Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Landing 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 127 records · Page 7
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2009

Transonic Tones and Excess Broadband Noise in Overexpanded Supersonic Jets

Noise characteristics of convergent-divergent (C-D) nozzles in the overexpanded regime are the focus of this paper. The flow regime is encountered during takeoff and landing of certain airplanes and also with rocket nozzles in launch-pad environment. Experimental results from laboratory-scale single nozzles are discussed. The flow often undergoes a resonance accompanied by emission of tones (referred to as transonic tones). The phenomenon is different from the well-known screech tones. Unlike screech, the frequency increases with increasing supply pressure. There is a staging behavior odd harmonic stages occur at lower pressures while the fundamental occurs in a range of relatively higher pressures. A striking feature is that tripping of the nozzle s internal boundary layer tends to suppress the resonance. However, even in the absence of tones the broadband levels are found to be high. That is, relative to a convergent case and at same pressure ratio, the C-D nozzles are found to be noisier, often by more than 10dB. This excess broadband noise (referred to as EBBN) is further explored. Its characteristics are found to be different from the well-known broadband shockassociated noise ( BBSN ). For example, while the frequency of the BBSN peak varies with observation angle no such variation is noted with EBBN. The mechanisms of the transonic tone and the EBBN are not completely understood yet. They appear to be due to unsteady shock motion inside the nozzle. The shock drives the flow downstream like a vibrating diaphragm, and resonance takes place similarly as with acoustic resonance of a conical section having one end closed and the other end open. When the boundary layer is tripped, apparently a breakdown of azimuthal coherence suppresses the resonance. However, there is still unsteady shock motion albeit with superimposed randomness. Such random motion of the internal shock and its interaction with the separated boundary layer produces the EBBN.

Zaman, Khairul B. M. Q.↗
NASA NTRS2023

Launch Complex 39B, SWMU 009 Air Sparging System Expansion Implementation Work Plan Kennedy Space Center, Florida

This Implementation Work Plan (IWP) for expansion of the Air Sparging (AS) system at Launch Complex 39B (LC39B), presents the design and coordination specifics to expand the existing AS Interim Measure (IM) at LC39B located at Kennedy Space Center (KSC), Florida. The existing AS system at LC39B was installed in 2017 and included 279 AS wells. LC39B has been designated as Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU) 009 under the KSC Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action Program. Expansion of the AS IM will include installation of an additional five AS wells to depths of approximately 13 and 17 feet below land surface (bls) to remediate contaminated groundwater identified northwest of the launch pad, near the liquid oxygen (LOX) tank. The expansion will target concentrations of cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cDCE) and vinyl chloride (VC) greater than Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Natural Attenuation Default Concentrations (NADCs) that were identified during direct push technology (DPT) sampling events between 2019-2022 in shallow intervals between 8 and 16 feet bls. The objective for this expansion is to remediate contaminated groundwater within the treatment zone to below NADCs to support transition to monitored natural attenuation (MNA) through a long-term monitoring (LTM) program. This expansion will treat approximately 0.07-acres of residual groundwater contamination. The IWP design for this expansion will utilize the existing AS system trailer that is already onsite and operating. The five new AS expansion wells will be integrated into the existing Zone Z4 distribution manifold to deliver compressed air to the new AS wells. To deliver airflow, three existing lateral lines will be split in the field at a lateral split junction point (using 2-way or 3-way splits). Each split lateral will supply air to AS wells at the same depth interval to minimize preferential pathways. The trenching layout for the new AS wells was developed to minimize ground disturbance due to the amount of utilities in the area. One new monitoring well will also be installed and added to LC39B’s performance monitoring program to evaluate the effectiveness of the AS system expansion. This well will be sampled on a semi-annual basis for volatile organic compounds, with results evaluated to determine if system adjustments may be required. The main components of this IWP were presented to the KSC Remediation Team (KSCRT) at the October 2022 Meeting (Meeting 2210-M05). DPT delineation data from the LOX area were also presented, which included some inferred boundaries due to physical restrictions of the LOX tank and associated concrete pad and infrastructure. Planned monitoring well sampling in this area will help determine if back-diffusion may be occurring from beneath the pad. Additionally, based on potential petroleum odors and staining identified at two DPT locations during the January 2022 DPT event in the 10-16 feet bls range, a KSCRT action item was assigned during the October 2022 meeting to collect soil samples for petroleum compounds if similar odors or staining are identified during IM implementation. Construction completion and performance monitoring will be incorporated into LC39B’s groundwater monitoring reports, which are currently submitted on an annual basis to FDEP to document operation and maintenance activities and results from the AS IM.

Deborah M. Wilson↗
NASA NTRS1982

Thermodynamic energy balance equations for Space Shuttle Orbiter gas compartment during ascent and re-entry

Thermodynamic energy balance equations are derived and applied to midsection Orbiter-payload atmospheric thermal math models (TMMs) to predict Orbiter component, element, compartment, internal insolation and structure temperatures in support of NASA/JSC mission planning, postflight thermal analysis and payload thermal integration planning. The equations are extended and applied to the forward section, midsection, and aft section of the TMMs for five Orbiter mission phases: prelaunch on pad with purge, lift-off to ascent, re-entry to touchdown, post landing without purge, and post-landing with purge. Predicted results from the 390 node/DFI atmospheric TMM are in good agreement with STS-1 flight measurement data.

Ting, P. C.↗
NASA NTRS2017

Kennedy Space Center: Apollo to Multi-User Spaceport

NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC) was established as the gateway to exploring beyond earth. Since the establishment of KSC in December 1963, the Center has been critical in the execution of the United States of Americas bold mission to send astronauts beyond the grasp of the terra firma. On May 25, 1961, a few weeks after a Soviet cosmonaut became the first person to fly in space, President John F. Kennedy laid out the ambitious goal of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth by the end of the decade. The resultant Apollo program was massive endeavor, driven by the Cold War Space Race, and supported with a robust budget. The Apollo program consisted of 18 launches from newly developed infrastructure, including 12 manned missions and six lunar landings, ending with Apollo 17 that launched on December 7, 1972. Continuing to use this infrastructure, the Skylab program launched four missions. During the Skylab program, KSC infrastructure was redesigned to meet the needs of the Space Shuttle program, which launched its first vehicle (STS-1) on April 12, 1981. The Space Shuttle required significant modifications to the Apollo launch pads and assembly facilities, as well as new infrastructure, such as Orbiter and Payload Processing Facilities, as well as the Shuttle Landing Facility. The Space Shuttle was a workhorse that supported many satellite deployments, but was key for the construction and maintenance of the International Space Station, which required additional facilities at KSC to support processing of the flight hardware. After reaching the new Millennium, United States policymakers searched for new ways to reduce the cost of space exploration. The Constellation Program was initiated in 2005 with a goal of providing a crewed lunar landing with a much smaller budget. The very successful Space Shuttle made its last launch on July 8, 2011, after 135 missions. In the subsequent years, KSC continues to evolve, and this paper will address past and future efforts of the transformation of the KSC Apollo and Space Shuttle heritage infrastructure into a more versatile, multi-user spaceport. The paper will also discuss the US Congressional and NASA initiatives for developing and supporting multiple commercial partners, while simultaneously supporting NASAs human exploration initiative, consisting of Space Launch System (SLS), Orion spacecraft and associated ground launch systems. In addition, the paper explains the approach with examples for NASA KSC to leverage new technologies and innovative capabilities developed to reduce the cost to individual users.

launchpad↗
NASA NTRS1990

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Ulysses Mission (Tier 2)

This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) addresses the environmental impacts which may be caused by the preparation and operation of the Ulysses spacecraft, including its planned launch on the Space Transportation System (STS) Shuttle and the alternative of canceling further work on the mission. The launch configuration will use the STS/Inertial Upper Stage (IUS)/Payload Assist Module-Special(PAM-S) combination. The Tier 1 EIS included a delay alternative which considered the Titan 4 launch vehicle as an alternative booster stage for launch in 1991 or later. However, the U.S. Air Force, which procures the Titan 4 for NASA, could not provide a Titan 4 vehicle for the 1991 launch opportunity because of high priority Department of Defense requirements. The only expected environmental effects of the proposed action are associated with normal Shuttle launch operations. These impacts are limited largely to the near-field at the launch pad, except for temporary stratospheric ozone effects during launch and occasional sonic boom effects near the landing site. These effects have been judged insufficient to preclude Shuttle launches. In the event of (1) an accident during launch, or (2) reentry of the spacecraft from earth orbit, there are potential adverse health and environmental effects associated with the possible release of plutonium dioxide from the spacecraft's radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTG). The potential effects considered in this EIS include risks of air and water quality impacts, local land area contamination, adverse health and safety impacts, the disturbance of biotic resources, impacts on wetland areas or areas containing historical sites, and socioeconomic impacts. Intensive analysis of the possible accidents associated with the proposed action are underway and preliminary results indicate small health or environmental risks. The results of a Final Safety Analysis Report will be available for inclusion into the final EIS.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1988

Draft environmental impact statement for the Galileo Mission (Tier 2)

This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) addresses the environmental impacts which may be caused by the preparation and operation of the Galileo spacecraft, including its planned launch on the Space Transportation System (STS) Shuttle and the alternative of canceling further work on the mission. The launch configuration will use the STS/Inertial Upper Stage (IUS)/Payload Assist Module-Special (PAM-S) combination. The Tier 1 EIS included a delay alternative which considered the Titan 4 launch vehicle as an alternative booster stage for launch in 1991 or later. However, the U.S. Air Force, which procures the Titan 4 for NASA, could not provide a Titan 4 vehicle for the 1991 launch opportunity because of high priority Department of Defense requirements. The only expected environmental effects of the proposed action are associated with normal Shuttle launch operations. These impacts are limited largely to the near-field at the launch pad, except for temporary stratospheric ozone effects during launch and occasional sonic boom effects near the landing site. These effects have been judged insufficient to preclude Shuttle launches. In the event of: (1) an accident during launch, or (2) reentry of the spacecraft from earth orbit, there are potential adverse health and environmental effects associated with the possible release of plutonium dioxide from the spacecraft's radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTG).

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1990

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Ulysses Mission (Tier 2)

This Final (Tier 2) Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) addresses the environmental impacts which may be caused by implementation of the Ulysses mission, a space flight mission to observe the polar regions of the Sun. The proposed action is completion of preparation and operation of the Ulysses spacecraft, including its planned launch at the earliest available launch opportunity on the Space Transportation System (STS) Shuttle in October 1990 or in the backup opportunity in November 1991. The alternative is canceling further work on the mission. The Tier 1 EIS included a delay alternative which considered the Titan 4 launch vehicle as an alternative booster stage for launch in 1991 or later. This alternative was further evaluated and eliminated from consideration when, in November 1988, the U.S. Air Force, which procures the Titan 4, notified that it could not provide a Titan 4 vehicle for the 1991 launch opportunity because of high priority Department of Defense requirements. The Titan 4 launch vehicle is no longer a feasible alternative to the STS/Inertial Upper Stage (IUS)/Payload Assist Module-Special (PAM-S) for the November 1991 launch opportunity. The only expected environment effects of the proposed action are associated with normal launch vehicle operation and are treated elsewhere. The environmental impacts of normal Shuttle launches were addressed in existing NEPA documentation and are briefly summarized. These impacts are limited largely to the near-field at the launch pad, except for temporary stratospheric ozone effects during launch and occasional sonic boom effects near the landing site. These effects were judged insufficient to preclude Shuttle launches. There could also be environmental impacts associated with the accidental release of radiological material during launch, deployment, or interplanetary trajectory injection of the Ulysses spacecraft. Intensive analysis indicates that the probability of release is small. There are no environmental impacts in the no-action alternative; however, the U.S. Government and the European Space Agency would suffer adverse fiscal and programmatic impacts if this alternative were adopted. The scientific benefits of the mission would be delayed and possibly lost. There could be significant impacts on the ability of the U.S. to negotiate international agreements for cooperative space activities.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2010

MIT January Operational Internship Experience

This viewgraph presentation describes the MIT January Operational Internship Experience (JOIE) program. The topics include: 1) Landing and Recovery; 2) Transportation; 3) Shuttle Processing; 4) Constellation Processing; 5) External Tank; 6) Launch Pad; 7) Ground Operations; 8) Hypergolic Propellants; 9) Environmental; 10) Logistics; 11) Six Sigma; 12) Systems Engineering; and 13) Human Factors.

Bosanac, Natasha↗
NASA NTRS1981

Space shuttle slidewire emergency egress system

The slidewire emergency egress system is designed to provide a fast and safe egress means for the shuttle flight crew, passengers, and ground closeout crew in the event of imminent danger while the space vehicle is still on the launch pad. Egress is from the 195 ft. level of the fixed service structure (FSS) to a ground landing area 1200 ft. away from the launch site. The slidewire design is such that the flight crew and passengers can be evacuated to a safe area within two minutes with winds as high as 34 knots from any direction.

Jeffcoat, G. B.↗
NASA NTRS1985

STS-51B/Challenger - Isolated Launch View

Live footage of various isolated launch views is seen. Views of the Space Shuttle Challenger are shown from different camera sites such as the VAB (Vehicle Assembly Building) Roof, Pad Perimeter, Helicopter, Convoy, and Midfield. Also shown from different cameras is the re-entry and landing of the shuttle at Kennedy Space Center (KSC). Footage also includes the ground recovery crew as they travel to the spacecraft. Challengers crew, Commander Robert F. Overmyer, Pilot Frederick D. Gregory, Mission Specialists Don L. Lind, Norman E. Thagard, and William E. Thornton, and Payload Specialists Lodewijk van den Berg, and Taylor G. Wang are also seen leaving the craft.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2024

Launch Complex 39B, SWMU 009, 2023 Performance Monitoring and Air Sparge Expansion Construction Completion Report, Kennedy Space Center, Florida

The 2023 Performance Monitoring and Construction Completion Report (PM-CCR) presents the findings, observations, and results for Air Sparging (AS) operations and expansion activities, as well as sitewide groundwater monitoring for Launch Complex 39B (LC39B), Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU) 009, at Kennedy Space Center (KSC), Florida. The reporting period for activities covered under this PM-CCR is from January 1, 2023, to December 31, 2023. At LC39B, AS operations began in 2017 in the area west of the launch pad, in the liquid oxygen (LOX) tank area located northwest of the launch pad, and in an area outside of the perimeter fence to protect nearby Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW). The LC39B AS system was installed with 279 AS wells to depths ranging from 23 to 60 feet below land surface (bls), including the sump, correlating to top of screen depths ranging from 20 to 57 feet bls. In December 2022, a total of 22 AS wells were abandoned to support launch pad crane operations, and in November 2023, the system was expanded with five additional AS wells installed to 13 or 17 feet bls near the LOX tank. The remedial objective of the LC39B AS Interim Measure (IM) is to actively decrease concentrations of contaminants of concern (COCs) in groundwater, specifically trichloroethene (TCE), cis-1,2-Dichloroethene (cDCE), and vinyl chloride (VC), to less than their respective Natural Attenuation Default Concentrations (NADCs), so LC39B can transition into a Long-Term Monitoring (LTM) program. This PM-CCR presents the following information for LC39B: • AS system operations and maintenance (O&M) (Year 7 of operation) from January 2023 to December 2023, to include AS trailer relocation in March 2023 and subsequent replacement and re-start in June 2023. • Construction completion details for AS system expansion, which included installation of five new AS wells and one new monitoring well in November 2023. As part of expansion activities, soil samples were also collected for petroleum analysis; no exceedances were identified, and no further investigation for petroleum is warranted. • Performance monitoring results for groundwater sampling events conducted in May/June 2023 (30 wells) and November 2023 (31 wells) in the AS IM area and in the Low Concentration Plume (LCP) areas located north and east of the launch pad for volatile organic compound (VOC) analysis. • Sampling results for one monitoring well, LOX-IW0012S, which is sampled for aluminum on an annual basis (May/June 2023). This well was resampled in November 2023 for both total and dissolved aluminum. Due to a communication error with the laboratory, the May/June 2023 sample was analyzed for total aluminum only. • Groundwater sampling results for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) collected from seven monitoring wells during the May/June 2023 event to further investigate the Former Sewage Treatment Plant #6 and Percolation Pond area, west of the launch pad. O&M and performance monitoring results show that the AS system at LC39B is operating as designed and meeting performance criteria. Overall runtime was 45 percent (%) during the reporting period (January to December), but the operational runtime was 78% during the timeframe when the system could run (June to December). The most significant downtime contributor was post-launch crane operations following the Artemis launch on November 16, 2022, which lasted until June 2023. During that timeframe, the AS trailer at LC39B was relocated to another KSC remediation site (Wilson Corners) and was subsequently replaced with the AS trailer from the Paint & Oil Locker (POL) remediation site at KSC to resume AS system operations. Performance monitoring results in the AS IM and LCP areas continue to show reduction in COC concentrations over time when compared to baseline levels. In 2023, only one monitoring well (MW0048) detected a COC exceeding its NADC (VC at 740 micrograms per liter [µg/L]), which marks the baseline result for this new well installed during system expansion. Across the rest of the site, VC concentrations have declined or remained stable during the 2023 sampling events. Excluding MW0048, the highest VC result in 2023 was during the May/June sampling event with a concentration of 63 µg/L at MW0032, which is located near MW0048 and the AS expansion area by the LOX tank. TCE was detected in select monitoring wells in the IM area in 2023, but only two locations exceeded the State of Florida Groundwater Cleanup Target Level (GCTL): MW0032 (21 µg/L in May/June 2023 and 9.1 µg/L in November 2023) and MW0036 (5.0 µg/L in November 2023). MW0036 is also located near the LOX tank, on the north side, where the AS system is still operational (Zone Z4). cDCE and trans-1,2-dichloroethene concentrations were less than laboratory method detection limits or their respective GCTLs in all wells sampled in 2023. Near the OFW located northwest of the launch complex, all COC concentrations were less than laboratory method detection limits from monitoring wells (MW0039, MW0040, and LOXTA0002S) sampled in 2023. Aluminum results from LOX-IW0012S, which has been sampled routinely since 2006, detected a total aluminum concentration of 3,900 µg/L during the May/June 2023 sampling event. Results from the November 2023 event detected 5,700 µg/L for total aluminum and 5,500 µg/L for dissolved aluminum. These concentrations slightly decreased from the previous year but remain relatively consistent with historical detections. Aluminum will continue to be sampled on an annual basis at this well as results still exceed the GCTL of 200 µg/L and the Upper Limit of the KSC Background Concentration of 280 µg/L. PFAS results detected nine different PFAS compounds (out of 32 analyzed) from seven wells sampled. Two PFAS compounds, perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), currently have FDEP Provisional GCTLs of 70 nanograms per liter (ng/L). All seven samples collected resulted in concentrations less than the FDEP Provisional GCTLs for both PFAS compounds; no exceedances were observed. PFOS and PFOA also have assigned United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) of 4 nanograms per liter (ng/L). None of the PFOS results exceeded the USEPA MCLs. PFOA was detected in two samples above the USEPA MCL at concentrations of 5.8 ng/L (ECS-IW0009I) and 5.5 ng/L (ECS-IW0009S). Three other PFAS compounds, perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS), perfluoro-n-nonanoic acid (PFNA), and hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (GenX), currently have USEPA MCLs of 10 ng/L. PFHxS, PFNA, and GenX were not detected at concentrations greater than their respective USEPA MCLs in any of the seven wells. PFAS compounds without FDEP Provisional GCTLs or USEPA MCLs were screened against USEPA RSLs. No other detections exceeded their respective USEPA RSLs. Additional PFAS sampling will be conducted as part of a future PFAS Site Assessment. Based on O&M activities and performance monitoring, the following is recommended for LC39B: • Continue with Year 8 AS system operation within Zone Z4, which includes the AS expansion area. Zone Z3, which has been off since 2018, should remain off as no rebound has been observed. Zones Z1 and Z2, which were turned off at the end of 2022, will remain shut down as monitoring well results have consistently been below GCTLs or have low-level detections with stable or decreasing trends (Meeting Minute 2402-M10, Decision 2402-D30). • Continue with performance monitoring in 2024 with the same monitoring well network as 2023, except with the addition of MW0048 in both semi-annual events. Baseline concentrations for this well were collected during the November 2023 performance monitoring event. Semi-annual sampling should be planned for the May 2024 and November 2024 timeframes (Meeting Minute 2402-M10, Decision 2402-D31). • Continue sampling monitoring well, LOX-IW0012S, for aluminum (total and dissolved) on an annual basis in May 2024. It is also recommended to re-develop this well prior to the next sampling event (Meeting Minute 2402-M10, Decision 2402-D32). The above recommendations for LC39B were presented at the February 2024 KSCRT Meeting, with Team consensus reached on the path forward. The contents of this PM-CCR were also presented at this meeting.

Deborah M Wilson↗
NASA NTRS2001

STS-103 Photo-op/Suit-up/Depart O&C/Launch Discovery On-Orbit/Landing/Crew Egress

The crew of the STS-103 space mission are shown as they prepare for launch and landing of the space shuttle discovery. The crew includes: Commander Curtis L. Brown, Pilot Scott J. Kelly, and Mission Specialists: Steven L. Smith, C. Michael Foale, John M. Grunsfeld, Claude Nicollier and Jean-francois Clervoy. Footage of these astronauts during suit-up, Ingress, Egress and Operations and Checkout (O&C) is presented. Live footage of the countdown and launch of the space shuttle discovery is shown from various vantage points such as the Tower 1, Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB), and pad perimeter. Once in orbit, a presentation of Steven Smith, John Grunsfield, Michael Foale and Claude Nicollier performing three spacewalks to repair the HST is shown. The landing of the space shuttle discovery at the Kenndy Space Center is shown.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2011

NASA Space Technology Draft Roadmap Area 13: Ground and Launch Systems Processing

This slide presentation reviews the technology development roadmap for the area of ground and launch systems processing. The scope of this technology area includes: (1) Assembly, integration, and processing of the launch vehicle, spacecraft, and payload hardware (2) Supply chain management (3) Transportation of hardware to the launch site (4) Transportation to and operations at the launch pad (5) Launch processing infrastructure and its ability to support future operations (6) Range, personnel, and facility safety capabilities (7) Launch and landing weather (8) Environmental impact mitigations for ground and launch operations (9) Launch control center operations and infrastructure (10) Mission integration and planning (11) Mission training for both ground and flight crew personnel (12) Mission control center operations and infrastructure (13) Telemetry and command processing and archiving (14) Recovery operations for flight crews, flight hardware, and returned samples. This technology roadmap also identifies ground, launch and mission technologies that will: (1) Dramatically transform future space operations, with significant improvement in life-cycle costs (2) Improve the quality of life on earth, while exploring in co-existence with the environment (3) Increase reliability and mission availability using low/zero maintenance materials and systems, comprehensive capabilities to ascertain and forecast system health/configuration, data integration, and the use of advanced/expert software systems (4) Enhance methods to assess safety and mission risk posture, which would allow for timely and better decision making. Several key technologies are identified, with a couple of slides devoted to one of these technologies (i.e., corrosion detection and prevention). Development of these technologies can enhance life on earth and have a major impact on how we can access space, eventually making routine commercial space access and improve building and manufacturing, and weather forecasting for example for the effect of these process improvements on our daily lives.

Clements, Greg↗
NASA NTRS2020

Lunar Transient Accelerations White Paper

Recently, the United States announced a plan to return astronauts to the moon by 2024 [8]. Lunar landing (and subsequent Mars landing) architecture was not considered when the current NASA standards and vehicle design requirements for crew injury risk were developed. Therefore a gap exists in protecting the crew in planetary landing scenarios. One of the interesting aspects of this design reference mission (DRM)is the consideration of having the crew stand during dynamic phases of flight. Although this approach was contemplated for the Apollo Lunar Module, current NASA standards do not address design solutions that allow the crew to stand. Currently, NASA uses several tools and associated limits to mitigate crew injury because of dynamic loads. Some of these tools are the Brinkley Dynamic Response Criterion (BDRC) model and Hybrid III Anthropomorphic Test Devices (ATDs) [10]; and these have several limitations for assessing spaceflight loading environments, as well as specific underlying assumptions that may not be applicable in planetary landing vehicles. The BDRC is a simple lumped mass parameter model developed by the U.S. military, and has been used primarily to evaluate injury risk associated with aircraft ejection systems. The model evaluates seat accelerations in each axis to determine injury risk. Because the model treats the human-seat-restraint system as a single system, it is contingent on a restraint system and seat with similar characteristics of the original test data underlying the model. In particular, the model requires a rigid seat with a minimum natural frequency of 15Hz, minimal seat pan padding, side supports, and multipoint harness. The BDRC model uses undamped natural frequency and damping coefficients based on these requirements and any deviations may render the model injury predictions void. In lunar landing, one expects that a minimal or even no seat with minimal restraints will be employed. In this case, the original model parameters are likely to not be applicable. For capsule-based spacecraft returning crew to Earth, the Hybrid III ATD in various sizes also is used to supplement the BDRC. This analytical tool was added to address limitations in the BDRC related to spacecraft landings while wearing a pressure garment and helmet. Although the Hybrid III ATD has additional measurement capability; head, neck,and lumbar spine responses were the only metrics included because of the limitations imposed by the model.Lunar landing acceleration limits must assume the crew is standing during landing, an orientation for which we have limited data.Although the Apollo missions did employ a standing orientation for the crew, much of the data is lost. Therefore data from othersources havebeen examined to inform lunar landing acceleration limits.

Jeffrey T Somers↗
NASA NTRS1981

Annual survey of spaceflight safety systems: 11th supplement. Survey period - July 1980-June 1981

Reports in the field of space flight safety applicable to current and future operational space activities which appeared between July 1980 and June 1981 are surveyed. Subjects in the area of flight rescue and safety during launch, on-orbit, reentry and landing phases include the major activities and findings of the first Shuttle test flight, a slidewire system for emergency egress from the Space Shuttle on the launch pad, and the testing of the Spacelab engineering model. In the area of human capabilities and crew roles, attention is given to reports of repairs to the Salyut 6 space station made by a Soyuz crew, and an assessment of weightlessness effects on space worker health and safety. Safety requirements for STS payloads including pressure vessels, and the Orbiter window system and for spacecraft testing are also presented, along with those for a television system to aid in monitoring astronaut extravehicular activities. For the operation of large space structures, reports include EVA equipment for satellite servicing and the safety aspects of connectors used in construction. Finally, attention is given to safety-related criteria in a study of Shuttle interactions with the proposed Space Operations Center.

Brown, N. E.↗
NASA NTRS1989

Safety and rescue during STS operations

The space shuttle means, provided to the crew, of abort/escape for noncatastrophic mishap scenaries, during Space Transportation Systems (STS) operations, are discussed. From vehicle ingress until launch, the crew can escape the launch pad by use of slidewire baskets. For various emergencies during ascent, the crew can fly an intact abort. Such aborts include return to launch site, transoceanic abort landing, abort once around, and abort to orbit. The crew can fly the orbiter to an emergency airfield, or to an over ocean bailout for more serious ascent or on-orbit emergencies. For failures during landing, the crew can quickly egress the orbiter from the overhead hatch, or by use of an inflatable slide mounted at the side hatch.

Oconnor, Bryan↗
NASA NTRS1994

Multiposition Seat

Back of seat pivots about either of two axes: one axis for folding back to form bed and second, higher axis for folding forward to form compact ottoman, even when seat thickly padded. Long and short links used to adjust back of seat to variety of positions. Multiposition seat designed for use in spacecraft also adapted to airplanes and land vehicles.

Macconochie, Ian O.↗
NASA NTRS2005

Orbiter Processing Overview

Footage of orbiter processing is shown. The Space Shuttle Discovery Landing Operations, Rollback to Orbiter Processing Facility After Landing, Orbiter Processing Facility, Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB), Orbiter Rollover from the Orbiter Processing Facility to the VAB, Atlantis Orbiter Lift and Mate, Atlantis Rollout to Launch Pad 39, Payload Canister Door Opened and Payload Move into Payload Ground Handling Mechanism, Payload into Orbiter, Orbiter Payload Bay Door Closure, Launch Pad Processing at Launch Complex 39, Rotating Service Structure Rollback at Launch Pad, Discovery Lift-off and SRB separation is presented.

Source record↗