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 307 records · Page 17
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2012

Photogrammetry Measurements During a Tanking Test on the Space Shuttle External Tank, ET-137

On November 5, 2010, a significant foam liberation threat was observed as the Space Shuttle STS-133 launch effort was scrubbed because of a hydrogen leak at the ground umbilical carrier plate. Further investigation revealed the presence of multiple cracks at the tops of stringers in the intertank region of the Space Shuttle External Tank. As part of an instrumented tanking test conducted on December 17, 2010, a three dimensional digital image correlation photogrammetry system was used to measure radial deflections and overall deformations of a section of the intertank region. This paper will describe the experimental challenges that were overcome in order to implement the photogrammetry measurements for the tanking test in support of STS-133. The technique consisted of configuring and installing two pairs of custom stereo camera bars containing calibrated cameras on the 215-ft level of the fixed service structure of Launch Pad 39-A. The cameras were remotely operated from the Launch Control Center 3.5 miles away during the 8 hour duration test, which began before sunrise and lasted through sunset. The complete deformation time history was successfully computed from the acquired images and would prove to play a crucial role in the computer modeling validation efforts supporting the successful completion of the root cause analysis of the cracked stringer problem by the Space Shuttle Program. The resulting data generated included full field fringe plots, data extraction time history analysis, section line spatial analyses and differential stringer peak ]valley motion. Some of the sample results are included with discussion. The resulting data showed that new stringer crack formation did not occur for the panel examined, and that large amounts of displacement in the external tank occurred because of the loads derived from its filling. The measurements acquired were also used to validate computer modeling efforts completed by NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC).

Littell, Justin D.↗
NASA NTRS2001

STS-108-Endeavour/ISS UF-1/Pre-Launch/Launch/On Orbit/Landing/Crew Egress

This video shows footage from throughout the STS-108 mission. The crew of Space Shuttle Enveavour (Commander Dominic Gorie, Pilot Mark Kelly, and Mission Specialists Linda Godwin and Daniel Tani) together with the International Space Station (ISS) Expedition 4 crew (Commander Yuri Onufrienko and Flight Engineers Carl Walz and Daniel Bursch) are shown at their pre-flight meal, putting on flight suits, and boarding Endeavour. A special segment shows maintainance performed on Endeavour prior to the orbiter reaching the launch pad. Endeavour is shown arriving at Kennedy Space Center mounted on a 747, and is prepared for launch in the Orbiter Processing Facility. The mating of the External Tank and the Solid Rocket Boosters in shown in the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB). The Raffaello Multi-Purpose Logistics Module (MPLM) and the Starshine satellite are shown being loaded into Endeavour's payload bay. Launch views include: Beach Tracker, VAB, Pad-B, Tower-1, DLTR-3, Grandstand, DOAMS, Playalinda DOAMS (with a close-up of the Endeavour's main engine, and UCS-23. On-orbit tasks include: docking with the ISS, greetings and enthusiastic crew transfer with the Expedition 3 crew (Commander Frank Culbertson, Jr. and Flight Engineers Mikhail Turin and Vladimir Dezhurov), Mission Control and crew reflections upon the 9/11 attacks, Raffaello docking with and being removed from the ISS, and an extravehicular activity (EVA) by Godwin and Tani. Landing views include: VAB, Tower-1, Mid-Field, South End SLF, North End SLF, Tower-2, Playalinda DOAMS, and Pilot Point of View (PPOV). Each of the four Endeavour crew members gives a short speech after landing.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1995

STS-35: Mission Highlights Resource Tape

Live footage shows the crewmembers of STS-35, Commander Vance D. Brand, Pilot Guy S. Gardner, Mission Specialists Jeffrey A. Hoffman, John M. Lounge, and Robert A. Parker, and Payload Specialists Samuel T. Durrance, and Ronald A. Parise, participating in the traditional breakfast prior to launch. The crew is seen suiting up, and walking out to the Astro-Van for their 1 a.m. launch. Also shown are some beautiful panoramic shots of the shuttle on the launch pad, main engine start, ignition, liftoff, and various shots of the Launch Control Center (LCC). The crew is also shown during flight performing some routine functions such as operating the trash compactor, eating, and getting into and out of their sleeping quarters. The crew is seen taking part in a conversation with the Secretary of State, and the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union. Footage also includes the landing of Columbia, its rollout on the runway, and its crew as they depart from the vehicle.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2003

Corrosion Study Using Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy

Corrosion is a common phenomenon. It is the destructive result of chemical reaction between a metal or metal alloy and its environment. Stainless steel tubing is used at Kennedy Space Center for various supply lines which service the orbiter. The launch pads are also made of stainless steel. The environment at the launch site has very high chloride content due to the proximity to the Atlantic Ocean. Also, during a launch, the exhaust products in the solid rocket boosters include concentrated hydrogen chloride. The purpose of this project was to study various alloys by Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy in corrosive environments similar to the launch sites. This report includes data and analysis of the measurements for 304L, 254SMO and AL-6XN in primarily neutral 3.55% NaCl. One set of data for 304L in neutral 3.55%NaCl + 0.1N HCl is also included.

Farooq, Muhammad Umar↗
NASA NTRS2006

Space Shuttle Program Update

Bruce Buckingham, from NASA Public Affairs, introduces Wayne Hale, Space Shuttle Program Manager, and Mike Leinbach, NASA launch Director. Wayne Hale begins discussing the Flight Readiness Review (FRR) that has just occurred to see if they were ready to fly. He points out that the review was a debris verification review (DVR). This review was done to ascertain how well they have done to eliminate the potential for debris to come off of the External Tank (ET), or any other part of the launch vehicle. He expresses that they have made significant improvements to the ET. He gives a description of the ET that is presently on the launch pad. Mike Leinbach discusses hardware processing and the condition of the launch vehicle. Questions from the news media about possible modifications to the ice frost ramp, Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) electrical problems, ET foam loss, amount of debris loss expectation during ascent, and return to flight costs are all addressed.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2011

Natural Convection Cooling of the Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator Engineering Unit

After fueling and prior to launch, the Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator (ASRG) will be stored for a period of time then moved to the launch pad for integration with the space probe and mounting on the launch vehicle. During this time, which could be as long as 3 years, the ASRG will operate continuously with heat rejected from the housing and fins. Typically, the generator will be cooled by forced convection using fans. During some of the ground operations, maintaining forced convection may add significant complexity, so allowing natural convection may simplify operations. A test was conducted on the ASRG Engineering Unit (EU) to quantify temperatures and operating parameters with natural convection only and determine if the EU could be safely operated in such an environment. The results show that with natural convection cooling the ASRG EU Stirling convertor pressure vessel temperatures and other parameters had significant margins while the EU was operated for several days in this configuration. Additionally, an update is provided on ASRG EU testing at NASA Glenn Research Center, where the ASRG EU has operated for over 16,000 hr and underwent extensive testing.

Lewandowski, Edward J.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Image Analysis Based on Soft Computing and Applied on Space Shuttle During the Liftoff Process

Imaging techniques based on Soft Computing (SC) and developed at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) have been implemented on a variety of prototype applications related to the safety operation of the Space Shuttle during the liftoff process. These SC-based prototype applications include detection and tracking of moving Foreign Objects Debris (FOD) during the Space Shuttle liftoff, visual anomaly detection on slidewires used in the emergency egress system for the Space Shuttle at the laJlIlch pad, and visual detection of distant birds approaching the Space Shuttle launch pad. This SC-based image analysis capability developed at KSC was also used to analyze images acquired during the accident of the Space Shuttle Columbia and estimate the trajectory and velocity of the foam that caused the accident.

Dominquez, Jesus A.↗
NASA NTRS1993

STS-51 pad abort. OV103-engine 2033 (ME-2) fuel flowmeter sensor open circuit

The STS-51 initial launch attempt of Discovery (OV-103) was terminated on KSC launch pad 39B on 12 Aug. 1993 at 9:12 AM E.S.T. due to a sensor redundancy failure in the liquid hydrogen system of ME-2 (Engine 2033). The event description and time line are summarized. Propellant loading was initiated on 12 Aug. 1993 at 12:00 AM EST. All space shuttle main engine (SSME) chill parameters and Launch Commit Criteria (LCC) were nominal. At engine start plus 1.34 seconds a Failure Identification (FID) was posted against Engine 2033 for exceeding the 1800 spin intra-channel (A1-A2) Fuel Flowrate sensor channel qualification limit. The engine was shut down at 1.50 seconds followed by Engines 2032 and 2030. All shut down sequences were nominal and the mission was safely aborted. SSME Avionics hardware and software performed nominally during the incident. A review of vehicle data table (VDT) data and controller software logic revealed no failure indications other than the single FID 111-101, Fuel Flowrate Intra-Channel Test Channel A disqualification. Software logic was executed according to requirements and there was no anomalous controller software operation. Immediately following the abort, a Rocketdyne/NASA failure investigation team was assembled. The team successfully isolated the failure cause to an open circuit in a Fuel Flowrate Sensor. This type of failure has occurred eight previous times in ground testing. The sensor had performed acceptably on three previous flights of the engine and SSME flight history shows 684 combined fuel flow rate sensor channel flights without failure. The disqualification of an Engine 2 (SSME No. 2033) Fuel Flowrate sensor channel was a result of an instrumentation failure and not engine performance. All other engine operations were nominal. This disqualification resulted in an engine shutdown and safe sequential shutdown of all three engines prior to ignition of the solid boosters.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2013

Identification of Noise Sources During Rocket Engine Test Firings and a Rocket Launch Using a Microphone Phased-Array

A 70 microphone, 10-foot by 10-foot, microphone phased array was built for use in the harsh environment of rocket launches. The array was setup at NASA Wallops launch pad 0A during a static test firing of Orbital Sciences' Antares engines, and again during the first launch of the Antares vehicle. It was placed 400 feet away from the pad, and was hoisted on a scissor lift 40 feet above ground. The data sets provided unprecedented insight into rocket noise sources. The duct exit was found to be the primary source during the static test firing; the large amount of water injected beneath the nozzle exit and inside the plume duct quenched all other sources. The maps of the noise sources during launch were found to be time-dependent. As the engines came to full power and became louder, the primary source switched from the duct inlet to the duct exit. Further elevation of the vehicle caused spilling of the hot plume, resulting in a distributed noise map covering most of the pad. As the entire plume emerged from the duct, and the ondeck water system came to full power, the plume itself became the loudest noise source. These maps of the noise sources provide vital insight for optimization of sound suppression systems for future Antares launches.

acoustics↗
NASA NTRS2000

STS-106 Crew Activity Report/Flight Day 1 Highlights

On this first day of the STS-106 Atlantis mission, the flight crew, Commander Terrence W. Wilcutt, Pilot Scott D. Altman, and Mission Specialists Daniel C. Burbank, Edward T. Lu, Richard A. Mastracchio, Yuri Ivanovich Malenchenko, and Boris V. Morukov are seen performing pre-launch activities. They are shown sitting around the breakfast table with the traditional cake, suiting-up, and riding out to the launch pad. The final inspection team is seen as they conduct their final check of the space shuttle on the launch complex. Also, included are various panoramic views of the shuttle on the pad. The crew is readied in the 'white room' for their mission. After the closing of the hatch and arm retraction, launch activities are shown including countdown, engine ignition, launch, and the separation of the Solid Rocket Boosters.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1981

STS-1: Columbia Complete Mission

A video presentation of the STS-1 Columbia Mission is shown. The video begins with footage of the STS-1 Columbia arriving at Kennedy Space Center on March 24, 1979. The various milestones that were shown include: 1) STS-1 Columbia Shuttle Rocket Booster (SRB) stacking; 2) External Tank (ET) lift and mating; 3) Move to VAB and Mating; 4) Rollout to pad 39A; 5) Flight Readiness Firing (FRF) on February 19, 1981; 6) Launch day; and 7) Return to Kennedy Space Center. John W. Young, Commander and Robert L. Crippen, Pilot are shown having a traditional breakfast before the suit up and drive out to the launch pad. Footage of the lift-off along with Shuttle Rocket Booster (SRB) separation is shown. After lift-off, there is a shot of the crew in the mid-deck and also a view of thunderstorms over the Amazon Basin. The video ends with a view of Columbia returning to Kennedy Space Center on April 25, 1981.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2010

Ares I-X: First Flight of a New Era

Since 2005, NASA s Constellation Program has been designing, building, and testing the next generation of launch and space vehicles to carry humans beyond low-Earth orbit (LEO). The Ares Projects at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) are developing the Ares I crew launch vehicle and Ares V cargo launch vehicle. On October 28, 2009, the first development flight test of the Ares I crew launch vehicle, Ares I-X, lifted off from a launch pad at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) on successful suborbital flight. Basing exploration launch vehicle designs on Ares I-X information puts NASA one step closer to full-up "test as you fly," a best practice in vehicle design. Although the final Constellation Program architecture is under review, the Ares I-X data and experience in vehicle design and operations can be applied to any launch vehicle. This paper presents the mission background as well as results and lessons learned from the flight.

Davis, Stephen R.↗
NASA NTRS1991

An analysis of Space Shuttle countdown activities: Preliminaries to a computational model of the NASA Test Director

Before all systems are go just prior to the launch of a space shuttle, thousands of operations and tests have been performed to ensure that all shuttle and support subsystems are operational and ready for launch. These steps, which range from activating the orbiter's flight computers to removing the launch pad from the itinerary of the NASA tour buses, are carried out by launch team members at various locations and with highly specialized fields of expertise. The liability for coordinating these diverse activities rests with the NASA Test Director (NTD) at NASA-Kennedy. The behavior is being studied of the NTD with the goal of building a detailed computational model of that behavior; the results of that analysis to date are given. The NTD's performance is described in detail, as a team member who must coordinate a complex task through efficient audio communication, as well as an individual taking notes and consulting manuals. A model of the routine cognitive skill used by the NTD to follow the launch countdown procedure manual was implemented using the Soar cognitive architecture. Several examples are given of how such a model could aid in evaluating proposed computer support systems.

John, Bonnie E.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Delta II/Geotail Launch with Pre-Launch Activities

Footage contains scenes from both the launch pad and Mission Directors Center from T minus 4 minutes and counting until launch. The launch has a short window of 5 minutes. The Geotail satellite is a joint effort between NASA and the International Solar Terrestrial Physics Program. It was developed by the Japanese Inst. of Space and Astronautical Science.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2012

Compilation of Abstracts for SC12 Conference Proceedings

1 A Breakthrough in Rotorcraft Prediction Accuracy Using Detached Eddy Simulation; 2 Adjoint-Based Design for Complex Aerospace Configurations; 3 Simulating Hypersonic Turbulent Combustion for Future Aircraft; 4 From a Roar to a Whisper: Making Modern Aircraft Quieter; 5 Modeling of Extended Formation Flight on High-Performance Computers; 6 Supersonic Retropropulsion for Mars Entry; 7 Validating Water Spray Simulation Models for the SLS Launch Environment; 8 Simulating Moving Valves for Space Launch System Liquid Engines; 9 Innovative Simulations for Modeling the SLS Solid Rocket Booster Ignition; 10 Solid Rocket Booster Ignition Overpressure Simulations for the Space Launch System; 11 CFD Simulations to Support the Next Generation of Launch Pads; 12 Modeling and Simulation Support for NASA's Next-Generation Space Launch System; 13 Simulating Planetary Entry Environments for Space Exploration Vehicles; 14 NASA Center for Climate Simulation Highlights; 15 Ultrascale Climate Data Visualization and Analysis; 16 NASA Climate Simulations and Observations for the IPCC and Beyond; 17 Next-Generation Climate Data Services: MERRA Analytics; 18 Recent Advances in High-Resolution Global Atmospheric Modeling; 19 Causes and Consequences of Turbulence in the Earths Protective Shield; 20 NASA Earth Exchange (NEX): A Collaborative Supercomputing Platform; 21 Powering Deep Space Missions: Thermoelectric Properties of Complex Materials; 22 Meeting NASA's High-End Computing Goals Through Innovation; 23 Continuous Enhancements to the Pleiades Supercomputer for Maximum Uptime; 24 Live Demonstrations of 100-Gbps File Transfers Across LANs and WANs; 25 Untangling the Computing Landscape for Climate Simulations; 26 Simulating Galaxies and the Universe; 27 The Mysterious Origin of Stellar Masses; 28 Hot-Plasma Geysers on the Sun; 29 Turbulent Life of Kepler Stars; 30 Modeling Weather on the Sun; 31 Weather on Mars: The Meteorology of Gale Crater; 32 Enhancing Performance of NASAs High-End Computing Applications; 33 Designing Curiosity's Perfect Landing on Mars; 34 The Search Continues: Kepler's Quest for Habitable Earth-Sized Planets.

HPC↗
NASA NTRS2018

An Improved UAV-Based Fog Collector for Local-Scale Aerobiological Sampling

The use of unmanned air vehicles (UAVs) to passively collect fog for microbiological analysis is being investigated at NASA Ames, contributing to our understanding of the dynamics and limits of the biosphere. Current improvements to a preliminary payload design include physically modifying the mesh of the passive impactor collection unit (PICU) to increase fog-capture efficiency and a quick- mounting system to improve sample turnaround and contamination control. Increasing the water-capture efficiency of the PICU involved changing the surface roughness of the polypropylene mesh by abrasive sanding. Four scale models of the PICU were created, with three of those models sanded with 80-, 150-, and 240-grit sand paper for a minimum of thirty seconds on each side. Each mesh was individually tested in a fog-simulation chamber to measure collection efficiency. Tests showed that sanding the mesh will increase the water-capture efficiency by at least 3-fold for the 150- and 240-grit. Next steps are to determine the scaling laws and minimum amount of exposure time as a function of the fog density, to acquire enough microorganisms for analysis; a light-weight ground module for the PICU has been developed to allow rapid, easy field testing. Developing a mounting system that will ensure sterile deployment, as well as prompt changes of PICUs, for collection of fog water, utilized computational fluid dynamics (CFD) for the UAV to ensure that the location of the impactors will not be contaminated by particulates in the UAV downwash. The original design allowed the impactors to remain within sterile packaging until mounted on the UAV but did not address the concerns of contamination from aerodynamic ground effects and particulate lofting during takeoff. Design for a raised launch pad would allow for the sterile PICU to be attached to UAV and launched from outside the region of projected particulate lofting. California coastal sites have been scouted for appropriate testing locations. The improvements to the PICU design and operations will allow for multiple sampling points within a single fog event. The returned fog samples will undergo ion chromatography, qPCR, ATP quantification, and other tests to characterize microbial species and relevant biochemistry.

Wong, Amber↗
NASA NTRS2024

Evaluating Liftoff Debris for NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) Prior to the Artemis I Launch

The SLS Artemis I launch vehicle is the first of several planned Artemis launch vehicles, with a number of design differences from earlier NASA missions that incur liftoff debris risk to the mission. As a test vehicle, the Artemis I hardware also endured environments and tests not planned for future missions, which led to several additional factors contributing to an evolving liftoff debris risk to the SLS vehicle. This paper will summarize these risk factors and address the processes used to evaluate and communicate the risks to support a successful Artemis I launch. It will discuss how the evolving risks that were quantified and evaluated by a Cross-Program team of debris Subject Matter Experts to mitigate liftoff debris hazards and communicate updated risk to the SLS vehicle. This process was performed through the inaugural use of an SLS debris day-of-launch (DOL) standard operating procedure that will be used for subsequent Artemis missions. This paper addresses the risk of liftoff debris, debris released by the vehicle or from the launch pad during liftoff through vehicle tower clear. Expected liftoff debris is well understood from previous NASA programs’ experience and from tests of materials, processes and functions that are known to release liftoff debris. These expected sources were assessed and cleared well ahead of launch day. However, given the ever-changing schedules and environments, processes were in place to evaluate any additional potential liftoff debris risks identified during launch countdown. Although many of the Artemis vehicle hardware components are similar to those on the NASA Shuttle Program, there are important differences in the architecture of the Artemis I vehicle which require new assessments of liftoff debris risk for the Artemis missions. The more favorable Artemis crew module location and surfaces are far less vulnerable to debris impacts; however, the longer vehicle can result in higher liftoff debris impact energies to those components on the aft end of the vehicle. Additionally, the positional change of the RS-25 liquid engines to nearer the Booster nozzle exit plane along with the change in Booster throat plug design is a disadvantage to the overall liftoff debris risk which resulted in additional test and analysis efforts for evaluating the integrated vehicle debris risk. In spite of the comprehensive tests and analyses of Artemis I expected liftoff debris, a number of additional tests/processes were completed prior to the Artemis I mission that were required to support a complete understanding of a new launch vehicle, but increased the risk of releasing liftoff debris. The hardware endured several additional cryogenic loading cycles, including the Green Run tests at Stennis Space Center, Wet Dress Rehearsals at Kennedy Space Center, and multiple launch attempts. Each of these cycles induced stresses in the thermal protection system (TPS) materials, increasing the risk of damage to and release of the TPS. Additionally, induced and weather environmental factors that could increase the likelihood of debris release were significant. Vibrations and stresses in the TPS were induced by a required roll-back to the Vehicle Assembly Building before Hurricane Ian to protect the vehicle from damage by high winds. Wind damage and potential internal stresses to several outer mold line materials on the integrated SLS vehicle and mobile launcher were caused by weathering Hurricane Nicole at Pad 39B the week before launch. A thorough imagery scan of the vehicle was performed after each event and the damage observed was repaired, removed, or assessed and the risk to the mission evaluated. Mitigation of debris risk can occur by tests and analyses to show debris impacted components as damage tolerant, by new/improved processes for prevention of debris availability, or redesign. Risk mitigation processes for Artemis I-specific liftoff debris events and the development and use of the SLS debris day of launch (DOL) procedures that will be used for subsequent Artemis missions will be described.

Space Launch System↗