SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Payload”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 199 records · Page 11

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2014

International Space Station Columbus Payload SoLACES Degradation Assessment

SOLAR is a European Space Agency (ESA) payload deployed on the International Space Station (ISS) and located on the Columbus Laboratory. It is located on the Columbus External Payload Facility in a zenith location. The objective of the SOLAR payload is to study the Sun. The SOLAR payload consists of three instruments that allow for measurement of virtually the entire electromagnetic spectrum (17 nm to 100 um). The three payload instruments are SOVIM (SOlar Variable and Irradiance Monitor), SOLSPEC (SOLar SPECctral Irradiance measurements), and SolACES (SOLar Auto‐Calibrating Extreme UV/UV Spectrophotometers). The SolACES payload includes a set of 4 spectrometers that measure the solar EUV flux from 17 nm to 220 nm. One of these 4 spectrometers failed early on (before deployment). EUV data is important in understanding the solar dynamo. Also, EUV flux is the source of most of the ionization that produces the ionosphere plasma. Plasma production is important in understanding the ionosphere environment. The ionosphere conditions affect many subjects including spacecraft charging, dynamo processes, instabilities, and communications. The 3 remaining spectrometers have collected valuable data during the historically low solar cycle 24. Some of this data will be presented. A significant trend in degradation of the remaining SolACES spectrometers was observed towards the end of CY2010 (GMT 310) through mid CY 2011 (GMT 132). The Principle Investigators of SolACES initiated a Mission Evaluation Room (MER) Chit to request an investigation of the degradation in CY 2011 (GMT 230). The Boeing Space Environments team was asked to respond to the ESA initiated MER Chit request to investigate the cause of the degradation. This paper will discuss the findings of that investigation.

Harman, William↗

NASA NTRS2016

Large Payload Ground Transportation and Test Considerations

During test and verification planning for the Altair lunar lander project, a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) study team identified several ground transportation and test issues related to the large payload diameter. Although the entire Constellation Program-including Altair-has since been canceled, issues identified by the Altair project serve as important lessons learned for payloads greater than 7 m diameter being considered for NASA's new Space Launch System (SLS). A transportation feasibility study found that Altair's 8.97 m diameter Descent Module would not fit inside available aircraft. Although the Ascent Module cabin was only 2.35 m diameter, the long reaction control system booms extended nearly to the Descent Module diameter, making it equally unsuitable for air transportation without removing the booms and invalidating assembly workmanship screens or acceptance testing that had already been performed. Ground transportation of very large payloads over extended distances is not generally permitted by most states, so overland transportation alone would not be an option. Limited ground transportation to the nearest waterway may be possible, but water transportation could take as long as 66 days per production unit, depending on point of origin and acceptance test facility; transportation from the western United States would require transit through the Panama Canal to access the Kennedy Space Center launch site. Large payloads also pose acceptance test and ground processing challenges. Although propulsion, mechanical vibration, and reverberant acoustic test facilities at NASA's Plum Brook Station have been designed to accommodate large spacecraft, special handling and test work-arounds may be necessary, which could increase cost, schedule, and technical risk. Once at the launch site, there are no facilities currently capable of accommodating the combination of large payload size and hazardous processing such as hypergolic fuels, pyrotechnic devices, and high pressure gasses. Ironically, the limiting factor to a national heavy lift strategy may not be the rocket technology needed to throw a heavy payload, but rather the terrestrial infrastructure-roads, bridges, airframes, and buildings-necessary to transport, acceptance test, and process large spacecraft. Failure to carefully consider where and how large spacecraft are manufactured, tested, and launched could result in unforeseen cost to modify existing (or develop new) infrastructure, or incur additional risk due to increased handling operations or eliminating key verifications.

Rucker, Michelle A.↗

NASA NTRS2017

Space Launch System Spacecraft and Payload Elements: Progress Toward Crewed Launch and Beyond

While significant and substantial progress continues to be accomplished toward readying the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket for its first test flight, work is already underway on preparations for the second flight - using an upgraded version of the vehicle - and beyond. Designed to support human missions into deep space, SLS is the most powerful human-rated launch vehicle the United States has ever undertaken, and is one of three programs being managed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) Exploration Systems Development division. The Orion spacecraft program is developing a new crew vehicle that will support human missions beyond low Earth orbit (LEO), and the Ground Systems Development and Operations (GSDO) program is transforming Kennedy Space Center (KSC) into a next-generation spaceport capable of supporting not only SLS but also multiple commercial users. Together, these systems will support human exploration missions into the proving ground of cislunar space and ultimately to Mars. For its first flight, SLS will deliver a near-term heavy-lift capability for the nation with its 70-metric-ton (t) Block 1 configuration. Each element of the vehicle now has flight hardware in production in support of the initial flight of the SLS, which will propel Orion around the moon and back. Encompassing hardware qualification, structural testing to validate hardware compliance and analytical modeling, progress is on track to meet the initial targeted launch date. In Utah and Mississippi, booster and engine testing are verifying upgrades made to proven shuttle hardware. At Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF) in Louisiana, the world's largest spacecraft welding tool is producing tanks for the SLS core stage. Providing the Orion crew capsule/launch vehicle interface and in-space propulsion via a cryogenic upper stage, the Spacecraft/Payload Integration and Evolution (SPIE) element serves a key role in achieving SLS goals and objectives. The SPIE element marked a major milestone in 2014 with the first flight of original SLS hardware, the Orion Stage Adapter (OSA) which was used on Exploration Flight Test-1 with a design that will be used again on the first flight of SLS. The element has overseen production of the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS), an in-space stage derived from the Delta Cryogenic Second Stage, which was manufactured at United Launch Alliance (ULA) in Decatur, Alabama, prior to being shipped to Florida for flight preparations. Manufacture of the OSA and the Launch Vehicle Stage Adapter (LVSA) took place at the Friction Stir Facility located at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in Huntsville, Alabama. Marshall is also home to the Integrated Structural Test of the ICPS, LVSA, and OSA, subjecting the stacked components to simulated stresses of launch. The SPIE Element is also overseeing integration of 13 "CubeSat" secondary payloads that will fly on the first flight of SLS, providing access to deep space regions in a way currently not available to the science community. At the same time as this preparation work is taking place toward the first launch of SLS, however, the Space Launch System Program is actively working toward its second launch. For its second flight, SLS will be upgraded to the more-capable Block 1B configuration. While the Block 1 configuration is capable of delivering more than 70 t to LEO, the Block 1B vehicle will increase that capability to 105 t. For that flight, the new configuration introduces two major new elements to the vehicle - an Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) that will be used for both ascent and in-space propulsion, and a Universal Stage Adapter (USA) that serves as a "payload bay" for the rocket, allowing the launch of large exploration systems along with the Orion spacecraft. Already, flight hardware is being prepared for the Block 1B vehicle. Welding is taking place on the second rocket's core stage. Flight hardware production has begun on booster components. An RS-25 engine slated for that flight has been tested. Development work is taking place on the EUS, with contracts in place for both the stage and the RL10 engines which will power it. (The EUS will use four RL10 engines, an increase from one on the ICPS.) For the crew configuration of the Block 1B vehicle, the SLS SPIE element is managing the USA and accompanying Payload Adapter, which will accommodate both large payloads co-manifested with Orion and small-satellite secondary payloads. This co-manifested payload capacity will be instrumental for missions into the proving ground around the moon, where NASA will test new systems and demonstrate new capabilities needed for human exploration farther into deep space.

Schorr, Andrew A.↗

NASA NTRS2017

Space Launch System Spacecraft and Payload Elements: Progress Toward Crewed Launch and Beyond

While significant and substantial progress continues to be accomplished toward readying the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket for its first test flight, work is already also underway on preparations for the second flight - using an upgraded version of the vehicle - and beyond. Designed to support human missions into deep space, Space Launch System (SLS), is the most powerful human-rated launch vehicle the United States has ever undertaken, and is one of three programs being managed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) Exploration Systems Development division. The Orion spacecraft program is developing a new crew vehicle that will support human missions beyond low Earth orbit (LEO), and the Ground Systems Development and Operations program is transforming Kennedy Space Center into a next-generation spaceport capable of supporting not only SLS but also multiple commercial users. Together, these systems will support human exploration missions into the proving ground of cislunar space and ultimately to Mars. For its first flight, SLS will deliver a near-term heavy-lift capability for the nation with its 70-metric-ton (t) Block 1 configuration. Each element of the vehicle now has flight hardware in production in support of the initial flight of the SLS, which will propel Orion around the moon and back. Encompassing hardware qualification, structural testing to validate hardware compliance and analytical modeling, progress in on track to meet the initial targeted launch date. In Utah and Mississippi, booster and engine testing are verifying upgrades made to proven shuttle hardware. At Michoud Assembly Facility in Louisiana, the world's largest spacecraft welding tool is producing tanks for the SLS core stage. Providing the Orion crew capsule/launch vehicle interface and in-space propulsion via a cryogenic upper stage, the Spacecraft/Payload Integration and Evolution (SPIE) element serves a key role in achieving SLS goals and objectives. The SPIE element marked a major milestone in 2014 with the first flight of original SLS hardware, the Orion Stage Adapter (OSA) which was used on Exploration Flight Test-1 with a design that will be used again on the first flight of SLS. The element has overseen production of the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS), an in-space stage derived from the Delta Cryogenic Second Stage, which was manufactured at United Launch Alliance in Decatur, Alabama, prior to being shipped to Florida for flight preparations. Manufacture of the Orion Stage Adapter and the Launch Vehicle Stage Adapter (LVSA) took place at the Friction Stir Facility located at Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. Marshall is also home to the Integrated Structural Test of the ICPS, LVSA, and OSA, subjecting the stacked components to simulated stresses of launch. The SPIE Element is also overseeing integration of 13 "CubeSat" secondary payloads that will fly on the first flight of SLS, providing access to deep space regions in a way currently not available to the science community. At the same time as this preparation work is taking place toward the first launch of SLS, however, the Space Launch System Program is actively working toward its second launch. For its second flight, SLS will be upgraded to the more-capable Block 1B configuration. While the Block 1 configuration is capable of delivering more than 70 metric tons to low Earth orbit, the Block 1B vehicle will increase that capability to 105 t. For that flight, the new configuration introduces two major new elements to the vehicle - an Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) that will be used for both ascent and in-space propulsion, and a Universal Stage Adapter (USA) that serves as a "payload bay" for the rocket, allowing the launch of large exploration systems along with the Orion spacecraft. Already, flight hardware is being prepared for the Block 1B vehicle. Welding is taking place on the second rocket's core stage. Flight hardware production has begun on booster components. An RS-25 engine slated for that flight has been tested. Development work is taking place on the Exploration Upper Stage, with contracts in place for both the stage and the RL10 engines which will power it. (The EUS will use four RL10 engines, an increase from one on the ICPS.) For the crew configuration of the Block 1B vehicle, the SLS SPIE element is managing the USA and accompanying Payload Adapter, which will accommodate both large payloads co-manifested with Orion and small-satellite secondary payloads. This co-manifested payload capacity will be instrumental for missions into the Proving Ground around the moon, where NASA will test new systems and demonstrate new capabilities needed for human exploration farther into deep space.

Schorr, Andrew A.↗

NASA NTRS2017

International Standard Payload Rack to International Space Station, Software Interface Control Document Part 1: International Space Station Program Revision M

The purpose of this document is to provide definition of the software interface requirements between the International Standard Payload Rack (ISPR) plus C&DH related non-rack end items and the International Space Station (ISS) flight elements. Related non-rack end items include portable payloads in any of the modules, payloads on the Japanese Experiment Module Exposed Facility (JEM EF), payloads on the Columbus Exposed Payload Facility (COL EPF), and attached payloads mounted on the ISS truss.

Nelson, George C.↗

NASA NTRS2021

Europa Clipper Payload Verification and Validation: Early Architecture and Implementation

NASA’s Europa Clipper mission will investigate the Jovian icy moon Europa with a sophisticated payload consisting of a suite of nine instruments. Clipper’s observations will help provide answers to a broad range of scientific objectives related to Europa’s habitability. As the project proceeds through Phase C, we are building confidence in the system’s ability to achieve these science goals by implementing a rigorous payload verification and validation (V&V) program. This paper details the planned structure and implementation of the Europa Clipper payload V&V program as it exists leading up to the project critical design review (CDR), before the bulk of instrument- or payload- level V&V activities have begun. We first explain the context for payload V&V on Europa Clipper, including its interfaces with other parts of the project system. We then describe the taxonomy of V&V concepts and their interrelationships, followed by a discussion on how this framework allows us to codify interfaces, processes, and ideas that are key to a successful V&V program. We focus on key aspects of the planning phases of V&V, especially establishing a complete set of verification items and accurately mapping them into appropriate verification activities. The second half of the paper describes the logistics of implementing this framework onto our actual payload system, including the processes and tools we use to manage and communicate agreements, changes, and risks across the project. We conclude with a reflection on the unique drivers and challenges of the V&V program concept development so far and the work that is planned for phase D implementation.

Srivastava, Priyanka↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

LOFTID (Low-Earth Orbit Flight Test of an Inflatable Decelerator) PASS (Payload Adapter Separation System) Design & Qualification

On November 10, 2022, NASA, in partnership with United Launch Alliance (ULA), launched Low-earth Orbit Flight Test of an Inflatable Decelerator (LOFTID) as a secondary payload on an Atlas V Centaur out of the Vandenburg Space Force Base (VSFB). After successfully delivering the primary payload, Joint Polar Satellite System-2 (JPSS-2), to a sun synchronous trajectory, the Centaur upper stage reoriented LOFTID onto the desired reentry trajectory. After conducting a de-orbit burn to enter the atmosphere the Payload Adaptor was ejected to expose the packed LOFTID vehicle. The LOFTID Hypersonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator (HIAD) was deployed and inflated. The Centaur pointed LOFTID to the desired entry attitude and spun the vehicle up to roughly three rpm before separating the reentry vehicle over the Middle East. The LOFTID vehicle flew freely before reentering the atmosphere over Alaska at >8km/sec and decelerating as designed. LOFTID demonstrated stable flight from hypersonic entry through subsonic parachute deployment. LOFTID was enabled by a mission-unique Payload Adapter Separation System (PASS) which separated the Payload Adapter prior to the start of the LOFTID flight demonstration, allowing the launch vehicle to accommodate a superstack of two independent, similarly sized payloads. This paper will discuss the design, development, and qualification effort of the LOFTID PASS.

Sean M Hancock↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

SLS Payload Launch Loads Analysis Using the NTRC Method

Norton-Thevenin Receptance Coupling (NTRC), as described in several NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) papers shows promise in enabling loads development for payloads with less computational cost and analyst time as compared to a full integrated vehicle coupled loads analysis (CLA). NTRC allows the free vehicle responses and impedance (accelerance) at the payload to vehicle interface (derived from integrated vehicle CLA) to be used with a payload model in a payload CLA. Due to the NTRC damping differing from the full integrated vehicle damping, results are slightly different, so coverage factors were developed to ensure NTRC results enveloped results from a traditional CLA. NTRC results with coverage factors were very close to full CLA results. The Space Launch System (SLS) coupled loads team has developed an implementation of the NTRC method to enable support of co-manifested payloads with analysis needs that do not fit the primary SLS load cycle schedule. The NTRC method was successfully used to support the European System Providing Refueling, Infrastructure, and Communications (ESPRIT) module for Gateway planned to fly on Artemis V and has been adopted as the SLS approach for supporting payload CLA requests that do not align with vehicle load cycles.

SLS↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Application of Norton-Thevenin Receptance Coupling (NTRC) to Space Launch System (SLS) Payload Coupled Loads Analysis (CLA)

SLS↗

NASA NTRS2016

Ensuring Payload Safety in Missions with Special Partnerships

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV) payload space flight missions involve cooperative work between NASA and partners including spacecraft (or payload) contractors, universities, nonprofit research centers, Agency payload organization, Range Safety organization, Agency launch service organizations, and launch vehicle contractors. The role of NASA's Safety and Mission Assurance (SMA) Directorate is typically fairly straightforward, but when a mission's partnerships become more complex, to realize cost and science benefits (e.g., multi-agency payload(s) or cooperative international missions), the task of ensuring payload safety becomes much more challenging. This paper discusses lessons learned from NASA safety professionals working multiple-agency missions and offers suggestions to help fellow safety professionals working multiple-agency missions.

Agency launch service organizations↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

ISS Payload Operations Training During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Impacts and Solutions

Introduction: The onset and the protracted duration of the COVID-19 pandemic brought a dramatic and rapid transformation to almost every aspect of humanity in 2020. The world’s space agencies and their missions were not immune to the unpredictable and wide-sweeping changes. One discipline principally affected was mission operations and the various groups supporting that critical function. Mission support teams, especially for complex and crewed missions like the International Space Station (ISS) were forced to rapidly rethink how and where control center staff performed their vital work. Operations training – an essential element to mission ops, had unique hurdles to overcome. Operations training is responsible for preparing astronaut crews for their scientific missions, providing recurring proficiency and currency material to flight controllers, as well as ensuring new team members are ready to join their colleagues on console. Every element of training was impacted by COVID restrictions. From orientation and introductory classes for new controllers, training for scientists and payload developers, to simulations and advanced lessons, critical On the Job Training (OJT) and final evaluations; all aspects faced new challenges. Operations trainers at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in Huntsville, Alabama, were forced to rethink, retool, and become more efficient with trainees and training resources in order to continue supporting payload operations on the ISS. Impacts and Barriers to Operations Training: The pandemic started in the United States in early March 2020. Immediately, NASA mandated that the support for ISS real-time operations was critical. As a result, physical access to the ISS Payload Operations Center was restricted to only those people supporting console operations. Thus, use of on-site NASA facilities and any trainer to trainee face-to-face interaction was not authorized. Trainers and trainees had to quickly shift to 100% remote learning. In the short term, this was not a problem since NASA had already prepared Information Technology (IT) resources that facilitated remote access to mission resources like classes, documents and teleconferences. However, instructors quickly discovered the classes that they were accustomed to delivering in a large classroom environment did not translate well to remote teaching. The lack of non-verbal communication with the class became a major barrier to instruction. Another significant hurdle to operations training was the mandate that all simulations could only be held remotely. The logistics of planning and executing even small simulations proved to be challenging, almost impossible, due to IT technology and public internet limitations. With simulations essentially stopped, as well as the restrictions on most OJT training, trainees were essentially stopped in their advancement towards certification. An additional barrier that had to be overcome was the formal documentation of the curriculum objectives. Even though NASA had been deliberately transitioning to electronic documents for years, some organizations were still relying on “pen and ink” documents to formalize training completion. The logistics of implementing secure and controlled e-signature documents in a standardized, NASA approved format had to be addressed. Lesson Learned and Efficiencies: Once the various limitations were identified, ISS trainers at MSFC discussed, proposed, and prioritized new options and techniques. Transitioning to all electronic learning materials and certifications was a relevantly easy fix. Teaching courses to large and diverse groups took additional shifts in the NASA training paradigm. Likewise, methods and procedures for preparing astronauts for their missions were forced to be revised. Simulation supervisors and their teams were also forced to find more efficient techniques to provide realistic training experience. Communication and approvals from management was essential. In every case, the ISS payload operations instructors found novel and efficient solutions to all functions listed above. This paper will discuss the factors and solutions payloads operations trainers found to keep scientific research on the ISS flying forward to mission success.

ISS Operations↗

NASA NTRS1972

Design guide for low cost standardized payloads, volume 1

Concept point designs of low cost and refurbishable spacecraft, subsystems, and modules revealed payload program savings up to 50 percent. The general relationship of payload approaches to program costs; cost reductions from low cost standardized payloads; cost effective application of payload reliability, MMD, repair, and refurbishment; and implementation of standardization for future spacecraft are discussed. Shuttle interfaces and support equipment for future payloads are also considered

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1971

Design guide for space shuttle low-cost payloads

A handbook is presented which delineates the principles of the new low-cost design methodology for designers of unmanned payloads to be carried by the space shuttle. The basic relationships between payload designs and program cost effects are discussed, and some concepts for designing low-cost payloads and implementing low-cost programs are given. The data are summarized from a payloads effects study of three unmanned earth satellites (OAO, a syneq orbiter, and a small research satellite), and the earth satellite design is emphasized. Brief summaries of space shuttle and space tug performance, environmental, and interface data pertinent to low-cost payload concepts are included.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1974

Operations analysis (study 2.1): Payload designs for space servicing

Potential modes of operating in space in the space shuttle era are documented. The October 1973 NASA Mission Model provides a definition of various NASA and non-DOD automated payload configurations when employed in an expendable mode. The model also specifies a launch schedule for initial deployment of payloads as well as for subsequent replacements at periodic cycles. This model and its associated payload definitions serve as a foundation for the data presented in this report. The reference model has been revised to reflect automated space servicing of payloads as an operational concept instead of the existing expendable approach. The indication is that the bulk of a payload's subsystems and mission equipment require no support over the lifetime of the program. However, failure of a single unit could result in loss of the mission objectives. When space servicing is employed, the approach is to replace only that unit causing the anomaly. This concept affords an opportunity to standardize space replacable units, as well as to reduce the expense of logistics support, by allowing multiple servicing on any single upper stage/shuttle flight.

Wolfe, R. R.↗

NASA NTRS1973

Payload design requirements analysis (study 2.2). Volume 3. Guideline analysis

Payloads to be launched on the space shuttle/space tug/sortie lab combinations are discussed. The payloads are of four types: (1) expendable, (2) ground refurbishable, (3) on-orbit maintainable, and (4) sortie. Economic comparisons are limited to the four types of payloads described. Additional system guidelines were developed by analyzing two payloads parameterically and demonstrating the results on an example satellite. In addition to analyzing the selected guidelines, emphasis was placed on providing economic tradeoff data and identifying payload parameters influencing the low cost approaches.

Shiokari, T.↗

NASA NTRS1973

Low cost payload studies

Low cost payload studies aimed at the reduction of Space Shuttle cost, with the emphasis on mission support subsystem equipment, are reviewed. Spacecraft design, manufacturing and operational approaches are specified and quantified to demonstrate the feasibility of reductions of cost from present-day estimates. Space Shuttle design capabilities for retrieval, repair, and reuse of future payloads are indicated as cost reduction possibilities. It is also pointed out that an increased volume and weight carrying capability of the Space Shuttle can alter the design approach to future payloads to reduce cost. Details are given on some specific subsystem component design alterations integrated in an overall low-cost payload design. Refurbishment is discussed as the final area of interest for low cost payload design. Total program savings of up to 50% are found to be possible in the studies.

Moore, W. F.↗

NASA NTRS1973

Space shuttle sortie payload crew safety and systems compatibility criteria. Volume 1: Executive summary

As part of the effort to reduce the costs of shuttle payloads, this study was performed to determine the minimum, mandatory design and verification criteria necessary to insure that sortie payloads are compatible with the space shuttle system; distinguishing them from those criteria related primarily to mission success, configuration choices, management prerogatives, or other cost-benefit variables which are, therefore, discretionary to payload project management. It was concluded that utilization of the mandatory design criteria, presented in this report, as the basis for sortie payload specifications will produce basic systems compatibility between the orbiter and its sortie payloads at reduced costs. Also, when additional criteria are generated due to changes in subsystems, designs, or guidelines, the categorization methodology developed can aid managerial decision-making concerning these criteria. To a limited degree, the compatibility criteria as defined in this study reflect a portion of the total system safety effort involved in a manned space program.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1974

Operations planning simulation model extension study. Volume 1: Long duration exposure facility ST-01-A automated payload

Ground processing and operation activities for selected automated and sortie payloads are evaluated. Functional flow activities are expanded to identify payload launch site facility and support requirements. Payload definitions are analyzed from the launch site ground processing viewpoint and then processed through the expanded functional flow activities. The requirements generated from the evaluation are compared with those contained in the data sheets. The following payloads were included in the evaluation: Long Duration Exposure Facility; Life Sciences Shuttle Laboratory; Biomedical Experiments Scientific Satellite; Dedicated Solar Sortie Mission; Magnetic Spectrometer; and Mariner Jupiter Orbiter. The expanded functional flow activities and descriptions for the automated and sortie payloads at the launch site are presented.

Marks, D. A.↗