Spaceport Technology Development at the Kennedy Space Center Legacy and Emergence of Spaceport Technology Development at the Kennedy Space Center Stanley Starr Dynamac Corp. Kennedy Space Center, Florida My purpose here today is to convince you that spaceport technology is an engineering discipline (like building power plants) that requires continuity and continuing challenge to remain a viable field of endeavor. By that I mean the ability to attract talent and attack long standing problems with innovative solutions. I will describe VERY briefly the progress of Spaceport Technology at KSC along the NASA lineage (ignoring expendable vehicles and many other aspects along the way).

Overview: Describe the development of spaceport technologies at KSC. KSC technology development capabilities have developed from field testing of missiles to systematic approach to technology development Periods described short- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles (1953 to 1958) large space lift vehicles (1959 to 1975) Partially reusable launch vehicle (1976-2000) Space Station and the future

In 1952 Dr. Kurt Debus came to the Long Range Proving Ground to establish a field testing and training capability for the Redstone missile. While the missile was, like the German V-2 rocket, intended to be launch in the field by truck mobile crews, a lengthy flight test program required a permanent facility purpose built for repeated firings of missile configurations under controlled conditions to acquire ground and flight test data. Here the Redstone is being raised onto its field launch ring by a mobile transporter. A view in the other direction however,… Redstone missile, first fired in 1953 at Cape, requires test facilities for repeated launches

Shows the filed launch ring (explain) surrounded by the launch servicing tower. The tower built by the USAF at a cost of over 400K$ provides platforms, permanent test cabling and lighting to allow those long hours at the pad that we’ve all read about. The pipes sticking up from the pad surface are protected passage ways to cable and pneumatic lines that connect to the blockhouse about 100 yards away. Detail of Launch Mount

Mobile Service structure provides hoisting capability and semi-enclosed spaces for weather protection Later, sheltering was added to the service tower and note the small crane. This is a Mercury era picture so you can see that in this case the government got its money’s worth from the investment in the pad. The blockhouse is just off screen to the right.

Rise off umbilical for Redstone Disconnects at launch The Redstone had two umbilical connector systems, this one at the base of the vehicle called a rise off umbilical because the fittings were literally held tight by the weight of the rocket. Note the snap closing cover. Another umbilical to provide electrical signals and GN2 supply was attached near the nose of the rocket from a pivoted strong arm attached to the field launch mount. Rise off umbilicals continue to have significant preference due to their simplicity. Rise off umbilical for Redstone Disconnects at launch

This is a view of the interior of the Redstone blockhouse This is a view of the interior of the Redstone blockhouse. The blockhouse at CX 5/6 supported many early ballistic and space missiles as the Redstone and later the Jupiter were fitted with upper stages to boost scientific satellites into orbit. The Redstone possessed a 16 channel telemetry system, eventually upgrades to 18 channels with 116 total measurements (ref. Debus). Note only, 5 firing consoles, and water filled windows which replaced periscopes in earlier designs. Steam gages and lights. Measurements to control room (blockhouse) on the order of 100 (about 25 analog)

Increased vehicle height, larger “quantity/distance”, complexity Saturn rocket requires order of magnitude changes to launch support systems Increased vehicle height, larger “quantity/distance”, complexity 21 firing consoles In 1958, as the Redstone program was winding down the Army approved the Saturn project which resulted in building of a very large three stage vehicle. [The justification was to build a military base on the moon.] Cx 34 was build to perform launch tests on the Block 1 Saturn which had a live first stage (1.3 M#’s of thrust) with water filled tanks for a second stage. The larger pad layout reflected the larger quantity distance calculations i.e. explosive value. The number of firing consoles increased to 21 and the number of telemetry vehicle measurements grew to over 500. Saturn block 1, 8 RF links each with 15 continuous channels and 54 multiplexed channels. Total 216 measurements on one carrier frequency. (page 56) 510 measurements telemeter total (page 53) Ref: Moonport, Larger blockhouse and pad, basically scaled up from Pad 5/6 experience The launch mount provided some challenges…

Launch Mount and Flame Deflector CX-34 Multiple rocket engines now require hold down systems to allow the vehicle to come up to full thrust before release, to minimize over-turning moments and to allow for a safe on pad abort. The flame deflector presented special problems. Large engine test stands used water cooled deflectors which were tall and very expensive. A factor of ten in cost was saved by using an all metal, un-cooled compact deflector and reduced tower height. After excessive erosion during the first few flights an ablative coating was added. Note also how crowded the launch pedestal is.

Saturn vehicle stacking at CX-34 The launch servicing tower was a gantry with rail tracks shown here erecting the upper stages. The pad stay time on the Block 1 was 60 days and grew to 100 days with Block 2 (live second stage). There was no environmental enclosures available with this design. All work outside, no protective enclosures, time on pad 60 days

Launch of Saturn I, Block 1 This is a photo of the first Saturn launch in 1961. Note the long cable mast along the back side. This was a much larger version of the pivoted upper umbilical from Redstone. The vehicle also had a short cable mast attached at the base. The long cable mast was destroyed after each launch and cost over 100K$ to replace. It seems odd to see such a large vehicle without an umbilical tower.

and Umbilical Tower CX-37 Service Tower and Umbilical Tower CX-37 Complex 37, built just North of 34 demonstrated lessons learned at 34 and the infusion of funds that the President’s commitment to land on the moon made at the Spaceport. To the right we see a servicing tower that that employs a stiff legged derrick crane design allowing for clamshell environmental enclosures to protect the vehicle and engineers from Florida’s fickle weather. The swing arm umbilical was introduced at 34 and 37 to support the Block 2 program. Tower distance is predicated by the maximum anticipated vehicle drift in an engine out coupled with wind scenario. The arms are mounted on the corner of the tower to allow for complete retraction to the tower distance. The arm include the umbilical plate, release and retract mechanisms and rotation actuator with hinge.

Saturn V, larger vehicle, quantity distance calculations requires distant Launch Control Center, environmentally controlled (VAB) The much larger Saturn V and longer processing schedules called for an improved enclosed space for stacking and validating each stage of the vehicle build-up. The stages and manned spacecraft come in the right (south) side of the building and are stacked on a mobile launch platform with umbilical tower called the LUT. The nearly ready for launch stack rolls out to the pad. This is generally the preferred approach today. The vehicle already had ordnance installed which was quite controversial at the time although today solid rocket boosters are stacked in this building.

The Crawler Transporter is almost the comic relief of this whole business. Each of the two crawlers has accumulated over 1000 miles and are still in use today although major upgrades and overhauls have been required.

Launch Pad is clean design with submerged flame deflector The Saturn V used what is called a clean pad design. Before the LUT arrives there is very little obvious pad hardware. The flame deflector has grown to a flame trench and in a clever move to reduce structure height, a pad terminal connection room elevates the pad the allow for the much larger deflector. The deflector again uses an ablative coating. Note that the LUT flame hole and flame trench begin to approach a duct type configuration which can encourage detonation conditions.

Extensive spacecraft check out facilities included altitude chambers and the Acceptance Checkout Equipment A key element in the Apollo processing flow is the Manned Spacecraft Operations Building. This included an extensive Acceptance Checkout Equipment computer system and altitude chambers for actual simulated operations of the CSM and LM with astronauts on board.

Launch Damage After AS501 Going back to the pad, the service arms have become armored tail service masts with complex retracting umbilical plates and clamshell protective covers. The first Saturn V launch environmental conditions are underestimated creating considerable damage to the launch accessories. The TSM design was changed as shown in the inset. Limit switch monitors lift off status and actuates the swing arms. Reference “Performance and Design Requirements for the Saturn V LSEED/Apollo Program, General Specification for”, RS 12A046, February 12, 1966, page 3-119 also Tail Service Masts, three each, one for RP-1 fill, air conditioning, and emergency draining of LOX. (page 3-113)

Hold Down System The four hold down arms for the Saturn V are clever mechanical arrangements where a compressed column link is broken by a side actuator. To reduce release shock to the aft thrust structure, 8 extruding pins are also attached to the vehicle. Jim Phillips Control release pin, soft release, employing a spring and extruding hold down bolt as the thrust built up and the hold down arms removed, reference Fifty Years of Shock and Vibration Technology, Chapter 6, Shock and Vibration in the NASA , by Ryan and Lassiter, page 277

Shuttle Era Shuttle era saw expansion of facilities needed at KSC for turn around flows, no longer once through fro the partially re-usable Space Transportation System. Clean pad was replaced with significant installed umbilical access tower (fixed service structure) and rotating service structure for additional servicing and payload installation. Solid rocket boosters and asymmetric vehicle design brought significant new challenges to the launch pad design. In addition facilities and GSE necessary to re-service and certify the Orbiter for flight were added to the KSC inventory. Another point I’d like to make is that NASA and on-site contractor engineers led the development of the STS and payload GSE systems which begins KSC’s preeminence in this field.

Mobile Launcher Layout Overall layout of the Shuttle Transportation System Mobile Launch Platform. Reconfigured with 2 SRB exhaust holes, two tail service masts, and “rain birds” for post lift off sound suppression water flow. Inside tail service masts similar mechanical arrangement to Saturn tail service masts.

Sound Suppression System The very rapid thrust rise time of the SRB’s called for a water sound suppression system. This includes the a 300,000 gallon elevated tank, 84 inch down-comer line and two sets of valves. Pre-lift off was 510,000 gpm for 15 seconds Post lift off flow 400,000 gpm for 9 seconds No prelift off flow into SRB holes Considerable trouble getting the system to work, valves reversed, pnuematic pressure increased

Early Test of Sound Suppression This is an early photo of the system being tested with the Pathfinder stack (Space Shuttle Vehicle Enterprise). This view shows the post lift off flow. Among the surprises that occurred during the first Shuttle mission was excessive acoustic pressure on the entire vehicle due to reflection of the SRB ignition pulse. The base pressure was in excess of 3.5 psi. A project called Gray-Streak added pre lift off water to the SRB holes and expendable water troughs. This mod reduced lift off acoustics by 1.5 to 2 psi and resolved the problem.

Hold Down Posts Original Design Stud Hang-up STS-97 Space Shuttle storage and release of elastic energy druing liftoff much more severe than Saturn V. off center SSME’s firing canted vehicle and rotated SRB’s “excited the complex bending dynamics of the vehicle, partial solution, release at minimum of SRB base bending moment. The delay caused the use of extra propellant but was more than off set by the savings in weight of SRB aft skirt structure. reference Fifty Years of Shock and Vibration Technology, Chapter 6, Shock and Vibration in the NASA , by Ryan and Lassiter, page 277 Stud hang-up continues to be an issue Many new systems going to pre-tensioned studs with pyro separation Stud Hang-up STS-97

Launch Equipment Test Facility Launch Equipment Test Facility built in mid-to late 70’s from parts moved down from Huntsville, Used to validate and certify the ET Vent Arm, TSM’s, GOX vent arm, Crew Cabin Access Arm, Hold Down Post. Has seen considerable test business connected with Shuttle upgrades, evolved expendable launch vehicles, X-33. Test capability mandatory for verifying disconnects and mechanisms under launch conditions.

Instrumentation Instrumentation development has played a key role in the history of Spaceport technology, the use of H2 in the Saturn SIV stage brought needs for H2 leak and fire detection. Most stringent requirements at KSC due to human flight activities. Mass spectrometers first used at CX-34. Continuous lineage leading to “HGDS 2000” pictured here, dual redundant, capable of 100 ppm H2 in He background. Other instrumentation technologies have improved process and weather measurements. Part of the reason for success is the ability to incrementally fund small projects with big impacts. One exception was Permanent Measurement Systems upgrade which saved over a million dollars per year in operating costs. From L-R, Bill Haskell (standing), Andy Pysz, Kevin Murtland, Richard Arkin, Tim Griffin, Jimmy Polk, Guy Naylor (standing).

Legacy Of Command and Control Redstone: Hard line control and monitoring, no automation, 5 firing consoles, less than 50 measurements, less than 20 people Saturn: Hard line control, 21 firing consoles Saturn V: Two large computers, ~1000 commands and indications, 100 firing consoles, 450 people, 20 CRT’s Shuttle Launch Processing System: Distributed computers, 10,000 measurements & commands, 100 people Redstone: Photos of blockhouse Reference: “Automation of Checkout for the Shuttle Operations Era” , Anderson and Hendrickson, Space Shuttle Technical Conference NASA CP-2342, page 97: Saturn V heavily computer controlled, two RCA 110A computers, one on LUT, one in LCC, assembly language, elementary user test language ATOLL was available for linking assembly language programs. Last nine hours of countdown were automated to almost hands off by the last Saturn V launch. Reference: “Integration of Ground and On-board System for Terminal Count”, by Abner and Townsend, Space Shuttle Technical Conference NASA CP-2342, page 81: Two Saturn V computers connected via a fixed telemetry link. The majority of monitoring functions done by personnel by looking at meters, lights and plotters driven by the LCC computer. “Saturn V News Reference” August 1967, page 8-11; “The Saturn ground computer also includes a DDP 224 display driver …can drive up to 20 cathode ray display tubes. The RCA 110A computer is capable of transmitting 2,016 discrete signals to the vehicle where it is possible for the computer in the mobile launcher to return 1,512 discrete signals. A digital data acceptance system collects and makes available on board analog data to the computers…15 display systems in each firing room.”

Schedule Goals for LPS STS 7, 63 days Reference: “Automation of Checkout for the Shuttle Operations Era” , Anderson and Hendrickson, Space Shuttle Technical Conference NASA CP-2342, page 97: LPS, GOAL, and the DPS (on board computer system) allowed linkage to on board systems that were controllable during flight Just to power up the Orbiter 500 computer commands and 50 switches thrown in the vehicle STS-1 2 years, STS-7 63 days, STS-30 (target) 28 days STS 7, 63 days

Vehicle and Launch Pad Projects Upgraded lightning strike detection systems Qualified GOX vent hood for composite ET nose cone Developed a fail-safe jack screw Built “shrimp net” to collect ice from GOX vent hood Delivered improved stacking alignment tools to streamline operations Automated payload handling, reducing manpower needed Developed new hydrogen and oxygen leak detection system, improving flight safety Developed cryogenic freeze plug for hydraulics to replace component at pad Calibrated and performed special tests on holddown posts Many incremental projects have been implemented over the past 5 years upgrading the capability and safety of the launch pads. Many other projects have, however, not been funded due to a decreasing fund pool available for needed upgrades. Invented new technologies to replace data acquisition system, saving labor Qualified new hypergolic flow meters, reducing maintenance Developed fiber-optic monitoring system, avoiding purchase of new equipment

Closing Remarks Spaceport Engineering is a defined and challenging cross cutting discipline KSC has increased its leadership over time There has been a significant loss of experienced engineers due to retirement KSC has invested in establishing organized development and test capability Lack of investment in upgrades and loss of experienced engineers threatens this capacity for future programs There remain many unresolved technical problems which result in over design or conservative of vehicle processing systems. It has been shown that the cost per pound in orbit has not significantly decreased since the Saturn 1B. Despite aggressive cost reduction goals the primary emphasis is on risk reduction. Major advances in vehicle and spaceport technology will be required to reduce costs while improving safety. These advances will require basic research and an increased emphasis on developmental engineering in the spaceport area. If funding profiles and emphasis do not change the existing talent pool will significantly diminish and national space goals will certainly not be met.