Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “LAUNCHING PAD”

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.

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

At least 271 records · Page 15
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1993

Ascent abort capability for the HL-20

The HL-20 has been designed with the capability for rescue of the crew during all phases of powered ascent from on the launch pad until orbital injection. A launch-escape system, consisting of solid rocket motors located on the adapter between the HL-20 and the launch vehicle, provides the thrust that propels the HL-20 to a safe distance from a malfunctioning launch vehicle. After these launch-escape motors have burned out, the adapter is jettisoned and the HL-20 executes one of four abort modes. In three abort modes - return-to-launch-site, transatlantic-abort-landing, and abort-to-orbit - not only is the crew rescued, but the HL-20 is recovered intact. In the ocean-landing-by-parachute abort mode, which occurs in between the return-to-launch-site and the transatlantic-abort-landing modes, the crew is rescued, but the HL-20 would likely sustain damage from the ocean landing. This paper describes the launch-escape system and the four abort modes for an ascent on a Titan III launch vehicle.

Naftel, J. C.↗
NASA NTRS2009

Telemetry Boards Interpret Rocket, Airplane Engine Data

For all the data gathered by the space shuttle while in orbit, NASA engineers are just as concerned about the information it generates on the ground. From the moment the shuttle s wheels touch the runway to the break of its electrical umbilical cord at 0.4 seconds before its next launch, sensors feed streams of data about the status of the vehicle and its various systems to Kennedy Space Center s shuttle crews. Even while the shuttle orbiter is refitted in Kennedy s orbiter processing facility, engineers constantly monitor everything from power levels to the testing of the mechanical arm in the orbiter s payload bay. On the launch pad and up until liftoff, the Launch Control Center, attached to the large Vehicle Assembly Building, screens all of the shuttle s vital data. (Once the shuttle clears its launch tower, this responsibility shifts to Mission Control at Johnson Space Center, with Kennedy in a backup role.) Ground systems for satellite launches also generate significant amounts of data. At Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, across the Banana River from Kennedy s location on Merritt Island, Florida, NASA rockets carrying precious satellite payloads into space flood the Launch Vehicle Data Center with sensor information on temperature, speed, trajectory, and vibration. The remote measurement and transmission of systems data called telemetry is essential to ensuring the safe and successful launch of the Agency s space missions. When a launch is unsuccessful, as it was for this year s Orbiting Carbon Observatory satellite, telemetry data also provides valuable clues as to what went wrong and how to remedy any problems for future attempts. All of this information is streamed from sensors in the form of binary code: strings of ones and zeros. One small company has partnered with NASA to provide technology that renders raw telemetry data intelligible not only for Agency engineers, but also for those in the private sector.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2015

Real-Time Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station High-Resolution Model Implementation and Verification

NASA's Launch Services Program, Ground Systems Development and Operations, Space Launch System and other programs at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) use the daily and weekly weather forecasts issued by the 45th Weather Squadron (45 WS) as decision tools for their day-to-day and launch operations on the Eastern Range (ER). Examples include determining if they need to limit activities such as vehicle transport to the launch pad, protect people, structures or exposed launch vehicles given a threat of severe weather, or reschedule other critical operations. The 45 WS uses numerical weather prediction models as a guide for these weather forecasts, particularly the Air Force Weather Agency (AFWA) 1.67 km Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model. Considering the 45 WS forecasters' and Launch Weather Officers' (LWO) extensive use of the AFWA model, the 45 WS proposed a task at the September 2013 Applied Meteorology Unit (AMU) Tasking Meeting requesting the AMU verify this model. Due to the lack of archived model data available from AFWA, verification is not yet possible. Instead, the AMU proposed to implement and verify the performance of an ER version of the high-resolution WRF Environmental Modeling System (EMS) model configured by the AMU (Watson 2013) in real time. Implementing a real-time version of the ER WRF-EMS would generate a larger database of model output than in the previous AMU task for determining model performance, and allows the AMU more control over and access to the model output archive. The tasking group agreed to this proposal; therefore the AMU implemented the WRF-EMS model on the second of two NASA AMU modeling clusters. The AMU also calculated verification statistics to determine model performance compared to observational data. Finally, the AMU made the model output available on the AMU Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System II (AWIPS II) servers, which allows the 45 WS and AMU staff to customize the model output display on the AMU and Range Weather Operations (RWO) AWIPS II client computers and conduct real-time subjective analyses.

Meteorology↗
NASA NTRS2015

Real-Time Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station High-Resolution Model Implementation and Verification

Customer: NASA's Launch Services Program (LSP), Ground Systems Development and Operations (GSDO), and Space Launch System (SLS) programs. NASA's LSP, GSDO, SLS and other programs at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) use the daily and weekly weather forecasts issued by the 45th Weather Squadron (45 WS) as decision tools for their day-to-day and launch operations on the Eastern Range (ER). For example, to determine if they need to limit activities such as vehicle transport to the launch pad, protect people, structures or exposed launch vehicles given a threat of severe weather, or reschedule other critical operations. The 45 WS uses numerical weather prediction models as a guide for these weather forecasts, particularly the Air Force Weather Agency (AFWA) 1.67 kilometer Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model. Considering the 45 WS forecasters' and Launch Weather Officers' (LWO) extensive use of the AFWA model, the 45 WS proposed a task at the September 2013 Applied Meteorology Unit (AMU) Tasking Meeting requesting the AMU verify this model. Due to the lack of archived model data available from AFWA, verification is not yet possible. Instead, the AMU proposed to implement and verify the performance of an ER version of the AMU high-resolution WRF Environmental Modeling System (EMS) model (Watson 2013) in real-time. The tasking group agreed to this proposal; therefore the AMU implemented the WRF-EMS model on the second of two NASA AMU modeling clusters. The model was set up with a triple-nested grid configuration over KSC/CCAFS based on previous AMU work (Watson 2013). The outer domain (D01) has 12-kilometer grid spacing, the middle domain (D02) has 4-kilometer grid spacing, and the inner domain (D03) has 1.33-kilometer grid spacing. The model runs a 12-hour forecast every hour, D01 and D02 domain outputs are available once an hour and D03 is every 15 minutes during the forecast period. The AMU assessed the WRF-EMS 1.33-kilometer domain model performance for the 2014 warm season (May-September). Verification statistics were computed using the Model Evaluation Tools, which compared the model forecasts to observations. The mean error values were close to 0 and the root mean square error values were less than 1.8 for mean sea-level pressure (millibars), temperature (degrees Kelvin), dewpoint temperature (degrees Kelvin), and wind speed (per millisecond), all very small differences between the forecast and observations considering the normal magnitudes of the parameters. The precipitation forecast verification results showed consistent under-forecasting of the precipitation object size. This could be an artifact of calculating the statistics for each hour rather than for the entire 12-hour period. The AMU will continue to generate verification statistics for the 1.33-kilometer WRF-EMS domain as data become available in future cool and warm seasons. More data will produce more robust statistics and reveal a more accurate assessment of model performance. Once the formal task was complete, the AMU conducted additional work to better understand the wind direction results. The results were stratified diurnally and by wind speed to determine what effects the stratifications would have on the model wind direction verification statistics. The results are summarized in the addendum at the end of this report. In addition to verifying the model's performance, the AMU also made the output available in the Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System II (AWIPS II). This allows the 45 WS and AMU staff to customize the model output display on the AMU and Range Weather Operations AWIPS II client computers and conduct real-time subjective analyses. In the future, the AMU will implement an updated version of the WRF-EMS model that incorporates local data assimilation. This model will also run in real-time and be made available in AWIPS II.

Numerical Weather Prediction↗
NASA NTRS2016

In the Hot Seat: STS-115 Lightning Strike Stand Down Debate - NASA Case Study

There is no way the PIC's could have seen any current' was the gist of Mike Griffin's assessment. Griffin was the NASA Administrator at the time. The buck stopped at his desk. Holding a napkin out to Pat Lampton, Griffin showed Lampton the calculations he'd made over dinner that predicted that the Pyrotechnic Initiator Controllers (PIC's) at the base of the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) were fine. A lightning strike the day before, the worst ever experienced with a Space Shuttle on the launch pad, caused a halt to the launch count down as technicians, engineers, and managers scrambled identify any damage to the launch system. SRB technicians and engineers assessed the data against their Lightning Strike Re-Test Requirements, determining that all but one of the requirements could be checked if they resumed the countdown. For the one remaining requirement, testing the integrity of the PIC's would require 96 hours to set up, test, and reassemble. The engineers were convinced that there was no way to do calculations to show the PIC's were okay. The only option was to stand down. It was SRB Deputy Project Manager (PM) Pat Lampton's responsibility to decide what the SRB project position needed to be to certify that their hardware was safe to fly. He had to communicate that decision to the Mission Management Team (MMT) as a Go or No Go position to resume the count down. If the answer was Go they could still meet a delayed, but acceptable launch schedule. If the answer was No Go, rescheduling the launch would be a grueling shuffling of hardware, personnel, and mission timelines to accommodate Russian missions to the Space Station, supplies for the launch, and personnel manning launch operations. On top of that, Hurricane Ernesto was spinning off the coast of Florida, threatening the need for the Shuttle to roll back to the hangar if they waited too long.

Kummer, Lizette↗
NASA NTRS2020

Modal Test of the NASA Mobile Launcher at Kennedy Space Center

The NASA Mobile Launcher (ML), located at Kennedy Space Center (KSC), has recently been modified to support the launch of the new NASA Space Launch System (SLS). The ML is a massive structure—consisting of a 345-foot tall tower attached to a two-story base, weighing approximately 10.5 million pounds—that will secure the SLS vehicle as it rolls to the launch pad on a Crawler Transporter, as well as provide a launch platform at the pad. The ML will also provide the boundary condition for an upcoming SLS Integrated Modal Test (IMT). To help correlate the ML math models prior to this modal test, and allow focus to remain on updating SLS vehicle models during the IMT, a ML-only experimental modal test was performed in June 2019. Excitation of the tower and platform was provided by five uniquely-designed test fixtures, each enclosing a hydraulic shaker, capable of exerting thousands of pounds of force into the structure. For modes not that were not sufficiently excited by the test fixture shakers, a specially-designed mobile drop tower provided impact excitation at additional locations of interest. The response of the ML was measured with a total of 361 accelerometers. Following the random vibration, sine sweep vibration, and modal impact testing, frequency response functions were calculated and modes were extracted for three different configurations of the ML in 0 Hz to 12 Hz frequency range. This paper will provide a case study in performing modal tests on large structures by discussing the Mobile Launcher, the test strategy, an overview of the test results, and recommendations for meeting a tight test schedule for a large-scale modal test.

Hydraulic shakers↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Risk Reduction Project in Pad Abort-1 Launch Vehicle Loads & Dynamics

The Pad Abort (PA-1) system includes the Launch Abort System (LAS) and the Command Module (CM). The PA-1 abort flight test will launch from the White Sands Missile Range. Prior to the ignition, the vehicle will be resting, without restraints, on a short support structure. The Launch Abort Motor will ignite and burn for less than 5 seconds before a 20 second coast. Then the LAS will separate from the CM and the CM will descend via parachute to a soil landing. The static firing of the Abort Motor (ST-1) for PA-1 Launch Vehicle resulted in unexpected higher levels that superseded the environment predictions and all the design and test loads of all subassemblies and components. A rapid project was put in place to develop the flight environments, loads and associated uncertainties for the Verification Load Cycle (VLC) of PA-1. An acoustic test and shaker test of the CM were planned and executed in support of the developments of damping and transfer functions. Instead of using the traditional structure-borne envelops, the actual ST-1 pressures and forces were used to develop the internal accelerations. The PA-1 motor was cooled to 60 Deg F using thermal conditioning to reduce the thrust profile. The plumes of the abort motor were studied to determine if the airborne environments would be reduced. The combination of all items, noted above, allowed a reduction in loads for VLC.

Sasan C Armand↗
NASA NTRS2008

The Summer of Hydrogen

Ground crew veterans at Kennedy Space Center still talk about what they call "the summer of hydrogen"-the long, frustrating months in 1990 when the shuttle fleet was grounded by an elusive hydrogen leak that foiled our efforts to fill the orbiter's external fuel tank. Columbia (STS-35) was on Launch Pad A for a scheduled May 30 launch when we discovered the hydrogen leak during - tanking. The external fuel tank is loaded through the orbiter. Liquid hydrogen flows through a 17-inch umbilical between the orbiter and the tank. During fueling, we purge the aft fuselage with gaseous nitrogen to reduce the risk of fire, and we have a leak-detection system in the mobile launch platform, which samples (via tygon tubing) the atmosphere in and around the vehicle, drawing it down to a mass spectrometer that analyzes its composition. When we progressed to the stage of tanking where liquid hydrogen flows through the vehicle, the concentration of hydrogen approached four percent-the limit above which it would be dangerously flammable. We had a leak. We did everything we could think of to find it, and the contractor who supplied the flight hardware was there every day, working alongside us. We did tanking tests, which involved instrumenting the suspected leak sources, and cryo-loaded the external tank to try to isolate precisely where the leak originated. We switched out umbilicals; we replaced the seals between the umbilical and the orbiter. We inspected the seals microscopically and found no flaws. We replaced the recirculation pumps, and we found and replaced a damaged teflon seal in a main propulsion system detent cover, which holds the prevalve-the main valve supplying hydrogen to Space Shuttle Main Engine 3 -in the open position. The seal passed leak tests at ambient temperature but leaked when cryogenic temperatures were applied. We added new leak sensors-up to twenty at a time and tried to be methodical in our placements to narrow down the possible sources of the problem. We even switched orbiters, sending Columbia back to the Vehicle Assembly Building and bringing out Atlantis, scheduled to fly as STS-38. Two shuttles on their mobile launchers passing in the night was a majestic sight, but not one you want to see if you're trying to get an orbiter launched. None of this told us where the leak was, or if we were dealing with more than one leak source.

Weber, Philip↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Space Launch System: Progress Toward Launch

The Space Launch System (SLS), NASA’s cornerstone launch capability for a new generation of deep space exploration, has begun assembly at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in preparation for launch in 2021. SLS will provide an unparalleled launch capability for human and robotic deep space exploration missions. Its proven propulsion system, upgrade path to more powerful vehicles, and high-volume payload fairings make it the foundation for ambitious and demanding as part of the Artemis program. Artemis is NASA’s 21st-century plan to put boots on the Moon and to perform sustainable, long-term science in deep space, with eyes toward sending explorers to Mars. The initial SLS vehicle to fly, Block 1 in the crew configuration – with the new Orion spacecraft – is scheduled to lift off from revitalized launch facilities at KSC in 2021 for an uncrewed test flight known as Artemis I. Manufacturing is complete on the vehicle and all elements have been delivered to the Exploration Ground Systems (EGS) Program, except the core stage. The program’s all-new development, the core stage is currently in the midst of a “Green Run” test campaign at Stennis Space Center (SSC). Eight progressively more challenging tests in the Green Run series will culminate in a hot-fire of four flight-proven liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen (LH2/LOX) RS25 engines. Following the Green Run hotfiring, the core stage will ship to KSC. Already at KSC, aft sections of the fivesegment solid rocket boosters are being assembled. Previously delivered elements, including the upper stage, are undergoing final checkouts in preparation for stacking. An exciting 2021 will include such milestones as stacking SLS and Orion in KSC’s Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB), modal testing, roll out to Launch Pad 39B, Wet Dress Rehearsal (WDR), and launch. Teams across the country are preparing for launch by finalizing procedures, defining launch constraints and flight rules, training console operators, performing simulations, and more. With the SLS Block 1 vehicle for Artemis I nearing integration and launch, the second Block 1 vehicle in the crew configuration, which will carry astronauts on an Artemis II hybrid lunar flyby mission, has several elements manufactured. In fact, the solid rocket motor segments and RS-25 engines are complete. Those program elements are processing hardware for the third flight and working toward manufacturing the second SLS variant to fly, Block 1B, which will onramp a powerful new upper stage, the Exploration Upper Stage (EUS).

John Honeycutt↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s SLS (Space Launch System) Rocket Ready for Artemis II Lunar Mission

In early 2026, NASA will launch the Artemis II mission, an approximately 10-day long lunar mission that will fly three NASA astronauts and one CSA (Canadian Space Agency) astronaut on a free-return trajectory around the Moon, following a one-day checkout of their Orion spacecraft in Earth orbit. The mission will be the first to launch astronauts aboard NASA’s Orion spacecraft and on top of the agency’s SLS (Space Launch System) rocket. The mission will also deploy four 12U CubeSats as secondary payloads from the Orion stage adapter, following Orion separation and departure. The payloads, developed by four of NASA’s international partners, will perform a variety of science and technology investigations. The SLS and Orion for the mission are currently stacked in the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida and are undergoing final preparations to rollout to Launch Pad 39B for a tanking test before launch. In addition to preparations for the Artemis II mission, significant progress is being made on the SLS for the Artemis III mission, which is targeted to return astronauts to the lunar surface no later than 2029. Major components of the core stage and solid rocket boosters are already at NASA Kennedy undergoing build-up for the mission. Data from the Artemis II launch and mission, as well as progress to subsequent missions, as available, will be presented.

Bruce R Askins↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s SLS (Space Launch System) Rocket Ready for Artemis II Lunar Mission

In early 2026, NASA will launch the Artemis II mission, an approximately 10-day long lunar mission that will fly three NASA astronauts and one CSA (Canadian Space Agency) astronaut on a free-return trajectory around the Moon, following a one-day checkout of their Orion spacecraft in Earth orbit. The mission will be the first to launch astronauts aboard NASA’s Orion spacecraft and on top of the agency’s SLS (Space Launch System) rocket. The mission will also deploy four 12U CubeSats as secondary payloads from the Orion stage adapter, following Orion separation and departure. The payloads, developed by four of NASA’s international partners, will perform a variety of science and technology investigations. The SLS and Orion for the mission are currently stacked in the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida and are undergoing final preparations to rollout to Launch Pad 39B for a tanking test before launch. In addition to preparations for the Artemis II mission, significant progress is being made on the SLS for the Artemis III mission, which is targeted to return astronauts to the lunar surface no later than 2029. Major components of the core stage and solid rocket boosters are already at NASA Kennedy undergoing build-up for the mission. Data from the Artemis II launch and mission, as well as progress to subsequent missions, as available, will be presented.

Bruce Askins↗
NASA NTRS1987

Transient response for interaction of two dynamic bodies

During the launch sequence of any space vehicle complicated boundary interactions occur between the vehicle and the launch stand. At the start of the sequence large forces exist between the two; contact is then broken in a short but finite time which depends on the release mechanism. The resulting vehicle response produces loads which are very high and often form the design case. It is known that the treatment of the launch pad as a second dynamic body is significant for an accurate prediction of launch response. A technique was developed for obtaining loads generated by the launch transient with the effect of pad dynamics included. The method solves uncoupled vehicle and pad equations of motion. The use of uncoupled models allows the simulation of vehicle launch in a single computer run. Modal formulation allows a closed-form solution to be written, eliminating any need for a numerical integration algorithm. When the vehicle is on the pad the uncoupled pad and vehicle equations have to be modified to account for the constraints they impose on each other. This necessitates the use of an iterative procedure to converge to a solution, using Lagrange multipliers to apply the required constraints. As the vehicle lifts off the pad the coupling between the vehicle and the pad is eliminated point by point until the vehicle flies free. Results obtained by this method were shown to be in good agreement with observed loads and other analysis methods. The resulting computer program is general, and was used without modification to solve a variety of contact problems.

Prabhakar, A.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

In-situ Lunar Launch and Landing Pad Construction with Regolith-Thermoset Polymer Composite Materials

Lunar launch and landing pads are necessary to mitigate risks to lander/ascent vehicles and surrounding surface assets from rocket plume ejected regolith. The current state of the art of landing and launching from the lunar surface is to land/launch on unprepared regolith surfaces. Though this has been a relatively successful approach, significant risks exist for the Artemis Program due to higher thrust levels leading to increased ejecta and cratering, presence of co-located assets in the ejecta path, and potential strict surface levelness requirements. Regolith-thermoset polymer composite materials were developed and evaluated for off Earth launch and landing pad applications. Performance under hot fire conditions was assessed for two simulated Starship lunar launch/landing environments, one targeting thermal conditions and the second targeting pressure conditions. Paver test articles were prepared at 20% and 11% polymer mass fractions. Sintered paver test articles were prepared with 20% polymer grouting filling the seams between pavers. Though significant erosion was experienced during the more extreme thermal testing conditions, all test articles successfully mitigated regolith ejecta from plume effects. A concept for preparing and emplacing the materials was developed and tested in laboratory conditions. The testing evaluated the feasibility of using twin and single screw extruder technology to mix, convey and deposit materials. Both the twin and single screw extruders were capable of processing and extruding the composite with a maximum of 90% mass fraction of regolith achieved by the twin screw extruder.A primary risk for application of regolith-thermoset polymer composites as lunar launch/landingpad is the mass of polymer required to be landed on the moon. Calculations were performed that show that a 100 m diameter, 0.025 m thick pad with polymer mass fraction of 15% will require a payload mass of 72 mt to the Lunar surface. This is below the planned Starship payload capacity to the lunar surface of 100 mt. The regolith-thermoset polymer composite based construction approach proved feasibility in three critical areas: performance under launch/landing conditions, demonstration of a mixing and depositing strategy, and fitting within the planned lunar payload capacity. It is recommended that materials and systems be developed to TRL 6 for a small-scale lunar demonstration of emplacement of a launch/landing pad via a CLPS mission to support Artemis Program roadmap gap closure activities.

ISRU↗
NASA NTRS2011

Pad A Main Flame Deflector Sensor Data and Evaluation

Space shuttle launch pads use flame deflectors beneath the vehicle to channel hot gases away from the vehicle. Pad 39 A at the Kennedy Space Center uses a steel structure coated with refractory concrete. The solid rocket booster plume is comprised of gas and molten alumina oxide particles that erodes the refractory concrete. During the beginning of the shuttle program the loads for this system were never validated with a high level of confidence. This paper presents a representation of the instrumentation data collected and follow on materials science evaluation of the materials exposed to the SRB plume. Data collected during STS-133 and STS-134 will be presented that support the evaluation of the components exposed to the SRB plume.

Parlier, Christopher R.↗
NASA NTRS1983

Space Shuttle Environmental Effects: The First 5 Flights

Environmental effects associated with the first five Space Shuttle flights were monitored by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the U.S. Air Force (USAF). Results and interpretations from this effort were reported at the December 1982 joint NASA-USAF conference. The conference proceedings are presented in this document. Most of the monitoring activity was focused on the launch cloud, emphasizing surface effects on the biota and air quality, model prediction of surface concentrations of HCl gas and Al2O3 dust, and airborne measurements of cloud composition. In general, assessments and predictions made in the April 1978 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Space Shuttle Program were verified. Fallout of acidic mist and dust within 3 mi to 5 mi of the launch pad was the only unexpected effect of the launch. Atomization of deluge water in the Shuttle exhaust is considered to be the most probable cause of this effect. Sonic booms were monitored for several landings at Edwards Air Force Base, California; results agreed well with model predictions.

Potter, A.↗