Launch Vehicle No. 5 Flight Evaluation

NASA-MSC-G-G-65-4
Supplemental Report No. 2
LAUNCH
VEHICLE NO. 5
X67-14136
FLIGHT ' »
EVALUATION t'U)
(NASA CR OR TMX OR AD NUMBER)
. s. Government Agencies Only
Engineering Report 13227-5

Published as Supplement 2
ini Program Mission Report Gemini V
MSC-G-R-65-4
by:
Aeronautics and Space Administration
Manned Spacecraft Center
Houston, Texas
October 1965
!PO 4__ «-i-^=^r „ JmJ 'Jit '.L—^ _
(NASA-CE-83092) L A U N C H VEHICLE N O . , 5 F1IGHT
E V A L U A T I O N (Hartin Co.) 269 p
Unclas
00/98 23570
rlr
Copy No.
Svernment Agencies Only
ER 13227-5 October 1965
I
LAUNCH
VEHICLE
LAUNCH V E H I C L E NO. 5
FLIGHT
EVALUATION (U)
A p p r o v e d by
L. J. R o s e . C. Curlander
Assistant Technical Director Technical Director
Test Evaluation
Published as Supplement 2
to the Gemini Program Mission Report Gemini V
MSC-G-R-65-lj-
by:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Manned Spacecraft Center
Houston, Texas
Prepared by For
MARTIN COMPANY, BALTIMORE DIVISION SPACE SYSTEMS DIVISION

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

PRIORITY DX-A2 Los Angeles, California
NO'..
AFFE. INTAINS INFORMATION
STATES THE UNITEf.
L LAWS,
IRAK
SPIONAGE
IN M.
PROHI PERSON IS
11
FOREWORD
This report has been prepared by the Gemini Launch Vehicle Pro-
gram Test Evaluation Section of the Martin Company, Baltimore Divi-
sion. It is submitted to the Space Systems Division, Air Force Systems
Command, in compliance with Contract AF04(695)-394.
ER 13227-5
Ill
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword ii
Summary vii
I. Introduction 1-1
II. System Performance II-1
A. Trajectory Analysis II-1
B. Payload Capability 11-39
C. Staging 11-39
D. Weight Statement 11-41
III. Propulsion System Ill-1
A. Engine Subsystem III-l
B. Propellant Subsystem Ill-19
C. Pressurization Subsystem 111-67
D. Environmental Control 111-78
IV. Flight Control System IV-1
A. Stage I Flight IV-1
B. Stage II Flight ' IV-8
C. Post-SECO Flight . IV-14
V. Hydraulic System V-l
A. Stage I.' V-l
B. Stage II V-6
VI. Guidance Systems VI-1
A. Radio Guidance System Performance VI-1
ER 13227-5
IV
CONTENTS (continued)^
Page
B. Spacecraft Inertial Guidance System Ascent

Performance VI-7
VII. Electrical System Analysis VII-1
A. Configuration VII-1
B. Countdown and Plight Performance VII-1
VIII. Instrumentation System VIII-1
A. Airborne Instrumentation VIII-1
B. Landline Instrumentation VIII-1
IX. Range Safety and Ordnance. EX-1
A. Command Control Receivers IX-1
B. MISTRAM _ . IX-1
C. Ordnance IX-3
X. Malfunction Detection System X-l
A. Configuration :. . . X-l
B. System Performance X-2
XI. Crew Safety XI-1
A. Prelaunch Winds Flight Simulations XI-1
B. Slow Malfunctioning Monitoring XI-6
XII. Airframe System XII-1
A. Structural Loads XII-1
B. POGO XII-20
C. Recovered Stage I Oxidizer Tank XII-27
XIII. AGE and Facilities XIII-1
A. Mechanical AGE XIII-1
ER 13227-5
CONTENTS (continued)
Page
B. Master Operations Control Set XIII-1
xin
C. Facilities ~2
XIV. Reliability XIV-1
A. Environmental Criteria XIV-1
B. Probability '.....' XIV-3

XV. Range Data XV-1
A. Data Distribution XV-1
B. Film Coverage XV-5
XVI. Prelaunch and Countdown Operations XVI-1
A. Prelaunch XVI-1
B. Launch Attempt Countdown Summary XVI-2
C. Recycle and Prelaunch Activity XVI-2
D. Countdown Summary XVI-3
XVII. Configuration Summary ' XVII-1

A. Launch Vehicle Systems Description XVII-1
B. Major Components XVII-3
XVIII. References '. XVIII-1
Appendix A: Summary of Gemini Launches A-l
ER 13227-5
Page intentionally left blank
Vll
SUMMARY
On 21 August 1965, Gemini-Titan No. 5 (GT-5) was launched suc-
cessfully from Complex 19, Cape Kennedy, Florida. Launch vehicle /
spacecraft separation was completed 356. 39 seconds after liftoff.
Spacecraft re-entry was accomplished after completion of 127. 9 iner-
tial orbits.
The 240-minute launch attempt countdown was picked up at 0818 '
hours GMT on 19 August and proceeded to T-10 minutes, at which time
a manual hold was initiated due to a problem in the spacecraft telem-
etry system. After holding for five minutes, the erector was raised
to provide the flight crew, with added protection against approaching
lightning and rain showers. At 1242 hours EST the launch was ter-
minated. Propellants were unloaded, recycle procedures were per-
formed, and propellant reloading was completed at 2258 hours EST on
20 August. The 240-minute launch countdown was picked up at 0500
hours EST on 21 August and continued without incident through liftoff
at 0900 hours EST. The spacecraft was inserted into an elliptical or-
bit with a perigee of 87 nautical miles and an apogee of 189 nautical miles.
All test objectives for the launch vehicle were achieved.
Stages I and II engines operated satisfactorily throughout powered
flight. Stage I burning time was 156. 875 seconds, with shutdown ini-
tiated by an oxidizer exhaustion. Stage II engine operation was ter-
minated by a guidance command after 179.74 seconds of operation,
and utilized the redundant engine shutdown system (RESS).
The flight control system (FCS) maintained satisfactory vehicle
stability during Stages I and II flight. The primary FCS was in com-
mand throughout the flight. Vehicle rates during Stage I flight never
exceeded 1. 7 deg/sec, and the maximum attitude error was 1. 4 degrees.
The maximum rate and attitude error that occurred during staging did
not exceed 2. 6 deg/sec and 1. 3 degrees, respectively.
The radio guidance system (RGS) performance was satisfactory.
Pitch and yaw commands were received by the decoder and properly
transmitted to the FCS; the SECO signal also was transmitted properly
by the decoder.
IGS pitch, yaw and roll performance for the entire flight appeared
normal except for a yaw attitude error step at SECO + 4. 6 seconds.
The dispersions between IGS and primary system attitude errors re-
mained within acceptable limits.during powered flight.
The hydraulic system operated satisfactorily during launch opera-

tions and both stages of flight. The pump response during engine start
was normal and there was no evidence of stiction.
ER 13227-5
Vlll
The electrical system functioned as designed throughout the launch

countdown and flight. Power transfer to vehicle batteries was smooth.
All channels of the PCM instrumentation system functioned satis-
factorily throughout flight, resulting in 100% data acquisition. The
landline instrumentation system also functioned satisfactorily prior
to and up to liftoff. All airborne instrumentation hold functions moni-
tored in the blockhouse remained within specification throughout the
countdown.
The ordnance system umbilical dropweight release, propulsion sys-
tem prevalves, explosive launch nuts and stage separation nuts oper-
ated as designed. The performances of the command control receivers
and the MISTRAM transponder were satisfactory. Two dips in the
command control receiver RF carrier signal strength were experienced,
but were not below the receiver threshold.
Malfunction detection system (MDS) performance during preflight
checkout and flight was satisfactory. There were no switchover com-
mands during the flight.
The flight environment encountered by GT-5 was within design re-
quirements. Flight loads were well within the launch vehicle's struc-
tural capabilities. The most critical loading (which occurred at pre-
BECO, aft of Station 320) reached 98. 5% of design limit-load, which
represents only 72. 5% of tested strength.
The longitudinal oscillation (POGO) on GT-5 reached a maximum
value at Station 280 of 0. 38 g zero-to-peak at a frequency of 11. 4 cps
at LO + 129 seconds. This was the largest POGO experienced on any
Gemini flight and was caused by undersize ullage volume within the
oxidizer standpipes.
A 23-foot section of the Stage I oxidizer tank was recovered from
the Atlantic Ocean by the destroyer U. S. S. Dupont.
Grew safety monitoring which was conducted at NASA-MSC was
active during both the launch attempt and the launch. All guidance
monitor parameters were nominal and no corrective action was re-
quired during the flight. A telemetry dropout of 1. 5 seconds occurred
on both strip chart recorders at LO + 1 4 4 seconds.
The precount operation progressed without problems for both the
launch attempt and launch. All AGE and facilities operated without
incident during both countdowns. Propellant loading was completed
within the scheduled time span and to the specified load and tempera-
ture limits for the launch attempt and the launch.
ER 13227-5
IX
All electrical umbilicals disconnected properly in the planned se-

quence. Engine blast and heat damage to the launch stand was minor
and less than that from previous launches.
GLV-5 Test Objectives and Results
Objective Results
Primary
P-l Demonstrate satisfactory P-l Orbit insertion was within
boost by the launch ve- the predicted tolerance for
hicle system of a manned V, h and Y.
Gemini spacecraft into
the prescribed orbital
insertion conditions.
P-2 Evaluate launch vehicle P-2 All systems performed
subsystem performance satisfactorily throughout
during powered flight flight. The longitudinal
for mission success and oscillation (POGO) reached
crew safety. a peak of 0. 38 g zero.-to-
peak at a frequency of
11.4 cps at Station 280,
but did not compromise
crew safety.
Secondary
S-l Demonstrate launch S-l The four-hour countdown
countdown procedure for progressed without incident
applicability to rendez- and liftoff occurred on
vous missions. schedule. A successful
recycle was accomplished.
S-2 Evaluate trajectory per- S-2 Vehicle flight was within
formance of the launch the 3-sigma predicted tra-
vehicle system for re- jectory.
fining future mission
capability and predic-
tions for future missions.
S-3 Demonstrate ability to S-3 Tanks were loaded within
load propellants to the the required tolerances of
weight and tempera- weight and temperature.
ture limits imposed by
payload and vehicle re-
quirements.
ER 13227-5
\I
1-1
I. INTRODUCTION
This report presents an engineering evaluation of Gemini Launch

Vehicle No. 5 (GLV-5) systems performance during the countdown,
launch and powered flight phase of the Gemini 5 mission. Pertinent-
details of the launch attempt of 19 August 1965 also are included.
A portion of the launch vehicle's first stage was recovered from the
Atlantic Ocean shortly after Stage I burnout; a brief description'of its
condition is contained herein.
The Gemini-Titan No. 5 (GT-5) vehicle was launched from Complex

19, Cape Kennedy, Florida at 0900 hours EST on 21 August 1965.
GT-5 was the fifth mission and the third manned flight of the Gemini
Program, with astronauts L. Gordon Cooper and Charles tonrad aboard
the spacecraft. The eight-day mission, representing a record flight,
was completed successfully on 29 August 1965.
The GT-5 vehicle was comprised of the two-stage GLV-5 (similar

to GLV-4) and the Gemini 5 spacecraft. The spacecraft was injected
into an elliptical orbit having a perigee of 87 nautical miles and an
apogee of 189 nautical miles.
Significant events and tests for GLV-5 at ETR are summarized in

Fig. 1-1.
ER 13227-5
1-2
cd
.— i
C
Q
"•3
3
<!
3
Events
D-
CO
GLV-5 on dock, ETR
Erection of GLV-5
CM
CO
Subsystem reverification (SSRT)
J
CM
CD
I Pre- spacecraft mate verification test
*
en
-4-)
03
a)
SH
-*->
•rH
-2
0)
"rt
"rt
•a
-a
•i-H
w
W
Q)
0)
o
rt
,—1
a)
-+->01
o
0
o
c
rt
M
rr
en
Joint guidance and control (JG&C) t-

^
Joint combined systems test (JCST)

5
CD
Flight configuration mode test (FCMT)

r-t
CO
c-
G
1—1
Special tanking (GTD- 19-084, Addendur

C"J
Q
^
05
Wet mock simulated launch (WMSL) SL
\_
ER 13227-5
™
^
CM
CO
Spacecraft demate and modification

CD
^
I Spacecraft mate
ffl
CM
rH
1 Launch vehicle and spacecraft retest

n
^
Simulated flight test (SFT)
I Launch (first attempt)

CT> CM
^
Launch
cd
<H
c
o
•H
H
o
3
II-l
IL SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
A. TRAJECTORY ANALYSIS
1. Orbit Insertion
Gemini Launch Vehicle No. 5 (GLV-5) performed as predicted and

inserted the Gemini 5 spacecraft into earth orbit well within the allow-
able tolerance limits.
A comparison of the predicted and observed insertion conditions is

given in Table II-l. In this table and in all succeeding references to
a predicted (nominal) trajectory, -the data were obtained from the
GLV-5 45-day prelaunch report (Ref. 19), updated to reflect the actual
spacecraft weight, guidance constants, and the -1.05% pitch and -1. 55%
roll programmer biases. The observed trajectory parameters are those
derived by the Martin Company from the final MISTRAM radar data.
These data have been smoothed and corrected for both refraction errors
and systematic biases by tne AFETR before submittal to the Martin
Company. The MISTRAM data were used here for comparison of insertion
conditions because they are more representative of the actual insertion
conditions than are the Mod III-G data, which were unusually noisy near
the terminal portion of Stage II flight.
TABLE II-l
Comparison of Insertion Conditions at SECO + 20 Seconds
Observed Observed
Planned (MISTRAMS Minus Preliminary
Nominal I and II) Planned Tolerance
Altitude
(naut mi) 87.404 87.281 -0. 123 '±0.346
Inertial ve-
locity (fps) 25,807 25,806 -1.0 ±30.3
Inertial flight
path angle
(deg) 0.0 -0.0129 -0.0129 ±0. 125
2. Derivation of Trajectory Uncertainties
The expected maximum vehicle dispersions and RGS dispersions

at BECO and at SECO + 20 seconds were obtained from Refs. 11 and
12, respectively. A root sum square (RSS) of these dispersions is
termed the preliminary tolerance. After determination of the prelimi-
nary tolerance, the total tolerance may be computed by the arithmetic
ER 13227-5
II-2
addition of the preliminary tolerance to the 3-sigma data error of the

instrumentation source being considered. Thus,
Preliminary tolerance = 4f(vehicle dispersions) + (RGS dispersions)^
Total tolerance = preliminary tolerance + 3-sigma data error.

The resulting preliminary tolerance is shown in Table 11-2. Because
the actual insertion conditions were within the preliminary tolerance,
the data error estimates are not needed and therefore have been ex-
cluded from this report.
3. Geodetic and Weather Parameters
Significant geodetic and weather parameters are shown in Table II-3.

The winds were relatively light, and the atmospheric pressure and tem-
perature were larger than predicted. Although comparatively smaller
than on previous flights, the winds aloft were essentially sidewinds at
low altitudes shifting to a northerly (almost pure headwind) direction
at the upper altitudes. This combination of conditions resulted in a
somewhat higher-than-predicted dynamic pressure during the flight.
4. Flight Plan
The primary objective for GLV-5 was to place the Gemini 5 spacecraft
into an elliptical earth orbit with an 87-nautical mile perigee* and 190-
nautical mile apogee.* Having achieved orbital insertion at 25, 807 fps#*
the spacecraft then separates from Stage II (adding 10 fps in the process)
and coasts to the desired apogee. The following flight plan was em-
ployed to attain these desired conditions.
A vertical rise is planned for the first 23. 04 seconds following lift-
off, during which time a programmed roll rate of 1. 25 deg/sec is initi-
ated to roll the vehicle from a pad orientation of 84. 867 degrees to the
flight azimuth of 72 degrees.
At this time, an open-loop pitch program is begun (via a three-step
rate command) which terminates at 162.56 seconds. The nominal com-
manded pitch rates and their times of application are as shown in
Table II-4.
Guidance commands from the radio guidance system (RGS) are initi-
ated at liftoff + 168. 35 seconds and continue until two seconds prior to
*Relative to Complex 19.

##Does not include the separation velocity imparted by the spacecraft.
ER 13227-5
II-3
0 to
O^|
05 £ 'M co o o^ CD m
«H 0) (H ^ c- oo o i—i i n o c o m c n c o c M
O {> s CD •« ^ ^ C^- ^ O . . . . i—1
• CO CJ3 in O3 • . • rH O CO ^f LO »
W ^ i—1 i-H T-I CO CO CM t - C M C O C - C M i - I O
C
o 05 SP
S-g.2 -H +1 -H +1 +1 +1 -H +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1
w
to IH
TJ 0) C
C a o -*^ CD m
o tn • rH C<1
£J •iH ro ^ '""' i—1 O2 T—1 CM
h
C/3
P
o <! < C O O O O ^ i - 1
"O OH Q.'S
o 0 03
05
v
O *~t C^l ^f O> O O
CM
O -H +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1
+ T3
O 0)
C .
JH
O £ O '-^
U •!-< i-H ^t^ ^t* CM CO
8 ^ t^-
CO
co o I~H
O ^f
in in ^t* m o co in
O5 00 CD •*
tjto V^
^H
0 Cj_j
rtl ^" rii
^ •« CD ^ ^ ^ c^
. c o o j i n a i . .
^ m • «t • • o
. ^ c o c o c o m .
•^ i—1 rH i—1 CO CO CM [— i—1 i-H C- CM r^H O
CM >.H«
1 C -H -H +1 +1 -H -H +1 +1 -H +1 -H +1 -H -ri
1—1 rt
HH ^
W O __, ^^ in o
HH O CM O
w ^ c 0 t~i oo m
ffl
<J
w G
in 0}
*
in
. "^
CM oo t~ CD ^t^
H
•8 _rt gP -d «H"
a) <i; CO
.
T—1 CD •*
i—i L O o
r-'*
r-o
C M C O O t - O
. ^ O O . I - H .
to D-i 12 OH
**—"
^
in I-H
'. O3
« 1—1
» in
co o}
» .
0}
C D
in
. ^
T—i
C M
in
O
^
O
^
O
co
o
•r-l
T - H C M O 5 I l ^ f i - H C O C M C M I 1 LO O
rH
a "DXI • 'So
to CD OJ
•iH
x-s "O ^-* T3
03 ^^ tQ •-'
P
a;
-*->
T3 0 ^^ ti^.^ ^^ it^-.r5<
a>
-*-» S
o cd |S-w - S ^ ^ 1 H "n ^ '^ S
>r^
icable.
0) . %
w
IH
PU
PH ^ 3 t - -^ 1 ^ ^ 2 t - ^ l ^
OJ
0
.s ^ ^ -2 S) §> c 1
^ " > S r t ^ S
^ c S ^ & ^ l Q,
" ^ ' " ^ S r t ^ S
l
a
i—i
rt
S-,
o
«M ' " c u . S t Q c n c - S ' " o . S c o t o c - S
-s
^H
Z,
0 (~*\ Cj Q ^H Q Q Q rH ^». p* O rH O O O rH
CH r ^ ' S c U ^ r H r H r H ^ ^ • r H < l ) (
" r H r H r K <
^
..
^ H O M U U O r H ^ E - l O r S O U O r H <
ffl 00
ER 13227-5
II-4
TABLE II-3
Geographic and Weather Conditions at Launch
Location
Site Complex 19
Site coordinates:
Latitude (deg) 28.507 N
Longitude (deg) 80.554 W
Pad orientation (deg) 84. 867 true azimuth
Weather
Ambient pressure.(psi) 14.765
Ambient temperature (° F) 87
Dew point (° F) 74
Relative humidity (%) 66
Surface wind:
Speed (fps)
Direction (deg)
Winds aloft (max):
Altitude (ft) 49,000
Speed (fps) 63
Direction (deg) 65 true azimuth
Cloud cover Scattered •
Reference Coordinate System
Type Martin reference coordinate system
Origin Center of launch ring, Complex 19
Positive X-axis Downrange along flight azimuth
tangent to ellipsoid
Positive Y-axis To left of flight azimuth tangent to
ellipsoid andj_ X-axis
Positive Z-axis Forms a right-handed orthogonal
system
Reference ellipsoid Fischer
Launch
Initial flight azimuth (deg) 72. 067 true azimuth
Roll program (deg) 12.9 cw
ER 13227-5
II-5
SECO; however, velocity cutoff computations continue to SECO. Be-

tween SECO and SECO + 20 seconds, the engine shutdown impulse con-
tinues to add velocity to the vehicle (approximately 90 fps), and the
spacecraft is separated from the sustainer at some time slightly in
excess of SECO +20 seconds.
TABLE II-4
Planned GLV Pitch Program
Rate Time from Liftoff
Program (deg/sec) (sec)
Step 1 0.709 23. 04 to 88.32
Step 2 0.516 88.32 to 119. 04
Step 3 0.235 1-19.04 to 162. 56
A comparison of the planned and actual sequences of events is con-

tained in Table II-5, and a profile of the GT~5 flight superimposed on
the range planning map appears in Fig. II-1.
5. Trajectory Results
Analysis of the range data and Mod III radar data indicates that
GLV-5 liftoff was normal and the vehicle flew close to the prescribed
ascent trajectory throughout Stages I and II. The only significant de-
viations in the trajectory occurred in the first stage, where at BECO
the vehicle was about 5000 feet high and 6000 feet to the left of the
nominal, trajectory.
Reconstruction of the BECO condition (Table II-6) shows that a

satisfactory simulation may be obtained by consideration of the actual
engine data, weather conditions, propellant loading, inert weight, en-
gine misalignments and guidance errors. This table is comprised of
those items which can be measured (Part A) and those which can only
be estimated due to lack of suitable instrumentation (Part B).
It is evident that all the trajectory parameters operating within their
own 3-sigma deviation were sufficient to cause the BECO dispersion in
both the pitch and yaw planes. Most of the yaw dispersion was repro-
duced by including an 18-deg/hr yaw gyro drift to the left which is op-
posite to the results obtained from the prelaunch laboratory tests for
the TARS package; however,. this drift is well within the specifications
value of ±39. 1 deg/hr reported for the dispersion analysis (Ref. 11).
The GT-5 reconstructed cross-range position (Yp ) and cross-range
velocity (Y p ) points are shown for Stage I flight in Figs. II-6 and 11-23,
ER 13227-5
II-6
TABLE II-5
GT-5 Flight Events Summary
Time from Liftoff (sec)

GMT
Measurement Event (hr-min-sec) Actual Planned
0800/0801 Power transfer 1358:30.55 -88.97 -89.

FC B-10 MOCS T-0 1359:56. 139 -3.379 -3. 43
2104 87PSj (T-0) :56. 190 -3.328 -3.37
0356 Stage I S/A-1 MDTCPS make :57. 106 -2. 412 -2.27
0357 Stage I S / A - 2 MDTC make :57. 157 -2.361 -2. 27
2101 TCPS S/A-1 and S/A-2 :57.215 -2.303 -2.20
0169 Launch nuts :59.30 -0.22 -0.20
4421 First motion :59. 408 -o. no -0. 10
4422 Shutdown lockout (backup) :59. 425 -0.093 -0. 10
4423 Liftoff 1359:59.518 0 0
0734 Start roll program 1400:09. 65 10. 13 10. 16
0734 End roll program :19.97 20. 45 20. 48
0732 Start pitch program No. 1 :22.61 23. 09 23.04
0732 Stop pitch program No. 1 1401:27.87 88.35 88. 32
0732 Start pitch program No. 2 :27. 87 88.35 88.32
0728 FCS gain change No. 1 ':44. 49 104.97 104. 96
0732 Stop pitch program No. 2 :58.-58 119.06 119.04
0732 Start pitch program No. 3 :58. 58 119.06 119.04
0735 Staging enable (TARS discrete) 1402:24. 173 144. 655 144. 64
0741 IPS staging arm timer :24. 184 144. 666 145.00
0356 Stage I S/A 1 MDTCPS break :33.020 153.502 154.59
0357 Stage I S/A 2 MDTCPS break :33.010 153. 492 154. 59
0032 87FS 2 /91FS, (BECO) :33.065 153. 547 154. 65
0502 Start PCl rise :33.73 154.21 155.30
0169 Stage separation :33. 805 154.287 155.38
0855 Stage II MDFJPS make :33. 795 154.277 155. 58
0732 Stop pitch program No. 3 :42. 13 162. 61 162. 56
0740 RGS enable :42. 110 162. 592 162. 56
0755/0756 First guidance command •AT. 918 168. 400 168.35
0739 Stage II shutdown enable 1405:16. 965 317. 447 317. 44
0777 Guidance SECO :32. 792 333.274 335. 56
0519 91FS2 (SECO) :32.802 333.284 335.58
0522 Shutdown valve relay :32. 798 333.280 335. 60
0521 Shutdown squib :32. 838 333.320 335. 60
0799 ASCO :32. 855 333.337 335.61
0855 Stage II MDFJPS break :32. 954 333. 436 335.88
AB-03 Spacecraft separation :56. 913 356.395 355. 58
ER 13227-5
II-7
^ CM CO C- O5 rf CM O3 CO CO CN LO
• • • 1
O O O i CD 1 I - H I - H I —( C D C O C M - ^ O O CO
^ <S" + + + -H i + co
+
+ + CM m
' +
i rH
"<] ~ +
i-H i-H
1
CO CO CO CO O5 C O O T O C - C O O O C O CO CO CD
^^
,-H + + 1 0 1 C~ "^ CM "^ i—1 C"~ O 1 I-H m
I^H +•* .
+ CO 1 1 + i-H CM CM t- rH CM i-H ^
i-H CO + + 1 CM CD CD
< ~
^ CO O CO CD CO CO O3 CO
cn co I-H m D— CO 1 CM i-H 1 CD O O LO CO CD
CM O O O i-H O 1 CM O 1 CO O O O o
<i <» i-H CO
S o o o o o o o o o o o o rH O
i-H
+ + + I + + + 1 + + + + + + rC
•I-f
S
o m co co i-H O CM in CM CD in co
O U 1 ,_f CO CO CM 1 1 r-H 1 1 rH 1 1 T-H i-H O
, , 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 + i-H i-H
_c
CO
c
<1J
^-
q_,
**"^
1 1 ^
o ^
*^^'
•rH
^ o 1
C
o
CD
T) u
.0 3
o ^t1 m m CD i-H O ^f O •— 1 CD O CM •* Q
CM rt1 CM ^ t- ^t* 1 *^JH Q} | *HH Lf^ | Jv^ i-H CO
O i— i — CD i-H CD CD CO -f ' O I I ^ + CO •* co
U <s i-l + 1 1 i-H t—1 1—1 -^- •^ m
w + + + + + +
CD PH
<I o
HM m T!
i -. c
3 H
O s^?
•rH „.
O)
CO
t-
O"} i—1
CM CM ( (
I I I I
CD 0
O
0
i-H _
m H to 0 0 0 ' ' I I I I Q
i-H i-H
"cc!
'o 1 1 1 1 1 .S
£-<
c ^
o ^
LO
+J ^-^ Cj) ^^ <T^ -^T* C^ 1
o
J3 "7n T3 CD CD t- H
f_,
cd
•*~ "~— ^-» JM r-> ^ "^ ""^ o1
CO
c
o
td
TJ
CD t^- 0 £j CuO O O ^ CM
CO
.O^ W> 13 ° o O ^" r- 1
^—x rH CJ • ^ CD .^_ ^-^ i i ^Y ni
QJ
03 ^•x .n 0 •—1 • rH & ^ ~~^ CD c

•rH
•—• t- oo . o ^ i ^ j w
CO
m
O3
CD
"nj
QJ
S
o
§ 0) ' ' "O" •*» rH S
G
M 0 ~T -7T ^ " C ' T H ^ ^ - r - > - r - ' - r - >
ju ^ 5 'O C '""^ <rH ^11 C C £4 O T)
ti i. n s S ^ r r o j o j ^ i C
CD tui „ 5 •i—1
•+-> ^ C o ™ ^ ^ Q - S - S B S S £
tu -2 ••H ^» ^J ,_
rH '—' 'O ** T3 CQ O t u 0 ^ o O c l ) S § ) m CO O
g
cd ,H
CM Crf
o ^fi
-<
-r; o
i C S-l C
O r>^ ?H JJH -iH TH -rH ^ - CO c
fj in
CM
r-l
-g
CD ^ * -H
CO tjfl r_! CS O
Q - b J O t u O " !
"—' O > "—1 TH
Cd
*rH
cd
-r-l C
Q,
2<
C T3
o
+J
(U
^— CO i 'J g a
-rH o s 1 -3 S S S '" CD aj
fH rH
(^ -g •—i CD & Q g M K^ QJ Q) (\) tr
* rt p +-> .
c 9 o w t n c o9 c o c >rc >r c £ J a, w
i 1 2 !1 1 i
2 H ft 0 rS 2 ®
rv rv* rv* ^v
5 5 5 : 5 5
<! <q <! <j <; • c
A^ trH
^
c
^ CJ
tuobjotuo;;
c g.
2-
Co
w %
rt
QJ
43^
"'"
X
0 •' SECO"(531, 276)
.- *. •»••' ( • •>>,
Fig. II-l. GT-5 Boost Flight Path Profile
ER 13227-5
\l-U'«*'.-•* ;jH
II-9
respectively. These trajectory plots include a -20 deg/hr yaw gyro

drift as well as the other lateral components included in the reconstructed
BECO conditions (Table II-6). However, Table II-6 shows that it would
take a -18 deg/hr yaw gyro drift to more closely match the actual flight
time history.
A comparison of the predicted nominal (no wind) trajectory with flight
results is shown in Table II-7. Inspection of the various radar sources
indicates that the Mod III, MISTRAM and Oband radars were consistent
at BECO. At insertion^ however, MISTRAM produced the most accurate
results. This is verified by the Bermuda low-speed data which, when
combined with the Canary Island vector, produced nearly identical
values of velocity, altitude, flight path angle, and yaw steering velocity.
The actual, as well as the predicted, nominal trajectory.is pre-
sented in graphical form in Figs. II-2 through 11-24. On these graphs,
the nominal trajectory is that documented in Ref. 19, updated to reflect
the actual spacecraft weight, guidance system changes, and the -1.05%
pitch and -1. 55% roll programmer biases. The observed flight data
were obtained from the Mod III-G 10 pps data, smoothed and corrected
for refraction errors and systematic biases.
Figures 11-25 and 11-26 describe the atmospheric and wind conditions
existing at Cape Kennedy at the time of launch. A list of the primary
tracking sources with the trajectory time interval covered by each is
contained in Table II-8.
6. Look Angles
Upon initiation of closed-loop guidance at LO + 168. 35 seconds, the
RGS commanded the maximum 2 deg/sec nose-down pitching rate for
5. 4 seconds to compensate for the slightly higher than nominal BECO
condition. The maneuver resulted in moderate negative angles-of at-
tack during this period as shown in Fig. 11-20. The maximum look an-
gle in pitch (LAP) occurred at LO + 182 seconds when it attained a value
of 23 degrees. This maximum value was well within the 40-degree
boundary existing at that time as shown in Fig. 11-27. The correspond-
ing look angle in yaw (LAY) was also within the established limitation
(+7 deg) as shown in Fig. 11-28. The maximum value of LAY was 5. 0
degrees which occurred 155 seconds after liftoff.
7. Maximum Dynamic Pressure
Due to the basically southeasterly winds which prevailed at liftoff,
the dynamic pressure environment through which the vehicle flew was
slightly in excess of the anticipated. The maximum value of 767 psf
occurred at a slightly higher altitude and Mach number than expected.
Other trajectory parameters pertinent to the maximum dynamic pres-
sure region are shown in Table II-9.
ER 13227-5
11-10-f
JT-
11
SBECO
(153.547 sec
Predicted nominal wind run 82-GT5 (final)*

GE Mod III-G final flight data* (154. 65 sec)
* Includes
CO
o Rawinsonde balloon data
Cape Kennedy
X 0907 EST, 21 August 1965
CO
o
o m
11
•3
70 .SO 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Fig. II-2. Inertial Velocity Versus Time: Stage I Flight
ER 13227-5
JJffillSNFIDENTIAL
03 t£H
HH ae op
f§ at
tttt t=r
gSHif HH HE
J3iM ratS9
gttS*Sj i Jgs
IHr ttt
S- tot
5S*JS:
I* A
tffi
3 SS su SE t» 5E HE tn:
StlH; Hfi w; w* Stt Sfe a«
Predicted nominal wind run 82-GTS (final)*

GE Mod III-G final flight data*
gfeSiHgHllglggijgl
rrrzir: *ttr tnr ît nrr
cm
0)
T3
(153.547 sec)
tuo
*Includes
Rawinsonde balloon data
£ctf Cape Kennedy
0907 EST, 21 August 1965
-*-»
2?
,—I
fe (154.65 sec)
r-H
cd
t<
0)
mmm&m
m fills IS 88 S8
80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180

Fig. II-3- Inertial Flight Path Angle Versus Time: Stage I Flight
CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-5
tjaifel BECO at mu
p.-niJSi 153. 547 sec itff
Predicted nominal wind run 82 Hpp(154. 65 sec)

GE Mod m-G final flight data*
*Includes
Cape Kennedy
0907 EST, 21 August 1965
140 IP
80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180

Fig. Il-k. Altitude (h) Versus ..Time:. Stage I Flight
ER 13227-5
11-13 -
400
360;
US Be S§ §S 3St 8§ §1
BECO
Predicted nominal wind run 82-GT5 (final)*. (153. 547 sec
320
CO
o
mmfell at jg Sufi
280
*Includes
cd 240 Rawinsonde balloon data
.S Cape Kennedy
T3
fc 0907 EST, 21 August 1965
O
O
O
200
O
<D
O
Predicted
<u 160 BECO
CO) (154.65 sec)
n)
&
o
p 120
70 80 90 120 130 140 150 160

Fig. II-5- Downrange Position Coordinate (Xp) Versus Time: Stage I Plight
BECO
(153. 547 s
CO
CD
J3
-*-»
Predicted BECO
Predicted nominal wind run 82-GT5 (final)* (154.65 sec)
X XXX GT5 reconstruction (Table 11-6)
CO
(11
W
3
O *Includes
CO Rawinsonde balloon data
Cape Kennedy
3
O
0907 ESTi 21 August 1965
CO
i -K- H£ »; sa s- aa«H Hif ?
80 90 100 170 180

Time from L,iftoff,(sec)
Fig . II-6. Cross-Range -Position Coordinate
Coqrdins (Y ) Versus Time: Stage I Flight
^Bfc*teii^r'. ' >- --'• • _..,***!
ER 13227-5
320
j§ si iH Hii 6i5 85 M M §§ gjfeRmtete y asteiiaaiuHleaeihffi
t tHt t8 ttE 55 SH Ha tfe S3

280
CO
o
240
*Includes
Cape Kennedy
0907 EST, 21 August 1965
200
a)
>c4
•a
o
o
U 160
c
o
01
o
OH
i—t
120
a!
O
170
Fig. II-7. Vertical Position Coordinate (ZF) Versus Time: Stage I Flight
11
IK (153. 547 sec)|f;agn

GE Mod III-G final night data*

Cape Kennedy
0907 EST, 21 August 1965
Predicted
BECO
(154.65 sec) l
70 80 90
Fig. II-8. Mach Number (M) Versus Time: Stage I Flight
ER 13227-5
1000
900
GE Mod III-G final night data*

800
*Includes
700 Rawinsonde balloon data
Cape Kennedy
0907 EST, 21 August 1965
600 m
10
(0
0)
!H 500
(fl
400 ?s
G
300
200
Predicted BECO
(154.65 sec)
100
70 80 90 160
Fig. II-9. Dynamic Pressure (q.) Versus Time: Stage I Flight
ER 13227-5
-/£~/
*Includes
Rawinsonde balloon data Predicted nominal wind run 82-GTS (final)*
Cape Kennedy
0907 EST, 21 August 1965 GE Mod 1U-G final flight data*
CO
o
0)
O
r
d
•a
ijr Predicted BECO 1-iJH" •IS^'TJiH^
Hi::i;i' (154.65 sec)
OJ
>-.
"8
. 547 sec)f :'1= •:
60 70 . 80 120 130 140 150 160

Fig. 11-10. Axial Force Versus Time: Stage I Flight
•i r-t ••"-•<: •••
ER 13227-5
!K5 sm-e mi is s» si Hi's as m H Predicted BECO
(154.65 sec)
m Ift KH S3 IS IS rS Si
to
o
*Includes BECO B
Rawinsonde balloon"- data (153.547 sec)S
Cape Kennedy
0907 EST, 21 August
OS
a1
O
-fj
n!
O
• rH
•o
0)
I
o
70 80 90
Fig. 11-11. Aerodynamic Heating Indicator Versus Time: Stage I Flight
ER 13227-5
- 2.0-^ - 2-

• GE Mod III-G final flight data and IGS gimbal data*
*Includes
<u Cape Kennedy Predicted BECO f S l h l !
T3
0907 EST, 21 August 1965 (154. 65 sec),
rsr
11 i" I.;
SO (153. 547 sec)3H:
70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170

Fig. 11-12. Stage I Angle of Attack History
ER 13227-5
GE Mod III-G final flight data and IGS eimbal data*
P
Hit SIP
*Includes
oo Rawinsonde balloon data
<D
Cape Kennedy
02. 0907 EST, 21 August 1965
Predicted BECO
•d (.154. 65 sec)
CO
<u
T3
-10
HflBECO _
(153. 547 sec)j£5
-20
-30
10 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Fig. 11-13- Stage I Angle of Sideslip History

SECO + 20 (353.284 sec)
Predicted SECO + 20 (356. 20 sec)
il Predicted nominal wind run 82-GTS (final)* jpj

IS

Cape Kennedy
0907 EST, 21 August 1965
160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460
Fig. 11-14. , Resultant Inertial Velocity (V ) Versus Time: Stage II Flight
ER 13227-5
11-23 "
Predicted nominal wind run 82 GTS (final)* mmmwm&m

GE Mod UI-G final flight data*
*Includes
Cape Kennedy
0907 EST, 21 August 1965
tlD
S
<U
1?
.c
rt
I
i—I
fe
I—I
oJ
m SECO + 20 (353. 284 sec)

Hfflggj
M Predicted SECO + 20 (356. 20 sec)

ag stt* im ^t-tJIttt.iH; tfi+lrtt HH. ~"^ HSr?S ***; 5±- ^^ ^* **T::*^; ^^:trtl *TI1 x*11 trtT.lSt tS HS ;HIjHp fat ***:
420 440 460

Fig. 11-15. Inertial Flight Path Angle (y^.) Versus Time: Stage II Flight
ER 13227-5
11-24
600
!
i SECO + 20 (353. 284 sec)
560
520 Sf
480
iigpa Predicted SECO + 20 (356. 20 sec) rTP^^tp;
440
CO
o
400
mm
360
Si Predicted nominal wind run 82-GTS (final)*
•X!
I—I
•- • GE Mod III-G final night data*
<
320
liS *Includes
280
Cape Kennedy
0907 EST, 21 August 1965 Bi
240
200
160
120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380
Fig. II-16. Altitude Versus Time: Stage II Flight
•£' ,
IW5ENTIAU
ER 13227-5
11-25 ~
SECO + 20 (353. 284 sec)
Predicted nominaLwind run 82-GT5 (final)*

*Includes
Cape Kennedy:
0907 EST, 21 August 1965
260 280 300 440

Fig. 11-17. Downrange Position Coordinate (X_,) Versus Time: Stage II Flight
3SEIDENILM
SECO + 20 (353.284 sec)

S3TS
Predicted nominal wind run 82-GTS
GE Mod IU-G final night data*
*Includes
Cape Kennedy
0907 EST, 21 August 1965
Predicted'SECO + 20 (356. 20 sec)
120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480
Fig. II-18. Cross-Range Position Coordinate (Y ) Versus Time: Stage n Flight
ER 13227-5
JT-n-i

GE Mod ni-G final flight data*
CO
o
M *Includes
Cape Kennedy
0907 EST, 21 August 1965
cfl
SM
£
O
o-
U
O
tn
O
Predicted SECO + 20 (356.

(4
id
SECO + 20 (353. 284 sec)
160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480
fig. 11-19- Vertical Position Coordinate (ZF) Versus Time: Stage U Plight
ER 13227-5
l\ _
; - ,-
Predicted SECO + 20 (356. 20 sec) Hfjv
SECO + 20 (353.
GE Mod III-G final flight data and IGS gimbal data *
*Includes
Cape Kennedy
0907 EST, 21 August 1965
-24
-28
140 160 440
Fig. H-20. Stage II Angle of Attack History
ER 13227-5
11-29
II SECO + 20 (353.284 sec)

JtE

W)
0)
•a
CCL
GE Mod III-G final flight data and IGS gimbal data*
r;r.|rrr TU-
SWJK
*Includes
Cape Kennedy
0907 EST, 21 August 1965 :
140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360
i Time from Liftoff (sec)
Fig. 11-21. Angle of Sideslip Versus Time: Stage II Flight

Iffill
100 r 650r -200 214. 7r 1.0r 25. 85
Inertial velocity?
50 600 -250 214.6 0.5 25. 80S
CO IV eo
Inertial flight path angle
o T3 o
(U
5 0 550 -300 214.5 •a 0.0 25.75

Cross range
o
I o fl
o m 0)
CO 'o
• r-4
^
•a
T3
& 0)
rt
<u SO
bo
ni
tf tf
i
m o co
to in o t,
O O O- o D
(U
SH U ,3
U -50 500 -350 214.4 -0.5 25.70*
°
a Cross-range velocity
-100L 450L -400 214. -i.o 1 - 25. 65
gl SECO + 20 sec_
330 332 334 336 342 344 350 352 354 356
Fig. H-22. GE Mod ,III-G Flight Data from SECO to SECO + 20 Seconds
ER 13227-5
11-31
400
mmmmmmmmmm
300
GE Mod III-G final flight data* SS JtE iiH 3E S§
X X X Reconstruction (Table II-6)

mm m
SECO + 20 (353. 284 sec)
*Includes
Cape Kennedy
0907 EST, 21 August 1965
-500
140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360
Fig. 11-23. Cross-Range Velocity (Yp) Versus Time
ER 13227-5
11-32
700

eoo ml t
GE Mod UI-G final flight data*
500
*Includes
400
Rawinso'nde balloon data
Cape Kennedy •
0907 EST, 21 August 1965
300
o Predicted SECO + 20 (356. 20 sec)
s
0)
>
e» 200
<u
(a
•«-*
01
I 100
SECO + 20 (353. 284 sec)
-100
120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360
Fig. 11-24. Yaw Steering jyôclty.'';j[Vy)' Versus' Time
KNflAL
ER 13227-5
11-33
110
100
CO
o
X
TJ
3
20
Cape Kennedy
0907 EST, 21 August 1965
10
r
20 40 60 40 80 120 160 200
Wind Speed (kn) Wind Azimuth (deg from north)
Fig. II-2J. Wind Speed and Azimuth Versus Altitude
ER 13227-5
11-34
110
100

Cape Kennedy
90 0907 EST, 21 August 1965
80S
CO
o
Temperature
6 8 1 0
Pressure (psi)
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40

Temperature (° C)
Fig. 11-26. Ambient Temperature and Pressure Versus Altitude
ER 13227-5
11-35
<D
Pi
1
•a
•8
I
•H
CM
t-
cvi
i
H
to
•ri
ER 13227-5
11-36 ERIfl^L
a>
I
01
•3o
<D
P4
CO
C\J
60
•H
(Sap)
ER 13227-5
11-37
-o
4) -a
a c
Q< a]
™-Z
C- CM
O rH
s ^
d |
-n ro 2 £ CM 2: 1 S z f
3d
E-o
i< c
to rt
O m
o
w
PQ 03 OO CM
"o « O m in CO
CM OO
-t-*
m o in" l> CM co oi r- t- O3 E- ^ CO CO O3
&
Q)
O ^ 6*
. m .CO
m co •-<
CO '-t
CM"
-H" o
c-
»-i
^ c-
CO OJ
Oi
CO t-
i
I CO* ^ Oi" ^.I'",i P.*
co"
t-
2
n
O3
S S
<n ^H
!
a 03 oi CM
•^
t-H Oi
CM c-
CM CM
r-
^
co i-n co CM m 4- m CM co i
S •-H CD CM i-t -^ CM CO CM CM
'o
01
h
bo
c g O
CO
CO
co m
p^
<H CM
S " in CM CM CO Oi -co *=f 0
H-3 in co in"
[-
0) to 01
t-, en _ m co O CO CMCO
CO
CM O CO «-n m co co i> Oi o
PH •a 0 , O i-i I
TJ 0
c H
i co co m
r-i
OS 03 -T
CD CM^-) ^ CM CO
CM" CM
CM
CO
i-H
O
O CO
Tf
CM
CM
rjt
1
C? m" co 0* CM ^ ,
co CM in i in CM co"^
M
S
CM
V
CM
c«^
i
oo
i
^
i
a) o '
>
c- en
i 0) O in
h-t CO o CO CO CM
g m I-H
t— C
C- ^ CO CO CO -. i— < C-
w 0+ T3
O
in o
in CD O
CM
CM CM CO
in OO
O CM CO *-H CO ^ CO CO
^
c- O Oi o
•a
TABL
O3 CO *~<
O S co ^ in CM r~t co" O -^ CM I CO -•-« . Oi *CM c- OO ^ CD CD O 1
in oo i-i O3 O3 r-T 0 CM ^-i O CO CM ^ in m co O CM i-H „ c~ •^ « CO ^H
n! U W i-t Oi CM ^-< -^ CM CO •^ CM co r- co I-H co CM in + m CM co 1 CM CM
w
CO
O
<D
c t, h* in
c rt —- ,_| £-1 ^-^ CM
0
O CO
£ g cd 0 a>
CO
CO
CO in o
m Oi
,r- •^ O)
C .gt; ^
c o
S1 d 2 CO CM O O o co co" c- 0> CO O
ir1 o rt 0) . CO -, O C- i-H
in ^ X £1 K ^r m o o" 05
«—i
c-" in in m
o TM co »-t
i CM
m 1/3 m" co
CO CM"
-CO O)" O t- (M
i cr ^*^ in Oi r-t O>
i-t Oi CM 1-1
O> »H
-tf CM CO 1 CM 00 1 CO CM co CM in m CM co" i CM
•^"
CM 1 1 1
H
0
"ra"
C ^^
^
- >•
o p> .-^ J>
CO "ra" w i In M
^- ~
*r^ o. ,Q« O
aa. bJ3 "T?" "•"•' CU Ô* si W) *—-
*! ~* Z.
T3 eg
^
u, "in >• °
o 'w'ffl ll£ jxT fc X h : "s-s fls^ g J * ^ ^L 1^ •*

O § N ' ^.N ^l
sed yaw steerin
iss- range veloc:
vnrange velocitj
/ steering veloc
imrange positior
J5 3 (Q O
•tical velocity,
ri c 2 01 «M L 'n c"
**""* s>
a-£^
§ § § • § - & • >
§ « T3 O ?? o o
o- 3 -3 > '3 S O
fi £ -tn
-H O
3^
gf§ E?S3
"" b ti
^1 rH 0)
H i H 1s 1gfia•If gS "t «>f f
l^2
^ ^3 § ^ -3 | £s l-a«
3cS2
1
f
Ll
a
-30
•" 01T3
|
|| « .« £ M o m ^ n
;> CO
8w |||Iss Q 0 > Q 0 > £ 3 8w s!3 llsl O 1S tt
u > >< m
<u a .3 T3
D.
ffl
*
ER 13227-5
11-38
TABLE II-8
Data Available for Trajectory Analysis
Flight Coverage
Source Type Station (sec from Range-0)
AFETR MISTRAM posi- Valkaria I +50 to +376

tion, velocity Eleuthera II +50 to +376
and acceleration
FPQ-6 radar MILA 19. 18 +12 to +267
position, veloc- GBI 3. 18 +257 to +385
ity and accelera-
tion
GE Mod III-G radar Cape Kennedy LO to +380

position, veloc-
ity
NASA-MSC Spacecraft IGS LO to +360
aspect param-
eters
TABLE II-9
Trajectory Parameters at Maximum Dynamic Pressure
Planned*
(nominal) Observed**
Dynamic pressure (psf) 748 767
Time from liftoff (sec) 77 77
Mach number 1.64 1. 76
Altitude (ft) 42, 200 44, 203
Relative flight path angle (deg) 51. 97 53. 84
Relative wind velocity (fps) 1615 1674
Wind velocity (fps) 0 43
Wind azimuth (deg from north) -- 70
Angle of attack (deg) +0. 515 +0. 283
Angle of sideslip (deg) -0. 031 -0. 846
*Ref. 19, updated per Ref. 13

**Mod III-G 10 pps radar data
ER 13227-5
n-39
8. Angles of Attack and Sideslip

Predicted and observed histories of angles of attack and sideslip dur-
ing the ascent are shown in Figs. 11-12, 11-13, 11-20 and. 11-21. The pre-
dicted values were obtained from a digital run utilizing wind and atmo-
spheric information obtained from the 0907 EST Rawinsonde sounding.
Observed angles of attack and sideslip were derived using the Mod III-G
position and velocity information, IGS attitude data and the aforemen-
tioned weather data.
B. PAYLOAD CAPABILITY
Propellants remaining onboard after Stage II low level sensor un-
cover indicated that a burning time margin (BTM) of 1. 009 seconds
existed to a command shutdown. The total propellant weight margin
was 336 pounds, and the corresponding GLV payload capability was
8313 pounds. These values and the predicted nominal and minimum
values appear in Fig. 11-29. The predicted capability curves were taken
from the GLV-5 preflight report (Ref. 19), updated as authorized by
Ref. 20. The predicted propellant weight and burning time margins are
based on the difference between these curves and the 7947-pound space-
craft weight.
Real time payload predictions differed from the predictions shown
in Fig. 11-29 because extrapolated actual propellant temperatures were
used instead of preflight predicted propellant temperatures. The last
payload prediction indicated that the minimum payload capability was
127 pounds less than the spacecraft weight, and the nominal payload
capability was 462 pounds greater than the spacecraft weight at the pre-
dicted launch time. The actual (postflight reconstructed) GLV capability
was 366 pounds greater than the spacecraft weight.
C. STAGING
The staging sequence was normal and physical stage separation oc-
curred as planned. The time interval from staging signal (87FS 2 /91FS )
to start of Stage II engine chamber pressure (Pc ) rise was 0. 665 sec-
ond. This compares favorably with the nominal expected time of 0. 70 ±
0. 08 second. Stage separation occurred 0. 075 second following start
of P_ rise.
WBDINTTAt
ER 13227-5
11-40
© GT-5 Flight Test Values
8600
7800
•a
•H
0)
Spacecraft weight = 7947 Ib

.S 200
a g>
1 1 100
-100
ffl§
°* 5
0 0. 5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 VO
Time in Launch Window (hr)
Fig. 11-29. GLV-5 Payload Capability
ER 13227-5
11-41
D. WEIGHT STATEMENT
Table 11-10 shows the GT-5 weight history from launch to orbital
insertion.
The postflight weight report (Ref. 10) provides the background data
for this summary. The report includes a list of dry weight empty changes
at ETR and shows a derivation of weight empty from the actual vehicle
weighing. Other items covered include the derivation of burnout, BECO,
SECO and shutdown weights; weight comparisons with the BLH data; and
the center of gravity travel envelope as a function of burn time for the
horizontal, vertical and lateral planes.
TABLE 11-10
GT-5 Weight Summary
Weight (Ib)
Step I Step II Step III Stage Total
Loaded weight 271, 483 65, 074 7, 947® 344, 504

Start and grain losses -3,682®
Trajectory liftoff weight 267, 801 65, 074 7, 947 340, 822
Propellant consumed to 256, 004 11 84, 807
BECO
Coolant water 3
Weight at BECO 11, 797 65, 063 7, 944 84, 804
Shutdown propellant 185
Stage I burnout 11,612© 65, 063® 7, 944 84, 619
Stage II engine start 11, 612 185
Stage II liftoff 64,878 7, 944 72,822
Propellant consumed to 58, 889
SECO
Ablative, covers and 20 41
coolant water
Stage II at SECO 5, 969 7,903 13, 872®
Shutdown propellant 140
Weight at SECO + 20 5, 829 7,903 13, 732®
seconds
NOTES: CD Information from NASA-Houston

© Includes outage: 866-Ib Stage I; 278-lb Stage II
© Event: launch bolts blown
@ Includes 336 Ib of usable propellant
ER 13227-5
III-l
III. PROPULSION SYSTEM .
A. ENGINE SUBSYSTEM
The Stages I and II engines operated satisfactorily throughout the

flight, and all launch objectives were met. Stage I burning time was
156. 875 seconds and shutdown was initiated by oxidizer exhaustion.
Stage II engine operation was terminated by guidance command after
179. 74 seconds of burning time.
Several abnormalities occurred during the flight, none of which ad-

versely affected engine performance. These were as follows:
(1) Fuel pressurant differential pressure switch (FPDPS)

actuated momentarily at 87FSj + 0. 13 second for 190 milli-
seconds, and normally again at 87FSJ + 0. 957 seconds.
(2) POGO oscillations were evident in engine parameters to a

greater extent than has been experienced previously on the
GLV (Ref. Chapter XII).
(3) Stage II thrust chamber pressure (PC ) rise rate at ignition

3
appeared abnormally slow.
1. Engine Subsystems Recycle
As a consequence of the launch attempt of 19 August, several inspec-

tions and procedures were performed on the engines. The Stage I oxi-
dizer prevalves had been opened, allowing oxidizer to enter the engine
to the thrust chamber valves. Neither the Stage I fuel prevalves nor the
Stage II fuel and oxidizer prevalves had been opened. Significant engine
recycle events were as follows:
.(1) Start cartridges were electrically disconnected.
(2) Start cartridge air conditioning was maintained.
(3) Stage I engine was not drained of oxidizer nor were the open
oxidizer prevalves replaced. The total time for oxidizer in
the engine from launch attempt prevalve opening to liftoff
was approximately 45 hours.
(4) Stage I turbopump oxidizer cavities were purged.
(5) Stage I gearbox lube oil was drained and replaced.
ER 13227-5
III-2 •
(6) Stage I engine was inspected for thrust chamber valve oxidizer
leakage, and the Stage I fuel and Stage II fuel and oxidixer
systems for prevalve leakage. (None was noted. )
2. Stage I Engine (YLR87-AJ-7, S/N 1007)
a. Configuration and special procedures
The GLV-5 Stage I engine had only one significant change since
GLV-4: ten airborne measurement parameters were eliminated. Meas-
urements eliminated were gas generator inlet pressures and tempera-
tures, bootstrap pressures, and autogenous temperatures.
Additional procedures instituted were:
(1) Draining and flushing of turbopump assemblies, and inspec-

tion and replacement of the lube oil screens
(2) Pressure sequencing valve override solenoid (PSVOR) insula-

tion resistance check
(3) Lockwiring of oxidizer bootstrap line venturi "B" nut fitting

and the P OBTV instrumentation port cap.
b. Start transient
The S/A 1 and S/A 2 thrust chamber start transients were normal,
as shown in Figs. III-l and III-2. The S/A 1 chamber pressure trans-
ducer (Meas 0003) had been changed from the underdamped CEC type
used on previous flights to a damped Statham type in an attempt to ob-
tain more representative start transient data during bootstrapping opera-
tion.
For this flight, the P

(Statham transducer) start transient com-
i
pared more favorably with acceptance test data than did the PC (CEC
2
transducer) start transient. Significant engine start parameters are
presented in Table III-l.
TABLE III-l
Stage I Engine Start Parameters
Parameter S/A 1 S/A 2

FSt to initial PC rise (sec) 0. 75 0. 79
Pc ignition spike (psia) 550 685
Pc step (psia) 415 400
Pc overshoot (psia) None None
ER 13227-5
1000
MDTCPS (Meas 0356)
+2.5 +3.0
Time from 87FS1 (sec)
Fig. IH-1. S/A 1 Start Transient
ER 13227-5
III-4 -/
1000
800
•£ 600 ffl
in
CO
O 400
MDTCPS (Meas 0357)
200 KK
+ 2.5 +3.0
Time from 87FS. (sec)

Fig. III-2. S/A 2 Start Transient
ER 13227-5
Ill-5
c. Steady-state performance
Stage I engine flight performance agreed closely with the preflight

predictions. Flight integrated average performance was slightly higher
than the preflight predicted.
Engine performance was calculated from measured flight data with

the Martin-Baltimore PRESTO program, and used the Stage I thrust
coefficient relationship as modified by Martin. This modification in-
creased thrust and specific impulse approximately 3400 pounds and
2. 0 seconds, respectively, above the values calculated with the Aero-
jet thrust coefficient relationship. The Martin-modified thrust coeffi-
cient was also used in the preflight predictions.
The Stage I engine average flight performance, integrated from

liftoff to 87 FS , is compared with the preflight prediction in Table
2
TABLE III -2
Predicted and Actual Stage I Engine Performance
Preflight Flight Difference

Parameter Average* Average* (%)
Thrust, engine (Ib) 459,441 463,884 +0. 97

I
Specific impulse, engine (sec) 278.02 278. 52 +0. 18
Mixture ratio, engine 1.9225 1.9354 +0. 67
Oxidizer flow rate, overboard 1086. 76 1097. 80 + 1. 02

(Ib/sec)
Fuel flow rate, overboard (Ib/sec) 565. 78 567. 73 +0.34
*Martin-Baltimore modified thrust coefficient relationship used.
The engine performance calculated throughout the Stage I flight is

presented in Fig. III-3. The preflight prediction is also shown for
comparison.
Oscillations at the 11-cps POGO frequency were observed in the

thrust chamber pressure and oxidizer discharge pressure of both Stage
I subassemblies. POGO oscillations were not observed in fuel dis- -<
charge pressures. The POGO disturbance extended from LO + 115
seconds to LO + 139 seconds with the maximum POGO at approximately
LO + 129 seconds. Table III-3 presents the filtered zero-to-peak oscil-
lations in the engine parameters at maximum POGO.
ER 13227-5
m-6-/ /-
490
480
CO
I
o 470
.-I
X
46C£
Average Engine Performance Integrated
J3 from Liftoff to 87FS0
290 450
0
CO Preflight Flight
285 44C Symbol Prediction Average
Q,
CO !-.
F
0)
280 43C t 459, 441 463, 884
0]
278. 02
g. 275 o
H
42C '-. 278. 52
MR e 1.9225 1.9354
270 41C 811
W
oo 1086. 76 1097. 80
o> 265
o.
Wf 0 565. 78 567. 73
a> 260
a> 2.00 r
K •&
c
1.95
£ *•
1120
1100
0)
1080 rf i. - Preflight prediction
fr, w
1060
CB
O
600 1040
•8
580
0) S-,
o OJ
£ 560
£•£
540
0) at
3 OS
60 80
Lift- Time from 87FS1 (sec)
|off
87FS1
Fig. III-3. Stage I Engine Flight Performance
ER 13227-5
Ill-7
TABLE III-3
Engine Parameters at Maximum POGO
S/A 1 S/A 2
. Parameter (psi) (psi)
P
od
17. 9 14. 8
p
fd * *
pc 5.3 5.9
*Within normal noise.
Cyclic pressure oscillations, similar to those observed on GLV-1,

through GLV-4, were present in the fuel discharge pressures of S/A 1
and S/A 2. The cause of these large P oscillations has not been con-
clusively determined, although it is strongly suspected that the vibra-
tion levels are being amplified by the sensor mounting bracket.
Stage I engine flight performance calculated at the 87FS + 57 sec-
onds time slice and corrected to standard inlet conditions is shown in
Table III-4. This is compared to the acceptance test and the predicted
flight performance at standard inlet conditions and the nominal time as
used in the preflight prediction. The predicted flight performance at
standard conditions was obtained by modifying the nominal acceptance
test data for a 4850-pound acceptance-to-flight thrust growth obtained
from analysis of previous Titan II and GLV flights.
TABLE III-4
Performance Corrected to Standard Inlet Conditidns at 87FSj +
57 Seconds: Stage I
Predicted Flight
Acceptance (including 4850-lb Flight
Parameter Test* thrust growth)* Performance *
Thrust, engine (Ib) 434,594 439,444 438,907

Specific impulse,
engine (sec) 261. 30 261.30 261. 51
Mixture ratio, engine 1.9431 1.9431 1.9654
Oxidizer flow rate,
overboard (Ib/sec) 1097.77 1110.02 1112.03
Fuel flow rate, over-
board (lb./sec) 565.46 ' 571.76 566.31
*Martin-Baltimore modified thrust coefficient relationship used.
ER 13227-5
Ill-8
The standard inlet condition data in Table III-4 indicate that the
0. 9% higher-than-predicted average thrust (Table III-2) experienced
in flight was primarily the result of the differences of flight engine
inlet conditions from the preflight predicted values. The higher-than
predicted flight mixture ratio was the result of a shift in mixture ratio
from acceptance test to flight. The mixture ratio shift of +1. 15% at
standard inlet conditions from acceptance to flight was within the 3-
sigma engine mixture ratio run-to-run repeatability of 1.38%.
d. Shutdown transient
Stage I engine shutdown was initiated by oxidizer exhaustion. Fig-

ures III-4 and III-5 show the S/A 1 and S/A 2 chamber pressure decays.
All other engine parameters were normal for an oxidizer exhaustion
shutdown. The engine thrust at staging was approximately 23,400
pounds.
Significant events during shutdown are presented in Table III-5.
TABLE III-5
Stage I Engine Shutdown Parameters
Parameter S/A 1 S/A 2
Time from Pc decay to 87FS2 (sec) 1. 18 1.06

Pc at 87FS2 (psia) 225 245
Time from FS 2 to data dropout (sec) 0. 73 0.73
Pc at data dropout (psia) 40 40

e. Engine malfunction detection system
The Stage I engine MDS operated satisfactorily and within the speci-
fied limits throughout the flight. Figures III-l and III-2 illustrate the
response times and actuation levels of the malfunction detection thrust
chamber pressure switches (MDTCPS) for S/A 1 and S/A 2, respectively.
Figures III-4 and III-5 illustrate the deactuation times and levels for
S/A 1 and S/A 2, respectively.
A summary of the operating characteristics of the switches is pre-

sented in Table III-6.
ER 13227-5
1000 BTC3T. cxTrn:nrirrrnrmTcirrrxr pxp -i^n: :ctqiirr Trrifni ~niF «P rtfq-XH TSW '?ni TrnrrrpTKR1 Hfl J+H-I-CT
i± il# pfe tejl ifei: fi±t i±i±
Pf- -i-i-t-t- T-ii-rS-H-PT -H-r- t+H
±i±t 3±t +U.i
Fi-H -i44-' ^fl
+ttt ±fH t-i1± Tni
-fi-4 riT-l- -4-Hr |l-P
tttt ittf rlii- ±iH'J fi±j: ij:tj: J4tl tlit mf iS trffttB ;
-H-rf 4---f4 -frr4- -H-H- H-l-f -l4Tt ••-*•»? ^-f^ "H •* Tf-vf -I -t-i fftfl-'-H-i
800
rt
•rH
a 600
atn
3
in
CO
0)
(1)
1
rt
X 400
t ttttt tttt tttt ritt ittt tttt xttj
ttft titf ttij its m w* +ift
O
MDTCPS (Meas 0356 Staging
ttj blackout
200
Time from 87FS (sec)
Pig. HI-4. S/A 1 Shutdown Transient
ER 13227-5
m-io-i 10>t0'l
i^pw^?^
-î^,oftoiiaW^Lj
tvvs^;
MDTCPS (Meas 0357)

Fig. III-5- S/A 2 Shutdown Transient
'AL
ER 13227-5
Ill-11
TABLE III-6
Stage I MDTCPS Operation
Actuation Deactuation
Time Pressure Time Pressure
Switch (sec) (psia) (sec) (psia)
MDTCPS 1 + 0.92 580 FS2 - 0.045 520
MDTCPS 2 + 0.97 585 FS2 - 0.055 550
Specification requirements:
Actuation 540 to 600 psia
Deactuation 585 to 515 psia
f. Engine prelaunch malfunction detection system (PMDS)
All PMDS switches actuated within the specified actuation times and
pressures as shown in Table III-7. However, the fuel pressurant dif-
ferential pressure switch (FPDPS) actuated twice. The premature
actuation at 87FS1 + 0. 13 second lasted for 190 milliseconds, deactua-
ting at 87FS + 0. 32 second. Lack of instrumentation on the downstream
side of the fuel pressurant orifice precluded determination of differen-
tial pressures during this activity; however, the inlet pressure to the
fuel pressurant orifice (P .) was telemetered and indicated a normal
pressure-time relationship. The premature FPDPS actuation and de-
actuation occurred during the initial rise transient which coincided
with the normal pressure increase due to solid start cartridge ignition.
Several causes for the premature actuation of the FPDPS have been
postulated. The two most significant are (1) normal system operation
characteristic and (2) partial restriction in the low pressure sensing
line. For example, GLV engine S/N 1011 operation was normal except
for premature actuation of the FPDPS during a static test at AGC. In
the second case, a 0.020-inch orifice restriction in the line produced a
similar trace in an AGC laboratory test. However, premature FPDPS
actuation was not a problem for GLV-5.
3. Stage II Engine (YLR91-AJ-7, S/N 2005)
a. Configuration and special procedures
The GLV-5 Stage II engine configuration was the same as GLV-4
except for the elimination of five instrumentation parameters similar
Ill-12
TABLE III-7
Stage I PMDS Switch Operation
Parameter TCPS OPPS FPDPS
Actuation time
Measured (sec) 87FS1 + 1.025 87FSJ + 1. 768 87FSJ + 0.957
Required (sec)* T 4- 2.2 T + 2. 2 T -1- 2.2
Actuation pressure
Measured (psia) ** 416 **
Required (psia) 600 to 640 360 to 445 46 to 79 (psid)
*Kill timers start from T-0;-87FS 1 is 70 to 100 milliseconds after T-0.

**Not instrumented.
to those deleted from Stage I. Also, the oxidizer bootstrap line venturi
"B" nut fitting and the P instrumentation port cap were safety-wired
for the first time.
b. Start transient
Evaluation of Stage II engine data indicated a normal start transient

except for an abnormally slow chamber pressure (Pc ) rise rate during
.u
the ignition phase (Fig. III-6). The P transducer was a Statham which
3
replaced the usual CEC instrument.
The average of 26 Titan II Stage II engine starts showed that the time
from ignition to 50% of rated thrust was approximately 50 milliseconds,
as compared to 115 milliseconds for GT-5. Therefore, it is concluded
that the GT-5 measured RC rise rate data did not represent the true
3
chamber pressure characteristics since the other internal engine
parameters behaved normally.
c. Steady-state performance
Stage II engine steady-state flight performance was satisfactory

throughout the flight. The average engine performance integrated over
steady-state operation (from FS'j + 1 . 2 seconds to 91FS2) is compared
to the preflight prediction in Table III-8.
ER 13227-5
1000
800 S
tn
o.
600
CO
o
en
CO
01
snJ
U 400
MDFJPS (Meas 0855)
200
+3.0
Fig. III-6. S/A 3 Start Transient

III-14
TABLE III-8
Predicted and Average Stage II Engine Performance
Preflight
Predicted Flight Difference
Parameter Average Average (%)
Thrust, chamber (Ib) 100,681 102,411 +1. 72
Specific impulse, engine (sec) 310. 58 310. 32 -0.08
Mixture ratio, engine 1. 7348 1. 7508 +0.92
Oxidizer flow rate, overboard

(Ib/sec) 205. 80 210. 22 +2. 15
Fuel flow rate, overboard

(Ib/sec) 118. 37 119. 81 + 1. 22
The engine flight performance calculated with the Martin PRESTO

program is shown in Fig. III-7 as a function of time from 91FS . The
preflight prediction is also presented in this figure for comparison.
Engine flight performance corrected to standard inlet conditions at

the 91FS + 57 second time slice is shown in Table III-9. This is com-
pared with acceptance test and the predicted flight performance at
standard inlet conditions arid the nominal time as used in the preflight
prediction. The predicted flight performance at standard inlet condi-
tions was obtained by adjusting the nominal acceptance test data for a
900-pound acceptance-to-flight thrust growth obtained from analyses of
previous Titan II and GLV flights.
TABLE III-9
Stage II Engine Performance Corrected to Standard Inlet Conditions
at giFS + 57 Seconds
Predicted Flight
Acceptance (including 900-lb Flight
Parameter Test thrust growth) Performance
Thrust, chamber (Ib) 99,934 100,834 101,871

Specific impulse,
engine (sec). 309. 77 309.77 309. 57
Mixture ratio, engine 1. 7749 1. 7749 1. 7921
Oxidizer flow rate,
overboard (Ib/sec) 206. 51 208.37 211. 38
Fuel flow rate over-
board (Ib/sec) 116. 09 117. 14 117. 69
-15 -
o 104
r-H
102
100
Average Engine Performance Integrated

3
Li
from First Steady-State to 91FS2
.e
0) Preflight Flight
en Ll
Symbol Prediction Average
r—I 0
g. 315 F 100681. 102411.

rt c
r
sp 310. 58 310.32
310 - U *e
MR 1. 7348 1. 7508
Q)
e
a 305 W 205. 80 210.22
W . 00
300 L W. 118. 37 119. 81
fo
o
o 1.85
15
K
1.80
Li
3
o 1.75
CO
J2 1.70
•^° 215 — c
uu
^->aT 210 —
o a;
to 205 - Preflight prediction
^5
""
^ _
125 r T3 200
o LI
a
1^.
120 - la 195 -
LI
-*->
a! 0
K 115 - O 190-
O <u
c•a 110
TJ
LIa) 105
'x
O
-0
J3
^
<u 100 —
160 180 200
o
T—{
0
Time from 91FS]l (sec)
(S
Fig. III-7. Stage II Engine Flight Performance
ER 13227-5
Ill-16 L
The standard inlet condition data in Table III-9 indicates that the
higher-than-predicted average flight thrust was due largely to a greater-
than-predicted thrust growth. Higher-than-predicted flight mixture
ratio resulted primarily from a mixture ratio shift at standard inlet
conditions of +0. 97% from the acceptance test value. This mixture
ratio shift was well within the 3-sigma run-to-run repeatability of 2. 28%.
d. Shutdown transient
Stage II engine shutdown was initiated by a guidance command after
179. 74 seconds of burn time. The redundant shutdown system was in-
corporated. The calculated shutdown impulse from 91FS,to c.
91FS0£ +
20 seconds was 36,500 Ib-sec compared to the predicted 37,500 ±
7000 Ib-sec. As on GT-4 evaluation, impulse was obtained from the
±10 g accelerometer data from 91FS2 to 91FS2 + 0. 680 second and from
low level accelerometer (±0. 5 g) data from 91FS2 + 0. 680 second to
91FS 2 + 20 seconds. The impulse obtained from the ±10 g accelerometer,
and illustrated by the P decay in Fig. III-8, was 25,370 Ib-sec. For
°3
the remaining tailoff, a vehicle weight of 13, 770 pounds was used with
the accelerometer readings to derive the thrust tailoff (shown in Fig.
III-9), and an impulse of 11, 130 Ib-sec was obtained.
e. Engine malfunction detection system
The Stage II engine MDS operated satisfactorily throughout the flight.
Figures III-6 and III-8 illustrate the response times and chamber pres-
sure correlation during the start and shutdown transients, respectively,
of the malfunction detection fuel injector pressure switches (MDFJPS).
Fuel injector pressure was not instrumented; therefore, actuation pres-
sures are not available. ' . . •'
'-.*
A summary of the significant switch parameters is presented in
Table III-10.
TABLE III-10
Stage II MDFJPS Operation
Parameter
Actuation time (sec) 91FSj + 0. 73
PC at actuation (psia) Invalid
c
' '- r'' F* v • • ;«
peaetuatioirti'me (sec) 91FS2 + 0. 15
- «-' ' ' ' ' „ ' ' . , . ,
P at deactuation (psia) 465
ER 13227-5
IH-17-?
1000
MDFJPS (Meas 0855)
-1.0 + 2.0
Time from 91FS, (sec)
Fig. HI-8. S/A 3 Shutdown Transient
ER 13227-5
111-18-'
5000
4000
3000 P
en
3
2000
1000
Fig. III-9- Stage II Engine Thrust Tail-Off
•' <> ' 1 '

EH5*!'
Ill-19
B. PROPELLANT SUBSYSTEM
All of the launch and flight objectives relating to the propellant sys-
tem were achieved on GT-5.
1. Propellant Loading
a. Loading procedure
Propellant loadings performed on GT-5 are shown in Table III-11.
TABLE III-11
GLV-5 Loading Summary
Loading
Operation Description Date
Special loading Separate tank loadings; 16 and 17 July 1965

Stage II tanks loaded us-
ing Stages I and II flow-
meters •
WMSL Dual loading 21 July
Launch attempt Dual loading 18 and 19 August
Launch Dual loading 20 August
Problems noted during the loading operations and related tests were
as follows:
(1) Stage I fuel tank flowmeter leaked externally and was out of
tolerance during special loading.
(2) Stage II oxidizer tank flowmeter was out of tolerance during

WMSL.
(3) Stage I fuel primary totalizer failed on count up during flow

verification tests, prior to the launch attempt loading.
(4) Stage I fuel and oxidizer flowmeters leaked externally during

flow verification tests, and available spares were found to
be defective.
(5) Stage II oxidizer secondary totalizer did not stop counting

after the pump had been stopped during the launch attempt
loading.
ER 13227-5
m-20 INfiWWAi
(6) Stage I oxidizer primary totalizer failed during detanking

after the launch attempt.
(7) Stage I fuel tank hi-lite and flowmeter readings were out of
tolerance during launch loading.
All hardware and procedural problems were resolved prior to the

launch loading of 20 August.
The out-of-tolerance condition of Problem (7) is shown in Table

III-13. Mission load was established for the Stage I fuel tank by using
the "K" factor ratio method.
The special loading was performed for the purpose of verifying the
propellant tank calibrations conducted at Martin-Denver. WMSL was
utilized as a secondary check on propellant tank calibrations. As a
result of these calibration checks, the following modifications were
made to the tab runs prior to the launch attempt:
(1) Stage I oxidizer tank volume was increased by 0. 16%.
(2) Stage I fuel tank volume was increased by 0. 10%.
(3) Allowable difference between the flowmeter and the tab run
for the Stage II oxidizer tank was changed from +_ 0. 30% to
+0. 50 a,
-0. 30 /0'
The launch propellant loading schedule is presented in Table III-12.
TABLE III-12
GT-5 Propellant Loading Schedule (20 August 1965)
Stage I Stage I Stage II Stage II

Oxidizer Fuel Oxidizer Fuel
Event Tank Tank Tank Tank
Start loading (EST) 1933 2146 1933 2146

Hi-lite (EST) 2059 2239 2013 2216
Load complete (EST) 2109 2258 2029 2224
b. Propellant load verification
Data from the four propellant loading operations are presented in

Table 111-13. The data shown compare indicated flowmeter loads at
hi-lite with tab run hi-lite values obtained from tank calibrations.
IfONFfDWTIAL
ER 13227-5
111-21
J8 00 00 O O o o oo o o ooo O O0 0 0
rt ^ "~* cn co co co co co CO CO CO CO CO CO iDCO CO co co m co co
> *4 ^.
0.2 ~ o o oo oo o o oo o o ooo O 0000
-H + + ' -H -H -H -i- ' -H
<S
C
CU
CU T3 T3
g C OJ
£ Cd T3
cy , rt
CQ *•" O CO f- ^j* in CO
—i ^r CN co 01 ^ eg 01 in m CO t- .H CO iH ^ Ol CO
8 £ *,
U « CU <^s
^ 01 in o in 01 t- c- CO CO C- Ol
O I-H CN <-H ^* O "H eg co o o eg o eg o co o eg
<y £ *j ^ o o o o" o* o' 0*0*00 o* o" o* o* o* o* o' o'
rH Q | + ' • + 1 + + + ' + i i i + 1 1 + +
g t. '£
a
<u- t*- eg c-- 01 o i> in co ^t* 01 o o 01 m O O OJ O
c ."S c -o Ol CO Tf ^J* CO Ol co CN co m
m co CN co o o C™ CO ^P I-H
r-
co
co oo
01 m
r-
-H
o
CD Ol m rH
CO O CO CD O O CO O CD O Ol O CD O 01 o co o
' " ^ Ci
in co CN eg 01 eg m co CN eg m oo eg eg m co eg eg
rt EZ .-H i-H
o
*O CU (§) © ©
flj •*•* V^
o o ^ o oo O O OO o o o o 000 0
"rt c ri 3- ^H Ol Ol Ol ^H t*- .-H r^ r— co CO Ol C- CO eg CD -H TP
.0 | o [3 i> m ^H co 01 r-< o o co --H m co m eg CD CO CO CN
TJ o CO O CO* CO* Ol" O* 01* -H* CD" o" 01* o" co* o* OJ O CD O
C i—i m co eg eg —t eg m co eg eg in co CN eg m co eg eg
73
ol *"* tn *-* -1
o CU
W
C
n)
i—i
PS;
1
r- c- rj* CD co co o o eg .-H O C- CO C- .-H m 01 .-H
Q.° m co CD I-H eg co ^' O co" co OJ OJ Ol ^H Ol OJ Ol I-H
J i—i
0) £ S CO CO ^t* ^ ^ CO CO CO CO CO CN eg eg co eg eg eg co
PQ a H
o
fn
a, ««H
co co co co w en CO CO 0] CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
O cu cu cu cu H >H >H >H >H >H >H >H EH >H >H >i EM En
2
a.
ni 0)
a bo
to HH HH HH HH HH HH HH HH HH HH HH HH HH HH HH HH K HH
* "
en I
5 ©© e©
O rH C— Ol t- CO Ol —1 •^ eg co o c- o o> .H t- O Ol ^H
i-H nJ CD CO CO t- CO C- CO CD CD t> co c— m co
ft. -tH * i-H CO -H ^H •-H ^H CC CO -H -H CO CO
Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol CNJ CO Ol Ol Ol Ol CO CO OJ Ol CO CO
cu 2 OJ Ol O3 Ol O> O3 O O OJ OJ Ol OJ O O Ol OJ O O
CO ,-t _-( T-< ^H -H ^H eg eg -H -H T-H IH eg eg -H ,-H CN CN
it <y <y t-> cu »H £ ^

CU
OJ
tg
S .2.2 S .2 CD ^
• lH rrj I
-S rH 3 22 7J ^t "3 rl -13 IM 1 ~ 2 -S T3 rH -^ u
j< gj o o -2 <H •a" D x 3

3 O 'S
•p QJ X 3
Ot
0^ ^
S KM HH
HH HH
HH HH
HH HH
HH HH HH HH HH HH C HH
HH HH
HH
HH HH
rH
HH
b -^
5 co
H CU QJ O Q) Qj CU CU QJ Q) CU CU CU CU 0> QJ OJ QJ CU c „
w> wj CJD wi UD tu) tU3 CJ) tuD bfl bfi tuO cuO W) UD tJD taO bO
ctj (d ri rt nJ cd cd cct rt cd rt ri rt cd cd nJ cd oJ
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO COCO CO
p c
c
.
bo H «
Be J f , a, < W
2™ O f4 CJ
T3 CU "o ^ c c
rt >
O M
1
HH CO rH
s 3 QJ
J cd
i
J 0 ©©©
^
ER 13227-5
111-22
Flowmeter readings were corrected wherever flow rates were off

nominal conditions, e. g. , Stage I fuel tank.
The flowmeters used in the GT-5 launch attempt and launch loadings
were check-calibrated after the mission, with the results as shown in
Table III-14.
TABLE III-14
Flowmeter Calibrations --Postlaunch
Check Apparent Error

Flowmeter Calibration I"lowmeter Assembly
System Serial No. Facility at Launch (%)
Stage I oxidizer 199167® Wyle -0. 192

Laboratories
Stage I fuel 199170® Mar tin -Denver -0. 134
Stage II oxidizer 206359 Wyle +0. 057
Laboratories
Stage II fuel 206361 Martin-Denver +0. 214
from S/N 206360
Normally a stage II meter
c. Total propellant load
Total mission loads for the launch, as determined from flowmeters,

are shown in Table III- 15. The flowmeter totalizer readings were cor-
rected by subtracting propellant vaporized, and that remaining in the
fill lines. The flight operation afforded additional data for comparison
of onboard and requested loads as the flowmeters were check-calibrated
following the launch. Corrected flowmeter loads were obtained by ap-
plying the check calibration results to the flowmeter indicated readings.
TABLE III- 15
Summary of Mission Loads <-
Flowmeter Corrected Requested

Indicated Load Flowmeter Load Load
Tank (lb) (lb) (lb)
Stage I oxidizer 171,962 171, 685 171, 972

Stage I fuel 89, 771* 89,951 90, 049
Stage II oxidizer 37,865 37,857 37,857
Stage II fuel 21,948 21, 930 21, 952
*"K" factor ratio applied
ER 13227-5
m-23
d. Flight verification of propellant load

The total propellant loads as determined by flight verification are
shown in Table III-16. The flight verification loads were calculated
from a propellant inventory, using actual level sensor uncover times
and tank calibration-data to determine flow rates. Total, integrated
in-flight and overboard propellant consumptions were found using the
engine analytical model. All transient propellant consumptions and
pressurization gas weights were calculated from flight data (Tables
III-42 and III-43).
As shown in Table 111-16, excellent agreement, well within the load-

ing tolerance of 0. 35%, was obtained between reconstructed data and
preflight predictions.
TABLE III-16
Flight Verification of Total Propellant Load
Comparison of Flight Verification Load
with Requested Load
Flight Requested
Verification Load Load Difference
Tank (lb) (lb) (%)
Stage I oxidizer 171, 762 171, 972 -0. 122
Stage I fuel 89,947 90,049 -0. 113
Stage II oxidizer 37,967 37,857 +0.291
Stage II fuel 21,969 21,952 +0.077
Comparison of Flight Verification Load

with Corrected Flowmeter Load
Corrected
Flight Flowmeter
Verification Load Load Difference
Tank (lb) (lb) (%)
Stage I oxidizer 171, 762 171,685 +0.045
Stage I fuel 89,947 89,951 -0.005
Stage II oxidizer 37, 967 37,857 + 0.291
Stage II fuel 21,969 21,930 + 0. 178
ER 13227-5
111-24
e. Propellant assay
Prelaunch data from the propellant assay laboratory report (sampled

on F-4 day) for the oxidizer (nitrogen tetroxide) and fuel (50% hydrazine
and 50% UDMH) are presented in Table III-17. Specification values are
also listed. Good agreement is shown between the laboratory data and
specification requirements. The density was determined by a pycnometer.
TABLE III-17
Propellant Assay Summary
Fuel, MIL-P-27402 (USAF) Test Requirement
Hydrazine 51. 5 % 51 ± 0 . 9 %
UDMH 47. 8% 46. 9% min
H
2°
0.7% 2. 0% max
Total N 2 H 4 +. UDMH 99.3% 98% min
Solids 3. 0 mg/liter 25 mg/liter
Particles on 50 mesh screen 0 0
Density (gm/cc) at 77° F 0.9002 --
Oxidizer, MIL-P-26539 (USAF) Test Requirement
Nitrogen tetroxide (N 2 O 4 ) 99. 9% 99. 4% min
Chloride as NOC1 * --
H 2 O equivalent 0. 02% 0.2%
Solids 0. 20 mg/liter 10 mg/liter
Nonvolatile ash * --
Particles on 50 mesh screen * 0
*Not reported.
ER 13227-5
Ill-2 5
3 O O O O O — < - ^ O ' - H ' - ' C M ' —t ^ H ^ H C ^ C O C O
< o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
L(
D
>>
a
Q r- TJ< M w -^ m
§
0 o- d d o d o
•o fa
3
Ô
U
in i o m i r s m m ^ w c j C M ^ ' x p ^ J ' ' * ' ^ J < ' ^ ' ^ t o t D ' o

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
*
o fa
fl
Actual
rt ( s r
r - * c o o ' - c > J O c * a c M c J C « i c j c 3 e o e * i ^ r c o o j
H s >>
01
O •o Q t™ tD lO C*O iO O3
(U
] (N —< W m CD
Q) i-- t— r»- t- r- r-
£ fa
i—i
n! D
o a
3 aa> S1
Q O l C * 3 I > C O C D l
« J t
O C O C O 1
^ O J O ' - t i O C O O 3 t O ' - * v O
£H
m o o c o r - f ~ t O ( C C D i n m i o i o i o t o c ^ c o o o o o o
"O i
ni Id c o t o i ^ o > c o t o o i c o o ^ c o a ) c o - ^ a i
O O O a i O l O l O i O O i C T J O l O i O l O J O O —•
^^
<
>.
arature (° ]
A
ry Bulb
Q c\j o 01 oo co co
CO CO t- t— CO CO
fa
Q a
0)
S1
Q C ' J C O r J i ' t f ^ C O O C O M C O ^ O O - ^ C M O l ^ C O C M
H
^J" to rf n c«l i—' O O Ol o i a B o o c o t ) c ^ ^ ' u j t ~ t O u j
1 o o c o c o o o c o c o c o t — c - c ^ r - c ^ o o c o c o a o o o c o c o
fa
ta>_ w>_
a; H
<^ <N
Ien o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
PB
1
c o a i O ' - ^ c ^ c o * - ^ c ^ i c o ^ i o t o r - c o o i O - ^ c ^
— i » - t W C v J W C v ) C J O O O O O O O O O ^ - H - - t
III-2 6
2. Propellant Temperatures
a. Weather
A comparison of the F-45 day prediction, the F-l day prediction,

and the actual weather for the 21 August launch of GT-5 is made in
Table III-18. The F-45 day prediction was based on a hot June through
September day. The F-l day prediction was in good agreement with the
actual weather except for the predicted surface wind speed which was
52% high.
b. Ready storage vessel temperature
The requested and actual ready storage vessel (RSV) temperatures

are shown in Table 111-19.
TABLE III-19
RSV Temperature
Requested Actual
System Meas Temperature (°F) Temperature (° F)
Fuel 4425 26. 5 26. 5
Oxidizer 4426 24. 3 24. 7

c. Flowmeter temperature
The predicted temperature rise between the RSV and the flowmeter
at the end of the precooling cycle was 1. 8° F for oxidizer and 1.6° F
for fuel. Applying these quantities to the actual RSV temperature at
the start of the precooling cycle yields the predicted flowmeter tem-
peratures.
The predicted and the actual flowmeter temperatures that occurred

at the end of the precooling cycle are shown in Table 111-20.
TABLE 111-20
Propellant Temperatures at Flowmeter
Predicted Actual
Tempera- Tempera- Delta
System Meas ture (° F) ture (° F) Temperature (° F)
Stage I fuel 4431 28. 1 31. 3 +3.2

Stage II fuel 4432 28. 1 31.7 +3. 6
Stage I oxidizer 4433 26. 6 29. 3 +2. 7
Stage II oxidizer 4434 26. 6 29. 3 +2. 7
If/*71
ER 13227-5
III-2 7
The propellant temperature rise during the loading operation caused

by the heat input from pump work is the difference between the flowmeter
and RSV temperatures at the time that hi-lite is achieved. The tempera-
ture rise that occurred during the GT-5 loading operation is shown in
Table 111-21.
TABLE III-21
Propellant Temperature Rise During Loading
Flowmeter RSV Temperature
System Temperature (° F) Temperature (° F) Rise (° F)
Stage I fuel 28. 5 27. 6 0.9
Stage II fuel 28. 8 27. 5 1. 3
Stage I oxidizer 28. 6 26. 5 2. 1
Stage II oxidizer 28. 6 25. 6 3. 0
The RSV and flowmeter temperature histories during loading are
shown in Figs. Ill-10 and III-ll.
d. Hi-lite-temperature
The requested and actual propellant temperatures at the time of
high level sensor covering are presented in Table III-22.
TABLE 111-22
Propellant Temperature at Hi-Lite
Requested Actual
Tempera- Tempera- Delta
System Meas ture (° F) ture (° F) Temperature (° F)
Stage I fuel 4124 29. 5 29. 5 +0. 0
Stage II fuel 4601 30. 8 31. 1 +0. 3
Stage I oxidizer 4128 28. 2 29. 1 +0.9
Stage II oxidizer 4604 30. 2 29. 9 -0. 3
The actual hi-lite temperatures were within the ±2° F tolerance on
the requested temperatures.
The increase in propellant temperatures during the loading opera-
tion, caused by the heat transferred from the propellant tanks and fill
lines which run from the flowmeter to the tanks, is shown in Table 111-23.
EIHEHElSC-i
ER 13227-5
JS0NFIDENTIAL, m-29
<a
t-,
Stage I load complete

H
25
2100 2150 2200 2250 2300 2350

Eastern Standard Time (hr)
Fig. III-ll. Fuel Temperature During Loading
ER 13'2'27"--5-
m-30
TABLE 111-23
Propellant Temperature Increase During Loading
Flowmeter Hi -lite Temperature
System Temperature (° F) Temperature (° F) Rise (°F)
Stage 'I fuel 28. 5 29. 5 +1. 0
Stage II fuel 28. 8 31. 1 +2. 3
Stage I oxidizer 28. 6 29. 1 +0. 5
Stage II oxidizer 28. 6 29. 9 + 1. 3
The indicated temperature rise is the difference between the tern;
perature of the propellant at the time of high level sensor covering and
the temperature of the propellant in the flowmeter at that time.
e. Liftoff temperature
The propellant bulk temperatures at time of liftoff are shown in
Table 111-24.
TABLE III-24
Propellant Bulk Temperature at Liftoff
F-45 Day F-l Day Actual Reconstructed
Temperature Temperature Tempera- Tempera-
System Prediction (° F) Prediction (° F) ture (° F) ture (° F)
Stage I fuel 44. 1 43. 5 42. 6 41. 7
Stage II fuel 42. 5 44. 0 44. 2 43. 0
Stage I
oxidizer 46. 5 46. 6 45. 2 44. 2
Stage II
oxidizer 47. 8 47. 8 46. 2 45.4
Reconstructed temperatures, and their position in the mixture ratio
band, are shown in "Figs. Ill-12 and III-13.
Figures 111-14, 111-15, 111-16 and 111-17 show the comparison of the
F-l day temperature prediction, the reconstructed temperature and the
actual propellant temperatures during the countdown for each propellant
tank. Correlation of actual F-l day predicted and reconstructed tem-
per-atures is good, which indicates that the analytical methods used in
the propellant temperature monitoring are satisfactory. The differ-
ence betw.een the F-l day prediction and the reconstruction is due to the
l@giSI.TIAL
ER 13227-5
III-31
lower-than-predicted wind speeds. The average actual wind speed was

3. 0 knots lower than the average of the wind speed used in the F-l day
prediction.
A polyethylene blanket was placed around the Stage II fuel tank at

0400 EST and was removed between 0600 and 0700 EST. Prior to in-
stallation of the blanket, the temperature rise rate for this tank averaged
about 1. 05° F/hr. Use of the blanket reduced the rate to about 0. 40° F/
hr, a reduction of better than 50%.
f. Suction temperatures
The actual pump inlet temperatures were in good agreement with the
predicted temperature profiles. These data are shown in Figs. Ill-18,
111-19, 111-20 and 111-21.
The trends of the actual temperature history curves were in good

agreement with those predicted, but uniformly low. This was a result
of the difference between predicted and actual weather, and the differ- i
ence between optimum and T-0 propellant temperatures.
A comparison is made between the suction and tank bottom probes

at various times after FS . In this manner the probes are measuring
the same element of fluid and a more realistic comparison is possible.
The large difference between the suction probe and the tank bottom
probe, on the Stage II fuel tank is due to the inaccuracy of the data which
yield a. tolerance of ±6. 0° F on the recorded temperatures.
The tank bottom probe and pump inlet temperatures are shown in
Table 111-25.
TABLE 111-25
Comparison of Tank Bottom Probe and Pump Inlet Temperatures
Tank
Suction Bottom
Probe Probe Delta
Time Tempera- Tempera- Tempera-
System (sec) ture (° F) ture (° F) ture (° F)
Stage I fuel FSj + 5 41. 8 41. 7 +0. 1

Stage II fuel FS, + 25 39. 6 41. 6 -2. 0
Stage I oxidizer FS, + 6 40. 9 41.2 -0. 3
Stage II oxidizer FS, + 22 44. 5 44. 3 +0.2
ER 13227-5
111-32
F-45 days predicted

launch window
in-l F-l day prediction
MR (minimum)
MR (optimum)
S
n)
t,
0)
a
scu
»s Reconstructed
PQ
MR (maximum)
35 40 45
Bulk Fuel Temperature (° F)
Fig. 111-12. Propellant Bulk Temperatures at Liftoff, Stage I
ER 13227-5
m-33
I
!-,
N
I
r-H
^
25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Bulk Fuel Temperature (° F)
Fig. 111-13. Propellant BaLk Temperatures at Liftoff, Stage II
^£ONFIDENT-IAL
~~ ERT3227-5 •
m-34 i
co
OJ
<D
I
I
0)
fn
0)
N
H
H
ER 1322 7
m-35
ER 13227-5
111-36
01
&
tU
I
0)
p<
EH
0)
-p
•P
EH
<u
<U
bo
ER 13227-5
m-37
•o
b
a-
•73
ER 13227-5
111-38
I
o
8
o
<u
S
ra.
06
ER 13227-5
Ill-3 9
60
QOO Actual
F-45 day prediction
55
— 50
03
t-,
0)
a.
<u 45
Tank bottom probe £
140 160
Time from STFSj (sec)
Fig. III-19- Stage I Fuel Pump Inlet Temperature (Meas 0013)
ER 13227-5
111-40
-=t
H
O
<u
1
<u
8<
M
H
H
U)
•H
ER 13227-5
111-41
ITv
o
0)
ft
H
P)
<i
ER 13227-5
Ill-42
g. Best estimate temperatures
The propellant pump inlet temperatures used in the reconstruction

were obtained by finding the integrated average of the actual tempera-
tures illustrated in Figs. 111-18, III-19, 111-20 and 111-21 for the Stage
I oxidizer, Stage I fuel, Stage II oxidizer and Stage II fuel, respectively.
Because of the large variation between the suction probe and the
tank bottom probe, the Stage II fuel integrated average suction tem-
perature was revised. The tank bottom probe was assumed to be cor-
rect because of its greater accuracy. Therefore, +2. 0° F was added
to the suction temperature to yield a best estimate temperature. The
temperatures used in the reconstruction are shown in Table 111-26.
TABLE 111-26
Reconstruction Temperatures
System Temperature (° F)
Stage I fuel 42. 6

Stage II fuel 44. 2
Stage II oxidizer 45. 2
Stage II oxidizer 46. 2
3. Propellant Feed System
a. Feedline transients
The maximum transient pressures recorded at the pump inlet in-

strumentation bosses are listed in Table 111-27.
No data are available on the Stage I oxidizer prevalve opening pres-

sure transient because these valves were opened before telemetry re-
cording was started. Ignition transient pressures were, in general,
similar to those on GT-3 and GT-4 flights, except for the Stage I oxi-
dizer ignition peak which was lower than on previous flights. Telemetry
blackout normally experienced during Stage II ignition prevents obtain-
ing data on engine ignition transients.
b. Pump suction pressures
Stages I and II static pressures at the suction measurement boss

locations are shown in Figs. 111-22 through 111-25. These graphs show
the preflight predicted, postflight reconstructed, and best estimate of
actual flight pressures.
ER 13227-5
Ill-43
TABLE III-27
Maximum Transient Pressures at Pump Inlet
At Design
At Initial At At Operating
Prevalve Pressure Ignition , TCV Pressure
Meas Opening Wave (psia) Closing (psia)
Stage I oxi-
dizer (0017) No data Negligible 105 Negligible 215
Stage I fuel
(0014) 45. 0 Negligible 40 Negligible 55
Stage II oxi-
dizer (0510) Negligible Negligible * Negligible 260
Stage II fuel
(0507) Negligible Negligible * Negligible 80
*Not available due to telemetry blackout at staging
The postflight reconstructed curves are based on flight measured

values of ullage gas pressure, axial factors, propellant temperatures
and propellant loadings. The preflight predicted curves were computed
for the GLV-5 45-day report (Ref. 19).
The Stage I oxidizer best estimate curve of the static suction pres-
sures at the measurement boss (Meas 0017) consists of an average of
the measured pressure and the two oxidizer standpipe pressures (Meas
0033 and 0034) adjusted to the Meas 0017 boss location. The Stage I
fuel suction pressure best estimate at Meas 0014 boss location is an
average of measured pressure and the two fuel accumulator pressures
(Meas 0037 and 0038) adjusted to the Meas 0014 boss location. The
Stage II oxidizer and fuel best estimate suction pressures are the pres-
sures measured by Meas 0510 and 0507, respectively.
The difference between reconstructed and measured pressures at

the Stages I and II fuel measurement boss locations (Meas 0014 and
0507) exceeded the instrumentation tolerance of 2%. An investigation
is under way to determine the cause of these discrepancies.
Good agreement was obtained throughout flight between the measured

and adjusted pressures giving the Stage I oxidizer best estimate suction
pressure. The Stage I fuel measurement boss pressure and adjusted
S/A 1 and S/A 2 accumulator pressures (Meas 0037 and 0038) agreed
closely throughout flight.
ER 13227-5
111-44
110
Preflight prediction
100 Post-flight reconstruction
A A A Best estimate of flight suction pressure
a
<u
Time from 87FS, (sec)
Fig. 111-22. Stage I Oxidizer Suction Pressure (Meas 001?)
ER 13227-5
ni-45
Preflight predicted
Post-flight reconstruction
AAA Best estimate of flight

suction pressure
&
3
01
to
d>
120 140 160

Time from 87FSj (sec)
Pig. 111-23. Stage I Fuel Suction Pressure (Meas 0014)
EB 13227-5
m-46 L
o
to
I
•p
I
M
H
-
CVJ
(Btsd) ajnssaaj
ER 13227-5
m-47
&
o
3 I
§
•H
H
II
0)
e*
(Bisd)
ER 13227-5
Ill-48
c. NPSH supplied
The NPSH supplied at the engine turbopump inlets during the start
phase and during steady-state operation is shown in Table 111-28.
4. Propellant Utilization
a. Level sensor uncover
Figures 111-26 and 111-27 show the predicted, actual and reconstructed
level sensor uncover times for Stages I and II. Measured level sensor
uncovering times are likewise tabulated in Table 111-29. The relation-
ship of the predicted to the actual times of sensor uncover reflects the
higher-than-predicted flow rates experienced on Stages I and II.
Slosh, as indicated by on and off signals near the uncovering of the

Stage II high level sensors and one Stage II oxidizer outage sensor, was
less than that witnessed on any previous Gemini-Titan flight. The long-
est duration of slosh on GT-5 was 0. 40 second for the Stage II fuel high
level sensor.
b. Best estimate level sensor uncover times
Table 111-30 contains the best estimate average level sensor uncover
times for the GLV-5 flight. Also shown are the integrated average tem-
peratures between level sensor uncoverings and the corresponding den-
sities. The measured average uncover times shown in Table-111-29 were
decreased by 0. 058 second to allow for the built-in level sensor delay of
0. 033 second and the PCM digital sampling rate of 0. 05 second.
Table 111-31 contains the level sensor volumes and incremental vol-
umes used in the level sensor flow rate analysis. The Stage I oxidizer
and fuel high level sensor volumes were reconstructed to reflect the
volume which was determined by calibration at Cape Kennedy using the
propellant transfer and pressurization system. The Stage I oxidizer
outage level sensor volume was calculated using both the actual counts
of flowmeter pulses during the special and launch attempt loadings, and
the results of an analysis of oxidizer suction pressure measurements
which determined the level of propellant at 87FS . Slosh during cover-
ing, erratic results and difficulty in determining actual temperatures
ruled out the use of the loading data on the other shutdown and outage
sensors. For all other sensors, the Martin-Denver tank calibration
volumes were used.
ER 13227-5
Ill-50
§
•H
eg1
8n>
g
w
<n
d)
SH
H
I
CD
!o
T3
0)
CO
3
o
o
c
ER 13227-5
"Page missing from available version"
Ill-59
Stage II shutdown was initiated by a guidance command; therefore,

the propellants were not exhausted as in Stage I. The predicted and
actual values for the propellants consumed during shutdown are also
shown in Table 111-41. The actual values were computed from the
actual altitude shutdown impulse.
TABLE 111-41
Propellant Shutdown Consumption
Oxidizer (Ib) Fuel (Ib)
Predicted Actual Predicted Actual
Stage I 0 29 145 156
Stage II 86 78 69 62
i. Propellant inventory
The reconstructed propellant inventories for GT-5 are shown in

Tables 111-42 and III-43 for Stage I and Stage II, respectively. The
inventory consists of the nonusable and usable propellants, with the
utilization of each clearly itemized. The burning time margin for '
Stage II was 1. 009 seconds.
5. Components
a. Prevalves
Stages I and II prevalves were not changed after the launch attempt
of 19 August 1965, because the allowable five days (maximum) of pro-
pellant exposure to prevalve seals would not have been exceeded by
launch time on 21 August 1965. Stage I oxidizer prevalves remained
open between the launch attempt and the launch. Prevalves installed
for the flight are identified in Table 111-44.
b. Level sensors
GLV-5 incorporated 18 Bendix optical-type propellant level sensors.

These are listed in Table 111-45. All sensors performed satisfactorily
during propellant loadings and flight.
c. Oxidizer standpipes
The oxidizer standpipe assembly on GLV-5 incorporated the com-

ponents required for remote charging. However, charging of the
standpipes was performed manually for both countdown operations
ER 13227-5
Ill-60
TABLE III-42
GLV-5 Stage I Constructed Propellant Loading
I. Predicted inflight engine mixture ratio 1.9225 ±1. 17%

II. Average inflight mixture ratio (engine) 1.9352 +1.71%
III. Outage (percent of total usable propellants) 0. 336% fuel
Oxidizer Fuel Total

IV. Nonusable propellants (Ib) (Ib) (Ib)
A. Fuel bleed -- 11 11
B. Start consumption (87FSj to TCPS) 204 40 244
C. Hold down (TCPS to liftoff (2 sec)) 2, 230 1, 188 3,418
D. Trapped above interface at shutdown 0 20 20
E. Trapped below interface at shutdown 235 309 544
F. Vapor retained at shutdown
1. For pressurization
A. Oxidizer tank 312 -- 312
B. Fuel tank 7 90 97
2. Vaporized 8 0 8
G. Total nonusable 2,996 1, 658 4, 654
V. Usable propellants
A. Steady-state overboard (liftoff to 87FS2) 168, 737 87, 267 256,004
B. Shutdown transient (FS to 0% thrust) 29 156 185
C. Outage -- 866 866
D. Total usable 168, 766 88,289 257,055
VI. Total propellant loaded 171, 762 89, 947 261, 709
VII. Propellant load at liftoff 169,328 88, 708 258, 036
VIII. Weight of initial pressurizing gas
A. Fuel tank (N*
9
&
) 8
B. Oxidizer tank (N 2 +NO 2 ) 20
ER 13227-5
Ill-61
TABLE III-43
GLV-5 Stage II Constructed Propellant Loading
I. Predicted inflight engine mixture ratio 1. 7348 +2. 52%

II. Average inflight mixture ratio (engine) 1. 7501 ±1. 55%
III. Outage (percent of total usable propellants) 0.468% fuel
IV. Burning time margin 1.009 sec
Oxidizer Fuel Total

(Ib) (Ib) (Ib)
V. Nonusable propellants
A. Fuel bleed -- 11 11
B. Trapped above interface at FS2 + 20 sec 0 0 0
(0% thrust)
C. Trapped below interface at FS2 + 20 sec 20 14 34
(0% thrust)
D. Vapor retained after FS 2
1. Pressurization (fuel tank) 4 50 54
2. Vaporization (oxidizer tank) 12 0 12
E. Total nonusable 36 75 111
VI. Usable propellants
A. Start consumption (FSj to 90% thrust) 131 51 182
B. Steady-state overboard (90% thrust to FS2) 37,506 21,383 58,889
C. Shutdown consumption (FS 2 to 0% thrust) 78 62 140
D. Steady-state residuals (after FS2)
1. Burning time margin 216 120 336
2. Outage -- 278 278
E. Total usable 37,931 21,894 59,825
VII. Total propellants loaded 37,967 21,969 59,936
VIII. . Weight of initial pressurizing gas
A. Fuel tank (N 2 ) 5
B. Oxidizer tank (N2 + NO2) 32
ER 13227-5
Ill-62
TABLE III-44
Prevalve Identification
Description Part No. Serial No.
Stage I oxidizer S/A 1 PS47510007-139 0700028

(fill and drain)
Stage I oxidizer S/A 2 PS47510007-159 0700021

(drain)
Stage II oxidizer S/A 3 PS47510005-199 0600031

(fill and drain)
Stage I fuel S/A 1 PS47510005-159 0600034

(fill and drain)
Stage I fuel S/A 2 PS47510005-169 0600046

(drain)
Stage II fuel S/A 3 PS47510006-059 0400009

(fill and drain)
because of failures in the remote charge system regulator assembly.

The assembly consists of the regulator (No. 318) and its dome loader
(No. 316).
Two regulator assembly failures occurred during checks made

prior to picking up the launch attempt countdown. The first failed as-
sembly was replaced on 18 August with a unit from spares. On 19
August, the substitute regulator was found to be leaking and it, in turn,
was replaced with a second assembly from spares.
Manual charging of the oxidizer standpipes for the launch attempt

was accomplished without incident at approximately 1145 EST on 19
August. The tools used for manual charging are shown in Fig. Ill-28.
A review of the manual charge for the launch attempt leads to the con-
clusion that both standpipes were properly charged.
Following the launch attempt, propellant.s were drained from the

tanks, the Stage I oxidizer prevalves left open, and the system main-
tained at 6-psig blanket pressure.
Draining of the Stage I oxidizer tank is done through the prevalve,

which allows 226 cubic inches of N O to remain above the entrance
to the standpipe on each subassembly (Fig. 111-28). The nitrogen gas
ER 13227-5
111-63
o OJ CD CO CM in CO -^ CO CO
cd OJ i> r- CO O CM OJ CM CM in
CO CO .-1 CO ^ CM l-H CO CM CM
o oo 0O o oo 0O
0Z o oo oo o oo 0O
</) o 0 0 oo o oo oo
c
o .
n) CD 03 05 OJ OJ CT! OJ 03 OJ OJ
£i CO CO CO CO CO ^JH •^ m
up O oo oo O O O oo
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
c
w o
0
a
o
•r-l
*V o c-
-M
cd
o
t—i
fl>
bo
s3 "<_,~ CO
m
CM CM
03 CO ô CD
CO CO
mm
CM CO
o rt T^
CM CM mm O CO CO CM CM
CO CM CM m
55 "* CM CO
TD
'c
n)
to
•a
tS
a
>s
fn 3
til
XJ
a3 CO
CTJ
CU
CM
m
CO O3
mm
m o
tn m
o
m
CD C-
in m
^^
^ in
mm
o O 0 oo o oo oo
CD --< m CM co 10 CM [^
"CTJ CO in co O3 1-4 CO O3
CM CO CO CO i-t CM
O oo o O O O O
cu & O 0 0 o O 0 0 O
Cfi O oo o 0O oo
w O C
0
O
m COC
< en0) a) O1 OJ OJ
I I
OJ 03 03 OJ OJ
!_
a CO
o
CO CO
oo
1 1
1 1 o O O
1 1
oo
1 1 O
O
c c
o ^3
O
cd
0 t> c- c*- CD CO CO CO CM
fc-H co CM CO ^ t-H CM
03 E *~. 1 1
0
bo 2 "*• CM co'co* 1 1 CD CD r~ co'co" "
a o ii t>
CO CO O
-3*
CD CD
CO
55 I> ,— < i—i
c
^
0)
"c ho
rt
i,
. 10 s> ^ 1 1
• •-i
Ti
i a
£*
^— 1—1 1 1
>—i
t—1
1—I I—I
hH
1—1 1—1
3O >—' 'o
c
•iH
o
0)
rt CD CO 03 CM CO 0O
0 m mm 1 1 in m in m to lj
o oo 1 1 o o o oo 0
o oo o o o oo
"c
o
i—i
Oxidizer tan!
* Volume t
High level
Shutdown
Shutdown
Shutdown
Shutdown
Location
I
Fuel tank
0 CU O QJ
bo bo CiO tU3
cd ri cd ctf
up
83 £
ER 13227-5
m-64
Pt
•H
co
OJ
ER 13227-5
111-65
bubble existing in the standpipes prior to the second charge (21 August)
depends upon whether the entrance to the standpipes remains submerged
in oxidizer. The oxidizer liquid level could lower in two ways: by
vaporization into the oxidizer tank which is less than 5% saturated
with N 2 O 4 , and by leakage through the engine. Engine leakage was
monitored over the 2 0 - 1 / 2 hour period between detanking and reloading
and none was observed. Vaporization analyses indicate that about 2. 4
pounds of oxidizer would vaporize and diffuse into the tank during the
2 0 - 1 / 2 hour recycle period.
Immediately prior to the second loading (August 20), 0. 0013 pound

of nitrogen gas, saturated with N O vapor, was estimated to be in the
standpipe. During the loading process, this saturated gas/vapor mix-
ture was compressed and cooled, and in the 1-1/2 hour loading interval
(Stage I oxidizer tank), approximately 30% of the gaseous nitrogen could
have been absorbed.- Thus, prior to charging of the oxidizer standpipes
at T-165 minutes, the standpipe ullage volume was estimated to be be-
tween 5 and 7 cubic inches.
Manual charging procedures specify a 10-second charge at a regula-

tor setting of 57 psig. The airborne lines between standpipes and quick
disconnects (Fig. 111-28) had not been purged following the launch at-
tempt and were partially full of N O . Postlaunch analyses indicate
that approximately 8 to 9 seconds would be required to expel liquid
oxidizer from the unpurged airborne lines, leaving only 1 to 2 seconds
for the gas charge or about 14 ± 10 cubic inches of N9 gas into each
standpipe. Thus at T-0, the standpipe ullage volume was between 9
and 31 cubic inches instead of the desired 88 cubic inches.
The events and procedures relating to charging of the GLV-5 stand-

pipes are currently being duplicated in tests at Martin-Baltimore with
the tools and equipments utilized on the GT-5 operation. These tests
will determine, empirically, proper charge and bleed times and will
provide information necessary to revise the oxidizer standpipe manual
charging procedures.
d. Fuel accumulators
The fuel spring-piston accumulators used on GLV-5 were identical

in configuration to those on GLV-4. Response of the piston displace-
ment (Meas 0035 and 0036) was satisfactory throughout the flight.
Figure 111-29 is a plot of indicated accumulator piston displacement
throughout Stage I flight. Amplitudes were generally lower than those
recorded on the GT-3 and GT-4 flights. The lower amplitudes were
primarily due to absence of any 5-cps motion on this flight.
ER 13227-5
m-66
I > - - •
6 *-
i;> • " • -.-. . ' • • • ' . . . ' - .
\ ' ' ' • ' - ' ^ • ' -
•
G f ':"" " . -: •• ; , ,. i. i '
<a
S 4
. • ; _ / . • ... r ' " '
i ! • • • ' ' • ' - ' ' .•
<u
o , „ ...,.i j . Meas 0036 S/A 2 jltl%ltf%$l1^^
0)
•—«
a d9 i - : - " . . ' . / , ' ' ' ' ' , ' .^^^^^^^^^'^^'^^ ""- '• ". __:__.,_:...,• ' . ' ' , ! .'- "f fl:;sfe f_ L-..J^r^fej
CO -; •• • ,-• ^ ^w
'. ': ':" * '
% i*spii!*^î^^
.*-"*•
• *. i - " • ." 110
tf »
120 130 140 150 | 160
Time from 87FS, (sec) 87FS2
Fig. III-29. GT-t Fuel Accumulator Piston Travel
ER 13227-5
111-67
Dynamic function levels for the dry accumulators were measured

before and after installation. A summary of these friction measure-
ments is presented in Table 111-46 as peak-to-peak values (twice the
equivalent friction force in one direction).
TABLE III-46
Dynamic Function Levels for the Dry Accumulators
Peak-to-Peak Friction (psi)*

S/A Serial No. Bench Preflight
1 B012 0.7 0.7
2 B013 0.9 1.0
* Maximum acceptable value = 2.0 psi
The accumulators used on GLV-5 had low friction levels compared

to those of earlier vehicles. These low friction levels enabled fuel
system oscillations to remain small in magnitude during the POGO
period experienced on this flight.
C. PRESSURIZATION SUBSYSTEM
1. Prelaunch Pressurization
At approximately T-192 minutes, all propellant tanks were pres-

surized, through AGE, from blanket pressure level to flight pressure
levels. The resultant time-pressure profiles (Fig. IH-,30) indicate that
the process was normal. The tank ullage lockup pressures obtained
from landline measurements made at T-0 and the related normal oper-
ating pressure ranges are presented in Table 111-47.
TABLE 111-47
Tank Ullage Lockup Pressures
Normal Range Measured

Meas Parameter (psia) (psia)
4125 Stage I fuel tank 27. 5 to 31. 5 29.6
4129 Stage I oxidizer tank 30. 5 to 34. 5 32.8
4602 Stage II fuel tank 49. 5 to 54. 5 52.3
4605 Stage II oxidizer tank 53. 5 to 57. 5 56.9
ER 13227-5
111-68
Meas 4602 Meas 4605

Stage II fuel Stage II oxidizer
to
Meas 4129
ra
CO
Staffe I oxidizer

bo ;Meas 4125
id
r—I Stage I fuel
5
a
1 2 3 4 5
Time After Initiation of Flight Pressure Signal (min)
Fig. 111-30. Tank Pressurization Cycle (blanket to flight pressure)
ER 13227-5
111-69
To prevent inadvertent actuation of the pressure switch (low launch

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

111-31 through 111-34. These plots show flight-measured pressures,
preflight predicted pressures, and postflight reconstructed pressures.
The flight-measured pressures shown were obtained by averaging the
telemetered output from each pair of pressure transducers in the indi-
vidual tanks. The preflight predicted curves are taken from Ref. 19..
The postflight reconstruction was based on flight measured values of
engine performance, propellant temperatures and propellant loadings.
A comparison of significant pressurization system parameters taken
at FSj + 1 0 0 seconds is given in Table 111-48.
Figures 111-35, 111-36 and 111-37 present the preflight-predicted and

the inflight-estimated pressurization parameters at the orifice or nozzle
inlet. Removal of certain instrumentation from GLV-5 and up necessi-
tated estimation of inflight pressurization parameters.
The Stage II fuel tank pressure "B" measurement indicated an in-

crease in voltage of approximately 100 millivolts at 91FS . This volt-
age increase corresponded to a load loss equivalent to the spacecraft
meter load. This load loss would have caused the spacecraft meter to
indicate full scale if, in fact, the meter caused the shift.
Throughout the GT-5 flight, the Stage II fuel tank pressure "B" sensor
measurement read lower than the "A" sensor reading, but never did
exceed a 1.85-psia difference ( 2 . 2 5 psia is maximum allowable). The
smooth operation during flight removes suspicion on the inadequacy of
sensor performance.
3. Component Performance
All MDS tank pressure sensors functioned normally. The maximum

and mean pressure differences between pairs (A and B sensors) of
sensors in each of the invividual propellant tanks are shown in Table
111-49.
ER 13227-5
Ill-70
&

B «)
a3
£ -p
H
H
(Bisd)
t
ER 13227-5
Ill-71
I ~ 8
I sa
H
(U
cu
on
i
H
H
(Bisd) aanssaaj
ER 13227-5
m-72
(Btsd) aanssaaj
ER 13227-5
Ill-73
&
o
§
10
in
(U
ei
0)
•H
!«l
O
-p
CO
H
H
(eisd) aanssaaj SBQ
ER 13227-5
IH-74
290
270
t I—t
O
E£
-^
•a
I—«
(U
N
O
a)
(D
|
CD
a
S
<u
to
ri
A Preflight prediction
O Flight performance,
(0
01
a)
t,
a,
NOTE: All times from 87FS
0.050 0.055 0.060 0.065 0.070 0.075 0.080
Flow Ratio, W^p/Q (Ib/sec pressurant gas/ cu ft

propellant)
sec
Fig. HI-35. Stage I Fuel Tank Pressurant Performance
CO
ER 13227-5
111-75
430
41
a °
390
<u 370
•a
O 350
•a
l 330
o
(U
a 310
oi
ri
O
(H 290
3
ra
A Preflight
ra O Flight performance,
0)
^TTrnTq^^1! ?Tf :Ti-iTir -Tfrq
270
Note: All times from 87FSJ
250
0.12 0.13 0. 14 0.15 0. 16 0.17 0. 18 0. 19
cu ft
Flow Ratio, ( lb / sec pressurant gas/ sec propellant)
Fig. IU-36. Stage I Oxidizer Tank Pressurant Performance
ER 13227-5
Ill-76
290
a
in
m A Preflight prediction
m
O Flight performance. estimated
150 Note: All timesifrom 91FS
0. 10 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17

Flow Ratio, W_,/<£„ (Ib/sec pressurant gas/*!" • propellant)
ir ID sec
Fig. m-37. Stage II Fuel Tank Pressurant Performance
ER 13227-5
III-7 7
•u
0)
x! o ^
in
tifl 3^ c~
•iH
CM CO Oi 1C CO rH
CM CD CO CO CO •^Ji CO CO
CO
•a CH "*""* . c- in o . O3 c~ !-H . c~ c- T-H . CM
4J CO CM CO o t> CO CO t OO «-H CO , ^H .
M C! CM CM CM O CO 0 CM 0 <— 1 CM
o O O ^ ^
o
cu
co
o
o
i
in
XI rt I> CM CM O3 in t- rH
CD O CD 0 ^ in co
• rH Cd ^. D- in o . 03 t> rH t> rH . CM
OJ
fa
CM CO o 00 CO CO 03' --i CO
(H CM CM CM O CO 0 CM 0 r-t CM
0)
acd
fn •
Cd
PH 4-. T3
Xi 0) O
03
CM CD CO co ^Ji rH 03
a -s' CO
•rH° 0
CO CD i-H CO o in ^ « 03 CM
. COrH. O rH CO . COCX3 rH . CM
CO cu
4-> '«-< T3 rH CO CO CO O3 ^t* . o o CM , ^Ji .
•mo
CO 0> d) CM CM CM O rH ^< CO 0 in •* CM O rH CM
<=><=>
CO PH PL, i —1 <D
c cu 3
w o
rH (U rH
m 0 'n 0)
too." coo
H
© i£
a
Id "c?
s
P^
©
'cd
fe
0
^
O
^ c o ôc o
0) •rH .rH cu
rH CO i—i w O W rH
to PH' 0 PH
PH 3 M -£. Q
3 3 PH ^ fn
i—i •t
£J
CJ
cd O £ 3 O >5 3
g rH
"3o rj
-"3 "
cu ^ 0
O _ CL H o P-I r-H U _ cu
Nozzle diamel
Nozzle diamel
re, Ppp (psia]
specific entha
Flow control ^
• rH
pressure, P-p
Id O
WFP/QFS (Ib/
WOP/QOS (Ib/
WFP/QFS (Ib/
t*H cd fj^ ^
^ CO
temperature,
temperature,
• rH
C CO PH - 'to OH W O
•rH
a N 3 O*
CO ^ 0"
r . ^
~n2
Ss
H rH
fe 3 ^J fl)
=r tank
O H-J
PH to n
MH
crj
^
c PH 3 C
0
o . a> cd •» t>
tn 4->
nk
^j >^
-H
0)
rH
&H
0<
« a SH O
JH C
ellant f]
pressu
cd
oxidize
Cd 3 4-> 4-> 3 -M
cd cu •> 3 S CD
tQ (!)
eee
CO 0)
4-1
W
CD
rH
C
rH O W 'g
•2 5 co
cu
rj
fl
,—i
_C a 1
•a s
I —1 0 -rH
Tj -r-l
o
u
0)
a, cu CU
1— 1
rH
& s 0.1 JD1
o --
2 a rH
O, CU
(— 1
0)
1— 1
2 §
1— 1 ^ tj N %. I_H Sf« -rH •rH ~~^> > i__j -id N N g n •x a CO
N C 0 W
° &
C Nl N o •rH £ G N
0 cd o 0 cd O
to: H
cd
-t->
r5
O rH
w H 0
cd
-4-»
Cti rH
" cd H &
H->
£ S |f Cd
H PH
rH
H
O
CO CO CO CO ^
ER 13227-5
m-78
TABLE III-49
Pressure Difference Between Tank Pressure Transducer Pairs
Maximum
Difference Mean Allowable
Maximum Difference Difference
Tank (psi) (psi) (psi)
Stage I oxidizer 0.26 0.10 1. 50
Stage I fuel 0.89 0.14 1. 50
Stage II oxidizer 0.37 0. 16 2.25
Stage II fuel 1.85 1.44 2.25
D. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
1. Launch Vehicle Air-Conditioning System
This system, which serves launch vehicle Compartment 2 and all

engine start cartridges, was operative continuously during the prelaunch
activities until vehicle liftoff. The system operated satisfactorily.
Table III-50 presents a summary of the system parameters.
ER 13227-5
111-79
TABLE III-50
Air-Conditioning System Performance Summary
Observed Specified
Meas Description Range Range Remarks
4403 GLV supply 48.8° to 48° to 56° F Temperature of air

air temper- 51° F (Compart- supplied to GLV
ature ment 2) 48° Compartment 2 and
to 58° F the engine start
(engine cartridges
start car-
tridges)
4405 . Compart- Approxi- 82 Ib/min

ment 2 sup- mately 89 (minimum)
ply air mass lb/ min
flow rate
4418 Compartment 57. 5° to 40° to 75° F Manual hold param-

2 exhaust air 65° F eter
temperature
4045 Start car- 57.2° to 36° to 83° F S/N 0859230

tridge tem- 60° F Manual hold param-
perature (60° F at eter
S/A 1 liftoff)
4046 Start car- 58. 5° to 37° to 85° F S/N 0859008

tridge tem- 60° F Manual hold param-
perature (60° F at eter
S/A 2 liftoff)
4612 Start car- 55° to 35° to 83° F S/N 0002264

tridge tem- 57.5° F Manual hold param-
perature (56. 5 at eter
S/A 3 liftoff)
ER 13227-5
rv-i
IV. FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEM
Analysis of the GT-5 flight control system (FCS) measured param-

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

the ignition and holddown period are presented in Table IV-1.
TABLE IV-1
Transients During Stage I Holddown Period
Maximum During Ignition
Actuator Travel Time from T-0 Maximum During Hold-
Designation (in.) (sec) down Null Check (in. )
Pitch, l t -0. 040 -2. 53 -0. 010
Yaw /roll, 2t +0. 030 -2. 52 +0. 020
Yaw /roll, 3l +0. 090 -2. 55 +0. 010
Pitch, 4j -0. 095 -2. 57 -0. 009
Maximum Rate, Stage I Maximum Rate, Stage II

Gyro (deg/sec) Gyro (deg/sec)
Axis Primary Secondary Primary Secondary
Pitch +0. 30 -0. 28 -0. 49 -0. 50
Yaw +0. 21 +0. 20 -0. 41 +0. 19
Roll +0. 51 +0. 50 -- --
The combination of thrust misalignment and engine misalignment at

full thrust initiated a roll transient at liftoff. The response of the FCS
to correct the offset kept the roll rate to a maximum of 1. 1 deg/sec
CW (clockwise) at 0. 21 second after liftoff (Fig. IV-1). The rate os-
cillation had a basic frequency of 4. 5 rad/sec, damping out in 1. 4
seconds. As shown on the roll error curve in Fig. IV-1, a roll bias
ER 13227-5
IV-2
•o 0. 10
(U
o'Sb g 0.05
T>
-o.io
0.4
H-~
1 U„
O
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.4

Fig. TV-1. Liftoff Roll Transients
ER 13227-5
IV-3
rH
*cJ C7i CD !n
2 CO 0> in O rH CO
•rH 0) CO CM O LO CM
111?
s
rH o"
1
d
1
d
1
h ^ 'o
J> O CO 0) O) in CD in
a CO rH t— LO CM
CT-^H
?H g n tuO rH d d d
o " p; D -f- i i i
H S
O cd cn C~ CO 00
rH
-a rH C- LO CM
O ^ o rH d d d
a o o -(- i i i
0) d) 0)
!H
00 "S^ CO
o
rH
rH 0)
CM PH
r*»
I 0)3
be CM o o o>
nj
d CM
a
C- LO rH
d d d
w CO
J_(
rH
'-f- i i i
•a OH
m a)
H O
r—1
CD CO
P? .2 C *o ^H ^^ o co o in
co s -^ CO
^^^
0 0
rH CM
co
CM
co'
CO
05 CM'
rH CD
rH rH
1^
fi
2*c
t|_j
^**
o
co m
rH "^
O}
O
LO
CO
CD rH
O CD
0) m , • • • •
QJ ^~
r^ <r^
CO oo CO CO O3 CM
^ rH CM CM CO rH CD
EH
rH CM CO
a a a.
0 ) < D O )
•*-* -r-3 •*-*
!H w
be "C D.
co t"
rH
to frH frH ~ft
0 oj O x! cd 45 nJ x! a) O
rH i—1 -f-» -M CJ -^? O *r;f O "^ "^?
PH O iJ .'S H-> co co
tf PH PH PH
ER 13227-5
IV-4
of 0. 42 degree CW was introduced at liftoff by the equivalent engine

misalignment of 0. 08 degree.
2. Roll and Pitch Programs
•Measured flight data reflecting performance of the TARS roll and

pitch programs are shown in Table IV-2. Within telemetry accuracy,
the rate gyros indicated that proper roll and pitch programs were
executed during flight. The maximum roll and pitch overshoots which
occurred at the initiation of their respective programs were 1. 6 deg/sec
CW for roll and 0. 9 deg/sec down for pitch.
3. TARS-IGS Comparison (Stage I)
The TARS and IGS attitude error signals during Stage I flight for the
pitch, yaw and roll axes are presented in Figs. IV-2, IV-3 and IV-4.
The dispersion between the TARS and IGS attitude signals was caused
by a combination of TARS gyro and IGS-IMU drifts, errors in open-loop
guidance programs, and reference axis cross-coupling. The dispersion
at BECO and the known contributing factors are given in Table IV-3.
TABLE IV-3
TARS-IGS Dispersion at BECO
Pitch Yaw Roll
Total dispersion (IGS-TARS) (deg) +1. 12 -0. 50 -1.30

TARS program errors (deg) +0.78 --' -0. 21
TARS drift rates (preflight)

On null (deg/hr) -1.31 +12.62 +4.65
Off null (+) (deg/hr /deg) +0. 7 +0. 05 +2. 0
Off null (-) (deg/hr/deg) +1. 9 +1. 8 -1. 05
"g" sensitive (deg/hr at 1 g) -5. 17
Anticipated TARS drift (deg) -0.05 +0. 54 +0. 18
Unaccounted dispersions (deg) +0.39 -1. 04 -1. 27
The unaccounted dispersions are attributed to the axial cross-coup-

ling effects in the IGS, IGS gyro drifts, IGS guidance program errors,
and TARS gyro drifts not accounted for by the preflight predictions.
ER 13227-5
IV-5
+2.0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 | 160

Time from Liftoff (sec) BE CO
Fig. IV-2. Pitch Attitude Error History During Stage I Flight
ER 13227-5
IV-6
+2
I
I
20 40 60
Time from Liftoff (sec) BECO
Fig. TV-3. Yaw Attitude Error History During Stage I Flight
ER 13227-5
IV-7
60 80 100
Pig. Tf-k. Roll Attitude Error History During Stage I Flight
ER 13227-5
IV-8
4. Stage I Flight Disturbances
Vehicle disturbances during flight were caused by the prevailing

winds aloft. The yaw attitude errors experienced were smaller than
those exhibited on GT-4 due to the milder wind profile. The control
system response to these disturbances was normal and well controlled.
During these wind disturbances, oscillations occurred in pitch and yaw
at the predicted GT-5 rigid body oscillatory mode frequencies, varying
with flight condition, between 1.0 and 1.6 rad/sec with an average peak-
to-peak overshoot amplitude of less than 0.2 degree of attitude error.
Since the level of pitch and yaw excitation was of low magnitude, there
was very little inertial coupling producing excitation in the roll channel.
At the timeôf gain change (LO + 104.97 seconds), there was a no-
ticeable but very highly damped pitch transient reaching a maximum of
0.95 degree nose-up. Prior to gain change, the pitch attitude error
was 0.35 degree nose-up. Since there was zero error in yaw at the
time of gain change, there was no resultant transient. The reduction
of the attitude and rate gains reduced the amount of engine deflection,
thus causing the transient to occur. Analyses indicate that the control
system reacted properly to the flight conditions which existed before
and after gain change.
The maximum rates and attitude errors recorded during Stage I

flight are shown in Table IV-4.
5. Stage I Static Gains
The primary FCS static gains as determined from telemetry data

were within the instrumentation inaccuracy of preflight evaluations,
and indicate that no static gain deterioration was experienced during
Stage I boost flight.
B. STAGE II FLIGHT
1. Stage Separation
During the staging event, moderate rates and attitude errors of the
sustainer vehicle were observed. The maximum attitude errors are
given in Table IV-5.
The maximum vehicle rates recorded during staging are given in

Table IV-6 for three separate time periods during the staging event.
The first period is from BECO (87FS^0 /91FS1 ) to stage separation, the
second from stage separation to start of telemetry blackout, and the
third from telemetry blackout end until one second later.
ER 13227-5
rv-9
i—i
i—i in
0 •* CD •
W) m • • "
rt .co m co o m
O CO CD CO rH rH
CD
«. s
rH
rt CO
•^ •o ^*! CO
CO ^t*
0 O
r—1
^D 1^-
1— 1
CO O ^ CO
0 | CM
CO
0
M
CD O • o 0 f t ^ °°
<rT
CO • • f 0) rH
mO S«
O
rt .co in "^ o in CO
. o in
O CO CD CO rH rH
bJO
Ho CD J CO rH O CM rH
•H
• rH 1
. —1 r—1 'o
fe
ao 1— 1
in
-4-J
0 0 03 •
ao
rH
faD tUO CO „ ^ • °°
rt .co .co o in
rt O CO O CO rH rH
a
-r->
CO CO
• rH
rt <£ 03
tuO 1— 1
G E-i- _^ 0 CO
•rH '£ H
0
~'
in a -^ in .»
Q
rH
bO CO
.co in -"^ o in
H H d ™. «. CM (-N
rt CO CM rH CD in ^
O CO CD CO rH rH CD rH CO rH rH J
CO CO
O
W 1— 1
QJ
O CO O CD
CO rH CM CM
T)
uo
r?
rt O* rH
+ 1
O
+1
0
£ O
oi to CO
TJ 0
0 i_,
C rH
CO O r*i
i—i in CM rH CO O
C O CO O CO CD O CO co rH in CD CD
rt 0 CO 0 CM rH CO CO in rH
Tl
\J ^ tUO ~ 0 O rH CO CO rH
CO rt O rH O O rH -H W) CM O OO O rH
0 .£ + 1 +1 +1 0 + 1 +1 + 1
CO
'rt CO
,-yJ
0
a tf
rH
rH
rH O rH O
*CO
rH
Maxima
CO O CNJ CO 0 '
sdmum
0
ao O rH O O !H
rt + 1 +1
W
rH CO CO
rt O 0
rt S
_,
!H
£>
T3
'rH-O
rH 3 CO •H CM in CD c-
§ O CO O O CO O •rH QJ rH rH CM 1—I co
PU 0
tuO
CM rH CO Tt< CD rH H-> «-J< co CM in co c~ •a
rt O rH O O rH rH L_| rH O OO o' o 0
+ i +i + o
CO
+ 1 +1 +1
'
CO
CO
'x "S fe -H O fe 1— 1 rt
^
S rt o s rt r—1
o
•rH
m
(1| r>l OS
ER 13227-5
iv-io
TABLE I V - 5
Maximum Staging Attitude Errors
Maximum Attitude Error Time from BECO

Axis (cleg) (sec)
Pitch +0.470 0.0

-0.159 1.3
Yaw + 1.212 2.5
Roll -0.258 1.2
TABLE IV-6
Maximum Vehicle Rates at Staging
Separation Telemetry
BECO to to Telemetry Blackout to
Separation Blackout Plus One Second
Time Time Time
Maximum from Maximum from Maximum from
Rates BECO Rates BECO Rates BECO
Axis (deg/sec) (sec) (deg/sec) (sec) (deg/sec) (sec)
Pitch;
Primary +1.50 0.043 +1.65 0.753 -1.25 1. 14
-1.75 0.073 -2.55 0.763
Secondary +1.95 0.043 + 1.90 0.753 -1. 20 1. 14
-2.15 0.073 -2.23 0.763
Yaw;
Primary +0.80 0.163 + 1.08 0.763 + 1.35 1.14
-0.44 0.043 -0.80 0.743
Secondary +0.53 0.153 + 1.40 0.763 + 1.23 1.14
-0.50 0.043 -1.10 0.743
Roll:
Primary +1.20 0.338 +0.55 0.823 +0.60 1.51
-1.70 0.148 -2.15 0.763 -0.61 1.13
Secondary +1.12 0.333 +0.34 0.813 +0.60 1.63
-1.70 0.148 -2.20 0.773 -0.61 1.13
ER 13227-5
IV-11
These rates were also the maximum recorded rates for the en-
tire Stage II flight, except for a guidance-induced pitching rate of
2.1 deg/sec pitch-down after guidance initiation.
In general, all staging-induced sustainer rate transients were damped

out by BECO + 3 seconds. Lightly damped propellant slosh oscillations
persisted in yaw for about 20 seconds after BECO. The maximum peak-
to-peak rate was 0.3 deg/sec producing an accompanying peak-to-peak
displacement error of less than 0.1 degree.
2. Slosh-Induced Oscillations
From LO + 220 seconds to LO + 310 seconds, propellant slosh modes

caused very low amplitude vehicle limit cycle oscillations in pitch,
varying between 1 and 2 cps. The maximum peak-to-peak pitch rate
due to sloshing was always less than 0.2 deg/sec which was less than
that observed on GT-4. There was very little evidence of sloshing
oscillations in the yaw channel at this time.
3. Pitch and Yaw Attitude Biases
The FCS indicated an attitude bias in both pitch and yaw during Stage
II flight which was well within predicted limits. The attitude error
signals in pitch and yaw are shown in Figs. IV-5 and IV-6. The at-
titude biases are caused by engine thrust vector misalignment due to
structural deformation at the engine gimbal assembly, center-of -
gravity travel off the vehicle longitudinal axis, and the position of the
roll thrust vector off the longitudinal axis. The GT-5 yaw bias of
+0.7 degree compares favorably with the GT-4 bias of 1.3 degrees,
but was less than the biases experienced on other Gemini flights. The
GT-5 pitch bias of -0.4 degree was the same order of magnitude as
the -0.32 degree observed on GT-4. The pitch actuator length adjust-
ment incorporated on GLV-2 and subsequent vehicles greatly reduced
the pitch bias from that experienced on GT-1. The deviation of the
pitch and yaw attitude-errors from the predicted values (which assumed
fixed bias, center-of-gravity shift and roll thrust bias) toward the end
of Stage II flight is similar to that experienced on previous Gemini
flights. This is partially attributed to the fact that the vehicle experi-
ences a g loading which is higher than the fixed 2.2 g nominal TARS
roll gyro drift compensation at this time. Even though this drift is not
reflected in roll attitude error and, consequently, not corrected by the
roll FCS, it is sensed as a component in pitch and yaw.
4. Response to Radio Guidance Commands
The TARS timer generated the guidance enable command at LO +

162.59 seconds. Response to the first pitch command was at LO +
168.42 seconds, and consisted of a small down command followed by
ER 13227-5
IV-12
(Sap) qo;Td
ER 13227-5
IV-13
(Sap)
ER 13227-5
IV-14
a full 2.0 deg/sec pitch-down command for 5.5 seconds. The remainder
of the pitch commands was less than 0.25 deg/sec. The response to
the yaw commands was of low magnitude not exceeding 0.06 deg/sec
for the entire flight. The rate gyro signals substantiated the correct
response to the guidance commands.
5. Stage II Static Gains
The primary FCS static gains as determined from telemetry data

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

engine gimbal deflection of 0.259 degree to correct for a pitch error of
-1.525 degrees nose-down. In yaw, the error was -1.005 degrees with
an equivalent engine gimbal deflection of 0.0.943 degree. At SECO, the
roll error was 0.049 degree CCW.
Pitch, yaw and roll attitude errors and rates, while operating on
primary system during the period from SECO through spacecraft sep-
aration, are shown in Fig. IV-7. The maximum rates measured during
the period following SECO appear in Table IV-7.
TABLE IV-7
Vehicle Rates Between SECO and Spacecraft Separation
Pitch Axis Rate (deg/sec)

Maximum positive rate at 91FS + 2.2 sec +1.03
Maximum negative rate at 91FS + 18.4 sec -0.89
Rate at 91FS2 + 20 sec -0.89

Rate at spacecraft separation (91FS2 + 23.5 sec) -0.77
Yaw Axis
Maximum positive rate at 91FS2 + 15.0 sec +0.31

Maximum negative rate at 91FS, + 1.1 sec -0.39
Rate at 91FS2 + 20 sec +0.31

Rate at spacecraft separation (91FS + 23.5 sec) +0.31
Ci
ER 13227-5
IV-15
TABLE IV-7 (continued)
Roll Axis Rate (deg/sec)
Maximum positive rate at 91FS, + 18.4 sec +0.66

Maximum negative rate at 91FS + 7 . 8 sec -0.35
Rate at 91FS2 + 20 sec +0.66

Rate at spacecraft separation (91FS2 + 23.5 sec) +0.45
Successful spacecraft separation was accomplished at 23.5 seconds

after 91FS . Vehicle rates did not exceed 0.9 deg/sec and the sustainer
residual thrust at SECO + 20 seconds was less than 60 pounds. Con-
sequently, it is concluded that successful spacecraft separation could
have been accomplished at that time (SECO + 20 seconds).
In addition to the TARS attitude error signals, the IGS attitude error
signals are shown in Fig. IV-7 for comparative purposes. It is noted
that on GT-5 at approximately SECO + 4.6 seconds, a 2-1/2-degree step
occurred in the IGS yaw attitude error signal. This same step was not
evident on any of the primary FCS parameters or on the IGS gimbal
angles, which indicates that it did not occur as a result of vehicle mo-
tion but erroneously in the IGS computer.
Although this transient was observed in the IGS yaw attitude error
(Meas 0744), it can be assumed that the same type of transient with
magnitudes up to ±6 degrees could occur in the IGS pitch and roll at-
titude error signals as well. Since the vehicle was being controlled
by the primary system, the transient in the IGS (secondary) attitude
error signal had no effect on this flight. However, had the vehicle
been on secondary system, this rapid yaw attitude error signal would
have been received by the autopilot and the vehicle would have re-
sponded accordingly. At this time (SECO + 4.6 seconds), the auto-
pilot gains have not yet deteriorated since the hydraulic pressure is
still high enough (2800 psi) to maintain Stage II displacement and rate
gains. In addition, the sustainer engine and the roll nozzle thrusts
are adequate to produce vehicle motions and thus change the vehicle's
attitude and rate response. The given transient in the IGS yaw attitude
error signal, had it been controlling, would have caused the vehicle yaw
and roll rates at 91FS + 20 seconds to have increased to +3.8 and +1.4
deg/sec, respectively. Since such an occurrence has never been pre-
dicted prior to flight, the total effect on the post-SECO vehicle motions
has not been determined. However, a step transient of this type is highly
undesirable any time during the post-SECO portion of flight prior to
spacecraft separation because the rate in any axis can readily exceed
that predicted for. successful spacecraft separation.
ER 13227-5
TV-IS ~/
Note:
TARS Adapter: 1.0 volt = 1.0 deg
IGS: 0 to 353. 8 sec
1.0 volt = 1.0 deg
353. 8 sec to separation
1.0 volt = 3.33 deg
6 = -0. 89 deg/sec
if
9 = -0. 77 deg/sec
Meas 0766 (TARS adapter)
Meas 0743 (IGS) 9"= -0. 89 deg/sec
Meas 0768 (TARS adapter)
<(> = +0. 66 deg/sec
Max <(> = +0. 66 deg/sec

<(> = +0.45 deg/sec
JL
Meas 0745 (IGS)
Meas 0744 (IGS)
SHE .
lppi|* =>0. 31 deg/sec
Meas 0767 (TARS adapter) =• +0. 31 deg/sec
350
91FS Spacecraft Separation
Fig. IV-T. Pitch., Roll and Yaw Attitude Errors During Post-SECO Flight
ER 13227-5
IV-17
2. Post-SECO Transients
Very low magnitude vehicle disturbances were observed on low level

axial acceleration Meas 0699 at 91FSQ2i + 4.28 seconds and 5.05 seconds.
During the first disturbance, the average change in axial acceleration
was 0.013 g peak-to-peak, with a maximum change of 0.017 g peak-to-
peak. The second disturbance caused an average axial acceleration of
0.017 g with a maximum value of 0.025 g peak-to-peak. The phenomena
were not similar to the conventional "green-man" disturbances as ex-
hibited on GT-1, GT-2, GT-4 and on various Titan II flights. The two
GT-5 perturbations had no discernible effect on any of the FCS param-
eters. Hence, these transients were caused by disturbances external to
the FCS. The control'system response to the very low magnitude axial
acceleration was not detectable because it was within the instrumenta-
tion inaccuracy.
ER 13227-5
v-i
V. HYDRAULIC SYSTEM
Prior to the launch of GT-5 (between WMSL and SFT), the engine-
driven hydraulic pumps were replaced with newly cleaned units, thereby
minimizing the possibility of contamination during vehicle systems tests
requiring hydraulic power. The newly installed pumps were checked
with a Gaussmeter to verify free and proper compensator motion.
A. STAGE I
1. Primary Subsystem
The output of the Stage I electric motor pump was automatically

switched from the secondary to the primary subsystem at T-110 sec-
onds.. This event pressurized the primary subsystem and resulted in
normal system operation. The indicated accumulator precharge was
1755 psia. Electric motor pump pressure was a normal 3150 psia at
T-0. Engine start transients starting at 87FSj + 0.70 second produced
flow demands which dropped primary pressure to 2710 psia at 87FS. +
0.90 second. Pressure recovery occurred immediately, indicating
proper pump compensator response. The pressure overshoot on re-
covery peaked at 3090 psia at 87FSJ + 1.11 seconds. A steady-state
pressure of 3025 psia was reached at 87FSj + 1.40 seconds. There were
no significant pressure perturbations at liftoff or during flight. Pres-
sure decayed normally to 2755 psia at staging.
The static reservoir level was 61.2% full prior to T-110 seconds,
decreasing to a normal 38.7% full at T-0. The level increased during
flight to 52.9% full at staging.
The steady-state reservoir levels and the level changes during

system pressurization were normal.
Primary and secondary system pressures and pressure switch

actuation points are shown in Fig. V - l . A comparison of primary sys-
tem pressure for GT-4 and GT-5 launches during engine start and hold-
down is presented in Fig. V - 2 .
The pressure values quoted were obtained from telemetered data.

It has been determined that the primary pressure data readings are
low by approximately 60 psi. This bias was due to a change in the
transducer output subsequent to calibration by the vendor. Such changes
are attributed to transducer aging. The magnitude of the error was
determined by comparing vendor acceptance data on the Stage I pumps
ER 13227-5
V-2
(Bisd)
ER 13227-5
V-3
(U
c
•H
bo
I
a
ER 13227-5
V-4
with the telemetered data. Vendor test showed that the electric motor
pump pressure at a flow of 1 gpm was 3205 psia. This agrees very well
with the value of 3195 psia read from Sanborn records of secondary sub-
system operation prior to engine start. The primary system pressure
indications were 3150 psia from the electric motor pump and 3025 psia
from the engine-driven pump. The vendor component acceptance test
readings were 3205 psia for the electric motor pump (55 psi higher)
and 3090 psia (65 psi higher) for the engine-driven pump. Therefore,
in Figs. V-l and V - 2 , a correction of +60 psi has been applied to the
primary pressure curve.
2. Secondary Subsystem
The secondary subsystem was pressurized by the electric motor

pump from T-180 seconds to T-110 seconds. The indicated accumulator
precharge was 1845 psia. Motor pump pressure was a normal 3195 psia
at T-110 seconds.
The static reservoir level was a normal 55.6% full prior to pres-
surization at T-3 minutes, and had decreased to 29.4% full at T-110
seconds. These levels and the level changes during system pressuri-
zation and depressurization were normal.
At T-0, the system was unpressurized or "soft." Pressure began

to develop immediately as the start cartridge rotated the engine turbine.
Pressure overshoot reached a maximum of 3375 psia, indicating very
good pump compensator response. A steady-state pressure of 3065 psia
was reached at 87FSj + 1. 20 seconds. At pressure shutdown monitor
(TCPS + 1 . 6 seconds), the pressure remained at a steady 3065 psia.
There were no pressure perturbations during flight as the system
remained in a stand-by condition. Pressure decayed normally to 2955
psia at staging.
The reservoir level stabilized at 33.2% full after engine start, in-
creasing during flight to 43.0% full at staging. This level change of
9.8% was due to normal fluid expansion with increasing fluid temper-
ature.
A comparison of secondary system pressures from GT-4 and GT-5

launches during engine start and holddown is presented in Fig. V-3.
ER 13227-5
V-5
m
0)
so
•rl
a
<u
o
(U
ra
t-
co
(Bisd) aanssaj<£
ER 13227-5
V-6
B. STAGE II
Prelaunch checkout of Stage II hydraulics was initiated at T-4 min-

utes, and was followed by normal system operation. The indicated
accumulator precharge was 1905 psia. Electric motor pump pressure
stabilized at a normal 3225 psia. The static reservoir level was
64.4% full, decreasing to 38.8% full after pressure application, and again
increasing to 64.0% full upon removal of pressure at T-3 minutes.
During engine startup at staging, the indicated precharge was 1865

psia, and pressure overshoot was to 3765 psia. Steady-state pressure
after engine start was 3025 psia, decreasing to 2885 psia at SECO.
No significant pressure perturbations occurred during flight. After
SECO, the pressure fluctuated with engine rpm, a normal reaction to
the low and variable turbine speeds which occurred during this period.
The reservoir level was a normal 63.2% full prior to staging. After
staging, the level stabilized at 40.0% full, gradually increasing to 42.0%
full at SECO. This level increase of 2.0% is normal.
The reservoir levels and changes in level during system pressuri-

zation and depressurization were normal.
ER 13227-5
VI-1
VI. GUIDANCE SYSTEMS
A. RADIO GUIDANCE SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

1. Rate Beacon
Rate beacon performance was satisfactory. Good lock was main-
tained up to engine ignition and from approximately LO + 47 seconds
to SECO + 30 seconds, except for the normal momentary loss-of-lock
at Stage II engine ignition. The loss-of-lock at Stage I engine ignition
is also considered normal; relock occurs as the primary antenna is
brought into favorable ground station view.
Values of the rate beacon telemetered functions during flight are
listed in Table VI-1.
2. Pulse Beacon
Pulse beacon performance was also satisfactory. Good lock* was
maintained through Stage I engine ignition and up to approximately
SECO + 31 seconds; however, a small percentage of messages were
not received by the pulse beacon in the period from LO + 60 seconds
to LO + 61.4 seconds. These misses occurred during the peak AGC
oscillations of the antenna crossover period. This has occurred on
three of the five Gemini flights to date and is considered normal. The
ground station track system did not lose lock during this period.
Normal oscillations during the antenna crossover period were ob-
served in AGC from approximately LO + 45 seconds to LO + 75 seconds.
During this time, the minimum signal level received by the beacon was
-53 dbm.
The normal ground station signal level increase occurred at LO +
90.5 seconds. The increase was observed to be approximately 15 dbm.
Values of the pulse beacon telemetered functions during flight are
listed in Table VI-1.
The time after SECO at which the beacons began losing good lock
was sooner (by an average of about 20 seconds) on this flight than has
been experienced on past flights. This basically has been attributed to
the higher amount of atmospheric interference present on this flight.
* "Good lock" is defined as the condition where no messages are missed

by the pulse beacon. The ground station does not lose lock, however,
unless a number of consecutive messages are missed.
ER 13227-5
VI-2
3. Decoder
Decoder performance was satisfactory. Comparisons of the decoder
telemetry data with the Burroughs computer-generated output indicate
that pitch and yaw steering signals and the SECO discrete commands
were properly executed.
Values of the decoder telemetered functions are listed in Table VI-1.
TABLE VI-1
RGS Telemetered Functions
Function Meas Maximum Value Minimum Value
Rate Beacon
Received Signal No. 1 0750 4.10 vdc 4.02 vdc
Phase detector 0751 2.95 vdc 2.55 vdc
Power out 0752 4.20 vdc 4.12 vdc
30- volt supply 0746 2.85 vdc 2.80 vdc
Pulse Beacon
Magnetron current 0753 3.62 vdc 3.58 vdc
AGC 0754 -10 dbm* -48 dbm*
Decoder
* Does not include antenna crossover period.
4. Guidance Commands
a. Pitch steering
A profile of early closed-loop pitch steering in terms of computer

commands, decoder pitch telemetry, TARS gyro torquer monitor, and
primary Stage II rate gyro is given in Fig. VI-1. The decoder pitch
steering output is also shown in Fig. VI-2 for the entire Stage II flight
period.
ER 13227-5
VI-3
rt 111
tf to Computer Pitch Commands
•sir
•B-8
(pitch-down)R
lip
o JT
S-o
(pitch-down):
(pitch-down) I
;(c) Pitch Torquer Monitor (Meas 0732)18

gco
-l.C
<u ^-
cj o
•S o
PH CO
-1.0
(d) Stage JI Primary Pitch Rate Gyro (Meas 0723)
£3
(pitch-down)t
\mmmmmmm
-2.0
160 165 170 175 1.80 185 190 195

Fig. VI-1. Stage II Pitch Guidance Flight History
ER 13227-5
's e
IGS pitch error (Meas 0743) fpp
-1
Primary system pitch error (Meas 0766)
-1
RGS pitch command (Meas 0755) g
-2 (pitch-down B
150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330

Fig. VI-2. Stage II IGS Pitch Flight History
ER 13227-5
VI-5
TARS discrete No. 3, RGS enable, was issued at approximately

LO + 162. 6 seconds, thereby energizing the airborne guidance initiate
relay. At the same time, pitch program No, 3 was terminated. This
effect is observed on curves (c) and (d) of Fig. VI-1.
An initial pitch-down command of about 0. 13 deg/sec, lasting
approximately 0. 5 second, was issued at LO + 168. 3 seconds. Follow-
ing this, a 2. 0 deg/sec pitch-down command was issued for 5. 4 sec-
onds. Throughout the remainder of flight the pitch commands were
relatively small except in the latter portion of flight where oscillations
built up. These oscillations became quite noticeable at about SECO -
60 seconds and lasted until SECO. The oscillations were of a period
of about 4 seconds and reached peak-to-peak magnitudes of 0. 4 deg/
sec. These oscillations were more pronounced than on any of the prior
flights, and are attributed primarily to the high atmospheric noise
encountered.
b. Yaw steering
Yaw commands commenced at LO + 169. 5 seconds. Throughout

flight, the commands were primarily yaw right and were sufficiently
small so as to be within telemetry resolution, i. e. , 5.0. 08 deg/sec.
The decoder yaw steering output is shown in-Fig. VI-3 for the entire
Stage II flight period.
c. Discrete commands.
The times for the computer-generated SECO/ASCO command and

the vehicle reactions were as follows:
Signal Meas Time from Liftoff
Ground station SECO/ASCO 333. 237 ± 3 ms

Decoder discrete output 0777 333. 274 ± 5 ms
91FS2 0519 333. 284 ± 5 ms
ASCO 0799 333. 337 ± 25 ms
The data shown in this tabulation indicate that the SECO time delay
from ground station issuance to 91FS was 47 ± 8 milliseconds. The
time delay between 91FS, and ASCO reception was 53 ± 30 milliseconds.
ER 13227-5
VI-6 -/
+2.0
Primary system yaw error (Meas 0767)
+ 1.0
S-
O
IGS yaw error (Meas 0744)
-1.0
+0. 1
command) -s
o
CO O>
> CU)
RGS yaw command (Meas 0756)

-0. 1
command) i jtaaa
iii
2HJ5-3 33 s]S iff: Hi! :Ut|jr: BJEl JirfHa JSpft Jf:: CH

Primary system roll error (Meas 0768)
-1.0
.-2.0
IGS roll error (Meas 0745)
» m IB is m
trt^T-tr t?tt Tttr WTT rrj'f
-3.0
Maximum and minimum output envelope
-4.0
+150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330
Fig. VI-3. Stage II IGS Yaw/Roll Guidance Flight'History
ER 13227-5
VI-7
B. SPACECRAFT INERTIAL GUIDANCE SYSTEM

ASCENT PERFORMANCE
1. Prelaunch Nulls
The prelaunch IGS attitude error null signals were as follows:
Pitch -0. 014 degree
Yaw -0.011 degree
Roll -0. 008 degree
These null signals were well within the specification values of
±0. 37 degree in pitch and yaw, and ±0. 25 degree in roll.
2. Stage I Performance
IGS performance during Stage I flight correlated well with the RGS
primary system, as shown by a comparison of IGS and corresponding
primary system attitude errors in Figs. IV-2 through IV-4. The
BECO dispersions between IGS and primary system attitude errors are
shown in Table IV-3 and are discussed in Chapter IV.
The IGS Stage I gain change discrete was issued at LO + 104. 727
± 0. 025 seconds, which was well within the specification time of 104. 96
± 1% seconds.
3. Stage II Performance
IGS pitch, yaw and roll performance during Stage II flight was
normal except for a spurious yaw attitude error step of 2. 5 degrees
at approximately SECO + 4. 6 seconds. The attitude error dispersions
which had built up between the IGS and primary system during Stage I
flight in pitch, yaw and roll were carried over into the early portion
of Stage II flight as shown in Figs. VI-2 and VI-3.
a. Stage II pitch
IGS Stage II pitch attitude error appears in Fig. VI-2. Primary
system pitch attitude error and RGS pitch steering commands are shown
for comparison.
The ramp buildup of IGS pitch attitude error between approximately
LO + 162. 5 seconds and LO + 168 seconds, which was evident on the
GT-2, GT-3 and GT-4 flights, was attributed to the fact that the pri-
mary system third pitch rate program ends at LO + 162. 56 seconds
while the IGS third pitch rate remains in until the start of closed-loop
guidance. This incompatibility was rectified by an IGS change for
ER 13227-5
VI-8
GT-5, as evidenced by the elimination of the ramp on GT-5 flight (Fig.

VI-2).
IGS closed-loop pitch guidance commenced at LO + 168. 075 seconds.
IGS pitch attitude error saturated at + 5. 92 degrees shortly thereafter,
and remained on saturation for approximately 5. 1 seconds. Figure
VI-2 shows that the TARS pitch attitude error builds up during this same
time period to about + 1. 1 degrees due to the RGS -2. 0 deg/sec pitch
rate command. The reason for the large difference in IGS and TARS
attitude errors during this period is that, in the primary system, the
steering command is limited to a rate of ±.2. 0 deg/sec, whereas the
IGS limits attitude error only to a nominal 6-degree value. Therefore,
IGS pitch behavior during this period is normal and compares well with
primary system behavior in correcting the vehicle for the slightly high
Stage I trajectory.
IGS pitch attitude error for the remainder of Stage II flight remained
within limits of +0. 3 to -1.1 degrees. The attitude error peaked at
about +0. 3 degree, just slightly before LO + 300 seconds (Fig. VI-2).
This peaking appears to be a characteristic of the IGS pitch steering,
and coincides with the time at which IGS starts constant altitude steer-
ing.
b. Stage II yaw
IGS Stage II yaw attitude error is shown in Fig. VI-3. Primary
system yaw attitude error and RGS yaw steering commands are shown
for comparison.
IGS yaw performance throughout Stage II powered flight appeared
normal and correlated well with the primary system. Steering com-
menced at the same approximate time as did pitch. Thereafter, the IGS
yaw attitude error remained within approximately ±0. 12 degree of null
until about LO + 320 seconds. At this time, the IGS yaw attitude error
began to slope in the negative direction, and by SECO had built up to
about -0. 9 degree, which would be a GLV yaw-right command. The
amplitude of the attitude error is not excessive and the direction of the
attitude error buildup is as expected due to center-of-gravity drift. A
similar effect is apparent on Fig. VI-3 in primary attitude error, in
that the error is building up negatively, and also in RGS yaw steering,
which is commanding the GLV to yaw right.
Subsequent to SECO, the IGS yaw attitude error was in excellent
agreement with the primary system attitude error (TARS) until approx-
imately SECO + 4. 6 seconds. At this time the IGS yaw attitude error
decreased in a step from approximately -3. 13 degrees to -0. 64 degree.
IGS yaw remained at -0. 64 degree until the computer was advanced from
ascent to orbital mode at approximately SECO + 20 seconds.
ER 13227-5
VI-9
There was no evidence of any GLV motion on primary system atti-

tude error or in IGS gimbal angle data at the time of the IGS yaw step.
Therefore, it is concluded that the spurious output originated in the
IGS computer (Ref. Chapter IV, Section C).
c. Stage II roll
IGS roll attitude error for Stage II is shown in Fig. VI-3, with
TARS roll attitude error shown for comparison. There was a small
apparent drift rate between TARS and IGS roll as shown by the small
increase in IGS roll output between approximately LO + 1 6 0 seconds
and SECO. The drift rate was CCW, IGS with respect to TARS, and
the buildup in IGS error between the referenced times was about -0. 25
degree. This dispersion is in the same direction, but of much smaller
magnitude than that observed on the GT-4 flight. The dispersion is
predominantly due to TARS roll gyro g-sensitive drift.
Figure VI-3 denotes areas and upper and lower limits of apparent
oscillations seen on the IGS roll output. These oscillations are simply
the effect of indecision due to quantization (0. 12 deg/quanta) in the
IGS computer, and therefore do not reflect any actual GLV oscillations.
Similar motions are not apparent on the TARS roll output shown on
Fig. VI-3.
d. IGS SECO
The IGS SECO discrete was issued at LO +333. 230 + 0, -0. 1 seconds.
This compares to the RGS SECO time of 333. 274 ± 0. 005 seconds.
Therefore, if shutdown had occurred by IGS command, the GLV veloc-
ity would have been slightly lower (approximately 11 fps) at SECO.
ER 13227-5
VII-1
VII. ELECTRICAL SYSTEM ANALYSIS
A. CONFIGURATION
The launch vehicle airborne electrical system components installed

for the G T - 5 flight were similar to those used on GLV-4, except for
the flashing beacon light assembly which was not incorporated on GLV-5.
B. COUNTDOWN AND FLIGHT PERFORMANCE
The airborne electrical system functioned as designed through the

entire flight, and all parameters were within specifications.
During staging, examination of the APS and IPS current traces indi-
cated that both Stage II engine start squibs shorted to structure and
maintained currents of 9 to 13 amperes until stage separation. These
shorts were considerably less than those encountered on GT~1 and
GT-2 flights, but were more than on G T ~ 3 and GT-4 flights when no
staging shorts were noted.
Currents to the Stage II redundant shutdown squibs at SECO were

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

interface was cut by a guillotine in the adapter. This caused a 24
ampere spike on IPS and a 53-ampere spike on APS, with a maintained
extra current of 24 amperes on APS only until actual separation oc-
curred. These guillotine shorts are expected and have occurred on all
spacecraft separations to date. They have created'no detrimental ef-
fects.
A summary of electrical system parameters measured at power

transfer and during flight is presented in Table VII-1.
a
Text change by NASA Gemini V Mission Evaluation Team.
Normal operation may or may not happen but of no significance other than
recognition of cause of current readings.
(Note added by NASA Gemini V Mission Evaluation Team)
ER 13227-5
VII-2
rH
CO CO in CM ^ t- CM
Q)
-f-> 03 CO cn co •* O3 m
<rH CM CM CM 03
CM rH CM
1— 1 CO
"^
c
o CU
•rH
H-J
bJO c- ^h CD in CM c~ CM
nj cd
rH rH 03 ^" CO in ^" 03 in
cd CD CM CM CM ^f rH O5 CM
Q. > rH CO
CU <!
•M
_ co
t<_.
• O 03 O CM. c- CO CO
oi cd [._•
03 CO •*" CO cn •*
CD t—
o CM
•*
CM O3 CM
<u PH CO
o
rt
CD
C/J f-, CO co CO 0 t- CM
O , ^. , t
<M C3 CO O5 rH •HH O5 in
CD CM CM CM CM ,— I 03 CM
PQ rH CO
CO
JH 00 in t-. CD r- CM
-*
0) CD
-t-» M O3 CM O3 O "^f 03 in
0 C <rH CM CM CM co rH O3 CM
art • rH
tuo
cd
r—1 oo
Si CO M
rt C t> CO 'd1 •* CM C- CM
PU 1— 1 'C co' rH co' CO •*' O3 in

-r-5 3 •^
a
CO
CM CM rH O3 CM
O ^
CO
rH
(D 03
-r->
w CD
^ CM rH 0 CM in CD CO E> CM
CO CO O . . . . .
fe
<rH CO CD 0 03 m
i—i c- CD CM CM CM CO rH cn CM
a
o 00" m rH CO
o -H O
£ CO CM CM CO CO
^ CM
0 cn co O3 c- ^t1 O3 m
•r^ CM CM CM CM rH 03 CM
rH CO
^
m
i -H
O -* CO CO CO C- . CM
<L)
o co O3 CO 03* m
'4—I CO CM CM CM
•*
rH cn CM
o S-,
Q)
<C rH CO
C
cu
CO DJO
C c ^ ^H CO CO CO c- CM
cd
rH
rH CO CO O3 CO •* cn in O
3 CM CM CM CM ,—r 03 CM
Q rH CO cuo
< ^ >r-4
O I—I
£ 01 O
o 0 •* CD CD CO c- CM >^
Q
fj
o
PH cn 03 CO O3 in
CD CM CM CM CM -*
rH O3 CM r-l
ffl rH CO CD
C CD
o „*•* 'co' ,«•*.
•rH CO
-t-> H-J "a, 0 1> O5
a. i —1
O
'o 1
•rH
cd o ^ >>.—• §
M cd >>CD
Q
CO >
CO
CD
CO
•S'
CO
PH z £3
m o D ^ OJO
P r—i ill Ifil CM Q. CO O- .sTJ
CO
_,;_ D
rH
cd O ^t* 1— 1 in CM CO CO O
CD C o o o O o CM C
00 CO CO CO CO CO t—
s o o o o O o o
ER 13227-5
VIII-1
VIII. INSTRUMENTATION SYSTEM
A. AIRBORNE INSTRUMENTATION
1. Prelaunch and Countdown Status
The airborne instrumentation system operated within specified

limits during prelaunch testing and countdown. Between the SFT (13
August) and launch, the airborne PCM/FM transmitter package was
replaced per customer direction with a unit that contained a riveted
tube socket in lieu of a soldered tube socket.
2. Data Acquisition
The measurements program for this launch consisted of 149 PCM

analog signals and 42 PCM bilevel signals. All channels functioned
properly throughout flight, resulting in 100% data acquisition.
3. Instrumentation System Parameters
Instrumentation system parameters, as measured in flight, are com-

pared with specified limits in Table VIII-1. All data were within re-
quired limits.
4. Telemetry Signal Strength (244.3 me)
Telemetry signal strength records indicated satisfactory signal

levels from the launch vehicle from liftoff to approximately SECO +
94 seconds. The anticipated staging blackout lasted approximately
270 milliseconds.
The Cape Kennedy Tel II and Tel III ground stations monitored the
entire flight of the launch vehicle. The Grand Bahama Island (GBI)
station acquired data from approximately LO + 47.seconds to the end
of flight. The Grand Turk station acquired data during Stage II flight,
beginning at approximately LO + 179 seconds.
B. LANDLINE INSTRUMENTATION
1. Countdown Status
The landline instrumentation system, with the exception of oxidizer

heat exchanger outlet temperature measurement 4430, operated satis-
factorily from the start of propellant conditioning through the launch
countdown up to liftoff. All instrumentation holdfire functions monitored
in the blockhous^ remained within specification throughout the count-
down.
ER 13227-5
VIII-2
2. Data Acquisition
Data acquisition was 100% on both the 51 recorded channels and

the 37 observed or recorded backup channels.
3. Anomalies
Measurement 4430 (temperature, oxidizer heat exchanger outlet)

was not operative during the propellant loading on 20 August, because
of a broken wire at the transducer electrical connector. The wire was
apparentl}' broken during the detanking operation following the launch
attempt on 19 August. The decision was made to condition the oxidizer
without this channel operative, and relay on the backup measurement
on a direct reading capillary thermometer.
ER 13227-5
VIII-3
1
1 1 1 I 1
O I 1 I
1 cu 1 1
1 1
1 •/: 1 I 1
1 .—, 1 1 1 I 1
1
1
< +
CM
1
1 1C
^l°°.
1
1 -=1- 1C in
in
1
1
m
in
I
Iw
m io
is
1 ,
1 gjg CO
rv-i
1 CVI
".
CV] 1
O M 1O CM ". CO C- 0 CD CO
1 CM | m CM | CO IT- ^H t- •-! IV ' -1 r-l ' CO •-H ' 1
1 U i 1 I 1
(VI
1
1
1
| | 1
1
v: i f
I 1
1
i | 1 I 1
i 1
1 I 1
1 -1C i 1
| I l co
1
-s-i C-1 1 1C 1C in . LO CM 0
1 •*
! ,.-> i •
|]-5
s:°
'/.* CO 1C
cs, °. in i o'
t~
CM | O
' °°.
CM
c^ co
co l o i C- ' 0 co co
C l hD <^ CM | in •CM , CO O •—! C- i-H C- ' r-l •-I ' CO -: ' i
I 1
U 1 .= 1
1 f^ 1 I 1
i 1
5z | o ^^^ i 1 I 1
U, £ CM I 1 I 1
1 ro I
• s 1°.
-H I
'1
1 ^ C/j
"*'
,'Sc !ij '/} 1C 1 ^f 1C in

in
?Jjd
CO
c- fc. colg r-l". oo
• S
1(0 I O
co
1 £ CO ,-H 0 i °. CM 1 CO CM 00 ". «!". CO CO
i Cj CM | 1C CM | 00 t- ^ c- ^ I- 1 ,-H ^' CO -H ' 1
M I 1
0)
+->
1
l
< | )
1
1 I i
1 1
0> l I i
s03
1
1 1
I I I 1
1 1
l 1 I i
1 I
l 1 I i
) |
l
1
1
^ o
<s
^—H
<-H
gig
1 1C
r-i".
1 •* in
CO
CO
in
in
o~>
m
co!^.
;-°
1
CM °.
'CM
in | o
co co
is
CM | 0 CM co L- 0
<L>
-t-1
1 _1 CM | m CM | CO r- <-< t> r-H l> ' -i -I ' CO .-< ' i
l 1 I i
> CO
1
t
1
|
I
1 I i
w i 1 ,
1 ~
J c
o i 1
I l
m CO
.,_, t i
1 I
I
1
1
<
H
— i
i
1
1
1 I i
c ^ 1 CO
+->
i ! I 1
1 1-J I l >
0 SP i 1
U •£ l
i '^
1
1
"
1
._,
>
1
\
> 1
t> 'o
1 T— f
^ i; c-
1C
c~ !| ;q 1
0
V
—_
c
'So
r^
1—t 1 '""
'1 o•
..
:3 CO
r^
A^
—1
ii"~"
°° i 0,'°' 00
1
1 1
1 O
CO
1 "* o
C ^-1
-H ' U
l p> +! ~ -H 7, 2
+!
^.° 4J |
' ' '
O
-rJ
-HI -"
•-
3
T!
0)
X 1 O !C o CO
1C
rr* rv«(
,n
( ^
•"'ic
CO 1 ^
f^'cv,
L
~ 1 CO Si5?
~ !H *%] 1 ° S i ° f-~ ^ f- i co % , CT
o -g 1 o^ 1
o'
^ 00 "^ i -'
"V
~™
1
"-
C"
1. . 1 -^f
1
. —1 •—i 1
I
1—I
1
1
•>] -7
!
1 1
~
— 1 . |
1
,
1
1
I
I
1
1
\
i
£
o
>:
;_ 1 J-;
3
M
CD
5 CJ CJ 0
o 6
;
- o f^
c_ c ex O 0) c _J -^j
f~
ij - >, £ c^ £ c >. 'o >,
—•i— 1 > .—('
;f\ O Q.
1-^ J>:
— — — 1 d- 1 Q,
ret", .— .
O > a i CL oyi —' •" ") —' o a
Q i
1C
3
CO
^
-t-
3
x- 1
—
o O
c" )
V ^
— o >r
^
x CO - -00 3
•X o ,-H CO -* IC 0 c-
o cc
^-'
s
—
CD
—-
~
o
~ CO
'•—'
co
o
>.
ER 1 3 2 2 7 - 5
IX-1
IX. RANGE SAFETY AND ORDNANCE
A. COMMAND CONTROL RECEIVERS

1. Countdown
The command receiver shutdown and destruct and ASCO tests were
successfully completed. Telemetry indicated a signal strength greater
than 130 microvolts from T-3 minutes until liftoff.
2. Flight
Command Receivers S/N 67 (APS) and S/N 62 (IPS) were flown on '.
GLV-5.
The RF carrier signal increased to approximately 2500 microvolts
at liftoff and descreased slowly until LO + 66.48 seconds, at which time
the Cape switched to high power and the carrier increased to approxi-
mately 4500 microvolts. At LO + 115.08 seconds the RF carrier was
transferred from the Cape station to Station 3 (Grand Bahama Islands).
The RF carrier remained above a 45-microvolt level until LO + 310
seconds, at which time it began to decrease, and at LO + 323 seconds
reached a low of 5. 8 microvolts. At LO + 333.seconds, when ASCO
was sent, the RF carrier was back up to a 45-microvolt level. Another
dip occurred at LO + 382 seconds when the RF carrier went down to
approximately 8 microvolts. The carrier was not below the threshold
ot either receiver at any time. Ttte RF signal strength for GT-5
followed exactly the fluctuations experienced on GT-4 with the lowest
levels in each case occurring 10 seconds prior to SECO and 50 seconds
after SECO.
The GT-5 RF data will be included in a report now in preparation
which discusses the cause of the GT-4 RF signal drops. Results of
extensive tests performed on the GLV antenna systems and theoretical
analysis of the ground antenna radiation patterns shall be included in
the report.
B. MISTRAM
1. Countdown
The MISTRAM open-loop checks with the MACK station were suc-
cessfully completed. Telemetry shows that the transponder was locked
on to the MACK station from T-3 minutes until LO + 0.482 second.
The MACK station signal is manually removed as close to liftoff as
possible.
ER 13227-5
IX-2
2. Flight
a. Airborne transponder
Transponder S/N 99 was flown in GLV-5. Telemetry data indicated

that the overall MISTRAM system performance was satisfactory. The
transponder was locked to both the rangfe and calibrate channels at LO
+ 6. 19 seconds. MISTRAM I (Valkaria) started the calibrate channel
sweep at LO + 38. 19 seconds. Telemetry indicated a solid signal from
this point through SECO. At staging, approximately 0.4 second of data
was lost due to engine plume ionization.
3. MISTRAM I Station (Valkaria)
The Valkaria station obtained reconstructable data from LO + 68

seconds to LO + 155 seconds,and from LO + 156 seconds to LO + 378
seconds. No data were obtained from the Valkaria west 100, 000-foot
leg.
The problem with the west 100, 000-foot leg was the loss of the range
channel stabilization receiver for the entire flight support period. The
malfunction was traced to a defective amplifier whithin the stabilization
receiver and has been corrected. The 100, 000-foot south leg of the
Valkaria site was not affected and operated throughout the flight.
The transmission of data between the 100, 000-foot leg remote

stations and the central station is by microwave link. The stabilization
receiver is used in a calibration loop which compensates for changes
in the electrical length of the long baselines (phase shift) due to physical
or circuitry changes. The loss of this error compensation in the 100, 000-
foot remote site did not affect the real-time accuracy because the
10,000-foot stations offer redundant position solutions. As'mentioned
above, all data were reconstructable for postflight analysis.
Level seven data were obtained for a total of 290 seconds. The
impact predictor (IP) selected MISTRAM I data for a total of 282.4
seconds or approximately 71% of powered flight. Since program re-
quirements direct that MISTRAM shall not be used as the IP data source
for the first 60 seconds of flight, MISTRAM I data were actually used
for 87% of expected powered flight coverage. Utilization of the primary
and secondary IP plots is included as Table IX-1.
4. MISTRAM II Station (Eleuthera)
The Eleuthera station operated in a passive track mode from LO

+ 129 seconds to LO•+ 393 seconds. At LO + 393 seconds, the Valkaria
station handed over and MISTRAM II tracked actively to LO + 424 sec-
ER 13227-5
IX-3
onds. Active track was intermittent from LO + 424 seconds to LO

+ 443 seconds, at which time the signal was lost. Eleuthera data
were not used as an IP source during this flight.
C. ORDNANCE
The Stage I prevalve ordnance devices operated as required during

the first launch attempt; Stage I prevalves remained open through re-
cycle and the second launch countdown. The Stage II prevalves, Stage
I engine start cartridges and dropweights ordnance all operated satis-
factorily.
Launch release ordnance nuts operated properly with all nuts de-
tonating, as evidenced by recovery of all four holddown bolts and all
lower launch nuts.
Stage separation explosive nuts and Stage II engine start cartridge

ordnance operated as required. The TARS timer arm signal occurred
at LO + 144.65 seconds and the IPS staging arm timer was actuated.at
LO + 144. 66 seconds. Both times were compatible with GLV-5 trend
data on these timers. Ordnance bridgewire shorts were evident on
both the APS and IPS busses at staging. These shorts cleared at
physical separation of Stage II from Stage I.
ER 13227-5
IX-4
TABLE IX-1
Range Safety Plotboards Impact Prediction
Primary Plotboard Secondary Plotboard

Usage Time Usage Time
System (sec) System (sec)
MISTRAM I 282.4 Mod III 297.3
Merritt Island 59.8 Merritt Island 22.9
TPQ-18 TPQ-18
Patrick APB 39.2 Patrick AFB 6.6
TPQ-18 TPQ-18
GBI 8.4( GBI 34.4
TPQ-18 TPQ-18
Grand Turk Island 4.6 GBI 1.6
:
TPQ-18 FPS-16
Bermuda 283.3 Grand Turk Island 117. 1
FPS-16 TPQ-18
Bermuda 197.8
FPS-16
677.7 677. 7
ER 13227-5
x-i
X. MALFUNCTION DETECTION SYSTEM
A. CONFIGURATION
The malfunction detection system (MDS) hardware flown on GLV-5

on 21 August 1965 is listed in Table X-l.
. TABLE X-l
GLV-5 MDS Components
Manufac-
Nomenclature Part Number turer Serial Number
Rate switch PS830600015-027 Giannini 4011

Malfunction 424-7569205-189 Martin B026
detection
package
Tank pressure PS746000002-023 Servonics Fuel A, 1089
transducers, Fuel B, 1061
Stage I Oxidizer A, 1100
Oxidizer B, 1098
Tank pressure PS746000002-025 Servonics Fuel A, 2100'
transducers, Fuel B, 2102
Stage II Oxidizer A, 2105
Oxidizer B, 2103
Stage separa- CCI8119A1-5 Cannon 00109
tion con- CCI8119A1-6 00102
nectors
MDS engine 284321 Aerojet S/A 1 primary,
switches, 0000823
Stage I S/A 1 redundant,
0000821
S/A 2 primary,
0000839
S/A 2 redundant,
0000825
MDS engine 711049-1 Aerojet S/A 3 primary,
switches, 0000845
Stage II S/A 3 redundant,
0000002
ER 13227-5
B. SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
1. Engine Pressure Switches
Operation of the Stage I engine malfunction detection thrust chamber

pressure switches (MDTCPS) and the Stage II engine malfunction detec-
tion fuel injector pressure switches (MDFJPS) is summarized in Table
X-2. These switches are required to "make" in a pressure range of
540 to 600 psia and "break" in a pressure range of 585 to 515 psia.
The Stage I engine start spike was of sufficient amplitude and time dura-
tion to cause the S/A 1 MDTCPS switches to momentarily respond to
the thrust chamber pressure. All MDS engine pressure switches oper-
ated properly and within the specification pressure requirements.
TABLE X-2
Operation of MDS Engine Pressure Switches
S/A 1 S/A 2 . S/A 3

(Meas 0356) (Meas 0357) (Meas 0855)
Make 1359:57. 106 1359:57. 157 1402:33. 795*
(540 to 600 psia) at 580 psia at 585 psia
Break 1402:33. 020 1402:33. 010 1405:32. 954*
(585 to 515 psia) at 520 psia at 550 psia
*S/A 3 fuel injector pressure is not instrumented on the Gemini Launch

Vehicle; hence, make and break pressures are unavailable.
2. Switchover
The MDS switchover circuitry functioned properly throughout the

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

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

There were no vehicle overrates detected by the MDS rate switches
and correspondingly none occurred during flight from liftoff through
spacecraft separation. Table X-3 compares the maximum launch ve-
hicle rates, measured during the period from liftoff through SECO,
with the RSP switch settings.
ER 13227-5
X-3
TABLE X-3
Maximum Vehicle Rates Compared with Rate Switch Settings
Stage I Flight Stage II Flight

Axes Flight Event Flight Event
Rate Pitch + 2. 5; -3. 0 N/A ±10 N/A

switch
Yaw '±.2. 5 N/A ±-10 N/A
settings
(deg/sec) Roll ±20.0 N/A ±20 N/A
Maximum Pitch -1. 18 Wind -2. 19 Staging

vehicle Shear
rates Yaw -0. 40 Wind +0. 92 Staging
(deg/sec) Shear
Roll + 1.63 Roll. -0. 81 Staging
Program
N/A = not applicable.
Following SECO + 24 seconds (after spacecraft separation), there

were four operations of the rate switches. The rate gyro outputs
verified that rate switch performance was in agreement with the RSP
calibration data. Table X-4 summarizes the rate switch operation.
TABLE X-4
Rate Switch Operation
Specification
Switch
RSP Calibration Data Rate Gyro Output
Operation Time of
(deg/sec) (deg/sec)
Limits Rate Switch
(deg/sec) Primary Redundant Operation Primary Redundant
Yaw close 2.37 2. 53 SECO + 35.44 2. 59 2. 52

A and B sec
switch (1406:08.21)
(2.08-2.92)
Yaw open N/A 2.22 SECO + 40.32 2.44 2.26
B switch sec
(2.53-1.90) (1406:13. 10)
Yaw open 2. 19 N/A SECO+ 40.64 2.34 2.26
A switch sec
(2.37-1. 78 (1406:13. 41)
ER 13227-5
X-4
4. Tank Pressure Sensors

All MDS tank pressure transducers operated properly throughout
the countdown and flight. The maximum differences between the trans-
ducer pairs on each tank are presented in Table X-5.
TABLE X-5
Maximum Voltage and Pressure Differences
Between Tank Pressure Transducer Pairs
Maximum Difference
Percent of Percent of
A Volts Transducer Transducer
(telemetry) Full Range A psi Full Range
Stage I fuel 0.050 1.00 0.36 0. 72
Stage I oxidizer 0.060 1.20 0.32 0.64
Stage II fuel 0. 100 2.00 2. 15 2.86
Stage II oxidizer 0.040 ' 0.80 0.59 0. 79
Figure X-l presents the calibration curves for the Stage I fuel tank
pressure transducer pairs (A and B) to clarify the percentage varia-
tions between voltage and psi (shown in Table X-5). The maximum
difference of 2. 00% of transducer full-range output voltage is well
within the transducer and telemetry system errors.
The output of the Stage II fuel B sensor exhibited minor variations
during flight. However, its output remained within 100 mv of the
Stage II fuel A sensor. At SECO the output of the Stage II fuel B sensor
showed a 100 mv shift which is indicative of the sensor load in the space-
craft being open circuit. The astronauts reported erratic behavior
(full-scale deflections) of the Stage II fuel B spacecraft meter during
portions of both Stage I and Stage II flight. However, launch vehicle
telemetry data indicated that the Stage II fuel B tank sensor output re-
mained essentially constant. This anomaly is under investigation and
the spacecraft meter is undergoing failure analysis at this writing.
ER 13227-5
X-5
Fig. X-l. Calibration Curves for Stage I Fuel Tank Pressure Transducers
ER 13227-5
XI-1
XI. CREW SAFETY
A. PRELAUNCH WINDS FLIGHT SIMULATIONS
Prelaunch wind measurements from Cape Kennedy were data-card

transmitted to Martin-Baltimore and used as inputs to three computer,
programs. One digital program evaluated the wind conditions by
comparing actual wind measurements against specification wind speeds
and wind shears; a second digital program was used to compute the
wind-affected trajectory; and a third analog program determined the
vehicle bending loads and the control system transients for the wind-
affected trajectory. Subroutines were then used to establish the first-
stage propellant tank underpressure constraints and the slow malfunc-
tion action thresholds for flight control system (FCS) switchover. The
results were sent periodically by phototelegraphy to Martin-Canaveral
and to NASA-MSC prior to the launch.
All portions of the program worked smoothly. Balloon soundings,

data-card transmissions, IBM 1620 wind computations, IBM 7094
trajectory computations, analog flight load simulations, communica-
tions network, phototelegraphy of documents to Cape Kennedy and
Houston, and delivery of these documents to Complex 19 and within
the Mission Control Center at Houston were accomplished on schedule.
A brief summary of all computer runs is presented in Table XI-1.
TABLE XI-1
Summary of Prelaunch Operations
Time of Data
Release to
Run No. Martin-Baltimore Operation
1 F-l day Wind comparison to specification.
1100 EST Sent to Cape and MCC -Houston.
8-20-65
2 T-12 hr Computation of wind comparison, load,
2100 EST analog and trajectory simulations and
8-20-65 constraints. Data sent to Cape and to
MCC -Houston; winds were "go. "
3 T-5 hr Computation of wind comparison, load,
0400 EST analog and trajectory simulations and
8-21-65 constraints. Data sent to Cape and to
MCC -Houston; winds were "go. "
ER 13227-5
XI-.2
TABLE XI-1 (continued)
Time of Data
Release to
Run No. Martin-Baltimore Operation
T-3 hr Computation of wind comparison, load,
0600 EST analog and trajectory simulations
8-21-65 cancelled because of minor wind change;
winds were "go. "
T-l hr Computation of wind comparison;
0800 EST minor wind change; simulations
8-21-65 cancelled; unchanged data verified
by telephone to Cape and MCC-Houston;
winds were "go. "
1. Trajectory Simulation
Of the six wind profiles (Figs. XI-1, XI-2 and XI-3), the soundings
released by the Air Force at T-12 and T-5 hours (Fig. XI-2) were .
programmed into the IBM 7094 Gemini Trajectory Program. The T-3
hour sounding data release was not run because it had not changed from
the T-5 hour wind. Results of the T-12 and T-5 trajectory simula-
tions were delivered to MCC-Houston in time for use in plotboard re-
visions of the nominal trajectory as affected by winds.
2. Loads Simulation
The winds-aloft launch recommendations for the GT-5 flight were
based upon the results obtained from analog computer load simulation
runs performed at Martin-Baltimore. Three simulations were run
using winds data released at T-12, T-5 and T-3 hours. These loads,
the lightest so far encountered, were 71% of limit strength; thus, all
recommendations were "go. "
3. Analog Transient Simulations
The engine gimbal angles, attitude errors, and pitch and yaw
angles of attack as obtained from the wind load analog simulations
were sent to the Monitors in the MCC-Houston for use as a preview
of vehicle and control system responses to the winds aloft.
4. First-Stage Propellant Tank Underpressure Constraints
The Stage I tank underpressure constraints for GT-5 were selected
to maintain structural integrity for the simulated loads. The con-
straints used were lower than the constraints required to withstand
ER 13227-5
XI-3
X
*J
'0 10 20 30 40 50 60 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 0 20 40 60 80 100
Wind Speed (fps) Wind Azimuth (deg)
Pig. XI-1. Launch Winds Forecast for T-K)
ER 13227-5
XI-4
10 20 30 40 50 60 TO 80 90 0 80 120 160 200 240 280 300

Fig. XI-2. Winds-Aloft Observations
ER 13227-5
XI-5
10 20 . 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100. 120 160 200

Pig. XI-3. Winds Aloft Observations
ER 13227-5
XI-6
design winds which are more severe than those measured during GT-5
prelaunch operations. The selected constraints were transmitted in
timely fashion to the MCC-Houston.
5. Slow Malfunction Switchover Action Threshold
The slow malfunction switchover action threshold was sent to MCC-

Houston in the form of inertial velocity (EUVTIL) versus inertial flight
path angle (GPTIL). The V-Vthreshold was computed from an original
set of six functions using average wind velocity increase with altitude
and average wind direction, and interpolating to produce the operational
threshold. This threshold (in the trajectory pitch plane) was transmitted
to the MCC Guidance Monitors.
B. SLOW MALFUNCTION MONITORING

1. Launch Attempt Countdown
The 19 August launch attempt was monitored through the MID-

COUNTj and all Guidance Monitor parameters were nominal. Be-
cause of the holds experienced during the count, the T-3 hour wind
simulation from Martin-Baltimore was utilized to develop the Stage I
V-y p variation, Plotboard VA (Fig. XI-4), the .trajectory, structure
and temperature switchover action lines, and the Stage I V -T varia-
tion, Plotboard IIIA (Fig. XI-5). The performance switchover action
line was located to incorporate a -67-pound payload margin prediction
which dictated the use of the 300-pound switchover constraint line.
2. Launch Countdown
The 21 August launch countdown was monitored and all Guidance

' Monitor parameters were nominal. The wind simulations received
from Martin-Baltimore were so similar to the 19 August predictions
that the same plotboard sheets (VA and IIIA) were modified to reflect
the minor changes and were used for the launch. The T-5 hour wind
simulation was utilized to locate the Stage I V-T P (Fig. XI-4) trajectory,
the structure and temperature switchover action lines, and the Stage I
Vy - T (Fig. XI-5) lateral velocity component.' The performance switch-
over action line was located to incorporate a -127-pound payload margin
at T-0 prediction; Based on the existing ground rules, this dictated
the use of the 250-pound switchover action line.
3. Stage I Flight
The TARS pitch program appeared lower than predicted by approxi-

mately 0. 063%. This effect, coupled with a high thrust condition, re-
sulted in a lofted V-Y P trajectory. The IGS pitch attitude error display
ER 13227-5
CONFIDENTIAL XI-7
Fig. yS-k. Houston-MCC Plotboard VA, Pitch Plane

CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-5
XI-8
CONFIDENTIAL
Tgo TIME TO GO TO SECO sec
>LOTBOARD 111 LAUNCH N'RTIAL VELOCITY ft/,,

Tj ELAPSED TIME !«<•
Fig. XI-5. Houston-MCC Plotboard III A, Lateral Velocity
CONFIDENTIAL
ER 13227-5
XI-9 I § ,-';r .v ••?"•;_'•>-s v
(Fig. XI-6), confirmed the low TARS pitch program by a demand nose-
down signal starting at pitch program initiate. >p was approximately
0. 88 degree high at BECO (Fig. XI-4). There was a roll thrust mis-
alignment at liftoff that required approximately 0. 28 degree of demand
roll CCW to compensate (Fig. XI-7). The roll thrust misalignment
caused a buildup in V y , left of course, to -130 fps at BECO (Fig. XI-5).
Both the IGS and TARS yaw axes appeared nominal.
A telemetry dropout of 1. 5 seconds was displayed on both strip
chart recorders (SCRs) at T + 114 seconds. Postflight investigations
at Tel II and Tel III did not confirm this signal dropout. NASA-MSC
is investigating this problem.
4. Stage II Flight
Both IGS and RGS steering commands responded properly at 66 = 1
for the dispersed BECO conditions. However, RGS pitch steering
commands, WpN , were noisy for the last 50 seconds of flight. The
noisy steering was apparently caused by poor radar data since V-y p
was also noisy for that portion of the flight. The radar flags ( 6 j , 6 2
and 63) showed solid lock throughout Stage II flight. Both IGS and RGS
yaw steering were nominal throughout powered flight.
5. Post-SECO Flight
The IGS yaw error signal stepped to 0 degree, at SECO + 4 seconds.
This anomaly has been attributed to a faulty FVAR routine in the IGS
computer and is under investigation by the cognizant personnel. A
telemetry dropout of 3 seconds was experienced at SECO + 7 seconds.
This was identical to the dropout noted at T + 114 seconds and is also
under investigation by NASA.
ER 13227-5
XI-10 -/
&--T-- .-
Stage II
10-Sec Marks from Liftoff
Nose Down
I
Pitch Axis
îfi^pl^Rwii :
.!..:.! i.,;L iii.j _Lt_i. L iQ Li_;-.i_L£L.Hik
^n^H±iHzH^FFw3^W^^
FmPFFFfe^
fte&M^^^
Hr:N:{:ffl:fe|4^^
-~i • i frr-i-—*™r+-—t-^" frr-i — -* r-^—t —: : 1—fV-s—t-*i *— r—r{—i~i : • : • •—i : :—
j*T3an.~|f?T -'f ]"T- T "TTt'-r [v-fn' T "H-i ? "V:| ~r~r"j ~|"
-4-H=t±ii^dsî^sS^
iS^rtt^^H
Stage II SCR No. 1
Fig. XI-6. Telemetry HI Pitch Axis Recording
ER 13227-5
XI-ll-J
Stage H Stage I
10 Sec Marks from Liftoff n rMHTH^^ rrg-ri ~ rhr;. r i "r'R?r>.i°
4^!^)z^ffflH^H4^^^HH^ j-H^Ff i-f^fe -^-•$*•§--j~t~iH •__;*"f~i~' r I' M~j r~j~;~|~i~j~j~i~r~! j~;~}—;~t-j—'—t-j--i-j—}-!—!-;-!• |^-j—| "{"T"" ) ! •f~j~''
RollCW 745 <t>e 745 —-
F
SWO 872-874
-TTF/r
P*\~
t-
;;• >- ra.Tm IT '1-:t-:l-.-t"i;~!?tTTT-'r'J~!'. ! ! !
as
—j—.
i 'TTUT"
—!—!
I Diff
745-768
Ettff
745-768
'c
734 MSB
ss EP
p?fe
-rff^
^fTT
r*fej|-i-
i î±rHiM3-b
3zti S
OJ^L
~~j |-!
TEG
S±E
W ^
SHE
£L-4tJ3-4
HE m SI
GCP 728
335; as fCF-rrrrrii-7-E Fa~T^ TT__r-;- --i-!.. r-:M [- j i- . ,1 •[. -;-:i P I . J.- - I.. . I i t=i
.^f-iq-iM -.1 r-i :'i ! '-'"r-'rr-'rri^rFi-.'iirr-i _^_r •_i_ui'Zf" r~C
*e 744 ^ 744+6'
53sS
tfe
ii ittt z
5®t3 _i_
f!W^
-iTf^F
Yaw right 1
tadTJH^^, •Hî-F^F^^-i-h 4»
Stef^ a^kH:.:^ JtS N
..
l^taL'l-:-' aarf •-?'.» -i-!'- !-, -11
GCS 773
plCT7T?TTrp,.--Tyi SKOEELaiHP 7
m ft EE ..^tj.'.i". i' ' .i^-t" —1-^ t^-''
1
- -: •-; - - ; - --;---- - - - :
•' - . •,. - r ' r
i ' . --
%i«"!rfo
x: PPR&
Yaw Diff ^ - ib Diff ^ - .pe 3S* n^*p
,—,^_^.—;
ij-^?TCt.
.s.,...t. §
^crr.^.-; 'M-'!
*t
.jSgak
- - H H :f : t - : h S n - r
e e
Roll s p s p
Axis 744-767 744-767 ±j
TîP^t-rJ
-p-f"]-^ 5Ri
s}sr-ra a*!ga •.f^--'i '-• Ur- i^ - H - -H . H - - . - j h i - r C T - m
>]jrt,.»p-..
•'M^M-.-r
ffl - tH|?i €r:< yyi|^mrT HFgF!^
isDîzfaz±ZT3±ri±±:L.-iJJ:j^^îTî;-i:kLj^^^LJaai^bi±j:aja>iJ.-L-i-i^.j^.-;.j. i•rrizirnrhudJisEtnaiimLfedSigs
Quid Init TARS 740
i J-,.-) q ^F.T-nr!-.|.-J|—|ff51~l~I?T~r ^
ijto^^4ft4to^
,a--S|-|,-ta|J.i;-|-£.|.'.i .|«»-:j j'•[,V|^cri--«!:a'°l. I- ).=:;.-! ! f.\ ;
I L i. r.-i- ! i - ! ' ! i.
-rt"i ~i h-~i i-iccTj)
r-i-r-r-j-l ^-sa
^^^ra^-Tiwrei=BPK.ia%FH-i---Ft:!an;r-tâ(^:«i--f-r;r^-R!-ra?^ta^^
t- =|jrî " I •' | • -~!^-j j j *- t i *~^= !'" •" ' *=_"
r v -
ZCrl JauiaJ J^L Ja£te3E±3 JO^LLkLLi J-S^Lsztzbl alOOi Li J JJ...
fe( r !' i'rjrr-r~r-f. r I~IT "nPF'P'ijT."!".!-.! .;.:
I !_!_ii: _S_!_!_1 .j_l -1_! .! . l
SCR No. 2 V
Stage I • -Stage
Fig. XI-7- Telemetiy in Yaw-Roll Axis Recording
ER 13227-5
XII-1
XII. AIRFRAME SYSTEM
A. STRUCTURAL LOADS
GT-5 flight data analyses indicate that the experienced loads were
well within the launch vehicle's structural capabilities. The most
critical loading occurred at pre-BECO where the load aft of Station
320 reached 98. 5% of design limit load; however, this represents only
72. 5% of tested strength. Dynamic response data from the rate gyros
were used in lateral dynamic loads analyses, and axial accelerometers
were the data source for longitudinal dynamic loads.
The design limit lines shown on the equivalent axial load graphs in
this chapter have been based on material from the GLV final structural
loads and stiffness data report (Ref. 21). This report updates the loads
and stiffness design data report (Ref. 22) which had been utilized for
the postflight evaluations of GT-1 through GT-4.
The percentage that the total calculated flight load bears to design
limit load should be regarded as a measure of the airframe design
efficiency.
1. Preignition
The 1 g deadweight distribution (Fig. XII-1) is the only contribution

to the static axial load. The response to ground winds just prior to
ignition (Fig. XII-2) caused a 23, 500-in. -Ib bending moment at the BLH
station. The winds were less than 5 mph from a direction 53 degrees
east of north, resulting in wind-induced oscillations prior to ignition
that caused a bending moment of ±38, 000 in. -Ib at the BLH station.
2. Launch Prerelease
The prerelease static axial loads have been based on the GT-5
weight and thrust values. Axial dynamic loads were obtained using
the response of the BLH axial load measurement. The axial loading
envelope (static ± dynamic) during the holddown period is shown in
Fig. XII-3.
The prerelease dynamic lateral loadings were due primarily to the

combined effects of wind and the engine start transient. These re-
sponses (Fig. XII-4), obtained from BLH measurements, indicate that
the lateral loading was one of the lowest experienced. The highest re-
sponse was in the pitch plane and may be attributed to the time differ-
ence in subassemblies ignition.
The steady wind loading for preignition is also applicable during

this period.
ER 13227-5
xn-2
-600
-500 I;
-4oo m
CO
o
X
XI
& -300
•s
o
-200
-100
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Vehicle Station (in.)
Fig. XII-1. Steady 1 g Axial Load
ER 13227-5
XII-3
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Vehicle Station (in.
Fig. XH-2. Bending Moments Due to Ground Winds
ER 13227-5
XII-4
c -600
o
a)
a
£ -500
o
U
-400
X -300
.a
•o
a)
-200
-100
o
H
100
c
o
in
C
a)
200^
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Vehicle Station (in.
Fig. XII-3- Hynamlc Axial Load Envelope: Prelaunch
ER 13227-5
XII-5
3.2
J
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Fig. XH-4. Lateral Dynamic Bending Moment Envelope: Prerelease
ER 13227-5
XII-6
3. Launch Postrelease
A liftoff factor of 1. 275 g, applied to the deadweight release load,

constituted the postrelease steady axial load. The axial accelerometers
were used to determine the axial dynamic loading. A 9-cps frequency,
associated with the calculated first axial mode (7. 8 cps), was the only
longitudinal mode in evidence at liftoff.
The postrelease lateral loads (Fig. .XII-5) were entirely dynamic

with the only response being a 7. 5-cps frequency which was associated
with the second lateral mode (calculated free-free condition, 6. 75 cps).
4. Stage I Flight
The most significant periods of Stage I flight for vehicle loading
occurred approximately at the time of maximum C,T q and at pre-
BECO. a
Maximum q occurred at LO + 66 seconds; however, maximum
a
loading occurred at LO + 69 seconds. This was due to the increase in
steady axial loading plus a slightly larger engine deflection with only a
small reduction in C,.INT q a . The loads at this later flight time were
a
primarily of quasi-steady origin (thrust and winds aloft).
Lateral dynamic loading (rate-gyro response) at LO + 69 seconds
is shown in Fig. XII-6.
The total axial loads, P , developed at critical Station 935 and aft
of Station 1188 at LO + 69 seconds, were 71.6% and 87. 9% of design
limit load, respectively. This was the lowest loading to date (Table
XII-1) and resulted primarily from the low magnitude winds aloft.
TABLE XII-1 '
GT-1 Through GT-5 Structural Loading
At Max C N qa,
a At Pre-BECO,
.Station 935. Station 320+
(% design load limit (% design load limit
Flight at critical station) at critical station)
GT-1 82. 3 95. 5

GT-2 80. 1 100
GT-3 78. 5' 97
GT-4 85. 4 101
GT-5 71.6 . 98. 5
NOTE: Updated design load limit compression (Ref. 21)
has been used in this table for consistency in com-
paring structural loading for all flights.
ER 13227-5
XII-7
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Vehicle State (in.)
Fig. XH-5. Total Lateral Dynamic Load Envelope: Postrelease
ER 13227-5
XII-8
0. 6
First structural mode
0.4
0.2
c
0)
ao
.s•o
0)
n
Second structural mode

CO
o
1.0
-0)
PQ 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Fig. XII-6. Total Lateral Dynamic Load Envelope: Max q a
ER 13227-5
XII -9
A correlation between measured and calculated frequencies, both

structural and slosh, is shown in Figs. XII-7 and XII-8. As on previ-
ous flights, frequency correlation is good. A Stage I flight history of
peak dynamic bending moment is illustrated in Fig. XII-9.
At pre-BECO, the greatest component (97. 5%) of structural loading

was due to the quasi-steady axial acceleration of 5. 55 g. Typical axial
dynamic loading was obtained from the responses of the axial accelerom-
eters in Compartments 1 and 5.
Lateral dynamic loading (rate-gyro response) is shown in Fig.

XII-10.
The total pre-BECO axial load, P , developed aft of critical sta-

tion 320 was 98. 5% of design limit load.
5. Stage II Flight . '.
Low level lateral oscillations (1.6 cps) occurred at the end of Stage
I flight and continued into Stage II flight at 0. 8 cps. These' frequencies
are associated with the Stage II fuel slosh mode. Approximately five
seconds after Stage II engine ignition, these oscillations were essen-
tially damped out although a continuous low frequency oscillation of
negligible amplitude (1 to 2 cps) was evident. At a crew debriefing, it
was stated that the expected low frequency Stage II oscillation was in-
significant.
The quasi-steady axial acceleration reached a maximum value of

7. 56 g at the end of Stage II flight; the loads developed at this time are
shown in Fig. XII-11. The loading at the interface amounted to 75. 1%
of design limit load.
A minor post-SECO pulse of ±0. 015 g axial acceleration was noted.

This pulse occurred at SECO + 5. 1 seconds and was damped out within
0. 3 second.
6. Total Airframe Loads
A summary of the total airframe loads (quasi-steady axial, dynamic

axial, and equivalent axial loads from quasi-steady and dynamic bending
moments) for significant structural loading conditions at critical sta-
tions is presented in Table XII-2. Complete vehicle loadings at signif-
icant flight times are shown in Figs. XII-11 through XII-15. . The max-
imum loading experienced at any station and the condition at which it
occurred are shown in Fig. XII-16.
ER 13227-5
XII-10
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Fig. XII-7. Stage I Flight Vibration Frequency Correlation
ER 13227-5
XII-11
2.0
O GT-5
Analysis
Difference between
Stage II fuel and
Stage II oxidizer
Fig. XII-8. Correlation of Observed Slosh Frequencies with Analysis
ER 13227-5
XII-12
0.5
0 Pitch Mode 1
Yaw Mode 1
Pitch Mode.2
(3 Yaw Mode 2
Engine transient response
80 100 140 160

from Liftoff (sec)
Fig. XII-9- Peak Modal Bending Moment as Determined by Stage II Fate Gyros
ER 13227-5.
XII-13
First structural mode
Stage I engine mode

tTTTTnTfirrrrnrinrT
-0.2
0.5 ^
CD 0.4
O
o6
00
•H
•a
ffl 0
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Fig. XII-10. Total Lateral I)jmamlc Load Envelope: Pre-BECO
ER 13227-5
XII-14
-900
Design envelope
Design envelope code
-800
Prerelease
Postrelease
Transonic buffet
Max a C
-700
-600
M
O Design limit
-500S
•o
rt
2
"a
c
<u
o-
SiSSlS Tension
(96.000 Ib max)
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Fig. XII-11. Equivalent Axial Load: Prerelease
ER 13227-5
XII-15
Design envelope
Prerelease
Postrelease
Transonic buffet
Design limit
Tension
(65,000 Ib max)
4UU bULT BUI

Pig. XII-12'. Eqtiivalent Axial Load: Postrelease
ER 13227-5
XII-16
Desxgn envelope

A Prerelease
D Postrelease
6 Transonic buffet
O Max (rC N
CO
O
Design limit g
.ft -
•o
n)
O
a)
r^
ni
>
'31
o
W
-200
Max qaC_ T *
N
-100
200 400 600 1800 1000 1200 1400

Fig. XII-13. Equivalent Axial Load: Max q.
ER 13227-5
XII-17
-900
Design envelope
-800
A Prerelease
D Postrelease
-700 O Transonic buffet
O Max
" "a
V BECO
_ -600
X Design limit
XI
-500
T3
01
O
•rt -400
£ -300
3 1
CT
w
-200
-100
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Fig. m-14. Equivalent Axial Load: Pre-BECO
ER 13227-5
XII-18
CO
o Design envelope code
A Prerelease
O Postrelease
O Transonic buffet
•o
oj
-2
'S
ni
'3
cr
B
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Fig. XU-15. Equivalent Axial Load: SECO
ER 13227-5
XII-19
ragj"Design envelope code

" Prerelease
Postrelease
o Transonic buffet
700 mm O Max q C
200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Pig. XII-16. Maximum Structural Load Envelope
ER 13227-5
XII-20
TABLE XII-2
Summary of GT-5 Total Airframe Loads
% of Design Limit
at Critical Critical
Flight Condition Station '. .Station
Prerelease 69. 7 '1188*

Postrelease 63. 4 1188*
Max C N q (LO + 6 9 s e c ) 71. 6, 87. 9 935, 1188*
a
Pre-BECO (LO +.152 sec) 98. 5 320*
Pre-SECO (LO + 333 sec) 75. 1 276. 8
*Just aft of station
B. POGO
During the latter part of the first-stage flight of GT-5, the astro-
nauts reported the unexpected occurrence of "a lot of POGO. " This
was the first actual observation of a sustained longitudinal oscillation
instability (POGO) on a Gemini Launch Vehicle. It had previously
been demonstrated analytically (Ref. 25) and verified by seven consec-
utive POGO suppression flights of both Titan II and Gemini-Titan
vehicles that the instability which characterized the original Titan II
configuration could be successfully eliminated by the use of tuned hy-
draulic resonators inserted into the Stage I propellant feedlines. The
POGO occurrence on GT-5 was particularly surprising since these
suppression devices (piston-type fuel accumulators and oxidizer line
standpipes) were incorporated on GLV-5.
The incidence of POGO on GT-5 resulted in relatively low vibratory

g-levels which, from the astronauts' point of view, made them rather
"hard pressed to read'the displays. " The vibration levels did not in-
hibit or endanger the -success of the flight and, in comparison with
earlier Titan II experience, the GT-5 instability was very mild. De-
spite the overall success of the GT-5 mission, the. unexpected g-levels
are of concern because they exceeded the 0. 25 g zero-to-peak level
desired by NASA.
1. Review of Flight Data
Significant oscillatory POGO parameters (propulsion system pres-

sures and structural accelerations) have been specially analyzed by
analog filtering and spectral density techniques to ascertain the
ER 13227-5
XII-21
existence of unusual performance in the Stage I propulsion system.

The results of this data reduction including a description of the analysis
procedures are included in Ref. 24.
A review of this information indicates that a sustained launch vehicle
longitudinal vibration in excess of the prescribed criterion of 0. 25 g
zero-to-peak at Station 280 did occur on GT-5. The suppression sys-
tem apparently did not operate as desired and therefore did not elimi-
nate the POGO instability. Figure XII-17 shows a comparison of the
acceleration levels observed on GT-5 with those measured on the pre-
vious Gemini-Titan flights.
Accelerations and propulsion system data associated with the POGO
phenomenon were monitored using PCM techniques. Figure XII-18
presents the telemetry traces of significant system parameters during
the period of Stage I flight between LO +111 and LO + 1 3 7 seconds. A
comparison of parameters at time of maximum oscillation for all Gemini-
Titan flights appears in Table XII-3.
The launch vehicle axial accelerometers are located at Station 280
on the compartment skirt near the spacecraft interface, and at Station
1209 on the aft tank longeron in Compartment 5. The oscillation at
Station 280 began at about LO +115 seconds, reached a maximum
filtered level of response of 0. 38 g zero-to-peak at a frequency of 11. 4
cps at LO + 129 seconds, and then disappeared at about LO + 139 sec-
onds. The vibration levels were above the design goal of 0.25 g zero-
to-peak for about 13 seconds (from LO + 120 to LO + 133 seconds),
while the frequency during this period corresponded closely with the
calculated first longitudinal structural mode of the vehicle. Compart-
ment 5 vibration levels reached a maximum value of 0.58 g zero-to-
peak at LO + 129 seconds.
Relatively large oscillations at 11. 4 cps (Fig. XII-18) were noted
in the pressure measurements on the oxidizer feedlines and discharge
lines during maximum POGO. At this time, oxidizer pump suction and
discharge pressure oscillations on S/A 2 (P and P , ) attained
OS
2 2
values of 17 psi and 15 psi, respectively, while ullage pressure oscilla-
tions in the S/A 2 oxidizer standpipe reached a value of 21 psi. The
relative proximity of these values is a strong indication that suction
pressure oscillations were being fed through the oxidizer pump with
no attenuation from the standpipe.
Pressure oscillations on the fuel side appeared normal. A small

oscillation at 11. 4 cps can be seen in the fuel suction line pressure
measurements of S/A 1 (P. ). These pressure oscillations reached a
ts
l
value of 0. 92 psi zero-to-peak at maximum POGO. Pressure oscillations
ER 13227-5
XII-22
o
tO
-p
CQ
-P
C
o 0)
• ta-
rn
O
O
o
CM
t—
rH
ER 13227-5
XII-23
Longitudinal accelerometer, Sta 280, Meas 0670
Longitudinal accelerometer, Sta 1209, Meas 0169
Oxidizer suction line pressure, S/A 2 (21 in. above pump inlet), Meas 0017
Oxidizer standpipe ullage pressure, S/A 1. Meas 0033
Oxidizer pump discharge pressure, S/A 2, Meas 0016

+200
Fuel suction line pressure, S/A 1 (27 in. above pump inlet). Meas 0014
Combustion chamber pressure, S/A 1, Meas 0003
^Vt^>
Fuel surge chamber piston motion, S/A 1, Meas 0035

d +0. 5-«
Q. _fl
Fuel suction line pressure, S/A 1 in-line with fuel accumulator

(4 in. above pump inlet), Meas 0037
Begin 125
Fig. XH-18. Oscillogram of Selected Parameters (LO + 111 to

LO + 137 sec), Bandpass Filtered (l to 200 cps)
ER 13227-5
XII-24
rH LO
1 CO ^ 0 o
E-T CD rH CSI CD o T—\ CO t— CM CM t
o 2 O O O csf
*
^
0 0 o* rH rH
in
csi
CM
1 CD CO c- CD
E-< °° rH rH CSI CD CO ^ LO ^ CO 05
G
O
•rH
0 rH O O rH csi «J o - rH rH 1 —1 csi
"cd
r—1
1— 1
•rH
O
CO
cL °
CO O5
rH CM 05 o O
^
CD CM O
CO
CQ L™^ ^H t t t t ^ ^ CO
O
O rH oo O CO ^' O CO CM CO CM CM
a
a 1
r. CM
CM
CM ^%
?s t? csi . CO
cd O -i 0 csi
O LO
cu
CO CO O o o csi o
co m
1— 1
CD o CSI CD CO
£ S rH co"
CO | O rH oo rH- CM (M O CSI CSI LO' in CM
1 f_|
r-l ~
M
?N "^
cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd
cd cd
cu cu cu cu
W w
cu cu ft ft ft ft ft ft ft
O
ft ft
1 i i i i i i
J
CQ ^
43 CQ £J i i O
H->
0 O o O
J_>
o
-u
O o
• *
TA]
i
zero-i
zero--
O O 1 1
arame
zero-
zero-
1
• rH
1 1 O o o o
fn fn
[3 0) o o CU CU
rH
CU
rH
CU
SH !H tsl N N N
cd CU CU
PH o
tsl N cd
• rn" cd • rH • rH
-rH- • rH •H •rH • rH
a
CU
CU
bio bio
CO CU
ft ft
CO CQ
ft
CQ
ft
CO
ft
CQ
ft
CO
ft
CQ
ft
CQ
ft
-f->
CQ
^
CO o cu'
m oscillati1
pe pressur
umulato r pressure
iparison of
pressure:
CD
hamber pressure:
0 0
CO CSI
CSI rH
C C cu'
o o
eter
rH
-rH
•r-l
cu
n3 ni CQ rH
c pressu
ti g 3 CO* CO CJ •rH
CU
o
CJ
s a o
•rH
ft
rH
ft
fsc*
< -CM
« * C
!~cT 0 C
H CM
c >
O ra O
PH g •rH ra to g CO O
• rH CQ H CSI
+•»
o 0
cd
1 0,
H-»
0 O CL pT o PL, i—H
s^ o C-
«rH
rH
3
O
CU
CU
r—1
l~ CSl
CO s-. cd ^ (M
-M **^
CQ ,_,' CM
cd
"ih
_. rH
a O
O
•ri <! <! g -2 oj<! < <:
•rH
< O co ^<
Oco CO fe£i h^ CO ^CO
H ^ "co
ER 13227-5
XII-2 5
on S/A 1 in the fuel suction_line._near_.the fuel accumulator (P- ) and

• isc 1
; 1
in the fuel discharge line (P fH ) were nearly free of an 11. 4-cps signal.
| w1
These measurements werei actually saturated by a 24-cps signal, a
pressure oscillation which! on previous flights has been identified with
the second resonant frequency of the fuel line- accumulator combination.
The existence of this 24-cps ; signal in the fuel line is a good indication
that the fuel accumulator o'perated satisfactorily. ,
2. Discussion I
I '
Successful suppression! of the POGO phenomenon is dependent on the

satisfactory operation of bpth~the-fuel~accuniulators and the oxidizer
standpipes. A failure in either device :can lead to an undesirable in-
stability. A detailed investigation of the occurrence of POGO on GT-5,
as reported in Ref. 24, hab £evealed that although the fuel accumulators
performed satisfactorily, the "oxidizer standpipes were undercharged
throughout Stage I flight. |
' ! •'•'•'..
The oxidizer standpipesact x as peak-notch filters to pressure os-
cillations in the oxidizer ffgdiiffeT"" The" notch is judiciously located
so as to attenuate pressure oscillations in the range of the lowest longi-
tudinal structural frequency (about 11 cps).. The notch frequency, in
turn, is controlled by the volume -of a gas bubble trapped within the
standpipe. The smaller tri'S'toubbte^volume, the higher the notch fre-
quency. In Table XII-4 ar'e listed the notch frequencies on GT-3,
GT-4 and GT-5 which are obtained from power spectral densities of
oxidizer suction line pressures measured shortly after liftoff (Ref. 24).
The notch frequencies on GT— 3--and-G-T-4 were about 9 cps, a value
consistent with design specifications and indicating the existence of a
proper bubble volume at lilftoff. For GT-5, however, .the notch fre-
quency was nearly 25 cps,| a value which would indicate that the vehicle
lifted off with only about 6 k-0-l-2%-o-f-the--required bubble volume. In
this condition, as shown in Ref. 24, the standpipe would offer no atten-
uation of pressure oscillatjions in the<s|ructural frequency range and a
slight instability would occur at LO 4J120 seconds.
i ' •' p g
Further confirmation of the unsatisfactory operation of the stand-
pipes is indicated by the ratios of ©Id-dijzer suction pressure oscilla-
tions to longitudinal accel^rratton~leve1:s"at Station 1209, P /g (Table
XII-4). It is apparent from the values £>f P os
Is that the oxidizer stand-
' •'^ i to £. ' a <*
'
pipe on GT-5 did not operate in^the^df sired manner.
„ ,
! a CD
i o o
-
ER 13227-5
XI I-2 6
? a
° 'a in CD
(M CM • •
•In C
•)'r fe cd •
CO CO'
CO
0)
rt a
G
fU
^
£ -a O3 CM
CO
,C - .W
O ^
O . i— i.
c i in • • • :-
.EH
*'-.;'. '.•"••'"'
••<£''
CO CS1
i m
m
'En
o
••a "cd CO
cd Q 1 CO
CQ •*->
cu a O5 CXI
w •r-t
O
'C
m cu fo **
c
rt •
o =*-< 0)
0) tuo cd
r, i
a <s !
tuO
CO
.§E
EH
Q) O
|||
4^ .2 r-<
< d >r~^
^§ , 'P O fcuO
r
1 * (D : —
' fn ••§»•
CU
la-J
quency (cp
Paramel
Oxidizer s
pipe notch
Ck p^ E-t Cti <f]
Q) f~> C^ f\\ CO ^^ CU
N iî SH r\ ~^^ "**^' 03
TJ ^. Q) P ^. O^ 03
'B § £: § ° °
(5 .2 £ 0 .2 ^ PH
0)
CO
•X-
ER 13227-5
XII-2 7
i::..;. • C. RECOVERED STAGE I OXIDIZER TANK
The destroyer .USS Dupont recovered a 23-foot section of the GLV-5

Stage I oxidizer tank from.the Atlantic Ocean, about 454 miles down-
range. The recovered section consisted of the forward : oxidizer skirt,
the forward oxidizer dome (including rate gyros), and the barrel sec-
.tiori;. The aft skirt and aft dome were missing. A photograph of the
recovered section appears as Fig. XII-19. The condition of the struc-
ture was generally good, considering the forces experienced by the
structure during re-entry and impact. Personnel onboard the USS
Dupont reported that the partial cavitation of the forward dome and the
damage to the barrel section..were incurred during the recovery opera-
tion.
A visual inspection of the tank indicates the following. The external

conduits show a relatively uniform re-entry heat pattern on the aft
section of the conduit door beads over the entire length of the conduit.
structure. The blunt aft end of conduit No. 2 was burned through.
(This portion of conduit No. 1 was missing. ) The painting of the words
"UNITED STATES" on the basic barrel skin shows no indication of re-
entry heating. All small protuberances such as rivet heads, grounding
studs, and external conduit door fasteners were discolored on their aft
segments. From these heat pattern observations it appears that there
was a relatively stable, engine-first re-entry by the expended Stage I
booster.
Recovery of this tank provides the first tangible evidence of "proof

of environment" for the fire-in-the-hole staging technique. Cameras
utilized on various Titan II flights have recorded the staging event;
however, this demonstrates clearly that the forward oxidizer dome,
skirt and frame structure do withstand the staging environment satis-
factorily. The Stage II engine exhaust pattern is uniform in appearance
on the ablative coating. The capability of the ablator material used to
protect the dome and skirt structure from the intensive engine exhaust
heat and blast during the staging sequence appears to be exceptional.
Some small, localized metal burn and erosion areas are present at the
forward edge of the elliptical exhaust ports in the skirt. This was
probably due to the combined heat and turbulence of the high velocity
exhaust gases and the normal thinning out of the sprayed-on ablative
material at the periphery of the ports.
The external condition of the two rate gyro packages, mounted on

the upper dome after exposure to the staging environment, appears
very good. Sight glasses provided for reading operational life timers .
were still intact. Protective covers of silicon rubber around the shock
mounts were shriveled from heat but were not broken. The gyro
housings show some finish paint scorch but appear to be undamaged
structurally. -
ER 13227-5
XII-28
<y
ti
<D
a
•d
->-> ju r ;q .".•.;- ;.-;rv:-t.: ::>«-'•;
' ' Thê' mecfrariibal AGE 'equipment' utiiiêd prib¥ to;ic'puritdbwn' i s pri-
rri'krily'fbr tr'ahs'p'ort arid erection of "Stages' I a'nd'iF.' Both'stages'of"''
GLV-5 were airlifted successfully to Cape Kennedy by the B'^377'-PG''
aircraft. During erection, all equipment functioned as designed.
2. Countdown and Launch'-Qperati.ons -r -;-;.'; '

All mechanical"AGE,'u'sed;during;the couritdown and launch of GT-5
functioned normally. '••'•' :v - J ^-••'•''•:'•'•"'-'^ - - ( . • - • j
The spacecraft'dropweight sysfem' succelsfuliy^di^'c^bnhect'ed arid ;

cleanly retracted the three spacecraft umbilicals.
|YK
' Analysis p'f magrie'ti'c;tape'-recbr'dings':;of funcliQns'carrfed^tffrbugW
'the"umbili"cal's and inspection :bf fiims':';c6ri'firm?that:tlie' launch-'vehicle"
electricalTi'mbilic'als^ dis'cphhect'ed in the! planned se'quence !ars5indi'cated
in Table XIII-1. .'-'.i "'.!-?•• "" a o r ^ ^ . x ^ -:ii; n\:.-: -^:n^:^-r^z srlj-., cû
TABLE. XIII-1
Electrical.Umbilical Disconnect Sequence
Umbilical. Time of Disconnect
Designation (GMT)
3DIM/3D2M 1359:59.512 --~~:
-.- 3 DIE., v" •- • '^ r-.— -. ••'<• 1359:59.!-.723
' ' in- ',• ;
...-.r3-p2-E-; :h-f -. • = . . :
srjo '.'£':•:,
1.4OQ: 00;.2490-, .>.-/ C -î:5r[j oj
2B2E 1400:66/272 ...vcQo'i
The oxidizer standpipe remote charging .system; dis.connects|[wjer.e-1 . .
manually disconnected and stowed prior to liftoff'""'A"~de"sign"change""to
the fly-away disconnect cable system was inôBporiated-iiniiGLi^jS, but
was not utilized due to the manual disconnect.
svod.ii :h:.3l c ./lo.Tno'is io afci:^ .1=,.3S;:i.-i-;iO3 10 assig agÔ (.s)
; .nSil'.J'ld 3£ W .ISv'Sl ;-lo9D
B. MASTER OPERATIONS CONTROL SET (MOCS)
•lonioo Jasvvriijjoa is -zevoa norisja "gni5.GL r j^9TE-9 j :rua39i c :i. (d)
Review ofithefMOCSiautorriatifc'rsequeneelriecoFds "shows that all
functions except Holdfire B3 (HF-B3) were performed properly. The
automatic activation of HF-B3 did not occur at T-35:00 minutes as pro-
grammed, due to a malfunction caused by a poorly soldered connection
xni-2
in the sequencer. It was therefore necessary for the RCA Sequencer

Operator to perform both the activation and deactivation of this cir-
cuit manually. HF-B3 was activated at T-27 minutes and deactivated
at T-9. 6 seconds. The automatic sequence was not stopped for these
operations and proceeded to a successful liftoff.
MOCS.T-0 occurred at 1359:56. 1 GMT, followed by. TCPS at T+l. 1

seconds. The following MOCS generated time functions occurred as
scheduled:
TCPS + 1.6 seconds
TCPS + 1.8 seconds
TCPS + 2. 0 seconds (fire launch
nuts)--1359:59. 2 GMT
The launch operation was completed in 3. 1 seconds.
The recorders were switched to high speed at T-2 minutes. Dur-
ing the automatic portion of the count, the real-time traces were com-
pared with the patch list. All traces were checked for time of occur-
rence, and.found to be correct and consistent with the planned opera-
tion of the sequencer with th2 exception of HF-B3.
C. FACILITIES
All facility items functioned properly throughout the launch and
countdown.
1. Pad Damage
Damage to AGE and facility items caused by engine blast and heat
was minor. The damage was less than that'which had occurred on
previous Gemini launches. All damaged items will be refurbished
to their original configuration. The most significant damaged items
follow.
Complete Vehicle Erector
(1) Nitrogen system
(a) Gage glass or southeast side of erector, 5 feet above
deck level, was broken.
(b) Pressure-regulating station cover at southwest corner
of CVE at 9 foot 8 inch level was damaged.
' ER 13227-5
XIII-3
(2) One corrugated aluminum siding panel at underside of east

.side of CVE at 26 foot 7. inch level was torn loose and slight
bulging effect occurred on. panels below the 9 foot 8 inch
level.
(3) GLV personnel elevator (west side). The protective screen
. :. between the thrust mount and elevator was blown loose from
the frame.
(4) Ground strap at the west pivot point had broken strands.
(5) Weather curtains damage was approximately the same .as
for GLV-1 through GLV-4--south and west sides to 35 foot
4 inch level. • ' •• ' • ' <
(6) Electrical damage
(a) Flex coriduit-at east pivot point (approximately 4) was
damaged (PVC jacket melted off)...
:
• (b) 3/4 inch conduit on south side under 9 foot 8 inch level
was torn loose from the mounts.
(c) Cable at the bottom of waveguide duct, west pivot point,
was possibly damaged (AGE).
(d) Countdown readout cable was blown off the support at
the west pivot point.
(e) Light fixture under 15 foot 6 inch level was torn loose
from the mount (east side).
(f) Glass over west elevator car light was broken.
(g) Glass over second floodlight from east pivot, south
side of erector under 9 foot 8 inch level, was broken.
(h) MIST RAM waveguide at west pivot point suffered possible
damage frdrn severe bending. .
(i) Spacecraft waveguide at the west pivot point was damaged.
Complete Vehicle Umbilical Tower
(1) Level No. 1. Two boom cover stiffener angles were blown
off Boom No. 1.
(2) Level No. 2. Elevator cable guard screen was blown loose.
ER 13227-5
loose
'
loose
N, pres-
.. '
sure reducing station was damaged and the cover was bent.
H33-IOB svJftirajG'iq 9.riT . (sbis Jasw) 'joifivslo A9mi6si3q VvJD (S)
rnci'i 9Bc(<5.) iTTLe^.elj.ô.'x6:tBv\KhiteTBo.QBa.fairs,GOji4iitifonirigv,duc;t insulation
was damaged. .a or--;'/! F-.rh
. a I •> n.(;6i );B Leêl cNo/.;ri7 tn i.Crlaj&s jw a g 4jr oken; .orif light j:( s;outh) s ide) .
ioo't: R£ oJ ac-tbis: j a e w bns fiJj;;oB--fr-VJD rij>ifg~.dj 1 -V .JO ior

(1) Level No. 2. Cable duct cover was.iblownio.f-f- and damaged
(north side).
SÔTBb I.BOriJ09ia {5}
(2) Level No. 3. MITOC mounting bracket was damaged (south
BSW (^• ylaJSidÔTr^Wio Mgd$ âsêsdWiersej^jF^ên -{gne. ooasouth side and
one on easiftâidjeîlsrrv t9ar)B[ OVS:} baBscriJib
I9V9I x l c : ) 6 0esK fLeyî.M ;jSQnduitoar^d0sjuBBa^rt9rîghtingc(ôuth side)
were damage^jo tn 9r ?j n.£(i7l 9300l n-iot ssw
Jloci 3r{t jB sldsD (o)

.(3DA) bs^srasb ylcfiBSOG aaw
(1) Flame shield was missing on bottom of southwest A frame
t,e HeqqLraftgi Yto rtwoid asv/ sJcfBo-toofass-i -nv/obJ-r/uoD (b)
.„..-, _. .inioq .toviti js,sw adi
(2) Second-Stage cover plate on flame shield was loose on north-
e&ooL nioi f ^ l ^ , f i a f f i . f t i 3 tool 5.1 T9b.nu s'lijixii JripJJ: (s)
,(9b.c8 Ja'e's) JnuoTa griJ rno'i'i
Deck Area
.ns/lo-id asw :}n'gi:I T.GD -jo.tBvsl::? Jssw -isvo a a.c. I'D (1)
(1) Flame shield cover for aerojet cleaning unit on north side
rittrca J
d 3£W" .;I'3V;?I rioni 8 JOO'i 6 .
(2) Flame shield on CVE and SSE west leg lock was damaged.
ela'iasoq hsiaftua toioq toviq j-asw Js sbiurgsvsw -MA.RT8IM (ii> .
(3) All flex condui-|p.}9n.^>p^%4<^^.Ja§%?t9%Qdfj\g-jest leg locks were
damaged.
.bs-gBiTiBb 3B\v taioq joviq Jaaw srij- ta obiugsvjsw 'Sc-osoBqg (i)
gj wo T IB. -.j-i-I idmU 3J'o iris V SjSigrno
nwold 9^9 »v 33l§nfi iSiis'ilita Tisvoo mo'od o\.vT .1 ,ol-1 IsvaJ (I).
'.I. '.oVl raooH 'ti<3
.9300! nv/oid 3£.vv- naa-ioa .b-iBi;g 9ldBo -IOJBV -313: ,S .oW lev 3,1 (S)
XIV-1
XIV. RELIABILITY
A. ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA
GT-5 data, relative to launch vehicle environmental criteria, have

been reviewed and found to be lower than the qualification test levels
in all areas. Comparison of the night data with qualification test limits,
analytical data, GT-1 through GT-4 night data, and Titan II R&D flight
data appear in Table XIV-1.
1. Compartment Temperatures
Compartment 2 and engine start cartridge air-conditioning system

exhaust temperatures were recorded prior to liftoff. These tempera-
tures ranged from 57. 5° to 65° F and were within the specified limits
of 40° to 75° F.
No innight compartment temperature measurements were made.
2. Skin Temperature
Launch vehicle skin temperatures on the first three Gemini nights

were well within the design limits; consequently, subsequent vehicles
were not instrumented for skin temperature measurements.
3. Random Vibration ,
No vibration measurements were made on GT-5 since levels were

predicted to be well below the qualification vibration values. j
4. Steady-State Accelerations
Longitudinal accelerations on the GT-5 flight were comparable to

those obtained on previous Gemini nights and were well below the
qualification test levels.
The maximum Stage I measured steady-state acceleration was 5. 55 g, j

just prior to BECO. |
Stage II measured steady-state acceleration reached a peak of 7. 56 g j

at the end of Stage II night.
5. Shock '
!
No separate shock measurements were made on this night. ;
6. Acoustic Noise !
No sound pressure measurements were made on GT-5.
ER 13227-5
XIV- 2 -/
TABLE XIV-1
Environmental Criteria Summary
Compartment
Parameter Source 1 2 3A 3B 4 5
Compartment exhaust air temperature (° F) Qualification test'-' 120 90 100 100 110 160
f*f\
Analysis^ 100 75 80 80 100 100
Flight data, GLV-1 N/A 60 (at T-0) N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flight data,GLV-2 N/A 58 (at T-0) N/A N/A ' N/A N/A •
Flight data,GLV-3 N/A - 61 (at T-0) N/A 88 (at T-150) N/A N/A
Flight data,GLV-4 N/A 63 (at T-0) N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flight data, GLV-5 N/A 63 (at T-0) N/A N/A N/A N/A
Maximum skin temperature (" F) Qualification test - - - - - -
(*$}
Analysis^ 372 485 470 305 310 - 297
Flight data, GLV-1 153 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flight data,GLV-2 150 236 N/A 152 168 N/A
Flight data,GLV-3 N/A 258 N/A 177 198 N/A
Flight data,GLV-4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flight data, GLV-5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
®
Qualification test^ 41 65 (truss 14. 3) 97
Random vibration (max g rms) 29 44 92. 5
PMT level® 20. 5 32. 5 (truss 9) 48. 5 14. 5 22 46. 3
Flight data, Titan II® 10 15 (truss 6) 22 21 33 37
Flight data, GLV-1 2. 0 lateral truss 0. 95 axial N/A N/A N/A 12 axial
Flight data,GLV-2 N/A truss 1. 96 lateral N/A N/A N/A 8. 5 axial
Flight data.GLV-3 / truss 1. 45 lateral
N/A
\ truss 3. 30 vertical N/A N/A N/A 7. 0 vertical
Flight data.GLV-4 N/A truss 1. 73 lateral N/A N/A ' N/A N/A
:
Flight data, GLV-5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N'/A N/A
Steady-state acceleration (max g) Qualification test^ 12 12 12 8 8 8
Flight data, GLV-1 7. 35 N/A N/A N/A N/A 5. 61
Flight data.GLV-2 7. 70 N/A N/A N/A N/A 5. 69
Flight data,GLV-3 7. 50 N/A N/A N/A N/A •'• 5.63
:
Flight data.GLV-4 7. 42 N/A N/A N/A N/A 5. 63
Flight data, GLV-5 7. 56 N/A N/A N/A N/A 5. 55
Maximum shock (g) Qualification test^ None None 100 None None .100
Flight data, GLV-1, -2,
-3, -4 and -5 N/A N/A N/A . N/A N/A N/A
Acoustics (db) Qualification test^ 154 151 159 151 154 159
Average inside compartment noise level Analysis 154 151 159 151 154 159
Flight data, Titan II 154 151 159 - 154 159
Flight data, GLV-1, -2
and -3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flight data.GLV-4 166. 5 137 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flight data, GLV-5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
® Ref. 16, page 49 ^ Ref. 15, Figs. 14, 15 and 16

© Ref. 17, page 3 ® Ref. 16, Table 3
© Ref. 18 N/A = not available
ER 13227-5
XIV-3
B. PROBABILITY
1. Countdown
Based on GLV countdown experience (through GT-4), the average

number of holds per countdown (K) was calculated to be 0. 4, i. e. , two
holds per five countdowns. E is based on the countdown period from
T - 4 2 0 minutes to T ~ 0 . Spacecraft holds and the SCF test were not
counted. The countdown experience prior to GT-5 included:
(1) GLV-1: one countdown, including engine ignition
(2) GLV-2 (attempt): one countdown completed; tandem actuator

failed, engine shutdown on pad.
(3) GLV-2: one countdown including engine ignition
(4) GLV-3: one countdown with one hold, including engine

ignition
(5) GLV"4: one countdown with one hold, including engine

ignition.
From Ref. 14 the probability of GLV-5 completing the countdown with-

out a hold was predicted to be:
P C / D (h = 0.4) = 0 . 6 7
Since publication of the GLV-4 flight evaluation report (Ref. 1), the
countdown holds have been reviewed and the hold previously counted
against GLV-3 has been dropped since it was not associated with Martin-
responsible equipment. On this basis, the probability of GLV-5 com-
pleting the countdown without a hold should have been predicted to be:
P (K =
C/D °' 2) =
°' 82
Including the GLV^_5 countdown (two attempts) the average number of
holds per countdown (h) is calculated to be 0. 143, i.e. , one hold in
seven countdowns. The probability of GLV-6 completing countdown
without a hold is predicted to be P C / D (H = 0. 143) = 0.87.
ER 13227-5
XV-
.XV. .RANGE .DATA • , ..•

A. DATA DISTRIBUTION
1 . Quick-Look Range Data . • . • • : • .
All available quick-look data were supplied by ETR to Martin-
Baltimore as shown in Table XV- 1..
The PCM serial tape was of fair quality and exhibited numerous
dropouts around BECO - 6 to BECO - 3 seconds. The formatted mag-
netic tape was of excellent quality and contained no redundancies. Ex-
cept for approximately 270 milliseconds of transmission blackout during
booster staging, the Tel II formatted tape'Showed that there were no
bad data words from LO - 10 seconds to LO + 4 2 0 seconds...
TABLE XV-1
Range Supplied Quick-Look Data
1
Time ; .- Time . Time Received
Description Requested Received .(ETR). (Baltimore)
Telemetry magnetic tapes:
Tel II, Postdetection T + 1 hr T f 1 hr T + 10 hr
PCM/FM (1 roll) .
Station 1 formatted T + 4 hr T + 4 hr . T + 10 hr
(2 rolls)
2. Martin Data . - . ,
Test data and records acquired and generated by Martin at Cape
Kennedy were received in Baltimore within two days after launch.
These data consisted of the following items:'
(1) One set of quick-look records from RCA Tape
(2) High'Speed records of engine parameters
(3) Landline records (events, Bristol, Multipoint and Sanborri)
with associated calibrations •
(4) BLH tabulation
(5) CP 2600 records (2650, 2660 and events)
ER 13227-5
XV-2
(6) Sequencer records with code sheets
(7) Summary of flight events
(8) Dub of Complex 19 landline magnetic tape
(9) Fuel and oxidizer loading records
(10) Fuel and oxidizer loading and detanking records for the
launch attempt.
3. Range Data
All data supplied by the ETR are summarized in Table X V - 2 . The

time requested for delivery to Martin-Canaveral (Ref. 6555th ATW
Form 1-116, dated 13 August 1965) and the time received at Baltimore
are shown in this table.
TABLE XV-2
Range-Supplied Data
Time Time
OD Requested Received
Item No. Description (Canaveral) (Baltimore)
4 Position, velocity and acceleration, 3 CD 6 CD
radar tabulation
4 Position velocity and acceleration, 3 CD 17 CD
radar magnetic tape
7 Position, velocity and acceleration,' 5 CD 6 CD
MIS TRAM I
8 Position, velocity and acceleration, 10 CD 17 WD
MIS TRAM I and MISTRAM II
3 Attitude, camera 3 CD 6 CD
5 Special parameters, radar 4 WD 13 WD
9 Special parameters, MISTRAM 11 WD 15 WD
:
4 . 9 / 2 9 . 9 MISTRAM function recordings 3 WD 7 WD
15 Best estimate of trajectory .14 WD', 16 WD
16 Special parameters ' 15 WD 16 WD
1. 5-2 Serial PCM, post-detection magnetic 1 hr 1 hr
tape, FR 600
ER 132.27-5
XV-3
TABLE XV-2 (continued)

Time Time
OD Requested Received
Item No. Description (Canaveral) (Baltimore)
1 PCM formatted 4 hr (See Item 3
final)
3 PCM formatted final 9 hr 4 hr
5 PCM formatted 1 CD 9 CD
1. 5-1 PCM formatted, post-detection mag- 1 hr 1 hr
netic tape, CEC Tel II
3. 5-2 Serial PCM, post-detection magnetic 3 CD .12 CD
tape
1. 5-6 Signal strength (center frequency) 24 hr 12 CD
recordings
1. 5-53 Signal strength (center frequency) 24 hr 12 CD
recordings
3. 5-5 Signal strength (center frequency) 3 CD *
recordings
3.5-6 Signal strength (center frequency) 3 CD 19 CD
recordings
7. 5-3 Signal strength (center frequency) 3 CD • 12 WD
recordings
31 Tracking system comparisons, Mod 7 CD 11 CD
III-G/MISTRAM I
32 Comparisons involving adjusted 20 -CD 22 CD
trajectory
1. 5-11 Oscillograph records, near real time 1 WD 4 WD
4. 8.4. 2 Instrumentation data logs 3 CD *
1. 18 Range safety plot charts 1 hr 1 CD
4. 7. 3. 1 Real-time computer facility metric 4 hr 2 hr
data
1. 11-1 Command control function records 3 WD 15 WD
1. 11-4 Command control function records 3 WD *
*Data not received by 24 September 1965
ER 13227-5
XV-4
TABLE XV-2 (continued)

Time Time
OD ; Requested Received
Item No. •Description (Canaveral) (Baltimore)
3. 11-3 . Command control function records 5'WD 15 WD
.7. 11-1 Command control function records 5 WD *
7. 11-2 Command control function records .5 WD *
1 Preliminary test report . .2-hr 2 hr '
5. 4. 1 Propellant analysis report 2 WD 2 WD.
50 •Weather surface observations 1 WD 4 hr
Weather upper theodolite 1 WD 4'hr
Weather upper Rawinsonde 1 WD 4 hr
Weather tower 700/702 1 WD 4 hr
19 Treridplots, QLAP, Part I 3 WD 3 WD
21 .Transient Plots, Part I 3'WD 3 WD
1. 5-11 Bilevel oscillographs, Stations 1 i cb 4 CD
and 3
Command control antenna position 3 CD ' '*
(GBI)
Error analysis report . 60 CD *
#Data not received .by 24 September 1965
CD = Calendar days
WD = Working days . : •
4. Agency/Contractor Supplied Data

Table XV-3 presents data received from associated contractors and
NASA-MSC.
ER 13227-5
XV-5
TABLE XV-3
Agency /.Contractor Supplied Data
.Received
Description Supplier (Baltimore)
Mod III-G, AMRO guided missile con- GE, ETR 9 CD
trol facility
Mod III-G, radio guidance system GE, Syracuse 6 CD
IGS ascent parameters McDonnell 5 CD
Spacecraft measurements NASA 9 CD
B. FILM COVERAGE
Photographic conditions at Cape Kennedy preceding and during the
GT-5 launch were excellent, and motion picture coverage was very
good. Table XV-4 contains a listing of the films obtained from the
fixed cameras ; and the tracking cameras.
The 70-mm tracking films (Items 1.2-38, 1.2-39 and 1. 2-40)
were reviewed for information pertaining to the,booster staging event.
Inspection of these films shows that the normal breakup of the first-
stage transportation section occurred after Stage II had separated
cleanly from Stage I. • .
ER 13227-5
XV-6
T3
0 ^
> 0
si
0 fa
P P P P P
g
P P
g
P P P P P P P P P P
i— i ^F •* ^F CO ^F •* CO
0 cd ^F CO ^F •* •* ^F ^F ^F rF ^F
^
am
^
0
too
cd ^ Y-H O O O o CO O o CM O CD 0 0 CM 0 CO in CO CO
CM o 0 O 0 CM CO rH rH m CO CO O
o <*-< "* CM
T-H
CM
o ^^
03
13
JH o • 5< cd
O r! t->"s
53 3 tn 03
c 3 m °2 ac CUD
c
cd
o cd i—i 03' r—I
3 3
r—i
r— 1
cd 0 O
S3
O to
ft ft 13
cuO
03 "cd •rH
3
1— 1 tUD 1—1 rH
cd 3
0 •rH
rrt crt , —1 i— i
O '
3 O o ft ft
n< O 0 i— i 03
a a
and associated umbili

and associated umbili
ând 3D2OC umbilica]
and 3D2E umbilical p
Missile centered, movemei
craft centered, evalu.
craft upper umbilical

craft upper umbilical
03 rH
craft centered, 50-ft
•rH
0 cd
launch ring, engine
launch ring, engine
aunch ring, engine
H->
P
03
S3
Description
•iH
rH tUD T umbilical plug
T umbilical plug
(3 •tH
S3
cd
w 13 T3
0
J 0
CUD S3 S3
ci CO
m cd cd
0)
03
i—i
03
i— i
.3 a
o
o O O 43
cutters o
U
43 43 O ffl
0 0 rH
cd cd
• rH •rH O
r— 1
03 03 •rH
0 0 O O 43 0i 0
43 O W i—
§
• iH
o o 1— 1 1 1 +J W o o
03 fe
cd
ft
CO
cd ft
ft X X
CO W W
ft
cd
W
03
0
SH
O
"3
o P P P P ffl
CO
rH
CO
rH
co CM rH
rH
CO
rH
m
CM
43
cd
U
a CO
ft
CO
cd
ft
-a 13 T3 13 13 13 13 T5 T3 n T) 71 T) T! n -n n 13
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) a; (i) 0
. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
o <w <w «w <4H i«H <« d £< <*H £H £< =*H d <*H
a aa aa aa aa aa aa aa aa aa a a a a a a a a
mm
S-
(U
CD CD CO CO CO
a- a a a a a a a a
rH
CD CO CD CO CO CD CD CO CD CO CD CO CD CO
P
o O CM CO ^F in CO t- CO O5 o i— i CM CO
-*
m CD c- CO 05
CM
1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 p 1 1
CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM
ER 13227-5
XV-7
•o
0 ,-^
> 0
82 p- P p p p P P p p p p p p p
0 B u u
i-H D- ^t< yJH m C- D- CO r- c- t> m UT CD
0 cd ^
as
0
tXO^
CD CD o CM ro CD o CD o O
-T-5 ij
T-H
m CO o CO CM CO 00 ^JH o m CO o T-H
o
o Cl CO co CO CM CO CO CM T-H T-H T-H CO o o CO
o T-H T-H
"D -o T3 T3 T3 •a T3 TD •o
•o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 fn rH J_J J_j (_l J_J £_j f1
SH 0 0 0 0 0 0
^ 0 0 0
0
t*H
cd -fj
£
0
£j
G G G G
0
G •c G
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CJ 0 0 0 o O 0 CJ O o O
0 O 0 0 0
1— 1
0 0
i—i 0
i— i
0 • 1—01 0
o ,t_>
t! T3
, —1 r—1 1— i r-H
cd cd 0 CO 'w CO CO cn CO • CQ CQ CO
0 d, fn ?H CO CO CO CQ CO cn CQ CQ CO
CO o> T3 • i-H >P_|
o
a a a a a a a :a a
.rH •rH •rH ' T— 1
C
• rH 0 •g 0
G
•fJ
1^3
o
CJ
cd
0 0 0 •»
o (J 4->
o G a £j
c 0 o ^ o o o o
^
^ ^
3^ 3^ ^
CO 0 O
0 60 rt 0
0
rt
^
J
^
J
0 fe- a o o o o o o o o o
a, <H QJ •r-4
O
0
B
X O
0 CO
O
cd G G G C "^** c cr G G C?
O 0 o c3K oH 0 .'•.o p o H
W co -O
cd
es a a
•rH
JH
a
CO
.2 +3 O •*-* \J
P a o
•rH
CO
•r-l
CO en •CQ PH CO - CQ tf CO PS
PQ •» •» CO
3 3 3
s^. CD O
J J J
§8 a*
o O
".S §*-S
fr 60 0* g3
o.G
cd cd tuo cd tuj cd 'toj cd 'ti cd 'SB cd 'Sjrj
0 _£s
iy o o o 4_> ^_> -t-> cd +-> cd -4-> cdJ H-> cd -,-> cd • +-> cd -i-> cd
-*-> CD -*—>
•4-* -4—*
CO CO CQ ~^* CQ "*^ CO "*" CQ w
"^ co -jf CO "^ CQ ~*^
I>
O ^ o o o t-t ^ rH ^ !M w tl IH * !H w
-J 0
[3
fa fa fa ^ FT, ° fa ^ FT. ° fa ^ . k. O
fa ^
00 tuo tuo tuo tuo 60 tuO tuo - tuO tUO tuo 6fi ."cuo tUO
G G G G G G G G G G G G G
•i-H
3• _!*! \^ i! X 3 3 3
•rH
3 3 3
o O O ^
O CJ O CJ a o o o o o o
cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd
,H f-< S-< i-i ?H £H (H $-, }H tn SH
d
a a a a a a a a g
a a a •"a a
g a a a a a a a a a a a a ;a a
0
I*
CO CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD m o o 0
HH CO
T—f CM CO in CD r- 0 T-H T-H CO OT o
Q CO CO CO CO CO CO co CO CO CO
O 1 1 1 1 i 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM <N CM CM CM
T 1 T-H T-H T-H T—I T-H T-H T-H T-H T-H T-H T-H T-H
ER 13227-5
XVI-1
XVI. PRELAUNCH AND COUNTDOWN OPERATIONS

A. PRELAUNCH
1. Simulated Flight Test
The GT-5 simulated flight test (SFT) was performed successfully
on 13 August 1956 in accordance with Martin test procedure (Ref. 6).
The flight crew was in the spacecraft during the primary run, and the
backup crew was aboard during the secondary run for spacecraft moni-
toring and training.
The countdown for the secondary run was started at T~45 minutes
(1030 EST) and completed at T+6 minutes (1121 EST). The primary
run was started at T-6 minutes (1254 EST); a manual hold was initiated
at T-105 seconds (1258 EST), after Burroughs reported receiving the
"platform release and liftoff" signals from Complex 19. Burroughs
later confirmed they had failed to reset their data exchange unit after
the completion of the secondary run. The unit was reset and the count-
down was recycled to T-6 minutes. The primary run was then re-
started at T~6 minutes (1309 EST) and was successfully completed at
T+6 minutes (1321 EST).
2. Precountdown Activities (Launch Attempt)
Final power application to the launch vehicle occurred at 0902 EST
on 18 August. The precountdown tests were started at 1230 EST with
the range sequencer at T-770 minutes. The tests were successfully
performed and the range sequencer secured at T-530 minutes at 1630
EST.
Propellant loading was delayed for approximately 1-1/2 hours due
to a spacecraft problem associated with fuel cell servicing. Oxidizer
loading was started at 2127 EST and completed at 2338 EST. Fuel
loading was started at 2352 EST on 18 August and completed at 0124 EST
on 19 August. During the loading operation the range sequencer was
restarted at T-530 minutes (on schedule) at 0010 EST on 19 August.
Following completion of launch vehicle propellant loading, the launch
stand area was cleared to continue spacecraft fuel cell servicing. The
range sequencer was subsequently held at T-300 minutes (0400 EST)
until the spacecraft servicing problem was resolved. After a hold of
approximately three hours, the countdown was picked up at T-300 min-
utes.
ER 13227-5
XVI-2
B. .LAUNCH ATTEMPT COUNTDOWN SUMMARY.
The countdown was picked up at 0818 EST on 19 August. The 240-

minute countdown was performed in accordance with Martin test pro-
cedure (Ref. 7). The countdown progressed .smoothly and astronaut
ingress occurred at approximately T-95 minutes. During the count-
down, the remote oxidizer standpipe charging system regulator was
found to be malfunctioning and it was decided to charge the system
manually. Manual charging was completed prior to erector lowering
at T-140 minutes. The countdown continued to T-10 minutes (1208
EST) at which time a manual hold was initiated because of a.problem
in the spacecraft telemetry system. After holding for five minutes,
the SRO notified the Complex 19 personnel that lightning and thunder
showers would be in the area in approximately 10 minutes. It w.as
then decided to raise the erector for more protection to the flight
crew. The. erector was raised at approximately 1220 EST, and at
1241 EST NASA elected to terminate the launch. At 1242 EST, the
launch vehicle tanks were vented and flight crew egress started.
Egress was completed at 1300 EST.
The GT-5 launch was rescheduled for a T-0 time of 0900 EST on
21 August 1965.
C. RECYCLE AND PRELAUNCH ACTIVITY
1 . Recycle . . . . - •
The primary recycle requirements consisted of the following:
(1) Maintaining power on the launch vehicle
(2) Venting the propellant tanks
(3) Astronaut egress .

(4) Propellant unloading
(5) Purging all propellant tanks except the Stage I oxidizer tank
(6) Removal of the destruct initiator and installation of the
inert initiator : •
(7) Electrical disconnect of the Stages I and II engine start
cartridges
Since power was maintained on the launch vehicle continuously, the
following flight control system tests were deleted from the precountdown
activities:
ER 13227-5
XVI-3
(1) Switchover system verification
(2) Programmed sequence test
(3) Flight control system static gain tests
2. Precountdown Activities
The precountdown tests were started at 1200 EST on 20 August

with the range sequencer at T-770 minutes. The tests were success-
fully performed and the range sequencer was secured at T-530 min-
utes at 1600 EST.
Oxidizer loading was started on schedule at 1915 EST and completed

at 2109 EST. Fuel loading was started at 2122 EST and completed at
2258 EST.
The range sequencer was restarted on schedule at T-530 minutes

at 0010 EST on 21 August.
D. COUNTDOWN SUMMARY
The launch countdown was picked up on schedule at 0500 EST on

21 August. The 240-minute countdown was performed in accordance
with Martin test procedure (Ref. 7). The countdown progressed,
smoothly and astronaut ingress occurred at approximately T-108 min-
utes. Manual charging of the oxidizer standpipes was performed at
approximately T-165 minutes.
At T-35 minutes, Holdfire B3 (launch mode check) did not program

on automatically as required. The holdfire was turned on manually and
the countdown continued with no holds. Liftoff occurred on schedule at
0900 EST.
The countdown schedule is shown in Fig. XVI-1.
ER 13227-5
XVI-4 -I
Propulsion
Propollant loading 1 Propellant Loading
Propollant tank pressure lilank.'t Pressure 1)

g^^^^^^ ™«^re;^^^
Airborne o j v r a t i o n s A A A
K n g i n e shutdown U-sI Q SC shutdown ASCO and range shutdown 1 Open Stage I oxidizcr prevalves—J ASCO| )
Manual bleed-in —'
Abbreviated asci-nt tost

D r i f t test D r i f t test [ ""] Drift test | |
Gain test Gain test | ]
Programmed sequence test [1 Programmed sequence test Programmed sequence test [^ _^_ ^J
PIR No. 2 7 ,
Switchover tost 1 \ [Switchover test
[JnppIR Nos. 1 and 2 Programmer. test 1 1 PIR Nos. 1 and 2
Mod III-G interface test | | Mod III-G interface test

/-Beacon check ~ Mod JJJ.Q interface .test ~\
/ /-GDT Beacon check -^ s— Airborne guidance on GCT— \ i- PST
Guidance
RF silencc
Airborne guidance on |~ 1 JUU- | RF silence^ L-' 1 Y ^^^^ ' Airborne guidance on | 1 1 ' 1 1
Abets RF on | | Uf Abets RF on ] ^] Abets K F o n K^^^^RF ailence Abels R F u n j , 1 |
Mod III-G H Q[]GCT RF silence-^ GOT | Interface |~~| ^^^^ R F silence _ Liftoff [ | | GCT | J>ST _/
MDS *- Interface Radio guidance

— . ( 1 configuration
B ~\
Interface test P[T] [^Switchover Tank sensor 1 V
V V^Tank sensor [JSMRD Simulated malfunction [ [ Tank sensor [ | | ]

System test (noninterfat:e)
\\— Overrate
^— Abort and shutdown Airborne power -»
Electrical
LV power on Ground power ISxsx$$$w^
Sequencer /MOC on Sequencer/MOC on | A u t o m a t i c HF monitors
LVSS
Upen loop test
Command carrier on Command carrier on ^^^^^RF silence . ^ [Command carrier or
MISTRAM on Open loop test | r/-^3 ^F s^ ence ^0/^^(^-'p silence - MISTRAM on , i ,
Command receivers on Command receivers on I \ffiffi$ffifov& silence Command receivers onl
Shutdown and destruct test Destruct battery check M [ASCO shutdown and destruct test ASCO [__J
RF silence -»
., Ambients ^^^ 1
Instrumentation
m ien
A i r b o r n e / g r o u n d station CUJRange readout [ dp Range readout _^[ 1] \ | |— „ ^ 1 [— Ambients *\ Range readout | |•
PCM FM t r a n s m i t t e r s on W0L Wffltffift '• i i ' i— i

Calibrations [ | RF silence^ FM of f — ^ Automatic calibration -^
Mechanical
Ordnance Start cartridge connector ^^ Destruct connection K^^^^;^
i— Tank sensor Transit 1 [ Lowered
Erector
/ JT~ Lif toff
/ /Yl s- Switchover
Spacecraft
Interface test Tank sensor checks [ ^ ^ Liftoff j~~j [ PST |
RF silence
\ ' Ah t C^ V/S/S//S//A
*- Power up RF silence^ Pad clear Pad clear
Countdown Operations Status check /" Blockhouse sealed) (blockhouse sealed)-^ Status
Status check J ' Status check ^ Ordnance crew only^,^ FJ / Status check FJ Status check [~J \ 1]
| Restricted | Propellant load crew .only Restricted | | | Restricted ' |
Pad access
Range countdown *- Pad clear (blockhouse roadblocks) Range countdown
Range Sequencer Time T-770 710 650 590 530 -—480 420 360 300 240 230 220 210 200 190 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
(min)
Time from Launch T - 1 9 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 5 4

(hr)
Fig. XVI-1. Planned Precount and Countdown

ER 13227-5
XVII-1
XVII.. CONFIGURATION SUMMARY
j A. . LAUNCH VEHICLE SYSTEMS DESCRIPTION

"The Gemini Launch Vehicle (GLV) is a modified two-stage Titan II
intercontinental ballistics missile (ICBM) which has.been "man rated"
for Gemini usage. The propulsion system in each stage uses hyper-
golic (self-igniting upon mixture) propellants. Modifications to the
basic Titan II vehicle to achieve the man rated!1 GLV follow:
(1) Addition of a completely redundant malfunction detection
.system (MDS).
(2) Replacement of the Titan II inertial guidance system (IGS)
with the Mod III-G radio guidance system (RGS).
(3) Addition of a three-axis reference system (TARS) to provide
attitude reference and open-loop programming to the auto-
pilot.
(4) Addition of a secondary flight control system (FCS).
(5) Addition of a secondary Stage I hydraulic system.
(6) Addition of the capability of switchover to.the secondary
guidance, .flight control, and hydraulic systems.
(7) Provision of redundancy in electrical sequencing by APS
and EPS power.
(8) Provision of an engine shutdown capability from the space-
craft.
(9) Provision of a 120-inch diameter cylindrical skirt forward
of the Stage II oxidizer tank for mating the spacecraft to the
:
launch vehicle.
(10) Removal of the retrorockets, vernier rockets and asso-
ciated equipment.
" (I'l) Addition of fuel line spring-piston accumulators and oxidizer
line tuned standpipes for suppression of POGO vibrations.
. (12) Capability for redundant Stage II engine shutdown (GLV-3
and up).
..Significant GLV-5 changes from the GLV-4 configuration are listed
in Table XVII-1. ,
ER 13227-5
XVII -2
TABLE XVII -1
GLV -5. Modifications'
co
£
6o
3O
•*
CQ.
Significant Configuration Changes J
0).
•+-> •
>>'
i :
e"
Q)
-H>
-H>
+->
h
CQ
CD
cd
•—1
0>
^
O
. C
3
3
• O'
bo
•CQ:
'
fc
•«M
.11—
C
<-l
-H>
:g-*-»
<D
cd
S-,
0
'c£n
CO
0)
_,
CU
0
•P
. ^«
55
3
cm
Removed supports 'and bracketry for ve
— 11 - .
Stage II fuel tank aft skirt
:
•
a £
o
°
• O
cu
'£
hn
"3
Deleted Compartment 3 air -conditioning
CM
S 3
CQ
and skin cutout)

MH
c
• '§s> . -a.2 •*-a
fl
-r-l
?, "" ®
CO
CO
73
Stage II oxidizer feedline conduit circur

CO
h '
•*H . - - ' - ' .
changed from lap weld to butt weld

«£ 2
•*
C
rj
>
CD
-o
Two SPL measurement microphones re
•-I
C
PH
w
•r-l
C
^
O
Id
CQ
r—1
1 '
ID
73
CQ
!-l
CO
•e
O
Q*
Redundant high level sensors removed. i
.
,
„.
low level and shutdown locations "only)
-
CM
0)
SH
g
g
o
s -g
6
i 2
Stage I oxidizer tank dome pressure sei

•§ s-
*r-(
ER 13227-5
-H>
CO
••b
<D
'o
C
a
55
O
, 0
fe.
§
OB
:
r-J
0)
•|H
0)
rt
o
c
o
t3
3
s
•
;
- -3
W
rt
•r-t
ew.
.(—*
t_>
T^
i—1
<M
o
' CM
0)
b
C
p
00
T3
c
60
o
0
Secondary system pressure switch setti
>,
bio
tuo
o w •'.•
to 2500 psi
-
'
H
'•
cu
tn
O
o
• .1-1
Flashing beacon light system not install
.••*->'
•a'
.-MM
CQ
tbd
rt
0>
CQ
•r-1
0
i— 1
Spare wires from connectors omitted, ;

Q,
•a
Q.
.
«J S rt
73 ô
'
relays and motor -driven switches cut b
-•
k> -
-fJ
-H>
cu
'+->
CO
•r~t
JH
<D
C
O
C
rt
O
o
^
• rH
o
c
O
5
73;
5
s.-
e
•r-t
CU
"c
w
j_>
i '
O
M.
0
£
B3
•o
FM/FM telemetry system and airborne

Q.
I
--H CM
-^cd "0^
p. ra
s^
> ?H
<U o
k CQ
H Q)
«2 2s
73 3
. SH
^ 73
O -i-1
oii
38 PCM and FM measurements elimina

0) *
ing and associated bracketry removed)

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

Engineering Report, "Launch Vehicle No. 4 Flight Evaluation" (Ref. 1).
B. MAJOR COMPONENTS
The two major GT-5 components were as follows:
(1) Spacecraft
(a) Manufacturer: McDonnell Aircraft Corporation
(b) Serial Number: Spacecraft Number 5

(2) Gemini Launch Vehicle
(a) Manufacturer: Martin Company
(b) Serial Number: GLV-5
(c) Air Force Serial Number: 62-12560
Figure XVII-1 shows the general arrangement of the GLV.
ER 13227-5
xvn-4
LAUNCH VEHICLE UMBILICAL SYSTEMS INTERFACE
CODE FUNCTION SYSTEM LOCATION

2BA AIR COND GUIDANCE AIR COND STGTJ. STA, 371.522
OUADI 82£OFFBLO
S2BOV 0X10- VENT O X I D STGH STA.37l.522 - B O O S T E R DESIGNATION
OUAO. LWOFFBL.O
2B2E ELECTRICAL E L E C T R I C A L STG.H STA. 102472
QUAD H 82*2 OFF BLO
2BIE ELECTRICAL ELECTRICAL STGH STA 402472.
QUAD LT 65J5 O F F 8 L O
2BFVT r
UEL VENT TOPPING FUEL STAGE E STA. 406.491 .
QUAD I M 'ZrfOFF BLO
S2BFV FUEL VENT FUEL STGI STA 404.4 72
OUADD 371JOFFBLO
S38H
3BA
HYDRAULIC
AIR CONDITIONING
HYDRAULIC STG H
ENGINE AREA STGTJ

a TA470-!25s
UA01I 15 OFF BLO
STA474.S75
QUAOTJ 30' OFF6L.O
S3BF FUEL FILL AND DRAIN FUEL STG.TJ STA. 492 250
QUA DD 15° OFF BLO
3BFO FUEL PRESS.SEQ. VALVE FUEL STG TJ STA.492.250
DRAIN QUAD n 30" O F F B L O
S3BO OXID.FILL AND DRAIN 0X10 STGn STA 492 250
QUAOH72' OFFBLO TRANSITION
3BIE ELECTRICAL ELECTRICAL STGLT STA.492.250 2BOVT
COWPAHTMENT NO I
O.UAOH45' O F F B L O
ICIFO TUBO-PUMP FUEL DRAIN FUEL STGI S'A 554 750
QUADn I7.VS-OFFBLO
ICOO TUBO-PUMP OXID. DRAIN 0X10 STGI STA.554.750.
OUAOI I 7 . V S O F F B L O BETWEEN TANKS
SIDOV 0X10. VENT OXID. STGI StA 650 727 COMPARTMENT NO 2
GUADI&n WL600
S2DFV FUEL VENT FUEL STGI ST* 963.326
OUADH40' OFFBL.O
3DIM MALFUNCTION MALFUNCTION STG.I STAJ2I4873 -
DETECTION SYS. QUADIJ* iXbffBlQ T"- ."V <L*tl.
302M MALFUNCTION MALFUNCTION STGI STAJ2I4.873 yi
3DIE
DETECTION SYS.
ELECTRICAL ELECTRICAL STG.I
QUAomseVOFF BLO
STAI2I6.69I
^fe
I,; vô- "A'
S3BF 4
•*. \K\ 3BFD COMPARTMENT NO.3^
QUADU20 OFFB.LO \ rP"^—3BIE
S3DF FUEL FILL AND DRAIN FUEL STG.I STA.I243560
QUAD I
S3DFD FOEL DRAIN - PRE -VALVE FUEL STG.I STA.I244.I23
QUAOIH
S3DOD OXID. DRAIN - PRE-VALVE OXID.STG.I STA.I250.560
QUAD H
S30IH HYDRAULIC SUPPLY HYDRAULIC STG.I PRIMARY STA.1255.835
AND RET URN QUAD I
S3DO OXID.FILL AND DRAIN OXID. STGI STA.1249.560
QUAD.E
OXID. VENT TOPPING OXID. STG.I STA.351.802
2BOVT
QUAD H 4' OFF Wl. 60
IDOVT OXID VENT TOPPING OXID.STG.I STA. 630. 727
QUAD DbO' OFF BL.O
2DFVT FUEL VENT TOPPING FUEL STAGE I STA.963.326
OUADD 50'OFFBL.O
302E ELECTBCAL ELECTRICAL STG.] STA. 1216. 691
QUAD n 10' OFF B.LO
S3D2H HYDRAULIC SUPPLY AND HYDRAULIC. STG.I SECONDARY STA.1255.835
RETURN QUAD. I
OXID. 3E*-IOTt ' p.vin err T STA. 12 24-. 3)1 BETWEEN TANKS
3DIOC CM.OGiMi SYSTEM | OXID. bT$. 1 aiMOB 22Vo'f B.L.O. COMPARTMENT NQ4
OXID. REMOTC OXID. STQ. I
STA. 121*. 311
3D20C CHABCilUG SYSTEM OUAO in nVfotf 5.LC.
-». A QLV 4 < UP

3 A!GLV I THRU 4 ONLY
2. THIS DRAWING RELEASES NO PARTS
PEE ONLY.
i NEW GEMINI '.AUNO VEHICLE DRAWING
NOTE:
STAGE I ENGINE
COMPARTMENT N0.5
Fig. XVII-1. Gemini Launch Vehicle General Arrangement
ER 13227-5
XVIII-1
X V I I I . REFERENCES
1. "Launch Vehicle No. 4 Flight Evaluation, " Engineering Report

. 13227-4, Martin Company, Baltimore, Maryland, July 1965.
Confidential
2. "Launch Vehicle No. 3 Flight Evaluation," Engineering Report
13227-3, Martin Company, Baltimore, Maryland, May 1965.
Confidential
13227-2, Martin Company, Baltimore, Maryland, March 1965.
Confidential
4. "Launch Vehicle No. 2 Launch Attempt Evaluation," Engineering

Report 13227-2X, Martin Company, Baltimore, Maryland, Janu-
ary 1965. Confidential
13227-1, Martin Company, Baltimore, Maryland, May 1964.
Confidential
6. "Martin-Canaveral Test Procedure," 424-876-ETR, Revision E.
7. "Martin-Canaveral Test Procedure, " 424-875-ETR, Revision L.
8. "Master Measurements List," LV-220, Revision L, Martin
Company, Baltimore, Maryland, 13 July 1965.
9. "Revised GLV Trajectory Dispersion Analysis GT-4, " LV-274-4,
Martin Company, Baltimore, Maryland, 24 June 1965. Confidential
10. "Flight Weight Coordination Report, Post-Flight Weight, GT-5, "
LV-165-5B, Martin Company, Baltimore, Maryland, 15 September
1965.
11. "Gemini Launch Vehicle Performance Specification," MB-1046,
SCN-8, Martin Company, Baltimore, Maryland, 9 September 1965.
Confidential
12. . "GT-3 Guidance Equations Accuracy Estimate, " Aerospace Tech-

nical Memorandum No. ATM-65 (5126-40)-16, Aerospace Cor-
poration, El Segtmdo, California, 18 February 1965. Confidential
13. "GLV-5 Incentive Catalog," IM-105, Martin Company, Baltimore,

Maryland, 21 June 1965.
ER 13227-5
XV III-2
14. "Mathematical Model for Countdown Availability Study, " Engineer-

ing Report 13225, Martin Company, Baltimore, Maryland, April
1964.
15. "Gemini Launch Vehicle Acoustic and Vibration Environment,"

Part 1: Vibration, and Part 2: Acoustics, Engineering Report
12414, Martin Company, Baltimore, Maryland, December 1963.
16. "GLV System Environmental Requirements and Tests, " MB-1043,
Martin Company, Baltimore, Maryland, September 1963.
17. . "Analysis of Gemini Airborne Equipment Temperature Rise,"

LV-136, Revision A, Martin Company, Baltimore, Maryland,
February 1963.
18.' "Predicted Heating Rates and Structural Temperatures for the
Gemini Launch Vehicle, " LV-43, Martin Company, Baltimore,
Maryland, September 1963.
19. "GT-5 Pre-flight Report, " LV-326-5, Martin Company, Baltimore,

Maryland, June 1965. Confidential
20. "STO TWX, Amendment A, To System Test Objectives, Gemini

Launch Vehicle, NASA Gemini Mission GT-5, " Aerospace Cor-
poration to Martin-Baltimore, 17 August 1965.
21. "GLV Final Structural Loads and Stiffness Data Report," Engineer-
ing Report 13026, Revision A, Martin Company, Baltimore Mary-
land, 30 September 1964.
22. "Design Data Report Loads and Stiffness," Engineering Report
12323, Martin Company, Baltimore, Maryland, 27 April 1962.
23. "Subsystem Engineering Analysis YLR 87-AJ-5 and YLR 91-AJ-5
Rocket Engines," AGC 521-3. 15 Q-15, Aerojet-General Corpora^
tion, Sacramento, California, 22 July 1964. Confidential
24. "Investigation of POGO Occurrence on GT-5 Flight, " LV-395,

Martin Company, Baltimore, Maryland, September 1965.
25. Longitudinal Oscillator Instability Study--POGO, " Engineering
Report 13374, Martin Company, Baltimore, Maryland, December
1964.
ER 13227-5
A-l
APPENDIX
SUMMARY OF GEMINI LAUNCHES
ER 13227-5
A-2 -I
Summary of Gemini Launches
Launch Launch
Launch Vehicle Burning Time Time in Orbit ® Evaluation
Date and Payload Stage I Stage II Inertial Velocity (fps) Altitude (ft) Inertial Flight Path Angle (deg) (hr) Orbit (naut mi)
Report
Mission Time (hr EST) (lb) (sec) (sec) BECO SECO SECO + 20 Sec BECO SECO SECO + 20 Sec BECO SECO SECO + 20 Sec Stage II Spacecraft Apogee Perigee Number
GT-1 4-8-64 7029 ® 157. 5 185. 3 9752 25,679 25, 786 208,262 531, 500 528, 184 20. 00 0. 0 -0. 03 95.2® 95.2®. 173 86. 6 ER 13227-1
1100 (64 orbits) (64 orbits) /
/
GT-2 1-19-65 6890 ® 155. 1 180.4 9916 25,611 25, 738 229, 743 546, 960 526, 380 26. 219 -2.4523 -2.3431 N/A© N/A® N/A® N / A ® ER 13227-2X®
0904 ER 13227-2
GT-3 3-23-65 7112 155. 8 181. 3 9981 25, 587 25, 688 224, 777 531,477 532,338 21. 79 0.0 0.0323 18 4. 6 121 87 ER 13227-3
0924 (13 orbits) (3 orbits)
GT-4 6-3-65 7868 155. 7 181. 3 9844 25,670 25, 745 214, 775 531, 522 532, 886 18. 66 -0. 0235 0. 059 47. 7 97. 7 152. 3 87 ER 13227-4
1016 (34 orbits) (66 orbits)
GT-5 8-21-65 7947 156.8 179.7 9848 25, 713 25, 806 215, 607 531, 276 531, 118 19. 90 -0.0279 -0. 0129 72 190. 9 189 87 ER 13227-5
0900 (51 orbits) (12 7. 9 or bits'
Spacecraft and Stage II inserted into orbit as a unit.
Suborbital mission (spacecraft impact 2125 miles downrange).
Inertial orbit.
Launch attempt report.
ER 13227-5
-•«, m
,
K)
' K)
MA til ETTA

Launch Vehicle No. 5 Flight Evaluation

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Launch Vehicle No. 5 Flight Evaluation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NASA-MSC-G-G-65-4

Supplemental Report No. 2

. s. Government Agencies Only

Engineering Report 13227-5

MARTIN COMPANY, BALTIMORE DIVISION SPACE SYSTEMS DIVISION

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

B. Spacecraft Inertial Guidance System Ascent

B. Probability '.....' XIV-3

XVII. Configuration Summary ' XVII-1

The hydraulic system operated satisfactorily during launch opera-

The electrical system functioned as designed throughout the launch

All electrical umbilicals disconnected properly in the planned se-

This report presents an engineering evaluation of Gemini Launch

The Gemini-Titan No. 5 (GT-5) vehicle was launched from Complex

The GT-5 vehicle was comprised of the two-stage GLV-5 (similar

Significant events and tests for GLV-5 at ETR are summarized in

Joint guidance and control (JG&C) t-

Joint combined systems test (JCST)

Flight configuration mode test (FCMT)

Special tanking (GTD- 19-084, Addendur

Wet mock simulated launch (WMSL) SL

Spacecraft demate and modification

1 Launch vehicle and spacecraft retest

Simulated flight test (SFT)

I Launch (first attempt)

Gemini Launch Vehicle No. 5 (GLV-5) performed as predicted and

A comparison of the predicted and observed insertion conditions is

2. Derivation of Trajectory Uncertainties

The expected maximum vehicle dispersions and RGS dispersions

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

Total tolerance = preliminary tolerance + 3-sigma data error.

Significant geodetic and weather parameters are shown in Table II-3.

*Relative to Complex 19.

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

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

Reconstruction of the BECO condition (Table II-6) shows that a

Time from Liftoff (sec)

0800/0801 Power transfer 1358:30.55 -88.97 -89.

03 ^•x .n 0 •—1 • rH & ^ ~~^ CD c

,/%;;•??£* Spacecraft separation

Fig. II-l. GT-5 Boost Flight Path Profile

respectively. These trajectory plots include a -20 deg/hr yaw gyro

Predicted nominal wind run 82-GT5 (final)*

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

Predicted nominal wind run 82-GTS (final)*

rrrzir: *ttr tnr ^it nrr

80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180

Predicted nominal wind run 82 Hpp(154. 65 sec)

80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180

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

70 80 90 120 130 140 150 160

80 90 100 170 180

Predicted nominal wind run 82-GTS (final)*

IK (153. 547 sec)|f;agn

Predicted nominal wind run 82-GT5 (final)*

Rawinsonde balloon data

Fig. II-8. Mach Number (M) Versus Time: Stage I Flight

GE Mod III-G final night data*

Fig. II-9. Dynamic Pressure (q.) Versus Time: Stage I Flight

. 547 sec)f :'1= •:

60 70 . 80 120 130 140 150 160

Fig. 11-10. Axial Force Versus Time: Stage I Flight

•i r-t ••"-•<: •••

Fig. 11-11. Aerodynamic Heating Indicator Versus Time: Stage I Flight