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 145 records · Page 8
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
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↗
DOE OSTI2021

AMS / BARC Joint Survey Addendum Technical Report

This report details the data analysis results from data collected during the September-October 2019 joint survey series between the Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Aerial Measuring System (AMS) asset, and the Government of India’s Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC). This joint survey series took place at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS), areas of public land in Southern Nevada, and at the DOE Office of Legacy Management (LM) Large Area Calibration Pads (LACP) at the Grand Junction Regional Airport in Grand Junction, CO. The data detailed in this report were gathered at the LACP. More details regarding the setup of these surveys and personnel involvement can be found in the AMS / BARC Joint Survey Summary Report. The data from the LACP collected by AMS are consistent with past data collection campaigns at the LACP. The AMS Bell 412 (B412) helicopter, equipped with both the standard AMS thallium-doped sodium iodide (NaI(Tl)) 2"x4"x16" 12-detector system and a subset of the BARC Aerial Gamma Spectroscopy System (AGSS) consisting of two independent 3"x3"cylindrical NaI(Tl) detectors, measured each of the five calibration pads for a minimum of 10 minutes. After the helicopter measurements, a pressurized ion chamber (PIC) was used to directly measure radiation exposure rates on each of the pads for a period 5 minutes. The geophysical calibration procedure published by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (Erdi-Krausz et al. 2003) was used to determine the spectral stripping sensitivity matrix for naturally occurring radiological material (NORM). The sensitivity matrix is consistent with the AMS long term average. Additionally, the PIC data was used to calibrate the AMS system for exposure rate. The results of the exposure rate analysis are also consistent with AMS long-term averages.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2026

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations This dataset contains model projections of new data center facilities in the contiguous United States (CONUS) through 2035 using the CERF – Data Centers model. Data center locations are modeled across four data center electricity demand growth scenarios (low, moderate, high, higher) and five market gravity scenarios (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%). Projected locations are intended to be regional representations of feasible siting locations in the future to assess potential grid and water stress impacts. The data center load growth scenarios correspond with the rates outlined in EPRI (2024) and include 3.71%, 5%, 10%, and 15% annual growth of electricity demand for data centers from 2023 values in 37 states across the CONUS. Market gravity scenarios correspond to the relative importance of proximity to data center markets or high population areas compared to locational cost in the siting algorithm. 0% market gravity means that siting decisions were entirely determined by the locational cost in each feasible location. 100% market gravity means that only market proximity was considered when siting. Other scenarios have weight placed on both components where total weight always equals 100%. Locational cost is dependent on facility cooling type and corresponding electricity cost, taxes, and other factors. Facility cooling type is spatially determined where high water stress and/or areas with high summer wet bulb temperatures are assumed to operate with mechanical cooling for a higher fraction of the year rather than evaporative cooling. Feasible data center siting areas are based on geospatial suitability raster data developed with open-source information. The following areas are excluded from siting: Areas within 300 m of a federal airport runway or within an airport area boundary Waterbodies Areas with slope >16% Areas susceptible to sinkholes High coastal or inland flood risk areas Local, state, and federal parks, leisure areas, and cemeteries Areas >2 km away from electric substations Areas >5 km away from a municipal water supplier service area Areas >2 km away from high-speed fiber provider service territory USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) GAP status 1, 2, or 3 areas US National Parks Wetlands USFWS critical habitats BIA land areas Railroads, major roadways, and minor roadways Military areas and training grounds NLCD developed lands Areas >0.8 km (0.5 miles) from NLCD developed lands Because we use open-source information, proprietary information that can influence siting decisions such as individual tax agreements with cities, detailed fiber line connectivity, electric grid power capacity agreements, and others, are not currently accounted for in the modeling process. Using specific building locations and footprints in the dataset for local planning purposes is not advised. Technical Information Geospatial data is provided in geojson format using the Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) coordinate reference system. The datasets contain the following parameters: id - unique identification number within given scenario file growth_scenario – data center demand growth scenario market_gravity_weight – market gravity weight scenario (%) region – name of region (i.e., US State) total_cost_million_usd – locational siting cost ($million) campus_size_square_ft – total land acquired for data center facility (square ft) data_center_it_power_mw – IT power of data center facility (MW) mechanical_cooling_frac – fraction of year when data center uses mechanical cooling system water_cooling_frac– fraction of year when data center uses evaporative cooling system cooling_energy_demand_mwh – total annual facility energy demand for cooling (MWh) cooling_water_demand_mgy – total annual facility water demand for cooling (MG) cooling_water_consumption_mgy – total annual facility water consumed (MG) normalized_locational_cost – normalized total locational cost score for location normalized_gravity_score – normalized market gravity score for location weighted_siting_score – total weighted siting score of locational cost and gravity score geometry – polygon geometry of facility Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License This data is made available under a CCBY4.0 License Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall (ORCID:0000000328077088)↗
DOE OSTI2026

Package Data for CERF-Data Centers

This dataset contains sample input 100m resolution raster files for running the CERF-DC python package (see https://github.com/IMMM-SFA/cerf_data_centers) at the state level across the CONUS. Due to data availability constraints, some of the items included in this dataset are proxies or assumptions for siting factors used in the model. These are individually noted in the item descriptions and can be exchanged with more detailed information upon availability. Data Descriptions The following raster files are included in the data download: state_siting_region.tif — State areas identified by state FIPS code composite_siting_suitability.tif — Value of 1 indicates suitable siting location, 0 otherwise. The following areas are excluded from siting: Areas within 300 m of a federal airport runway or within an airport area boundary Waterbodies Areas with slope >16% Areas susceptible to sinkholes High coastal or inland flood risk areas Local, state, and federal parks, leisure areas, and cemeteries Areas >2 km away from electric substations Areas >5 km away from a municipal water supplier service area Areas >2 km away from high-speed fiber provider service territory USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) GAP status 1, 2, or 3 areas US National Parks Wetlands USFWS critical habitats BIA land areas Railroads, major roadways, and minor roadways Military areas and training grounds NLCD developed lands Areas >0.8 km (0.5 miles) from NLCD developed lands land_value_dollar_per_sqft.tif — USD per square foot (sqft) derived from USDA $/acre land cost personal_property_tax_rate.tif — Personal property tax rate by state. Uses an assumed 0.0125 personal property tax rate for states with personal property tax, 0 for states without personal property tax. real_property_tax_rate.tif — Real property tax rate. Based on county level residential real estate property tax rates. sales_tax_rate.tif — Sales tax rate by state. mechanical_cooling_fraction.tif — Fraction of year (values between 0 and 1, inclusive) that the data center would be cooled through mechanical processes based on local water stress and humidity levels. water_cooling_fraction.tif — Fraction of year (values between 0 and 1, inclusive) that the data center would be cooled through evaporative (water cooled) processes based on local water stress and humidity levels. distance_to_substation.tif — Distance to nearest substation in hundreds of meters (i.e., value of 1 equals a distance of 100m). Offshore areas have a value of 0. industrial_electricity_rates_dollar_per_kwh.tif — USD/kWh industrial electricity rates. Represents the average industrial rate across all utilities that operate within a given county. Values are derived from the US Utility Rate Database. commercial_electricity_rates_dollar_per_kwh.tif — USD/kWh commercial electricity rates. Represents the average commercial rate across all utilities that operate within a given county. Values are derived from the US Utility Rate Database. data_center_market_locations.tif — Grid cells with positive values represent the centroid of existing data center market clusters. The value of non-zero grid cells represents the number of data centers in the market cluster. All other grid cells have a value of 0. Geospatial Metadata CRS: Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) Extent: -2415585.0000000023283064,-1441981.2605773280374706 : 2384414.9999999976716936,1708018.7394226719625294 Dimensions: X: 48000 Y: 31500 Bands: 1 Origin: -2415585.0000000023283064,1708018.7394226719625294 Pixel Size: 100,-100 Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License This data is made available under a CCBY4.0 License Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall↗
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↗
DOE OSTI2023

Ice Cryo-Encapsulation Balloon (Project ICEBall) Field Campaign Report

The Ice Cryo-Encapsulation Balloon (ICEBall) field campaign was designed to sample the ice crystals that compose high-altitude cirrus with a passive device. The campaign made use of a new instrument, ICEBall, which is a balloon-borne ice crystal sampling system. The ice crystal sounding system is capable of measuring ice crystal concentration, temperature, atmospheric pressure, ice crystal habit, aerosol particle morphology, and residual composition. The 3-kg instrument is carried upwards at 5 m s-1 by a high-altitude balloon. The instrument can be cut down from the balloon at any altitude up to 20 km, and the apparatus returns to the surface by parachute. Basic measurements such as temperature and pressure are recorded onboard, and high-frequency Global Positioning System (GPS) records altitude and latitude/longitude. Ice crystal concentrations are measured through the use of a high-resolution video camera mounted on the device. Ice crystals are collected through an open aperture leading to insulated collection chambers cooled with dry ice. Upon exiting the top of the cloud system, the chamber aperture is closed, and the ~1 mm3 sample cell is magnetically sealed and isolated at -78 °C, ensuring that ice particles do not sublimate or grow after collection. Once the crystals are returned to the surface, they are double-sealed and immersed at liquid nitrogen temperature in “dry-cryo shippers” before being transported back to the laboratory. Dr. Magee’s laboratory at The College of New Jersey contains a cryo-stage scanning electron microscope (SEM), which was used to interrogate the crystals and aerosol particles. The main purpose of this pilot field campaign was to provide an unprecedented level of detail on the crystal habits and ice surface complexity in mid-latitude cirrus, which may help resolve issues associated with habit identification and classification in cirrus. The ICEBall campaign was originally scheduled to run from March 28 to April 18 of 2021 at the U.S. Department of Energy Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Southern Great Plains observatory. The COVID-19 pandemic intervened and caused us to shift the dates of the experiment to October 16-November 6 of 2021. This period is also climatologically favorable for cirrus. The approximately six-month gap between our original field campaign dates and the actual dates afforded us the opportunity to build two new ICEBall payload instruments. These instruments were tested during an August 2021 trip to The College of New Jersey. During this field testing phase, we decided to launch the ICEBall payload upstream from the ARM SGP site with the goal of landing in the vicinity of the site. Our goal was to sample the ice crystals before the cirrus were advected over the remote-sensing instruments at the SGP site. The team assembled for the field campaign consisted of the Principle Investigator (PI) and Co-Principle Investigator (Co-PI) (Drs. Harrington and Magee), The Pennsylvania State University research scientist Dr. Alfred Moyle, and two graduate students (Ms. Marley Majetic and Gwenore Pokrifka). The team operated out of a house rented in Enid, Oklahoma. We successfully sampled seven cirrus cloud systems during the three-week field campaign (October 21, 23-26, 31, and November 1). This was a much higher success rate than either of the PIs anticipated (our goal was closer to sampling three or four cases). The balloon was typically launched from oil pads or farm fields northwest of Enid and the payload was typically retrieved somewhat north of the SGP site. We never landed directly at the SGP site, and so did not need regular access to the SGP facilities. Our greatest concern going into the field campaign was the longer-term storage of crystals in the -196°C cryo dry-shipper dewars and the subsequent transport across the country. We had tested storage and transport prior to the field campaign, but we had never stored crystals for a few weeks nor had we transported the dewars over long distances. To our great relief, the storage and transport worked flawlessly and we were able to image a large number of crystals from six of the seven cases. Working with the staff at the ARM SGP office was excellent. They not only helped us find the sources we needed for helium, liquid nitrogen, and other materials, but also helped with contacts within the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Vance Air Force Base. One goal of our field project was to tie the in situ measurements of ice crystal habits to the radar signatures derived from the Ka-band ARM Zenith-pointing Radar (KAZR). Unfortunately KAZR was down for the duration of our experiment. However, the Ka-band Scanning ARM Cloud Radar (KASACR) was put into vertically pointing mode during the ICEBall campaign and those data, along with Doppler lidar measurements, have proved very useful.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
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↗
NASA NTRS1991

Mars sample return mission: Two alternate scenarios

Two scenarios for accomplishing a Mars Sample Return mission are presented. Mission A is a low-cost, low-mass scenario, while Mission B is a high-technology, high-science alternative. Mission A begins with the launch of one Titan 4 rocket with a Centaur G' upper stage. The Centaur performs the trans-Mars injection burn and is then released. The payload consists of two lander packages and the orbital transfer vehicle, which is responsible for supporting the landers during launch and interplanetary cruise. Near Mars, the landers separate - one bound for a polar site and the other for an equatorial site. After descending to the surface, the landers deploy small, local rovers to collect samples. The rovers return these samples to the landers for loading on the direct return rockets, which return the samples directly to the Earth's surface. Mission B starts with four Titan 4 launches, used to place the components of the planetary transfer vehicle (PTV) into orbit. The fourth launch payload is able to move to assemble the entire vehicle by simple docking routines. Once complete, the PTV begins a low-thrust trajectory out from low Earth orbit, through interplanetary space, and into low Mars orbit. It deploys a communications satellite into a one half sol orbit and then releases the lander pad cage at 500 km altitude. The lander package contains the lander, the Mars ascent vehicle (MAV), two lighter-than-air rovers (called Aereons), and one conventional land rover. The entire package is contained within a biconic aeroshell. After release from the PTV the lander package descends to the surface, where all three rovers are released to collect samples and map the terrain. The Aereons attempt to circumnavigate Mars and collect samples from a wide variety of sites, while the land rover examines a local area more thoroughly. The Aereons are equipped with small sample return rockets that can return their samples to the lander in the event that an Aereon is incapable of returning to the lander itself. Once all samples have been collected they are loaded onto the MAV and launched into orbit. The PTV then collects the samples and returns them to Earth orbit for recovery.

Source record↗