1-1
-- -.-
LIJ
- -
-- ~
0..
L- h- ~ ~- 70
ffi 290~l~~~+=~~
~
60 .~
280' • ! ! ! I
_ 50 .~
00.20.40.60.80.10 o 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72
RANGE TIME. 1000 SECONDS
G REAL TIME DATA , S7 W----J
[~tt~11 ACCEPTABLE LIMITS o 10:00:00 20:00:00
~ ACTUAL
S7 END OF AVAILABLE RANGE TIME. HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS
TEMPERATURE DATA
W LOSS OF TELEMETRY (AT 67,620 SECONDS)

~:....-.;.~•••'''h~~:j-.'11CMfM~~I~-=H~ ....1H.P,~~~~~t~Yt;~.::t2!..JiJ!,!:!~!';',;-~1:.'~!~..:,:r;'l~~_~:_~~~1:~~W~:::"f:::::4-""":~-:.~~~~~~"::~~.l1;~~~J.:';S::-::...."".~.:'A:t:~:.;:s<tC:':".,.;:1:'r.~r""'0:,::.' .. ~:":~~:~'
31
•
30
....
~:kfl fi~r:f·fi-·f'i.·.·.·itr:.~I~~.I··
1/1
~
g 29
~ 28
~
<:
!:i 27
0
:> 26
E·}.I:·,ld F...J..L .'.• LJ . ' I.· '1 .' '·ldHj. · •• 1/ ., H:' 1::·'\.:·.d;:,j··;ld>\iH 1·:·\:I.~~l::;(~;::;l~::);';\\::::::
25
... 35
.s
:s. 30
IG
.
....
25
~ 00 10
z:
..... 20 1\ -- ~ ---I- -- - .-It:) (.'L( (b.
c:: J::>
ID.
iX*> i "Q.;
-'
'0
a:
a:
:::> 15 --~ -- - "- - -
1:1
'*' 1\;.1\;,.1
u
"
-....J
10
~
330 I-i 130 .....
o 320 120 0
110 ~
~ 310
:::>
!;;i 10-
~~ - - 100 §5
90 !;;i
a: 300
.....
~.
.. . i 80 ::5
70 ~
!i: 290
..... -4-- -~ ---
..... 60 ~
280- - - 50
00.20.40.60.8 0.10 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72
o
REAL TIME DATA RANGE TIME, 1000 SECONDS
[:f~f~J
ACCEPTABLE LIMITS W W
.~ ACTUAL 0 10:00:00 20:00:00
W END OF AVAILABLE RANGE TIME, HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS
TEMPERATURE DATA
~ BATTERY DEPLETION (AT 64,987 SECONDS)
Figure 10-3. IU 6D30 Battery Parameters
. ,-::,~ ~ ,':--;,;"; ~.J...::;:'::( ,:.:r~a:~~~""···-~f'~;;n~ i-'''~'~h~;.$t;~!;,,:;'~~·· ,~~li?!~"":~}i;;,..':~,,,'~, IJ",~; '''':;''''-;~,''';':h''-~':·.;:'~' ,;~., ... _
~Jj';;.j:;;:';b.l,";-~.""·"'~"""'''''~.~'h~:_ ............ :,-,, ___ '''''''--,;.f.,:$~~.;::~_~~~~~~~~jt~~\''''!'''Z'';.!:.:.~~~R·:'~J:..:~~~·t,!i~:::"'7~~;;~~"'"'"~""""'t"';'''''''''';''''''''''~-'''''''''''~'''''~''''''''~L_--r~'.' •..,.,",~-'.t:t--"_'''''_''''-"''''''''~_O--''-'_-L'_''
11\
+>
,...
0
>
~
UJ
(,.!J
<.
I-
-'
0
>
25
35
~ 30
e!IS
-I 1I !1 [
j'"
J
r
I" 100\00
. 25
I·····
." f - - ~ --r- ' Ir--f-~" :
J
'
--'
I-
z
UJ
20 ,--J- --e-/-t-.. - t -_.-. -t--'- +_. r----i-~--~-- ' -
I ~ I
1--- - '-- '---
'-
I t-' ;
0:
0
I
co
0:
::I
u 15
. 10
- ~1--'r-
j_
-j '1--11-'1---
I i I ! ' - - - I---
330 130
~
o 320
-, i
--t-I- L__ __ _ .__
120
110
::-
..
~
::I
310 ..-t
.-:.: 1--
--- t-~-- - r -+-1 , _
100 ~
- ~- -- ~
1
+-- -- -..I~-_+-_L
1--
~ 90
300 r----'- - -- -L-
~.-'.-r' .-
! I I ~
- 80
0: ~-
UJ I , -- "',!
Q..
70 1 _. ~
:E
UJ
290 -4--
60 ~
I-
280 50 I-
00.20.40.60.80.100 3 6 9 121518 2124 2730333639424548 51 54 5760636669 72
RANGE TIME, 1000 SECONDS
0. REAL TIME DATA _ W W ,
-
1'~~:r;l ACCEPTABLE LIMIT~ ~
ACTUAL
10:00:00 20:00:00
VI END OF AVAILABLE RANGE TIME, HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS
TEMPERATURE DATA
W BATTERY DEPLETION (AT 42,503 SECONDS)

SECTION 11
VEHICLE PRESSURE ENVIRONMENT
11.1 SUMMARY
The S-IC base heat shield was instrumented with two differential
pressure measurements. The SA-513 flight data show trends and magni-
tudes similar to the Apollo flight data.
The SA-513 S-II base region contained three absolute pressure measurements.
The measurement on the aft face of the heat shield showed a similar trend
and magnitude to Apollo flight data. Measurements on the forward face
of the heat shield and thrust cone surface agreed with Apollo flight data
up to the time of second plane separation. Following the time of second
plane separation, however, the data from these measurements remain
at a higher level than that seen during the Apollo flights. These higher
levels, along with other anomalous data led to the conclusion that
the S-IC/S-II interstage had failed to separate.
S-II forward skirt pressure showed a more rapid decrease in pressure
than was expected after 67 seconds, indicating a leak in that area pro-
bably caused by damage from debris resulting from the loss of the meteoroid
shield.
11.2 BASE PRESSURES
11.2.1 S-IC Base Pressures
The base heat shield of the SA-513 S-IC was instrumented with two
differential (internal minu~ external) pressure measurements, 00046-106
and 00047-106. ,:.The flight data, Figure 11-1, show similar trends and
magnitudes to Apollo flight data .. The maximum differential pressure
was approximately 0.23 psi at an altitude of approximately 4 n. mi.,
which is well within the 2.50 psi burst and 2.75 psi crush design limits
on the S-IC heat shield.
11. 4. 2 s-II Base. Pressures
Figure 11-2 shows the S-II heat Shield forward face pressure history
(00150-206), the postflight analytical values, and the data band from
. i previous Apollo flights. The postflight analytical values assume the
I S-IC/S-llinterstage remained on throllg.hout the S-II flight, as dis-
I cussed in Section 9•
.}
rl 11-1
W CECO AL nTUOE, n mi
o 10 20 30
FLI GHT DATA

.4 - ·;\;/<73AS-502 TO AS-511
....J
c::(
...... -SA-S13 ....J
c::(
I-(\J
zE
Wu tr . 4 ~
0::, z
W
~Z D0046-106 0::: .,....
LL. .. .2 (Sta. 2.81m) WVI
LL.o..
...... <IJ
Q VI
(110.63 in) .2 ;:; ..
W ttj ,Q ~
0::.Cl
::>0- \::.u ~
(/)1 1':1:::
(/)~
w.,.... a ::>
(/).j..)
'r
g:0- V> s:::
~ .,....
0..0-
-.2
-.2--~----~--~~----~--~~----~~\V
.4
....J
c::(
......
I-
.4 z
W
0::: .,....
;2 wVI
LL.o..
.2
LL.;
...... <IJ
Cl
..
W ~
0::.Cl
::>0-
0 a (/)1
(/)~
W s:::
0:: .,....
0...0-
-.2
-.2 +-~--+-~--~~--~~--~----~~--~
o 10 60 30 40 5
I ALTITUDE, kin
.!
I
I
I Figure 11-1. S-IC Base Heat Shield Differential Pressure
J
J
j . 11~2
~ S-11 IGNITION
~ INTERSTAGE SEPARATION
W CECO
i
i
~ EMR SHIFT
4
1
:1
W S-II OECO
1
:!
!I
i
~
"j 0.070 l- 0.10
~,
1
;
: l 0.060
i -0.08
:; .0.050 I PREVIOUS FLIGHTS DATA BAND
- - - POST FLIGHT ANALYSIS

...
J 'I, ~
l
-
:E
u 0.040
FLIGHT DATA
I- 0.06
1
'i
,,.1
0'
Vl
.......
z
a 0.030
r 0~O4
-
~
......
Vl
j
l
I--
:3
LLJ
Z
........ V~
I'"
~ - - - - -,
L_
-
c...
LLJ
r
~
!
},
Ij.
LLJ
0::
0.020 ~
---.... --"'h
,-- 1 - - ,.. '"1 - - - - 1--..,
0::
=>
Vl
,-~
t
t;
L
Vl r
=>
~ Vl I i.LI R
-
Vl I- 0.02 0::
c... F
J LLJ h
j 0::
0..
0.010 LLJ ~
~
"-
~
Vl
j ~ ~
LLJ
.,
-1
{
I
Vl
~
CQ
.0 1: :r 1: J: _l 0.0
CQ
~
~
~
1
I -.010 f I
1 NOTE: INTERSTAGE ASSUMED ON I- -.02 ,, .
II -.020
THROUGHOUT THE FLIGHT
1 .,'
i
1
1
1
-.030 \i7'~~ IW ~
W ~I- -.04
150 ·200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
}
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
tI
I,
• Figure 11-2. S-II Heat Shield Forward Face Pressure
!
~I
I !
11-3
From Figure 11-2, it is seen that no abrupt pressure drop occurs at
the time of interstage separation and there is no characteristic pres-
sure spike as has been observed on Apollo flights at the time of inter-
stage separation. Also, the base pressures, following interstage
separation time are an order of magnitude higher than corresponding
Apollo flight values.
The gradual pressure decay of the heat shield forward face pressure
measurement following separation time has not been seen previously
because the pressure in this area has dropped abruptly following
separation as shown in previous flight data (see Figure 11-2) and
noted above. However, the aft face measurement has shown this decay
on previ ous fl i ghts and it is probably caused by the reverse flo\,1
expansion process. This effect was not accounted for in the
postflight analysis. The corresponding thrust cone pressure data
(00187-206) is presented in Figure 11-3. Again it is seen that the
thrust cone pressures after interstage separation time are also an
order of magnitude higher than the data band of previous Apollo flight
data. Except for the gradual pressure decay in the flight data, the
postflight analysis is in good agreement.
The heat shield aft face pressure history (00158-206) is presented in
Figure 11-4, together with the postflight analytical values, which are
based on the S-IC/5-11 interstage remaining on throughout flight, and
the data band from previous Apollo flights. The analysis of the heat
shield aft face pressures is developed using semi-empirical correlation
between heat shield aft face static pressures and convective heating ,
'",
rates. These correlations are based on scale model hot flow test results
and the data from previous flights. It is seen that the flight data
fall within the data band of the previous flights as expected.
On previous flights the heat shield aft face pressure drops by
approximately 0.01 psia after the time of interstage separation.
This pressure drop did not occur during the SA-Sl3 flight. The
decay of the heat shield aft face pressure previously noted on
Apollo flights appears to be more rapid during this flight. The
postflight analytical pressure history is in agreement with the
flight measured history except for the pressure decay effect which
was not included in the analysis.
11.3 S-II FORWARD SKIRT PRESSURES
The'S-II Orbital Work Shop interstage compartment pressure history during
S-IC boost, which was measured by pressure transducer D0163-2l9, is
shown in Figure 11-5. Also included in the figure is the analytically
determined postflight prediction which is based on the postflight
trajectory used in conjunction with a local flow properties program and
a mul ti ple chamber venting program.
11-4
W S-I! IGNITION
W CECO
W EMR SHIFT
TRANSDUCER
~ S-Il OECO D150-206
c.
~:
"r
ct
~~{ 0.070 0.10 ~
i /;
~<, I
"' ~
.~'t.
",9.!!
0.060 -
:~
~j I PREV,IOUS FLIGHTS DATA BAND t- 0.08
0.050 --- POST FLIGHT ANALYSIS

f~
:J.
- FLIGHT DATA ;'f
I
'l
t- 0.06
I
'l
.I 0.040
1
- - -_.n ¥
('oJ
i '~'
I'd
E
u r:r-- .,.. ,
>,~
-at.1f1
"- VI
z: 0.020 I/r-.. L-- t---- C.
"~
r- 0.04
~i
~1 LU"
~
I f'-.- ~ hL_ f o - - r--
!
-.., LU
~
," ;~~
:1
=>
V)
V)
LU
0.030
~
"""
I
I
=>
V)
V)
LU
J
:¥
~~i
,I
~
Q.. r--- t- 0.02
~
Q.. :1
"
~<
LU
V) 0.010
-11 LU
V)
'Iii
:~
;{
;1
l
c:( c:(
~f
CO co
it
.~ ~
r r I I
.',!
IJ 0.0 0.0
.~ -.010
1
} NOTE: INTERSTAGE ASSUMED ON t- -.02
I THROUGHOUT THE FLIGHT
: j -.020
j
IW "W
;
., i{
J
-.030 W\2i . So/ ~ -.04

,, 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500, 550 600
i
:
!; RANGE TIME, SECONDS
.. ,
Figure 11-3. S-II Thrust Cone Pressure
. 11:-5
~ S-II IGNITION
WCECO
~ TRANSDUCER
W EMR SHIFT D158-206
W S-1I OECO
0.070 I- 0.10
I
NOTE:
II I
INTERSTAGE ASSUMED ON
0.060 THROUGHT THE FLIGHT
I- 0.08
0.050 ,Ni
J ~Ii
~I
IN ~
IV·I
I\\J~- 0.06
-----
I-
ttl
0.040 .. UJ' --- .,....
~ ~ I Vl
c-
----
N
E IL __
z:
u
.......
0.030 -- ---, I.LI
0:::
o.
I.LI
.. _.A -r-
-r- :or- r-
I
I
I- 0.04 ::::>
V')
V')
0::: I.LI
::::> 0:::.
V')
V') 0.020 1'- "-'- .... 0.
I.LI
0:::
0.
- r-''t ~- I.LI
V')
cc
I.LI
V')
~ 0.010
.. .1.
• r- I- 0.02 c:o
c:o
N .1- .~ \
0.0 0.0
I PREVIOUS FLIGHTS DATA BAND

-.010 - -- POST FL IGHT ANALYS JS
I- -.02
- FLIGHT DATA
-.020
-.030 t\i7\~/ W ~
W W~ -.04
150 .200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
. RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 11-4. S-II Heat Shield Aft Face Pressure

i
j
.!
1"1-6
W MACH 1
~ MAXIMUM DYNAMIC'PRESSURE
FLIGHT DATA
- - - POST-FLIGHT
ANALYSIS (PREDICTED
-NO LEAK) ,,;
12.0
,
°163-219 I- 16
10.0 ~ NOTE: POSTFLIGHT ANALYSIS ASSUMING -

~ 1.5 FT2 LEAK AFTER 67 SECONDS ~ 14
COINCIDES EXACTLY WITH THE
FLIGHT DATA.
I:
.... f
l
,
LLJ
.
8.0
6.0
"\ \
r- 12
~ 10
-"'.
In
c..
LLJ
c:::
::J
(/)
-8
I
~! c::: i
\
(/)
::J
Vl
LLJ i~ ,
0::
Vl 0- j",
LLJ 'i
,1
c::: ..J fj
'\~
.... '.•.:
. , 0- ex: "L'f
i ..J
4,0
6 z
0::
c:e: ;,i
\
>,,'
LLJ
Z t- i~
~. ,; .
c:::
LLJ
, -4
Z
..... J
-
t- j
l Z -0.75 PSI
~ ',-
'.it
l1,-( 2.0
~ '"
2
0.0 ~ .... - --
I, . 0
,i
-2
.. 2.0
'\ vW f-
o 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
c •
I
I
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure ll-S. S~II/OWS Interstage Pressure
11-7 . ;)
iii
The figure shows that the measured and predicted pressures agree quite
we'11 until about 67-68 seconds into the f1 ight when the measured pres-
sure starts falling more rapidly than expected. From about 85 to 100
seconds, the measured pressures are about 0.75 ps i 1ess than the pos t-
flight analytical values. This difference between the measured and
predicted pressures is larger than the corresponding discrepancies
obtained on the previous Apollo Saturn V launches.
The sudden change in the slope of the measured pressure decay curve at
67-68 seconds suggests an increase in vent area at about this time. An
analysis was conducted to determine possible size and location of this
anomalous vent area. It was found that the measured internal pressure
could be matched by adding more vent area to either the S-II/OWS frustum
or the S- II forward ski rt. The use of an equivalent vent area of
approximately 288 in 2 at vehicle station 2604 (frustum) or 108 in 2 at
vehicle station 2507 on the S-II forward skirt, assumed to open at 68
seconds into the flight, closely matches the measured data, as shown
in Figure 11-5. Note that the added vent area could be the sum of
several small holes or one larger hole. Also, the locations assumed in
the analysis are not the only possible ones. This would indicate a good
probability that skin damage from OWS debris (reference Section 17).
The greater than expected pressure levels measured on the forward face
of the heat shield and thrust cone surface following the time of Soc,II
second plane separation are indications that the S-IC/S-II interstage
: .. ,~' did not separate. This anomaly is discussed in greater detail in
Paragraph 9.5.2.
11.4 S-IC/S-II SEPARATION PRESSURES
There are no enviro.nmenta1 pressure measurements in the forward skirt of
the S-IC, however, since the S-IC/S-II separation was close to nominal
the pressures in this area should be well below maximum allowable values.
The S-II base region pressure transducer (D00158-206, see Figure 11-4)
exhibits normal response during the engine start transient, indicating
that the S-II base region pressures were lower during S-IC/S-I! separa-
tion than during full thrust operations.
.~
11-8
j
SECTION 12
VEHICLE THERMAL ENVIRONMENT
12.1 SUMMARY
The SA-513 S-IC base region environment was similar to that experienced
on ~pollo flights.
~
~l~ The SA-513 S-I1 base region thermal environment was expected to be
j~i about the same as that experienced on Apollo flights. However, the
Iof,
~\
S-ICjS-II interstage failed to separate; consequently, the thrust cone
region temperatures following scheduled time of separation were
greater than experienced during Apollo flights.
l Aerodynamic heating environments were not measured on SA-513.
t. i:
~
,~
Since the S-ICjS-II separation dynamics for SA-513 were nominal, the
heating rates to the S-IC forward dome and S-II base area during
separation were well below maximum allowable values .
12.2 S-IC BASE HEATING
""t!i,.
.i ;
The S-IC base region thermal environments for the SA-513 flight were
indicated by two total calorimeters and two gas temperature probes
I, ';
located on the base heat shield. The sensing surface of the total
Ji calorimeters (C26-106 and C149-l06) were mounted flush with the aft
~~ surface of the heat shield. The gas temperature sensing surfaces
i.
<1"
were mounted at 0.25 inch (C50-l06) and 2.50 inches (C52-106) aft
:ii, of the heat shield surface. Data from these instruments are compared
with Apollo flight data and are presented in Figure 12-1 and 12-2.
I-
·t: The SA-513 S-IC base region environments have trends and magnitudes
similar to Apollo flight data. ~he maximum recorded total heating
rate was approximately 24 Btu/ft ~sec and occutred at an altitude
,! of 11 n mi, and the maximum gas temperature was approximately 1718°F
recorded 2.5 inches aft of the heat shield at an altitude of 11 n mi.
In general, center engine cutoff (CECO) produced a spike in the
environmental data with a magnitude and duration similar to that
seen in Apollo flight data~
Ambient gas temperatures under the engine cocoons (monitored by
C0242-101 throtigh C0202-105) were within the band of previous Apollo
i flight dat,a. These temperatures are sho\'In in Figure 12-3.
1 [
I'
l
12 .. 1
ALTITUDE, n mi
0 10 20 30 40
• • • , , •
~ 30
C0026-106
,
I
,i
>t
"
I
"j
":1
~,
li
'i
,d.
~I C0026-106
(1
;;
"
~
l"
11
~ (
~
;;
!j
o A C
~
~
~ -5~--~--~~--~--~------~--~
W
~}
J
~
"
,
;~1
11
Jj
C0149-106
I
I 30
W CECO , I
1,1
"g C0149-106 r- 25
:j
25
~ "
• 20
~t 20
~!
.~ 15
~
jli
.~
,(
t~
~\ 10
~
!t
5
f ~
[ o
i ~
~ -5
~
~ o 20 40 80
i ~LTITUDE, km
1
, 1
~I
j
Figure 12-1. .,S-IC Base Region Total Heating Rate

1
12-2
ALTITUDE, n m;
o 10 2U 30 4U
...l •
FUIGHT bATA I I C~050- ~06
1200 -I- :/,;·,'):AS-S02 TO AS-tJ 11 t---1t-----fo--t L.L.
~
-SA-S13 I'" 1600° . C0050-l06
o
1000 -t--+---if---+---t---+---+--+---f ~ (O.25 IN. OFF SURFACE)
.~ 1200 ~ COOS2-l06
800~~-'Ar~--r--+~+-~--~~ ~ {2.5 IN. OFF SURFACE}
600i--th~~:(~£p~R~~;;,~:~~.~~~,~§f.t~~~~~~~~;~~"'~'t~~!~~i+~=~1'"..
AV4/r~:,;,!:~·~:· '~~';.':'.:,'::: ,~
800!
400 ~
/./.!,: f7 . (.!J
400 ...
;~~;~,~.~-r---+--+---ir-~--+-~
fro' o
200 ;--t-~--t---t--+---I~-+-~
1600
W CECO
I---'I~---"-
-r--r-----r---,---..,.----,r---..,.- 2400
D
C0052-l06
1400 r 2000
,,
L.L.
~
~
0 1200 0
.
LiJ
... LiJ ~,
0:: 0:: i
:::> 1000 :::>
~
ti:
0:: ~
LiJ
'i
LiJ
Q. . 800 Q. :~~
:£ :£ .~
....
LiJ
r 800 ....
LiJ
i
en 600 en '!
c(
(.!J ~ :"l
- 400
~
400
200
20 40
ALTITUDE. km
'/
Figure 12-2. S-IC Sase Region Gas Temperature
12-3 I'
I , I I I, I
W IECO -t---t--l~-+---+!,--+--+--t---t-- - - AS-513 FLIGHT DATA 300
PREDICTED MAXIMUM ~
I\.
o 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

RArtGE TIME. SECCil1l;)~f
Figure 12-3. S-IC Thennal Environments Ambient Gas Temperature Under

Engine Cocoon
12.3 S-II BASE HEATING
The SA-513 S-II base region thermal environment was expected to be the same
as that experienced during the Apollo flights. The heat shield aft face
total heating rate (C0722-206) measured during the S-II flight is presented
in Figure 12-4 together with the post-flight analytical values~based on
wind tunnel data and post-flight trajectory, and the data band of previous
Apollo flights. It is seen that prior to CECa the flight heating rates fall
slightly below the data band of· the Apollo flights, and considerably below
the post-flight analytical value~. The heating rate increase at CECa
durin~ this flight was greater than that noted on previous flights. This
could be due to the S-IC/S~II interstage remaining on throughout the S-II
flight (see paragraph 9.5.2, Controls and Separation) which affects the
,i center-engi ne-out reverse flow pattern and hence the heat shi e1d heati ng .
I rates.
I The S-11 heat shield aft side gas recovery temperature (C0731-206) flight
! hi story is presented in Fi gure 12-5 together wi th the pos t-fl i ght ana lyt-
l! ical output. The previous Apollo flight data band is also shown for
~ comparison. It is seen from the figure that. the probe indicated tempera-
1 tures are in .agreem6!1t,,~ith the Apollo flight data prior to CECO. Because
'I
1
1! ' 12-4
NOTE: THE PROBE IS EXTENDED
'W S-II IGNITION W EMR SHIFT w S-II IGNITION

w EMR SHIFT
APPROXIMTELY 2 IN.
FROM THE SURFACE
W INTERSTAGE SEPARATIotl W S-II DECO w INTERSTAGE SEPARATION

w s-u DECO
'W' CECO
wI CECO
PREVIOUS fliGHT DATA
I PREVIOUS FLIGHT DATA TRANSDUCER
CO 722-206
---- - GAS RECOVERY TEMPERATURE TRANSDUCER
- - FLIGHT DATA FLIGHT DATA } C0731-206
TRANSDUCER
- - - - !'OST-FLIGHT ANALYSIS -.,..-- - POST-FLIGHT ANALYSIS, , OOTPUT
5.00 120 ) .-~
4 1600
110 ) r- - -'----1 - - - ---
1-- I- ..,..-~
-:
q
4.00I i
-
1000) - -
--' -- ,-- --- -- _..i I
1200
90o T'
.
/'
3.00I ,,"
~~\ ~~
--I-
-- 1--, en
~--j r '~
J.= M
N
I 80 Q
.....
&,~~l_
E N J.
..
u
,- I 2 ....t: ...
l\'/~il ~JM~
'
on
N .... I ""
0
70 0 800 0
2.0 I i= ..; ~
1
I ..;
~ lou '" .L
(J1
...;
i
"~ h"'r· r~ ...;
~
'"
::>
t-
...~
60 )
FliGl1T DATA BELOW TRANSDUCER RANGE
'"
:::>
t-
...~
....
-...'"
1.00 i
Ii z ...~
t-
50 )
~i5
t-
~
§ :0::
40 )
:0::
0 0
L
30 )
O
200)
-1.00
10 )
-2.00 W~
150 200 250 300
Iw
350 400
W
450' 500
-.
550
\5i
600
o
150
f-\},200 150 300
W
350 400
Y
450 500 550
W
600
-400
RANGE TUre., SECONDS RANGE TIME. SECONDS
Figure 12- 4. S-II Heat Shield Aft Heat Rate Figure 12-5. S-11 Heat Shield Recovery_Temperature
-"' iii Iiiiil!iiJilil!l.iJi'iiii_~iiij.lii~i' i 7~';~_diiili!i-~ 'iili 'liiiilii!iil!ili--' tit;Mli"!ii~,r,tlii~;~~~'''''~_';'',Ji.:~'''''''~'im.x>;;~' ""=,,l!<I(.;,:;',,', ","'", - ,:;'
<'-,
, ..,,- ~"-::-'~-r'!~:~;»k-;:?'· ~s- ".,,0,",: i
j:
of the 'Ionger period between CECO and the Engine Mixture Ratio (EMR) shift
on SA-513, the indicated temperatures during this period fallon the high
side of the Apollo flight data band.
The heat shield aft side gas temperature was 1265°F, l520°F, and 1460°F
prior to CECO, after CECO and after EMR shift, respectively. These values
are about 200°F higher than the corresponding average values experienced
during the Apollo flights.
Figure 12-6 presents the SA-513 flight and post-flight analytical values of
the radiometer (C0692-206) indicated radiative heat flux to the heat shield
aft face. Also shown is the post-flight analytical values of the actual
incident radiative heat flux at the same location. It is seen that the
SA-5l3 flight radiometer output falls on the low side of the Apollo flight
data band. ,The discrepancy between the radiometer indicated output and
the incinent radiative heat flux is due to the heating of the radiometer
quartz window by convection and long wave plume radiation with the result
that the radiometer sensor receives additional heat from the quartz window
by radiation and convection across the air gap between the window and the
sensor. .
There were no structural temperature measurements on the base heat shield.
In order to evaluate the structural temperatures experienced on the aft
surface of the heat shield, a maximum post-flight predicted temperature
was determined for the aft surface using maximum post-flight predicted
base heating rates for the SA-513 fl ight. The predicted maximum post-
flight temperature was 983°F which is comparable to the maximum post-flight
temperatures predicted for Apollo flights, and was well below the maximum
design temperature of 1460°F for no engine out and l550°F for one control
engine out. However, all three thrust cone forward surface temperature
measurements were considerably higher than recorded on previous Apollo
flights. The maximum temperature recorded by any of the three thrust cone
;.;
::
forward surface temperature transducers was by measurement C0241-206 (see
Figure 12-7) which exceeded the uppel~ measurement limit of 150°F. Extra-
polation of the recorded data indicates a maximum temperature of about
165°F at the time of S-II outboard engine cutoff. The maximum temperature
recorded on Apollo flights was 30°F .. The thrust cone forward syrface tem-
perature measurements were not located in the region of maximum base
heating, and a post-flight analysis was conducted to predict the maximum
SA-51~ thrust cone temperatures withinterstage-on. The maximum predicted
ternperatures for SA-513, shown in Figure 12-8, were calculated using post-
night predicted base heat rates, and are in the same ra\1ge as the maximum
:~l1owable temperatures for a factor of safety of 1.0 indicating a marginal
structural capability for the thrust cone . .
. S-II-13 measured heat sh'ield curtain forward gas temperatures closely
fo 11 owed the upper range of previ ous ly recorded fl i ght data up to S- II
interstage separation time. Two of the fi>ve measurements are shown in
Figures 12-9 and 12-10, indicating a continued ,rise until CECO rather than
a sharp decrease after the scheduled interstage separation event. A
12-6
'\';
~ ~~41¥!tr!;§ 4:~~"",'Mt!4.oo ~': __ LJt8r.,~!1!~.!!~~!~?"L_ !_~~M@- ~'~:~~!~.~_U}!~l;._~~!f~!tl!l~.~L~~~~:~~::~::~~!~~P-.!~~!!!~~~~~::~~r~:"~''-_~::::-,I:'''~~:~~'''~'':' ~'2:~:':'~'~<:'~~.":'f"~-" - "Z''<' F~~.-:··l~~~': ,'''-,: '1'::<~;~"-pd
w S-II IGNITIOII
w INTERSTAGE SEPARATION
W S-Il IGNITION
v CECO
I W INTERSTAGE SEPARATION
w EHR SHIFT
PREVIOUS FLIGHT DATA
- - - FLIGHT DATA
W CECa
w 5-11 OECO - - - - POST-FLIGHT AIIAlYSIS
GAGE OUTPUT WEHR SHIFT
-0=-
W 5-11 OECO TRANSDUCER\
C0241-206
~ RANGE OF PREVIOUS
5.00 ~ FLlGIIT DATA
- - FLI.GHT DATA
4 400
4.000 37 5r-+--r-;--+-~-+~~+--r~--
o EXTRAPOLATED ~ 200
35
3.000 en 5 ___ c-
- --:1.-
V ~
'"15.... 21: 32
W
...... :< I / L UPPER LlfHT a:
'" 2;00 ~
' ,'. ::>
1= 30 ) / OF 1·1EASUREf.iEIIT _ _
N
~
- Ii...
I
1 ..; t!
V
'--- 1
1 I
-."""
of '\ ......
=> ~
W
Ii
__
~6
-A- I T Ii Ii 27 5 / ----,
~...
,~~m~~~~
1.01
co
z
-
r' '. " - . .... 1---_. '--
- "\ -1- ~
§:z:: 25' 0
§:z::
~
i.-. --- --- --- a 22 )
,\... INCIDENT RADiATlVE ilEAT fLOX
20 )r-+--r-1--1--~-+--f--+-~-4-
-1.00)
~
17 .r-+--r-4--+-~-r--I--+-~-~--
-2.0 )W ~7 'w U 150 £~ W'_L----..~ ~ I

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ m ~ ~ ~ 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700
RANGE TlME. SECONDS RANGE TIME. SECONDS
Figure 12-6. S-II Heat Shield Aft Radiation Figure 12-7. S-II Thrust Cone Forward Surface
Heat Rate Temperature
.~~...
•
~ .tt'!'-~~n!="":s<w""iler~'·g;jz·wutWWi.ipr*fni/"'(_~·!tii.~"~t\.,.~~~~n..'""':::V-i0~;.r~""t":'~~~-;;.-,~:-;~:t.'t;;t't'~~:.~-n.."'!:,-;-$t:::"',~;:;"·-;:'~,.;..::r::"':-:.::;~_ .. "_.,':.
,:-~.
Bg, !;'!r~III;~mL ...LUI!§~.~J!iL!J.JnLtlll!~1I!Il;!1UL.J. Jrl!iJ'U!f!~"""~~llU'l'!!"" ~~~~'~."",~'U!i>!J!'" :. t""''''''''"'"='''''''''''''-''.''';;''''''''''''"''''''"''''''''''''~''''''''''-'''"''''''''';::=''''':''''''''·-·\::~~~~~:~·;...."".";.....""....:.'"'~P,ii.~~4Iiijf~" nt".,
....
W S-II IGNITION
W S-I1 IGN!TIOtl W lllT£RSTAGE SEPARATION . MEASUREMENT ~
~
RAllGE Of WIX PR£DICTED
THRUST CONE iEf.!PS W INTERSTf,GE SEPARATION W CECO C674-206 -T~ I
Wmo W Et:R SHin
~IJ\X
~
ALLO:·Jl\fiLE iHlP RllflGE
FOR FACTOR OF SAFETY (S 1.0
W E~;R SHIFT W S-ll OECO
(ZZ2] /lANGE OF PREVIOUS
W S-ll OECO FLIGHT DATA
FLIGHT OI\TA
600 600
600 I 00
550 5SO --
500 SOO - -- r--
400 -,400
.....
..:
o
45
::- if
450 -- --V ' -- .r
-- ....
... ~
~ 400 ..; 400 --'-_. "
N
'" '"
::>
~
I
i...
200 ::>
i· i. 200 ::>
;m.
en 35 i 350
~ V; ~
....~ ::.~
...~
W ....
\oJ
300
w
!i!
'/.J I- i. I I I IlL ~
w
I-
25
0 250 o
20 20 -- --
'15 -200 15 - 1-'_- -200
100 _ _ _ _ " --
15,0 200250 300 350 4110 4~0 5~ o
10 .\E.~.
150 200 250
W350
300
~(i;7
400 450 500 550
~
600 650 700
RANGE TIME, SECONDS RANGE TIME, SEconDS
Fi gure 12.;.8-. Estimate of Maximv!:? Predi cted Figure 12-9. S-II Engine Compartment Gas
S-II Thrust Cone Temperatures Temper(1tyre (C674-206)
WS-II IGNITION
"if INTERSTAGE SEPARATION
WCECO r.EASUREMENT
W EMR salFT ."'.'~~

W S_II OECO
1"7771 RAIIGE OF PREVIOUS
~fLlGHT DATA
- FLlt"T DATA
600 600
550 ,.---
500
400
0 '"
..;
II<
450
400
.,-V r-- -- -- ....o
..;
::>
( 200 ~
...1C
II< 350
~
.......
~
:0::
300 fA ....-n 777! ~
....
250
j't ~ 7// r///, '//' 7//, '/j/, (LLL. ~
200
150 -200
100W.3{
150 lOG 250 3UO
:::z
W 3!,C 400 450 500 550
\5;
600 650 700
RAllGE TINE, SECONDS
Figure 12-10. S-11 Engine Compartment Gas Temperature (C676-206)
typical engine actuation system reservoir oil temperature is shown in

Figure 12-11, also showing a more rapid increase than on previous flights.
This base environment is attributed to the failure of the S-11 interstage
to separate (see paragraph 9.5.2).
The greater than expected temperatures measured in the engine compartment
following the time of S-II second plane separation are indications that
the S-IC/S-II interstage failed to separate. This along with other support-
ing data is presented in paragraph 9.5.2 with the conclusion that S-IC/S-II :~
interstage separatiQn did not occur.
12;4 VEHICLE AEROHEATING THERMAL ENVIRONMENT
Aerodynamic heating environments were not measured on the SA-513 S-IC stage.
The trajectory for SL~l was slightly different than that for the Apollo . 1.
flights which causes the aerodynamic heating environments to be less severe.
Ground optical data were not available to measure plume induced flow separa-
tion (PIFS) because of cloud interference. An estimate of the forward
point of flow separation based on Apollo flight data adjusted to the SA-513
flight trajectory is shown-in Figure 12-12. this estimate shows the flow
separation point to be farther up the vehicle at equivalent Apollo flight
times because of the different trajectory. The step function change in the
forward point of flow separation at CECO occurs later in flight for SA-513
f
W S-I I IGNITION
W CECO .
W EMR STEP
W OECO
~ RANGE OF PREVIOUS FLIGHT DAT~
----- FLIGHT DATA
420
400
380
- 200
360
~
~
L..-- ---- u.
~
0
.. 340 0
.
I.&J
0:: ~ UJ
::;)
320 ./ 71
0:::
::;)
~..
/
17 J, ~
I.&J
0..
:::E:
I.&J
300 F"'-,.. M 77 71- l! if /
.,.-;
-
- 100 I.&J
0..
:::E:
tit I::t ~
~
I- I.&J
I-
280
260
- o
240
220 ~IVI W ~ V ~
150 200 250·· 300 350 400450 500 550 600 650 700
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
. Figure 12-11. S-II Engine Actuation System Reservoir Oil Temperature

(Engine 4 Typical) .
12.;.10
l~
f
-"
,lx
f:
~ I~APOLLO CEC~J CEC~
t'~ ~WSA~513 ~
A~-5091 GROIiND, 0 DAT~
I
,I /
,r .
E fo-2 000
50 (MELBOURNE c
z
0
S~II I /1 / .~
~
p;
S
.-
AS-510 GROUND OPTICAL DATA
I
"
...-'
VI
40
\, (MELBOURNE BEACH) / / ...
-l
~ AS-511 GROUND OPTICAL DATA ~/ f-01 SOD!:!
r
~
x
....
... XI (MELBOURNE BEACH, 2 POINTS)
:/
V x ...>
z
f: z 30 o
}.
0
t:::
IC
jA-51 PRE DICT~D -'\ // ~ ;. _1 OOO~
g!
'.-: '" ...
if
,~
~; cc
,
...
Q.
•• rJ)
~ VI
}: 20
:.•
,,",-
VI
ii 0 U'
~
h~ :z
0
/ ,p ..fQ 0 Li
t~
il
J'1
f1
N
-'
.....
...
0
10
I / ;-4~. ~
V,
- 500 ~
}~
{~
~
0
Q.
A
I
J.
v
• 0
0
......,.... •• r:P
Ji
ii
!lt 0 I~
~ fb; i·~ )t
:> ~ w ;U
1~
" "'1)0 1 0 120 1 '0 1 :0
c,~1"
I. HO
!l RANGE TIME. SECONDS
:;,
I'!
II
Ii
i'; Figure 12-12. SA-513 Predicted Location of Separated Flow
I
than on Apollo flights, as shown in Figure 12-12. It is to be expected
"
that PIFS heating would be slightly more severe than that experienced on
Apollo because the exposure to this environment was about six seconds
longer.
~
~l
12.5 S-IC/S-II SEPARATION THERMAL ENVIRONMENT
~
W
lii
t.!
:1-. Post-flight reconstruction of the S-IC/S-II separation (see paragraph
!·i 9.5.1) indicates a slower separation than the nominal prediction but
f'f
l;t
1\(
5i
within the 3-sigma band. The pressure and heating environments of the
JJ S-IC LOX tank dome should, therefore, be slightly higher than the pre-
~ flight nominal predictions but less than the 3-sigma values and within
}l the design limits. Since there are no environmental measurements in this
n area on the flight vehicle, no fUrther analysis of the staging environment
"
~ is planned for this flight.
,
I The S-I1 base region heating rate transducer (C0722-206, see Figure 12-4)
exhibits normal response during the engine start transient, indicating
that the base region thermal environment is less severe during S-IC/S-II
1
, separation than that corresponding to nominal flight conditions.
12-11112 - 1L '
.. ~,'
SECTION 13
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL SYSTEMS
13.1 SUMMARY
The S-IC stage forward compartment and aft compartment thermal environ-
lnents were adequately maintained throughout the launch countdown and S-IC
boost phase.
The S-II stage engine compartment conditioning system maintained the
ambi.ent temperature and thrust cone ·surface temperatures \,/ithin design
ranges throughout the launch countdown. The system also maintained an
inert atmosphere within the compartment.
The IU stage Environmental Control System (ECS) exhibited satisfactory
performance for the duration of the IU mission. Coolant temperatures,
pressures, and flowrates were continuously maintained within the required
ranges and design limits.
13.2 S-IC ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL SYSTEM
The S-IC ECS performance was satisfactory and maintained temperatures
within the required limits during launch countdown and S-IC boost.
The most severe prelaunch forward compartment thermal environment typically
occurs during J-2 engine chi 11 down. The lowest ambient temperature measured
during SA-513 J-2 engine chilldown was -83.2°F. The lowest temperature
measured during the flight was -130°F at instrument location C206-120.
The aft compartment environmental conditionin9 system performed satisfac-
torily during countdown. After the initiation of LOX loading, the
temperature (12K10) in the vicinity of the batteries decreased to 65°F
which is within the battery qualification limits of 35 to 95°F. The
temperature increased to 76°F at liftoff. Just prior to liftoff, the ! .
other ambient temperatures in the aft compartment ranged from 69.8°F at
measurement C203-115 to 82.4°F at measurement C205-1l5. During flight,
the lowest temperature recorded was 52.7°F and w.as at measurement
C203-11S. .
13-1
13.3 S-II ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
The engine compartment conditioning system maintained the ambient temperature
and thrust cone surface temperatures withi n desi gn ranges throughout the
launch countdown. The system also maintained an inert atmosphere within the
compartment as evidenced by the absence of H2 or 02 indications on the
hazardous gas monitor.
The ambient temperature measurements external to the equipment containers
indicated that temperatures within the containers were satisfactory and
since there were no problems with the equipment in the containers, it is
assumed that the thermal control system performed adequately.
13.4 IU ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
The IU Environmental Control System (ECS) performance was satisfactory and
maintained temperatures, pressures and flowrates within the required limits
for the duration of the IU mission.
13.4.1 Thermal Conditioning System (TCS)
Performance of the TCS was satisfactory throughout the mission, including
modifications made bec~use of the absence of an S-IVB Stage on this flight
(Ref. Appendix B). The temperature of the liquid coolant supplied to the
coldp1ates and internally cooled components was continuously maintained
within specification limits of 45° to 68°F for the required IU lifetime.
Sub1imator performance parameters for the initial cycle are presented in
Figure 13-1. The water supply valve opened as proqramrned, approximately
350 seconds after lift-off. The initial opening was delayed from the
lBO-second time~ used on all previous vehicles to allow the pressure within
the IU compartment to decay to the level necessary for proper sublimator
start-up. This level occurs later because of the additional volume of gas
in the compartments joined to the IU in the Skylab configuration which must
exhaust through the same vent area. Significant coolin!) from the sublimator
was not evident until about 675 seconds after lift-off, at which time the
coolant supply temperature began to decrease rapidly. At the first thermal
switch sampling (650 seconds) the coolant temperature was still above the
actuation point, hence the water supply valve remained open. The second
switch sampling occurred at approximately 950 seconds and the water valve
was,cTosed by swi tch selector command as prograrrmed.
Effective with IU-513 and IU-514, the Ground Support Cooling Unit (GSCU)
is shutdown 47 seconds prior to launch by the Terminal Count Sequencer.
This was reflected, as shown in Figure 13-1, by an initially rapid increase
in cool ant ~upp1.y temperature (C15,..,60l) from the stabilized pre-shutoff
val ue, followed by a more gradual increase through 11 ftoff and the fi rst
60 seconds of flight. This event is similar to that initiated at umbilical
separation (lift-off) on all previous flights and does not, in itself,
result in a significant change in overall system temperature levels. The
13-2
"i.'~,""4=A..~.l!~"'k{.c..::;.Y'~.'!:'~~:;':.1.~~';:;!:z!~:J'J;~:"'~·f~:·:::~~.' :~::.~::~~::':': -=::::'1:~::"~r"{I',;':~~c~:~~~j£t'_:~~~:i!,:,~:~!!J!~!~~~~JBi:::'_"'! ~-
.. ........ \. ........ ........

IU EXIT COOLANT
:..::
0
.. 291 .... ···7 '.-.. .. :t"r
.-
, .....
.-
'"
...... TEMPERATURE
••••••••••• (C25-602)
65 LL.
0
--
L&J
c::: 289 ~ ......... ............ 60 L&J
c:::
~
A ~ ~
~
c::: 287 GROUND SUPPORT COOLING UNIT
I-
<
UJ
c..
[ j "------ ~ 55 c:::
L&J
::IE: 285 I-SHUT-OFF ! : c..
L&J
I-
I
I
I
~
I j
COOLANT CONTROL --~
TEMPERATURE 50
::IE:
L&J
283 I-
I I
!
(C15-60l)
HATER VALVE OPEN WATER VALVE CLOSE

C\J 3 <;T .!. I ~ I
-.
e
u MEASUREMENT OFF 4 ...../0
....... I/)
z SCALE =-==\ SUBLIMA"TOR WATER INLET 3 c..
L&J
2 ,
,PRESSURE (D43-C01) ~~ I.IJ
..
c::: 2 ex
.... ~
VI .- ::>
VI
l.:i
I
W
VI
L&J
c:::
LL
-- " ~
1 VI
L&J
c:::
c.. ..,1 c..
o o
I-
~""I
Z:
03
..... ..¥
l-
t.)
L&J I.IJ
L&JL&J~
::c c::: c:::
..
:bJ
~100 0
.1·1
·100 200
I·
300
1·1
400 500. 600
1 k=
700 800
1
900
1
1000
1~~~~~I~gRR~ir Kwl
1100 1200
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
, , ---.--- I i
00:00:00 00:05:00 00:10:00 00:15:00 00:20:00

RANGE TIME, HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS
Figure 13-1. IU Sublimator Start-up Parameters (Initial Cycle)
·-"~::··'Jr~q::41t_.f_rtlT?ii"'iiTfiiitq~h·· iI-~.4.··i'~~i·.!iii$:4dU:;~~ .t··;,~;t~~ .:~:;,; -tJ..'_' .. : ...."'I~.,;· ;';':..w;P, .• ~,tp;").-d'r~_:.~','.A,,, 4'!~"-

"r-;':: ~,;. >
' ....., '""-> ..........'
-'./
combination of early GSCU shut-off and delayed water valve opening more
than doubled the interim period of no active cooling on SL-l, but system
temperature response was moderate and within the conservative predictions.
Figure 13-2 shows temperature control parameters over the total time span
for which data has been received. Sublimator cooling was nominal and the
coolant control temperature (C15-601) was maintained within the allowable
range of 45 to 68°F through 36,000 seconds. At approximately 35,640 seconds
the LVOC logic controlling water supply valve operation was inhibited by
DeS command with the valve in the open position. This resulted in the
valve remaining open and continuous operation of the sub1imator. This
event was undertaken based on a real-time decision to attempt to extend
the IU operating lifetime. In the nominal case, a major restriction in
operational lifetime of the IU is over-heating of the electronic components.
This occurs when coolant circulation ceases due to 6040 battery depletion.
By forcing the sublimator to operate continuously prior to this time a
"subcoolingll effect is achieved, and thus when circulation does cease, the
time to reach an over-heated condition is extended.
The average system heat load on IU-5l3 was significantly higher than on
previous missions. This was due primarily to the solar inertial attitude
and resulted in more frequent sub1imator cycling and increased water
consumpti on. Alack of suffi ci ent data prevents an exact determinati on,
but it is estimated that the average net system heat load in orbit was
approximately 2.4 kilowatts. The total mass of water consumed throUgh the
operating lifetime of the TeS is similarly estimated to be 120 pounds.
Water accumulator capacity at lift-off is about 145 pounds, leaving an
estimated residual of 25 pounds.
Hydrauli c performance of the TeS is i ndi cated by the parameters shown in
Figure 13-3." Operation was nominal with system f10wrate and pressure
relatively constant through 42,000 seconds .. At this time, output from the
battery powering the pump began to decay through normal depletion, causing
a corresponding decrease in pump outlet pressure and flowrate. Fluid
circulation ceased altogether at approximately 48,600 seconds when the
pump outlet pressure becomes equal to that at the pump inlet.
The TGS GN2 supply sphere pressure decay, which is indicative of GN2 usage
rate, was normal and is presented in Figure 13-4.
TeS pressurization as indicated by the coolant pump inlet pressure, 024-601,
was maintained at the required level of 16 ~0.5 psia through 67,000 seconds,
at whi ch time the inlet pressure to the Fi rst Stage regulator had decayed
to less than 200 psia. .
13-4
.~IIUl!IJ Lxat ._m.ITfl!l ..... I!$II:IIIW)I~"..~q~iI!!il!!iII~~~~Wp,~~,,~,c.~~!'~~,~_~~"i'!""~"-...~,',,.,,'·.~C" ..~~,''!-'r'',"'~'.,·: "~ - ',~1 ···f;:·"'f"~'~d::'·· ,,"-M~"
293 I 1 Ti
1J ••• EXTRAPOLATED
I:
291
289
~ 287
uj 285
0=
;:)
~ 283
~ 281
~
1.1.1
I- 279
277
275
273
, -.j'
w
I; 3
I PRESSUR~ ! .l I .1 I ,I 4
-
U1 ~
Ne SUBLIMATOR WATER' INLET (0.43-601 >,
,U
I MEASUREMENT OFF Sf-ALE-
...."'
z
.
1.1.1
2 ,
I
I 1
I
I
'
~
~
3
2
CIt
Q.
LaJ
11h
IX IX
;:) ;:)
<::'::..-::::::... tn 1 Vl
tn
1.1.1
IX
, '-- .... \
,'"- ..... I "-lI __
Vl
1.1.1
IX
Q. 0 o
.l~._L_ ---L _._.
Q.
o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 2628 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54
--~---- .....
00:00:00 02:00:00 04:00:00 06:00:00 08:00:00 10:00:00 12:00:00 14:00:00
Figure 13-2. IU TCS Coolant Control Parameters
L~·,:t~_o.·~·e·'iiiWH"'rlFjj_*Nrr'i·---'·-"··-· '" (; .. ,£ -'m? -b . _~',~Z-...",.,;;~ ..:.\\••r":~ifiiiiiiJM~ fit,;!Ia.t_.'_;Iti!~·~"Mtf'~~~'~.·\lJ'::h~~:~'·-'j,<·:~~ :~$:'~

~_icl.t.~:t~c!.\r---:~~~~1\~~1~~~'3fi#1.t+,:t;:lP~~~:~~~~J~·~,..1t"~_~~"'::""~"::i"~;':~,~":~?----"~~","~""",I.~.~_ ...... _~-,;-,_<-":-"_~'-'--""'~-.....o..","",,~_.:...,.:...~.. ...l.~~.~ ... >.-'.l~""",~, .• _, __ .~'._-I ...'\'''·'''''''' __ ''""_~''o'---.'
40 60
J J J J I
f·
N
e NOTE: DATA SHOWN AFi-ER 36boo
_"~
- IJ
~30 .r...,.
PUMP OUTLET PRESSURE (017-601)
...... SECONDS ARE DISCRETE ....en
tel
POINTS FRON REAL TIME - 40

. I OBSERVATION
0-
..
li! 20 LI.I
*~
'~8=tL
~
a:
VI
-- - 20 ~
~10 :- '- -- - -- - -- - p 000 CD ~88 c..,
a: L&J
Q.. PUrp INLfT PRE~SURE I(D24-6~1) LOSS OF.CIRCULATION
a:
Q..
o '.
" 0
12
(~9-601+
2.5
M
~
~
2.0
roo- -- - -- - --- -
--1 "FulwbTE
XJt(
S
e0-
..
C)
--'
W : 1.5 »sc LIJ
I
r.'/I
LI.I
~
a::
1.0 4 S
::s
0
~ 0.5 -I
.....
-'
"'- 0·°0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72
0
00:00;00 04:00:00 08:00:00 12:00:00 16:00.:00 20:00:00
RA~GE TIME, HOURS: MINUTES: SECONDS
Figure 13-3. IU TCS Hydraulic Performance
~ ..
:,;.;:;,:;a..~~,~",~, ...,.~" ...... -\" ... -.~ .. ,~.,.<.-,~,....- ... ~", ..... ..,..,..,..,,,I<',,,"""'->'···""·"r"",,:",::",~\,,-t';I;;:;::c'-:~~..::-:t"?·W'!t·j'l::'~··\'·
..:,:...-"_..~,.-...,~","~.c_~_:-"~____~~~'-:_, .. , ,",___ ,~,",__'::_,___ ,~._,,., ..,•..,".'' " ",.._~_.__,":,___",:"'"m""L~,.-__"",=",,",,,,,,,•.=,," ,,,-,"""'=.:r,,.=,,~i"<":~""·C:::.·J=:r.:::,::·;:c::,:,,.~::':.=· :.::~,!. c, .
22 .'
3200
~ NJTE: 6ATA SJOWN AJTER 3JOOO I
I" '"~'"-
20 K',
18 ."~ ~
,
.....
.,
I:::,
,I
SECONDS ARE DISCRETE POINTS ___ 2800
FROM REAL TIME OBSERVATION
2400
........
~
16 ~MINIMUM EXPECTED CONSUMPTION RATE
"'" ~ '"
. ' ........
N ,
e 14 2000 ~
u
..... : ' ....
' ..... I
~
z: ... en
N
0
,...
12
"- .............
. .... I1600 ~
C.
A
IJJ
10 I~ ~CTUAL . . . p;c............ I ::l
11'1
11'1
0:
::l ~"K 1200 f
IJJ
...
W
I
11'1
11'1
IJJ
c::
a..
8
6
'l ":'-;',
..........
~~ ~~
...... 800
I I~ f4AXIMUM EXPECTED ~
4 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE CONSUMPTION RATE.
~ CONSUMPTION' RATE
2
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 .28 32 36 40 44
~~
48 52
""
56
,-- ,-
60
~
~t::....
64 68 72 0
400
RANG~ TIME. 1000 SECONDS
00;00:00 Q4:00:00 08:00:00 12:00,:00 16:00:00 20:00:00

RANGE TIME. HOJRS:MINUTES:SECONDS
Figure 13-4. IU Tes GN2 Sphere Pressure (025-603)
~ ~:il:ji(.fr-11.iwi~j,'~~i.i_>Mt'PltlMiiiij'Irl!:jti:.!t.·.....A0*" ·~tt"i"ii·i"·jiji>"'li~i;J·~;e~~-~~'!~~t·~,,~~~"~~tt.~,~... _l.;.~>,. -''''''~''''~-

.'-~~'7r'·-:·, '
13.4.2 Gas Bearing System Performance
Gas Bearing System (GBS) operation was nominal throughout the IU-513
mission. Figure 13-5 shows platform pressure differential (Dll-603)
and internal ambient pressure (D12-603). The differential pressure
remained constant and within specification limits through 56,000 seconds.
In the 56,000 to 60,000 second time frame both differential and ambient
(reference) pressures began to decay as expected as .a resul t of GN2
~ "
depletion. At this time the supply pressure to the gas bearing regulator
dropped below the minimum level for proper operation of the regulator
(300 psia). The GBS GN2 supply. sphere pressure decay is depicted in
j
j
Figure 13-6. GN2 consumption was as expected.
J
•'I 13.4.3 Component Temperatures
U
n
All component temperaturestemained within expected ranges throughout
~ the primary mission (Figures 13-7 and 13-8) and until loss of coolant
~~
circulation. As stated pt2viously, continuous sublimator operation
~~ was initiated at about 35,640 seconds to IIsubcool ll the electronics
~
and thus extend the operational lifetirre. This operation was success-
ful in lowerin!l component temperatures as shown in Figures 13-7 and
1j 13.8. The lower temperatl..res were maintained until loss of circulation,
4
'I
whereupon the components generally began an immedi ate and conti nued
j
~
temperature increase unti1 eventual loss of system power. The component
,... temperature profi"les duri\~g this period of no active cooling are
!,
1 virtually the same as was ~bserved previously on S-IU-508 under the
Ij same general circumstances.
1
I
I
I \
i1
~
'I
~
e
J
~
~t
I,
~
~li
i
;
l I
i .
I '
,
13-8
I
~4:L..-'dl.e;~~H~:~~~""'~"'''-,"~~~.li'''M~~~l;~~~~~~'''~-4'~'''''!oU.,"y'c~~'~:.t-~.LJt:;t.l.,~'Zw.~,
: ' , " ~ ••,-,"""M..t~.;:j:Ci'JWl::r~~;,.;1,·~X,~
, ..}~~:..:-~~N~::':'!\lf!!%!&.:l!:t~?':~~~~:£'~.':"'~~~-' ',,"." ~7'~~.::-':::~~~!,~_<l-··; ,.:~.:t~,:·_~::
14 20
NOTE: DATA SHOWN AFTER 3~OOO
13 SECONDS ARE DISCRETE POINTS
- "--:~'!::- -~::::, FROM REAL TIME OBSERVATION - 18
12
PLATFORM DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE (011-603), PSID
I I I I
t 16
1
1--- _ - - -- f-- .-- - - - - - - -
)()(
x )0( ~
~x x )(
.,..
10 \ ~x
14 ~
N
fj \ .
~ 9 .... \ ..... -
- - -- ~- .- - - - - - - - 0 0 0 '0 p 0 0
x ~
~
.. 8 ,
"'-
- -. PLATFORM AMBIENT PRESSURE-(Df2-603), PSIA 12 ~
en
~o
;::, ~
a..
en
en 7 >!
. .. - 10
~
-" a.. 0
W )(
I 6
8
'" 5 x
)( ,
1--' ... 6
4
0
t;
3 -
8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 .60 64 68
._L__ L.______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ----------..I.
00:00:00 '04:00:00 . 08: 00 : 00 12 :00 : 00 16:00:00

Figure 13-5. IU Inertial P1atfonn GN2 Pressures
~~1 ;~:P,~,,:,;'::--," ,-<:

"
22 3200
~OTE: IDATA SIHOWN AFTER ~6000 "
~~
"
20 SECONDS ARE DISCRETE

POINTS FROM REAL TIME - 2800
~ ,,-'-
..............
OBSERVATION
~ r-.....
18
I 2400
-..........
I~ ~-
lS " -I '
NE ........
... ~ ............ / MINIMUM EXPECTED CONSUMPTION RATE
~ 14 2000 .,...
z .. , ......... "'
~ ~
~
III
... 0-
! ....,.
12
....
NO
. ~. "',
"'- 1600 0:
"~ "- /ACTUAL -.............. :::)

~ 10I- :_" - .::. en
I '" en
....,
'" ...............
:::)
......
en
en
~8
i . ~
1200 0:
CI.
·X~ ..............
"'- x
(.) CI. I.J. ............... .........
I
6 MAXIMUM EXPECTED CONSU~PTION, ............. ~ x x
';""'i
Oi ~ RATE,. ! I' I I / 800
~~
x -............
4 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE CONSUMPTION RATE )(
~
........ "-
"x
. i'....... 400
2
~ ::-....... '-...... x
,.
~
X)Oc ~
00 0
4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72
.L _ _ _ .__
00:00:00 04:00:00 08:00:00 12:00:00 16:00:00 20:00:00

RANGE TIME, HOURS:NINUT!:S:SECONDS
Figure 13-6. lU GBS GN2 Sphere Pressure (010-603)
~ ~i .
~/~
~.........i"-,.,, ......~,~.'..T~l<W~~~!it,.,!W iii I ''It!tl~....J*I't.''tJftt••J~!MM!! _._JU!!~ :l2.!ULJ~t~:I.~~1!'l._~·~~.'!:!e::~t;I!t~~e':':~-~:::;::1~,: ·~::;"~·4~;lf~:~:le:...~::,,:r:.~"'~~~·::!";~'!·~; ';"l' ,~::!!:~~1~_1:"~~~' ,-,.- "'*"'.:~:": -.~'"~:''"::'-
Ie J. J 11. I '• I I I I I I 1 I 1 1 I I I I
'D190
358"I I I BEFORE _ AFTER NOTE: DATA SHOWN AFTER 36000 I I I
36000 36000 SECONDS ARE DISCRETE 180
353 I I I SECONDS SECONDS ' POINTS FROM REAL TIME
348 + LVDC LOGIC (C53-603) ~ OBSERVATION • I
170
o LVDC MEMORY (C54-603) ~1160
343 1---+-+--+1·............. o lVDA POWER SUPPLY (C56-603) I I 1 I I I +-1 I I I I 1 I ,: II I
I II Ir
338 1 I I I --1--' I .&; I L':DA POWER SUPPL Y~ C5~..,603)r I I I I II I I I I t 150
333 1 I I I I I I +- I I I I I II I I.. +- I I ! +-1 I. I~-. ~--: , ..
~ 328
~
- I I I +---'1-1--+ , , , + , ! ++. i --r+tt-r-H I I' I l ,
+-~r-tft=-+:FR-T'
323
a::
~ 318~-1 --U' 1 .! TT j
1-- i--i'- rt.-
I
LIJ
'Q",
313 . it I I~ 1 1 ' . - I
~ 308 --j- . --
--
.l_ -1--
t--. ---j- -il-t-l
".' I-"---~--- .
0 Z )(; 1 1
.__ _ ~
t- ~"""I ......... , " . . .. , / ' ' , '. . .",,' , ,'.,' • . I ,!)( 90 LIJ
--'
W 303 -
298F"'l.'~
~tJ rll~:t1Blr~~±t~:~-;f~-t~c_L-' '~~

I,
--'
--' I ......
·,I-~-
293
288
283
;' :!
278 I
273
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-I--+--+--i--'-1~·t·1--t--'1-H+-r-I'
J J . JJj, ~ _ L _ ~~ L_
- J
jjj 40
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26'-·2-'--8---'3-'-0-3'-2-3'--4.....J36l...--J,38l...--J,40--:'-42-4~4 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 {s8 70
. RANG~ TIME, 1000 SECONDS
00:00:.00 04:00:00 08:00;00 12:00:00 16:00:00 20:00:00

Figure 13-7. IU Selected Component Temperatures
~"'FJ :;--., '~:;.~:~",,;~~::..-.;~: .,:,,~~~~'-....,~ ·,jAri· 'IF n,;' ,:.;.. ! '*' tit- - .". '"--," tiii-'rM~ *tM:ii~ MLu ~.I~~;.w,;~;;.~~~~i·"!l",m::-~~ ,,",~.-..~m.1:. ,'~ ~ "c. • .- '~,
"-"
'\'
353
348
343
338
333
'328
~"323
w318
a:
~ 313
ffi
Q..
308
-"
ffi 303
l-
tA)
298
I
~
I'l 293 ..",..•... --l..

I 70
-1
.'j,~
.±±-+--+-
~
... ...........·Ii •-.
-+_ .. .. -\.I -
...1 ,-.j,"' •. '.;
2SB ---j&
'r"" J : .1 .-1
f-- t 60
t
·.I·""! •• : ..
1
283 I
I
I
I
. ~.
. '·I . II . .. 50
278 40
I I I I. I II
2730 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70
00:00:00 04:00:00 08:00:00 12:00:00 16:00:00 20:00:00

Figure 13-8. lU Selected Component Temperatures

SECTION 14
DATA SYSTH';S
14.1 SUMMARY
All data systems performed satisfactorily throughout the flight.
Flight measurements from onboard telemetry were 99.7 percent reliable.
Tel emetry performance VJas sat; sfactory and no hardware anoma 1i es were
observed during any phase of the Skylab (SL)-l. Radio Frequency (RF)
propagation was satisfactory, though the unusal interference due to
flame effects and staging was experienced. Usable Very High Frequency
(VHF) data were received until 67,620 seconds (j8:47:00). Signal
strength variations coincident with the 63-second anomaly were observed.
The Secure Range Safety Command Systems (SRSCS) on the S-IC and S-II
stages were ready to perform their functions Rroperly, on command, if
flight conditions during launch phase had required destruct. The
system properly safed the S-II destruct system on a command transmitted
shortly after completion of powered flight (589 seconds). The perfor-
mance of the Command and Communications System (CCS) was satisfactory
from liftoff through 151~200 seconds (42:40:45). Good tracking data
were received from the C-Band radar, with Hawaii (HAW) indicated last
record of interrogation at 16,915 seconds (4:41:55). I~ general,.
ground engineering camera coverage was good; however, there was no
coverage of the 63 second anomaly because of cloud coverage.
14.2 VEHICLE MEASUREr~ENT EVALUATION
The SA-513 launch vehicle had 1093 measurements scheduled for flight;
one measurement was waived prior to start of the automatic countdown
sequence leaving 1092 measurements active for flight. Three measure-
ments failed during flight, resulting in an overall measurement system
reliability of 99.7 percent.
A summary of measurement reliability is presented in Table 14-1 for
the total vehicle and for each stage. The waived measurements, failed
measurements, partially failed measurements, and questionable measure-
ments are listed by stage in Tables 14-2, 14-3 and 14-4. None of these
listed failures had any significant impact on postflight evaluation.
14.3 AI RBORNE VH F TELEMETRY SYSTH1S EVALUAT ION
Performance of the seven VHF telemetry links provided good data from
liftoff until battery depletion. Data degradation and dropouts were
14-1
J
I
Table 14-1. SA-513 Measurement Summary
MEASUREMENT S-TC S-II INSTRUMENT TOTAL

CATEGORY STAGE STAGE UNIT VEHICLE
Scheduled 294 571 228 1093
j
Waived 0 1 0 1
, I
,!
~ Failed 1 1 1 3
~
Partial 0 2 0 2
Failed
Questionable 0 1 0 1
Re 1i abil ity, 99.7 99.8 99.6 99.7
Percent
experienced at various times during launch and earth orbit as on

previous flights, due to the attenuation of RF signals. Signal
attenuation was caused by S-IC stage flame effects, S-IC Center
Engine Cutoff (CECO) and retro-motor effects at S-ICjS-II separation.
The main engine flame effect was very prominent from 100 to 126
seconds and was observed earlier than on previous Saturn V launches.
Flame attenuation, combined with the relatively bad look angles at
Merritt Island Launch Area (I~ILA), caused an unexpected, long data
dropout from 111.7 to 117.5 seconds. Flame attenuation effects
were much less severe at Central Instrumentation Facility (elF).
The effects at S-ICjS-II separation and S-II engine start resulted
in approximately 1.2 seconds of data dropout. Flame impingement
on the jettisoned S-II aft interstage has produced signal dropout
in all previous Saturn V launches. This expected signal deviation
did not occur because the S-ll aft interstage did not separate
(reference Paragraph 9.5.2).
The performance of the S-ll VHF telemetry systems was normai through
second revolution. The performance of IU VHF telemetry systems was
normal during the entire earth orbit operation. A summary of avail-
able VHF telemetry coverage showing Acquisition of Signal (AOS) and
Loss of Signal (LOS) for each station is shown in Figure 14-1 and
Figure 14~2. The last VHF telemetry data was received at approxi-
mately 67,620 seconds (18:47 :00) at Madrid (~1AD).
14.4 C-BAND RADAR SYSTEM EVALUATION
The C-Band radar subsystem operated satisfactorily during this mission
! . with the only problems experienced occurring in the ground stations. f.,
summary of the C-Bandradar coverage showing AOS and LOS for each
station is shown in Figure 14-3.
l
1
J
14-2
.··1
Table 14-2. SA-5l3 Flight- Measurements Waived Prior to Flight
MEASUREM~NT
NUMBER
I MEASUREMENT TlTLE
I NATURE OF FAILURE
I REMARKS
S-II STAGE
I I
0012-201 El Helium Regulator Measurement read ambient pressure Waiver NR 13-1
Outlet Pressure in the low RACS mode rather than
1 ambient plus 1 VDC.
Table 14-3. SA-513 Measurement Malfunctions

TIME OF
FAILURE DURATION
MEASUREMENT MEASUREMENT TITLE NATURE OF FAILURE (RANGE SATISFACTORY REMARKS
NUMBER TIME) OPERATION
MEASUREMENT FAILURES, S-IC STAGE
C003-102 Temperature, Turbine Measurement pegged off Liftoff o Seconds Probable transducer
Manifold, Engine 2 scale high failure
MEASUREMENT FAILURES, 5-11 STAGE
E339-206 No~al Vibration No response Liftoff o Seconds Probable open " ,

Thrust Cone coaxial cable
MEASUREMENT FAILURES, INSTRUMEfn ~iT
BI-601 Acoustic, Flush No output except noise Prior to o Seconds Probable open circuit
MTG during periods of liftoff in cable or connector
vibration
PARTIAL MEASUREMENT FALLURES, S-II STAGE
Measurement pegged off 264 Prior to Probable transducer

,~
0004-202 E2 LOX Turbi ne
Inlet Tetnperature scale high seconds 264 seconds failure
~i
0007-203 E3 Hydraulic MeasureMent pegged off 484 Prior to Probable transducer i
Reservoir Piston scale low seconds 484 seconds failure
Position :*ii
'*
Table 14-4. SA-513 Questionable Flight Measurements ~
I
MEASUREME'IIT MEASUREMENT TITLE REMARKS
NUMBER REASON QUESTIONED
5-11 STAGE
;i.~I~ -
COOI-204 .E4 Fuel PIlllP Changed by l/zoF over an 8 2X of full scale
Discharge Temperlture second period after 285
seconds. Did not reflect
engine perfonRance. ,
o·
.- .,
..
1
1.
:1:···
14-3
W2 stcmlD DROPOUT AT 161 SEC
_ PERIOD5 OF USABLE DATA
C' Clf
MILA
BOA
IIFL (PASS .1) MAD
-187 500 1000 1500

RArlGE TIME, SECONDS
o 00:/0:00 OO:~O:OO
RANGE TIME, HOURS :111IlUTES :SECONDS
• _ _ MAO
ii 1500 2000 2500 3000 3200

~j RAlIGE TI ME. SECONDS
~ I i ,
00:30:00 00:40:00 00:50:00
i
~
RAIlGE TIME, HOURS :MltIUTES:SECONDS
_HSK
,
g
i I
3200
,
3500
i
4000
RANGE TmE, SECOtIOS
i
~50D
I
4900
-1 , I I
I 01 :00:00 01 :10:00 01 :20:00
I1 RANGE TIME, 1i0URS :MINUTES :SECONDS
1
"1
, _ _ _ _ _ _ TEXAS
j
I
1
1I
1
,~
I
4900
i
5000 S500 6500 66UO
~t '01 :30:00 01 :40:00 oj :50:00

RANGE TIME, 1I0URS:MJIIUTES:SECOIWS
!"
a
}
I~ ~ ._._._.,"-._._._.(:P_A.S:S:':2_1._._._._._._._._._Hr~ ~ ,~
i
__ ______ ___________________ ______
6600 7000 7500 m;110

RANGE lIHl,SECONOS
i
01 :50:00 02:00:00 02:10:00
RANGE TIM'" 1I0URS:HINl1T[S:~[roNn~
Figure 14-1. S-11 Stage VHF Teleme~ry Ground Station Coverage Time
:i
14·-4
.IIIIIIIM~I
_ _ lA
_MIl,!.
BDA _i,'J.:i
_NFL _NFL
_MAD _MAD
_HSK
_GDS
o 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10,000
!!:
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
1 e t , , e I , e t
o 00:20:00 00:40:00 01:00:00 01:20:00 01:40:00 02:00:00 02:20:00 02:40:00 03:00:00
_HAW _HAW
_GDS _GDS
_NFL
_BOA
.m
_MAD
_NFL
_BOA
_CVI
HSKI
_ACN
CROIIIIIIIII
11,000 12,00013,000 14,00015,00016,000 17,000 18,000 19,000 20,000 21,000
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
~.
'.) '
. ,. , • I t ' , , , e e
03:00:00 03:20:00 03:40:00 04:00:00 04:20:00 04:40:00 05:00:00 05:20:00 05:40:00 06:00:00
E
_HAW
_GDS _GDS
_TEX _TEX
_BOA _BOA
_NFL
"ACN
_CRO
_MILA
22,000 23,000 24,000 25,000 26,000 27,000 28,000 29,000 30,000 31,000 32,000
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
, I , e , , I I I , ,
06:00:00 06:20:00 06:40:00 07:00:00 07:20:00 07:40:00 08:00:00 08:20:00 08:40:00 09:00:00
RANGE TIME, HOURS.:MINUTES:SECONDS
~
----------------------~~Ir----------------------------------------'
_VA.N _TEX
_~RO I S ,
!
;
',: , , I i I I I
33,000 34,000 35,000 36,000 54,000 55,000 56,000 57,000 58,000
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
,. .,---.,.,
09:00:00
----,,----r-.-il I15:60:00'
09:20:00 09:40:00 10:00:00
,
15:20:00
I
15:40:00 16:00:00
_CYI
RANGE TIf~E, 110URS: MIrlUTES: SECONDS
_ ACN
I
"'CARRIER ONLY
_·CVII
_MAD _!'MAD
I i i ' • , , i i
65,000 66,000 67,000 68,000 69,000 70,000 71 ,000 72,000 73,000 74,000 75,000
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
• • , , , , I , , ,
18:00:00 18:20:00- 18:40:00 19:00:00 19:20:00 19:40:00 20:00:00 20:20:00 20:40:00 21:00:00
RANGE TIME, HOURS:MINUTES: SECONDS
Figure 14-2. Instru~ent Unit VHF Telemetry Ground Station Coverage Time
14-5
_ _ BEACON TRACK
,.,#.ti. SKIN TRACK
_------MILA
_ _ _ _ CAPE
"'II'II~ PAFB
FPS-16
TPQ-18
FPQ-6
",IA
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ BDA
GBI FPQ-13
FPQ-6
_ _ _ _ _ _ WLP FPS-16
o 500 1000 1500 2000

RANGE TIME, SECONDS
, I
o 00:10:00 00:20:00 00:30:00
~111.4 BOA FPQ-6

_ _ _ HAW FPS··16
6000 6500 16,500 17,000 17,500

RANGE TIME, SECONDS.
~i------------~i~ff i i
01:40:00 01:50:00 04:40:00 04:50:00
FIIIIII~ CRO FPQ-6.·
• •
28,000 28,500 29,000 29,500
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
07:50:00 08:00:00 08: 10:00

RANGE TIME, HOURS: MINUTES: SECONDS
Figure 14-3. C-Band Acquisition and Loss Times
14-6
~. ~~;'-II:I'[~:~t,.11~m_'!E¥#~ ~.!.~. :~>~!f~l j~!!~:l~~E~n.~11.!!~~~~~h,~:~~-'~;"~;>:!:r.~:f5~-37.;~:';~~~':"~:t:~~t. ~\U3kC"P;:~~~TO-~=--="""-'<'>_' __ '"""'""_"_
MILA • MILA
_BOA" • BOA • BOA .BOA
.cvt .CVI .·~I
_ACN
_MAD • MAD _MAD
.CRO .CHt\
IHSK .HSK _HSK .tI~K
• !lAW _HAW HAW
_GDS _nos • GDS

_rEX .TEX
---,-
a 3600 7200 10,800 14,400 18,00(\ 21,600
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
...... , , , , , , _-Lo'__
oj::>
I, o 01:00:00 02:00:00 03:00:00 04:00:00 05:00:00 0·,:00:00
'J
-.. "
_MILA _MILA • MILA

_aDA _BOA
_ACN
.CRO .CRO
HAW _HAW
_GWM • GWM
.GDS _GDS _GDS • GDS
.TEX .TEX _TEX
t---..,...-----r----"'""'TI-------..--ij f--r--I jf • -I
21,800 25.200 28.800 32,400 36,000 40,800 42,000 16.800 54.UOl!
~~GE TIME, SECONDS
......_ _""'""-_ _ _---I_ _ _ _.....,..L_ _ _ _.....IL...--4j JI I J f- ... - - --'
07:00:00 08:00:00 09:00:00 10:00:00 11 :40:00 13:u,,;00 5:00;00
11 :20:00
RANGE TIME. HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS
Figure 14-4. CCS Coverage (Sheet 1 of 3)
~~'_.Iif?eWlit~_t'·;il"~-~i'$iii-;H-·l;~1fW-· ~l~~."'·iiii!(W~~~iii-ijf·~~;'S'~~~.:4,;_~!;i!~>i.~~.,~.;';ri>{~~:W~~~,;"",~_,,;'J. "li"!"_>";~ __~~'-''-.;''l'!-l~'v;,"t:!,,, . .;, i,

-,. "~''1!' .. ";-'<.. c,, -.~ ~<. ,; '.',~-;;, _."'!.~ ,4'; ,,'1'_; .~'. I
",l,;,;'
I'
~_'H""'_"""""_'''''''''''' __ ~~~~~~~_ hf!t!i!!ci(\t'!!tjl,_W"~~t";~~~£·l\f~~~~:r,,.;-.~,,:ti<s.."'::!~:::~';-'!~s:1·,":';&:!\T4;~"".s..'r.'~;:M.41;1.!~;.::~.:~:'.:;.;.£~.';:':~:~l;.;r.,.::::...-~;~~~;.:.-=...",,<-"-.-.:....~-~ ... _ ... ~_;... - '-- ,,0
_CYI .CYI
aACN _ACN .ACN
_MAD _MAD
.CRO
.HSK HSK.
_GWM ~ _GlM
54,000
•
57.500 61.200 64,800 68,400 72,000
-r
75,600
RANGE TIME. SECONDS
-'
15:00:00 16:00:00 17:00:00 18:00:00 19:00:00 20:00:00 21 :00:00
~ RANGE TIME, HOURS:MINUTES:SECONOS
I
00
_MILA • MILA
• BOA _ BOA • BOA
.CYI
• MAD .MAD _MAD aMAD

"'CRO _CRO
.HSK • HSK .HSK
•
..• GDS _ GDS
_TEX _TEX aTEX
79,200 82,800
•
86,400 90,000 93,600 97,200 99,600
RANGE TIME. SECONDS
22:00:uu 23:00:00 24:00.;00 25:00:00 26:00:00 27:00:00 27:40:00

Figure 14-4. CCS Coverage (Sheet 2 of 3)

·,.I~, ••
• 1.J.kI• •II.!lSt!lUf1I.fl:!II.*'L~"~.~li'~~I~L~:<M~~~~~-~!I'!M:iJl!I!n,._":"!.'t!'~;"f;'~~!:i!:~,!~"~:~~'·l" 0"; C",''''''',

~ .... ~ " : - : " ,; _ :~~ "_N~- :"<" ."
_MILA _MILA _MILA

_BOA _BOA _BOA
_CVI
.ACN _ACN
_CRO .CRO
HSK • HSK
_HAW _HAW
.GWM .GWM
I
_GoS .GoS .GoS
_TEX
_GOS
_TEX
L
99.~00 100,BOO 104,400 108,000 lil,600 115,200 118,800 122,400
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
.------ • • - ---. -------T -,-- - - - - - -------.
....
~
28:00:00 29:00:00 30:00:00 31:00:00
RANGE TIME, HOURS:MINUTES:SEOONOS
32:00:00 33:00:00 34:00:00
~-' /-
"
I , ~'
U)
_CYI
.)
_ACN -.ACN
_MAD
_HAW _HAW
.GWM GWM.
_GOS
_TEX ..
.1 I I Sf I ff I = - - - " T I - - - - -_ _- - - " "
122,400 126,000 129,600 136,800 1'44,000 147,600 151,200
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
, , '., JJ " I~ I ' ,
34:00.:00 35:00:00 36:00:00 38:00:00 40:00:00 41 :00:00 42:00:00
RANGE TIME: HOURS, MINUTES, SECONDS
Figure 14-4. CCS Cov~rage (Sheet 3 of 3)
WIIl.blll JiiiiJi:f.jJillili1f'lIllliitliliiUTliWlliiliililihiil I TfilillMiiiflitiiiilillli((Rii1ti"lj'i'iii 1if1;~riiiii.wil*diii il1Itllliilio ~~'~·~'fi."'"",~""'·l;"";;"l""',~'_'~!~;oAA_'OI.;"";>'-';.,,. >,.!l"-;h'~"';fc' ,~'t", .• ~ ~'''F':';''- > '::"'~""~:"'." • 'ff-- -',:" -'~"':-;', ',...;"~.1>",,,!
Table 14-5. SA-513 Launch Vehicle Telemetry Links
FREQUENCY FLJ(~HT PERIOD
LINK MODULATION STAGE (RANGE TIME, SEC) PERFORMANCE SUMMARY
(MHZ)
AF-1 256.2 FM/FM S-IC o to 517.4 Satisfa~tory
AP-1 244.3 PCM/FM S-IC o to 517.4 Da ta Dropou ts

Range Time (sec) Duration ( sec)
97.2 .2
142.2 .9
163.2 .8
BF-1 241.5 FM/FM S-II o to 7461 Satisfactory
BF-2 234.0 FM/FM S-II o to 7461 Data Dropouts
BP-1 248.6 PCM/FM S-II o to 7461 Range Time (sec) Durati on (sec)
161.0 1.2
OF-1 250.7 FM/FM IU o to 67,620 Sat; sfactory
OP-1 245.3 ?CM/FM IU o to 67,620 Data Dropouts
Range Time (sec) ~ration (sec)
111.7 5.8
Phase front disturbances were experienced at the Cape between 300 and
400 seconds, at Grand Bahama Island (GB1) between 300 and 733 seconds,
and at MILA between 300 and 690 seconds. Phase front disturbances
hava been experienced during boost on almost all previous missions.
They occur when the pointing information is erroneous as a result of
~udden antenna nulls or distorted beacon returns.
Telemetry data showed that several ground stations interrogated the trans-
ponders during boost. However~ according to the telemetry data and
ground station logs, radar contacts after Bennuda (BOA) LOS at 885
seconds were in the skin track mode with the exception of third revolu-
ti on from 16,600 seconds to 16,915 seconds when HA\~ used beacon tracking.
The transponder operated nonnaHy during the HAW track.
14.5 SECURE RMWE SAFETY COMMAND SYSTEMS
Telemetered data indicated that the command antennas, receivers/decoders,
Exploding Bridge Wire (EBW) networks, and destruct controllers on each
powered stage functioned properly during flight. They were in the
required state-of-readiness if flight conditi.ons during the launch had
required vehicle destruct. Since no ann/cutoff or destruct commands
were required, all data except receiver signal strength f'emained
unchanged during the fl ight. The S-II range safety receiver signal
strength measurements i ndi cated th.at each recei vers went out of satura-
tion twi cebetween 260 and 370 seconds and recei ver Number 2 went out
again at 5g0 seconds. However, because of the redundant nature of the
range safety system, the system was in the required state-af-readiness
14.. 10
if flight conditions during the launch had required vehicle destruc250n.
Power to the S-11 stage range safety command systems was cutoff shortly
after completion of powered flight by ground command, thereby deactivat-
ing (safing) the systems.
14.6 COMMAND AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM EVALUATION
14.6.1 Summary of Performance
.1
.~
The CCS data indicate excellent performance of the onboard subsystem. No
flight equipment malfunctiQns occurred during the flight. Ground station
coverage times through CC5 battery depletion are shown in Figure 14-4.
Events occurring during boost caused a degradation of the CCS received
signal strength at MILA as expected. S-IC stage flame attenuated the
signal from 94 to 126.5 seconds. The minimum signal strength during
this period was -105 dbm. 5-1C CECO caused a drop in received signal
strength from 142 to 144 seconds with the minimum value being -100
dbm. Very slight, (almost negligible) signal fluctuations we're noted at
160 seconds during S-IC/S-II separation and retro-motors burn ..
These fluctuations were much less severe than experienced on previous
flights because of the higher altitude at the time of occurrence. The
usual signal strength fluctuations resulting from 5-11 aft interstage
separation were not discernible on this flight because the aft inter-
stage failed to separate. No dropouts occurred at MILA during launch
except during handover to BOA at 450 seconds.
The CCS was tracked until it ceased to transmit due to battery depletion.
During the entire flight, the only dropouts occurring were at interrogat-
ing station handovers. There were several stations that received fluc-
tuating signals. These signal fluctuations appeared on both the uplink
and downlink signals and were caused by vehicle maneuvers. The most
severe signal fluctuations occurred over MAD during the first revolution
from 1245 to 1490 seconds when the vehicle was maneuvering to solar inertial
attitude. The lowest downlink signal during this time period was .;.140
dbm. Although this low signal was sufficient to maintain carrier lock,
telemetry data was lost.
Five COmmanCi$ were transmitted and allfi ve were accepted. A detailed·
list of all commands initiated by MCC-Houston is shown in Table 14.6.
14.7 GROUND ENGINEERING CAMERAS
In general, ground camera coverage was good. Forty-seven items (43 from
fixed cameras and four from tracking cameras) were received from KSC
and evaluated. Two items did not operate, two items did not have coded
range time, and three items were obscured due to frost and ice. As a
result of these seven failures, system efficiency was 85 percent. The
short range tracking cameras tracked until the vehicle was lost in clouds
14-11
Table 14-6. Command and Communication Syst*m Comwlnd History, SA-5l3
RANGE TIME NO. QF
TRANS.
SECONDS HRS:MIN:SEC STATIOIi 1C0000ANDS WORDS REMARKS
TRANS
111.037 3:03:57 HAW AM Deploy Busses Off 3 Accepted
~.984 9:43:04 GDS Rate Measurement Switch 3 Accepted
35.549 9:52:29 TEX ECS Logic Inhibit 1 Accepted
46.849 13:00:49 HAW Tenliinate 1 Accepted
48.375 lS:26:15 VAN Water Valve Open 3 Accepted
j
!
-,1
i
at approximately 30 seconds. One camera reacquired the vehicle at approxi-
!
i mately 85 seconds and tracked through 135 seconds. However, this camera
had a 40-inch focal length lens al1d provided little usable data. The
long range (500-inch focal length lens) tracking camera was not operated
due to cloud coverage.
An extensive and thorough analysis was performed on all Skylab-l engineer-
ing: film. The analysis centered around the anomaly of the meteoroid
shield being torn from the vehicle at approximately +63 seconds. Par-
ti~les (debris) were first observed on engineering film item E-46 (400
frames per second) where a light colored and a dark colored particle were
tentatively identified as coming from the vehicle. The white particle
was observed and timed at 13.8 seconds for a period of 10 frames. The
dark particle was observed at 15.4 seconds for a period of 31 frames.
Subsequent analysis of other engineering film items identified numerous
particles falling from the tower. These particles were identified as
carpet, panels from swing arms, plastic bags, boxes, a loud speaker,
tapf~, etc. No particles were identified as coming from the vehicle
during ignition, liftoff, and flight of the Sky1ab-1 vehicle through the
+63 second time period that onboard instrumentatign indicated the anomaly.
Uprange tracking cameras did not acquire the vehicle during the anomaly
peri od due to cloud coverage. Therefore, opti cally there was no coverage
of the meteoroid shield anomaly.
A search of the pad area turned up items of debris such as those men-
tioned above. The debris seen falling through the camera field of view
was not a result of ground support equipment malfunction since all GSE
appeared to operate satisfactorily during ignition and liftoff.
j
I
14-12
SECTION 15
MASS CHARACTERISTICS
15. 1 SUMMARY
Total vehicle mass, determined from post-flight analysis, was within 1.91
percent of prediction from ground ignition through S-II stage shutdown.
This larger than anticipated difference was due mainly to the S-IC/S-II
large interstage not separating as expected. Had the S-II stage residuals
and OWS not been 4900 lbs. less than predicted, this percentage would have
been greater.
15.2 MASS EVALUATION
Post-flight mass characteristics are compared with final predicted mass
characteristics {MSFC Memorandum S&E-SAE-73-38}} and the operational
trajectory {MSFC Memorandum S&E-AERO-MFT-14-73}.
i
I
" The post-flight mass characteristics were determined from an analysis of
all available actual and reconstructed data from S-IC ignition through
S-II/OWS separation. Dry weights of ;:he launch vehicle are based on
actual stage weighings and evaluation of the weight and balance log books
(MSFC Form 998). Propellant loading and utilization was evaluated from
propulsion system performance reconstructions.
, I
Differences in dry weights of the inert stages and the loaded spacecraft
1 were all within 0.72 percent of predicted, which was well within acceptable
limits.
During S-IC burn phase, the total vehicle mass was less than predicted by
3464 kilograms {7637 lbm} {O.ll percent} at iignition, and less than
predicted by 6465 kilograms {14253 lbm} (0.86 percent) at S-IC/S-II
separation. These differences are due collectively to: S-IC stage dry
wei~ht. (103 lbm) ,S-IC LOX loading (+1866 lbm), S-IC RP-l loading (-6956
lbm), spacecraft {-975 lbm}, S-II stage and interstage (-1695 lbm), S-IC
residuals at separation (-10541 lbs) and loss of meteoroid shield from
OWS during S-.IC flight (-1153 lbs). S-IC burn phase vehicle mass is
shown in Tables 15-1 and 15-2.
15-1
During S-11 burn phase, the total vehicle mass was less than predicted by
1211 kilograms (26'10 lbm) (0.29 percent) at ignition, and greater than
predicted by -2758 kilograms (6080 lbm) (1.91 percent) at s-rr/m~s
separation. These large deviations in mass are due to: 5-1C dry weight
(-96 lbm), S-IC/S-II large interstag'e dry weight (-91 lbm), S-II LOX
loading (-1604 lbm), 5-11 fuel loading (+96 lbm), OWS at 5-11 ignition
(-2128 lbs), S-II stage, residuals at separation (-2688 lbm) and no 5-1C/
S-II large interstage separation (+10992 lbm).
Total vehicle mass for the 5-II burn phase is shown in Tables 15-3 and
15-4.
A summary of mass utilization and loss, both actual and predicted, from
S-IC stage ignition through OW5 separation is presented in Table 15-5.
A comparison of actual and predicted mass, center of gravity, and moment
of inertia is shown in Table 15-6.
:;-.,
~ '.
Table 15-1. Total Vehicle Mass--S-IC Burn Phase--Kilograms
-----------------------------------------.-------------------------------------------------------------------.
GROUND I G"l i TI ON HOLIJDUWN CENTER (JUTflOAKD 5-ICl5-11
EliENT5 /lRM HELEA5E ENGINE CUTOFF ENC.I,;ECUTOFF 5EI',lH,lTIUN
---------------~---------------------------------------------------------------------------~
,lCI
PRED ,ACT f'RED ACT ;'REO ACT PRELl ACT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
RANGE 11 MI:.--5EC -6.90 -6.8u 0.20 o..!U !4u.70
DRY ~TAGE 1~0406. l'U4SJ. 1~0406. lJU4S~. 1~Q4U6. 1,u4~3. 1304U6; 1304~3. l'U406. 1JU4~'.
LOX' IN 'TAIIK 1479230. 1480U77. 1447830. 1444,)4!;. 129035. 12b61~. 1u09; b47., ol~. 4HI.
LOX BELOW TANK 2l11~. 21123. 2187S. ~lH83. 2111)9. 21060. 15a~3. 1~224. 13479. 1u5U1.
LOX ULLAGE GAS .190. 190. 236. 226. 3014. 30S~. 3357. 14U4. ~364. ,411.
FUEL 'IN TANK 636b36. 6334111. 6264113. 621b6b. b476'i., 621'1.... ij2)~. '&6111. 611V6. ~V~Y.
FUEL ~ELOW TANK 4~13. 4313. S99~. ~~96. S~~6. 599b. '9~~. ,958. 59~ij. ~9~H.
FUEL ULLAGE GAS 43. 44. 43. 48. 22&. 228. .45. 24~. 247. ~~1.
N2 PURGE GAS 3b. 36. 3b. 36. 19. 19. !~. 19. 19. 19.
HELIUM IN BOTTLE ~bM. 288. zea. ia~. lu5. 104. ijo. 8~. H4. ij~.
FROST 635. 63S. 6)5. 635. )40. J'oO. 341). 3~w., 340. J4CJ.
RETROROCKET P~OP, 102b. 102b. 1026. 1026. 1026. ,1026. IV2b. lU20. lu2&. lulb.
~~~:~--------------------~~~:-----~~~:-----:~~:-----~~~:-----~~~:-----~~~:-----~~~:-----~:~:-----~~~:-----=:~:
TOTAL STAGE
TnTAL S-ICIS-il IS S649. 5608. 5649. 5608. 5649. ~601l. 5b4Y. ,60~. 5649. ~ta(Jti.
TOTAL 5-11 STAGE 4H3619. 48,891. ·13619. 1t1l~891. 4833'H • 4H,670. 483)97. 48~67U. 'tu33117. 4alb/').
TOT S-II/S-IVB IS 3453. 3453. 34,3- 3453. 3453. 145 •• 3453. 34,3. 34,3. 34) ••
TOT AL SPACECRAFT 89S39. ~9096. 119539. H-i09b. bY53';. IIHsn. H9,J9. 8d,n. a9S39. 8ij~7J.
TOTAL UPPERSTAGE
---------------------------------.-------~-------------------------------------------------------------------.
TOTAL VEHICLE
---.------------------------------------------------------------------------~------------------------"--------
I',
Table 15-2. Total Vehicle Mass--S-IC Burn Phase--Pounds
-----------------~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~~----.
uuTIlOAHU
GHOUND IG:H T Iur. HOLLlDuw'. Ct::I'<TEH ~-IC/S-.U
EVENTS t\~~ Ht:LEAst I:.I.\G 11\10 CUTUFf' ENu I :.~ CUTUf F ~t:f'''KA110N
------------------------------------------------------------.------_.---------.------.-----.
PREu ACT Ae T PRED ACT ACT ACI
P~E\J
--------.---------------------.---------------~,----------------------------.-----------------.--------------.
RANGE TH't:--&EC -b.90 -Cu th,) U.2U u.2U 14v.6U 14v.7V 1~~.1:; !Sd •• b 1~~.9u J.~'i.':I1U
-------------------------------------------------~~----------------------------------------~-----------------.
<!d74Yd. ~87bul. iH/49d. ~blt)ul. ~d74\/1I. lblolli. ~d7.,yd. Zdlo.)l. ~d74Vd. ldlbv1.
DRY StAGE
LOX I~ T"II;I( l26114~. 326)01l. H919lCJ. ::n·~~4l37. 'H4~74. 2'lb~J4. 2<1l). 14~ 'I ~ U~9. .vou.
LOX bELOw TANK Itb5S2. 46568. 49227. 4H~4j. 4819U. "020b. J411~u. 191~). 29718. 231)1.
LO)lULLAO:;E GAS 41~. 4111. 520. 4911. 6646. 6'13l. 'I"UI. ISU'. 7417. 1>21.
FUEL IN TANK 14U3S43. lJ9bScl1. UH1l5\1. 1370~"0. 142Nl. i~d4\J'. 1ijlui. l"~\ll. !50,)~. Hl!'J.
FUtL !lELO" TANt<:
FUlL ULLAGE GAS
N2 PUHGE GAS
HELIUM II< tlOTTLE
FROST
950'1.
115.
ijO.
6310.
140U.
'i5u9.
'Ja.
HU.
13219.
631>.
I"uu.
95.
. 8.U.
63b.
14JO.
!3219.
107.
HO.
b27.
140U.
13ZI.9.
4'Jd.
"J •
2l2.
7~v.
B'19.
~O.:l.
'd.
Z31.
7~U.
l'Ub.
.ld~.
l~U
..
!),+l.
"
.•
!jUII.
54~.
,,;l.
1b~.
7~U.
IH~b.
~4'.
4;,.
lbh
/~O.
LHJb.
~~J.
4~.
id1.
I!>O.
RETROIWCI(I::T I'~OP 2264. Ub4. 2264. 2i64. 2204. l~b4. li&4. 22o't. il64. ':~b4.
OTH.ER ~2a. !:»ltl. 5ld. 5211. ~211. !ole. ~~tt. 5,11. !)ld. )iU.
~ ______
to, AL STAGE
_______________
S013b71. SOUU7U4. 4\12754~. 49U934H. _7~713b.
________________________________ u __ •
775418.
____ • _______ •
1b1/26. )517.,. J'H"41. ~4dOIO.
_____________________________________ _
TOTAL 5-IC/S-11 IS 1245). 1<364. Il4'~, Il3b~. 124!>!>. 1<~b'" li4)~. IlJ"4. 1~~~). J.~,:)~4.
TOTAL 5-11 STAGE 1066191. 1U~4593. IUbb1'i7. 1064593. 10657" ... IU&41U,. 1Ub~/JY. J.·Ub41U~. !Ob,IO'l. IU64IU,.
TOT s-li/S-IVIl I~ ':'613. lbU. 76D. 761~. 7bD. 7bl~. 10! •• 7bU. 7613. '~J.~.
TOTAL SPACECHAFT , 197400. 1964;!5. 1974UO. 1\16425. !1I7 .. 00. l\1S,U. I\I'I"V(J. 19!>ll<. 1\1'140,). 19~'7"
TOT.AL VEI1I CLE

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------~---------------------------
I 15-3
Table 15-3. Total Vehicle Mass--S-II Burn Phase--Kilograms
---------------------------------------------------------.--------------------------------------.------------.
S';IC IG"IITIOt, li-II 5-11 ~-II l>-II-/O~IS
lVE>lTS IGNITION .'~AI,~5TP.GI:: Er.clJ,'j~ cutoff' SEf'Af.:Arl<.hl
PHIl) ACT "KED PkEu ACT PHEIi ACT

---------------~-----------------------------------------.--------------------------------------.------------.
S-lC/5-1 I ~'IAI.L. IS
161.6u
___________-_______________________________________ ,1&1.&u
6a;
16l.6U
___ • ___ • ________________
62l. o.
5H'I.iO
• _____________________ • ___________
U.
no •
O. 0.
.
S-IC/S-II L.AR'JE IS 5027. 5u2'1. 4110!>. ~U21. "9B~. o.
li-IC/5-11 P~OI'EL.L.ANT O. O. o. o. U.
-----------------------------~----------~~~~-------------.----------------
TOTAL ~-IC/S-II IS 5&49. ~bUd. ~(J27 • !>027. "911~.
.. _---------------------------------.
O. O.
~------------------------.------------------------------------------------~------------------~---------------.
OilY STAGE l66111. ~665J. ~6697. 3&b5.1. 36b1l7. ~6b~.I. 3bbll'l. lb653. jb6Y7. 3&"'.1.
LO~ IN TA"IK 37211.. l. ~U21b. 3129 .. , . 372216. J72 .. 113. H11!>~. 1I~~d. 1~31>. 11 .. 1111. 7 .. \)1.
~t1X /lE~O:~ TAN~ 7)7. 7:H. 737. 737. sou. oou. ·(b1. 7111. ld I. 101.
L.OK UL.L.AGIo GIIS 116. 17b. 176. 171>. 1111. n ... ! '1'J'J.. nlll. 1'I9b. lYIII>.
FUEL IN TA"II<, 7I.b~ 1. 7lb9~. 726"5. ,,6811. 12".11. Il475. '~10. lbbb. i'7~U. 26lU.
fUEL. UELOW TIINK 10'" IU ... llU. 110. 127. 1l7. 1,3. IlJ., 12l. 1.lj.
FUEL. UL.LAuE GAS 37. H. .18. 3!:h 3'1. Ill/j. 79110 IIUO. bUO •
INSUL. ... TlON PU~GE GAS 17. 17. U. O. U. U•
FROST lO", 2U4. O. • O. O. O.
STIIRT lA>;1(. 13. 13. B. 2. 1,. 2.
OTI1Ek 34. )4. 34. 3'" 34. :;4.
----------------.--.------.---.----------------~---------------------------------------~----------------------
TOTAL. S-II ST ... GE
TOT S-II/OIliS IS 3"5~. 3 .. 53. J .. ,;,.

TOTAL. SPIICECRAFT 119!>~~. d'i~3". aasn.
112119l. n021. 929<ii/.
TOTAL. VEI1ICL.E 582l60. ~910"9. ~ijI417. 519683. !>&OH1~. 519u81. 1"41~U. l",SJU. l .... bO'. 1"1~bJ.
Table 15-4. Total Vehicle Mass--S-II Burn Phase--Pounds

S-IC IG ... I fl')'; 5-1 I $-11 !.-II/OWS
EV~jlT 5 I U'U TlON E,... lIIi CIJ IOfF S~~P.~AT ION
--------------~----------------------------------.-----------------~-------------.---~------
.. HEu ACT
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _• ___ ,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ uo _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ ~_ - _ _ _ ... _ _ _ • _ ,..,~-' _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -: _ _
ACf At. T ACf
"AMit I I '·.f.--SEC -b. ')0 161.&0 l&I ... u
:'-1 CIS-II SIIALL 15 O. u.

S-IC/:'-II L.A~~E 15 110dh 1U~'J2 • U. lull~2 • U.
S-IC/5-11 P~OPEL.L.A~T u.- J.
TrlTAL !>-IClS-1 I IS lU'l/92. O. 1U'IY2. ll.

--.--------------~~~~--------------------------":"'----------.----------------------------------------------------
flHY :>TAuE dU'iU~. fhHHJd. HU"'''~. oUaOu. oU'IO ... tuo(J:;'. tHJYUAt. ·thJthj~. uO~J". ~UCH)ts.
L.()~ In TA'jk, ~illn(). b2v~9b. dla.lO' lIiO!>lIb. oll1"~. bl~'dl:. 1 b·O~. 110611>. 11111!>. Ib .. J1.
LOll bi:L.(h: TAIIK 1&2~. • 162~. l62!> • 162~ • 17~it. 1164. i'I ~I>. 17.1" •. ,lUI>. 11~b.
L.OX ULLAGE :iA5 lllO. ~~J. Hu. JY<l. "I:I~. J~~. ".I~lo -103'11. .. .. 1l2. ""U.!.
FulL. I!< TAto(
FIJ~ L. III L()'~ TA ... K
1"017:1. 16u7,hb.
lB.
16')1:;6. lbVl5 •• 1~9bH4.
~t:t;!.
1~"1dl.
lHi.
61'17.
lTi.
,iI'd.
2U.
_ ,bOdl. 'j /'/'1.
,(~ .
i31. " .. e.. i--ri.
FU~L UL.LA('e uAS "~. H.I. ~4. S4. M6. 17bU. 17bU. IlbS. 1I.b~.
1,5ULIlTlun PU1GE GAl> 3~. 3:\. 0. o. O. U.
fl'051 45J. .;. u• u. U.
STllrlT TA'~K JU. 3i..h :tu.
JU. !>. ~. S. :..
7b. lb. lb.
7b. /", 710. 16.
..
-.--------------------:--~--- -----------------~--""\------------------'- ... _--------------------------------------. lb.
------ -----_ ... ------ ------ --...

~(lT ~-IIIOv:5 J5
-- ----- ------- --'---- --.--- --_ .. -_... -- ... ----- -------- _... --.-----_ ... ---- ------
-----~'-
701.10 /61 •• 1ul.. lbl~. 7&13. Ibl~.
---.,;::
7&11. 7bl~. 7b1J. 1 .. 1,.
TGT AL. Sl-'ACI'.CRAf'f 197~UU. lY641.!> • 11I14uv. 1'1~l'i. lV74uu. 111!>ll~. 1111~.1. l~~luJ. &111.,1. 111!>lUJ.
---------'----------------------------------------------...
.
UPI'~~
... --------------------------.------.---.
~~-.-------------
TOTAL
-------.;.-.----,----...
TOT ~l. VlI1JCL.E
STAGE
. -------------------------------.-------
-----.~-;..-----------------------------------.;.------~~
------------------------------------------------------ .. -------------~-----------------------------------------
15-4
,1.0'
,
i·
Table 15-5. Flight Sequence Mass Summary
f'REDICTEl) ACTUAl. ·i· f
MASS HISTORY KG LBM KG LBM
'f S-IC STAG!::, TOTAL 2274162. 5013671. 2271909. 500d704.
, 5-IClS-II.IS, TOTAL 5649. 124~5. 5608 .• 12364.
.i~
5-11 STAGE, TOTAL 41U61tl. 1066197. 4tl2tl91. 1064593. \
~;,
~
S-II/S-IVB IS, TOTAl- 3453. 7613. 3453. 7013. .C:;,
SPACECRAFT , TOTAL 89539~ 1S>74VIl. 89096. 196425.

f\1:, 1ST FLT STG AT IGN' 2856422. 629B::I6. 2tl529~1I. c2tl9699.
l
~ THRUST Bl)II.DUP -39064. -B612~ .• -45067. -993~6. ~
,:
~
'iy,
1ST FI.T STG AT HDAR 281735B. 0211213. 2807891. 6190::14::1.
*iiI
"1
FROST -294. -(:50. -294. -650. "1
,
*~ MAINSTAGE -2066744. -455fd9J. -2062971.' -454tlIl76.
t
Iit!
N2 PURGE GAS
THRUST DECAY-IE
-16.
-105::1.
-31.
-2321.
-16.
-111.12.
-37.
-2431.
ENG EXPENDEl> PROP' -169. -41d. -ltl J. -410.
1: 5-11 INSUL PURGi: -17. -3tl. -17. -311 • ",
.~
'c
5-11 FROST -204. -450. -204. -45U.
11 O~/S I-IET SHIELD o~ O. -522. -1l53. ;"
ii\ 1ST FLT STG AT OECO

THRUST DF.CAY tt-'S
748t13B.
-42.12.
16509~6.
-9287.
742571.
-4411.
163709U.
-9725.
1
i ~
1ST FI.T STG AT SEP
STC; AT SEPARATION
S-ICl5-11 S~lALLIS
744625.
-162586.
-622.
1641619.
-35!1441.
-1372.
731H61l. . 1627365.
-157'!154. -341l011l.
-02,. -137.!.
~
"
_,;0,,-
,II
.~
;1 2ND FLT STG AT SSC 5811; 17. 1281805. 57116113. 1277'JB2. ,;;
~i 2ND FLT STG AT IGN 581417. 12dltlO5. 57961l3. 1277982. .1
:t1 THRUST BUILDUP ..i'
-5'>10. -U01. :-590. -Ut.Jh
ir: START TANK

2ND FLT STG AT ~S
-11 .•
580815.
-25.
12t10479.•
-1,1.
5790Bl.
-25.
1276650. j
~
MAINSTAGE -43Q907. -9499119. -431414. -951106. } .
OWS VENT ;"76. -161i. -76. -169.
S-ICl5-11 LARGE IS -5027. -110d3. ;). U.
'~~ TO & ENG PROP -53. -116. -!:Iii. -1::10.
!
2ND FI.T STG AT COS· 144750. 319120. 147530. 325250.
~ ~
THRUST DECAY -145. -320. -lb-I. -370.
2ND FLT STG AT SEP 144605. ::IltH!ull. 147jb3. 3.!4dllO.

STu AT SEPARATION -51689. -113956. -55412. -12.!l64.
5-11/0\'/5 15 DRY -2972. -655;:). -2972. -6~ ~:'.
S-1l/01~S PRIJP -480. -1060. -41>0. -1060.
UWS AFT F~AME -21. -41$0 -,1. -48.
0\-15 O£T PKG -1. -3. -1. -j.
~!<.YI.AI3 IN ORBIT 8CJ439. l'i71t10. Od47 .. ;' .lCJ5u5.!.
)5-5
1. (;;
,;.", .. -..",,",,"-,--::'.,.~~--.~-,"---:'---.-.-.~. ~~~:r~~~,...~~-.~~. . . . . u.~~",,-~~~~...=__' _-....."... . -..--...'"-'... ~~, ..~,,~ __ ~_. . ~:

J, _ _ ••'l........ __ .",4 .•
Table 15-6. Kiss Characteristics Comparison

---------------------------.-----------------~--------------------------------------------~-~----------~------
L.ONGITUDINAL. RAlHAL ROLL MO~ENT PITCH ~O~ENT YAW ~OMENT
,""ASS
C.G. IX STA.1 C.G. OF INERTIA OF 1~ERT1A UF I~ERT1A
EVENT ---------------------------------------------------.-------------.---~----------------
KIL.O 0/0 t>1ETERS 1-iETt:RS I<.G-j-i2 J/O ~G-j.i2 ~/J KG-MZ 010
POUNDS DEV. INCHES DEL.TA INCHES DEL.TA X1U-6 D~V. X10-6 DEv. X10-o DEv.
-------.------------------------------------------------------------------.---------------------.----------.-~
1.30407. 9.316 0.0051
PRED 287498. 366~f:! 2.5632 2.54;> 10.4136 16.4Z6
S-IC STAGE DRY
130~54. 9.387 0.U71 J.~651 a.ouu\)
ACTUAL
_____________________ 287601. 0.04 369.6 2.19,2.5632
, ________________________________ O.OOUJ ~.544 0.04 !- _______________
_____________________________ 16.4J2 ~.04
16.492 0.04 "___ -L---___ _
564'7. 41,656 ,0.1223
PRED 12455. 16.40.0 4.C!16E1 u.139 U.083 0.uf:!3
S-ICIS-ll INTER-
STAGE· TOTAL.
--------"-------
- 5608.
------
------ O.Ou:.iJ
41.656 0.'000 0.1223
------- -------
O.i)8~
------------------_.._--...--------------------------------------------
ACTUAl,.
36697.
123.64.
47 .. 922
-0.72 1640.0
U.1613
----------
iJ.OO 4.8166
-D.Y2 o.~wu~ O.l~o
---------~----
-0.72-
------------------
0.iJd3 -0.72
PRED 80904. 1686.7 oa3505 O.oul 2.012 2.U25
.....
S-II STAGE,DRY ------,---------
:;6654 • .,
------
47.759
------
-0.162 U·.1613
...
U.OOOO
------- -------
U'I ACTUAL 80801:1. -O.ll l88u.3 -6.406.3505 -u.n
O.OP0u u.60U -u.ll 2.01J -O.ll '.;)2~
~
I
-.;.---------------------------..;.--------_.... _--------_._-----------------------------------------------------------
3453. 66.415 0.0127
"
:PRED 7613. 2614.8 2.8&35 0.061 I).U4.;) 0.041·
S-II/OW!; INTER-
ST AGE, T.OTAI.
--------------- ,------
3453."
------
66.415
-------
J.OOO U.u727
-------
o.OU ... "
ACTUAl. 7613. 0.00 2614.8 v.oo 2.8635 U.O~\.l:.l 'J.061 \.l.u" u.'J4U ~.iJu 0.;)41 u.uo
---------------------------------------~--------------------------------------------------------~-------------
8,9539. 83.596 0.0942
PRED 197400. 3291., 3.1121 0.551 6.iJ4u 6.070
SPACECRAFt'TOTAI.
---------------
89097.
------
83.619
------
0.022 0.u920 -u.uO~2
------- -------
ACTUAL 196425. -0.;48 3292.1 U.89 3.6235 -~.081:16 U.547 -~.69 6.0U7 -u.5~ 6.U40 -U.48
---------------------------------"'-----------------"!""'------------'-------------------------------------------------
(J~\JOO7
2856423. 29.210
PRED 0297336. 1150.0 O.(J30w 4.0U4 746.1tl9 746.,05
1ST FL.IGHT STAGE
AT iGNITION
---------------
285295'r.
------
29.·215 u.00,
------,-
u.~u07 -0.~~C~
------- ------
ACTUAL 62896!:,19. -0.11 1150.2 0.17 u.U2S2 -0.J017 3.997 -0.15 74j.~29' -0.36 743.405 -w.37
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2!H 7359. 29.138 0.0007
1ST FL.IGHT STAGE PRED. 6211213. 1147.1 LJ.U:3Uu 4.U39 745. U6 'f 745.0tl3
AT HOL.DDOlm ARM
REI-EASE
---------------
2tl07892.
.------
29.130
------
0.UOO .J.u;;U9 I..Uli",l
------- -------
ACTUAL. 6190342. -0 • 33 1147 01 0.00 O.036U U.OU6U 4.J3, -0.15 7ql.391 -U.4~ 741.8&0 -0.42
------------------~--------------~----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_·~X II. £II__l!ilIIJIIIf.ft!JQ!II111IIJ~)"1lI1,!II.lUffn.?!iIIlI,,,'~iII)IJ)!iIIIjt-ttllrj,,",,,,'!I!l- '1Il!'1'I!!~tf~'''oiif~.i ....a.I.} ]I,e' " 1I12i$11l"rt• •~~c,Jy~~'4r~~·"'~"":~~'" ".... ""~,_lI!'...l4"!'f:.""
I,Table 15-6. Mass Characteristics Comparison (Continued)

/,'
----------------,,'j---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<:'C-:
,/
. MASS LONGITUDINAL RADIAL ROLL. r,:O~1EM PITCH i>\O;\IENT YAW i·\O;\·".;.iT

C.G. ex STA.1 C.G. OF INERTIA OF INE~TIA OF INERtIA
EVENT' -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
K.ILO 010 METERS METERS DID KG-M2 Olv OlD KG-~~ ~G-,"'2
POUNDS DEY. INCHES DELTA INCHES DEL.TA XIU-6 DEY. XlO-o DEY. XIU-6 u~v.
~------------------------------------------~~-------------.----------------------------------------------------
748838. 43~812 0.0026
1ST FLIGHT STAGE PRED 16509U5. 1124.9 0.lU44 4.024 3tH.334 3tll.354
AT OUTBOARD ENGINE-----------~---
CUTOFF SIGNAL 742571.
------
43.973
------
0.l60 0 • .:1\)27 O.JwU\)
-------., -------
ACTUAL. l637089. -0.S3 l131.2 6.33 U.l077 ~.OU~3 4.011 -0.33 314.295 -1.d4 374.21~ -l.SS
----------------~--~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~-~--
144625. 44.00l U.0029
/
PRED l64161S. 1732.3 0.1170 4.U23 316.558. :Ht..518
"
i, j
; 1ST FLIGHT STAGE
AT SEPARATION
---------------
738160.
------
44.176
------
0.175 0.0027 -0.00u2
------- -------
I,
ACTUAL. 1627364. -0.&6 1739.2 6.89 0.l071 -U.OJ~3 4.00~ -0.34 369.113 -1.Y7 369.U~2 -1.~8
i,1
;i:,
~------------------------------------------------------------~-------------~----------------------------------
5814l7. 53.651 0.U084
..... 2ND FL.IGHT STAGE PRED 1281806. 2112.2 0.331U 1.349 11 1,).1 ')3 1'10.240
c.n
I
.......
AT START SEQUENCE ---------------
COMMAND 579683. 53.609 -0.042 0.0084 \.).ouOO
------ ------ ------- -------
.........
;..., ,I ACTUAL. l217983. -0.29 2.\10.6 -1.66 0.3312 0.0\)01 1.~36 -0.92 1u9.611 -O.~6 1U9.718 -u.46
c.n
. I !~--------------~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------~-------------.
5808l~. 53.650 0.0084
00
2ND FLIGHT StAGE
AT MArNSTAGE
PRED 1280479.
---------------
579081.
2112.2
------
53.601 -0.U4~
0.33l0
------
v.(')084 u.vOUO
l.35l
-----
1l0.ldl
------- ----.......
1l0.229
ACTUAL. l216656. -0.29 2110.5 -1.7U u.3~l2 U.uv~l 1.338 -O.~2 1U~.b61 -v.46 1\.)9.708 -~.~6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
l44750. 70.203 0.0363
PRED 319120. ,2763.9 1.~294 l.226 51.::i55 51.b02
2ND FLIGHT STAGE
AT CUTOFF SlGNAL- --------------'-
l4753l.
------
69~373 -0.829
------
O.u33u -~.UU32
------- -------
ACTUAL 325250. l.92 2n~'!l2 -$2.67l.~024 -u.1269 1.337 9.u7 ~4.t:!Y2 b.47 ~4.940 6.1+7
--------------------------------~----------~~-----------------------------------------------------------------
l44605. 7U.227 U.1.I363
PRED 3l8800. 2764.6 1.4294 1.226 5l.468 5l.51::i
2ND FL.IGHT STAGE
AT SEPARATION ---------------
147363.
------
69.4Ul
------
-0.826 u.0330 -~.Ou32
------- -------
ACTUAL. 324880. 1.91 2732.3 -32.55 l.~044 -0.1269 1.337 9.u7 :)4.79'::J 0.40 '::J1+.842 6.40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
89439. 0.U942 8~.608
PRED 197180. 3291.6 ~.7l21 O.~51 6.~33 6.067
SPACECRAFT SEP-
ARATED ---------------
88474.
------
83.678 0.u70
------
0.0931 -\).OUll
------- -------
ACTUAL 195052. -1.07 32'.14.4 t.75 l.b674 -0.0441 U.5~9 -2.u7 5.955 -1."t) ·,.9b8 -1.2e1
--------~--------------------~--~-------------------------------------~---------------------------------------
_r~~~::.;:'rihiiLitt$1F*"dFdrt it:;~A> .'jl: . ¢ibM rib i' r·.,f~N·,·'j,jjii'j:W..;~,'~;P;, .. ~.k~~"a'-'~,.~~~~~'n~:r~~:<,;r..~c?'rl:i~Vi - ;~;!--~; ,

,.
SECTION 16
SATURN WORK SHOP SUMMARY
The Saturn Work Shop (SWS) was launched from Kennedy Space Center,
Florida at 13:30:00 Eastern Daylight Time (17:30:00 Universal Time) on
May 14, 1973. At approximately 63 seconds into the flight the meteoroid
shield structurally failed resulting in premature release of the Orbital
Work Shop (OWS) solar array wing No.2 (refer to Section 17). 5-11
stage retro motor exhaust plume impin~ement on partially deployed solar
array wing No.2, at about 593 seconds, caused the wing to be torn
from the OWS.
The SWS was inserted into a near circular Earth orbit of 235 n. mi. alti-
tude at an inclination of 50 degrees. The payload shroud was jettisoned,
and the Apollo Telescope Mount (ATM) and its solar array \'Jere deployed
as planned during the first orbit. The OWS solar array wing No. 1
released as pl anned duri ng the fi rst orbi t but stopped after only a
few degrees of movement. This array was restrained from further move-
ment by debris from the meteoroid shield. The remainder of the planned
Skylab system activation and deployment functions occurred as scheduled
with transfer of attitude control from the 1U to the ATM at approximately
4 hours and 50 minutes.
The SWS was maneuvered into a solar inertial attitude with the solar
arrays at right angles to the Sun for maximum electrical power generation.
The work shop area temperatures then rose above operating limits due to
increased exposure to solar heat flux since the meteoroid shield was
also designed to provide thennal protection. The SWS was pitched up
toward the Sun at 13 hours into the flight to reduce the solar heat
fl~x on the work shop area. This attitude further reduced the P9wer
generation capability which had already been severely limited by the
loss of the work shop solar array wing No.2 and the failure of wing
No. 1 to deploy. A continuous adjustment of SWS attitude was necessary
to keep the power and temperature within acceptable limits. Constraints
to maintain adequate heat in other critical areas of the Skylab and to
optimize the operation of the attitude control system in an off-nominal
mode of operation added further complications. This delicate balance
. continued for approximately 10 days.
The electrical power available from the ATM solar array was further
reduced by the requirement to cycle certain power regulator modules on
and off to prevent over-heating caused by the unplanned vehicle attitudes.
Although considerably below the total design capability, power was
sufficient .for the criticaJ loads. Many components and systems were
turned off or were cycled as req~ired to remain ~ithin the power
16-1
generation capability. These maneuvers and attitude control during
several docking attempts caused a much larger usage of the attitude con-
trol thruster impulse capability than predicted. Sufficient propellant
remained, however, for the three manned missions that. were planned.
~
Due to the high internal temperatures that were reached in the work shop
there was concern that outgassing of some materials would be hazardous
to the crew. Prior to the crew arrival, the habitation area was depres-
surized and repressurized four times to purge the internal atmosphere of
any hazardous outgassing products. This cycle was started approximately
4 days into the mission with internal pressure reduced to approximately
0.6 psia and then repressurized to 2.0 psia with nitrogen for each cycle.
The habi tati on area was repressuri zed wi th the proper oxygen/ni trogen mi x-
ture prior to the first crew entry.. The crew later tested this atmosphere
and no hazardous outgassing products were found.
The SWS was originally planned to be mann~j on May 15, 1973, the day after
launch) by the first of three astronaut '~rews. The manned launch, Skylab-2
(SL-2) was delayed 10 days for analysis of the SWS thermal and electrical
power problems. This delay permitted analysis of mission impacts on
SWS, the development of special repair hardware, and the time for crew
training in repair methods. Necessary revisions to the flight plan were
also developed.
The first astronaut crew arrived at the SWS on May 25, 1973. After a
flyaround inspection and a soft docking, the crew undocked and attempted
to free the solar array wing No. 1 using special tools while standing in
the open command module hatch. This activity was not successful. A
later attempt on mission day 14 using Skylab extravehicular activity
facilities was successful in deploying the wing which subsequently operated
normally and relieved the electrical power shortage.
The thennal problem was relieved When the crew deployed a parasol sun
shade through a workshop scientific airlock. This also allowed the
Skylab to be returned to solar inertial attitude which increased the
electrical power output and returned the SWS to a nominal attitude control
mode. . -
The crew proceeded to complete the SWS activation as planned. The environ-
mental control system operated satisfactorily; however, it was several
days before the excess heat within the ',cabin was removed. On mission day
11 the air temperature was down to 76.5°F which was still above the 70°F
planned. The SWS operated after activation approximately as planned with
some electrical power limitations until the solar array wing No.1 was
deployed.
The exterior contamination, based on measurements available, was indicated
to be'acceptable9nd within the range predicted. Some visible deposition
appeared on the exteri or surfaces of windows, no seri ous opti ca 1 contami-
nation has been reported by any of the sever:~l investigators.
16-2
,t J
The overall experiment program was executed essentially as planned

although two experiments had to be cancelled because the parasol
occupied the solar scientific airlock. Some experiments were per-
formed us i ng the other sci enti fi c a i rl ock as a contingency method.
The solar experiments of the telescope mount were performed every
day subsequent to mission day 4 and a total of 11 photography passes
were made with the Earth resources experiment group. An observation
of typhoon Ava was made on mission day 13.
The crew completed the deactivation procedures and left the SWS on
June 22, 1973, after a stay of 28 days.
,
"
t"J!
I
, " ",'
:
~'
'~.
. ,• . !
~,
"
,J
"f 16-3/16-4
"iII'>
SECTION 17
63 AND 593 SECOND ANOMALIES
17.1 SUMMARY
~.
Sky1ab-1 launch vehicle instrumentation recorded unusual disturbances at

approximately 63 and 593 seconds during flight. The first possible evidence
of anomalous behavior was an increase in S-II stage antenna reflected power
beginning at 59.87 seconds. At 62.76 seconds the Orbital Work Shop (OWS)
film vault vibration measurement recorded a structural transient which
propagated up and down the space vehicle. At approximately 593 seconds,
immediately after S-II/Saturn Work Shop (SWS) separation, another transient "
was indicated by the IU and SWS instrumentation. '1
The cause of the transient at 63 seconds was structural failure and release
of the OWS meteoroid shield, and premature fracture of theOWS Solar Array
System (SAS) Wing No.2 tie down fittings (modules), permitting Wing No.2
to partially deploy.
The 593 second transient was caused by the partially deployed SAS Wing No.2
.i
,
"i
;
being rotated past its fully deployed position and torn from its hinges by
\. ,3
),: impingement from the S-II retro mot~r plume.
J"
~. ':
The origin of these anomalies was in a unique payload and external to the
launch vehicle; therefore, no launch vehicle corrective action is necessary.
The vehicle reacted properly to the external disturbance originating at the
OWS with no significant effect except for damage to the S-11 second plane
separation system.
17.2 63 SECOND ANOMALY
17.2.1 Initial Vehicle Response
Review of data has shown the first evidence of anomalous behavior was
an increase in 5-11 stage antenna reflected power (N035-225) possibly
indicating a vehicle/ground-plane shape change beginning at 59.87
seconds. At 62.76 seconds the OWS film vault vibration measurement
(E7000-43E) recordeq ai transient. This structural trilnsient propagated
up and dl;W,~l the space vehicle from the OW5as shown by the sequence of
events depicted in Figure 17-1. Theyehic1e also responded to a counter-
: i
clockwise (CCW) [all attitude referenGE!S are defined looking forward]
roll torque beginninq at 62.04 seconds (see Figure 17-2), reducing the
17-1
roll rate from .85 deg/s to .7 deg/s. This type of small roll activity has
been seen on previous flights as response to the Mach 1 (61.1 seconds)
environment and thus could be attributed to either an early indication of
the anomaly or normal Mach 1 aerodynamics. If the small CCW roll torque
was related to the anomaly, it was probably due to the shield segment
between the main tunnel and the auxiliary tunnel lifting into the air
stream. The captured 'air flow would be deflected toward the main tunnel
causing the observed torque. At 62.8 seconds, an abnormal clockwise torque
was applied which increased the roll rate to 2.4 deg/s. This torque was.
probably due to the failing shield applying a sudden force to SAS Wing No.
2. The resultant impulse partially deployed Wing 2 and rolled the vehicle.
17.2.2 Initial Orbital Work Shop (OWS) Measurement Response

A detailed review of pertinent OWS measurements (as shown in Figure 17-3)
points to an anomalous condition occurring between 62.0 and 62.78 seconds in
the OWS m~teoroid shield and solar array panels. The exact time is
indeterminate due to the low data sampling rate. The first indications were
loss of meteoroid shield temperature measurements C7011 and C7012. C7011
was active when sampled at 61.9791 seconds and open at 62.7791 seconds.
C70l2 was active when sampled at 62.0863 and open at 62.8863. These two
measurements sense the external temperature of the Meteoroid Shield (MS) at
Positions I and II, respectively, as shown in Figure 17-4. The instrumen-
tation cabling runs are shown in Figure 17-5. From the failure of temperature
measurement indication C7011 it can be assumed that the anomaly was locally
in. progress no later than 62.7791 seconds. The good readings at this time
frOm the MS tension straps K7010, K7011, and K7012, the SAS Wing No.2
indication K7211, and temperature measurement C7013, indicate the disturbance
was still confined to the vehicle position 1/11 quadrant and that the major
failure of the MS had not begun.
Meteoroid Shield Structural Failure

During the time period between the 62.760 seconds OWS film vau1 t vibration
transient and the 62.779 seconds MS temperature measurement e70l1 loss, the
launch vehicle experienced no measurable transient effects from the initial
OWS disturbance and the OWSwas in the configuration as illustrated by
Figure 17-6a.
At about 62.8 seconds the launch vehicle bega.n to react to the OWS disturbance
and the major failure is believed to have started. Table 17-1 presents a MS
failure event correlation slJIIIIary.
17-2
f ~ ~. Bl-530 PS AT ATM ATTACH PT., ACOUSTICS
ATM, MDA,
f!J.1
. <. E2-5JO..,:s AT ATM ATTACH PT., VIB.
IU
t • El-505 STS BULKHEAD, VI B.
E40 -603 IU UPPER MTG . RING, VIB.
f . A2-603 IU ACCELEROMETER, LONG.
~ • A7 - 603 IU ACCELEROMETER, YAW
OWS t( E7000-4360WS FILM VAULT , VIB .
t ~ "'<S:....•
-+- S-II STAGE
I
, ~
e
i':I ! IIII!'II!!It::::
E81-219 S-II FORWARD SKIRT, VIB.
"'
.........
'" <
•
B3-219 S- II FORWARD SKIRT, ACOUSTICS
___ • D26£-206 S- II LOX SUMP PRESS

. E361-206 ENGINE 1 GI MBAL PAD, VIB .
. E362-206 LOX SUMP/PREVALVE , VIB.
c.
- ........... . E363-206 ENGINE 5 GIMBAL PAD, VIB.
'-J ........ - - ' 0267-201 ENGINE 1, LOX PUMP INLET, PRESS.
I
W . 0167-201 ENGINt 1, PI,LH ACTUATOR , DELTA PRESS.
" K', 0166 -203 ENGINE 3, YAW ACTUATOR, DE LTA PRESS.
ENGHlE 2, PITCH ACTUATOR, DELTA PRESS.
0166 -204 ENGINE 4, YAW ACTUATOR, DEL TA PRESS .
.........-------«:: o~
i::::"""oI::_:_ . 0166-201 ENGINE 1 , YAW ACTUATOR , DELTA PRESS .
166-202 ENGINE 2 , YAW ACTUATOR, DELTA PRESS .
• A4- 120 S-IC FORWARD SKIRT, ACCELEROMETER, PITCH

A5- 120 S-IC FORWARD SKIRT, ACCELEROMETER, YAW
SL-1 "
62 .7 62.8 62.9 63. 0 63.1
RANGE TIME , SECC:;DS CENTER RP NGE TIME
Figure 17-1. Propagation of the 63-Second Transient

,'<
oL-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1L1___L__J~
Ikl'--'II7
I 1/_ .II' ;'I -I. .
L __L_L
~
I:n
~
-1
V /1I . I 11-""i
,.
W
...J
UI
z: 1 j v!l_J_L __ ~ lrJ I
o:t:
...J
o:t: /1 I L
-
a:I
:E
UI
L;l I I y~
-
:..:.~
,~~ W
z:
.$:Ii
l .I-.
.!><: -2 I v_1 I I ILf I I I
I
Ii!
: lV/I ! 1/
, I
I I!
SA-513
i I / ..If ,t; ROLL INERTIAL ATTITUDE ANGLE !
I I • \.. / I . ' I I I I i
II I
!, // 1
i
/ I , I
; , .
-x GIMBAL ANGLE
Jl.n. ROLL LADDER
, :./, I , - - -X CONTROL COMMAND i I I
·.'! I i/ i ; WMACH 1
Y
I
r-- -.~.-- . .
; ., /V, I
-3 ~. I ; i l l
V J 1 1 .I 1l
/:
t---~-
I I
i I/
i1
I )
II
V'
,~_
t.i _I, _I i iI
.. .
i
L
I.
I I
"I
I
,:
I
i
1
I
1
'
I
1
1
60 61 62 63 64
RANGE TIME. SECONDS
Figure 17-2. SA-5l3 Roll Inertial Attitude Angle Transients During

63 Second Anomaly
IF'
1st OWS INDICATION

LEGEND: NORMAL. UNKNOWN • LOST
MSTENS!ON STRAP w1 )(7010 62 .8003." 62.9003
MS TENSION. STRAP '2 K7011 62.7988"'6Z·8988
MS TENSION STRAP *3 )(7012 62.8674 . . .62.9694

I
SAS *2 DEPLOY K7211 62.8130 • • 62.9130
TORS rON ROD H1 FWD G7003 61.6175 . . - - - 1-------""'1- - - --- .~ ~64 .0175
TORSION ROD H1 AFT G7004 60.8894.- ---------- -- - - ..,.. .- 163.2894

TORSION ROD HZ FWD G7027 62.2144'- .- -- _. - ---- --.64.6144
TORSION ROD n AFT G7029 62.0957 it------- 1-. ----- -----.64.4957
TORSION ROD *3 FWD G7028 61.9175. ~--- - f-.

-- - -e64.3175
TORS ION ROD *3 AFT G7031 61.0894 it----------- - .- - 463.4894

TORS ION ROD '4 FWO G7030 62.4144 __
- -
1--- - --- - ........64.8144.
TORSION ROD *4 AFT G703J 62.1957 __ .- 1-- - - -- - -e 64.5959
TORS ION ROD 115 FWD G7032 §2.3144'- .- f-' -. ~- -64.7144.
TORSIOI1 ROD '5 AFT G7034 62 .2957 e--"':~- -.- - .. 1--- ----- I- - .... 64.6957.
--' TORSION ROD M6 FWO G7035 61.8175_-

-- - .. .- - -- - I- .64.2175 I
......
I
tTl
TORS I 011 ROD '6 AFT G7037 62.4884. --- -... ---0---64.8884.
TORS I ON ROD n FWD G7036 62.5134 ...... -- I- - - - 64.9134.

TORS I 011 ROO N7 AFT G7026 61.6957"-- ~---- - 1-. -- 64.0957
TOPSION ROD '8 FWO G7005 61.7175.-- -- - _. - ~64.1175
TORSION ROD ,Il AFT. G7006 60.9894 ---- - -- ro- .- I- -'63.3894

I
TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS
HS #1 C7Dl1 61.9791. ~-
I
- - - - - . 6 2 . 7 91
f1S N2 C7012
1----
62.0863 ,..- ----+-e6 .8863
_.
HS *3 C70l3 62.9394'- ---.63.734
HS ,4 C7014 61.1291 . - - - - - - - - - -- -- .~ .- - 163.5291
HS IS 1--- ---- -- -
- - .. _-
C7015 I 61.6957'- .~-- .64.0957
lIS *6 C7016 61.2291.- '~

- .. 63.6291
HS i7 C7017 61.3894. --- .-
-,
- -e63.7894
lIS '8 C7018

----
6 .2894 . . - - -
------ - - - -_._-
- 1-- '1-
!
-.63.6894
I
60 61 62 63 64 65
RANGE TIME. SECONDS
Figure 17-3. OWS Instrumentation Timeline for 63 Second Anomaly
iii;,., .. , ~;Ud_\fJii'it}iJ;'~'[rpijfTiwM~I."·":~~.iA~",ttr;~·~~~~'1,;),~~,.l·~~~.l "L':o:!~~~.ilh;:_A;""/l ',".;~I<"Th'l",';·,.,-.' , ".- - ':" ~ '.; -- ,.;..: -~ t

~ SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
TORSION RODS 12
(G7027 &29)
TORSION RODS 13
(G7028 & 031)
TORSION RODS #1
(G7003 &04)
<:) SEQUENCEIOF EVE NTS -TORS ION RODS #4

C7012 (G7030 & 033)
- -----i _" k pas IV
K70 10. 11 & 12
-'
-....I
I
0'1 TORSION RODS #8
(G700S &06) SAS WING N2
TO RSI ON RODS #5
(G7032 &034)
TORSION RODS 17
(G7036 & 026) ~ l ~ TORSION RO DS #6
(G 7035 & 03])
VIEW LOOKING FWD
OWS Ins t rumentation L oc at ; o ~
Figu re 17- 4. OWS Instrumentation Location

K7211 G7032 G7035 G7036 G7005 K7212 G70D3 G7027 G7028 G7030
II' ... _. -.iL. . "
':.-
III r. ..., -
I I :i _
I "I ;-,.. ...
J
I K7011i ;1 --
C7015 C701l-ii -
- ... 1 ~.-
K70l2l !::
--'
~ , G7034--G703/ r
POS
-G70126 \G7006 6pOS-\-G/004G?02~
II
L G7Q3l
TRUNNION I AUX. TUNNEL ' - JVlAlN IUNIRL £££ TENSION

STRAPS
TENSION STRAPS TORSION RODS TE~ P ERATURES
- -
K7010 G7002 G7032 C7011
K701l G7004 G7034 C7012
K7012 G7027 G7035 C7013
G7029 G7037 C7014
SAS DEPLOY G7028 G7036 C7015
K721 1 G7031 G7 026 C7016
K721 2 G7030 G7005 C7017
G7033 G7006 C7018
Figure 17-5. OWS Meteoroid Shield Instrumentation External View

POS IV
ANn IJ(V I ([
AN D rOlIJ(D PANEl S
:A I TORSION BAA
(T YPI CAl. d PLACES)
TOIlS ION BAR

(TYPICAL 8 PLA CES)
METEOROID
SHI ELD
MAIN TUNNEl
PRElOAD
80LT S
IN TUNNEL
PANEl S[ AM
AUXI L1ARY
(b)
TUN NEl
-...J
I POS IV
CO
POS III
POS III
POS I
TORSION BAR
(TYPI CAL B PLACES)
~T[OROIO
SH IELD
MAIN TUNNEl METEOROID

SHIUD
""IN 11 1'j~ El
AUXIliARY TUNNEl ( C) ( d)
Figure 17-6. OWS Configuration During Meteo roid Shield Structure Failure (A rt ist Conce pt )
Table 17-1. Meteoroid Shield Failure Event Correlation
MOST PROBABLE
EVENT LOCAL INOICATION (SEC) LV INDICATION (SEC) TIME OF OCCURRENCE
First Structural 62.760-62.779 (E-7000, C-7011) Inconclusive 62.760
Response
Major Failure Begun 62.760-62.B99 (E-7000, K-70ll) 62.797-62.807 (S-I1 EAS*, 62.800
IU Roll)
Front Shield 62.867-62.899 (K-7010, K-70Il, 62.857-62.887 (S-II EAS*) 62.882
Separated K-70l2}
Shield/Wing 2 Inconclusive 62.887-62.907 (S-II EAS*) 62.902
Interference
Wing 2 Aft 6~.8l3-62.9l3 (K-7211) 62.907-62.937 (5-11 EAS*) 62.910
Separation
Shield/Wing 2 Inconclusive 62.917-62.937 (5-11 EAS*) 62.925
Cleared
Event Complete 62.939-63.289 (C-70l3, G-7004) 62.957-62.977 (S-Il EAS*) 62.965
*163 millisecond delay for structural transmission of transient from Work Shop to EAS has been removed
to allow direct comparison of OWS an~ EAS data.
At 62.807 seconds the. vehicle reacted to an abnormal clockwise torque which

increased the roll rate to 2.4 deg/s (Figure 17-2). At 62.797 seconds, the
the S-I1 engine actuation system (EAS) responded to a force in the outboard
direction between vehicle positions I and II (Figure 17-4 and 17-7).
Figure 17-6b depicts the OWS configuration at about 62.8 seconds.
At 62.899 seconds the first MS tension strap (K70ll, Figure l7-3) was
indicated failed. The S-II EAS (Figure 17-7) also indicates that the first
significant fC',rce was' applied to the vehicle in an outward direction, beginning
at 62.83 seconds. The initial force peak occurred at 62.857 seconds at about
80° from Pos:/tion I toward Position II. Figure 17-6c depicts the OWS con-
figuration at this time. It is believed that this force buildup caused
the MS to 51ip around the OWS, releaSing the tension strap indications.
At the same tim~~ the MS began to peel away from the OWS as i nd; cated by the
reduction in magnitude from 62.857 to 62.887 seconds and direction change from
80° toward 0° (Figure 17-7).
A closeup photograph of the OWS exterior, taken during the SL-2 CSM f1y-
around, is shown in Figure 17-8. The gold coated mylar covering, which is
exposed because of the missing MS, shows surface markings that could have been
made by circumferential movenlent of the MS during strllctural failure.
At 62 ;887 seconds tile ampl i tude of the force begi ns to· increase wi th the
direction changing from vehicle Position I toward Position IV. This is
probably the result nf the MS continuing to peel around the OWS as depicted
in Figure 17-6d. Between 62.907 and 62.937 seconds the MS encounters the
SAS Wing No.> 2 causing premature deployment. At approximately 62.925
seconds the MS cleared SAS Wing No. 2 and continued to peel toward Position
III. At 62.939 seconds temperature measurement C7013, located at Position III,
, .
was still normal.
17-9
~:'
._._ , .•• ,-.'~ _...... ~._~~'¥~~~ .......... .--.~_...:.....1_J~W-..,W~..~~t:f:!$$!..~~~ef!."'~!1:o.:7.:u\t:.>,::.r...=" .• ,~~~..., ................ '~> •••• ,~.~ "., --~ . ..
- ~ -~ .~~-.-......~-", ,.-.......-0-:...,..'-...."--';.,._. --' •. -'#> , ... ~._~.~.. _~~~,
350 I , 1 .1
300 I \I ,f \ /: I \
Cp. 250
..0
r-
r-
I
cno
CUr-
'0
z:
.x
La.J
200
00
.....::>
1--1--
u ....
-' La.J z:
0::C'
-...,J
I .... ct: 150
--' o :E-
o
270 0
0::0::
00 IT JI\ 4f900II~5f-++ IV
I-- I--
uu
La.J La.J
»
62:96 63.06 63.16 63.26 S-II EAS RAW DATA

62.797 TIME OF APPLIED-FORCE
62.897 62.997 63.097
AT OWS (REFLECTS 163
RANGE TIME, SECONDS MSEC TIME DELAY FOR
STRUCTURAL TRANSMISSION)
Figure 17-7. S-II Stage Engine No. 1 Actuator Response to the 63-Second Transient
c::
o
or-
+-'
U
(lJ
Cl
III
c::
......
co
I
"
17-11
The MS continued to peel counterclockwise around the vehicle with the force
peaking at 62.951 seconds at Position III (Figure 17-7). This peak was
probably due to the tearing away of 75 percent or more of the deployed MS
by the air stream. This tearing probably occurred between torsion rods 2
and 3. Afterwards the vehicle continued a 4 Hz damped response to the
third bendin~ mode, which is highly sensitive to radial excitation in the
OWS area (refer to paragraph 7.2.4).
The total extent of the damage was almost certainly achieved prior to
63.289 seconds as indicated by the anomalous torque reading on aft torsion
rod #1 located between Position.III and Position II (Figure 17-4). The
partially deployed ~ositions of torsion rods #1 forward (8°), #1 aft (l8°)
and #2 forward (85°, at 65 seconds also indicate that the tearing occurred
around Position III and that a portion of the MS remained between Position
III and II, probably as a result of bein~ entangled with SAS Wing No.1.
The tearing of the shield occurring at Position III accounts for the fact
that SAS Wing No. 1 was not prematurely released as was SAS Wing No.2.
Insufficient portions of the shield remained to apply the required force
to cause premature deployment. Table 17-2 is a listing of the position of
the MS torsion rods at 65 seconds.
+- Table 17-3 is a sequential summary listinq of events occurrinq throuQhout
the space vehicle and OWS that might be related to the 63 second anomaly.
An ~stimate of the disturbing forces to produce the observed IU body

mounted accelerometer measurements was developed using a dynamic simUlation.
The! best estimate of force and total impulse which provides a simulation
mat,ch wi th the observed data is shown in Fi gure 17-9. This 'iupports
Fi gure 17-7 whi ch i ndi cated that the peak forces started in the area of
SA~ Wing No.2. This is a tangential force located at SAS Wing No.2 of·
approximately 290,000 N .(.65,200 lbf) with a total impulse of 26,100 N-sec
(5870 lb sec). Figures 17-10 and 17-11 show a comparison of the measured
and simulated data for the pitch and yaw acceleration and the roll rate.
These fi gures show a good agreement between the trends of the measured data
and simUlation results. Some of the differences in the pitch acceleration
appear to be due to higher modes and possibly some beatin~ between adjacent
modes.
17.3 593 SECOND DISTURBANCE

At approximately 593 seconds, followinq S-II/SWS separation, another
ttansient was indicated on the IU and OWS instrumentation. Table 17-4 is
17-12
Table 17-2. OWS Meteoroid Shield Torsion Rod Indicated Positions
I
I
FORWARD INDICATED POSITION INDICATED POSITION DESIGN POSITION WHEN
TORSION ROD PRIOR TO 60 SEC (DEG) AT 65 SEC (DEG) FULLY DEPLOYED (DEG)
1 a 8 148
2 a 85 145
3 a 173 156
4 a 175 163
5 a - 163
6 a 165 156
7 a 170 145
8 a 145 148
AFT
TORSION ROD
1 a 18 148
2 a 160 145
3 a 165 156
4 a 180 163 :
5 a 165 163
6 a 163 156
7 0 165 c
145
8 a 135 148
17-13
+,-___ ' _ : . 4l'( • • ~-~ _~~.':t':<
~:;. ... ~,,---

_. _:._"'-::-"_. ____ ._~"""-,-"",,,,,,,,,~,,.,,;,;,, __ ;"'''~~~'~'''''''~~'''-'''''_'''~_.''''' •• ''_'_'~ ___ 0~.<'~--'_'_....." ....... ~,
Table 17-3. Sequential Summary of Events Related to 63-Second Anomaly

TIME OF INDICATION,
MEASUREMENT ~VENT. MEASUREMENT DrSCRIPTION PEAK
SECONDS REMARKS
NUMBER AND LOCATION 1~1 IND. ~ PEAK AMPLITUDE
N034':225 S-I I .ANTENNA REFLECTED POWER INCREASE 59.87 REFLECTED PO~IER INCREASED .
G7008-43~ POSITION - SOLAR ARRAY SYSTEM, WING 1 60.87 7% CHANGE OOWrl (1 SAMPLE ONLY)
, - ..
,
POSITION -' SOLAR ARRAy SYSTEM, WING 1 65.67 3% CHANGE DOWN (1 SAMPLE ONLY')
MACH 1 61.1
E7000... 436. VIBRATION ORBITAL WORK SHOP (OWS) FILM 62.76 63.0 +0.35 G
VAULT LONGITUDINAL
C7011-434 TEMPERATURE - METEORbID SHIELD, EXTERIOR, 62.78 MID TO PEGGED

NlJo1BER 1 OOWN
; . A2-603 (IU) ~CCELERATION LONGITUDINAL 62.83 63.1 +0.07 G
.
.'
..... A7-G03 (Iu) ACCELERATION YAW 62.80 63.1 +0.38 G

......
......
"
~ R6:"602 ANGULAR VELOCITY ROLL cmnHOL (IU) 62.80 10 SPS
E2-530 VIBRATION, X-AXIS, P.4.YLOAD SHROUD AT 62.81 63.1 +0.2 G

ATM ATTACH POINT
El-505 VIBRATION, X-AXIS, STRUCTURAL TRANS ITION 62.82 63.2 +0.2 G

SECTION, AFT BULKHEAD STRINGER 23, (MDA)
E81-:-219 RADIAL VIBRATION FORWARD SKIRT STRINGER 62.82 63.09 +12G

. (S-II)
R4-602' ANGULAR VELOCITY PITCH CONTROL OU) 62.87 12 SPS
Hl0-603 Z ACCELEROMETER PICKUP ST-124M (IU) 62.85 63.2 +0.4 0
H12-603 Y ACCELEROMETER PICKUP ST-124M (IU) 62.85 62.9 +0.4 0
0167-204 ENGINE 4 PITCH, ACTUATOR DELTA PRESSURE 62.85

(S- I I)
C7012-434 TEMPERATURE - METEOROID SHIELD, EXTERIOR 62.89
NUMBER 2 '
Bl-530 ~igUST~~, INTERNAL, PAYLOAD SHROUD AT 62.93 63.0 0.004 PSI LITTLE DEVIATION FROM NORMAL
ATT \f:H PflTNT
,-:..o(~:. ..."" !£;'~"r:.).~:,,"~~~~
~.".I,,"'''''':''_~~~W~r,;::~::'''f-:::~;!£'~t'"'';''.;''"'''~'':l·~''~~~~~'!t1'b~~I;A.. ~"!'-~'-":',
Table 17-3. Sequential Summary of Events Related to 63-Second Anomaly (Continued)
TIME OF INDICATION,
MEASUREMENT EVENT, MEASUREMENT DISCRIPTION SECONDS PEAK REMARKS
NUMBER AND LOCATION 1ST IND. PEAK AMPtITUDE
K7011-4.34 . EVENT - METEOROID SHIELD, TENSION STRAP 2, 62.90 FULL SCALE SHIFT
SECURED
E40-603 VIBRATION, UPPER MOUNTING RING, LOCATION 62.90 63.2 +9 G., --
21, PERPENDICULAR
K7010-434 EVENT - METEOROID SH IELD TENSION STRAP 1, 62.90 FULL SCALE SHIFT
SECURED
,
H11-603 X ACCELEROMETER PICKUP ST-124M (IU) 62.91 63 . 2 +0.2°

K7211-426 EVENT - SOLAR ARRAY SHIELD WING 2, FAIRING, 62.91 120 SPS
SECURED
-' 0167-201 ENGINE 1, PITCH, ACTUATOR, DELTA PRESSURE 62.99 FULL SCALE SHIFT
-....J
(S-II)
.....
I
,,;::
U'1
.01(,1-202 ENGINE 2, PITCH, ACTUATOR, DELTA PRESSURE 62 .. 95 120 SPS
(S-Il)
B3-219 ACOUSTIC. FORWARD SKIRT BOUNDARY LAYER 62.96 63.1 .27 PSI
(S-II)
0266-206 LOX SUMP PRESSURE (S-II) 62.96 63.06 20 PSIA
E361-206 VIBRATION, ENGINE 1 GIMBAL PAD, 62.97 63.07 -3.4 G
LONGITUDINAL (S-II)
E363-206 VIBRATION, LOX/SUMP PRE VAL VE, LONGITUDINAL 62.97 63.10 +8 G
(S- II)
K7012-434 EVENT - MS. TENS STRAP 3, SECURED 62.97 63.05 -10 G FULL SCALE SHIFT
E363-206 VIBRATION, ENGINE 5 THRUST PAD,

LONGITUDINAL (5-11) 620981 I
I
!
I
_'''.llml.UIPlrr· (IT 1IIf':lllfiirJr.,.uiril·.I'f'ii Ii -... li..Jli....,:;;;..;";'.;;:~"'"··,,·,,c;:;;"".,.,t,-"'.,,.,"'-"'""'.""-r'''~'.-.n

'-,::
. ~'(~': . • 7t< .,.
- .... .., .. ~~~ ... ·••...-;.-"~"' .................. _ _ _ ."'-~~ ...........~_~ .• "'~~~~awi~..:~.i.II:;,...,.,._.;:._~~-,:tW!;':.1.'~""';'a}~HrtM~<_"--"~_ ... _~\:;;o..so:;.t<.....-.,.,,"-""~..... ~.J..·..... _ •.,:r..,,~-.;:..t.k4ltl,~~ .•• :w--<.t!;.~":"'_~-'-""".';"_'>"'~."~""'_~"""".'_"'"
Table 17-3. SeQuential Summary of Events Related to 63-Second Anomaly (Continued)
EVEN~ MEASUREMENT DESCRIPTION TIME OF INDICATION,

MEASUREMENT SECONDS PEAK
NUMBER AND LOCATION AMPLITUDE REMARKS
, 1ST IND. PEAK
0166":204 ENGINEA, YAW, ACTUATOR, DELTA PRESSURE, 63.00 120 SPS -
(S- II)
D267-:201 ENGINE 1, LOX PUMP INLET PRESSURE (S-II) 62.99 63.5 ---
0166-201 ENGINE-l, YAW ACTUATOR, DELTA PRESSURE 63.01 63.5

(S-II):
A4-120 ACCELERATION, PITCH (S-IC) 63.00 63.6 +0.42 G
RS-602 ANGULAR VELOCITY YAW CONTROL (Iu) 63.05 10 SPS
0166.,.202 ENGINE 2, YAW, ACTUATOR DELTA PRESSURE 63.11 12 SPS
(S-I1)
....
'-J
'
....
I 0167-203 , ENGINE 3. PITCH, ACTUATOR DELTA PRESSURE 63.15 12 SPS
0'1 (S-Ill
t23-115 \II BRATI ON , UPPER THRUST RING, LONGITU- 63.34 +8 G NO CLEAR FIRST INDICATION.
DINAL (S- I C)
C7014-434 TEMPERATURE - METEOROID SHIELD, EXTERIOR, 63.53 MID TO PEGGED
NUMBER 4 UP
C7016-434 TEMPERATURE,.. MEiEOROID SHIELD, EXTERIOR, 63.63 MID TO PEGGED
NUMBER 6 DOWN
C7018-434 TEMPERATURE - METEOROID SHIELD, EXTERIOR, 63.69 MID TO PEGGED
N\J>1BER 8
• DOWN
C7013-434 TEt~PERATURE .;. METEOROID SHIELD, EXTERIOR 63.74 MID TO PEGGED
NUMBEP 3 DOWN
C7013-434 TEMPERATURE - METEOROID SHIELD, EXTERIOR 63.79 MID TO PEGGED
NUMBER 7 DOWN
I
TEMPERATURE - METEOROID SHIELD, EXTERIOR 64.09 MID TO PEGGED
~
C7015-434
NUMBER 5 UP
1·1
.... WfS-MTRKiW~ tnr~;"'·;";_,::--7 --.;. - ,-~
~'f\'N .& iL
>. Li. i _ 4&. J'@I_"JIlikl~£ LUt.... _!!':t.L,ti!IM.~"J.[t :.n~ttxLMM~ilo.~~e"l':i""~~T ......... ~..w,,,,,,,.WJ<;:4r.;.iu-___ ~'H\_ ..... __ ~ ....."~.~~_~~~~~,,,".}~2.:?l:"::t!':~~·""-i!('£!!;:rm'· ..if.;~;r'.,.t'!¥;::.;~ :.,.:< c_: :i'.:.!'. ~'!¥.:_ ~ .:'.' .J"'-::__ ~:'~:~ ::;-,..,;~.;-:::::l
400
,=
POS III·
I,
z: 300 " ---i
r-
M
I ,r TOTAL IMPUl SE
....0 I 26,100. N-s
LA-'
.
U
0: rIAl" TIJIIIEl
200 -
0
L&..
I !'OS!I I I ,~I.A. II
.....
:...I
<
Z
.
---1 PQS IV
£XTEIIIIAL fOlIa
N
.....
I
0:
....
LA-' I (VEHiClE STA. 75.34)
-..,J
>< 100 --- I..-
LA-'
I
I-- .~ -- J J ,_ J I I I
POS I
o VIEW LOOKING
62.8 62.9 63.0 . FWD
RA~GETIME, SECONDS
Figure 17-9. Simulated Force and Total Impulse
....lil ifiliII.UIIIIlrflllilliJlllililililil,IUI_if IIP.lf_ MIni' i'~Ej'ri.Cl" 'i __ iII; 'Iiiili,i,' 'iill 'iii'l'" ''',;''''''-.I._'''''''''''''~'''; ""~t''''';:';C,_, ,,,",,., "."" ,.,'" ~ ..., i'\-"''''W'~'''''t "' -,;. "',,,,, 1 ,_." ,
~ SIMULATED FORCE INTRODUCED, 62.88 SECONDS
\V SIMULATED FORCE REMOVED, 62.98 SECONDS
~ END ROLL MANEUVER
- - :ACTUAL (RAW DATA WITH BIASES REMOVED)
----- SIMULATED
4.0
,
2.0 -I
I
I
2!
.. I
oS
. . . ..,..N 0.0
..... « I n
o.cX_
wE
::J - '
..... w
u -2. 0 ~-+--4--"';
u
c(
-4.0 J---+--4-+
-6.0
4.0 !
. ,., -r- , , I
,
\
I
!
!
l .
.
:,
I
I
! i
I I
II' I
I
;
,
i
1
I
I
I I
.. 2.0
I
:-:: 1-
-
...-
.....
0
;
i
!
r.:( c:(N
>- ex: In
0.0 -.;-..;:
w .........
;::) -' E
..... LLl
U
U
<c.
-2.0
l f
_4.0~~~
W T 1 r . " J -I
__~~~_~w,~~~I~w~~ I
__~~~__~i I,' I
__~~~__~~
62.6 62.063.0 63.2 63.4 63.6 63.8 64.0 64.2
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 17-10. Comparison of Actual and Simulated Lateral II)

f· Acceleration DUring 63-Second Anomaly
17-18
\V SIMULATEDFORCE INTRODUCED, 62.88 SECONDS
WSIMULATED FORCE REMOVED, 62.98 SECONDS
W END ROLL MANEUVER
- - ACTUAL (RAW DATA WITH BIPS REMOVED)
.---- ACTUAL DATA FILTERED TO 1.0 HZ
------ SIMULATED
6.0 i i
...
..
........
4.0
0::
c:(
~,
I.J.J
0::
A
2.0
'·f
L.IJ
:E
0
0::
u..
~~
i, ·~~S: ~1
\
\
'-~ -
..... 0
C2I.J.JVl IA A IA-? ~
:3 "-
L.IJ en 0.0
i\It~ l.V' """"" ......... r:r
....J ..... cu
-':> "t:J
~:3
\fP :'tC:7'"' r'7-
U
I.J.J
:> -2.0
.....
I .....
.....
1 en ,
, 1
-
0
0-
-4.0
..
..
-6.0 W1 w
,
i
, 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
\
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 17-11. Compari.son of Actual and Simulated Roll Rate During

63-Second Anomaly
17-19
Table 17-4. Sequential SUtmlary of Events Related to '593-Second Anomaly
mlE OF INDICATION, PEAK
MEASUREMENT MEASUREMENT DESCRIPTION SECONDS REMARKS
NUMBER AND LOCATION 1ST IND. PEAK AMPLITUDE
R5-602 IU YAW CONTROL 591.2
R4-602 IU PITCH CONTROL 591.2
El-505 VIBRATION, X-AXIS, STRUCTURAL TRANSITION 592.7 ~O" 1 G NO AMPLITUDES OF SIZE
SECTION AFT BULKHEAO, STRINGER 23 PAYLOAD
(MDA)
R6-602 IU ROLL RATE 592.5
A7-603 IU YAW ACCELERATION 592.72 593.1
A2-603 IU LONGITUDINAL ACCELERATION 592.8
A6-603 IU PITCH ACCELERATION 592.82 593.5 :'0.46 G 120 SPS
E40-603 VIBRATION, UPPER MOUNTING RING, LOCATION 592.83 593.05 ~17 G
21, PERPENDICULAR (IU)
E2-530 VIBRATION, X-AXIS, PAYLOAD SHROUD AT ATM 593.05 :,0.3 G NO AMPLITUDE CHANGE OF
ATTACH POINT SIGNIFICANCE
fi10-603 Z ACCELEROMETER PICK ST-124M (IU) 593.05 593.07
H12-603 Y ACCELEROMETER PICKUP ST-124M (IU) 593.05 593.09
Hll-603 X ACCELEROMETER PICKUP ST-124M (IU) 593.06 593.1
E7000-436 VIBRATION, ORBITAL WORK SHOP (OWs) FILM 593.06 VERY SMALL AMPLITUDES
VAULT LONGITUDINAL
C7243-433 TEMPERATURE - SOLAR ARRAY SYSTEM, WING 2, 593.1 593.75 MID TO UP PEGGED AT 593.75
SECTION 1, PANEL 3
C7249-433 TEMPERATURE - SOLAR ARRAY SYSTEM, WING 2. 594.0 MID TO DOWN PEGGED
SECTION 3, PANEL 3
C7245-433 TEMPERATURE - SOLAR ARRAY SYSTEM, WING 2, 595.1 MID TO DOWN PEGGED
SECTION 2, PANEL 3
G7008-433 POSITION- SOLAR ARRAY SYSTEM, ~IING 1. 603.25 9'; CHANGE
SECTION 1
a sequential listing of events that may be related to this anomaly. Rate

gyros in the IU indicated pitch, yaw, and roll disturbances. The roll
rate increase started about 592.5 seconds, 1.38 seconds after the structure
was severed, approximately at the end of nominal retro-motor burn, and
continued for approximately one second. At 592.83 seconds a severe shock
was experienced by the IU, with approximately +17 ~ amplitude measured by
E40-603 which is located near the root of the SAS Wing No.2. About this time,
probably between 593 and 594 seconds, all electrical signals from SAS Wing No. 2
were lost (Figure 17-12).
17-20
W RETRO FIRE 591.10
W S-II/SWS SEPARATION 591.1
LEGEND: NORMAL.---UNKNOl~N---. LOST
,
C7243-133 593.05 ... - - - - - ... 593.85

WG '2 SEC 1 PNL 3
C7244-433
WG 2 SEC 1 PNL 7
592.48_-- ---- ---- - ---.~9A .80
C7245-433 592.60.-- - -------- r---------- .595.10

WG 2 SEC 2 PNL 3 !
C7246-433 591.00. ~-------- ~------ __ 5 B.90

\riG 2 SEC 2 PNL 7 -.
C7247-433
WG 2 SEC 2 PNl 9 .. _-,- ..
592.57 • t- - --- ~-- -----~ 594.99
-....,J
N
I C7248-433
.WG2 SEC 2 PNL 11
-- ----- ---_59468 ~92.94 __ ~-
~
~-------- --- ----4 594.0u

C7249-433 591 60 __ - - -
WG 2 SEC 3 PNL 3
C7250-433 591.68'" - - -------- --------- ~. 594.08

WG 2 SEC 3 PNl 5
C7251-433
WG 2 SEC 3 PNl 7
591 7 6 . - - 1---- --- -- - --- -.594 17
C7252-433 5!H.88 e- ~-------- - - - - - - - - ~- .. 594.27

WG 2 SEC 3 PNL 11
W
L W
591 592 593 594 595
RANGE TIME. SECONDS
Figure 17-12.' SAS Wing 2 Instrumentation Time1ine for 593 Second Anomaly
't
::)~.,. ..~,
~.' _2-~.~-PRlflQ1t!lJ
,
YlfiWU"fltAijjfj'S"fiiir'IW.lilt 111.-·.'~·5f\5il·1QWtI·-n?~",r R"ift {ii'-Sil!·~~~·~.fi~*~~;jl'o~,~~~;~_:~~,i~4.,:w;..,~•• ~:~ ~~~+":t~'4:.v~~'
. - . . ,·:· ........,,·":·.. 'o!'.-l .. '!"- .t, ,!>-~.- ~t-;.. l""!~·'". -, • ,;.. "!'L..:~i""" ':~""""~l'~-;'
Figure 17-13 presents the location of pertinent IU instrumentation and the
general configuration of the OWS at the 593 second time period .. Figure 17~14
shows the sequence of events during the 593 second anomaly as interpreted
from measured vehicle motions and analyses of the aerodynamic forces acting
on the vehicle during retro-fire. The fo11owinq sequence of events is
believed to have occurred. At 591.18 the retro-fire command was initiated
and plume impingement caused a positive yaw rate buildup and a reduction in
the positive pitch rate.
At 592.3 SAS Wing No.2 deployed into the plume of the retro-motor in I-IV
Quadrant, and began to affect rigid body rates causing a large negative
roll rate and a small negative pitch rate increment. This impingement force
deformed the arm as a cantilever beam in the -Z direction and produced a
negative yaw rate which overcame the positive rate previously induced by
plume impingement on the OWS. The retro impingement also accelerated the
deployment rate of SAS Wing No.2. These retro exhaust plume impingement
forces are shown in Figure 17-13.
At 593.0 retro-fire ceased and basic rigid body rates became constant .. The
release of the side force on SAS Wino No.2 which had stored strain energy
in the SAS Wing No.2 arm (and in the support point) in the direction normal
to the hin~e line, caused local structural dynamic activity. This shows up
as oscillations in the roll, pitch, and yaw rates. The IU accelerometers,
located at Position IV, also pickup a local transient at this time. The
SAS Wing No.2 arm continued to deploy_
At 593.4 a transient occurred in the yaw direction. This was possibly
caused by the SAS Wing No.2 arm as it progressed through its hinge stops.
At 593.9 the SAS Wing No. 2 arm transferred momentum to the SWS causing a
negative increment in yaw rate and a smaller positive increment in pitch
rate. The SAS Wing No.2 was torn away from the OWS at this time. All
electrical communication with SAS Winq No.2 was lost at that time.
Correlatab1e structural oscillations \~ere Qbserved in pitch :and roll rates,
and smaller oscillations in yaw rate. Yaw is primarily in the direction
of the hinge, roll and pitch primarily normal to the hinge. The local
structural
time. dynamics were also..........
picked . up by the IU accelerometers at this
17.4 METEOROID SHIELD FAILURE

The suspected cause of the structural breakup of the meteoroid shield is
air flow through the open areas of the auxiliary tunnel aft boot. Figures
17-15 and 17-16 show the initial and second phase responses of the
auxiliary tunnel system to externally applied pressures causing inward air
flow at the aft rubber boot as well as through the open areas of the aft
fai ri ng. The resu1 t of the ai r f10\'I at the aft boot is to change the
loading condition from a crushing pressure along the entire length of the
17-22
III
I LOCATION OF IoU .
INSTRUMENTATION
~\
(1) ACCELEROMETERS A0002 - 603,
A0006-603, AND A0007 - 603
LOCATED AT POSITION IV.
(2) RATE GYROS R0004-602,
\ SAS #2 IN
R0005- 602. AND R0006 - 602 !~- DEPLOYED
LOCATED AT POSITION III . J ( POSITION
T-=-~l
SIDE
.......
FORCE
REMAINING PORTION OF RETRO MOTOR ,
LOCATION (TYPICAL) ~
I
N
W THE METEOROID SHIELD ~LAR ARRAY PANEL
2 ATTH1PTED TO
n
II
~t- DEPLOY AT 63 SEC .
II
POS I
II +Z
II
'I
:I S~S ~~
Ij
~
X+ -~----
Figure 17-13. Instrumentation Location and OWS Configuration Near 593 Seconds
CD (5 91 .2) S-II RETRO FIRE Cor'II'iAND AND
PLUME IMP I NGH1ENT ON FRAGMENTS IN
® ( 593 .4 ) fNITIAL TRANSFER OF SAS
~1 0MENTUf.1TO SWS
QUADRANT II -III
® ( 593. 9) FINAL TRANSFER OF SAS
® ( 592.3 ) SAS #2 DEPLOYED ItITO RETRO
PLUME AND EXERTS FO RCE ON SWS
MOMENTUrl TO SWS
Q) (593) END OF S-II RETRO FI RE

® (5 92 ) TACS SYSTHl OPERATING TO
NULL OUT RATES AND ATTIT UDES
INDUCED BY RETRO I MPI NGEMENT
r-® t-®
1 2
--
C~~9 1 2 3 4 5
2.0 1.0
N ~ I
OWU =>
\0 1- WOO I
8- 5. 0
J,~ ~ .
o <.!J
1\ ~ r~ ~' \.:)U~
U'"
,
f
03W ..... ex: -
o <.!J ~
~~.e -2 .0 '\...
g~~ 0.0 '"-
....
.......
«>-
I -4 .0 -0.5)
.,.
N
2.0 1.0
=>
~ ~ :-----
W
N t-- =>
g~~ 0.0 , 8:3-;;;- 5.0
\0 ex: -
I
, Vl , <.!J
-=r :I: -....
o
g~~
U<.!J
-2. 0
\O:I:
g:=
~
O.C
,J ~JL ilL, '
cr Q.~ 0-
ex:C>.
I' '1'
-4 .0 -0 .5 '----
2.0 1.0
=>
NW~
Ol-U 0.0 - I 8u~ 5.0
'-;>~~
\0
O
-....
...J <.!J
g5~ - 2 . 0
I Lr \0 U
, ex:-
<oJ
g~~Q.O
<.!J
Vl
I IV I
00
cr cr ~ ex:...J !
I
-4.0 -0 .5 T I
590 592 594 · 596 598 590 592 594 596 598
RANGE T If~E - SECONDS RANGE TIME - SECONDS
Figure 17-14. In ter pretation of IU Control Measureme nts During 593-Seco nd Period
INITIAL PHASE AIR FLOW
& O..,ARD
01 FFERENTIAL
PRESSURE
o- \...""......I~=========:..:..:...:iL--
.a::::.::::J ;;;:::==============::::::;~i CJ
VEN T SEAL
C;!
(FWD ) (AFT)
Figure 17-15. Meteoroid Shield-Flow Throuqh P,uxiliary Tunnel
SECOND PHASE
• FLOWTHROUGH GAP - UNDER SHIELD
PRIMARY AI R FLOW
• UNSTABL E AEROELASTIC CONDITION (AFT BOOT)
• Tunnel Unseats
• Shield/Tank Separates
• Pressure Fills Shield/Tank Cav ity
• Deflection-Pressure Relationship Diverges HIGH EXTERNAL
PRESS URE CAUSES
• Meteoroid Shield Ruptures AIR ENTRY INTO
SHI ELD/ TAN K GAP
AND FLOW INTO
AUX. TU NEl
TANK FLANGE
Figure 17-16. r~eteoroid Shield Response
l7-LS
tunnel to a condition where the forward tunnel section is subjected to ~
signi fic an t burst pressu re. Only 0.2 psi is require d to lift the shield.
An average pressure of approximately 1. 1 psi was aoplied over the forward
2 to 3 feet of the shield. This force is sufficient to lift the shield
edge 2 inches or mo re as determined by st ructu ral te s t. Figure 17-17
shows the Auxiliary Tunnel Pressure Distribution at 63 seconds (Des~gn
Burst Pressure Maxi mum 0.025 psid). The air flow at the aft end of the
auxiliary tunnel permitted a rurs pressuriza ion of the tunnel and
resulted in liftino of the shield toward the free air st ream at approxi -
mately 63 seconds. Ram air at approximately 1.05 ach en ~ ered underneath
the MS and caused a rap id pressurization and the divergent load- deflection
condition led to a structural failure of the ",e~eoroid shield.
~+--+--+--+--t---t---+--;_t--~Aui I LI~RY I I I I---+--il---l

TU ELI r" ~ RUBBER BOOT I
~......-+-~-+--+-+--+----+-+--4----+ \ ,' A RES URE _10-
BONDED . \\ ,' ,,' DEPE DE T
1--H--\-+_+-+-+_+-+-1_-+-+-1~S~EA~L,- . , . . , 3/ BOOT LEA AGE
I ~. -f-
YOKE,~ 3· J.\~:. 2 - I ADEQUATE MET J\l -r--

t--tt--+++---t+-4f-+--+--l-+--+--1~+~' 2 '\~:;~:\ TO METAL FIT LEAKAGE
~+-+~~~-+~::::::t=~-+_b_~r-.~-~~-~-4,-~~S:A~:~:JS~RJ ..... GER
. . . . . . . r-... __
r-+-4--r-+-4~+-4--r-+-4--~4-~-+~--~
_3L-~~_L-~~_~~~ __~_L~L-J--L_L-~~_L--L~__L- _~~~

~'
< ,::'
_~ t ~
I t t I I I t I I I I I
3185.85 3145.85 3105.85 3065.85 3025 . 85 ~985 . 85 2945 .85 2905.85 2865.05 2825.85 2785.85 2745 .85
VEHICLE STATION. INCHES
Figure 17-17. SL-l fl.uxiliary Tunnel Calculatec Pressu re Distribution

at 63 Seconds
17. 5 CONCLUSIONS
The observed phenomena resulted from a structural failure of the OWS
meteoroid shield , at appro ximate ly 63 seconds, originating in the Quadrant
between Positions I and II, and propagating counter-clockwise through
Positi on IV to Position III . Static aerodynamic forces near Mach 1 acting
or. the protruding auxiliary tunnel are indicated to be the most proba~le
cause. A substantial part of the meteoroid shield apparently separated
from the veh icle and forced partial deployment of SAS Wing o. 2. A
17-26
portion of th·? meteoroid shield remains between Positions II and III.
These findings are confirmed by on-orbit pictures taken by the crew of
Sky1ab-2. After S-II/SWS separation, the exhaust from the retro-motor
in the I-IV Quadrant apparently impinged on the partially deployed SAS
Wing No.2 forcing it to the fully deployed position. As it hit the
hinge stops, the vehicle experienced a +17 g shock, the wing sheared
off, and electrical connections were severed.
,
Visual observation during rendezvous with the SWS by the Skylab-2 crew
, substantiated the conclusion from boost phase data that the OWS was
opera,ting with most of the meteoroid shield and all of SAS Wing No.2
missing. It was also observed (verifying boost data) that SAS Wing
No.1 was being prevented from total deployment by the remaining portion
of the meteoroid shield. The most probable cause of the failure was
the .application of burst pressure to the meteoroid shield which was
designed for crush pressure only. The crush pressure only criteria
wou'ld probably have been valid provided the aft end of the auxiliary
tunnel had been sealed. An examination of the auxiliary tunnel aft
boos t des i gn i ndi ca tes tha tit 'I/as never intended to be an effective
seal.
17.6 IMPACT OF ANOMALIES ON LAUNCH VEHICLE

The launch vehicle reacted properly to the external disturbance with
no significant effect except for damage to the S-II second plane separa-
tion system. This failure is discussed in paragraph 9.5.2. The origin
of the 63 and 593 second anomalies were in a unique payload and external
to the launch vehicle; therefore, no launch vehicle corrective action
is necessary.
17.7 INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE
~i
On May 22, 1973, Dr. Fletcher, NASA Administrator, appointed Mr. Bruce T.
'I
r:
..
,
I
I
,
Lundin, Director of Lewis Research Center, as chairman of a board to inves-
tigate the anomalies which occurred during the launch of Sky1ab-l. On
May 18, 1973, Rocco A. Petrone, MSFC Director, authorized the Saturn Flight
Evaluation Working Group (FEWG) to collect and analyze all flight data
relative to the OWS meteoroid shield and solar array system anomalies
"
during the launch phase of Skylab-l. The initial findings of the FEWG
were submitted to the SL-l Investigating Boarp on June 12, 1973, for
consideration. The findings of the Investigating Board are documented in
IINASA Investigation Board Report on the Initial Flight Anomalies of
Skylab-l on May 14, 1973," dated July 13, 1973.
The descriptions of the meteoroid shield failure contained in this docu-
ment and the Investigating Board's Report are substantially the same.
The differences are minor and are primarily due to refinement of the
timed sequence of events. These differences can be attributed to MSFC
and contractor analyses received by the FEWG after the Board's investigation
had been completed. ,1
17-27/17-28
APPENDIX A
I'.TMOSPHERE
A.l SUMMARY
This appendix p~esents a summary of the atmospheric environment at launch
tim~ of the SA-513. The format of these data is similar to that presented
on previous launches of Saturn vehicles to permit comparisons. Surface
and upper level winds, and thermodynamic data near launch time are given. "
A.2 GENERAL ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS AT LAUNCH TIME

During the launch of Sky1ab-1, the Cape Kennedy launch area was experienc-
ing cloudy conditions with warm temperatures and gentle surface winds.
These conditions resulted from a warm air mass covering most of Florida.
This warm air was separated from a cold air mass over the rest of the
South by a quasi-stationary front oriented east northeast - south southwest
with its nearest pOint being about 90 miles northwest of KSC. Although
the stat'ionary front was weak, it still produced overcast conditions over
Cape Kennedy prior to and during launch time (see Figure A-H. Surface
winds in the Cape Kennedy area were light with a southerly component as
shown in Table A-1. Wind flow aloft is shown in Figure A-2 (SOO milli-
bar level). The maximum wind belt was located north of Florida, giving
less intense wind flow aloft over the Cape Kennedy area.
A.3 SURFACE OnSERVATIONS AT LAUNCH TIME
At launch time, total sky cover was 10/10, consisting of scattered
cumulus at 0.7 kilometers (2,400 feet), scattered stratocumu1us at 1.5
kilometers (5,000 feet), broken altocumulus at 3.7 kilometers (12,000 feet)
and c'irrusat 7.0 kilometers (23,000 feet). Surface ambient temperature
was 303°K (86.0°F). During ascent the vehicle did pass through the
cloud layers. No lightning was observed in the Cape Kennedy area. All
surface observations at launch time are summarized in Table A-l. Solar
radiation data. for the day of launch is not available, due to miscalibra-
tion of the instruments.
A.4 UPPER AIR MEASUREMENTS
Data were used from three of the upper air wind systems to compile the
final meteorological tape. Table A-2 sumnarizes the wind data systems
used. Only the Rawinsonde and the Super Loki Dart meteorological rocket
data were used in the upper level atmospheric thermodynamic analyses.
A.4.l Wind Speed
Wind speeds were light, being 3.0 m/s {S.8 knots) at the surface and
A-l
140°--Q5 °- qp o- 1~5°- 120° · 115 °· 11 0° .105°-10.0° -95° - 90° - &~ o - 80° - 75 ° - 70 ° - 65 ° - 60° - - 55 °
I <, . !.IPW i », c:::::::::::! , t. ,I ::c:>",' , ;; , A _"
45 °
I
40 °
I
35°
:t:>
I
N
30 °
25°
SURFACE WEATHER MAP AT 1200 Z MAY 14, 1973 - ISOBARIC,

FRONTAL, AND PRECIPITATION PATTERNS ARE SHOWN IN STANDARD 20 °
SYMBOLIC FORM. ...
95° - - - ' -. 90° - -- .' -
85° -- aO°- -.J
I
Figu re A-1. Surface Weather Map Approximately 5 1/2 Hours Before Launch of SA-513
Table A-l. Surface Observations at SA-513 Launch Ti me
SKY COVER WIND*
TIME PRES- TEM- DHI RE LA- VISI- HEIGHT

AFTER SURE PE RATURE POINT TIVE BILITY CLOUD CLOUO OF BASE SPEED DIR
LOCATION T-O N/CM2 OK OK HUM ID- Kr1 AMOUNT TYPE METERS MIS (DEG)
(MIN) (PSIA ) ( OF) ( oF) ITY (% ) (ST AT~lI ) (TENTHS) (FEET) (KNOTS)
NASA 150 m Ground 0 10.1 71 303.2 291 . 5 53 16 3 Cumu lu s 732 2.5 ~ 262 #
Wind Tcwer. (14 . 75 ) (86.0) (65 .0) ( 10) (2400) (5.0)
Winds measured at 3 Strato- 1524
10 m (32. 8 ft) ** cumulus (5000)
6 Al to- 3658
cumulus (12,000)
5 Cirrus 7010
:x:-
I
(23,000)
W 10 i/U
Cape Kenn2dy AFS*** 150 10.166 300.6 294 .9 71 -- - - -- -- 3.011# 140*,
Surface (14.74) (81. 3) (7 1. 1) (6.0)
Measurerr.ents I
Pad 39A Lightpo1e 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 5.1 155

SE 18. 3 m (10.0)
(60.0 ft )**
Pad 39A LUT E 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 5.1 177
161.5 m (530 ft) ** (10.0)
* i nstantaneous rea di ngs at T-O, unle ss otherui se noted.

** Above natural grade .
*** Bal loon release s ite.
": ir 10 Minute average about T-O.
1 mi nute average abou t T- O.
•• M Total sky co ver .
51)0 I
I
I
.40 0
35 0
31)0
2S 0
.20 0
20°
500 MILL IBAR HEI GHT • I

CONTOURS AT 1200 Z 95 0 90° _ _ 8S0 _ _ 00 0_ _ 7S0~
~o1A Y 14, 1973
CONTINUOUS LINES INDICATE HEIGHT CONTOURS IN
FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL. DASHED LINES ARE ISO-
THERMS IN DEGREES CENTIGRADE. ARROWS SHOW
WIND DIRECTION AND SPEED AT THE 500 MB LEVEL.
(ARROWS SAME AS uN SURFACE MAP).
Figure A-2. 500 Millibar Map Approximately 5 1/2 Hours Before Launch of SA-513
A-4
_'~Jlfi• •!lr!liilil:'_,I.III! iI_flU••,!I"'!! _,l!tMlI_UU!:tlIMlW:;!!I!.Ii!!I,¥~~,:~51\!!i!I>:': !l!!fJ'l!!!tUMII.~_~~""_""_!""~_ _ _~"'~~~~t"~_~"""'~A'C:' -'_'.',""e"c,"~""'C_;.".. ~.
Table A-2. Systems Used to Measure Upper Air Wind Data for SA-513
RELEASE TIME PORTION OF DATA USED

START END
TIME TIME
TYPE OF DATA (UT) AFTER TIME TIME
T-O ALTITUDE AFTER ALTITUDE AFTER
(MIN) M T-O M T-O
( FT) (MIN) , (FT) (MIN)
FPS-16 Jimsphere 1745 15 125 15 14,725 64
(410) (48,310)
=rU1 Rawinsonde 2000 150 14,750
-
198
--
24,750 231
(48,392) (8~,200)
Super Loki Dart 1800 30 62,500
(205,050) 30 25,000 56
, (82,020)
; .
I
increasing to a peak of 34.4 mls (66.8 knots) at 12.70 kilometers (41,666

feet). The winds began decreasing above this altitude, becoming rela~
tively calm at 34.25 kilometers (112,367 feet). Above this level, winds
increased again to a peak of 41.0 mls (79.7 knots) at 54.50 km (178,804
feet) altitude as shown in Figure A-3. Maximum dynamic pressure occurred
at 12.03 kilometers (39,459 feet). At max Q altitude, the wind speed and
direction was 24.2 mls (47.0 knots), from 264 degrees. SL-l pad 39A
wind data is available in MSFC memorandum S&E-AERO-YT-"19··73.
A.4.2 Wind Direction
At launch time, the surface wind direction was from 140 degrees. The
wind direction was south'westerly throughout the lower,and middle
i troposphere, becoming westerly throughout the upper troposphere and lO\'/er
stratosphere. Above 20 kilometers (65,616 feet) easterly flow prevailed.
I
1
Figure A-4 shows the complete wind direction versus altitude profile.
As shown in Figure A-4, wind directions were quite variable at altitudes
with low wind speeds.
l
1 A.4.3 Pitch Wind Component
,~
j
II The pitch wind velocity component (component parallel to the horizontal
;
,...
;
~ projection of the flight path) at the surface was a tailwind of 0.5 m/s
i
I
1 (0.9 knots). The maximum tailwind, in the altitude range of g to 16
i kilOOleters (26,247 to 52,493 ft), was 26.2 mls (50.9 knots) ~bser"ed at 13.03
i kilOOleters (42,732 feet) altitude. See Figure A.-5.
i A.4.4 Yaw Wind Component
I The yaw "J1nd velocity component (component normal to the horizontal pro-
jection of the fli~ht path) at the surface was a wind from the right of
3.0 mls (5.8 knots). The peak ya\'v \oJind velocity in the high dYnamic
I •
I II.
l1
pressure region was from the left of 24.9 mls (48.3 knots) at 12.68 kilo-
meters (41,584 feet). See Figure A-6.
A.4.5 Component Wind Shears
The largest component wind shear' (lih = 1,000 m) in the max Q region was a
I pitch shear of 0.0139 sec- l at 14.05 kilometers (46,095 feet). The largest
1 yaw wind shear, at these lower levels, was 0.0107 sec- l at 9.25 kilo-
meters ('30,347 feet}. See Figure A-7.
I
'. I
I
A.4.6 Extreme Wind Data in the High Dynamic Region
A summary of the maximum wi nd speeds and wind components is given in
Table A-3. A summary of the extreme wind shear values (lih = 1,000 meters)
is given in TableA-4.
-. A-6
66
61
- - 140
60
58
56
54
52
- - 1 )0
50
48
46
u
...
42 a
" - - 120
40
3
'"
'"
38 ~
36
.5
I!j
34
~ - - - 110 l!I
~
~ ~
lO
:::
28
~
26 - - 100
I
24 N
N
N
22
...
N
~
20
~
-- to
18 ~
~
:;
16 ~
--
14
12
r.N
10
.. ---
:;l 70
10 N
:2 60
f
~
. so
40
t JO
• len
-L 10
~11lO S'UO. MI.
Figure A-3. Scalar Wind Speed at Launch Time of SA-513 (SL-1)
A-7
66
6·
62 - - 140
60
58
56
54
52
- - 1)0
50
48
.,
,
0
>
.J
44
~
41 0
, - - 110
40 .,"
~
J j "-
38 ~
16
14
I - - 110 lS
, i
'-'~~--
~
J'
IJ.
~
..;
. 18
---
~
~
~
-- - 100
!
2'
N
;;;
22 ~
20 ~ - - 90
w
0
18 '"
0
:?
.,,
t ..
--80
I'
12 j
.
~
- - 10
10
.
~
~
60
~
~
::; 50
j j t t
~
j
I I
~
40
, , J
. I ,
--1
30
20
or 80 liO 160 200 240 280 no l8'
W
WIll) OIRE CT IOIt. dog .
Figure A-4. Wind Direction at Launch Time of SA-513 (SL-l)
A-8
66
6<
62 - - 140
I
60 -J-
~8
54
52 -u.! IftI S
- - 130
So
<8
..,
N
.,'"
. N
0
~
...
<2
! - ""'"
0
_ _ 120
;;;
40
~
, ......'"
38
.-
I
I - ~
-- 110
IS
&
~
... ~
0
<?
~
~ 28
26 100 I
2< N
'"
21 '"
:<l
20 2 --
...
0
90
18
~
16 !
-- 80
It
12
I
T N
., ;!;
.'" -- , 70
10 N
::.
.......... - -
x
60
~
::; 50
..,
40
~
30
C --L 20
- 60 - 40 - 20
PITCH WIN O 5P[[0 .
20
Is
.0 60 8G
"'"
Figure A-S. Pitch Wind Velocity Component (Wx) at Launch Time of SA-S13 (SL-l )
A-9
6'
62
- - 1' 0
60
~o
- - 1)0
46
44
41
_ _ 120
'0
38
)~
u
- -- 110 w '
1
;::
28
:>;
~
_ _ , ('(,0
2'
20
::: _ _ 90
w
a
IP
...
,
~
16 '
- - 80
I'
12
WI~6
24 . 9 fill,
i WI •
.
N
.,
M
fRO" ~ r'W· - - /0
10 Rl rll I LEn
j
j
- - 60
- - so
- - '0
l~_-"'--o....""",-.......o.-..........._ _ •...o.-~--...I.-i
- - )0
- - 20
·to ·' 0 ·2 6J 80 100
fA W WINO SPEED. ~/ s
Figure A-6. Yaw Wind Velocity ,"': omponent (Wz) at Launch Time of SA- 51 3 (SL-1)
A-10
66 .--------------------------
- - 1 '0
_ _ 1)0
- - - 120
_ _ 11 0
lS
::l
:: ~
~
:;
- - 100
i
N
N
N
~
2 - - - 90
t'5
0: 0 5\ ,-I l5
~
;;
~
:T N
...
~
- - 80
• • - 1000 '10ER S
- - 10
0.:01 01. ,-I; .'"
N
~
m - - 60
l
~
., - - SO
~
- - '0
- - )0
- _ 20
. 004 . 008 . 012
(S , ) PI CH WINO SHEAR, ",. oe r m (S, ) YA WIN O SHEAR, ~, . oor ~
Figure A-7 . Pitch (Sx) and Yaw (Sz) Component Wind Shears at Launch
Time of SA-513 (SL-1)
A- ll
Ta l e A-3. Max im um Wi nd Speed in High Dyn mic Press ur R2gion for
Apollo/Saturn S 1 thro ugh Saturn S13 Vehi cle s
MA XI MUM WI D AXI MUM WI D CO PO [ TS

VFHICLE
UMB ER SPEED OIR ALT PITCH (W x ) ALT VA' Wz ) ALT
M/S ( 0 G)
M MIS V-M M/S ~l
(KNOTS) ( FT) ( OTS) ( FT) (K OTS) ( FT)
SA-SOl 26 .0 273 11 .50 24 . 3 11 . SU ' 12.9 9.00

(SO . 5) (37,700 ) (47. 2) (37 ,700) (25 . 1 ) (29 , 500)
SA- 502 27 . 1 255 13.00 27. 1 13 .00 12.9 15.75
(52 . 7) (42 ,650) (S2 , 7) (42 , G50) (25 . 1 ) (S l , 700)
SA- S03 34. 8 284 15 , 22 31 . 2 5,1 0 22 .6 15.80
(67.6 ) (49 ,900) (60.6) (49,' 00) (43.9) (5 1,800)
SA-S04 76. 2 264 11 . 73 74. 5 11 .70 21. 7 11.43
(1 48.1) (38,480) ( 14 ·~ .8) (38 ,390) (42.2) (3 7, 500)
SA- 50S 42 . 5 270 14. 18 40. 8 13 .80 18.7 14 . 85

(82.6) (46 ,520) (79 . 3) (45 ,2,30) (36. 3) (4R , 72 J )
SA- 506 9. 6 297 11 . 40 7.6 11 . 18 7. 1 12. 05

(18.7) (37 ,400) (1 4. 8) (36 ,680 ) (1- . 8) (39 ,530)
SA- S0 7 47.6 245 14. 23 47 . 2 14 . 23 - 19. 5 13. 5
(92.5 ) (46 ,670) (91. 7) (46 ,670) (- 37 . 9) (44,780)
SA- 508 55 . 6 252 13. 58 55.6 13.58 15 .0 12.98
( 108 . 1) (44, 540) ( 108 . 1) (44 ,540) (29 .1) ( 42 ,570)
SA-S09 S2. 8 2S 5 13.33 52. 8 13 .33 24.9 10. 20
(102. 6) (43, 720) (102.6) (43,720) (48. S) (33,460)
SA- S10 18. 6 063 13. 75 -1 7. 8 13. 73 7. 3 13.43
(36. 2) (45 ,110) (-34.6 ) (45 ,030) (14 . 2) (44 ,(40)
SA- Sll 26.1 2S 7 11. 8S 26. 0 11. 8S 12.S lS. SO
(SO .7) (38,880) (50 . S) (38 ,880) (24. 2) (SO,8S0)
SA- S12 45.1 311 12 . 10 34.8 12.18 29.2 11 .3S
(87.6) (39 ,94S) (67.6 ) (39 ,945) (S6. 8) (37,237)
SA-S13 34.4 267 12.70 26.2 13.03 24.9 12.68
(66.8) (41 ,666) (SO.9) (42,732) (4 8.3) (41,S 84)
A- 12
Table A-4 . Extreme Wind Shear Values in the High Dynamic Pressure Re£ion
For Apo1 10/Saturn 501 through Satu rn 513 Vehicles
( h = 1000 m)
-
PITCH PLA E YA PLA E
VEHICLE
UMBER SHEAR AL rT UDE SHEAR ALT TUDE
(SEC-1 ) KM (SEC-1 ) K~1
( FT) ( FT)
SA-50 1 0. 0066 10 .00 0. 0067 10. 00

(32 ,800 ) (32 .800 )
SA-502 0. 0125 14 .90 0. 0084 13. 28
(48,900 ) (43,500 )
SA-503 0.-0103 16 .00 0. 0157 15 . 78
(52 .S00) (51 ,800)
SA-504 0.0248 15 .1 5 0.0254 14.68
(49,700) (48,160)
SA-505 0. 0203 15.30 0.0125 15.53
(50,200) (50,950)
SA- 506 0. 0077 14.78 0. 0056 10 . 30
(48,490) (33,790 )
SA-507 0. 0183 14 .25 0.0 178 14.58
(46 .750) (47, 820)
SA-508 0. 0166 15.43 0.0178 13. 98
(50,610) (45,850)
SA-509 0. 020 1 13.33 0. 0251 11. 85

(43 _720) (38,880)
SA- 510 0.011 0 1.23 0.0071 14.43
(36.830) (47,330)
SA-511 0. 0095 13.65 0.0114 15.50
(44 . 780) (50.850)
SA- 512 0. 0177 7.98 0.0 148 10.65
(26,164 ) (34 940)
SA-513 0. 0139 14.05 0. 0107 9.2 5
(46, 09 5) (30 ,34 7)
A-13
A.5 THERMODYNAMIC DATA
Comparisons of the thermodynamic data taken at SA-513 launch time with
the annual Patrick Reference Atmosphere, 1963 (PRA-63) for temperature,
pressure, density, and Optical Index of Refraction are shown in Figures
A-8 and A-9, and are discussed in the following paragraphs.
A.5.1 Atmospheric Temperature
Atmospheric temperature differences were small, generally deviating
less than 3 percent from the PRA-63, below 63 kilometers (206,690 feet)
altitude. Temperatures did deviate to 2.5 percent of the PRA-63 value
at 14.50 km (47,572 feet). Air temperature was warmer than the PRA-63
at the surface and oscillated about the PRA-63 above this level. See
Figure A-8 for the complete profile.
A. 5.2 Atmospheri c Pressure
Atmospheric pressure deviations I'lere slightly greater than the PRA-63
pressure values from the surface through 26 kilometers (85,301 feet)
altitude. The peak deviation of 1.1 percent occurred at 17.85 kilometers
(58,562 feet) al titude. See Figure A-8.
A.5.3 Atmospheric Density
Atmospheric density deviations were also small, being within 3 percent
of the PRA-63 below 35 kilometers (114,828 feet) altitude. The density
deviation reached a maximum of 3.0 percent greater than the PRA-63
value at 18.25 kilometers (59,875 feet) as shown in Figure A-9.
A.S.4 Optical Index of Refraction
,
,
~
The Optical Index of Refraction at the surface was 10.4 x 10-6 units lower
than the corresponding value of the PRA-63. The deviation then became
less negative with altitude, and approximated the PRA-63 at high altitudes,
as is shown in Figure A-9. The maximum value of the Optical Index of
Refraction was 1.39 x 10- 6 units greater than the PRA-63 at 13.25
kilometers (43,471 feet).
A.6 COMPARISON OF SELECTED ATMOSPHERIC DATA FOR SATURN V LAUNCHES
A summary of the atmospheric data for each Saturn V launch is shown in
Table A-5.
A-14
~6
•• 1 • I I I
64 • I
62 I,
- - - 140
! • • I
60
58
'0
54
52
- - 130
!Xl
N
48 '"
ill
46 ... g
~
44
42
• I
.
...
C<
0
~ - - 120
40
"'! ::;
"' ~
38
. .. 19
.!
36 I . , I I
1 1 !5
"' I. • I
~
34
~
~ - - - 110 r
3?
i _.
tf
)J
!
28
26 - - 100
24
22
2Q --90
18 ' 1.'<1 '

N
N
N
---eo
14
~
12 I I .,
~
0
• I I ,
• f I + .
~ - - - 10
10
I I
" , I i
• • t --60
0
·6
'. -2
RELATIVE OEVI AT ION or UMPEMTUR£ , PEIICEN

-10 -8 -6
RUATIVE OEVIATION
-4 -2
or
,
PRESSURE. PERCEN
t
10
:1
12
---50
- --40
--30
- -- 20
Fi gure A- 8. Rela t i ve De viati on of Tem pera turA and Pr essure from the PRA-6 3 Referenc e
Atmosph e re, SA- 513 (SL - l)
A- 15
66
, t I I,
I
. ' • I
6.
• I • .. ,.
• • I
62 • j
.. - - 1. 0
60
S8
S6
S4
S2
T
- - 10
SO
~
"'""
48
46 :I ~
<.~
44
• t . • I
• I
..,.,'"
42 ' .
• I ~ -- 120
'0 '"
0
38 .,
I ' ~
• r
36 · ! ·!
34 ., I ' •
.. --
.li
...
32 ·.
• I
11 0
'"<>
........
<> 30 ...l..J ~.......J......
'"
~
~
!
28
.,t3
26
-- 100 ~
,.
22
20 - - 90
18
...
16 '"
'"
~
- - 80
" • • •. ~ 6'
t l ; 3', 10 .
~
11
·.
• I - - 70
10 ...~
""
. 60
~O
.0
]0
20
0
-1 0 -8 -6 -. -2
RU ATI V( O( VI ATI
0
or
2 • 6 8
O(NSI T. P(RClNT
10
IJl SOlUH O(VIA1!ON or nil OPTIC AL INOH or
3 10
RHRACTIOII. 10-
6
Fi gure A- g. Relative Devia tio n of Dens i ty and Absolute Deviation of th e

In dex of Ref racti on From the PRA-6 3 Reference At mosphe re ,
SA- 5l 3 (SL-l)
A-16
Table A-5. Selected Atmospheric Observations f or Apollo/Saturn 501 through
Saturn 513 Vehicle Launches at Kennedy Space Center, Florida
VEHICLE DATA SURFACE DATA INFLIGHT CONDITIONS
TIME RELATI VE WIND" MAXI MU~l WIND IN 8-16 KM LAYER

VEHICLE DATE NEAkES T LAUNCH PRESSURE TEMPERA- HUMIDITY CLOUDS
NUItiE R COMpLEX N/cr~2 TURE ' C PERCENT SPEE D 01 RECTION ALT ITUDE SPEED 01 RECT I ON
MIN UTE ~ fS DEG KM M/S DEG I
SA-501 9 Nov 67 0700 EST 39A 10.261 17.6 55 8. 2" 070"" 4/ 10 stratocumulus 11.50 26.0 273 I
SA-502 4 Apr 68 0700 EST 39A 10 . 200 20.9 83 5. 4** 132** 5/10 s tratoc umulus . 13. 00 27.1 255
1/10 ci rrus
SA-503 21 Dec 68 0751 EST 39A 10.207 15.0 88 5.7** 348" 4/10 ci rrus 15.22 34 . 8 284
SA-504 3 r~ar 69 1100 EST 39A 10.095 19.6 61 6.9 160 7/10 stratocumu1us . 11. 73 76.2 264
10/10 al tostratus
SA-50S 18 May 69 1249 EDT 39B 10 . 190 26 . 7 75 <.i .8 142 4/10 cumulus. 14.18 42 .5 270
2/ 10 altocumulus.
10/1 0 ci rrus
SA- 506 16 Ju l 69 0932 EDT 39A 10.203 29. 4 73 3.3 175 1/10 cumulus , 11.40 9.6 297
~
2/ 10 a1tocumu1u> ,
I 9/ 10 cirrostratus
-'
-....J SA-50 7 14 Nov 69 1122 EST 39A 10.081 20.0 6.8 10/ 10 stratocumu 1us 14. 23 47.6
....... 92 L80 245
~ wi th rain
I
-' SA-508 11 Apr 70 1413 EST 39A 10. 119 24. 4 57 6.3 105 4/ 10 al tocumulus 13 .5B 55.6 252
co 10/1 0 ci rros tratus
SA-509 31 Jan 71 1603 EST 39A 10.102 21. 7 B6 5.0" 255** 7/10 cumul us 13.33 52.8 255
B. 5" 275** 2110 al tocumulus
SA-SID 26 Ju1 71 0934 EDT 39A 10. 196 29 . B 6B 5. 1** 156 ** 7/ 10 ci rrus 13.75 lB.6 063
5. 4"* 15B**
SA-5 11 16 Apr n. 1254 EST 39A 10.1B3 31. 2 44 6.3 269 2/10 cumulus 11.85 26.1 257
5.1 256
SA-512 7 Dec 72 0033 EST 39A 10 .201 21.1 93 4. 1 005 2/10 strato cumulus, 12 .1 B 45.1 311
5.4 335 5/10 ci rrus
SA-51 3 14 May 73 1330 EDT 39A 10 . 171 30.0 53 5.1 155 3/10 cumulus 12.70 34.4 267
5. 1 177 3/10 stratocumulus
6/ 10 altocumulus
5/10 ci rrus
*Instantaneous read ings from charts at T-O ( unl ess othe~ise note d) frum anemometers on lau nch pad 39 (A & B) light pole
at IB .3 m (60.0 ft) . Beginning with AS-509 , wi nd measurements were required at t he 161. 5 m (510 ft ) level from
anemomete r charts on the LUT . These instantaneo us LUT winds are given directly under the li sted pad light pole win ds .
Heights of anemometers are above natural grade.
**Not l nstantaneous, but one mi nute ave rage about T-O.
APPENDIX B
Sl-1/SA-S13 SIGNIFICANT CONFIGURATION CHANGES ,t-
B.l INTRODUCTION
The Sky1ab-1 (Sl-l) space vehicle consisting of the SA-513 launch Vehic'le
and the Saturn Work Shop (SWS) is the first to be launched in the
.1.
i Skylab series. The SA-S13 launch Vehicle booster is comprised of
Saturn V hardware as follows: S-IC-13 stage for initial boost; S-II-13
t stage for final boost into a near circular earth orbit; and IU-S13
stage, located in the SWS, to provide sequencing and guidance commands
for the space vehicle during launch, ascent and payload orbital
insertion. The SWS is the orbital payload of SL-l and is comprised of
. , the Payload Shroud, Orbital Work Shop, Airlock Module, Multiple
I
. i
I
Docking Adapter, and Apollo Telescope Mount and LU stage. The IU
, ,
i
stage, structurally a part of th~ Saturn Work Shop, provi~es initial
sequencing and attitude control commands to the SWS in addition to
being a functional part of the SA-Sll Launch Vehicle. Figure B-1
shows the Sky1ab Space Vehicle configuration.
B.2 S-IC STAGE
B.2.1 S-IC Configuration
The S-IC Stage, as shown in Figure B-2, is a cylindrical structure designed
to provide the initial boost for the Saturn V/Sky1ab-1 vehicle. This
booster stage is 138 feet long and has a diameter of 33 feet. The basic
structures of the S-IC are the thrust structure, fuel (RP-l) tank,
intertank secti on, LOX tank, and the forward ski rt. Attached to the
thrt,lst structure are the five F-l engin2s which produce a combined
nominal sea level thrust of 7;610,000 1bf. Four of these engines are
spaced equidistantly about a 30.33 foot diameter circle. The four out-
board engines are attached so they have a gimbal ling capability. Each
outboard engine can-move in a S degree, 9 minute square pattern to pro-
vide pitch, yaw, and roll control. The fifth engine is mounted on the
stage centerline. In addition to supporting the engines, the thrust
structure also provides support for the base heat shield, engine accessories,
engine fairings and fins, propellant lines, retro motors, and environmental
control ducts. The intertank structure provides structural continuity
between the LOX and fuel tanks, which provide propellant storage; and the
forward skirt provides structural continuity wi~h the S-II stage.
B.2.2 S- I C Sys terns
Systems on the S-IC include:
,
r"~ . B..;l
T EL ESCOP E MOU T (ATMI
MULTIPLE DOCKIN G A DAPTER (MDA)
AIRLOC K MODULE (AM I
INSTRUMENT UNIT (l UI
ORBI TAL WORKSHOP (OWSI
- -+--S·II STAG E
5 J·2 ENG INES
__-+-- S·IC STAGE
t;-.;;.~~j~l1r- 5 F· l ENGINES
Figure 8-1. Sky1ab Spa ce Vehicle Configuration
8- 2
FORWARD
SKIRT
GOX
DISTRIBUTOR
:T 19 .53 M OX I DI ZER
(64 .08 FT) (LOX)
TANK
a.!!U"",",~YIN
T6 . 67 I NTERTANK
M SE CTI ON
(21.87 FT)
-.L
13 .13 M FUEL
( 43 .08 FT) (RP-l )
TANK
1
J
5.93 M
119 . 47 FT ) TH RUST
STRUCTURE
FIN C
FLIGHT CONTI()L ENGINE

SERVOACTUATOR FAIRING
RETRO
AND FIN
Figure 8-2. S-IC Sta ge Config ura tion

8- 3
a. Propulsion System as discussed in paragraph B.2.1.
b. Propellant Storage and Delivery System. The fuel tank, with 29,301
ft3 capacity, supplies RP-l and the oxidizer tank, with 47,369 ft 3
capacity, supplies LOX to the engines.
c. Propellant Pressurization System. Maintains required prc'pellant

inlet pressure to the engine turbopumps and provides for tank
venting.
d. Retro Motor System. Eight solid propellant retro motors, located

inside the four outboard engine fairings and attached to the thrust
structure, provide separation thrust after S-IC burnout.
e. Purge System. This system provides pressurized nitrogen to
various engine subsystems and cocoons to reduce concentration of
hazardous gases or fo r thermal condi ticn i ng .
f. The Pneumatic Control Pressure System which provides a pressurized

nitrogen supply for command operations of various pneumatic valves.
g. The POGO Sup~ression System. This system provides gaseous helium

to a cav; ty 1 n each of the LOX preva 1ves of the four outboard
engine suction lines. These gas filled cavities act as a "spring"
and serve to lower the natural frequency of the feed system and
thereby prevent coupling between engine thrust oscillations and
the first longitudinal mode of the vehicle structure.
h. The Hydraulic System. This system distributes power to operate the
engine valves and thrust vector control system.
i. The Electrical System. This system distributes and controls the

stage electri cal. power.
j. The Environmental Control System. (ECS). This system protects the
S-IG stage compartments from temperature extremes, excessive humidity
and hazardous gas concentrations.
k. The Instrumentation System. This system monitors functional opera-
tion of the stage systems and provides signals for vehicle tracking
during S-IC burn.
The more significant configuration changes between AS-S12 S-IC and SA-S13
S-IC are shown in Table ,B-l.
B.3) S- II STAGE
B.3.l S-II Configuration·
The S-II Stage, as shown in Figure B~3, is a cylindrical structure
B-4
Table B-1. S-IC Significant C~nfiguration Changes
SYSTEM CHANGE REASON
F-l Engines Provide 1-2-2 Engine To avoid exceeding

Cutoff Sequence structural design
limits of the Apollo
Telescope Mount (ATM)
at outboard engine
; cutoff.
"
;
designed to provide second stage boost of the Skylab payload into earth
· ; orbit. This booster stage is 81.5 feet long and 33 feet in diameter.
Propulsive power is provided by five J-2 engines with a combined nominal
thrust of 1,158,279 lbf. The four outboard engines are provided with
gimballing capability to provide attit:ude control in pitch, roll and
yaw during powered flight. The fifth engine is mounted on the stage
centerl ine.
The S-II stage is made UP of five major units: (1) aft interstage,
(2) aft skirt thrust structure, (3) liquid oxygen tank, (4) liquid
hydrogen tank, and (5) forward skirt.
B.3.2 S-II Systems
Systems on the S-II include:
a. Propulsion System as discussed in paragraph B.3.1.

b. Propellant Storage and Deliver'y System. The fuel tank with 37,,737
ft 3 capacity supplies LH2 and the oxidizer tank with 12,745 ft j
capacity supplies LOX to the engines. The two tanks are separated
by a common bulkhead.
Propellant Pressurization System. Maintains requiredpropellant
inlet pressure to the engine turbopumps and provides for tank venting.
Purge System. This system provides for thermal cC)l1trol of equip-
ment containers in the forward and aft S-II skirt areas, S-II
engine compartment, and S-II/S-IC interstage during 1 aunch operations.
Pneumatic System. This system provides a pressurized nitrogen
supply for operation of stage pneumatic valves.
safir:ty System. This system provides for non-propulsive venting of

prope 1ant tanks and gas storage bottl esafter end of powered
fl ight.·
g. Fl ight Control Subsystem. The fl i ght control subsystem incorporates
\ .
f FORWARD SKIRT
3.5 M
VEHICLE
STATION t (11-1/2 FT)
2519
___ FORWARD BULKHEAD
I LIQUID HYDROGEN
J6 17.1 M
FTJ
TANK "
1069 M3
(3 7,737 CU FT)
OJ
24.8 M LH2/LOX COMMON
I
C"I
(81-1/2 FT) BULKHEAD
~ LIQUID OXYGEN
6. 7 M TANK
(2~ FT) 361 M3
~ (12,745.5 CU FT)
~ r 4.42 M AFT SKIRT

, (1 4-1 /2 FT) THRUST
STRUCTURE
~ 5.56 M
(18-1/4 FT) INTERSTAGE
VEHICLE
STATION
I_-- 10.1 M
t
1541 (33 FT)
Figure B-3. S-II Stage Configuration
a self-contained hydraulic system for gimbal control of the
engines. A continuously operating closed-loop hydraulic system
is provided for each outboard engine to control engine gimball ing.
h. Instrumentation. The instrllTlentation system acquires and transmits
data associated with vehicle performance and its environment. The
system consists of transducers, signal conditioners, telemetry
equipment, and RF equipment.
i. Electrical Subsystem. The electrical power system contains
battery power to supply inflight electrical power and distributes
the power to various equipment containers and other major subsystems.
j. Environmental Control Subs.rstems. The environmental control sub-
systems consist of two baslc subsystems: the thermal control
system for thennal protection of equipment containers on the ground
including containers in forward and aft skirt and engine com-
partment conditioning system for purging and temperature control of
the S-II/S-IC interstage during launch operations.
Significant configuration changE~s between S-II-12 and S-II-13 are shown
in Table B-2.
Table B-2. S-II Significant Configuration Changes
SYST£M CHANGE REASOII
Structure Increase the effective venting area of the S-I1 To regulate intem.l skirt pressu,.., during ascont
fo ..... ard skirt by 46 square inches. within the 5-11 skirt and OWS interstage design
limi ts
Additi~n of closures and sealant to aft ends of To minimize s-Ie plume-induced flow sep.ration heating
5-11 fa; rings. on ordna"ce and propellant line. under fairings.
Modify the engine heat shield flexible curtains To.protect thrust struct.,.., and sta~e/englne cOlllponents
by use of improved materials. during increased base he.tlng frOlll arger n<Jllin.l
engine deflections with one engine out.
Addition of 2400 p~unds of lead ballast bolted to To decrease the collision prob.bility between engines
the Interior support structure Qf the SoU and interstage during separatiOfl with one engine out.
Inters tage.
Propulsion Installation of non-propulsive Overnoard vent To achieve .quat force venting from two di_trically
lines for the LOX and LH2 propellant tanks. opposed nonles for .ach tank. Propellant tank
venting is reQuired for S-l! stage safing. sequenced
after S-W SWS separation.
Use of existing engine and stage systems to vent To reduce engine tank pressures during stage safing.
engine hel ium ond hydrogen tanks. sequenced ofter S-lI/SWS separatiOfl.
Electrical Addition'of circuitry, timers, and ordnance for To sequence stoge safing functions and provide ord-
sequencing stage safing functioris~ nanc. for actuatin9 the LOX and lH2 non-propUlsive
valv!s.
Addition of instrunentatlon measurements in safing To mon; tor sys tems performance.
ci rcuitry and non-propu]s Ion vent sys terns.
Addi tion of redundant c"",,,,nds for S-II interstage
se~aration and for S-ll/SWS separaUOfl event•.
To increase reliability of arming and triggering
these functions
B.4 INSTRUMENT UNIT (IU)

B. 4. 1 IU Configuration
The IU, as shown in Figure B-4, is a short cylinder fabricated from an
aluminum alloy honeycomb sandwich material and although functionally a
B-7
ST-124M LAUNCH VEHICLE FLIGHT CONTROL
ELECTRONI C DIGITAL COMPUTER COMPUTER
ASSY
PLATFORM
AC POWER POSITION III
SUPPLY
RACKS
POSITION IV __ _
co
I ST-124
00
PLATFORM
ASSEMBLY
... --POSITION II
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTROL DUCTS
POSITION
NOTE: OUTER SKIN SHOWN REMOVE D

FOR CLARITY.
Figure 8- 4. Instrument Un it Configurati on

a part of the booster vehicle, is structurally a part of the Saturn
Work Shop. The lU provides sequencing commands for both the booster
and Saturn Work Shop and provides guidance, navigation, and control
commands to the booster. The lU has a diameter of 21.6 feet and a
length of 3 feet. The cylinder is manufactured in three 120 degree
segments which are joined by splice plates into an integral load bearing
unit. The top and bottom edges of the cylinder are made from extruded
aluminum channels bonded to the honeycomb sandwich material. Cold
plates are attached to the interior of the cylinder which serve both
as mounting structure and thenna1 conditioning units for the e1ectrical/
electronic equipment.
B.4.2 lU Systems
Sys terns on the lU are!
a. The Environmental Control System (ECS) which maintains an acceptable
environment for the lU equipment.
b. The electrical system which supplies and distributes electrical
power to the various systems.
c. The navigation, guidance, and control system.
d. The measurements and telemetry system which monitors and transmits
signals to ground monitoring stations.
e. The flight program which controls the LVDC from seconds before
liftoff until the end of the launch vehicle mission.
The more significant configuration changes between AS-512 lU and SA-513
lU are shown in Table B-3.
B.~ SATURN WORK SHOP (SWS)
B.5.1 SWS Configuration
The SWS, shown in Figure B-5 in the deployed configuration with the
Command and Service Module docked, is composed of an Orbi tal Work Shop
(OWS); an Airlock Module (AM); a Multiple Docking Adapter (MDA); a
Saturn V Instrument Unit; an Apollo Telescope Mount (ATM); and a Payload
Shroud. '
I'
The Orbital Work Shop is a modified S-IVB Stage which has been fitted
out to be suitable for manned habitation, and for the performance of
experiments in orbit, and provides:
a. A habitable environment, with crew provisions and consumables;
b. A capability for experiment installation and storage before launch
and operational space during manned phases;
B-9-
Table B-3. IU Significant Configuration Differences Between IU-5l2 and IU-5l3
SYSTEM CHPNGE REASON
Environmental Early shutdown of GSCU to pennit partial O(ail-fage of Temperature levels anticipated would result in pressures
Control secondary coolant loop. beyond proven capability of secondary coolant 100:>
system.
Modify TCS Absence of an S-IVB fOI'Ward skirt cooling system requires
coolant lines simulating S-IVB TCS to maintain IU TCS
o Delete provision of cool log to s-Ive stage pertonnance characteri s ti cs.
fOl'\'lard sk i rt
o Add S-IVB simulation loop in IU to represent

the deleted S-IVB TCS
Delete IU hazardous gas system sampling capabil ity. No requi re~lent to ~ense for hazardous gases within OWS/
IU area of SL-l.
Delay initial ~/ater valve opening from liftoff +180 Nece~sary to delay water solenoid valve opening until
seconds to 1 i ftoff +350 seconds. internal compartment pressure;' below maximum level
r,ecessary for adequate subl imator operation.
Structures Modify cork exterior surface insulation and Potential contamination of critical optical systems
configuration. requi red reduction of outgassing frolll cork insulation.
Add reinfordny plates to all aft .1'lr!'rface bolt Analysi~ showed that SL-l r.ension loads could result In
holes to provide load safety facto;' iJf 1.25. yielding of aft interface flange.
Relocate thennal expansion chamber to coldplate 11. .ieat load frolll constdnt solar attitude of SWS would
Paint exterior of IU white at location 7 to reduce result in over-pressurization of the secondary coolant
coolant manifold absorbed heat. loop of the thennal conditioning system.
Instrumenta- Move CCS c<lnpooents from solar illuminated side of Solar inertial attitude maintained by Skyliib results
ti(ln and vehicle to shaded side. Delete coaxial switch and in excessive CCS cOlllponent temperatures afteo' ECS
COfI111unicat ions directional antenna. Add electrical load. opera ti on ceases. Oi recti ona 1 antenna not requi red
for orbital mission. Electrical load needed to
ensure passivation of CCS battery (6020).
Navigation. Modify the Flight Control Computer (FCC) r.ontrol Prov; de sa tis fac tory s tabil i ty and response
Guidance & gains and shaping networks to satisfy S-IU-513 characteriHics for SA-513.
Control design requirements.
Networks Provide expulsion control of battery electrolyte NonOlal battery venting could cause expulsion of
through use of a battery covering pad and a mem- battery electrolyte.
brane filter.
Modify IIJ/S-IVB electrical interface. Change 01' S-I VB stage to Sa turn Work Shop.
Provide an open loop [oS. Skylab-l will be launched unmanned.

Provide 5-11 en9ine ou t interrupt to LVOA. Redundant indications of S-Il engine out needed for
lVDA timing functions due to S-II velocity cutoff
in lieu of S-Il fuel depletion cutoff.
De lete Q-Ba 11. Q-Bal1 previously required for manned missions - not
required for SL-l.
LVDC Used a fixed (prestored) acceleration pO'oflle in place Reduce the possibility of introducing large errors In
of the downrange (Z) and cross range (V) accelerometer navigation due to vibration near liftoff.
output for the first 10 seccnds of flight.
Added a conCined Xy and Xz maneuver as opposed t, a IOlprove towe,r;,.;,voi dance capabi 1 i ty for SL-l.
Xz only inaneuver to steer the vehicle away from· .)he
laupch u,nb i1 i ca 1 tOiler.
Provide capabil! ty for both Xy and Xz contl1ands during !mprov.~ vehicle stability.
S-IC stage burn. Computer Xy and Xz as a tabular
function of time.
Provide scale fact~rs which produce an effective Requires less TACS for deadband control.
attitude error deadband of 30 of roll and ZO in
both pi tch and yaw.
Mainbin attitude hold (Cht freeze) fr<ln't4+0 until Necessary to accomplish Sl-l guidance functions.
T4+ 10 seconds '.
Compute cormra~ds to maneuver to payload shroud

jettison attitude (local verticill maneuver nose
down. )
Canputer cOl1lllands :to maneuver to sol·ar inertl.al

attitude. ' }
Compute the minor loop guidance colllftand rde 1 tmits To limit vehicle COll'llland rate to deployed Skylab
as a function of the attitude error In each axis structural limitat.ions.
such that the root-sum-squares do riot exceed 0.3 0 1
second.
ORBITAL WORK SHOP (OW S) ~
SOLAR ARRAY \ AUX TUNNEL (NOT VISIBLE, LOCATED

SYSTEM (SAS) BETWEEN VEHICLE POSITION I AND II )
WING NO . 1- \
METEOROID Z
.~
SHIELD (:S~
Y
APOLLO TELESCOPE MOUNT
DEPLOYMENT ASSEMBLY
,
OJ (ATM/DA) IV
---- SAS
WING NO. 2
Figure B- 5. Saturn Work Shop (SWS) i n Orbita l Configuration

c. Cold gas attitude control system for varying the attitude of the
cl us ter;
d. A solar array power source, mounting provision for the array and
routing of power to an electrical power management and distribu-
tion system;
e. Storage of cluster waste material.
The habitable portion of the Work Shop is shown in Figure B-6.
Six cold gas thrusters are mounted in two diametrically opposed locations
on the aft end of the Work Shop to provide attitude control augmenting
the three control moment gyros located in the Apollo Telescope Mount.
Solar arrays, consisting of two wings, are mounted outside the Work
Shop to generate electrical power in conjunction with the power generated
by the solar arrays mounted on the Apollo Telescope Mount.
A meteorQid shield der>loys some six inches radially from the outer
surface of the Work Shop to provide thermal radiation shielding and
protection from meteoroids.
The Airlock Module provides a structural support for the modules located
forward of the Work Shop, provides a habitable passagfrway between the
Work Shop and the Multiple Docking Adapter, and contains an airlock
for as tronaut EVA acti viti es.
The structural assembly consists of a tunnel section, a structural
transition section for attachment to the MDA, truss assemblies for
support of the tunnel section and gas supply containers./ the deployment
assembly for the ATM, and the Fixed Airlock Shroud (FAS).
Electrical power, environmental control, and communications support·
providediby the Airlock Module to Skylab includes the following:
a. Eiglht rechargeable batteries with individual charger/regulator
units provide a total average output capability of 3830 watts.
The batteries are charged by the solar array on the Orbital Work
Shop.
b. An acti ve/pass ive radi ator thennal control system (16,000 Btu/hour
heat rejection), umbilical provisions for extra-vehicular activity,
and the cluster's 5 psia, nitrogr-p and oxygen atmosphere supply and
air purification systems.
,
c. VHF systems for data and for command, and also delayed-time (recorded)
voice ·operating with redundant deployable antennas.
The Mul tiple Docking Adapter' p\pvi des docking facil ities for the COlllnand
8-12
il
AC CESS POS II
PORT
LI GHT I
FI XTURE
POS II I _ _ /II
FOOD FREEZER STORAGE - - POS I
COMPARTMENTS
HEATER FAN
ASSEMBLY
WASTE MANAGEMENT
COMPARTMENT FAN
SOLAR ARRAY SYSTEM
l3 EAM FAI RING --...... METEOROID
SL EE P SHIE LD
COMPARTMENT
WASTE
MANAGEMENT SOLAR
COMPARTMENT ARRAY
FAIRI NG
WARDROOM
FOOD MANAGEMENT
WASTE
DI SPOSAL
AI RLO Ct:
SOLID WAS TE
COLLECTION
SCREEN
WASTE
DISPOSAL TANK
~SOLAR ARRAY
WING NO . 2
Figure B-6. Saturn Work Shop Habitable Area
B-13
and Service Module. Two docking ports are provided: the prime docking
port is axially located on the forward end, and the backup port is
located on the side.
The Apollo Telescope Mount is a solar observatory with the capability
to observe, monitor, and record the structure and behavior of the Sun.
The Telescope Mount is supported by a deployment assembly. Throughout
launch and orbital insertion the module is stowed axially forward of
the Multiple Docking Adapter. After orbit insertion it is rotated 90°,
from the longitudinal 'axis of the cluster, to its operating position.
The ATM provides primary attitude control for the Skylab by means of
control moment gyros. Experiment pointing control ;s provided, to a
limited extent independent of the Skylab attitude, as a IIfine tuning ll
fun¢tionin ord~~ to assure the pointing orientation and accuracies
req~ired by the solar astronomy experiments. .
, ,
'
ATM so,lar arrays provide electrical power to Telescope Mount systems,
and also, in a power sharing role, to the Skylab as a whole.
The Saturn V Instrument Unit is structurally, a part of the Saturn Work
Shop and is discussed in Paragraph B.4.1 of the booster description.
I
The l payload shroud provides environmental and aerodynamic protection
for the Saturn Work Shop modules forward of the Airlock Module, and it
carries all ground and powered flight loads generated by the Apollo
Telescope Mount. Jettison is accomplished by pyrotechnic devices
initiated by commands from the Instrument Unit after orbital insertion.
I
I
APPROVAl!.
SATURN V LAUNCH VEHICLE FLI€HT EVALUATION REPORT
SA-513, SKYLAB-l
By Sa.turn Flight Evaluation Working Group
The information in this report has been reviewed for security classifi-
cation. Review of any information concerning Department of Defense or
Atomic Energy Conmission programs has been made by the HSFC Security
Classification Officer.' The highest classification has been determined
to be unclassified .
..J~~ -<
~~,....,
Stanley L. Fragge
Security Classification Officer
This report has been reviewed and approved for technical accuracy.
?~ A .. J/7
{ ___~t:y~/1~f.,r~11
George H.McKay,Jrl
Chairman, Saturn Flight Evaluation Working Group
... -..,
'. /'
. __ '~..c..-. /( ')',.~-~. 1.'< .
. .. . ..
':< .(...... .,/. ,/ \ . . . ..:-'.j..eJ-(..,
. ;-He~man K. Weidnerl
,~ Di'rector t Science and Engi neer; ng
'~//~~
Richard G: Smith ",----
Saturn Program Manager
! "
i

Saturn V Launch Vehicle Flight Evaluation Report, SA-513, Skylab 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Saturn V Launch Vehicle Flight Evaluation Report, SA-513, Skylab 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GEORGE&.

CSCL 229 Unclds

SATURN V LAUNCH VEHICLE

N A TION A L AER O NA U T IC S A ND S PA C E ADM I N I STR A T IO N

S F C • F o rm 774 (Re v Oc t ober 1 967)

MPR·SAT ·FE· 73· 4 AUGUST 1, 1973

SI~ TURN V LAUNCH VEHICLE

Saturn V SA-513 (Skylab-l) was launched at 13:30:00 Eastern Oaylight

MISSION OBJECTIVES ACCOMPLISHMENT xxv Management t1

SECTION 1 - Introdudi on 5.7 S-IC Pneumatic Control Pressure 5-10 ;~

1.1 Purpose 1-1 System ;,)

3.3 Terminal, Countdown 3-1 System

J APPENDI~ B - SL-l/SA-S13 SIGNIFICANT

Figure Page Figure Page

1I SA-513 Longitudinal Acceleration 7-3 "

Pressure and S-II/SWS Separation

Figure Page Figure Page

10-4 IU 6040 Battery Parameters 10~8

Figure Page Figure Page

Failure (Artist Concept) Reference Atmosphere, SA-513

i A-2 500 Millibar Map Approxi-

A-4 Wind Direction at Launch A-8

~ 6-7 Phase -, Kilograms

A-3 Maximum Wind Speed in High A-12

This report is published by the Saturn Flight Evaluation Working Group,

ACN Ascension Islano DAC Data Acquisition Camera

1 GWI'1 Guam MDA Multiple Dockin9 Adapter

1 HA\~ Hawaii MILA Merritt Island Launch

PACSS Project Apollo Coordinate SL Skylab

Table 1. Mission Objective Accomplishments

2 After earth orbit insertion, Complete None 4

2.1 SUMMARY OF EVENTS

Table 2-1. Time Base Summary

VEHICLE TIME* GRoUrlD TINE**

To -16.95 -16.95 Guidance Reference Release

Tl 0.59 0.59 IU UlObil i ca 1 Di sconnect

*Range Time of occurrence as indicated by uncorrected LVDC c~ock,

o 2:00:00 4:00:00 6:00:00 8:00:00

* RANGE TIME OF GROUND RECEIPT OF TELEMETERED SIGNAL FROM VEHICLE.

Fi~ure 2-1. SA-513 LV DC Clock/Ground Time Difference

Figure 2-1 shows the difference between telemetry signal receipt at a

1 ~UIDANCE PEFERENCE RELEASE -17.0 0.0 -11.5 0.1

2 S-IC ENGINE STAR T SEQUENCE -8.9 0.0 ';q. '5 -0.1

5 S-IC ENGINE NO.3 START -f,.7 '0.0 -1.2 0.0

6 S-IC ENG r NE NO.2 START -6.7 0.0 -7.2 0.0

1 S-IC ENGII\E NO.4 START -6.3 0.0. -6.8 0.0

8 ALL S-IC ENGINES THRUST OK -1.8 -0.3 -2.4 -0.3

9 RANGE ZERO 0.0 -0.6

10 ALL HCUHJOWN ARMS RELEASED 0.2 0.0 -0.4 -0.1

11 IU UMBILICAL DISCONNECT, START 0.6 0.1 C.~.O, 0.0

12 BEGIN TOwER CLEARANCE PlTCH

13 END P]TCH ~ANEUVER 5. '8 0.1 5.2 0.0

14 BEGIN PITCH AND ROLL ~ANEUVER 12.2 1.0 1l.6 0.9

15 S-IC OUTBOARD ENGINE CANT ON 20.5 0.0 20.0 0.0

19 ~lIGHT CONTROL C OMPlITER SWITCH 105.5 0.0 105.0 0.0

20 FL IGHT CONTROL COMPUTER SWlTCH 130.6 0.1 130.0 0.0

21 S-IC CENTER ENGI NE CUTOFF 140.7 0.1 140.1 0.0

22 S-IC CENTER ENGINE CUTOFF 140.12 0.02 140.14 -0.04

25 BEGIN II LT ARREST 15q.l 1.0 11.3 0.9

27 5- IC ENGINES NO. 1 ~ 3 CUTOFF 158.16 0.00 17.37 ; -0 .07

32 S-lCI S- I I SEPARATION cm·,MAND 159.9

I,i 33 S-IC RETRO MOTilR EBw fIRE

34 SE PARA TI ON STRUC TURE

'1"- ..... " •••~..,.".,'-~~-~,. ..:C<'~~+'_'*""""':~<;'f:!>:C;lit~WN'SU~~.,.'-t1:~:T"t!';f\-;.'t:;r.::.,:~:'.:H::-::J..1:;~;".:t:._ .:,~

~-·~:r~'~~!""t •• 'ftiP'~(jf·!ikn~r-'_·.-¥iG'f_fit~;W;;~~m:?l"~u...~m~1~':J,. -t~'.~~~-:;:.~n;'S-:Z:::'::-!i;,~':'''';!:;A;f''.:!:r~~:::::".1~;·::·_ ", -,.'::