DOW-UAP-D48-Report-September-1996.pdf

== -==
 -=--=-=------===--====-==-=--=-=-==-__;;;;._ ____________ _ 
RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE 
/RTI 
Contract No■-FO4703-91-C-0112 
RTI Report No. RTl/5180/77-43F 
September 10, 1996 
Modeling Unlikely Space-Booster 
Failures in Risk Calculations 
19961025 122 
Final Report 
Prepared for 
Department of the Air Force 
45th Space Wing (AFSPC) 
Safety Office - 45 SW/SE 
Patrick AFB, FL 32925 
and 
Department of the Air Force 
30th Space Wing (AFSPC) 
Safety Office- 30 SW/SE 
Vandenberg AFB, CA 93437 
Distribution authorized to US Government agencies and their contractors to protect administr…

-
--- ---------------------~-=,--
Contract No. FO4703-91-C-0112 
RTI Report No. RTI/5180/77-43F 
Task No. 10/95-77, Subtask 2.0 
September 10, 1996 
Modeling Unlikely Space-Booster 
Failures in Risk Calculations 
Final Report 
Prepared by 
James A. Ward, Jr. 
Robert M. Montgomery 
of 
Research Triangle Institute 
Center for Aerospace Technology 
Launch Systems Safety Department 
Prepared for 
Department of the Air Force 
45th Space Wing (AFSPC) 
Safety Office - 45 SW/SE 
Patrick AFB, FL 32925 
and 
Department of the Air Force 
30th Space Wing (AFSPC) 
Safety Office - 30 SW /SE 
Vandenberg AFB,…

Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 
0MB No. 0704-0188 
Public tel)Ort1ng burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response. induding the time for reviewing instructions, searching exi5ting data sources. 
gathering and maintain in!,! the data needed, and completing and rev,ew,ng the collection of Information. Send comments r~ardlng tlils burden estimate or any other aspect of this 
collection of Information, including suggestions tor reducing this burden. tO Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate or Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferw…

Abstract 
Missile and space-vehicle performance histories contain many examples of failures that 
cause, or have the potential to cause, significant vehicle deviations from the intended 
flight line. In RTI's risk-analysis program, DAMP, such failures are referred to as 
Mode-5 failure responses. Although Mode-5 failure responses are much less likely to 
occur than those that result in impacts near the flight line, risk-analysis studies are 
• incomplete without them. This report shows how impacts from Mode-5 failures are 
modeled in program DAMP. The impact density function used for this purp…

Table of Contents - 1. INtrOGUCHION.....csssssecseesesssneresseenessnessssssssesensssesceussestsusnseenesesesscaeseaeacsusneseseeesseneseneasenenenesenrey 1 2. Examples Showing Need for Mode 5 ....s.sssssesssesessesssessssesecsesssesssesesesssessesssssecesnessseesessasass 3 3. Understanding the Mode-5 Failure Response........ssssesessssesesssssesserersesesseesseneseaseenesssess 7 3.1 Effects of Mode-5 Shaping Constant s......scssssrresssserecesesssesseessseeseesssecserecennessessseees 9 3.2 Effects of Shaping Constant on DAMP Resullts........sssscssecssssseesseensecneersseneenseenseeneeens 9 4…

Appendix A. Failure Response Modes in Program DAMP......sssssssssesseecsesesssesseseeneeeerseees 79 Appendix B. Shaping-Constant Effects on Mode-5 Impact Distributions... 81 Appendix C. Filter Characteristics .......ssscsssssssssessrersssecsssscassssessssessesssesesssassscrsensssseesesseeesses 90 Appendix D. Launch and Performance Histories ........cscssescsssssesesstesssseseesssesesessssssseserens 96 D.1 Basic Data .........cccssssscssscccesssccececcessscsteasesessessuseccsecssseesseascessessccsesescsccscucasecceseseessesees 96 D.1.1 Data SOULCES .......ccsescsvevssssessscecssossssestenessccu…

Table of Figures 
Figure 1. Joust Impact Trace Showing a Mode-5 Failure Response ....................................6 
Figure 2. Atlas IIAS Risk Contours for Inner-Ear Injury with A = 3.0.............................. 11 
Figure 3. Atlas IIAS Risk Contours for Inner-Ear Injury with A = 3.5.............................. 12 
Figure 4. Filter Factor Results for Representative Configurations of Atlas ...................... 23 
Figure 5. Combined Random-Attitude and Slow-Tum Results ........................................ 36 
Figure 6. Atlas IIAS Breakup Percentages for Random-Attitude Tums .....…

Figure 31. LLVl Simulation Results with Best-Fit Shaping Constants ............................. 71 
Figure 32. £-Ratios for Ranges from 1 to 25 Miles .............................................................. 86 
Figure 33. Percentage of Impacts Between Flight Line and Any Radial .......................... 87 
Figure 34. Percentage of Impacts in 5-Degree Sectors ........................................................ 88 
Figure 35. Exponential Weights for Fading-Memory Filters ............................................. 93 
Figure 36. Recursive Filter Factor for Last Data Point .......…