Marissa Herron | Search NASA

NASA NTRS2021

Evolution of National Airspace System Protection for Space Shuttle Launch and Landing

The breakup of the Space Shuttle Columbia on 1 February 2003 during the entry phase of the STS-107mission occurred above a significant number of aircraft operating in the National Airspace System (NAS).Although no aircraft were struck by falling debris, the incident led the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to seek cooperative ways to betterprotect aircraft operating in the NAS during Space Shuttle launch and landing operations. Applicationswere developed and improved by both the FAA and NASA to provide pre-operation and near real-timegroundtracks and debris footprints to enable Air Traffic Controllers (ATC) to vector aircraft away from thedebris field in the event of a Space Shuttle breakup. Real-time coordination processes were also developedto provide the FAA data and insight into ongoing Space Shuttle operations in order to protect the NAS.The processes and procedures developed for Space Shuttle operations are extensible and applicable tofuture NASA and commercial spacecraft.

Doyle W Hensley↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Space Sustainability Strategy: An Overview and a Conceptual Framework for Implementation

Space sustainability is crucial for the continuation of humanity's exploration and utilization of space. NASA recognizes the imperative of maintaining a sustainable space operating environment to safeguard the future of space activities. On April 9, 2024, NASA released its first part of an integrated Space Sustainability Strategy focused on the domain of earth orbit, with future volumes to address impacts of space operations on earth itself; cislunar space, including the Lagrange points and the lunar surface; and deep space, including other celestial bodies. This commitment extends to ensuring the safety of astronauts conducting operations in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), as well as enabling missions to the Moon and Mars. Moreover, sustainable space practices are essential for the uninterrupted operation of NASA's robotic science missions, which monitor Earth's changes and probe the mysteries of the universe. The strategy sets out a set of goals, the first of which is to establish a framework for assessing space sustainability at NASA, addressing the absence of a universally accepted framework with key metrics that promotes understanding of how metrics are interconnected. This framework will provide a basis for evaluating the sustainability of orbital activities, with metrics informed by input from the domestic and international space community. Objectives under this goal include defining key parameters affecting space sustainability, determining tolerable levels of risk, and annually publishing NASA's effect on space sustainability, including compliance with orbital debris mitigation standards. The subsequent goals build upon this foundation, identifying effective actions for enhancing space sustainability, incentivizing adoption of these actions through technology development and policy changes, and ensuring coordination with the global space community. An organizational change within NASA is also proposed to facilitate day-to-day coordination and accountability for space sustainability efforts. By pursuing these goals, NASA aims to strengthen the technical foundations of and continue to set an example for sustainable space operations. Regular evaluation of NASA mission performance in context with meeting sustainability objectives will ensure alignment with evolving challenges in the space operating environment.

Matt Forsbacka↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Non-Interference of Lunar Activities

As dozens of countries and private sector companies have expressed interest in establishing lunar operations by the end of the decade, including many in the South Pole region, it will be critical to determine how to deconflict lunar activities. Although lunar interference concerns have been broadly identified, and deconfliction has been identified as an area of further work in Section 11 of the Artemis Accords, there is not broad consensus in the lunar scientific or technical community on key questions such as how to identify relevant sites, the extent of protection needed, or mechanisms for mitigation. This paper seeks feedback from the scientific and technical community to determine the breadth of interference concerns and clarify community usage of the terms “interference”, “contamination”, and “deconfliction”. The paper proposes a framework for further deconfliction activity.

Lunar↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Non-Interference of Lunar Activities

As dozens of countries and private sector companies have expressed interest in establishing lunar operations by the end of the decade, including many in the South Pole region, it will be critical to determine how to deconflict lunar activities. Although lunar interference concerns have been broadly identified, and deconfliction has been identified as an area of further work in Section 11 of the Artemis Accords, there is not broad consensus in the lunar scientific or technical community on key questions such as how to identify relevant sites, the extent of protection needed, or mechanisms for mitigation. This paper seeks feedback from the scientific and technical community to determine the breadth of interference concerns and clarify community usage of the terms “interference”, “contamination”, and “deconfliction”. The paper proposes a framework for further deconfliction activity.

Lunar↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Non-Interference of Lunar Activities

As dozens of countries and private sector companies have expressed interest in establishing lunar operations by the end of the decade, it will be critical to determine how to minimize interference in lunar activities. Although lunar interference concerns have been broadly identified, and deconfliction has been identified as an area of further work in Section 11 of the Artemis Accords, there is not broad consensus in the lunar scientific or technical community on key questions such as standards and best practices for non-interference or mechanisms for mitigation. This paper seeks feedback from the scientific and technical community to determine the breadth of interference concerns and clarify community usage of the terms “interference” and “contamination”.

Lunar↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Benefits of a Proposed Process to Preserve Lunar Sites

Assets in lunar orbit and on the surface, whether operational or defunct, have the ability to cause inadvertent interference with proximity operations. As missions to the Moon continue to proliferate, and as more actors become involved, a mechanism is needed to bring communities together to ensure ones' actions do not inhibit the mission objectives of another. A mechanism may also be needed to determine whether any locations on the Moon or in its orbit are of high value to various users, and, pending potential decreases in this value due to interference and other concerns, warrant mitigative actions to preserve these locations. Such a mechanism could provide benefits to all those involved, including governments, industry, academia, and other interested groups. We present a notional process to aggregate community interests for lunar sites and orbits. We then consider two user needs and explore how this process could be used to identify potential alignments and misalignments across communities.

preservation↗