SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Range Safety”

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 109 records · Page 6

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS1973

Preliminary guided rocket feasibility study

The feasibility of actively guiding sounding rockets to reduce impact dispersion has been investigated. The theoretical probability of range safety thrust termination for several high performance rockets was combined with the cost of acquiring the extended range at White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) to establish a guidance system price ceiling of $20K per flight. Guiding the Black Brant VC (BBVC) for the first five seconds of flight results in sufficient dispersion reduction to impact within the standard range boundaries at WSMR. The guidance system thrust level required to statically control the vehicle to a nominal-wind weighted trajectory for five seconds is between 150-200 pounds. A six-degree-of-freedom trajectory program with guidance simulation capability has been developed and the equations are presented.

Nolan, M. B.↗

NASA NTRS1973

Preliminary guided rocket feasibility study.

The feasibility of actively guiding sounding rockets to reduce impact dispersion has been investigated. The theoretical probability of Range Safety thrust termination for several high performance rockets was combined with the cost of acquiring the extended range at White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) to establish a guidance system price ceiling of $20K per flight. Guiding the Black Brant VC for the first five seconds of flight results in sufficient dispersion reduction to impact within the standard range boundaries at WSMR. The guidance system thrust level required to statically control the vehicle to a nominal-wind weighted trajectory for five seconds is between 150-200 pounds. A six-degree-of-freedom trajectory program with guidance simulation capability has been developed and the equations are delineated in this paper.

Nolan, M. B.↗

NASA NTRS2010

Spaceport Performance Measures

Spaceports have traditionally been characterized by performance measures associated with their site characteristics. Measures such as "Latitude" (proximity to the equator), "Azimuth" (range of available launch azimuths) and "Weather" (days of favorable weather) are commonly used to characterize a particular spaceport. However, other spaceport performance measures may now be of greater value. These measures can provide insight into areas of operational differences between competing spaceports and identify areas for improving the performance of spaceports. This paper suggests Figures of Merit (FOMs) for spaceport "Capacity" (number of potential launch opportunities per year and / or potential mass' to low earth orbit (LEO) per year); "Throughput" (actual mass to orbit per year compared to capacity); "Productivity" (labor effort hours per unit mass to orbit); "Energy Efficiency" (joules expended at spaceport per unit mass to orbit); "Carbon Footprint" tons CO2 per unit mass to orbit). Additional FOMS are investigated with regards to those areas of special interest to commercial launch operators, such as "Assignment Schedule" (days required for a binding assignment of a launch site from the spaceport); "Approval Schedule" (days to complete a range safety assessment leading to an approval or disapproval of a launch vehicle); "Affordability" (cost for a spaceport to assess a new launch vehicle); "Launch Affordability" (fixed range costs per launch); "Reconfigure Time" (hours to reconfigure the range from one vehicle's launch ready configuration to another vehicle's configuration); "Turn,Around Time" (minimum range hours required between launches of an identical type launch vehicle). Available or notional data is analyzed for the KSC/CCAFS area and other spaceports. Observations regarding progress over the past few decades are made. Areas where improvement are needed or indicated are suggested.

Finger, G. Wayne↗

NASA NTRS1972

Manned space flight nuclear system safety. Volume 5: Nuclear System safety guidelines. Part 1: Space base nuclear safety

The design and operations guidelines and requirements developed in the study of space base nuclear system safety are presented. Guidelines and requirements are presented for the space base subsystems, nuclear hardware (reactor, isotope sources, dynamic generator equipment), experiments, interfacing vehicles, ground support systems, range safety and facilities. Cross indices and references are provided which relate guidelines to each other, and to substantiating data in other volumes. The guidelines are intended for the implementation of nuclear safety related design and operational considerations in future space programs.

Source record↗

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 NTRS2011

Achieving the Proper Balance Between Crew and Public Safety

A paramount objective of all human-rated launch and reentry vehicle developers is to ensure that the risks to both the crew onboard and the public are minimized within reasonable cost, schedule, and technical constraints. Past experience has shown that proper attention to range safety requirements necessary to ensure public safety must be given early in the design phase to avoid additional operational complexities or threats to the safety of people onboard. This paper will outline the policy considerations, technical issues, and operational impacts regarding launch and reentry vehicle failure scenarios where crew and public safety are intertwined and thus addressed optimally in an integrated manner. Historical examples and lessons learned from both the Space Shuttle and Constellation Programs will be presented. Using these examples as context, the paper will discuss some operational, design, and analysis approaches to mitigate and balance the risks to people onboard and in the public. Manned vehicle perspectives from the FAA and Air Force organizations that oversee public safety will also be summarized. Finally, the paper will emphasize the need to factor policy, operational, and analysis considerations into the early design trades of new vehicles to help ensure that both crew and public safety are maximized to the greatest extent possible.

Gowan, John↗

NASA NTRS2002

19th JANNAF Safety and Environmental Protection Subcommittee Meeting

This volume, the first of two volumes, is a compilation of 22 unclassified/unlimited technical papers presented at the 19th Joint Army-Navy-NASA-Air Force (JANNAF) Safety & Environmental Protection Subcommittee Meeting. The meeting was held 18-21 March 2002 at the Sheraton Colorado Springs Hotel, Colorado Springs, Colorado. Topics covered include green energetic materials and life cycle pollution prevention; space launch range safety; propellant/munitions demilitarization, recycling, and reuse: and environmental and occupational health aspects of propellants and energetic materials.

Cocchiaro, J. E.↗

NASA NTRS2008

Autonomous Flight Safety System - Phase III

The Autonomous Flight Safety System (AFSS) is a joint KSC and Wallops Flight Facility project that uses tracking and attitude data from onboard Global Positioning System (GPS) and inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors and configurable rule-based algorithms to make flight termination decisions. AFSS objectives are to increase launch capabilities by permitting launches from locations without range safety infrastructure, reduce costs by eliminating some downrange tracking and communication assets, and reduce the reaction time for flight termination decisions.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2002

Safety on Earth From MARSS

ENSCO, Inc., developed the Meteorological and Atmospheric Real-time Safety Support (MARSS) system for real-time assessment of meteorological data displays and toxic material spills. MARSS also provides mock scenarios to guide preparations for emergencies involving meteorological hazards and toxic substances. Developed under a Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) contract with Kennedy Space Center, MARSS was designed to measure how safe NASA and Air Force range safety personnel are while performing weather sensitive operations around launch pads. The system augments a ground operations safety plan that limits certain work operations to very specific weather conditions. It also provides toxic hazard prediction models to assist safety managers in planning for and reacting to releases of hazardous materials. MARSS can be used in agricultural, industrial, and scientific applications that require weather forecasts and predictions of toxic smoke movement. MARSS is also designed to protect urban areas, seaports, rail facilities, and airports from airborne releases of hazardous chemical substances. The system can integrate with local facility protection units and provide instant threat detection and assessment data that is reportable for local and national distribution.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2010

Autonomous Flight Safety System

The Autonomous Flight Safety System (AFSS) is an independent self-contained subsystem mounted onboard a launch vehicle. AFSS has been developed by and is owned by the US Government. Autonomously makes flight termination/destruct decisions using configurable software-based rules implemented on redundant flight processors using data from redundant GPS/IMU navigation sensors. AFSS implements rules determined by the appropriate Range Safety officials.

Simpson, James↗

NASA NTRS2004

Internet Based Simulations of Debris Dispersion of Shuttle Launch

The debris dispersion model (which dispersion model?) is so heterogeneous and interrelated with various factors, 3D graphics combined with physical models are useful in understanding the complexity of launch and range operations. Modeling and simulation in this area mainly focuses on orbital dynamics and range safety concepts, including destruct limits, telemetry and tracking, and population risk. Particle explosion modeling is the process of simulating an explosion by breaking the rocket into many pieces. The particles are scattered throughout their motion using the laws of physics eventually coming to rest. The size of the foot print explains the type of explosion and distribution of the particles. The shuttle launch and range operations in this paper are discussed based on the operations of the Kennedy Space Center, Florida, USA. Java 3D graphics provides geometric and visual content with suitable modeling behaviors of Shuttle launches.

Bardina, Jorge↗

NASA NTRS2007

An Analysis of Peak Wind Speed Data from Collocated Mechanical and Ultrasonic Anemometers

This study compared peak wind speeds reported by mechanical and ultrasonic anemometers at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station and Kennedy Space Center (CCAFS/KSC) on the east central coast of Florida and Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) on the central coast of California. Launch Weather Officers, forecasters, and Range Safety analysts need to understand the performance of wind sensors at CCAFS/KSC and VAFB for weather warnings, watches, advisories, special ground processing operations, launch pad exposure forecasts, user Launch Commit Criteria (LCC) forecasts and evaluations, and toxic dispersion support. The legacy CCAFS/KSC and VAFB weather tower wind instruments are being changed from propeller-and-vane (CCAFS/KSC) and cup-and-vane (VAFB) sensors to ultrasonic sensors under the Range Standardization and Automation (RSA) program. Mechanical and ultrasonic wind measuring techniques are known to cause differences in the statistics of peak wind speed as shown in previous studies. The 45th Weather Squadron (45 WS) and the 30th Weather Squadron (30 WS) requested the Applied Meteorology Unit (AMU) to compare data between the RSA ultrasonic and legacy mechanical sensors to determine if there are significant differences. Note that the instruments were sited outdoors under naturally varying conditions and that this comparison was not designed to verify either technology. Approximately 3 weeks of mechanical and ultrasonic wind data from each range from May and June 2005 were used in this study. The CCAFS/KSC data spanned the full diurnal cycle, while the VAFB data were confined to 1000-1600 local time. The sample of 1-minute data from numerous levels on five different towers on each range totaled more than 500,000 minutes of data (482,979 minutes of data after quality control). The ten towers were instrumented at several levels, ranging from 12 ft to 492 ft above ground level. The ultrasonic sensors were collocated at the same vertical levels as the mechanical sensors and typically within 15 ft horizontally of each another. Data from a total of 53 RSA ultrasonic sensors, collocated with mechanical sensors were compared. The 1- minute average wind speed/direction and the 1-second peak wind speed/direction were compared.

Short, David A.↗

NASA NTRS2013

NASA Activity Update for the 2013 Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (UVSI) Yearbook

This year s report offers a high level perspective on some of the UAS related activities in which NASA is involved, both internal and external to the agency. Internally, NASA issued UAS operational policy on certification of NASA UAS and aircrew. A team of NASA UAS experts and operators analyzed all current procedures and best practices to design the policy. An update to the agencies Aircraft Operations Management Manual incorporated a new chapter to address UAS planning, preflight operations, flight operations, flight crew requirements, airworthiness and flight safety reviews. NASA UAS are classified into three categories based on weight and airspeed. Aircrews, including observers, are classified by how they interface with the UAS, and the policy defines qualifications, training, and currency. The NASA flight readiness approval process identifies risks and mitigations in order to reduce the likelihood and/or consequence of the risk to an acceptable level. The UAS operations process incorporates all aspects of airworthiness, flight standards and range safety exactly the same processes used for NASA manned aircraft operations. NASA has two internal organizations that routinely operate UAS. The Science Mission Directorate utilizes UAS as part of its Airborne Science Program and is the most frequent operator of NASA UAS in both national and international airspace. The Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate conducts UAS flight operations in addition to conducting research important to the UAS community. This past year the Science Mission Directorate supported the Hurricane and Severe Storm Sentimental (HS3) Mission with two NASA Global Hawk platforms. HS3 is a five-year mission specifically targeted to investigate the processes that underlie hurricane formation. During the 2012 portion of this mission the Global Hawk overflew hurricanes Leslie and Nadine in the Atlantic Ocean completing 6 flights and accumulating more than 148 flight hours. Another multi-year mission was initiated last year when the Sensor Integrated Environmental Remote Research Aircraft (SIERRA) UAS began surveying faults in California s Surprise Valley. A team of scientists and engineers from the United States Geological Survey (USGS), NASA Ames Research Center, Central Washington University, and Carnegie Mellon University will measure magnetic fields using ground surveys and the SIERRA to map the geophysics below the surface of Surprise Valley. The data collected will be used to generate 3D maps of the geophysical data of the area. The Aeronautics Mission Directorate continues its collaboration with Boeing to conduct UAS flight operations of the X-48C, a modified version of the X-48B originally built by Cranfield Aerospace, United Kingdom. The Aeronautics Mission Directorate utilizes vehicles of this size for a wide variety of research studies. Most of these operations are conducted within restricted airspace. The Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate also sponsors the UAS in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project, which is working in close cooperation with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to address critical challenges associated with routine UAS operations in civil airspace. The project is focused on separation assurance and collision avoidance systems and algorithms, command and control for non-military operations including spectrum allocation requirements, human system interaction issues, and safety and certification topics.

Bauer, Jeffrey E.↗

NASA NTRS2006

A Comparison of Wind Speed Data from Mechanical and Ultrasonic Anemometers

This study compared the performance of mechanical and ultrasonic anemometers at the Eastern Range (ER; Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station on Florida's Atlantic coast) and the Western Range (WR; Vandenberg Air Force Base on California's Pacific coast). Launch Weather Officers, forecasters, and Range Safety analysts need to understand the performance of wind sensors at the ER and WR for weather warnings, watches, advisories, special ground processing operations, launch pad exposure forecasts, user Launch Commit Criteria (LCC) forecasts and evaluations, and toxic dispersion support. The current ER and WR weather tower wind instruments are being changed from the current propeller-and-vane (ER) and cup-and-vane (WR) sensors to ultrasonic sensors through the Range Standardization and Automation (RSA) program. The differences between mechanical and ultrasonic techniques have been found to cause differences in the statistics of peak wind speed in previous studies. The 45th Weather Squadron (45 WS) and the 30th Weather Squadron (30 WS) requested the Applied Meteorology Unit (AMU) to compare data between RSA and current sensors to determine if there are significant differences. Approximately 3 weeks of Legacy and RSA wind data from each range were used in the study, archived during May and June 2005. The ER data spanned the full diurnal cycle, while the WR data was confined to 1000-1600 local time. The sample of 1-minute data from numerous levels on 5 different towers on each range totaled more than 500,000 minutes of data (482,979 minutes of data after quality control). The 10 towers were instrumented at several levels, ranging from 12 ft to 492 ft above ground level. The RSA sensors were collocated at the same vertical levels as the present sensors and typically within 15 ft horizontally of each another. Data from a total of 53 RSA ultrasonic sensors, collocated with present sensors were compared. The 1-minute average wind speed/direction and the 1-second peak wind speed/direction were compared.

Short, D.↗

NASA NTRS2005

An Analysis of Peak Wind Speed Data from Collocated Mechanical and Ultrasonic Anemometers

This study focuses on a comparison of peak wind speeds reported by mechanical and ultrasonic anemometers at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station and Kennedy Space Center (CCAFS/KSC) on the east central coast of Florida and Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) on the central coast of California. The legacy mechanical wind instruments on CCAFS/KSC and VAFB weather towers are being changed from propeller-and-vane (CCAFS/KSC) and cup-and-vane (VAFB) sensors to ultrasonic sensors under the Range Standardization and Automation (RSA) program. The wind tower networks on KSC/CCAFS and VAFB have 41 and 27 towers, respectively. Launch Weather Officers, forecasters, and Range Safety analysts at both locations need to understand the performance of the new wind sensors for a myriad of reasons that include weather warnings, watches, advisories, special ground processing operations, launch pad exposure forecasts, user Launch Commit Criteria (LCC) forecasts and evaluations, and toxic dispersion support. The Legacy sensors measure wind speed and direction mechanically. The ultrasonic RSA sensors have no moving parts. Ultrasonic sensors were originally developed to measure very light winds (Lewis and Dover 2004). The technology has evolved and now ultrasonic sensors provide reliable wind data over a broad range of wind speeds. However, because ultrasonic sensors respond more quickly than mechanical sensors to rapid fluctuations in speed, characteristic of gusty wind conditions, comparisons of data from the two sensor types have shown differences in the statistics of peak wind speeds (Lewis and Dover 2004). The 45th Weather Squadron (45 WS) and the 30 WS requested the Applied Meteorology Unit (AMU) to compare data from RSA and Legacy sensors to determine if there are significant differences in peak wind speed information from the two systems.

Short, David A.↗

NASA NTRS2007

An Autonomous Flight Safety System

The Autonomous Flight Safety System (AFSS) being developed by NASA s Goddard Space Flight Center s Wallops Flight Facility and Kennedy Space Center has completed two successful developmental flights and is preparing for a third. AFSS has been demonstrated to be a viable architecture for implementation of a completely vehicle based system capable of protecting life and property in event of an errant vehicle by terminating the flight or initiating other actions. It is capable of replacing current human-in-the-loop systems or acting in parallel with them. AFSS is configured prior to flight in accordance with a specific rule set agreed upon by the range safety authority and the user to protect the public and assure mission success. This paper discusses the motivation for the project, describes the method of development, and presents an overview of the evolving architecture and the current status.

Bull, James B.↗

NASA NTRS1999

JANNAF 28th Propellant Development and Characterization Subcommittee and 17th Safety and Environmental Protection Subcommittee Joint Meeting

This volume contains 37 unclassified/unlimited-distribution technical papers that were presented at the JANNAF 28th Propellant Development & Characterization Subcommittee (PDCS) and 17th Safety & Environmental Protection Subcommittee (S&EPS) Joint Meeting, held 26-30 April 1999 at the Town & Country Hotel and the Naval Submarine Base, San Diego, California. Volume II contains 29 unclassified/limited-distribution papers that were presented at the 28th PDCS and 17th S&EPS Joint Meeting. Volume III contains a classified paper that was presented at the 28th PDCS Meeting on 27 April 1999. Topics covered in PDCS sessions include: solid propellant rheology; solid propellant surveillance and aging; propellant process engineering; new solid propellant ingredients and formulation development; reduced toxicity liquid propellants; characterization of hypergolic propellants; and solid propellant chemical analysis methods. Topics covered in S&EPS sessions include: space launch range safety; liquid propellant hazards; vapor detection methods for toxic propellant vapors and other hazardous gases; toxicity of propellants, ingredients, and propellant combustion products; personal protective equipment for toxic liquid propellants; and demilitarization/treatment of energetic material wastes.

Cocchiaro, James E.↗

NASA NTRS1999

The Wallops Flight Facility Model for an Integrated Federal/Commercial Launch Range

Historically, the federal government has been the predominant purchaser of space launches in the United States. The government met its needs through purchase of hardware and services. It also provided the infrastructure necessary to conduct launch operations through federal launch ranges, both military and NASA. Under this model, the government had the complete ownership, responsibility, liability, and expense for launch activities. As the commercial space sector grew, there emerged a corresponding growth in demand for launch range services. However, the expense and complexity of activities has thus far deterred a rapid rise in the establishment of purely commercial launch sites. In this context, purely commercial is defined as "without benefit of capabilities provided by the federal government." Consistent with the Commercial Space Launch Act, in recent years NASA and the Air Force have supported commercial launches from government launch ranges on a cost-reimbursable, non-interference basis. In this mode the commercial launch service providers contract with the government to provide services including use of facilities, tracking and data services, and range safety. As the commercial market projections began to show significant opportunities for economic development, several states established spaceports to provide the services necessary to meet these projected commercial needs. In 1997, NASA agreed to the establishment of the Virginia Space Flight Center (VSFC) at the Wallops Flight Facility. Under this arrangement, NASA agreed to allow Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority (VCSFA) to construct facilities on NASA property and agreed to provide services in accordance with the Space Act of 1958 and the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 (as amended) to support VSFC launch customers. The relationship between NASA and VCSFA, however, has evolved beyond a customer supplier relationship. A partnership relationship has emerged which pairs the strengths of the established NASA test range and the state-sponsored, commercial launch facility provider, in an attempt to satisfy the needs for flexible, low-cost access to space. Furthermore, the future of the NASA/Wallops Test Range is closely linked with the success of VCSFA in promoting commercial launches from Wallops. This paper will describe the changing paradigm of the federal launch range and the unique aspects of the NASA/Wallops Facility relationship with VCSFA. Discussion will include institutional cost-sharing, business development and marketing, joint educational programs, and strategic planning.

Underwood, Bruce E.↗