1969 NASA Ablation

8/12/2019 1969 NASA Ablation

1/63

EVALUATION

OF

HEA T- A N D

BLAST-PROTECTION MATERIALS

by

J

D

Morrison und

B

J

Lockrbart

F.

Kennedy

Space

Center

Kennedy Spuce Center, Fla. 32899

N A T I O N A L A E R O N A U T I C S A N D S PA C E 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 .

N O V E M B E R

1971


2/63

TECH LIBRARY KAFB,

NM

5 R e p o r t D o t e

Illlll

I

llli

I1lllllllll

8

I

Ill

November 1971

I

6.

P e rf o r m i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n C o d e

R e p o r t N o .

NASA TN

D - 6 4 8 4

T i t l e o n d S u b t it l e

7 . K e y w o r d s

Ablat ive Materials Rocket Exhaust

Thermal Prot ect on P la st ic Coatings

Performance T ests

Saturn V Launch Vehicles

2. G o v e rn m e n t A c c e s s i o n N o .

78.

D i s t r i b u t i o n S t o t e m e n t

Unlimited Distr ibut ion

Evaluat ion

of

Heat- and Blast-Protection Materials

9. S e c u r i t y C l o s s i f . (of t h i s r e p o r t )

20.

S e c u ri t y C l a s s i f . ( o f t h i s p a g e )

21.

N o . o f P o g e s

Unclass i f ied Unclass i f ied

59

,

A u t ho r ( s 1

J. D. Mo rrison and B. J. Lockhart

John

F.

Kennedy Space Center, Fl or id a

.

P e r f o r m i n g O r g o n i z o t i o n N a m e a n d A d d r e s s

22.

P r i c e

3.00

2. S pons o r i ng A genc y Nom e ond A dd r es s

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

0333327

3 .

R e c i p i e n t s C o t al o g N o .

8 .

P e r f o r m i n g

O r g a n i z o t i o n

Repo r t

No.

70. W or k U n i t N o .

7 7 .

C o n t r o c t

or

Grant NO.

73.

T y p e o f R e p o r t o n d P e r i o d C o v e r e d

Technical Note

74. S p o n s o r i n g A g e n c y C o d e

5 .

S upp lem en t a r y No t es

Prepared by Ma terials Testing Branch

,

Analytical Laboratories Division

6 . A b s t r a c t

A

program was ini tia te d a t the Kennedy Space Center i n December 1967 and

conducted through December 1969 by the Ma terials Te sting Branch, for the Design

Directorate, Mechanical Design Division,

t o

evaluate

the

performance of heat- and

blast-protection materials for ground support equipment used during the ApolIo/Saturn

launches.

Vendors supplying materials believed

t o

be genera lly suitab le

for

heat and blast

prote ction were contacted; some subsequently submitted su ffic ien t material for

launch-exposure te sts . Tests were made during the ApoIIo /Saturn

502,

503,

and

505

launches. Test s were als o made in a local laboratory, as an alternative t o the

restrictive requirements of launch-exposure tests

, o

determine

the

effects of torch-

flame exposure on ablative materials.

Fi ve m aterials were found to be satisfac tory in a ll major test categories. It was

determined that torch-flame tests can probably be utilized as an acceptable substitute

for the booster-engine-exhaust exposure te st for basic screening of candidate

materials.


3/63

NO TIC E: Th is document was prepared under the sponsorsh ip of the Na tional Aeronau-

tic s and Space Adm inistration. Neither the Unite d States Government nor any person

acting on behalf

of

the Un ited States Government assumes any l ia b il it y resulting from

the use

o f

the information contained in this document, or warrants that such use wi l l be

free from p rivately owned rights .

The citation

o f

manufacturer's names

,

rademarks or other product identification in

th is

document does not cons titu te an'endorsement or approva l of the use of such commercial

products.


4/63

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION

. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ..

1

MATERIALS ....................................... 2

TEST PROCEDURES AND RESULTS ...................... 2

Booster-Engine-Exhaust Exposure ..................... 2

F l e x i b i l i t y

.....................................

10

Flammabi l i ty .................................... 10

Exposure to Hypergolic Propellants .....................

Exposure to Liq uid Oxygen..

.........................

Torch Flame Exposure.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

CONCLUSIONS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19

REFERENCES

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20

Adhesion ...................................... 9

11

1 2

IL

LU ST RAT ION S

Figure Page

1

Test Fix ture (Pla te No. 1)with Panels on Mobile Launcher Deck,

for A/S

502

Launch. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .

2 Posi t ion of Te st F ixtu re Relat ive to Flam e Hole and Booster Engine . . 5

Plate No.

1

i th T est Panels F ol lowin g Exposure t o A/S 502

Launch 7

4 Te st Stand and Torc h wit h Sample in Place for Test ing

. . . . . . . . . .

15

4

3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5

Tor ch F lame Impinging on Specimen During Te st (Thermocouple

is posi t ioned on back face of specimen.)

.................... 16

6

Specimen After Torch Flame Exposure

......................

17

...

I l l


5/63

11111 111111111111

Table

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

1 6

T A B L E S

Page

Heat-Resistant Coatings Evaluated in the Init ial A/S

502

Launch-Exposure Test . .

.

.

. ..

. .

. . . . .

.

. .

. .

.

. . . .

.

. .

. .

.

.

Heat-Resistant Coatings First Evaluated in the A/S

503

and

A/S

505 Launch-Exposure Tests

.

.

. . . . . .

. . . . .

.

.

.

. .

. .

Pteparation of Coated Panels for A/S

502

Launch Exposure .

.

. . .

Results o f Booster Engine Exhaust Exposure, A/S

502

Launch . .

.

Refurbishment of Coating Ma terials F ollo win g A/S 502 Launch

Exposure . . . . ..

.

. . .. .

.

..

.

. . .

. . .

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . . ..

.

.

Results of Booster Engine Exhaust Exposure, A/S 503 Launch .

. . .

Results o f Booster Engine Exh aust Exposure, A/S 505 Launch

.

.

.

Adhesion Characteristics of Fif tee n Ab lative Ma terials Evaluated

in the A/S 502 Launch-Exposure Test . .

. . . .

.

. .

.

.

.

.

.

. . . .

.

Adhesion Characteristics o f Several Abla tive Mate rials Applied

to Bare Stee l . .

. . .

.

. .

.

.

.

. . .

.

. .

. .

. .

. ...

. .

. .

. . . . . . .

.

Adhesion Characteristics of Four Abla tive Ma teria ls Applied over

a D-65 Surface

.

..

. .. .

. .

.

.

. . . ..

. . .

. . .

.

.

.

. . . . . . . .

.

Flam mab i l i ty Characteristics of Fi f teen Ablat ive Mate r ia ls Evaluated

in the A/S

502

Launch-Exposure Tests

.

.

.

. .

.

.

.

. .

.

.

.

. . .

.

. .

FIammabiI ty Characteristics of Four Ablative Materials of Two

Dif ferent Thicknesses . . . . . . .

.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIammabiI ty Character ist ics of Fi v e Ablat ive Mater ia ls Tested in

Accordance wit h AS T M D6 3

5

.

. . . . .

.

. . .

. .

.

.

. . . . . . .

. .

. .

.

Results of LOX-Impact Tests on Ab lative Ma terials .

.

. . .

. . . . . . .

Summary of Torch Test Results . . . . . . .

.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

.

Summary of Results of Various T ests on Ab lative Mate rials .

. . .

.

.

.

A- 1

A-

2

A - 3

A-8

A - 1 4

A - 1 6

A - 1 9

A-23

A - 2 4

A- 24

A - 2 5

A - 2 6

A - 2 6

A - 2 7

A - 3 2

A - 3 4

iv


6/63

EVALUATION OF HEAT- AND BLAST-PROTECTION MATERIALS

by

J . D.

Morrison and

B. J.

Lockhart

John

F.

Kennedy Space Center

INTRODU CTlON

Th is is the summary report of a program, conducted by the M ateria ls Tes ting B ranch

(MT B) for the Design Directorate, Mech anical Design Division, at Kennedy Space

Center (KSC) t o evaluate the performance of heat- and blast-protection materials for

ground support equipment. The program, wh ich was in iti at ed i n December 1967 b y a

request from Mr. A. Ze iler , remained ac tiv e through December 1969, at which time the

experimental work was terminated.

The impetus for an evaluation program on heat- and blast-protection materials was

provided by:

The requiremen t for a means of pro tecting various items of ground support equip-

ment from heat and bla st effects during launch vehicle firings.

The lack o f sui table tes t data to indicate what types of materials could provide

adequate prote ction again st the heat fluxes generated by the Saturn V booster

engines.

The need for providing, adequate heat and blas t protection a t the lowe st overall

cost to NASA.

A t the ince ption of the evaluation pmgram, a single material, Dynatherm D-65 ,

was prim arily planned for applica tion to the launch structures at Launch Complex 39,

and some experience was gaine d w it h th is material during the A/S 501 aunch. It was

considered that a bas ic tes t requirement for any add itional candidate materials should

be exposure to the booster engine exhaust during an actual launch. Therefore,

it

was

with some urgency that plans were made to obtain materials for testing during the A/S

502

launch.

Contacts were made with vendors supplying materials believed to be generally suit-

able for heat and bla st protection. Those vendors indica ting an inter est in the program

were requested to provide su ffic ien t material in it ia l l y for launch-exposure tests, wi th

the understanding th at those m aterials performing well in the f ir st launch exposure would

be subjected to addit ional test ing

as

needed to determine the ir overa ll qua lif ications for

use at KSC.

1


7/63

M A T ERIALS

Candidate coatings for the program included ablativ e materials

,

assive insufators,

intumescent paints, and heat-resistant paints. A vendor source l i s t was supplied to the

M T B by the Mechanical Design Division.

As

a resu lt of in it ia l contacts made by the

MTB,

11

vendors indicated an interest in supplying materials for evaluation. Twenty-

seven materials supplied by these

11

vendors were used i n the fi rs t booster-engine-

exhaust exposure te st (the A/S

502

launch). Subsequen tly, other materials were sup-

p l i ed for evaluation b y some of these same vendors and by one vendor whose materials

were no t evaluated i n the in i t ia l test . A l is t ing of the

27

original t es t materials and

their sources is given in Table

1

Appendix). The additional m aterials and their sources

are l is ted in Table

2

(Appendix).

Te st samples for the in it ia l launch-exposure: te st were applied, in a thickness of

0.318

cm,to carbon stee l panels 15.2 cm by 15.2 cm by 0.318 cm. The stee l panels

had been first coated w it h an inorganic-base, zinc-ric h paint, which i s used wid ely as

an anti-corrosion coating on exposed structures at KSC. Some of the panels were sent

t o vendors for app lication of the heat-resistant coatings. Other panels were retained by

the M T B for app lication of coating materials supplied by the vendors. Te st samples for

the later launch-exposure tests were ba sical ly identical wi th those used in the in i t i al

test. Any departures from the origina l test configuration are noted in the data tables for

the particular tests described in subsequent sections of the report. Samples for other

type s of tes ts were prepared by the MT B, from materials sup plied by the vendors, in the

forms needed for the various tests.

TEST PROCEDURES AND RESULTS

The overall test requirements for the evaluation program were established by the

Mec hanical Design Division, and these requireme nts are, in general

,

ow incorporated

in a KSC specification for heat- and blast-protection materials (Reference

1).

In addi-

ti o n to the launch-exposure tests, data were needed on refurbishm ent charac teristics,

mixing and application, adhesion to painted steel base, fle xib il i ty , f lammabil i ty, resis-

tance to attack by hypergolic propellants (i n event of spil lage), possible re acti vity with

LOX

(also i n event of spillage), and the resistance to torch-flame exposure. As stated

previously, the most urgent requirement in screening the various can didate materials

was satisfa ctory performance i n the launch-exposure test. Therefore, the chronology of

the program was prim arily established by the Apo llo launch schedule. The mixing and

app lication cha racteristics of the materials were evaluated during preparation of samples

for the launch-exposure tests. The other tes ts were conducted as time and materials

were av aila ble between, and subsequent to, launch-exposure t es ts.

Boos er-Engine-Ex haus

t

Exposure

Th is section o f the report describes the launch-exposure tests conducted during the

A/S 502, 503, and 505 launches. The procedures used in preparation and eva luatio n

of the samples for these tests included mixing and application of the heat-resistant coat-

ing materials, and refurbishment of the test panels follow ing launch exposure, both of

2


8/63

whic h have become part of the o verall tes t requirements. The results o f the mixing and

appl ication and refurbishment evaluations of the materials origin al ly tested in the A/S

502 aunch are given in Tab les 3 and 5 (Append ix). Performance of the "newer" mate-

ria ls was general ly satisfactory in both respects.

r iz ed i n a subsequent section o f the report.

The overall results are also summa-

AJS

502

Launch Exposure

Coating samples were app lied to the s teel t es t panels by the M T B and by some

of the partic ipatin g vendors. Fo r the coating application done by the MTB, the vendor's

recommendations were followed. Fo r one of the coatings, a particula r primer supp lied by

the coating manufacturer was applied over the inorganic-base, zinc- rich paint. W it h

other coatings, no primer was required, and the material. was ap plied dire ctly to the zin c-

ri ch pain t surface. In instances where a primer was recommended but not required, the

primer was applied. A sing le primer material was used for al l such application s by the

,MTB-- GE-SS4155 "Blue Primer? Table 3 Appendix) shows the coatings and primers

used, the panel designation for each sample, and other details of the coating app licatio n.

In the instances of coatings a pplied by the vendor, details of coating app lication are

shown when this information was sup plied by the vendor. In the coating application

sequence, the weigh t of each panel was determined immediately before the coating was

app lied. Afte r the coating was applied and had cured, each panel weigh t was again

determined.

As a part of the performance evaluation for the coatings, it was desired t o know

the temperature that each panel atta ined during the exposure t o the booster engine exhaust.

The time factor did not permit instrumentation of the panels w it h heat-sensing devices

from wh ich temperature record ings could be made. However, a series of temperature-

indic ating pa ints (Tempilaq) was applied to the back of each panel. These paints,

which were app lied as stripes, undergo a vis ib le permanent change when a given tempera-

ture lev el is reached. The series applied to the panels covered a temperature range

from

204C

to

1,371 C.

The p aints were also a pplied to severa l uncoated panels,

which were attached face-up on the large plates in several differen t locations among the

coated panels. It was expe cted that some ind ication of the dire ct exposure temperatures

could be obtained from these samples, as w e ll as the back -face temperatures from the

coated samples.

The te st panels w ith the heat-res istant coatings (or temperature-indicating

paints) appl ied were attached to the large steel plates w ith

.O

.635-cm stainless steel

machine screws. The spaces between the edges of each tes t panel and the base plate

were sealed with a caulking material (Dow-Corning 92-041) to protect the temperature-

sen sitive paints on the back surface of the panels from the intrus ion of moisture. The

plates wi th the attached test panels were transported to the launch si t e (L C- 39 A) and

were attached to the mo bile launcher No. 2 deck at a point 55.9 cm from the deck

opening. One pl at e

(No.

1)was on the south s ide o f the deck opening, and the other

plate

(No. 2)

was on the ea st side of the opening.

F igure 1 shows the initial appear-

ance of the coated panels on Plate No. 1; Figure 2 shows the location of the plate in

relat ion to the flame h ole and one of the booster engines.

3


9/63

Figure

1.

Test Fixture (Plate

N o .

1)with Panels, on Mobile Launcher

Deck,

For A/S

502 Launch


10/63

: J E

Figure

2.

Posit ion of Test Fi xture Relative to Flame Hole and Booster E ngine


11/63

In the period between the pla cin g of the t e st samples on the mob ile launcher deck

and their heat and blast exposure during the A/S

502

launch, the samples were inspected

for any effects of atmospheric exposure on the coatings. No sign ifica nt changes from atmos-

-ph eric exposure were noted.

Immediately fol lowing the

A/S 502

mission, the two plates

w it h the attached panels were removed from the mobile launcher deck and transported to

the Materials Testing Laboratory for examination.

Photographs were taken of the tes t pan els for documentation of changes i n their

appearance as a res ul t of exposure to the booster engine exhaust. The in dividu al panels

were then removed from Plates

1

nd 2 and were inspected and evalua ted by a panel com-

posed of personnel from the M echanical Design Div ision and the Ma terials T esting Lab-

oratory. The temperature indica tions from the Temp ilaq pain t (app lied to the panel backs),

and the weight and thickness changes of the coatings were determined and recorded.

Figure 3 hows

an

overall view of Plate

1

nd the attached te st panels. The general

appearance o f the panels after launch exposure can be seen in th is photograph. The

Tem pilaq paints ap plied to the exposed face of seve ral panels were removed, probably

during water deluge.

The results o f the evaluation of each coating, w ith respect t o back-face tem-

perature, material

loss,

and general appearance, are giv en i n Table

4

(Appendix). The

arbitrary rating for each coating m aterial i s also shown.

These ratings were arrived at

by the parameters previously l isted. If one test panel for a given material showed a back-

face temperature of les s than 204"C, nominal material loss, and fai rly even ablation,

the m aterial was given. a "Good" rating, even though other tes t panels in the group did

not perform as we ll. In some instances, panels prepared by the vendors appeared to

have performed substantially better than the panels of the same material prepared by the

M T B (e.g. Korotherm

792 700

nd

792 70

1; Dynatherm D-65 ). W ith other mate-

rial s, the converse was true (e.g.

190-J-4).

The "Fair" rat ing was usu al ly given to

materials with nominal

loss

but wi th very uneven ablation, partic ularly when completely

bare spots were present. The "Poor" rating genera lly ref lec ts high back-face tempera-

ture, or very heavy mate rial

loss,

or both.

Those materials receiving the "Good" rating were next evaluated for refurbish-

ment characteristics. The thickness and weight of each of these materials with it s char

layer (i f present) was determined. One-half o f the coating surface was then wire-

brushed t o remove any char layer and other loose mater ial. The panels were then

reweighed to determine the w eight of char removed, and the coatin g thickne ss was again

measured. Fres h material was applied to the brushed half of each panel to restore coat-

ing thickness to. 0.318 cm. The refurbishment cha racte ristics for each material are

shown i n Table

5

(Appendix).

A/S 503 Launch Exposure

Test samples for the exposure to booster engine exhaust during the A/S

503

launch consisted of panels refurbished after the A/S 502 exposure test, new ly prepared

panels of several of the previously tested materials, several panels i ni t i al ly coated wi th

6


12/63

. . . . . .

..................................

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 3 . Plate No. 1

with

Test Panels Following Exposure

t o

A/S 502

Launch

7


13/63

Dynatherm D -6 5 and then overcoated wit h other ablative materials

,

nd a previously

untested material, - 3 2 0 , upp lied by Dynatherm for e valuation.

General methods of

preparation of ' 'new" tes t panels were sim ilar t o those used in preparation of samples for

the

A/S 502

test. The tota l number of tes t panels

(30)

could be accommodated on one

of the large steel te st f ixtures. In the assembly of the te st f ixture for the A/S 503 test,

temperature-sensing strip s (Tem pilabels) were placed in contact wit h the back face of

each stee l te st panel. These elements, which give indic atio n by color change wit hin

1 4 C increments of temperatures reached in the range of 1 21 C to 26OoC, were

expected to cover the back-face temperature range more effectively than that obtained

w it h the Tempi laq

in

the A/S 502 test. Photographs were taken of the completed te st

fixture, and it was moved to the launch site and attached to the' deck o f the mobile

launcher.

Fol lowing the

A/S

503 launch, the test f ixture was returned to the Mat erials

Tes ting Labora tory for evaluation of the coatings. Photographs of the exposed samples

were taken for documentation. Each of the samples was then removed from the base

plate, and the weig ht and thic kne ss of the remaining coa tings were determined. The

temperature sensors (TempiIabeIs) attached

t o

the backs of the tes t panels were read to

determine the maximum b a c k - fa d temperatures experienced during exposure. The sam-

ple s were then wire-brushed t o remove any char th at was found, and the weigh t and th ick -

ness o f each c oatin g were again determined.

The resu lts of the sample analyses are given i n Table 6 (Appendix). Compari-

son of the results of this test w ith those obtained in the original A/S 502 exposure sug-

gests th at the se verity of the exposure was genera lly of greater degree in the A/S 503

launch, as indica ted by weight and thickness losses. F iv e

o f

the materials were con-

sidered outstanding on the b asis of rate of ablation and unifor mity of ablation. These

were: DC 93-072, GE TBS 758, Dynatherm E -3 1 0 F , Dynatherm D- 32 0, and

Raycom RPR

2138.

A/S 505

Launch

~ ~~

Exposure

Ma ter ials selec ted for booster-engine-exhaust exposure during the A/S

505

launch include d retesting of several materials th at had performed we ll in prior tests (for

the purpose of completing a l i s t of acceptable materials) and several ' 'new'' materials,

inc lud ing three elastomeric materials furn ished in sheet form, and several materials sup-

pl ie d by Universal Propulsion Company. The sheet materials were cemented to the steel

te st panels, and the other materials were trow elle d on the panels (as usual). Temperature-

sensing elements (Tempilabels), covering the temperature range from

66C

to 260C

in 1 4 C increments, were plac ed on the backs of the te st panels, and the panels were

attached to the large steel tes t plate. In add ition to the ablative-material tes t panels,

the plate had

inorganic-zinc-paint-coated

steel panels attached to

it,

also wi th the

Temp ilabels app lied to the back of each panel. These zinc-painted steel panels, in

thicknesses

of

0.318 cm,0.635 cm, 1.27 cm, 1.91 cm, and 2.54 cm, were evalu-

ated to determine the back-face temperatures attained, as a func tion

of

thickness, without

the protection of ablative coatings. The plate wi th the attached panels was photographed


14/63

and was then transported to the mobile launcher for attachment to the launcher deck near

the flame hole.

The results of the A/S 505 launckexposure test are given i n Table 7 (Appen-

dix). Several of the prev ious ly teste d materials performed very satis fac tori ly in th is

test, notably Dynatherm E - 3 1 0 F and E -3 2 0, and Dow-Corning 20-103 and 93-072.

The Korotherm

792-703/792-704

was marginally acceptable on the basis

of

weight

loss, and the Dow-Coming

93-058

(a ' 'new" material) and the Dynatherm D -6 5 panels

showed excessively high weight loss. Several new materials were exceptionally resis-

tant to the heat and bla st effects, in part icular the Goodrich E P - 8 7 and the Upcote

16030, 10035, 14038, 16031, 14041, and

07006.

Test data on the "unpro-

tected" zinc-painted steel panels of various thicknesses indicate d that, in plate thick-

nesses

of

1.27 cm or greater, the back-face temperatures at tain ed during lau nch are

surprisingly low -- approximately 107C

--

in areas

o f

the launcher deck fai r ly close

to the flame hole.

.Adhesion

Tes t of adhesion cha racterist ics of

15

abla tive materials that were rated "Good" in

the A/S

502

launch te st were performed initi all y, and subsequently simil ar tests were

performed with new materials whose performance in the lat er launch-exposure tests war-

ranted further co nsideration .

The te st samples were 0.3 18 -cm -thic k str ips o f the abla-

tive material 2.54 cm wide and

20.32

cm iong, app lied to steel strip s (of simi lar s ize)

that had been primed wi th inorganic-base, zinc- rich paint.

.In

addition, some lim ite d

tests were performed to evalua te the adhesion of severa l materials t o bare stee l and to

other ablative materials. Th is latter type

of

tes t was p rima rily to evalua te the adhesion

cha racte ristics of d issi mila r materials, such as might be app lied during refurbishment of

launch structures.

In the preparation of the adhesion tes t specimens, a 2.5 4- cm length at one end of

the specimen strip was deliberately separated from the base metal with masking tape t o

allow access for gripping.

The separated ends of the specimen were gripped in the jaws

o f

an lnstron testing machine, and the specimen was alig ned normal to the loading axis

of the testin g machine.

The specimen was then pu lle d in the machine at a crosshead-

travel rate of 0.402 cm per second.

A load-d eflection cu we was recorded, and the

average adhesion load for each test was determined for a band length o f

12.7

cm, the

f i rst and last 2.54 cm of separation being neglected.

The results

of

the adhesion tests for the 15 original m aterials ap plied to zinc -

painted steel are given i n Table 8 (Appendix). Table 9 (Appendix) gives the results of

adhesion tests of several materials app lied to bare carbon steel, and Table

10

(Appen-

dix) gives the results of adhesion tests of four ablative materials applied to steel pre-

vio us ly coated wi th Dynatherm D -6 5 (simulating refurbishment bonds). Add itiona lly,

adhesion tests similar to those reported in Table 8 (Appendix) were performed with

Dynatherm E -3 2 0, Upcote

10-035,

and Dow-Corning

93-058

(ap plied to zinc-coated

steel).

The E -3 2 0 and the

10-035

had exc ellen t adhesion cha racte ristics. The bond

9 '


15/63

strength of the E-320 exceeded the ten sile strength of the material, and the adhesion of

the Upcote

10-035

was 11.9 kg/cm. The adhesion of the

93-058

was very poor, well

below

1.13

kg/cm. Generally, materials having an adhesion of

5.65

kg/cm are con-

sidered acceptable. If def init iv e load value cannot be obtained, because of tensile fa i l-

ure of the te st strip, indica tion of good adhesion is implied by removal of the zinc paint

appl ied to the steel base. Of the materials tested, fi ve were considered to have unac-

cepta bly low adhesion. These were:

GE

RTV

511, GE

T B S

542,

Ful le r

190-J4,

Raycom RPR 435, and Dow-Corning 93-058.

FI

ex

i i

t y

The heat- and blast-re sistant coatings are applied to structural parts of various

shapes and to r elat ively large fl at areas, such as the side panels of the ta i l service

masts. I f the cured coating i s exce ssively hard and stiff,

it

can be separated from the

base metal because of the stagnation pressures susta ined during launch. Sepa ration

wou ld begin along an edge where adhesion is inadequate. Infle xible coatings could

separate as complete sheets, leavin g large unprotected areas exposed to l ate r stages of

the booster engine exhaust. Examination of test panels exposed in the launch tests pre-

viou sly described indicates that th is may have occurred in several instances. To prevent

th is occurrence, the cured coatings must be reasonably flex ible and

so f t .

The tes t requirement for f le xib i l i t y i s that a 0.318 -cm -thic k sheet of the cured coat-

ing be bent around a 7.6-cm-diameter mandrel withou t cracking o f the coating ma terials.

Tw o materials fai le d this test: Martyte Presst i te

1192

and Raycom RPR 2138.

Flammabi l i ty

Flam ma bil i ty tests were performed on the

15

materials evaluated i n the A/S

502

launch exposure and on additional materials whose prope rties warranted further considera-

tion. The tests were performed generally in accordance w it h A S T M D 1 6 9 2 - 6 2 T . T h i s

method ut i l iz es sheet samples of the te st m aterials,

5.08

cm by

15.2

cm by 0.635

cm,

supported on a metal screen. In the f ir st tests performed wi th these ablative materials,

some modifications were made in the A S TM test procedure to provide more re al is tic con-

di t ions wi th regard to appl ication of the tes t materials. Tw o test series were conducted

on the original f lammab il i ty

t e s t s .

In the first, the samples were supported horizontally,

from one end only, as cant ilevers . The specimen was ig nite d by app lying a Bunsen-

burner flame to a 2. 54 -c m length of the outer end for 60 seconds. After 60 seconds,

the Bunsen burner was removed, and the propag ation time of flame down the length of the

sample, or the time to flame extinc tion, was obtained. In the second series, the speci-

men was supported horizon tally on an aluminum plate wit h a 2 .5 4- cm length of the speci-

men overhanging the aluminum support plate. The Bunsen-burner flame was a pplied t o

the 2.5 4-c m free end, he ld for 60 seconds, and removed. The tim e for flame ext inct ion

was deiermined. The results of these tests are given i n Table

11

(Appendix).

Additional tests were performed on four materials with specimens of two different

sheet thickness es --

0.635

cm and

0.318

cm

--

but with the samples supported on

10


16/63

0.635-cm-gr id hardware c lo th as spec if ied in AST M D 1 6 9 2 -6 2 T .

The Bunsen burner,

wit h a wing tip, was ap plied to the sample end for 60 seconds, the flame removed, and

the time to flame ext inctio n was determined. The results of these tests are given in

Table 1 2 (Appendix). These data indica te tha t sheet thickn ess has no important eff ec t

on flame-extinction time of the ablative m aterials wit hin the thickness range usua lly

applied to the launch structures.

Three of the materials evaluated in the fir st tes t group, Korotherm 792-700/790-

704,

Raycom RPR

435 and Korotherm

792-701/792-702,

were con sidered unsat-

isfactory on the basis of f lam mabil i ty characteristics because of their tendency to

sus=

tai n burning and to burn beyond the edge of the heat sink.

The flammabil i ty properties

of the Raycom RPR

2138

were questionable

because of

its

long-burning characteristics.

It was decided to submit this material to further flamm abil i ty tests, along wit h several

other materials for comparative purposes.

It

was believed that tests in accordance wit h

A ST M D -6 35 , which uti l iz es smaller test specimens, might be more sens itive in delin-

eating excessive flamm abil i ty tendencies. In these tests, specimens 12.7 cm long,

1.27 cm wide, and

0.318

cm thick were used.

The specimen was held horizonta lly at

one end in a gripping fixture, w it h the specimen

axis

at

45

degrees; a Bunsen-burner

flame was applied to the free end for

30

seconds and then removed; and time of burning

along the lower edge was recorded. The resu lts of these tests on RPR

2138,

DC 20-

103,

Dynatherm E - 3 1 0 F and D-65, and Korotherm

7.92-703/792-704

are given in

Table 13 (Appendix). These data indica te tha t the Raycom RPR

2138

has much greater

flammabil i ty tendencies than the other materials evaluated with the ASTM D-635 test

procedure.

Exposure to Hypergo lic Propellants

Because of the possibil i ty of accidental spil lage of hypergolic propellants during

loading at the launch sites, heat- and blast-protection materials used on the launch

structures should be rela tively resista nt to attack by the propellants or, at least, should

not be violently reactive i f brought in contact wi th them. Accord ingly, hypergo lic pro-

pellant exposure tests were conducted with the more promising candidate ablative mate-

rials, which were: Dynatherm D-65, E -3 10 F, and E- 32 0; Dow-Corning 20-103 and

93-072;

Raycom RPR

2138;

Korotherm 792-703/792-704; GE TBS 758; and

Universal Propulsion Upcote

10-035.

The exposure tests u ti l iz ed 2. 54 -cm squares of each material,

0.635

cm in thick-

ness. Each sample was placed in a dish, and several drops

of

propellant were a pplied

to simulate spil lage . Two propellants were used

--

Aerozine 50 (50:50 mixture of

hydrazine and unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine) and nitrog en tetrox ide (N2 O4) . None of

the materials were noticeably affected in

600

seconds of exposure to Aerozine

50.

I n

the tests with nitrogen tetroxide, there were no viole nt reactions although the reactio n

wi th the Upcote 10-035 was vigorous. In 600 seconds, no disco loratio n

or

other

activity was observed with Korotherm

792-703/792-704,

DC

20-103,

DC

93-072,

or E -310F .

Sl ig ht surface discoloration was noted with TB S 758, E- 32 0, and RPR

2138.

Considerable leaching of some of the constituents of D -6 5 was noted along the

11


17/63

edges of the sample, where the 904 topcoat was not present. There appeared t o be l i tt le

act iv i ty o f the N 2O 4 where the 904 topcoat was intac t. The Upcote 10-035 was the

most reac tive of the materials to N2 0 4 . However, there was no evidence of ignit ion or

otherwise violen t effect s. The reaction was ess en tial ly one of re lat ive ly rapid deterio-

rat ion of the ab lativ e material. Consequently, it was decided that none of the mate rials

tested should be d isqu alif ie d on the b asis of pos sible hazard generated by exposure to

hypergolic propellants.

Exposure to Li qu id Oxygen

The pos sib il i ty of a l iq uid oxygen spil lage on the lau nch structures dictates the

requirement that m aterials applie d to these structures for heat and bla st protection be

unreact ive on contact with LOX . Earl ier in the evolut ion of both the materials and the

te st requirements for their qualif ica tion, consideration was given to the poss ible effects

of LOX-impact sen sit iv i t y o f materials appl ied to the launch structures.

Th is considera-

tio n was based on the fol lowing rationale: a LOX spil la ge coinc iden t wit h mechanical

shock supp lied by impact from a fal l in g o bject could produce cond itions resu lting i n deto-

nation

of

LOX -impact-sen sitive materials. Consequently, LOX-impact tests were per-

formed by the Mar shall Space Fl ig h t Center (MSF C) (References

2

and

3

on materials

then ava ilab le as thermal insu lators . One material, Dynatherm D- 65 , was pr ov isio na lly

qu alif ie d as being LOX-compatible. Tes ts performed at MS F C in accordance wit h

MSFC-SPEC-106B (Reference

4)

showed that, in thicknesses of

0.16

cm or greater,

the D -6 5 could be considered acceptable, wit h the stipula tion that batch-testing of the

material be performed.

As experience was gained through launch-exposure performance of the heat- and

blast-protection materials (and the continuing tes t program wi th them), the need for LO X-

impact com patibi l i ty was g iven further cons ideration.

As s ta ted in KSC DTI -M-15A

(Reference

51,

the requirements with regard to LOX (or

G O X

exposure were modified,

wi th the resu lt that qual i f ica t ion of materials by the LOX-impact test is no longer required

for applications involving exposure directly

t o

the atmosphere. Th is modifica tion is also

ref lected in the provisions of KSC-S PEC -F-O006 A, for Heat and Bla st Protect ion Coat-

ing Ma terials (Reference 1). In part, thi s mo dificatio n was based on the r esults of a

series of spe cial LOX-impact tests, performed a t the request of the Mec hanical Design

Div isio n by the Ma terials Tes ting Branch, ut i l iz ing the KS C Oxygen-Compatibil ity Te st

Fa ci l i t y. The te st specimens consisted of several of the abla tive coating materials,

some prepared in the Ma terials Te sting Laboratory, one material (D -6 5) in tape form,

and other materials obtained from the launch structures where they had been applie d and

exposed to the environment for some time. Some of the ma terials prepared in the labora-

tor y were tes ted in "lab-c lean " condition; others of the samples were deliber ately con-

taminated with hydraulic f luid.

It

was b elie ved th at the tes ting of such a group of Sam-

ple s would give greater insig ht into the basic LOX -impact se ns itiv ity of the various types

of ab lative materials and into the effects o f surface contaminants on LOX-impact sensi-

t i v i t y of the materials.

1 2


18/63

The results o f these LOX -impact tests are'given in Table

14

(Appendix). The inten-

si tie s of the reactions observed were rated according to an arbitrary scale as fol lows:

Rating

Descri t ion of Reaction

Fa in t Bare ly v is ib le l i gh t f l ash

. S lig ht Readi ly vis ible (but not intense)

l igh t f l ash

Ap preci b1e

Considerable

Very intense l igh t f lash

Very intense l igh t f lash wi th

burning af material for more

than 2 seconds.

In some instances, the vis ib le reactions were accompanied by audible reports. These

instances are noted in the data table. Several of the materials in the thickness range of

normal applica tion (approximately 0.318 cm) and in the "lab-clean " cond itions (or exposed

t o the atmosphere in the KS C Indu strial Area for 16 days) were basically unreactive in

this particular test series. Both the Dynatherm D -6 5 and the Dow-Corning

20-103

materials tha t had been obtained from the launch structures were LOX-impact-sens it iv e

to some degree. Ap plicatio n of hyd raulic f lu id to the materials appeared to have increased

the s en sitiv ity i n some instances (e.g. the Dynatherm tape) but had no apparent effe ct on

se ns iti vi ty in other instances (e.g. Dynatherm E - 3 2 0 and Korotherm 792-703/792

704).

In one instance with Dow-Corning 20-103 (which was found to be generally

LOX-impact-sensit ive t o a minor degree), the applic ation

of

hydraul ic f lu id resul ted i n

no reactions in a tes t series o f

20

drops.

The results of the LOX-impact tests should be taken as indication that the ablative

materials, whether they are inherently sensitive to LO X-impact conditions or not, may

become sensitive by the adsorption of atmospheric contaminants or the spillage of con-

taminants such as hydraulic fluid.

None of the materials were bas ical ly reac tive w it h LOX as the result of dire ct con-

tac t (simulated spil lage) in the absence of impact.

Torc h-F lame Exposure

As an adjun ct to the major part of the program, tests were performed t o determine the

effec ts of torch-flame exposure on a number of the abla tive materials. The purpose of

these tests was to provide a.possible means for evaluating the heat and blast performance

of the coatings as an alternative to the launch-exposure test. I f it could be established

tha t the torch-flame exposure was es sentia l ly e quivalent to launch exposure in rating the

abla tive materials, then

it

might be possible to qualify new candidate ablative materials

witho ut the rather restric tive time requirements inherent i n the launch schedule.

The test procedures were based on an ASTM specification -- E - 2 8 5 - 6 5 T ,

Oxyacetylene Ablation Testing of Thermal Insulation Materials.

Certain modifications

13


19/63

were made to the procedures to provide conditions more suitab le for the intended applica-

t ion. The AST M spe ci f icat ion prov ides for the use of a commercial welding torch no zzle

(e.g. Vic tor Type

4, No.

71,with a s ingle or i f ice

0.326

cm in diameter. W ith thi s noz-

zle, the area of flame impingement on the sample is r el at iv el y small, and the presence of

smal l voids i n the ablat ive coating has a signi f icant effe ct on the test results. The torch

tes ts for th e reported pfiogram were performed w ith a m ultiple -orif ice nozzle that provided

a

torch flame area of

5.08

cm by

5.08

cm. Therefore, the area of te st specimen 'Isam-

pled"

in

the te st was large enough

s o

small void areas would not have as profound an

ef fect

on

the test results.

The torch tests were performed by Continen tal Tes t Laboratories, Fern Park, Florida,

under contract to KSC, ut i l i zi ng abla tive material samples prepared by the M ater ials Test-

ing Branch. Th e samples, wh ich were 10.2 cm by 10.2 cm sheets, 0.635 cm thick,

consis ted of

16

ma terials representing a wide range of performance i n the launch-exposure

tests. The test procedure consisted bas ical ly of the fol lowing:

The sample was mounted

( in

a vert ical posi t ion)

in

a te st support fixture, and a

thermocouple, connected

t o

a temperature recorder, was plac ed in contact wit h the

back face of the sample.

The torch, whic h was mounted in a retractable fixture, was fired using acety-

lene fuel on ly at f ir s t and was then supplied wit h oxygen autom atically at the proper

time interval to attain the desired flame chara cteris tics. The torch was then posi-

tione d rapidly, by a hydraulic actuating system, so that the flame impinged on the

center of the tes t specimen, and the te st timer was in it iat ed . The distance from

the torch face to the specimen, a t the in it ia tio n of the test, was nominally 2.54 cm.

Calib ration of the torch flame so pos itioned w ith respect to the specimen showed a

heat flux of approximately

135

watts/sq cm. The torch-flame exposure was con-

tinued until specimen burn-through occurred or for 180 seconds. The torch-test

fac i l i t y is shown in Figures 4, 5, and 6.

From the test data obtained in the torch-flame tests, tw o parameters were ca l-

culated: insu lation index, A 80C , A18O oC, A38O"C; and erosion rate. The

ins ula tion indexes are defined as fol lo ws:

where: I T

=

insulation index at tetqperature T (sec/cm>

t T

=

time for back-face temperature changes of

80"C, 180"C, 380C from ambient (sed.

d = thickness of specimen (cm).

14


20/63

Figure 4. Test Stand and Torch, wi th Sample

in

Place for Testing

15


21/63

.

ii

t

Figure 5. Torch

Flame

Impinging on Specimen During Test Thermocouple

is positioned on back face

of

specimen)

16


22/63

i

Figure

6.

Specimen After Torch Flame Exposure

17


23/63

Erosion rate i s def ined as fol lows:

where:

E =

erosion rate (cm/sec)

d = thickness of specimen (cm)

b = burn-through t ime (s e d

I n ests where burn-through did no t occur before 180 seconds had elapsed (or occasion-

a ll y because of torch flashback), the erosion rate was determined by measuring the depth

o f

material that burned during flame exposure and dividing this distance by the time of

exposure.

The results of the torch-'flame tests on

16

ab lativ e materials, presented as insula -

tion indexes for AT'S of

80",

180",

and 38 0" C, and as eros ion rates, appear

in

Table

15

(Appendix). F or comparative purposes

,

he results of booster-eng ine-exhaust

exposure tes ts are als o presented. These la tter resu lts are average values of weig ht

l o s s ,

includ ing char removal. Some materials were tes ted in three launches, A/S 502,

503,

and

505,

whereas other materials were teste d in on ly one launch. Therefore,

it

is not known whether a "fair" comparison between test methods can be drawn for all of the

ma terials . Generally, the comparative data suggest tha t

a

procedure can be devised for

screening materials b y the torch tes t as a sub stitute for the rocket engine test. In a few

instances, incon sisten cies between res ults of the tw o types of tes ts were noted. Some

of these, par ticu larly i n erosion rate, may be associated with b asic differences in char-

act eris tics of the exposures. It is bel ieved that the heat f lux attained i n the torch test

is representative o f heat fluxes experienced on the launch structures from booster-engine-

exhau st impingement. However, the stagnation pressures from the torch te st may be

lower than those created by the booster engine. The inc on sist en cie s may be also due in

part to the method of preparing the samples for the torch test, wh ich required "castin g"

the ab lative m aterial to a uniform thickness of 0.635 cm (w ith l i t t l e dimensional tolerance

allow ed). As a result, more entrapment of air bubbles may have occurred than is usu ally

experienced by trow ell in g of the 0.3 18- cm -thic k coatings on the test panels for launch-

exposure te sting.

A

mo dified te st sample for the torch test, sim ilar to tha t used for the

launch-exposure tests

,

ould probably be satisfactory, Ba sica lly,

it

appears that le vel s

can be established for the AT 80" C insula tion index and for the erosion rate that wi l l

ensure the sound selec tion, by the torch test, of materials for performance on the L C - 3 9

laun ch structures. Fo r example, values of 55 (minimum) sec/cm for AT 80" C insula tion

index and 0.007 (maximum) cm/sec for erosion r ate wou ld appear to b e reasonable ten-

tative l imits for this purpose.

18


24/63

CON

CLUSI

NS

An ove rall summary of the tes t resu lts for each o f the heat- and blast-protec tion mate-

r ia ls i s g iven i n Tab le

16

(Appendix). Seve ral ma teria ls from one vendor were not com-

ple te ly tested because, in the course of the program, th e vendor selec ted a sin gle mate-

ri a l (e. g. Upcote 10-035) as being most generally suitable for complete evaluation.

Several of the other materials were not completely tested because they were found to be

unsa tisfacto ry i n one of the major te st categories and were, therefore, ba sic all y unac-

ceptable for use on the launch structures a t KSC.

The follow ing materials were found to be satisfactory in a ll major tes t categories

and are so i nd ica ted in K SC-SP EC-F-0006-A MPL-4 :

Dynatherm D-65 with 904 Topcoat

Dynatherm E -3 20

Dow-Coming 20-103

DeSoto Korotherm 792-703/792-704

Pf i ze r F i rex

10-035

(originally Upcote

10-035)

Another material, Dynatherm

E-310F,

found to be basic ally acceptable, is essentia l ly

simi lar to E -3 20 , but the E -3 1 0 F components are somewhat less readi ly mixed for

application. Therefore, the E- 3 2 0 product is carried as the preferable material

of

the

two.

Data obtained in torch-flame tests on a number of the ablat ive m aterials indic ate

that th is type of tes t can probably be ut i l i ze d as an acceptable substitute for the booster-

engine-exhaust exposure test for basic screening of candidate materials.

19


25/63

REFERENCES

1.

"Heat and B la st Protection Coating Materials, Sp ecif ica tion for," KSC -SPE C-F-

0006A,

2

June 1969, John F. Kennedy Space Center, NAS A.

2.

Key,

C. F.

and Riehl,

W.

A., "Com patib i l i ty of Materials wi th Li qu id Oxygen,"

N AS A T M

X-985,

August

1964.

3.

Key, C. F., "Comp atibi l ity of Materials w ith Liq uid Oxygen,

111,

T M X-53533,

November 3, 1966.

4.

"Test ing Com patibi l i ty of Materials for Liq ui d Oxygen Systems

,I

MSFC-SPEC-

106B, October 6, 1967, Marshall Space F li gh t Center, NAS A.

5.

"Design Technical Instruction for Determining

LOX

Impact Se ns it iv i ty and Flam-

mabil i ty Requirements for Materials Used where Contact with Liquid or Gaseous

Oxygen is Expected or Possible," D T I- M -l 5A , March 28, 1969, John

F.

Kennedy Space Center, NA SA .

20


26/63

APPENDIX

Table

1.

Vendor

Armstrong Cork

Des oto

DeSoto

DeSoto

Dow-Corn i g

Dow-Corn ing

Dow -Corn

i

g

Dynatherm

Dynatherm

Dynatherm

Dynatherm

F u er Ai rcraft F in ishes

Fu l er Ai rcraf t F in ishes

General Electric

General Electric

General Electr ic

General Electric

General Electr ic

Press i e

Products Research and

Raytheon

Raytheon

S perex

Thermal Systems

Thermal Systems

Thermal S ystems

Thermai Systems

Chemical

Heat-Resistant Coatings Evaluated in the

In i t ia l A/S 502 Launch-Exposure Test

. -

aterials Designation

lnsulcork K5NA

Korotherm 792-70

0

792-70 4

Korotherm 792-701/792-70 2

Korotherm 79

2-70

37792-704

Si l ico ne Rubber

20-103

S

i

icone Rubber 93-0

72

Sil icone Rubber

92-041

D-6

5

E - 3 1 0 F

7275

700

190-J-7

190-J-4

548-300

548-301

T B S - 5 4 2

T B S - 7 5 8

R T V - 5 1 1

1192 Martyte

P R - 1 9 5 5 - B T - # 1 2 K i t

Raycom 435 RPR

Raycom

2138

RPR

S P - 2 1

Thermo-Lag T-395-1

Thermo-Lag T-395-3

Thermo-Lag T-395-4

T hermo-Lag T- 80 0 -6 A

ype

Ab1ative

Ab1 a ti e

I su

I

t ive

Ablat ive

Ab Iati e

Ab

I

ative

Ab\ at ive

Ab1 at i ve

Ab1 at ve

Heat-Res ista nt P aint

Ab1 ati ve

AbI t ve

A blat ive

Ab

I

at e

Ablat ive

Ab at e

Ab1 at e

Ab at ive

Ab1 at e

Ablat ive

Ab1at

i

e

Ablat ive

Intumescent Pain t

Ab1 at ive

Ab1 at ve

Ab1 at ive

Ablat ive

A - l


27/63

Vendor

Table 2. Heat-Resistant Coatings F ir s t Evaluated in the

A/S 503 and A/S 505 Launch-Exposure Tests1

Dynatherm

Dow-Corning

Universal Propulsion2


un vers a1 Pro pu1s i n 2

universal Propuls i n2

universa l Propuls on 2


universal Propu

s

ion2

Goodrich

G

oodric

h

Goodrich

Material Designation

E - 3 2 0

93-058

Upcote2 16030

Upcote2

14038

Upcote2 07-006

Upcote2

10035

Upcote2 14050

Upcote2

14041

Upcote2 16031

N 3 2 2 3

N 3 5 5 3

E P - 8 7 3

ype

Ab at ve

Ab1 at ive

Ab1 ative

Ab I ti e

Ablat ive

Ab at

i

e

Ab1 at ve

Ab1 ati e

Ab at ve

Ablat ive

Ab Iati e

Ab1 at e

1. These are coatings th at were not availab le for evaluation in the A/S 502 launch-

exposure test and were evaluated i n the A/S 503 or 505 launche s, or both. Some

of the A/S 502 tes t materials were also evaluated in the two later launches.

2. Material now marketed by Pfizer Chemical under different trade name - "F i rex. "

3.

Ma terial supplied i n sheet form, requiring cementing to ste el substrate.

A-2


28/63

Table 3. Preparation of Coated Panels for A/S 502 Launc h Exposure

Panel No. 1

1-168

2-164

2-111

1-171

2-1 70

? 2-110

1-173

2-172

2-109

1-195

2-193

2-10 2

1-156

Coating Material

Korotherm 79 2-70 0 /79 2-704

Korotherm 792-700/792-704

Korotherm 79 2-7 0 0

7

9 2 -7 04

Korotherm 792-70 1/792-702

Korotherm 792-701/792-702

Korotherm 792-701/792-702

Korotherm 792-703/792-704

Korotherm 792-703/792-704

Korotherm 792-703/792-704

Dynatherm E-310F

Dynatherm E-310F

Dynatherm

E-310F

Sperex SP-21

Primer2

G E-S S-4155

G

E-S

S-4155

GE-SS-4155

G

E-SS-4155

G E-S S

-4 1 5

G E-S S-4155

G E-S

S-4155

G E-SS-4155

G

E-S

S-4155

None

None

None

G

E-S S-4 155

Method

of

Coating

App

I

ati on

Trowel

Trowel

Spray

Trowel

Trowel

Trowel

Trowel

Trowel

Trowel

Trowel

Trowel

Brush

Coating

Applied

BY

M T B

M T B

Vendor

M T B

M T B

Vendor

M T B

M T B

Vendor

M T B

M T B

Vendor

M T B

General Observations

Not suitable for vertical

surface application.



No t suitable for vertical

surface applica tion .


surface app lication.

Application satisfactory.

Appl ica t on sa tisfactory.



13 coats applied.

Application by brush

satisfactory.

1.

Fi rs t dig it in thi s number sequence refers to the designation of the large steel plate (1 r 2) to which the ind ividual

panels were attached. Las t three digits refer

t o

the particular panel designation.

2. When no primer was used, the surface of the zinc -ric h undercoat was wire-brushed before the hea t-res istan t coating

was applied.


29/63

Table

3.

Preparation of Coated Panels for A/S

5 0 2

Launch Exposure (Continued)

Method

of

Coating

Coating Applied

Panel No.

1

Coating Mate rial Primer2 Applica tion By General Observations

1-153 Sperex SP-21

G E-S S-4 155 Brush MTB 1 3 coats appl ied.

Application b y brush

s

at i sf acto ry

1-147

G E - 5 4 8 - 3 0 0

2-14

5

GE-548-300

1-14

2

GE-548-301

2-144

GE-548-301

G

E-S

S-4155

G

E-SS

-4 1 55

G

E-S S-4 155

Trowe

I

Trowel

Cast

M T B

M T B

M T B


Appl i ation satisfactory

.






surface appl ication.

Not suitable for v ertical

surface appl ication

.

Appeared to need elevated

temperature (32 .2 '0 cure.

Not considered entirely

satisfactory.

Appeared t o need elevated

temperature

(32.2'0

cure.

Not considered entirely

satisfactory.


App

I

cat on sat s actory.

G

E -S S -4155 C as t MTB

1-148 GE-TBS-542

1-150

GE-TBS-542

1-130 GE-TBS-758

?

G E-S S-4 155 Trowel MTB

G

E-S S- 41 55 Trowel MT B

GE-SS-4155 Trowe I M T B

2-132

GE-TBS-758

G

E-S S-4 155 Trowel MTB

1-185

1192

Martyte

2-184

1 1 9 2

Martyte

None

None

Rol ev

Roller

M T B

M TB

1.

F ir st digit in this number sequence refers t o

the

designation of the large steel plate (1 r 2) to which the individual

panels were attached. La st three digits refer t o the p articula r panel designation.

2. When no primer was used, the surface of the zinc -ric h undercoat was wire-brushed before the heat-resista nt coating

was

applied.


30/63

Table

3.

Preparation o f Coated Panels for A/S 502 Launch Exposure (Continued)

Method of Coating

Coating Applied

Panel N O ? Coating Material Primer2 Appl ication By General Observations

2-107

2-250

2-213

1-202

1 1 9 2

Martyte

Dynatherm

700

Dynatherm 7275

Dynatherm D-65

None

G

E-S

S

-4 1 5 5

GE-SS-4155

D-65A

Vendor

M T B

M T B

M T B

Application marginal

.


Total of

15

coats applied,

then topcoated wit h No.

9 0 4 sealer.

Total of 15 coats applied,

then topcoated with No.

904 sealer.

Total

of

1 5 coats applied,

then topcoated with

N o .

904

sealer.



11coats applied.

Satisfactory for brush

application.

Satisfactory for brush

application.

11

coats appl ied.

Trowe I

Brush

Brush

2-203

Dynatherm D-65

D-65A Brush MT B

2-104

?

UI

1-139

2-141

1-158

Dynatherm D-65

D-65A

Vendor

Dow-Coming 20-103

Dow-Corning 20-103

Raycom 435 RPR

DC 1 2 0 0

DC

1 2 0 0

None

Trowe I

Trowel

Brush

M T B

M T B

M T B

2-157

Raycom

435

RPR None Brush M TB

Raycom

435

RPR

-126

None

Vendor

1.

First digit in this number sequence refers to the designation of the large steel plate (1 r 2) to which the individual

panels were attached. La st three digits refer to the particul ar panel designation.

2. When no primer was used, the surface of the zinc-rich undercoat was wire-brushed before the heat-resistant coating

was applied.


31/63

Table 3. Preparation of Coated Panels for A/S

502


Method of Coating

Coating Applied

Panel

NO.^

Coating Material primer2 Application

By

General Observations

1-162 Raycom 2138 RPR

None

Trowel M TB Adheres to vertical sur-

face but di f f icul t to

'trow el because of sti f f-

ness of mixture.

Adheres to vertical sur-

face but diff icult to

trowel because of stiff-

ness of mixture.

2-160

Raycom

2138

RPR

None

Trowel MTB

2-1

27

Raycom 2138

RPR

2-119

Thermo-Lag

T-395-1

?

1-136 Dow-Corning 93-07 2

1-176 Dow-Corning 93-072

None

Vendor

Vendor

M T B

E-SS-4155

Trowel

Trowel


surface application

.


surface appl ication.






Appl icat on satisfactory,

GE-SS-4155

MT B

2-137 Dow-Corning 93-072

GE-SS-4155 Trowel MTB

2-177

Dow-Corning

93-072

G E.-S

S-4 155

Trowel MTB

1-198

Dow-Corning

92-041

2-196 Dow-Corni ng 92-04

1

1-114 Thermo-Lag T-395-4

1-133 G E - R T V - 5 1 1

G

E-S

S

-4155

GE-SS-4155

Trowel

Trowel

M T B

M T B

Vendor

M T B

E-SS-4155

Trowel Not suitable for vertical


1. F ir st dig it in this number sequence refers to the designation of the large steel p late 1or 2 to which the individual

panels were attached. La st three digits refer

t o

the par ticular panel designation.

2. When no primer was used, the surface of the zinc-rich undercoat was wire-brushed before the heat-resistant coating

was applied.


32/63

Table 3. Preparation of Coated Panels for A/S

502


Method of

Coating

Coating Applied

Panel ~ 0 . 1 Coating Mate rial Primer2 Appl i atio n BY General

0

bservati

ons

2-135

1-181

2-182

1-187

2-188

2-1 20

2-124

1-191

? 2-190

2-123

2-1

25

1-204

2-200

2-116

2-115

GE-RTV-511

PR-1955-BT

PR-1955-BT

190-J-7

190-J-7

190-J-7

190-J-7

190 J-4

190-J-4

190 J-4

190-J-4

K5NA

K5NA

T hermo- Lag T- 39

5-3

Thermo-Lag 1-800 6A

GE-SS-4155

G

E

S

S -4

1

5

GE-SS-4155

GE-SS-4155

G E-SS-4155

None

None

None

None

G E-S

S

-4 1 55

GE-SS-4155

Trowel

Trowe

I

Trowel

Trowel

Trowel

Trowel

Trowel

Trowe I

Trowe I

M T B

M T B

M T B

MTB

M T B

Vendor

Vendor

M T B

MTB

Vendor

Vendor

M T B

M T B

Vendor

Vendor

N ot suitable for vertical





Appl icat on satis factory.

Applied to bare steel

surface.

Ap p at on sat factory.


Applied to bare steel



surface.

1.

First digit in this number sequence refers to the designation of the large steel plate (1 r 2) to which the in dividual

panels were attached. La st three dig its refer to the particular panel designation.

2.

When

no

primer was used, the surface of the zinc -rich undercoat was wire-brushed before the hea t-resistant coating

was applied.


33/63

Panel

No.

1-168

2-164

2-111

1-171

2-170

O3

2-110

1-173

2-172

2-109

1-195

2-193

?

Table

4.

Results of Booster Engine Exhaust Exposure,

A/S 502

Launch

Coating Material

Korotherm

792-700/792-704

Korotherm 792-700/792-704

Korotherm

79 2-700/792-704

Korotherm 792-701/792-702

Korotherm 792-70 1/792-702

Korotherm

79 2-70 1/792-70 2

Korotherm 79 2-70 3/79 2-704

Korotherm 79 2-703/792-704

Korotherm 79 2-70 3/792-704

Dynatherm E-310F

Dynatherm

E-310F

In i t i a l

Coating

Weight

(grams)

86.5

82.6

112.7

113.8

102.9

122.1

86.7

62.7

103.5

79.7

62.8

Fina l

Coating Weigh t Back-Face

We

i ht1

Temp e atu e

3

(grams) ( /.I ( C)

Lo

s s2

37.3

38.4

62.1

50.4

44.4

60.3

39.0

21.2

64.9

47.4

44.5

56.9 Ci204

53.5 C204

44.9


34/63

Table 4. Results of Booster Engine E xhaust Exposure, A/S 502 Launch (Continued)

Panel

No.

2-10

2

1-156

1-153

1-147

2-145

1-142

2-144

1-148

1-150

1-130

2-132

1-185

2-184

- Coating Material

Dynatherm E-310F

Sperex SP-21

Sperex SP-21

G E - 5 4 8 - 3 0 0

G E - 5 4 8 - 3 0 0

GE-548 -30 1

G E - 5 4 8 - 3 0 1

GE-TBS-542

GE-TBS-542

GE-TBS-758

G

E- TBS -7 58

1 1 9 2

Martyte

1 1 9 2 Martyte

In it ia l

Coating

Weight

(grams)

97.6

45.6

53.4

70 . 5

71.7

120 . 2

107 . 5

64.2

7 2 . 6

91.9

9 2 . 1

170.4

152.0

Final

Weightinl

(grams)

81.1

0

1.4

25.3

28.5

39.1

35.5

56.9

64.5

80.9

86.6

28.9

0

Weight

L o ss2

(/I

16.9

100.0

97.4

64.1

60.3

67.5

70.0

11.4

11.2

12.0

6.0

83.0

100.0

Back -F ace

Temperature3

(c

1

2 0 4

Not readable

Not readable


35/63

Panel

NO.

2-10 7

2-250

2-213

1 - 202

2-203

2-104

1-139

? 2-141

1-158

2-157

2 - 1

26

1-162

2-160

Table 4. Results of Booster Engine Exhaust Exposure, A/S

502

Launch (Continued)

Coatina Material

1192 Martyte

Dynatherm

700

Dynatherm

7 2 7 5

Dynatherm

0-65

Dynatherm D- 65

Dynatherm D-65

Dow-Corning 20-103

Dow-Corning

20-103

Raycom 435 RPR

Raycom

435

RPR

Raycom

435

RPR

Raycom 2138 RPR

Raycom 2138 RPR

Init ia l

Coating

Weight

(grams)

112.5

--

--

56.0

59.2

76.5

85.7

100.6

90.7

94.5

100.0

1 2 6 .3

99.3

Final

Coating Weight

Weight1 Loss2

(grams)

(70)

--

51.8

6.7

0

0

1.5

4 1 O

35.3

54.2

41. .8

54.5

77.4

75.8

66.9

54 .O

100.0

100.0

97.5

46.4

58.8

46.1

53.9

42.3

22.6

40 .O

32.6

--

Back-Face

Temperature3

("C 1

Not readable

Not readable

No t readable

760

760

< 2 0 4

4 2 0 4

< 2 0 4

< 2 0 4


36/63

Table

4.

Results of Booster Engine Exhaust Exposure, A/S

502

Launch (Continued)

PaneI

No.

2-127

2-1'19

1-136

1-176

2-137

I-' 2-177

1-198

2-196

1-114

1-133

?

I-

Coating Material

Raycom 2138 RPR

Thermo-Lag

T-395-1

Dow-Corning .93-0 7 2

Dow-Corning 9 3-07 2

Dow-Corning 93-072

Dow-Corning 93-07 2

Dow-Corning 92-041

Dow-Corning 92-041

Thermo-Lag

T-395-4

GE-RTV-511

lni t a l

Coating

Weight

(grams)

96.0

53.4

81.3

47.5

76.3

53.1

55.0

45.9

--

76.8

Final

Weight Back-Face

Weightatn Loss2 Temperature3

(grams)

(yo)

("C)

69.7

17.2

60.7

27.5

57.4

34.5

5.4

3.4

45.6

45.8

27.4

67.8

25.4

42.1

24.8

35.0

90.2

92.6

--

40.4

204

c

204

Not readable

Tens i ie strength of material

'>T en si le strength of material

(Ma terial peeled away from steel

base and fractured before load

value cou ld be obtained.)

Table 10. Adhesion Characteristics of Four Ablative

Materials Appl ied over a D- 65 Surface

Material

DC 20-103 714.4

Dynatherm E -3 1 0 F 2,679.0

Raycom RPR 2138 3,572.0

Korotherm

792-70

3/79

2-704

(exceeded ten sile strength of

materiaI)

A- 24


50/63

Table

11.

Flamm abil i ty Characterist ics of Fif t ee n Abla tive Materials

Evalua ted in the A/S 50 Launch-Exposure Tests

Burn T i m e1 Burn T ime 2 Mater ial Burned Beyond

Mater ial ( S e d ( S e d Edge of Heat Sink

Dynatherm D- 65

DC 93-072

FuI er

190

-J-4

G E R T V - 5 1 1

GE T B S - 5 4 2

Korotherm

792-70 3/792-704

GE

T B S - 7 5 8

GE

548-300

Dynatherm E-310F

DC 20-103

Korotherm

792-700/790-704

Raycom RPR 435

Martyte Pressti te 1192

Korotherm 792-701/792-702

Raycom RPR

2138

Dynatherm E -3 2 0

Upcote 10-0354

4

4

8

15

25

25

30

37

60

10 j3

160

195

240

300

345

110

--

4

4

5

8

30

11

41

30

40

78

80

105

267

136

252

210

102

-- 4

N o

N o

N o

N o

No

N o

N o

N o

N o

N o

Yes

Yes

N o

Yes

N o

N o

N o

1. . Sample supported horiz on tall y as ca ntilever.

2.

3. Flame engulfed sample.

4.

Sample supported horizon tal ly on aluminum plate with 2. 54 -c m overhang.

Specimen co uld not be ignited.

A - 2 5


51/63

Table 12. Flammability Characteristics of Four Ablative

Materials of Two Different Thicknesses

Burn T ime (s e d

Materials 0 . 3 1 8 ~ ~ 1hickness

0,635

cm Thickness

Burn Time (s e d

Raycom RPR

.2138 160

Korotherm

792-70 3/792-704

36

Dynatherm E-310F

152

Dow-Corning 20-103

64

Table 13.

-

Material

Dow-Corning 20-10 3

Dynatherm E-310F

Dynatherm D -6 5

Ravcom RPR 2138

102

26

70

57

FIammabiI ty Characterist ics of Five Ablative

Materials Tested in Accordance wi th

AS TM-D6

35

Burn Time Burning

FI

ame Propagation

( s e d

Characterist ics Before Extin ction

201

Very small flame 0.635 to

1.27

cm

100 Vigorous burning

1.27

cm

1-2

Very small flame ~ 0 . 3 1 8m

Vigorous burning, al

I

of specimen consumed.

Ko;otherm 792-703/792-704 8 Flame medium ~ 1 . 2 7m

1.

Sample glowed for 22 seconds after flame extinguished.

A - 2 6


52/63

MAB

Test

No. Material

1 DC-20-103

2 D-65

3

DC-20-103

?

10

4

DC-93-072

5 E - 3 1 0 F

7 D-65 Tape

+ 904

8 0-6.5 Tape + 904

1 0 DC-20-103

Table

14.

Results of LOX-Impact Tests on Ablative Materials

Condition

MAB Preparation.

Lab-Clean1

.

MAB Preparation.

Exposed t o

atmosphere for

1 6 days l .

MAB Preparation.

Exposed t o

atmosphere for

16 days l .

MAB Preparation.

Lab-Clean1

.

MAB Preparation.

Lab-Clean1 .

MAB Preparation.

Lab-Clean1 .

MAB Preparation.

Hydraulic oil

brushed on

surface.

Hydraulic oi l

brushed on

surface.

MAB Preparation,

Average

Thickness

(cm)

0 . 3 0 0

0.328

0.353

0 . 2 9 5

0.292

0 . 0 7 9

0.079

0.300

(Drops) Faint S I ght Appreciable Considerable Reports Reactions

20

2 0

20

2 0

20

1 0

5

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

(vi olent)

0

11

0

1 2

14

0

0

2

1

1.

Strike r pins precooled in LN 2 . Samples and cups conditioned for

1,800

seconds

i n LOX

"freeze box."

NOTE:

Because of the several departures from testing procedures spec ified in MS FC -SP EC -10 6B (Reference 41, the data presented

here should not be considered as ce rtifying these materials as either sensit ive or not sens itive

t o

LOX impact.


53/63

Table 314. Results of LOX-Impact Tests

on

Ablative Materials (Continued)

Average No,

of

- - - - - - ..- -

.

- - -

Reactions - -

- - I - - - - - -

AB

Test Thickness Trials Audible Total

No.

Material Condition

(cm)

Drops) aint _I ght Appreciable Considerable Reports Reactions

1 9.

'$2

1 3

14

16

1 7

18

1 9

2 0

2 1

DC-20-10 3

792-703/792-704

E - 3 2 0

RPR 2138

T5S 758

D- 65

D - 6 5

D-65

D C - 2 0 - 1 0 3

0-65

MA B Preparation.

Lab- c l ean l .

M A6 Preparation.

Washed in

F - 3 3 l .

N AB Preparation.

Lab-Clean1.

MA5 Preparation.

Lab-Clean1.

MAB Preparation,

Lab-c leanl .

Mobile Launcher

#2/ tower ieg2,

Mobile Launcher

#2/ tower Ieg2,

Mobile Launcher

#2, tower ieg2.

Mobile Launcher

# 2 / camera

stand2.

Mobile Launcher

82, tower ieg2.

0.295

0.307

0,307

0.318

0.300

0 .2 0 6

0.196

0.340

0.465

0.483

4

20

2 0

2 0

20

20

20

20

8

1 0

1

0

0

0

3

4

2

1

0

0

2 0 0 0 3

1 0 0 0 1

0

0

0 0 0

2 1 1 1 4

2

1 3 2 9

5 6 0 1 2 1 5

3

11

0 4 1 6

0

1 0 1

2

0 0 0 0 0

0 0

0

0

0

1.

Striker pins precooled in LN2 . Samples and cups conditioned for

1,800

seconds in LOX "freeze box."

2.

Striker pins precooled in L N2 . Samples and cups not condit ioned; LOX added

1 0

seconds prior to drop.

NOTE: Because of the several departures From testing procedures specif ied in MS FC- SP EC -10 6B (Reference 41, the data presented

here should not be considered as certifying these materials as either sensitive or not sensitive to LOX impact.


54/63

Table 14. Results

of

LOX-Impact Tests on Ablative Materials (Continued)

Average No. of

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Reactions

- - - -

-

- - - - - -

-

- - -

A 6

Test Thickness Trials Audible Total

N o .

Material Condition

(cm) (Drops) Fa in t SI ght Appreciable Considerable Reports Reactions

-

22

DC-20-103

23

DC-20-103

24 D-65

25

DC-20-103

P

10

26

DC-20-103

27 E - 3 1 0 F

28

TBS-758

29 792-703/792-704

30

D-65

Mobile Launcher

#2, camera stand,

zero level2.

Mobile Launcher

2 ,

camera stand,

zero IeveI2.

Mobile Launcher

#2, amera box2.

Mobile Launcher

#2, camer stand,

zero level .

MA6 Preparation.

Lab-Clean2.

MA B Preparation.

Lab-Clean2 .

MA B Preparation,

Lab-Clean2.

MA6 Preparation.

Lab-Clean2 .

9

Mobile Launcher

#2,

tower leg

3

.

0.490

20

0.513

20

0.173 5

0.478 30

0.340

20

0.439 20

0.368 20

0.343 20

0 . 1 1 4 to 5

0 . 191

2.

3.

Stri ker pins precooled in LN2 . Samples and cups not conditioned; LOX added 1 0 seconds prior to drop.

Speci al test: Sample base flat plat e not recessed for cup; cups and striker p ins not used; sample place d on stainle ss ste el plate,

LOX poured on sample for 3 seconds, stainle ss ste el dis c placed on top of sample; impacted wi th plummet.

NOTE: Because of the several departures from test ing procedures specifi ed in M SF C- SP EC -1 06 6 (Reference 41, the data presented

here should not be considered as certifying these materials as either sensitive or not sensitive to LOX impact.


55/63

Table 14. Results of LOX-Impact Tests on Ablative Materials (Continued)

MAB

Test

No.

30

3 1

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

?

w

Material

D -65

20-103

E - 3 2 0

DC-9 3-0

72

RPR

2138

DC-93-0 58

Goodrich EP 87

Goodrich N-322

Goodrich N-355

Condition

Mobile Launcher

#2,

tower 1eg3.

MAB Preparation.

Lab-Clean3.

MAB Prepar tion.

MA B Preparation.

Lab-Clean2 .

MA B Preparation.

Lab-Clean2 .

MA B Preparation.

Lab-Clean.

Sheet samples

,

Lab-CI ean2.

Sheet samples ,

Lab-C Iean.

Sheet samples ,

Lab-Clean.

Lab-Clean3 .

0.312 to

15

0 . 4 9 3

0 .1 0 9

to

20

0 .2 7 2

0.351

20

0.330

20

0.366 20

0.348

2 0

0.353 2 0

0.353

20

0.320 20

0

0

0

0

0

10

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

18

0

0

0

2.

3.

Stri ker pins precooled in LN 2. Samples and cups not conditioned; LOX added 10 seconds prio r t o drop.

Special test : Sample base f la t plate not recessed for cup; cups and striker pins not used; sample placed on stainless steel plate,

LOX poured on sample for 3 seconds, stainless steel dis c placed on top of sample; impacted wi th plummet.

NOTE: Because

of

the several departures from testin g procedures specif ied in MSFC-SPEC-106B (Reference 41, the data presented

here should not be considered as certifyin g these materials as either sensi tive or not sensi tive to LO X impact.


56/63

Table

14.

Results of LOX-Impact Tests on Ablative Materials (Continued)

Average No. of

- - - -

-

- - - - - - - - -

Reactions - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

AB

es

Thickness Trials Audible Total

No. Mater ial Condition (cm) (Drops) Fa in t Sl igh t Appreciable Considerable Reports Reactions

43 DC-20-103

44 E-310-F

?

w

64

Dynatherm E-320

6 5

Korotherm

79 2-70 3/792 -

704

.M AB Preparation.

0.312

20

0

0

0

0

0 0

MA B Preparation.

0 .3 8 4

20 0

0

0

0 0

0

MAB Preparation. 0.345

20 0

0 0 0

0 0

MAB Preparation.

0 .3 4 8

20 0

0

0 0 0 0

Hydraulic fluid

on surface4.

Hydraulic fluid

on surface4.

Hydraulic fluid

on surface4.

Hydraulic fluid

on surface4,

4.

MI L-H -56 06B hydraulic fluid brushed on surface

of

specimens, allow ed to stand

1

ay, and then surface-wiped prior to impact

tes t, Str iker pins precooled in LN2; cups and samples not conditioned; LOX added 10 seconds prior to drop.

NOTE: Because of the several departures from testin g procedures spe cifie d in MSF C- SP EC -1 06 B (Reference 41, the data presented

here should not be considered as certifyin g these materials as either sens itive or not sensitive

t o

LOX impact.


57/63

Table

15.

Summary of Torch Test Results

Erosion

Materials

,A\T8O0C 1& 180~C

~ r 3 8 0 O C ( cm /sec)

Insula tion Index (sec/cm) Rate

GE

548-300

GE TBS-542

47 104 247 0.0024

74 142

,-1 0.0037

GE

TBS-758 98 167 233 0.0032

GE

RTV-511 66 121 20

7

0.0045

0.0017

ynatherm E-310F 82 190 ,-1

Dow-Co rni ng 93-0 72

W Dow-Corning

20-103

Martyte

1192-1

Fu er 190 J-4

Raycom

435

RPR

Raycom

2138

RPR .

?

I\)

61 103 148 0.0066

60 135 270 0.0016

4 1 67- 98 0.0089

97 142 --1 0.0068

40 73 123

59 106 159 0,0061

2

--

Comparative

Launch Exposure Te st R esults (Average)

Weight Loss

(/O

69

663

31

51

34

34

564

86

76

48

54

1.

Mis sing data indicates sample burned through prior to reaching indicated . K t or that test t ime

(180

sec) elapsed

before was reached.

2.

Th is sample delaminated during burn.

3.

Weight loss was

~ Y / o

o

32%

during AS-502, and

100%

during

AS-503

4.

Weight loss range from 32 o

82"/0.


58/63

Table 15. Summary of Torch Test Results (Continued)

Materials

Dynatherm D-65

.Korotherm

79

2-700/790

-704

Goodrich EP-87

Korotherm 792-70 3/792-704

Dynatherm E-3 20

Compqative

Launch Exposure Test Results (Average)

Insu lation Index (sec/cm) Rate Weight Los

Documents

1969 NASA Ablation