m

OI
M
T
a
z
c

L 0 . 4 N COPY: RETURN TO
AFWL (WLPL-2)
KIRTLAND AFB. N MEX

ENTRY AERODYNAMICS AT
LUNAR RETURN CONDITIONS
OBTAINED FROM THE FLIGHT
OF APOLLO 4 (AS-501)

by Ernest R. Hillje
Manned Spacecrap Center
Houston, Texas

N A T I O N A L A E R O N A U T I C S A N D SPACE A D M I N I S T R A T I O N W A S H I N G T O N , D. C. OCTOBER 1 9 6 9

pi
 TECH LIBRARY KAFB, NM

0332234

ENTRY AERODYNAMICS AT LUNAR RETURN CONDITIONS OBTAINED

FROM THE FLIGHT O F APOLLO 4 (AS-501)

By E r n e s t R. Hillje

Manned Spacecraft Center

Houston, Texas

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

For sale by the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information
-
Springfield, Virginia 22151 Price $3.00

I
 ABSTRACT

The flight aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the

Apollo 4 entry configuration (Command Module 017)
w e r e calculated f r o m onboard-recorded inertial -
platform accelerations and a t t i t u d e s and f r o m
reconstructed trajectory data. Modified t r i m -wind-
tunnel data and hybrid data (modified wind-tunnel
data adjusted to the flight-derived angle of attack)
w e r e compared to the flight-derived aerodynamics.

Comparison of the modified t r i m -wind-tunnel

data to flight-derived data showed the initial t r i m
angle of attack to be lower by approximately 1 . 5 " and
the resultant lift-to-drag r a t i o to be higher by approx-
imately 10 percent. The flight-derived lift-to-drag
r a t i o and the angles of attack in the hypersonic region
w e r e essentially l i n e a r with Mach number down to
6. 0, at which point comparison of the modified t r i m -
wind-tunnel data to flight-derived data showed much
b e t t e r agreement.

ii
 ....... .-. . ..........

TABLE O F CONTENTS

Section Page

SUMMARY ..................................... 1

INTRODUCTION .................................. 1

SYMBOLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
MISSION DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

ATMOSPHERIC ENTRY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Entry Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Reconstructed Trajectory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

ENTRY-VEHICLE CONFIGURATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

MODIFIED TRIM-WIND-TUNNEL DATA ..................... 8

FLIGHT-DERIVED AERODYNAMICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Data Reduction P r o g r a m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Accuracy A s s e s s m e n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Hybrid Aerodynamic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

...................
F a c t o r s Influencing the Data Comparisons 13

Aerodynamic-Angles Data ........................... 14

Lift-to-Drag-Ratio Data ............................ 15

Aerodynamic Stability-Axis Force-Coefficient Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Aerodynamic Body- Axis Force-Coefficient Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

iii
 TABLES

Table Page

I SIGNIFICANT EVENTS DURING ENTRY ................. 23

11 ESTIMATED COMMAND-MODULE CENTER O F GRAVITY AND

MASS CHANGE DURING ENTRY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24

I11 FLIGHT-DERIVED DATA INPUT REQUIREMENTS ........... 25

iv

I II I
 FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Apollo 4 mission profile

(a) Launch into e a r t h parking orbit . . . . . . . . . ........... 26

(b) Injection into earth-intersecting coast ellipse ........... 27
(c) Atmospheric entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... 28

2 Apollo 4 launch vehicle configuration .................. 29

3 Recovery of the CM-017 forward heat shield .............. 30

4 The CM-017 shortlytafter landing. showing one main parachute

s t i l l attached . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31

5 The CM-017 being hoisted aboard the recovery ship

U.S.S. Bennington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 32

6 Entry trajectory control p r o g r a m s

(a) Apollo guidance computer entry control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
(b) Bank-angle time history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

7 T i m e h i s t o r i e s of t r a j e c t o r y p a r a m e t e r s f o r atmospheric entry
phase

(a) Altitude h. longitude eGD. and geodetic latitude PGD . . . . . . 35

(b) Earth relative velocity V. flight-path angle y . and
azimuth (J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
( c ) Deceleration load factor Lf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

8 T i m e h i s t o r i e s of t r a j ectory/atmosphere data
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
( a ) Dynamic p r e s s u r e 38
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(b) M a c h n u m b e r Moo 39
( c ) Reynolds number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

9 Command Module 017 external configuration . All linear

dimensions a r e in inches
(a) View looking aft .......................... 41
(b) Side view . X-stations a r e in inches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
(c) View looking forward . Pad numbers are shown in c i r c l e s . . . . 43
(d) Detail of shear/compression pads . Dimensions are only
approximate (in inches) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
(e) Details of umbilical s y s t e m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

V
Figure Page

(f) Exaggerated view of a c r o s s section of the a f t heat shield

taken in the X-Z plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
(g) Preflight photograph of CM-017 umbilical housing and r a m p . ... 47
(h) Postflight photograph of CM-017 umbilical housing and r a m p . . . 48
(i) Overall photograph of CM-017 on deck of recovery ship . . . . . . 49

10 Comparison of Apollo entry flow conditions with ground-facility

capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 50

11 Formulation of modified trim-wind-tunnel and hybrid

aerodynamic data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 51

12 Body-axis s y s t e m showing positive directions of aerodynamic angles

and aerodynamic body f o r c e coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

13 Variation of modified wind-tunnel d r a g coefficient C with

D
modified wind-tunnel angle of attack cy f o r Mm = 6 . 0 . ...... 53

14 T i m e h i s t o r i e s of aerodynamic angles

(a) Angle of attack cy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 54

(b) Angle of sideslip ,El . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 55
( c ) Aerodynamic roll angle @ A . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 56
....................
.
(d) Resultant angle of attack cyR 57

15 Resultant angle of attack

R
'plotted against Mach number M. .... 58

16 T i m e h i s t o r i e s of lift-to-drag r a t i o s

(a) Vertical lift-to-drag ratio (L/D)v .......... ....... 59

(b) Horizontal lift-to-drag ratio (L/D)H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
(c) Flight-derived resultant lift-to-drag r a t i o (L/D)R . . ....... 61
(d) Hybrid resultant lift-to-drag r a t i o (L/D)R . . . . . . ....... 62

17 Resultant lift-to-drag r a t i o (L/D)R plotted against Mach

number Ma

(a) Flight-derived lift-to-drag r a t i o (L/D)R .............. 63

(b) Hybrid lift-to-drag r a t i o (L/D)R .................. 64

vi
Figure Page

18 Time h i s t o r i e s of aerodynamic stability-axis f o r c e coefficients

(a) Vertical lift coefficient C

L7 v
................... 65
(b) Horizontal lift coefficient C
L7 H
.................. 66
(c) Drag coefficient CD ......................... 67

(d) Resultant lift coefficient C L 7 R . . ................. 68

19 Time h i s t o r i e s of aerodynamic body-axis f o r c e coefficients

(a) Axial-force coefficient CA ..................... 69

(b) Resultant normal-force coefficient C . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
N, R
( c ) Side-force coefficient Cy ...................... 71
(d) Normal-force coefficient CN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

vii
 ENTRY AERODYNAMICS AT LUNAR RETURN CONDITIONS OBTAINED

FROM THE FLIGHT O F APOLLO 4 (AS-501)

By E r n e s t R . H i l l j e
Manned Spacecraft Center

SUMMARY

Flight-derived aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Apollo 4 entry configuration

have been obtained a t lunar r e t u r n conditions. Aerodynamic angles, lift-to-drag r a t i o s ,
body-axis f o r c e coefficients, and stability-axis f o r c e coefficients w e r e calculated f r o m
c o r r e c t e d onboard-recorded inertial-platform accelerations and attitudes and f r o m a
postflight-reconstructed entry trajectory. Modified trim-wind-tunnel data and hybrid
data (modified wind-tunnel data adjusted to the flight-derived angle of attack) a r e p r e -
sented f o r comparison purposes.

Comparison of the modified trim-wind-tunnel data with flight-derived data showed

the initial t r i m angle of attack to be lower by approximately 1. 5 and the resultant lift-
to-drag ratio to be higher by approximately 10 percent. The flight-derived lift-to-drag
r a t i o and angles of attack w e r e essentially linear with Mach number down to 6 . 0 , a t
which point comparison of the modified trim-wind-tunnel data to flight-derived data
showed much better agreement ( 3 percent lower and 0 . 5 higher, respectively). The
s a m e t r e n d s existed in the flight-derived data of the previous Apollo mission (AS-202).
In the transonic region, t h e r e w e r e a r e a s of poor agreement which could be the r e s u l t
of flight-data accuracy o r of the influence of vehicle dynamics, o r of both.

Comparisons of the modified trim-wind-tunnel data and the hybrid data to the
flight-derived data indicated that the modified- trim-wind-tunnel f o r c e data w e r e reliable
even a t the initial-entry, high-Mach-number, low-Reynolds-number conditions. How-
e v e r , this comparison indicated that the modified wind-tunnel-determined t r i m attitudes
w e r e poor in the initial-entry hypersonic region and possibly in the transonic region.

INTRODUCTION

The Apollo command module (CM), o r entry configuration, is essentially a blunted

cone with a spherical-segment b a s e . On the homeward leg of the journey through space,
immediately p r i o r to reaching the entry interface (400 000 feet), the spacecraft is o r i -
ented a t a predicted aerodynamic t r i m attitude with the blunt base, o r aft heat shield,
forward. The blunt design produces the d r a g n e c e s s a r y to efficiently dissipate the ki-
netic energy associated with velocities of the lunar r e t u r n mission. In addition, the
configuration h a s an offset c e n t e r of gravity ( c . g. ) to obtain the lift n e c e s s a r y to e n s u r e
a sufficiently wide entry c o r r i d o r and to e x e r c i s e control of the landing point. The
center of gravity f o r each flight is determined by preflight weight and balance proce-
d u r e s . To determine the best design and construction of a vehicle to withstand such ex-
t r e m e conditions, an extensive wind-tunnel testing p r o g r a m was initiated in early 1962.

Although a variety of facilities was used, no combination of the available facilities

could provide a complete simulation of the p r e s s u r e , t e m p e r a t u r e , and velocity levels
experienced during an actual lunar r e t u r n entry. To f o r m a consistent set of wind-
tunnel data, the r e s u l t s f r o m the various facilities of the testing p r o g r a m w e r e analyzed
and f a i r e d with both Mach number and angle of attack. The data w e r e then extrapolated
to the highest expected flight Mach numbers, f o r which ground-facility data w e r e not
available. It was also necessary to modify the aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s to a c -
count f o r differences (such as in external protuberances) between the flight configura-
tion and the tested models and to account f o r asymmetry of the ablative m a t e r i a l applied
to the heat shield.

The Apollo space-flight t e s t p r o g r a m began with two unmanned flights f r o m Cape

Kennedy, Florida, with uprated Saturn I launch vehicles. The first Apollo space flight
(AS-201) occurred February 26, 1966, with CM-009 as the entry vehicle. Because a
sophisticated inertial-measurement system was not required on this mission, a detailed
determination of the aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the entry vehicle w a s precluded.

The second space-flight t e s t , Apollo mission AS-202, o c c u r r e d August 25, 1966,

with CM-011 as the entry configuration. Flight data in the f o r m of inertial-platform
attitudes and accelerations and a trajectory that was reconstructed f r o m a combination
of guidance-and-navigation (G&N) and radar-tracking data w e r e used to calculate the
entry flight-derived aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r AS- 202. These flight r e s u l t s w e r e
compared with existing ground-facility data.

The third space-flight test, the Apollo 4 mission (AS-501), which used a Saturn V
launch vehicle f o r the first time, was successfully accomplished November 9, 1967.
This unmanned mission used CM-017, which had a heat shield designed to withstand lu-
n a r mission entry velocities. The principal objectives of the Apollo 4 mission were to
demonstrate the s t r u c t u r a l and t h e r m a l integrity of the space vehicle and to verify the
adequacy of the heat shield when subjected to entry at lunar r e t u r n flight conditions.
To reach lunar r e t u r n flight conditions, the s e r v i c e propulsion system (SPS) engines
were f i r e d , and an entry velocity of 36 545 f t / s e c was obtained.

The purpose of this r e p o r t is to p r e s e n t the flight-derived aerodynamics f o r the

Apollo 4 mission and to make comparisons with both the modified trim-wind-tunnel data
and the hybrid data. The flight-derived aerodynamic f o r c e coefficients and r a t i o s a r e
presented relative to the osculating plane and in the stability-axis and the body-axis
s y s t e m s . Flight-derived force-coefficient data, based on dynamic p r e s s u r e obtained
f r o m both a standard-atmosphere model and flight-measured p r e s s u r e s , are presented.

2
 SYMBOLS

2
A,, Ay, AZ acceleration along the body X-, Y-, and Z-axes, ft/sec

A acceleration f r o m the X-, Y-, and Z-axes of the inertial platform,

x, P’ AY ,P’ P 2
ft/sec

aerodynamic body -axis axial -f o r c e coefficient, - mAx/qwS

cA

aerodynamic d r a g coefficient
cD

C horizontal component of the lift coefficient relative to the orbital

L, H plane

C resultant, o r total, aerodynamic lift coefficient,

L, R

vertical component of the lift coefficient relative to the orbital

cL, v plane

cN
aerodynamic body-axis normal-force coefficient, -mAZ/q,S

aerodynamic body-axis resultant, o r total, normal-force

‘N, R

coefficient, i c y 2 + cN2

C stagna tion -pr es s u r e coefficient

P,t
aerodynamic body -axis s i d e -force coefficient , mAy/qwS

d spacecraft r e f e r e n c e d i a m e t e r , 12. 833 f t

2
acceleration of gravity a t the surface of the earth, 32. 1740 ft/sec

altitude, ft

deceleration load f a c t o r , A2 + Ax2/g

x + Y
lift-to-drag r a t i o

horizontal component of the lift-to-drag r a t i o relative to the

orbital plane, CL, H P D

3
 resultant (or total) lift-to-drag ratio,
'L, R/'D

v e r t i c a l component of lift-to-drag r a t i o relative to the orbital

plane, 'L, V/'D

Mco Mach number

m spacecraft m a s s , slugs

stagnation p r e s s u r e , p s i a
Pt

pco free- stream pressure, psia

2
f r e e - s t r e a m dynamic p r e s s u r e , lb/ft

dynamic p r e s s u r e based on flight p r e s s u r e measurements,

lb/ft2

Reynolds number behind the n o r m a l shock, based on d

f r e e - s t r e a m Reynolds number, based on d

2
r e f e r e n c e a r e a , 129.35 ft

elapsed time f r o m the time of range zero, which is the f i r s t

integral second of range time p r i o r to the instant of Saturn
instrument-unit umbilical disconnect, s e c

individual components of spacecraft velocity with r e s p e c t to the

a i r s t r e a m along the body X-, Y-, and Z-axes, respectively,
ft/sec

earth-relative spacecraft velocity, ft/sec

body-axis system (unless otherwise noted)

angle of attack, deg

resultant (or total) angle of attack, deg

angle of sideslip, deg

flight-path angle of V relative to the local horizontal (positive

UP), deg

4
 ..... ... . - .. . .,.. ..,

angle of r a d i a l plane measured about spacecraft X-axis, deg

spacecraft longitude, deg

gimbal angles of the inertial platform in pitch, roll, and yaw,

respectively , deg

3
density of air behind the n o r m a l shock, slugs/ft

3
f r e e - s t r e a m density of air, slugs/ft

azimuth of V m e a s u r e d clockwise f r o m north, deg

aerodynamic r o l l angle, deg

spacecraft geodetic latitude, deg

Subscript:
so free stream

MISSION DESCRIPTION

The purpose of the Apollo 4 mission w a s to demonstrate the s t r u c t u r a l compati-

bility of the Saturn V launch vehicle with the spacecraft during the Saturn V launch
conditions and to verify the adequacy of the heat shield when subjected to lunar r e t u r n
flight conditions. T h e Apollo 4 mission was the f i r s t launch of a Saturn V launch vehi-
cle c a r r y i n g an Apollo spacecraft. Launch o c c u r r e d at 12: 00: 01 Greenwich mean t i m e
(G. m. t. ) o r 07: 00: 01 e a s t e r n standard time ( e .s. t. ) on November 9, 1967, f r o m Com-
plex 39A a t Cape Kennedy, Florida. The launch window w a s r e s t r i c t e d to the interval
between 07: 30 and 13: 15 e. s. t . to provide both a daylight launch and a t least 2 hours
of daylight f o r CM recovery operations. Significant events along the mission trajectory
a r e shown in figure 1. The launch phase included complete burns of the Saturn IC
(S-IC) and Saturn I1 (S-11) s t a g e s and a p a r t i a l burn of the Saturn IVB (S-IVB) stage
(fig. 2). T h e s e burns resulted in a parking orbit of 101. l-nautical-mile apogee and
99. l-nautical-mile perigee. After approximately two orbits, the S-IVB stage reignited,
placing the spacecraft into a simulated translunar trajectory. After the command and
s e r v i c e module (CSM) s e p a r a t e d froin the S-IVB stage, the f i r s t firing of the SPS en-
gine was performed. T h i s firing r e p r e s e n t e d a posigrade maneuver and resulted in a
9769-nautical-mile apogee coast ellipse.

Immediately before apogee, the s t a t e vector to initialize the navigation s y s t e m f o r

the second SPS burn and subsequent entry was updated in the Apollo guidance computer

5
(AGC). T h e second burn i n c r e a s e d the velocity, duplicating the entry conditions that
would r e s u l t f r o m a lunar r e t u r n trajectory . Preflight t r a j e c t o r y simulations showed
that an inertial flight-path angle of 7. 13 below the horizontal (k0. 3 "), a lift-to-drag
r a t i o between 0 . 3 2 and 0 . 4 3 , an inertial velocity of 36 333 ft/sec, and a t a r g e t range of
2000 nautical miles would meet the minimum entry r e q u i r e m e n t s . After the CM sepa-
r a t e d f r o m the s e r v i c e module (SM), the guidance and control s y s t e m began orienting
the CM to the predetermined atmospheric-entry attitude of 156.84 " angle of attack with
the lift vector up. T h e spacecraft reached the entry interface (400 000 f e e t ) at
08: 19: 28.5 ground elapsed time (g. e. t. ) with an i n e r t i a l velocity of 36 545 ft/sec and
a n inertial flight-path angle of - 6 . 9 3 ". Landing o c c u r r e d at 08: 37: 09. 2 g. e. t . , ap-
proximately 10 nautical m i l e s f r o m the planned landing point and approximately 550 nau-
tical m i l e s northwest of the Kauai, Hawaii, tracking station. The CM, the forward heat
shield, and one of the t h r e e main parachutes (figs. 3 and 4) w e r e hoisted aboard the
p r i m a r y recovery ship, the U. S. S. Bennington, approximately 2 h o u r s 28 minutes a f t e r
landing (fig. 5).

ATMOSPHERIC ENTRY

Entry Control

The entry aerodynamics f o r the Apollo CM a r e closely related to the AGC entry
control logic (ref. 1); therefore, a brief description of the control p r o g r a m s is included
(fig. 6(a)). After the CM s e p a r a t e d f r o m the SM and p r i o r to reaching the entry inter-
face a t 400 OOOfeet, the spacecraft w a s oriented in pitch with i t s stability a x i s along the
AGC-estimated relative wind-velocity vector with a bank-angle attitude of 0 O, o r lift up
(fig. 6(b)). Pitch and yaw attitude control was maintained until 0. 05g deceleration was
reached. The spacecraft attitude was then maintained by aerodynamic f o r c e s and mo-
ments. Control of the rotational r a t e s was retained in the r a t e damping mode. T h e r o l l
r a t e gyro was coupled to the yaw electronics to give coordinated r o l l control about the
velocity vector r a t h e r than about the spacecraft body X-axis. At the entry interface,
the initial roll p r o g r a m of the INITIAL ENTRY phase was in command. The AGC e s t i -
mated a 2084-nautical-mile inertial range to the targeted landing point and a 7.9-
nautical-mile c r o s s - r a n g e e r r o r a t this time. When 0. 05g was sensed (0. 05g interface),
the AGC automatically began the entry computations. A post-0. 05g t e s t determined if
the lift vector, which was up initially, should be rolled down to e n s u r e atmospheric cap-
t u r e . A decision was made to continue the flight with the lift vector up. When t h e a e r o -
dynamic deceleration level exceeded 0. 2g and the altitude was decreasing a t a r a t e less
than 700ft/sec, control w a s t r a n s f e r r e d to the HUNTEST phase. During the HUNTEST
phase, s t e e r i n g w a s performed by a constant-drag routine until the difference between
the d e s i r e d and the predicted range was less than 25nautical miles, and the predicted
skip velocity was less than orbital velocity. T o obtain the p r o p e r trajectory conditions,
the Apollo 4 mission was flown lift vector down f o r approximately 22 seconds during the
phase immediately a f t e r peak g. The UPCONTROL phase was entered a t the s a m e time
that the lift vector was rolled back to lift vector up. In the UPCONTROL phase, the
bank angle w a s controlled between 40 and 90 to provide the skip-velocity vector r e -
quired to match the predicted range with the calculated range to target. Normally, the
KEPLER, o r BALLISTIC, phase would have been entered next, when the total decelera-
tion had fallen below 0.2g. Since the spacecraft never reached this required condition
during the UPCONTROL phase, the KEPLER phase w a s bypassed, and at a t i m e n e a r

.- 1.1.1.111 I 111.11.11 111 II11111I I I1111111111 I I1111.111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I1

I
 the maximum skip altitude of 241 602 feet, the FINAL ENTRY p’lase w a s entered. In
the FINAL ENTRY phase, o r second entry, the CM w a s s t e e r e d to the target point
based on a linear perturbation about a s t o r e d reference trajectory. All s t e e r i n g cal-
culations ended when the earth-relative velocity fell below 1000 ft/sec. At drogue p a r -
achute deployment time, the AGC indicated a target overshoot of 2. 3 nautical miles.
The t i m e s a t which the AGC control phases o c c u r r e d are given in table I. A m o r e de-
tailed analysis of the AGC performance during entry is given in r e f e r e n c e 2.

Reconstructed Trajectory

The trajectory data used in t h i s paper are f r o m the entry segment of the recon-
structed trajectory that r e p r e s e n t s the Apollo 4 mission profile (ref. 3) f r o m ignition
of the S-IVB stage to splashdown (fig. 1). T h e entry segment of the reconstructed t r a -
jectory, o r best-estimate t r a j e c t o r y (BET), is essentially a CM G&N trajectory c o r -
r e c t e d f o r CM inertial-measurement-unit (IMU) e r r o r s . The BET was made to fit
significant events during the atmospheric-entry portion of the mission. The IMU c o r -
rections w e r e determined by comparing data obtained f r o m s e v e r a l independent s o u r c e s
during previous segments of the mission profile. The p r i m a r y s o u r c e , the Apollo CM
G&N onboard trajectory data, w a s compared with r a d a r tracking data (Manned Space
Flight Network, C-band, unified S-band, and skin track), down-link telemetry data
(S-IVB stage inertial unit and the CSM IMU), and high-speed r a d a r tracking data f r o m
the E a s t e r n T e s t Range (used during both the ascent phase and the second S-IVB stage
engine burn). The event data that w e r e matched n e a r termination of the flight were
time, as determined f r o m baroswitch c l o s u r e time, and altitude f o r the drogue and
main parachute deployment, as determined f r o m baroswitch p r e s s u r e altitude p r e s e t -
tings. The CM descent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , based on previous experience, and the impact
point coordinates, based on the recovery ship estimate, w e r e then used to complete the
BET to splashdown. The atmospheric data used w e r e f r o m the 15 north annual model
of r e f e r e n c e 4. This model w a s recommended f o r i t s s i m i l a r i t y to rawinsonde (bal-
loon) d a t a obtained f r o m Eniwetok Atoll, Marshall Islands, on the s a m e day the Apollo 4
mission was flown. T r a j e c t o r y data a r e presented in figure 7 a s t i m e h i s t o r i e s of
spacecraft position (altitude h, longitude n and geodetic latitude @ ), space-
GD’ GD
c r a f t earth-relative velocity vector (velocity V , flight-path angle I,, and azimuth u),
and deceleration load factor Lf. T i m e h i s t o r i e s of data that r e q u i r e a definition of the
atmosphere, as well as of t r a j e c t o r y data, a r e presented f o r dynamic p r e s s u r e q,,
Mach number M,, and Reynolds number ( f r e e - s t r e a m Reynolds number Re-, d’ and
Reynolds number behind the n o r m a l shock Re ) in figure 8.
2, d

ENTRY -VEHICLE CONFIGURATION

The CM-017 external configuration is shown in figure 9. F i g u r e s 9(a), 9(b), and

9(c) a r e detailed drawings of CM-017 showing all l a r g e r external projections, particu-
l a r l y the aft heat-shield projections which could affect airflow during atmospheric entry.
In general, the s p a c e c r a f t consists of t h r e e distinct sections t e r m e d forward, aft, and
c r e w compartments, as indicated in the s i d e view. Structural m e m b e r s and insulation

I
m a t e r i a l join the heat shields to the p r i m a r y internal s t r u c t u r e . The forward and aft
heat shields a r e continuous s t r u c t u r e s coated with an ablative material. The central
heat shield (crew compartment) consists of a s e r i e s of externally applied segments
which a r e mechanically fastened to the p r i m a r y s t r u c t u r e . Some segments are remov-
able to provide e x t e r i o r a c c e s s to the aft-compartment equipment.

As shown in figure 9(c), the aft heat shield has six compression o r s h e a r pads, o r
both, arranged in a c i r c u l a r pattern. These pads (fig. 9(d)), join the CM to the SM and
a r e designed to t r a n s m i t axial thrust loads acting either f r o m o r through the SM. The
relative positions of the umbilical housing and the umbilical r a m p a r e a l s o shown in
figure 9(c). Details A and B and section D-D of figure 9(e) d e s c r i b e the housing and
r a m p in detail.

Figure 9(f) is an exaggerated view showing a c r o s s section of the aft heat shield
taken in the X-Z plane. The center line of the aft heat shield shows a slight divergence
f r o m the s t r u c t u r a l CM center line. The heat shield r e a c h e s a maximum thickness of
approximately 2. 7 inches n e a r the theoretical hypersonic stagnation point. The heat
shield is then smoothed to a thickness of approximately 1. 5 inches a t the tangent point
of the CM t o r u s in the negative Z-direction. In the positive Z-direction a t the tangent
point of the t o r u s , the thickness is approximately 1 . 6 inches.

MODIFIED TRIM-WIND-TUNNEL DATA

The modified trim-wind-tunnel data resulted f r o m an analysis of smooth, sym-

metrical, CM ground-facility data which w e r e adjusted to fit the specific entry flight
configuration (CM-017) of the Apollo 4 mission. The Apollo wind-tunnel testing-program
data ( r e f s . 5 to 9 ) w e r e f a i r e d with both Mach number and angle of attack to f o r m a s e t
of data consistent among the t e s t facilities and t e s t conditions. Because no data were
obtained in the initial-entry, high-Mach-number, low-Reynolds-number flight regime
(fig. lo), i t w a s n e c e s s a r y to extrapolate the preflight data to this region.
Modifications were then made to adjust f o r the differences between the flight con-
figuration and the tested models. The protuberances that would affect the aerodynamics
a r e shown in figure 9 . The significant effect w a s a change in the pitch- and yaw-
moment coefficients (and consequently in the wind-tunnel-measured t r i m angles). This
change was caused by the umbilical housing and r a m p . In addition, because an unsym-
m e t r i c a l configuration r e s u l t s f r o m the variable thickness of the ablative material on
the aft heat shield, an analytical approximation of the change in t r i m angle of attack was
made to c o r r e c t f o r the effective cant angle between the center line of the forebody
s t r u c t u r e and the center line of the approximated ablative sphere. The approximation
of the change to the t r i m angle of attack was extended to account f o r the effective offset
(measured at the s u r f a c e of the heat shield) between the respective center lines.

To properly c o r r e l a t e the modified trim-wind-tunnel data to the flight data, the

s a m e reference c . g. must be used. During atmospheric entry, the CM reaction control
subsystem (RCS) used approximately 90 pounds of propellant to control the r o l l attitude
of the spacecraft and to damp any spacecraft r a t e s that w e r e g r e a t e r than the dead-band
limits of f 2 . 0 deg/sec f o r a l l the r a t e channels (pitch, yaw, and r o l l ) . In addition,

8
 ... -.... ..._. _. .. . ._...., ,.

during entry, the spacecraft exchanges heat with the atmosphere by p a r t i a l burnoff of
the ablative m a t e r i a l . A predicted weight l o s s using the postflight trajectory indicated
that approximately 210 pounds w e r e expended. The propellant and ablative-material
weight l o s s e s w e r e accounted f o r in determining the t i m e history of the c . g. and the
m a s s of the spacecraft. Modified trim-wind-tunnel data w e r e then t r a n s f e r r e d to the
flight c . g. values f o r the events and Mach numbers given in table 11. Since the Y-axis
c . g. movement w a s negligible during entry, i t was taken as a constant. T h e Y-axis
c . g. offset caused the spacecraft to t r i m about a plane that was offset rotationally f r o m
the spacecraft X- Z (pitch) plane. The modified trim-wind-tunnel data are presented
f o r the flight c . g. and are referenced to the offset plane. Consequently, the compari-
son with the flight-derived data is r e s t r i c t e d to data in the resultant angle-of-attack
cy plane.
R

The basic wind-tunnel data, with niodifications (fig. ll), r e p r e s e n t the prediction
of the CM t r i m aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s based on ground-facility and analytical
( a s opposed to flight-derived) data. Flight-derived aerodynamic data available f r o m a
previous Apollo mission ( r e f . 10) w e r e used to adjust the preflight-predicted aerody-
namics f o r the Apollo 4 mission: however, these data a r e not presented in this paper
s o that a valid a s s e s s m e n t of the modified trim-wind-tunnel data can be made, by com-
parison with the flight-derived data.

FLIGHT-DERIVED AERODYNAMICS

Data-Reduction P r o g r a m

Flight-derived aerodynamic data w e r e obtained f r o m two major s o u r c e s . The

f i r s t s o u r c e was the IMU, which included onboard-recorded data f r o m a c c e l e r o m e t e r s
on the inertial platform and data f r o m attitude s e n s o r s of the t h r e e IMU gimbals. The
second major s o u r c e of data w a s the reconstructed entry trajectory, o r BET. F r o m
this s o u r c e , the data-reduction p r o g r a m obtained the velocity and position of the space-
c r a f t and the atmospheric s t a t e v a r i a b l e s needed f o r the aerodynaniic-coefficient cal-
culations and f o r the correlation p a r a m e t e r s .

The aerodynamic angles w e r e calculated using the following relationships:

cy = t a n-1 ( w
L)

I
a = tan (3)
R

9
 -1 v
$A = tan (--) (4)

The velocities u, v, and w in the body-axis f r a m e (fig. 12) w e r e obtainedby rotating

the earth-relative velocity vector through the earth-centered inertial and the inertial-
platform axis s y s t e m s to the body-axis s y s t e m . T h i s calculation required the earth-
relative velocity vector and spacecraft position f r o m the BET data, the IMU alinement
on the launch pad, the g. e. t . , and the IMU gimbal angles.

The aerodynamic f o r c e coefficients C and C were calculated by t r a n s -

L, R D
forming the inertial-platform accelerations into the stability-axis f r a m e and then by
multiplying these by the ratio of spacecraft m a s s to the product of the dynamic p r e s -
s u r e and reference area. The vertical and horizontal lift coefficients required an ad-
ditional s e t of data (earth-relative flight-path angle and azimuth) to obtain the
components of lift relative to the earth, o r orbital plane. Spacecraft m a s s , dynamic
p r e s s u r e , and IMU gimbal-angle data w e r e required to t r a n s f o r m the platform a c c e l e r -
ations into the body f r a m e , s o that the body-axis coefficients could be calculated.

Because flight stagnation-pressure p m e a s u r e m e n t s w e r e available, all coeffi-

t
cient calculations w e r e based on both the dynamic p r e s s u r e obtained f r o m the BET,
where

1 2
S,=zP,,V (5)

and on the flight dynamic p r e s s u r e determined f r o m the following equation

Above M, M 7, the stagnation-pressure coefficient

pcc
Cp,t = 2 - _
p2

10
 -
where the density r a t i o p,,/p2 w a s obtained f r o m r e f e r e n c e 11. Below MooM 7

tl
where the p r e s s u r e ratio p p, was obtained f r o m r e f e r e n c e 12, and the Mach number
w a s obtained f r o m the BET. T h e s e calculations of dynamic p r e s s u r e a r e given in fig-
u r e 8(a) and show reasonably good agreement. The lift-to-drag r a t i o s w e r e calculated
directly f r o m the coefficients and are independent of dynamic p r e s s u r e . Data required
f o r the individual flight-derived aerodynamic p a r a m e t e r calculations a r e given in
table III.

The data-reduction p r o g r a m makes c o r r e c t i o n s f o r all systematic e r r o r s in the

input data. These e r r o r s originate either f r o m the detailed postflight analysis of the
specific s y s t e m s , such as the analysis made f o r the IMU data ( r e f . 13). o r f r o m analy-
sis of the measurement involved.

Accuracy Assessment

The accuracy with which the flight-derived data can be determined depends on
both the input measurement uncertainty about a mean value (measurement precision)
and the closeness of the measurement to the t r u e value (measurement accuracy). The
input data w e r e c o r r e c t e d f o r all detectable systematic e r r o r s determined postflight.
The measurement precision was evaluated in an e r r o r analysis that w a s performed
( r e f . 14) to obtain a s t a t i s t i c a l determination of the probable s y s t e m e r r o r . The method
selected was a r o o t - s u m - s q u a r e approach based on the Central Limit Theorem.
The e r r o r analysis included m o r e than 3 0 independent e r r o r s o u r c e s that affected the
f o 1low in g : in e rt ia 1- p la t€or m a lin e m en t , inertia 1- p la ff o r m a c c e 1e r o m et e r mea s u r e -
ments, IMU gimbal-angle data, flight-measured stagnation-pressure data, atmospheric
wind data, initial-velocity determination, and spacecraft m a s s .

The r e s u l t s of r e f e r e n c e 14 show that the standard deviation in the resultant lift-

*
to-drag r a t i o (L/D) w a s less than 0.008 (approximately 2 percent) f o r most of the
R
Apollo 4 mission down to M, = 13. The uncertainty band then increased rapidly be-
c a u s e of the combined effects of propagating the inertial-platform e r r o r s through the
e n t i r e entry phase and because of the possibility of low-altitude winds.

The uncertainty in the aerodynamic angles w a s f3 O (except €or @ A which was

f 7 "), down to M, M 6, a t which point these uncertainties begin to i n c r e a s e until they
r e a c h values of f 15 O, f 18 O, * 15 O, and 4 0 f o r p,
O CY,cyR, and @*,
respectively,
at drogue parachute deployment time. The l a r g e uncertainty in the flight aerodynamic

11

I
 f o r c e coefficients based on s,
resulted f r o m the uncertainty in p r e s s u r e - t r a n s d u c e r
,P
measurements, except in regions of high dynamic p r e s s u r e s . In the region of maxi-
mum dynamic p r e s s u r e , the uncertainties i n CD, ‘L,R, and C were
‘A) N, R
f 0.04, f 0.02, f 0. 045, and f 0.048, respectively. T h e s e standard deviations (taken in
the hypersonic region f o r (L/D) and CY ) w e r e used as the b a s i s of the statements
R R
about the agreement of the various data s e t s made in the section of this r e p o r t entitled
“Results and Discussion. ((

Hybrid Aerodynamic Data

T h e modified trim-wind- tunnel data r e p r e s e n t the predicted entry configuration

aerodynamics a t the flight-estimated c. g. To eliminate the dependence of the modified
wind-tunnel-force data on these t r i m attitudes, an additional s e t of data was generated.
These hybrid aerodynamic data w e r e formed by obtaining a flight-derived angle of a t -
tack and t r a j e c t o r y Mach number f o r each flight-data point and interpolating the
modified wind-tunnel data as a function of t e s t angle of attack and t e s t Mach number
(fig. 11). T h i s produced the hybrid aerodynamic f o r c e coefficient and lift-to-drag-
r a t i o data. As an example, a hybrid value f o r C a t flight t i m e t = 30 506 seconds,
D’
where the flight-derived (Y = 151.96 and the t r a j e c t o r y Mach number Moo = 6 . 0 ,
R
may b e obtained f r o m f i g u r e 13, which shows the variation of the modified wind-tunnel
CD with t e s t angle of attack f o r Moo = 6. 0. The value of the modified wind-tunnel C
D
a t the modified wind-tunnel t r i m angle is a l s o shown in figure 13.

The hybrid data w e r e compared to both the flight-derived and the modified t r i m -
wind-tunnel aerodynamic data where appropriate. This type of data (hybrid) was f i r s t
presented in r e f e r e n c e 10 f o r CM-011 (Apollo mission AS-202). These data indicated
that the poor prediction of (L/D)R a t the higher Mach numbers, which o c c u r r e d dur-
ing AS-202, w a s the r e s u l t of poor e s t i m a t e s of the t r i m attitude derived f r o m the
modified wind-tunnel data, and not the r e s u l t of e r r o r s in the modified wind-tunnel
f o r c e coefficient data .

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Flight-derived data are grouped by aerodynamic angles (figs. 14 and 15), lift-to-
d r a g r a t i o s (figs. 16 and 17), aerodynamic stability-axis f o r c e coefficients (fig. 18), and
aerodynamic body-axis f o r c e coefficients (fig. 19). Comparison is made in all
groups, wherever appropriate, with modified trim-wind-tunnel and hybrid data. In ad-
dition, flight-derived aerodynamic f o r c e coefficient data, based on dynamic p r e s s u r e
determined f r o m the flight-derived stagnation p r e s s u r e , are included in figures 18 and
19.

12
 F a c t o r s Influencing the Data Comparisons

Influencing factors, o r data peculiarities, may affect the comparison of flight-

derived, modified trim-wind- tunnel, and hybrid data. Data peculiarities can be
grouped by s o u r c e of data (modified trim-wind tunnel, hybrid, and flight-derived) and
by type of data (aerodynamic angle, aerodynamic lift-to-drag ratio, and aerodynamic
f o r c e coefficient). The following a r e s o m e of the m o r e pronounced f a c t o r s :

1. In comparing the flight-derived aerodynamics, which a r e a function of time,

to the modified trim-wind-tunnel data, which a r e a function of the test-facility condi-
tions, a correlation p a r a m e t e r must be chosen. Mach number is the obvious choice
because it is a basic, simply calculated flow p a r a m e t e r and because it is widely used
in the field of aerodynamics. Flow conditions in the ground-test facilities can be
stringently controlled; therefore, the Mach number f o r the modified trim-wind- tunnel
data is relatively a c c u r a t e ( r e f . 6). T h e flight Mach number obtained f r o m the BET
data, however, depends on the trajectory altitude and the model atmosphere, both of
which can be subject to l a r g e uncertainties. Consequently, the flight-derived Mach
number (and the other t r a j ectory-atmosphere-dependent p a r a m e t e r s ) cannot be con-
sidered a s a c c u r a t e a s the Mach number presented f o r the modified trim-wind-tunnel
data. This factor influences a l l aerodynamic data comparisons.

2. The ground-facility data, which r e p r e s e n t a steady-state condition, indicate

that t h e r e a r e flow regions in which the aerodynamic-trim values undergo many
changes. In actual flight, these regions a r e t r a v e r s e d rapidly. Before a steady-state
t r i m attitude can be established f o r the flow condition of the static data, the vehicle
encounters a different flow environment. Therefore, a t a given Mach number, the flight-
derived aerodynamic-trim values may differ considerably f r o m wind-tunnel steady-
s t a t e values. T h e r e a r e a l s o t i m e s when the flight-derived d a t a may reflect a
transient response to dynamic conditions encountered. T h i s transient response o c c u r s
in the region of RCS engine firing, in flow regions where negative damping is p r e s e n t ,
o r in the region of the transonic-flow regime and affects the comparison of both hybrid
data and modified trim-wind- tunnel data with the flight-derived data.

3 . The comparison of the modified trim-wind- tunnel data and the flight-derived
data is considered invalid where the atmosphere is too thin to t r i m the CM at a steady-
s t a t e condition. Because of the typical Apollo skip-type entry trajectory, this situation
can exist both in the region of the initial-entry interface (considered to begin a t
400 000 feet) and during the skip region. (The skip region is a l s o called the BALLIS-
TIC, o r K E P L E R , phase in the AGC control terminology. ) The flight-derived data
presented in this paper f o r the Apollo 4 mission did not exhibit the relatively l a r g e
amplitude excursions in the skip region that the previous mission (AS- 202) exhibited
(ref. 10). The Apollo 4 data show a lower skip altitude and higher velocity, which re-
sulted in a higher dynamic p r e s s u r e f o r the Apollo 4 mission. T h i s was confirmed by
the fact that the BALLISTIC phase of the AGC control logic w a s bypassed.

4. Flight-derived aerodynamic angles can be obtained f o r all entry t i m e s , even

though the CM is not aerodynamically t r i m m e d , because the data required f o r these
calculations (IMU gimbal angles) a r e continuously available.. Flight-derived aerody-
namic f o r c e s , however, r e q u i r e s e n s e d accelerations; therefore, in the initial-entry
region, both the flight-derived aerodynamic f o r c e coefficients and the lift-to-drag
r a t i o s will exhibit much s c a t t e r . T h i s condition l a s t s until the entry acceleration

13

I
builds up to measurable levels. T h i s condition is a l s o p r e s e n t in the skip region, with
the degree of s c a t t e r being related to the skip altitude.

5. The flight-derived f o r c e data, in the f o r m of averaged values (as opposed to

instantaneous values), are obtained f r o m pulse-integrating pendulous a c c e l e r o m e t e r s
which accumulate velocity changes (pulses) over a 2-second interval. The pulses are
then averaged over t h i s interval to obtain the accelerations. The flight-derived a e r o -
dynamic f o r c e coefficients and lift-to-drag ratios, therefore, may not show peak a m -
plitudes that correspond to the peak amplitudes obtained f r o m the flight-derived
aerodynamic angles. This factor will influence t h e comparison of the flight-derived
data with the hybrid data in that the hybrid data will show l a r g e r oscillation amplitudes.
The comparison of the flight-derived data with the modified trim-wind- tunnel data will
benefit f r o m t h i s influencing factor because the averaging effect of the flight a c c e l e r -
o m e t e r s r e s u l t s in m o r e of a mean value f o r the flight-derived aerodynamic f o r c e co-
efficient and lift -t o - d r a g - r a t i o data.

6. The flight-derived f o r c e coefficients a r e calculated both f r o m a dynamic

p r e s s u r e q,, obtained f r o m the trajectory velocity and a standard atmosphere model,
and f r o m a dynamic p r e s s u r e q, calculated f r o m the flight-measured stagnation-
,P'
p r e s s u r e data. If the flight-measured stagnation p r e s s u r e p is a t least 5 percent of
t
the full-scale measurement value, the latter method should give a m o r e a c c u r a t e time
history of dynamic p r e s s u r e a t the higher altitudes where model atmosphere uncertain-
t i e s a r e traditionally large. (These regions of low p a r e noted on fig. 8(a)).
t
7. Flight-measured IMU gimbal-angle data, which a r e required f o r the calcula-
tion of the flight-derived aerodynamic angles and the body-axis f o r c e coefficients, were
missing in s e v e r a l regions during entry. These missing data w e r e calculated f r o m
trends and levels established f r o m comparison with the backup attitude reference s y s -
tem. These flight-derived data points a r e noted in the figures by a flagged symbol.
This procedure should not compromise the accuracy of the affected flight-derived data
calculations. Table 111 indicates the aerodynamic p a r a m e t e r s that are affected by the
IMU gimbal-angle data e , $', @.

Aerodynamik- Angle Data

The aerodynamic angles defined in f i g u r e 1 2 a r e presented as t i m e h i s t o r i e s in

f i g u r e 14. In figure 15, a R is repeated as a function of Mach number. The flight-
derived data show that the spacecraft was not a t the aerodynamic t r i m attitude a t the
entry interface; but as the spacecraft plunged into the thicker atmosphere, it soon be-
came trimmed a t a = 154.5 ' with P = 2 '. The point at which the CM was judged to
be in a steady-state t r i m attitude was determined by comparing the flight-measured dy-
namics to six-degree-of-freedom trajectory simulation dynamics. The dynamic p r e s -
s u r e , the deceleration load factor, and the altitude a t which t r i m w a s obtained in the
simulations w e r e c o r r e l a t e d with these flight data, which showed the estimated t r i m
point to be t = 30 010 seconds, where M, = 38.0. At t r i m , the modified trim-wind-
tunnel a was approximately 1 . 5 lower t h a n the flight-derived v a l u e of
R

14
(Y M 154.5 '. The flight cyR then d e c r e a s e d almost linearly, with r e s p e c t to the Mach
R
number, to approximately 153 Oat MW = 6 . 0 and t = 30 505 seconds. At this point,
the modified trim-wind-tunnel value w a s approximately 0 . 5 " higher than the flight-
derived value. Agreement is alternately poor and good f r o m this point in the trajectory
to the end, with the difference in cy reaching 10 " n e a r MW = 0.9. The region of poor
R
agreement a t transonic s p e e d s is possibly the r e s u l t of the uncertainty in the Mach
number, the r e s u l t of the comparison of static and dynamic data (data comparison in-
fluencing f a c t o r s 1 and 2 in the section of this r e p o r t entitled " F a c t o r s Influencing the
Data Comparisons"), o r the r e s u l t s of the accuracy of the flight-derived aerodynamic
data.

Lift- to-Drag- Ratio Data

The lift-to-drag r a t i o L/D is the most important aerodynamic p a r a m e t e r of con-

c e r n to the trajectory control analyst. During the initial-entry phase, the available
L/D is u s e d in defining the entry c o r r i d o r f o r the lunar r e t u r n mission. In the period
f r o m initial entry to the t i m e the spacecraft approaches the maximum-altitude point of
the typical Apollo skip phase, the available L/D d e t e r m i n e s the ranging and maneu-
verability footprint potential. The flight-derived resultant lift-to-drag r a t i o ( L/D)R
has been separated into a component in the osculating plane (vertical lift- to-drag r a t i o
(L/D)v) and a component perpendicular to the osculating plane (horizontal lift- to-drag
r a t i o (L/D)H). The (L/D)v presented in figure 16(a) indicates that the spacecraft
entered the atmosphere in the planned full-positive lift attitude and maintained this con-
dition until the altitude r a t e was reduced to l e s s than -700 f t / s e c (fig. 6 and table I).

The subsequent AGC control phases, HUNTEST and UPCONTROL, shaped the
trajectory so that the trajectory conditions n e c e s s a r y to prevent skip-out and to e n s u r e
enough ranging capability w e r e attained. The (L/D)v t i m e history shows that, to
e n s u r e this ranging capability, a period of full-negative lift had to be flown shortly a f t e r
the f i r s t peak g ( t = 30 045 seconds). This period w a s followed by a period of z e r o
lift (bank angle of 90 "). The AGC determined that the KEPEER phase need not be used
to acquire the range n e c e s s a r y to r e a c h the target. T h e r e f o r e , the FINAL ENTRY
phase w a s entered approximately a t the maximum skip altitude ( t = 30 263 seconds).
The FINAL ENTRY phase used (L/D)v values close to those the AGC control was de-
signed to use. A comparison of c r o s s - r a n g e e r r o r to the predicted lateral-ranging
capability of the spacecraft determined the direction the spacecraft was rolled to mod-
ulate the (L/D)R or, alternately, to generate a n (L/D)H. Figure 16(b) shows how the
( L/D)H w a s alternated so that the spacecraft would not incur any c r o s s - r a n g e e r r o r a t
landing.

In figure 16(c), the flight-derived (L/D)R is presented as a function of t i m e and,

in figure 17(a), as a'function of Mach number. T h e flight-derived entry (L/D)R w a s
designated as the a v e r a g e value between the point a t which the spacecraft is t r i m m e d
and the first peak g (which o c c u r s a t approximately the s a m e t i m e as pullup). The

15

I Ill Il II I I l I I 1
s p a c e c r a f t was judged to be in a steady-state t r i m attitude at t = 30 010 seconds, and
the f i r s t peak g o c c u r r e d at t = 30 045 seconds. Therefore, the a v e r a g e entry flight-
derived (L/D)R w a s 0.368. The modified trim-wind-tunnel (L/D)R, which was ap-
proximately 10 percent higher during this period, showed only fair agreement. Shortly
a f t e r the f i r s t peak g, the r o l l maneuver to negative lift and the r e t u r n to positive lift
w e r e clearly accentuated by the flight-derived data s c a t t e r . T h e lowest hypersonic
flight-derived (L/D)R of 0. 360 (data s c a t t e r points omitted) w a s reached during this
period. The hypersonic (L/D)R then increased a l m o s t linearly with r e s p e c t to the de-
c r e a s i n g Mach number and increasing flight time, reaching a value of (L/D)R = 0.410
a t M, = 6 . 0 and t = 30 505 seconds ( s i m i l a r to AS-202, ref. 10). The modified t r i m -
wind-tunnel value w a s only 3 percent belrjw the flight-derived value a t M, = 6. 3 .

The maneuvering region of the entry flight, where the majority of the trajectory
shaping n e c e s s a r y to r e a c h the targeted impact point is done, w a s the region between
the f i r s t peak g ( t = 30 045 seconds) and the s t a r t of the AGC FINAL ENTRY control
phase (t = 30 253 seconds). T h e average flight-derived (L/D)R in this region was
0.372. Below M, = 6.0, agreement between flight-derived and modified trim-wind-
tunnel data is good (within 5 percent) with two exceptions. In the transonic region
(1.20 > M, > 0.9), the modified trim-wind-tunnel data show poor agreement with the
flight-derived data. The peak modified trim-wind-tunnel (L/D)R value is 0. 64 (at
M, = 1. 2), which is approximately 25 percent higher than the peak flight-derived
(L/D)R of 0.505 in t h i s region (at M, = 1. 13). At M, < 0.5, the difference is a l s o
approximately 25 percent.

The hybrid data (figs. 16(d) and 17(b)) can be used to assess the accuracy of the
modified trim-wind-tunnel f o r c e data, because the hybrid data are not dependent on the
t r i m attitudes obtained f r o m the modified trim-wind- tunnel data. Comparison of the
hybrid data with the flight-derived data in the hypersonic r e g i m e shows near-perfect
agreement (0 to 5 percent), with essentially the s a m e levels and the s a m e linear trend
with r e s p e c t to t i m e and Mach number. A comparison of figure 16(c) with figure 16(d)
and figure 17(a) with figure 17(b) shows this near-perfect agreement. In the transonic
region (M, < 1.65), agreement is only good to fair (5 to 15 percent). The good a g r e e -
ment of these two sets of data f o r most of the flight indicates that the modified t r i m -
wind-tunnel data accurately r e p r e s e n t the aerodynamic (L/D)R variation with respect
to ctR at almost all Mach numbers, including the initial-entry, high-Mach-number
4
(M, M 38), low-Reynolds-number (Re 1 . 0 X 1 0 ) region.
d

Aerodynamic Stability-Axis Force-Coefficient Data

and C
T i m e h i s t o r i e s of the lift coefficients C L , v , and the d r a g
‘L, H’ L, R’
coefficient CD are p r e s e n t e d in figure 18. The trend of the flight-derived v e r t i c a l
and horizontal lift coefficients is identical to t h a t exhibited by the v e r t i c a l and

16
horizontal lift-to-drag r a t i o s (figs. 16(a) and 16(b), respectively). The two s e t s of
flight-derived coefficient data differ because of the differences in q, and q,, p.

In figure 18(c), the modified trim-wind-tunnel C is compared to the flight-

D
derived CD b a s e d o n q, T h e modified trim-wind-tunnel C closely follows the
P' 7 D
flight-derived CD (within 5 percent), s t a r t i n g lower in the high-hypersonic region,
where the modified trim-wind-tunnel a (fig. 14(d)) is lower than the flight-derived
R
a and becoming higher at approximately the s a m e t i m e ( t 30 420 seconds and
R?
M, = 1 4 ) that the modified trim-wind-tunnel a
c r o s s e s the flight-derived a
R R'
The modified trim-wind-tunnel CD is higher than the flight-derived C f o r the re-
D
mainder of the flight, with l a r g e differences (10 to 15 percent) between data taken at
M, = 3 . 0 and M, = 1 . 3 5 and below M, = 0.9. The differences n e a r the end of the
flight (below M, 3. 0) a r e due to inaccurate determination of 4 , which o c c u r s
,P
f o r two known r e a s o n s . F i r s t , in this region, the slope of the p r e s s u r e r a t i o p p,,
t/
designated a function of velocity, is s t e e p ; consequently, a s m a l l e r r o r in the velocity
can r e s u l t i n a l a r g e e r r o r in p p,. Second, n e a r the end of flight, the t r i m angle of
t/
attack, and therefore the stagnation point have changed (fig. 14(d)) so that the p r e s s u r e
s e n s o r which w a s used to m e a s u r e p may no longer be coincident with the stagnation
t
point.

At hypersonic Mach numbers, the flight-derived CD based on q, ( r e f . 4) was

within 7 percent of the flight-derived CD based on q, with one exception. Where
P' J

the altitude was above approximately 200 000 feet (fig. 7(a)), the flight-derived C
D
based on q, formed a s y m m e t r i c a l c u r v e about the point of maxinium-skip altitude.
This curve, instead of the expected straight line, indicates that this model atmosphere
is a poor fit in this altitude region o r that the trajectory altitude i s inaccurate in this
altitude region, o r both. Below M, = 4. 0, the modified trini-wind-tunnel data a g r e e
better with the trend of the flight-derived C D based on q, (within 5 percent) than
with the trend of the flight-derived CD based on q, However, regions of only fair
9 P'

agreement occur a t transonic speeds. T h i s agreement c o r r o b o r a t e s the hypothesis

that q, values become inaccurate n e a r the end of the flight. However, the calcula-
,P
tion of q, and, therefore, the flight-derived coefficient data based on q,, w a s good
in the lower altitude region of the flight because the model atmosphere selected was
based on a comparison of rawinsonde data m e a s u r e m e n t s (available to 105 000feet) with
the model a t m o s p h e r e s of r e f e r e n c e 4. F i g u r e 7(a) shows that t = 30 545 seconds a t
105 000 feet, and figure 8(b) shows that M, = 3 . 5 at this time; thus defining the t r a -
jectory conditions below which relatively good values of the flight-derived aerodynamic
coefficients based on s, would be expected.

17
 The hybrid CD shows excellent agreement with the flight-derived CD based on
(about 2.5-percent maximum difference) down to M, = 4.0. F r o m this point,
q,, P
the hybrid data closely follow the flight-derived data based on s, to the end of the
flight. Because these hybrid data a r e not subject to the s a m e variations in dynamic
p r e s s u r e that the two sets of flight-derived coefficient data are subjected to, the hybrid
data can again be used to assess the flight-derived-data s e t s . Comparisons of the s e t s
of CD data show that the flight-derived CD based on s, is accurate down to
,P
M, M 4.0, where the flight-derived CD based on q, becomes the better s e t . F u r -
thermore, the good agreement between the hybrid data and the flight-derived CD
based on s, f o r M, > 4 . 0 suggests that the hybrid CD data could be used with
,P
flight-measured accelerations to obtain a fairly a c c u r a t e density time history in the
higher altitude region.

The CD data comparisons in the transonic region do not show any l a r g e differ-
ences (neglecting the flight-derived data based on q,, ), although the flight-derived cyR
P
showed deviations up to approximately 10 in the transonic region (fig. 14(d)). The
modified trim-wind-tunnel C at transonic Mach numbers and in the range 150 < ty @

D R
< 160 is relatively insensitive to ty (C changes by approximately 0.05 f o r a 10
@ O
R D
change in aR); therefore, the C level would be expected to be approximately the
D
s a m e f o r a l l data s e t s .

The resultant lift-coefficient C data s e t s in f i g u r e 18(d) show approximately

L, R
the s a m e comparison as the CD data s e t s show. The comparison of the modified
trim-wind-tunnel data with the flight-derived data based on q, shows C to be
7P L, R
slightly higher (4 percent) a t the high-hypersonic Mach numbers, because the modified
trim-wind-tunnel ty is lower at this time. Rather than crossing, as did the C D
R
data, the two s e t s of C data merge and remain close down to M, M 4.0. At this
L, R
time, the modified trim-wind-tunnel data again became higher than the flight-derived
data based on s, which, again, indicates that the flight-derived coefficient data
,P
based on q, a r e poor in this region.
,P
The flight-derived C based on q, showed a l a r g e discrepancy in the t r a -
L, R
jectory skip region, as did the CD data, because the value of q, is higher than
in the trajectory skip region (fig. 8(a)). Below M, = 4.0, the flight-derived
P
9 " 7

data based on s, again appear to be better than the flight-derived data based on

4",P
. Comparison of the hybrid CL7 R data to both s e t s of the flight-derived C L, R
data was s i m i l a r to comparison of the hybrid CD data to both s e t s of flight-derived
C data. Comparison of the modified trim-wind-tunnel data with the t h r e e C
D L, R

18
 data s e t s in the transonic region of flight show C differencesup to 50percent where
L, R
t h e r e where s m a l l CD differences. T h e s e C differences a r e the r e s u l t of the m o r e
L7 R
consistent variation of the modified trim-wind- tunnel data among the transonic Mach num-
b e r s and the s t e e p e r slopes of C with respect to the modified trim-wind-tunnel a
L7 R R.
In a previous section of t h i s r e p o r t , comparisons of the (L/D) data showed
R
s e v e r a l Mach-number regions of fair to poor agreement between the modified t r i m -
wind-tunnel data and the flight-derived data. This discrepancy could have been caused
by the u s e of inaccurate modified trim-wind-tunnel values f o r either aerodynamic f o r c e s
o r t r i m attitudes (aerodynamic moments), o r both. The CD data comparisons of hy-
b r i d to flight-derived data based on q, show excellent agreement down to M, = 4 . 0 ,
,P
indicating poor determination of the CM t r i m attitude f r o m the modified trim-wind-
tunnel data (i. e . , poor moment data). These comparisons did little toward clarifying
the data discrepancy in the transonic region. The aerodynamic d r a g coefficient C is
D
not sensitive to a variations n e a r t r i m a t transonic and subsonic speeds. However,
R
the data comparisons of hybrid C to flight-derived C based on q, show im-
L, R L,R
proved agreement over the data comparisons of modified trim-wind-tunnel C to
L, R
flight-derived C in the transonic region. These comparisons indicate poor
L,R
definition of the dynamic t r i m attitude in the transonic region. At the lowest Mach
numbers, both hybrid and modified trim-wind-tunnel C data show poor agreement
L,R
with flight-derived C data; however, this disagreement is explained by the flight-
L7 R
derived data accuracy a t t h i s point in the flight.

Aerodynamic Body - Axis Force- Coefficient Data

T i m e h i s t o r i e s of the t h r e e basic body-axis f o r c e coefficients C A, Cy? and CN

and the resultant, o r total, normal-force coefficient C
N. R a r e presented in figure 19.
A comparison of the axial-force-coefficient C data s e t s shown in figure 19(a)
A
is s i m i l a r to the comparison of the C data s e t s discussed in a previous section of
D
this r e p o r t . The p r i m a r y difference is a higher overall magnitude. A detailed exam-
ination showed the percent differences to be nearly identical; therefore, all comments
f o r the C,, data comparisons apply as well to the C data comparisons.
A

The C data c o m p a r i s o n s in figure 19(b) differ f r o m the other force-

N, R
coefficient comparisons in that C is of such a s m a l l magnitude that s m a l l e r r o r s
N, R
can r e s u l t in l a r g e percent differences. F o r example, the b e s t flight-derived data
(near maximum , q ) could show percent differences up to 40 percent. T h i s fact con-
,P
sidered, the s a m e general trend is shown by the s e t s of data with excellent (within

19

I l 1 I I1 Il l Ill1 I1 I1 I IIIIII I I
 25 percent) to good (within 50 percent) a g r e e m e n t down to M, = 1.35. Comparison
below t h i s point is difficult because of the flight-derived-data a c c u r a c y and because of
the influence of other previously discussed f a c t o r s in the transonic region.

The side-force coefficient Cy and the normal-force coefficient C a r e shown

N
in f i g u r e s 19(c) and 19(d), respectively. Neither hybrid n o r modified trim-wind-tunnel
data are shown on t h e s e figures; however, the flight-derived C t i m e h i s t o r i e s are
N
generally s i m i l a r to the flight-derived C t i m e h i s t o r i e s . T h e flight-derived Cy
N7 R
t i m e h i s t o r i e s reflect the sign and magnitude that would be expected f r o m the sign and
magnitude of the flight-derived angle of slideslip P (fig. 14(b)).

CONCLUSIONS

The flight-derived aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Apollo 4 entry configura-

tion (Command Module 017) have been calculated f r o m onboard-recorded inertial-
platform accelerations and attitudes and f r o m reconstructed t r a j e c t o r y data. The
r e s u l t s have been compared with modified trim-wind-tunnel data and with hybrid data
(modified wind-tunnel data adjusted to flight-derived angle of attack). Examination of
these comparisons r e s u l t e d in the following conclusions.

1. At the initial-entry point, the flight-derived, steady-state resultant t r i m an-

gle of attack .was approximately 154. 5 ', and the a v e r a g e resultant lift-to-drag r a t i o
was approximately 0. 368 (modified trim-wind-tunnel data showing values 1. 5 ' lower
and 10 percent higher, respectively). The trend in the hypersonic region w a s e s s e n -
tially linear with r e s p e c t to Mach number, reaching a flight-derived t r i m resultant an-
gle of attack of approximately 153 ' and a flight-derived t r i m resultant lift-to-drag r a t i o
of approximately 0.410 a t a Mach number of 6 . 0 (modified trim-wind-tunnel values of
0 . 5 higher and 3 percent lower, respectively). Good a g r e e m e n t w a s shown f r o m a
Mach number of 4 . 0 down to a Mach number of 1.35 and below a Mach number of 0 . 9 ,
with deviations in t r i m resultant angle of attack up to 10 ' and in t r i m resultant lift-to-
d r a g r a t i o up to 25 percent in the transonic region.

2. When the modified wind-tunnel data w e r e adjusted to the flight-derived angle

of attack (hybrid data), these hybrid data a g r e e d with the flight-derived data down to a
Mach number of 1.2. T h i s agreement indicates (as data f r o m the previous Apollo s p a c e
flight (AS-202) indicate) that the modified wind-tunnel f o r c e data are reliable even a t
4
the initial-entry, high-Mach-number ( ~ 3 8 low-Reynolds-number
) ~ ( ~ 10 .X 10 ) condi-
tions, but that the modified wind-tunnel t r i m attitudes (moment data) a r e poor in the
initial-entry hypersonic (Mach number g r e a t e r than 18) region and possibly in the t r a n -
sonic region (Mach number g r e a t e r than 0 . 9 and less than 1. 20). Differences in the
transonic region and below are probably the r e s u l t of flight-derived data accuracy o r of
the influence of vehicle dynamics, o r of both.

3 . The flight-derived aerodynamic force-coefficient data based on the flight-

m e a s u r e d stagnation p r e s s u r e appear to be reliable down to a Mach number of 4 . 0 .
Below this point, the poor agreement with the hybrid data is attributed to poor

20

I
flight-measured p r e s s u r e data. In the region below a Mach number of 4. 0, the flight-
derived coefficients, based on a standard-atmosphere model, a r e considered slightly
better.

21
 REFERENCES

1. Morth, Raymond: Reentry Guidance f o r Apollo. MIT/IL Rept. R-532, Jan. 1966.

2. Flight Analysis Section: Reentry Postflight T r a j e c t o r y Reconstruction and Guid-

ance Evaluation f o r AS-501 (CSM-017). Document 05952-H477-R0-00, TRW
Systems, M a r . 1368.

3. Flight Analysis Section: Apollo Mission 4/AS-501 Trajectory Reconstruction and

Postflight Analysis. Note 68-FMT-615, TRW Systems, Mar. 1968.

4. U. S. Committee on Extension t o the Standard Atmosphere (COESA): U.S. Standard

Atmosphere Supplements, 1966.

5. Moseley, William C . , Jr. ; and Martino, Joseph C. : Apollo Wind Tunnel Testing
P r o g r a m - Historical Development of General Configurations. NASA
TN D-3748, 1966.

6. Moseley, William C . , Jr. ; Moore, Robert H . , Jr. ; and Hughes, J a c k E. : Sta-

bility Characteristics of the Apollo Command Module. NASA TN D-3890, 1967.

7. Jorgensen, Leland H. ; and Graham, Lawrence A. : Predicted and Measured Aero-

dynamic Characteristics f o r Two Types of Atmosphere-Entry Vehicles (U).
NASA TM X-1103, 1965.

8. Neal, Luther, Jr. : An Exploratory Investigation of a Mach Number of 6. 9 into

the U s e of Aerodynamic Controls f o r Modulating the Lift-Drag Ratio of an Apollo
Type Configuration (U). NASA TM X-816, 1963.

9 Wilkinson, D. B. : Hypersonic Shock Tunnel T e s t s of the 0.05 Scale Apollo F o r c e

Model FS-8 (U). Cornel1 Aeronautical Laboratory Report AA-1712-W-1, 1962.

10. Hillje, Ernest R. : Entry Flight Aerodynamics f r o m Apollo Mission AS-202.

NASA TN D-4185, 1967.

11. Lewis, Clark H. ; and Burgess, E. G . , 111: Altitude-Velocity Table and Charts
f o r Imperfect Air. AEDC-TDR-64-214, Jan. 1965.

12. Ames Research Staff: Equations, Tables, and C h a r t s f o r Compressible Flow.

NACA Rept. 1135, 1953.

13. System Engineering and T e s t Analysis Section, Apollo 4 Mission Report, Supple-
ment 9: Guidance and Navigation E r r o r Analysis- Final Report. Document 05952-
H394-RO-00, TRW Systems, Feb. 1968.

14. P e r e z , Leopoldo F. : Command Module Entry Aerodynamics Data Accuracy Anal-

ysis f o r Apollo Mission AS-501 (Apollo 4). Document D2-118046-2. Boeing
Company, Sept. 1968.

22
 TABLE I. - SIGNIFICANT EVENTS DURING ENTRY

AGC
entr!
Event or AGC Time,
Remarks
contrc
entry control phase sec
progra
numbt

CM/SM separation 29 882.6

INITIAL ENTRY 63
(initial r o l l )
Entry interface 29 968.54
(400 000 f t )

0. 05g interface 64 a29 999

F i r s t peak g 30 045

a
HUNTEST 30 045 Altitude r a t e = -679 ft/sec

UPCONTROL 65 a30 085

KEPLER o r 66 Not required f o r Apollo 4 mission

BALLISTIC

a
FINAL ENTRY 67 30 253
-
Second peak g 30 431

Guidance termination a30 601

Drogue parachute 30 678.6

deploy men t

Main parachute 30 725.8

deploy men t

Landing 3 1 029.2

aApollo guidance computer time.

23

I
 TABLE 11. - ESTIMATED COMMAND-MODULE CENTER OF GRAVITY AND

MASS CHANGE DURING ENTRY

Center of gravity,
Time, (a) in. Mass: Weight
Mach number Event
sec slugs lb
X-axis Z-axis
(b) (c )
~~ ~

25. 6 29 968. 54 Entry 1039. 58 6. 57 369.7 11 959

29. 2 30 045 First peak g 1039.62 6. 56 368. 2 11 857

12. 6 30 431 Second peak g 1039. 70 6. 49 364.2 11 7 3 1

6. 0 30 505 1039. 72 6. 45 363.8 11 715

4.0 30 538 1039. 7 3 6. 42 363. 5 11 705
3. 0 30 553 1039. 74 6. 4 1 363.4 11 702
2. 4 30 564 1039. 74 6. 40 363. 2 11 696
2. 0 30 572 1039.74 6. 39 363. 2 11 694
1. 65 30 581 1039.75 6. 38 363. 1 11 692
1. 35 30 590 1039.75 6. 37 363. 0 11 688
1. 2 30 596 1039.75 6. 37 362.9 11 686
1. 1 30 602 1039.76 6. 36 362. 9 11 684
0. 9 30 618 1039. 76 6. 34 362. 5 11 674
0. 7 30 637 1039. 77 6. 32 362. 5 11 672

0. 42 30 678.6 Drogue deployment 1039.79 6. 27 362. 1 11 659

0. 4 30 680 1039.79 6. 27 362. 1 11 659

a
C e n t e r s of gravity are in the NASA r e f e r e n c e system.
bThe longitudinal r e f e r e n c e (body X-axis) h a s a n origin 1000 inches below the
tangency line of the CM substructure mold line.
C
The Z-axis measurement includes the constant Y-axis offset of 0. 3 inch.

24

I
 TABLE III. - FLIGHT-DERIVED DATA INPUT REQUIREMENTS

Input

BET:

V
I I
Y
I XI
X X X
0
I X I
X X X

e GD
I X

X
X

X
X

X
@GD

% X
X I X XI
g. e . t

IMU:
I X I
X X X

9
XI
-
@ XI
9 XI

A
A
x7 P

Y7P
I X

X
X

X
X

A X X
27 P
[iscellaneous:

m X X X

S X X X

Et-off timc X X X X

X X X
&", P

25
 ignition ,
0 Lift-off
1 12:OO:Ol
I

G.1n.t. 0
2
S-II
00:02:32.2 g .e.t.

Launch-escape-system j e t t i s o n ,
00:03:07.2 g.e.t.

S-ITB ignition, S - E B engine cut-off

@
I
4 00:08:40.7 g.e.t. earth parking o r b i t ,
00:11:15.6 g.e.t.

(a) Launch into e a r t h parking orbit.

Figure 1. - Apollo 4 mission profile.

26
c9
r 1

S-ITLB i g n i t i o n after S-mB engine cut-off C S M/ S -EB F i r s t S PS i g n i t i o n I

second o r b i t I start 1 0 m i n coast, separation, 03:28:06.6 g.e.t.
0 3 3 1 :26.6 g .e .t I 03:16:26.3 y .e .t. 03:26:28.2 g .e .t.

F i r s t SPS cut-off Update AGC I 9769 11. m i . Second SPS i g n i t i o n ,

e art t i i iit er se c t i ng 05:24:27 g .e .t. apogee, 08:10:54.8 y .e.t.

p-Q/
coast, 05:46:49.5 g.e.t.
03:28:22.6 g.e.t.

@1 m

IS P S engine cut-off,
08:15:35.4 g.e.t.
CM/SM separation I
08:18:02.6 g.e.t.
\\>.

. -<,--

Atmospheric entry
(400 0 0 0 ft),
08:19 :28.5 g .e .t
(b) Injection into earth-intersecting c o a s t ellipse.
-

.
F i g u r e 1. - Continued.

27
 Atmospheric entry , Drogue parachute
08:19:28.5 g.e.t. deployment,
08:31:18 ' 6 g .e.t.

CM landing,
@ M a i n parachute
deployment ,
08:32:05.8 g.e.t.
08:37:09.2 g .e .t .
( c ) Atmospheric entry.

Figure 1. - Concluded.

28
 3 ft

-1
S-IZZB stage
5S.6 ft

I
1-
S-II stage
s1.5 ft

s-I c/s -IT

interstage - -A-
~ _ _
. . . ~ _ _ . -A-

Space vehicle / 1-396 iti.

363 Ft

S-IC stage
1 3 s ft

Flight
separation.
1 1
A planes

Figure 2. - Apollo 4 launch vehicle configuration.

29
 Figure 3. - Recovery of the CM-017 forward heat shield.

30

l _____ _
 Figure 4. - The CM-017 shortly after landing, showing one main
parachute still attached.

I
31 I

I~---
 Figure 5. - The eM-017 being hoisted aboard the recovery ship
U. S. S. Bennington.

32

~J
 (a) Apollo guidance computer entry control.
Figure 6 . - Entry trajectory control p r o g r a m s .

33
 IIIIII I I

! i
I
~
i
I
~

I I
i I
I

1
I
/d
I
I
i
I
I I
I
I
I I
I
1 I
I
I
I II
I
i I
I i
1
1
I I
1
i
I I
I
I
,k
#I
K I
3 1
R
& I
P I

'i1
!

i 7- I
I
1
i
i
I
j
I
!
i I
I I
! I
i
! ~

i I
i !
0
U
0
B 8
6ap 'al6ue yuea

( b ) Bank-angle t i m e history.

F i g u r e 6. - Concluded.

34
 4."

I
I
I
I

I
I
t I/
!

!
!
I

1
I ~

I
!

\
i
I
!
II

1 r

-
B s: x
I

(a) Altitude h, longitude

-- GD' and geodetic latitude d
GD
Figure 7. - T i m e h i s t o r i e s of trajectory p a r a m e t e r s f o r atniospheric entry phase.

35
 P 8 : L"

I
sa

(b) E a r t h relative velocity V , flight-path angle 7, and azimuth u.

Figure 7. - Continued.

36
 0
9
b
0
m

0
03
9
0
N

0
0
9
0
rr\

0
N
Ln
0
m

0
d
d
0
m

0
9
m
0
m

0
CO
N
0
m

0
0
N
0

9 In d- m

'rone4 peol uo!ieralama

6 /'-I

(e) Deceleration load factor L

f'
Figure 7. - Concluded.

37
 0
Q

14/91 "Issaid 3!lueu/(a

Z

(a) Dynamic p r e s s u r e .

Figure 8. - T i m e histories of trajectory/atmosphere data.

38
 m
w ‘iaqlunu q,eW

(b) Mach number Ma

Figure 8. - Continued.

39

I
 I
I

i
il1
1
i

i
I

ii
2 9 960 3 0 040 3 0 120 30 200 30 280
ii 30 360 30 440 30 520 30 6 0 0
Ground elapsed time, sec

( e ) ReynoIds number.
Figure 8. - Concluded.

40
 -Z

RCS a f t p i t c h engines
Crew hatch window
U m b i l i c a l housing
S forward p i t c h eiigii i e s

Rendezvous window

c
154.4
(a) View looking aft.

Figure 9 . - Command Module 017 external configuration.

All linear dimensions are in inches.

41
 A%
Torus Z
i3
a
Umbilical housing, see detail B -Umbilical ramp,
1060.51 see detail A
11 -Compression pad

9.1 nose radius

+X-

Shear/ compre s s io n pad

I RYi.. I
Ilinoi i2
Simulated block
umbilical c a v i t y 1
2 I
,
'1 I-
J.LUUL.L2

1- 1081.134-Crew -I AfC I -Torus

-...-._
.Far\nmvA
compartment
I C , L

I
compartment compar3ment
I

(b) Side view. X-stations a r e in inches.

Figure 9. - Continued.
 286' 1 5 ' 7

e =
C

152'

+Z

(c) View looking forward. P a d numbers a r e shown i n c i r c l e s .

Figure 9. - Continued.

43
 CM outer inold l i n e

S e c t i o n .A-AI S e c t i o n B-B, S e c t i o n C-C I

typ i cal cotiipre s s io t i t y p i c a l shear/ s t i ear/co ti1pre s s io ii

pads 2 I 4 I and 6 co mpre s s i o 11 pad 5

pads 1 and 3

(d) Detail of shear/compression pads. Dimensions

are only approximate (in inches).

Figure 9. - Continued.

44
I

H OLI si ny-,

mold l i n e

CM outer mold l i n e

Detail B,
uiiibilical Iiousing utiibilical r m p
(top v i e w ) ( l o o k i n g forward)

(e) Details of umbilical system.

Figure 9 . - Continued.

45
 Torus radius = 6.6 i n .

Outer mold l i n e

1 7 6 . 6 - i n . radius sphere
E f f e c t i v e offset
Structural
o f a f t heat shield
ablator approximation

Aft heat shield

183.5-in. radius

Torus radius = 7.4 in.

(f) Exaggerated view of a c r o s s section of the aft heat shield taken in the X-Z plane.

Figure 9. - Continued.
 l

(g) Preflight photograph of CM-017 umbilical housing and ramp.

Figure 9. - Continued.

47
 (h) Postflight photograph of CM-017 umbilical housing and ramp.

Figure 9. - Continued.

48
(i) Overall photograph of CM-017 on deck of recovery ship.

Figure 9. - Concluded.

49
 I
I
I
I
I

1
ER
1
!
i i
I
I
t
:ilit

1N
Tui
i
20
0 5 10 15 25 30 35 40 45
Mach number, ,
M

Figure IO. - Comparison of Apollo entry flow conditions with

ground-facility capabilities.

50
 m
Ground-facility aerodynamic data:
Force and moment coefficients and lift-to-dray
ratios as a function of test 0 (constants) and M
,,
for a clean, symmetrical CM Flight data:
I

Groiiiid-faLII~tyaerodyiiaittic data for ~irotuberaiicesoff/oii:

Force aiitl ilioitieiit cbefficietits aiitl lift-to-dray ratios
a s a futicttoii of test 0 (coitstaiitsi atid M,

t Fliyllt-derived 3~ as a futictioti
Analytical cant-aiiyle c o i w i l e r proyraiii 1 o f fltylit M, atid tiiiie

Modificatton 2:
1
I
Analytical approximatioii to all data for tlie '
I effective cant atiyle and effective offset o f the
I aft heal sliield ablalor
I I
.----_--------------__I
(llY,9(f) 1
I Table look-tip of iiiodifted wiiid-twtiiel data at the fltylit- I
Result: Mod i f led wiiitl-tunnel data I derived Q R aiitl f l i y l i t M, as a fiitictioit o f f l t y l i t I
Force atid itioitietit coefficteitts aiid lift-to-dray
ratios as a function o f test o (constants),
l a c i l i l y and extrapolated M, values
- I time (flylire 13)
L------------ --------a
I

Fliqlit-determined c y as a
fliylit M,
f u t t c t l o i i of aiid tiiiie

1
I
FI tght-derived aerodynamic data:
Force coefficients and lift-to-dray ratios at the Modified wind-tunnel force coefficients and I t f t - t o - Flight-derived force coefficients and l i f t -
trim attitude as a function of facility and extra- dray ratios at the flight-derived CVR and flight to-drag ratios at the flight-derived O R as
polated M, values, flight time aiid flight c.g. M, as a functioii of flight time a function of flight M, and time

Figure 11. - Formulation of modified trim-wind-tunnel and hybrid aerodynamic data.

 +cN

+X

+Z

Figure 12. - Body-axis s y s t e m showing positive directions of aerodynamic

angles and aerodynamic body f o r c e coefficients.

52
 Y
u
m
&
m

Figure 13. - Variation of modified trim-wind-tunnel drag coefficient CD with test

angle of attack 4 for M, = 6. 0.

53

I
 (a) Angle of attack cy

Figure 14. - T i m e h i s t o r i e s of aerodynamic angles.

54
 ~

i
. I,.

I.

I
i
1 I

!
i
i
I
/I
1:
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
'Ij
i'
~

I
I
I
'I
I'
I
I
I
I
4 1
I
-
I

!
N 0 ."
6ap 'e 'd!jsap!s i o a16uv

(b) Angle of s i d e s l i p P.
Figure 14. - Continued.

55
 ?

(c) Aerodynamic r o l l angle

Figure 14. - Continued.

56
 t

m
1

(d) Resultant angle of attack cy

R'
Figure 14. - Concluded.

57
 I
'I
i

I
I

I
I

I
!

IC:
I i

vm

Figure 15. - Resultant angle of attack LY plotted against Mach number Mo3.
R

58
 T m N - N

(a) Vertical lift-to-drag r a t i o (L/D)

V'
Figure 16. - Time h i s t o r i e s of lift-to-drag ratios.

59
 N N m

(b) Horizontal lift-to-drag ratio (L/D)H.

Figure 16. - Continued.

60
I
!
1I
I

II
tI
I
II
I

I
I

I'

I
I
1I
I
I
I
.n N
? 5: s s 1

( c ) Flight-derived resultant lift-to-drag r a t i o (L/D)

R'
Figure 16. - Continued.
 6I
I
i
I
I
I
&

1
B
P
II
I
iI
I

I
I
I
I
I
i
~

I
i
i
~

i
I
I
~

1
j
I
!
i
!
!
I
1
i
s: Io
4
N
4
m
9 9

(d) Hybrid resultant lift-to-drag ratio (L/D)R.

Figure 16. - Concluded.

62

...
 ~

I
I
I
i
I
I
I

(a) Flight-derived lift-to-drag ratio (L/D)

R'
Figure 17. - Resultant lift-to-drag ratio (L/D) R plotted against Mach number Mm.

63
 Figure 17. - Concluded.

64
 I
I i
I
1 1 ) j
I l l
I, I I
! I

I
I
I ,
I
I
! !
I

~
i
! I
I I
I I
I
I

I I
I i
1 I

I I
,
~
I
!
i !
~

I I
j I
,
I

1
I
I
I I
I
I

1 1
1 i
I
I

I d
I

s N

(a) Vertical lift coefficient CL, v.

Figure 18. - Time h i s t o r i e s of aerodynamic stability-axis f o r c e coefficients.

65
 L
I
' I
!

!
1
I
I I
I 1
I '
, I
I
i

oa

I
!
I

I
~

I
i

I
I

j
iI
I

I
j

- 0
4 N 0 N 0

(b) Horizontal lift coefficient CL, H.

Figure 18. - Continued.

66
0 m 0 w N
-
0I
d A i 4 i

( c ) Drag coefficient CD.

Figure 18. - Continued.

67
 //

11

I .

(d) Resultant lift coefficient CL, R.

Figure 18. - Concluded.

68
 I &i
.
. i I
,
i !

I
I
I

! I
i i I

I
I

! ~

I
,
I
I
1 I
I
!
I
I,
I,
Iji, j i

i
I
I I
,
I
j I
I 00-4
I i
I

I
I
,I
j' I
I
! 1,
i I
! I

i I
I
I
I
I. I
I I
I
1 j
I ~

I
I 1
I
I

,I
I I

N
7 0
~ / /
m N

?
-
d +
0%

(a) Axial-force coefficient CA.

Figure 19. - Time h i s t o r i e s of aerodynamic body-axis f o r c e coefficient.

69

I
 lllll I l l 1 I I

9 ? N
0
0%

(b) Resultant normal-force coefficient C

N, R'
Figure 19. - Continued.

70
 I
I
I
I

I '

I
!

,
I
I ,
1 ;

j.

(e) Side-force coefficient C Y'

Figure 19. - Continued.

71
 I

1
I

4 N

(d) Normal-force coefficient C

N'
Figure 19. - Concluded.

72 NASA-Langley, 1969 - 31 S- 2 13
 AERONAUTICS
NATIONAL AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
WASHINGTON,
D. C. 20546
OFFICIAL BUSINESS FIRST CLASS MAIL
POSTAGE AND FEES PAID
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION

POSTMASTER: If Undeliverdbk (Section 158

Postal Manual) Do Not Return

“The aeroiicri/ticnl nnd spnce nctii>itiesof the United Stntes shall be

coizdilcted so as to contribute . . . t o the expnnsiolt of hiiiiiaiz knoaul-
.. edge of pbeizoi)ieizn iiz the rrttitosphere diad spnce. T h e Adi~iiaistration
shrill proi!idc f o r the widest prncticnble ntzd npproprinte disseiiiim?ioa
of info, )untioiz concerning its nctirrities nitd the results thereof.”
-NATIONALAERONAUTICS
AND SPACEACT OF 1958

NASA SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

. . .
TECHNICAL REPORTS: Scientific and TECHNICAL TRANSLATIONS: Information
technical information considered important, published in a foreign language considered
complete, and a lasting contribution to existing to merit NASA distribution in English.
knowledge.
SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS: Information
TECHNICAL NOTES: Information less broad derived from or of value to NASA activities.
in sc+e but nevertheless of importance as a Publications include conference proceedings,
.... contiribution to existing knowledge. monographs, data compilations, handbooks,
sourcebooks, and special bibliographies.
~

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMS:
Information receiving limited distribution TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION
because of preliminary data, security classifica- PUBLICATIONS: Information on technology
tion, or other reasons. used by NASA that may be of particular
interest in commercial and other non-aerospace
CONTRACTOR REPORTS: Scientific and applications. Publications include Tech Briefs,
technical information generated under a NASA TecllnologyUtilizatioll Reports and N ~ ~ ~ ~ ,
contract or grant and considered an important and Technology Surveys.
con tr i bu t ion to existing knowledge.

Details on the availability of these publications may be obtained from:

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION DIVISION

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Washington, D.C. 20546