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 163 records · Page 9

STS-110/Atlantic/ISS 8A Pre-Launch On Orbit-Landing-Crew Egress

The crew of STS-110, which consists of Commander Michael Bloomfield, Pilot Stephen Frick, and Mission Specialists Rex Walheim, Ellen Ochoa, Lee Morin, Jerry Ross, and Steven Smith is introduced at the customary pre-flight meal. The narrator provides background information on the astronauts during suit-up. Each crew member is shown in the White Room before boarding Space Shuttle Atlantis, and some display signs to loved ones. Launch footage includes the following replays: Beach Tracker, VAB, Pad B, Tower 1, DLTR-3, Grandstand, Cocoa Beach DOAMS, Playalinda DOAMS, UCS-23, SLF Convoy, OTV-154, OTV-163, OTV-170 (mislabeled), and OTV-171 (mislabeled). After the launch, NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe gives a speech to the Launch Control Center, with political dignitaries present. While on-orbit, Atlantis docks with the International Space Station (ISS), and Canadarm 2 on the ISS lifts the S0 Truss out of the orbiter's payload bay. The video includes highlights of three extravehicular activities (EVAs). In the first, the S0 Truss is fastened to the Destiny Laboratory Module on the ISS. During the third EVA, Walheim and Smith assist in the checkout of the handcart on the S0 Truss. The Atlantis crew is shown gathered together with the Expedition 4 crew of the ISS, and again by itself after undocking. Replays of the landing include: VAB, Tower 1, Mid-field, Runway South End, Runway North End, Tower 2, Playalinda DOAMS, Cocoa Beach DOAMS, and Pilot Point of View (PPOV). After landing, Commander Bloomfield lets each of his crew members give a short speech.

Source record↗

Ranger Spacecraft

The thermal-control philosophy of the spacecraft currently under development by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory is design by passive means to maintain all components within the tolerances specified by cognizant engineers. Due to the complexity of the configurations, calculations are) of necessity, fairly generalized and final design is based upon tests in an environmental chamber. The Ranger series spacecraft is designed with a basic structure which is common to all models, with additional hardware to suit the individual mission. This basic structure of Rangers A-1 and A-2 is seen as the hexagonal instrument section, the erectable solar panels, the movable antenna, and the omniantenna. The Ranger A-1 and A-2 configuration is for engineering tests and space-exploration, with the scientific instrumentation isolation requirement dictating the spread-out design. The spacecraft stands 12 feet high, weighs 700 to 800 pounds, and has an internal power of 150 watts. Rangers A-3, A-4, and A-5 are designed to rough land a capsule on the moon. For these, a capsule and retrorocket replace the scientific instruments, occupying the space inside the tower structure. The spacecraft must survive many environments. Chronologically they are: 1) Folded configuration inside an aerodynamic shroud on the pad. 2) Thermal flux from shroud aerodynamically heated during boost phase. 3) Coasting up to 30 minutes attached to Agena stage after booster and shroud are separated. 4) Agena stage burning. 5) Coasting and tumbling after separation from Agena until it passes from earth's shadow. 6) Upon reaching sunlight, panels open and begin sun acquisition. 7) Antenna seeks earth after spacecraft locks onto sun. 8) Space phase- "steady state" with vehicle's vertical axis locked on sun, communicating with earth. The philosophy is to design for the sun-acquired mode, making allowances for the transient conditions.

Thostesen, T. O.↗

STS-92 Meal - Suit up - Depart O&C - Launch Discovery On Orbit - Landing - Crew Egress

The video begins with the introduction of the crew of Space Shuttle Discovery on STS-92, at their customary pre-flight meal. The crew consists of Commander Brian Duffy, Pilot Pamela Melroy, and Mission Specialists Leroy Chiao, William McArthur, Peter "Jeff" Wisoff, Michael Lopez-Alegria, and Koichi Wakata. The introduction and suit-up of the astronauts, and their departure in the Astrovan are shown at a quick pace. The video shows in detail the seating of the crew and each astronaut's final preparations in the White Room prior to boarding. Views of Discovery's night launch include: SLF Convoy, Beach Tracker, VAB, Pad Perimeter, Tower-1, UCS-15, Press Site, UCS-23, OTV-61, OTV-70, OTV-71, and the In-Cabin Ascent Camera. While in orbit, the Discovery orbiter docks with the International Space Station (ISS). The docking is shown in a series of still images. The video includes clips from four extravehicular activities (EVAs). The crew members who performed the EVAs comment on them while speaking to Mission Control. During the EVAs, the Z1 Truss and an antenna are attached to the ISS. The crew members on the fourth EVA test jet packs. Views of landing include: TV-1, TV-2, TV-3, LRO-1, and HUD.

Source record↗

Natural environment considerations for Shuttle system development support

Natural environments were determined for each of the Shuttle mission phases as a guide to design and operational decisions. The phases were categorized as mission planning, prelaunch, launch/ascent, booster recovery, on-orbit, and descent and landing. The wind criteria included magnitude/height, gust factors, turbulence spectra, wind shear, and vector properties for all flight and ground phases. A maximum design risk of 1 percent was permitted for the windiest two weeks the Shuttle would have to stay on the pad at either KSC or Vandenberg. The ascent wind profile was determined with the Jimsphere Vector Wind profiles, which cover the wind speeds, shears, gusts, and turbulence up to 18 km altitude. The models used to define the environmental situations of the Shuttle comprised wind, thermodynamic, space, lightning, sea state, mission analysis, and ET ice data base formulations.

Vaughan, W. W.↗

STS-114: Discovery L-2 Countdown Status Briefing

George Diller of NASA Public Affairs hosted this briefing. Pete Nickolenko, NASA Test Director; Scott Higgenbotham, STS-114 Payload-Mission Manager; Cathy Winters, Shuttle Weather Officer were present. Pete reports his team has completed the avionics system check ups, servicing of the cryogenic tanks will take about seven hours that day, and will perform engine system checks and pad close outs come evening. Pete also summarized other standard close out activities: check ups of the Orbiter and ground communications network, rotary service, structure retraction, and external tank load (ETL). Pete reported that the mission will be 12 days with two weather contingency days, and end of mission landing scheduled at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) at approximately 11:00 in the morning, Eastern time on July 25th. Scott briefly reported that all hardware is on board Discovery, closed out, and ready to fly. Cathy reported that hurricane Dennis moved to the North and looking forward to launch. She mentioned of a new hurricane looming and will be named Emily, spotted some crosswinds which will migrate to the west, there is 30% probability weather prohibiting launch. Cathy further gave current weather forecast supported with charts: the Launch Forecast, Tanking Forecast, SRB (Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster) Forecast, CONUS and TAL Launch Sites Forecast, and with 24 hours and 48 hours turn around plan. Launch constraints, weather, crosswinds, cloud cover, ground imagery system, launch countdown, launch crews, mission management simulations, launch team simulations were topics covered with the News Media.

Source record↗

STS-84 Mission Highlights Resource Tape

The STS-84 mission flight crew, Cmdr. Charles J. Precourt, Pilot Eileen M. Collions, Payload Cmdr. Jean-Francois Clervoy (ESA), Mission Specialists Edward T. Lu, Carlos I. Noriega, Elena V. Kondakova, and Jerry M. Linenger can be seen performing pre-launch activities such as eating the traditional breakfast, crew suit-up, and the ride out to the launch pad. Also, included are various panoramic views of the shuttle on the pad. The crew can be seen being readied in the white room' for their mission. After the closing of the hatch and arm retraction, launch activities are shown including countdown, engine ignition, launch, and the separation of the Solid Rocket Boosters. The rendezvous with the Mir Space Station, along with onboard activities, and landing are included. Also included are shuttle-to-ground transmission between the crew and Mission Control and various earthviews.

Source record↗

Hydrometeor Size Distribution Measurements by Imaging the Attenuation of a Laser Spot

The optical extinction of a laser due to scattering of particles is a well-known phenomenon. In a laboratory environment, this physical principle is known as the Beer-Lambert law, and is often used to measure the concentration of scattering particles in a fluid or gas. This method has been experimentally shown to be a usable means to measure the dust density from a rocket plume interaction with the lunar surface. Using the same principles and experimental arrangement, this technique can be applied to hydrometeor size distributions, and for launch-pad operations, specifically as a passive hail detection and measurement system. Calibration of a hail monitoring system is a difficult process. In the past, it has required comparison to another means of measuring hydrometeor size and density. Using a technique recently developed for estimating the density of surface dust dispersed during a rocket landing, measuring the extinction of a laser passing through hail (or dust in the rocket case) yields an estimate of the second moment of the particle cloud, and hydrometeor size distribution in the terrestrial meteorological case. With the exception of disdrometers, instruments that measure rain and hail fall make indirect measurements of the drop-size distribution. Instruments that scatter microwaves off of hydrometeors, such as the WSR-88D (Weather Surveillance Radar 88 Doppler), vertical wind profilers, and microwave disdrometers, measure the sixth moment of the drop size distribution (DSD). By projecting a laser onto a target, changes in brightness of the laser spot against the target background during rain and hail yield a measurement of the DSD's second moment by way of the Beer-Lambert law. In order to detect the laser attenuation within the 8-bit resolution of most camera image arrays, a minimum path length is required. Depending on the intensity of the hail fall rate for moderate to heavy rainfall, a laser path length of 100 m is sufficient to measure variations in optical extinction using a digital camera. For hail fall only, the laser path may be shorter because of greater scattering due to the properties of hailstones versus raindrops. A photodetector may replace the camera in automated installations. Laser-based rain and hail measurement systems are available, but they are based on measuring the interruption of a thin laser beam, thus counting individual hydrometeors. These systems are true disdrometers since they also measure size and velocity. The method reported here is a simple method, requiring far less processing, but it is not a disdrometer.

Lane, John↗

STS-82 Post Flight Presentation

The STS-82 crew, Commander Kenneth D. Bowersox, Pilot Scott J. Horowitz, Payload Commander Mark C. Lee, and Mission Specialists Gregory J. Harbaugh, Steven L. Smith, Joseph R. Tanner, and Steven A. Hawley present a video and still picture overview of their mission. Included in the presentation are the following: the pre-launch activities such as eating the traditional breakfast, being suited up, and riding out to the launch pad, various panoramic views of the shuttle on the pad, the countdown, engine ignition, launch, shuttle roll maneuver, separation of the Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB) from the shuttle, survey of the payload bay with the Shuttle's 50-foot remote manipulator system (RMS), the successful retrieve of the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), EVAs to repair HST, release of HST, and the shuttle's landing.

Source record↗

Genesis Solar Wind Collector Cleaning Assessment: Update on 60336 Sample Case Study

To maximize the scientific return of Genesis Solar Wind return mission it is necessary to characterize and remove a crash-derived particle and thin film surface contamination. A small subset of Genesis mission collector fragments are being subjected to extensive study via various techniques. Here we present an update on the sample 60336, a Czochralski silicon (Si-CZ) based wafer from the bulk array (B/C). This sample has undergone multiple cleaning steps (see the table below): UPW spin wash, aggressive chemical cleanings (including aqua regia, hot xylene and RCA1), as well as optical and chemical (EDS, ToF-SIMS) imaging. Contamination appeared on the surface of 60336 after the initial 2007 UPW cleaning. Aqua regia and hot xylene treatment (8/13/2013) did little to remove contaminants. The sample was UPW cleaned for the third time and imaged (9/16/13). The UPW removed the dark stains that were visible on the sample. However, some features, like "the Flounder" (a large, 100 micron feature in Fig. 1b) appeared largely intact, resisting all previous cleaning efforts. These features were likely from mobilized adhesive, derived from the Post-It notes used to stabilize samples for transport from Utah after the hard landing. To remove this contamination, an RCA step 1 organic cleaning (RCA1) was employed. Although we are still uncertain on the nature of the Flounder and why it is resistant to UPW and aqua regia/hot xylene treatment, we have found RCA1 to be suitable for its removal. It is likely that the glue from sticky pads used during collector recovery may have been a source for resistant organic contamination [9]; however [8] shows that UPW reaction with crash-derived organic contamination does not make particle removal more difficult.

Goreva, Y. S.↗

Phoenix - the First Mars Scout Mission

As the first of the new Mars Scouts missions, the Phoenix project was selected by NASA in August of 2003. Four years later, almost to the day, Phoenix was launched from Cape Canaveral Air Station and successfully injected into an interplanetary trajectory on its way to Mars. This paper will highlight some of the key changes since the 2006 IEEE paper of the same name, as well as activities, challenges and problems encountered on the way to the launch pad. Phoenix Follows the water responding directly to the recently published data from Dr. William Boynton, PI (and Phoenix co-I) of the Mars Odyssey Gamma Ray Spectrometer (GRS). GRS data indicate extremely large quantities of water ice (up to 50% by mass) within the upper 50 cm of the northern polar regolith. Phoenix will land within the north polar region at 68.2 N, 233.4 W identified by GRS to harbor near surface water ice and provide in-situ confirmation of this extraordinary find. Our mission will investigate water in all its phases, and will investigate the history of water as evidenced in the soil characteristics that will be carefully examined by the powerful suite of onboard instrumentation. Access to the critical subsurface region expected to contain this information is made possible by a third generation robotic arm capable of excavating the expected Martian regolith to a depth of 1m. Phoenix has four primary science objectives: 1) Determine the polar climate and weather, interaction with the surface, and composition of the lower atmosphere around 70 N for at least 90 sols focusing on water, ice, dust, noble gases, and CO2. Determine the atmospheric characteristics during descent through the atmosphere. 2) Characterize the geomorphology and active processes shaping the northern plains and the physical properties of the near surface regolith focusing on the role of water. 3) Determine the aqueous mineralogy and chemistry as well as the adsorbed gases and organic content of the regolith. Verify the Odyssey discovery of near-surface ice. 4) Characterize the history of water, ice, and the polar 1 1-4244-1488-1/08/$25.00 2008 IEEE 2 IEEEAC paper#1579, Version 1, Updated 2008:01:09 climate. Determine the past and present biological potential of the surface and subsurface environments.

Mars exploration↗

Construction bidding cost of KSC's space shuttle facilities

The bidding cost of the major Space Transportation System facilities constructed under the responsibility of the John F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC) is described and listed. These facilities and Ground Support Equipment (GSE) are necessary for the receiving, assembly, testing, and checkout of the Space Shuttle for launch and landing missions at KSC. The Shuttle launch configuration consists of the Orbiter, the External Tank, and the Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB). The reusable Orbiter and SRB's is the major factor in the program that will result in lowering space travel costs. The new facilities are the Landing Facility; Orbiter Processing Facility; Orbiter Approach and Landing Test Facility (Dryden Test Center, California); Orbiter Mating Devices; Sound Suppression Water System; and Emergency Power System for LC-39. Also, a major factor was to use as much Apollo facilities and hardware as possible to reduce the facilities cost. The alterations to existing Apollo facilities are the VAB modifications; Mobile Launcher Platforms; Launch Complex 39 Pads A and B (which includes a new concept - the Rotary Service Structure), which was featured in ENR, 3 Feb. 1977, 'Hinged Space Truss will Support Shuttle Cargo Room'; Launch Control Center mods; External Tank and SRB Processing and Storage; Fluid Test Complex mods; O&C Spacelab mods; Shuttle mods for Parachute Facility; SRB Recovery and Disassembly Facility at Hangar 'AF'; and an interesting GSE item - the SRB Dewatering Nozzle Plug Sets (Remote Controlled Submarine System) used to inspect and acquire for reuse of SRB's.

Brown, Joseph Andrew↗

Debris/ice/TPS assessment and integrated photographic analysis for Shuttle Mission STS-62

A pre-launch debris inspection of the pad and Shuttle vehicle was conducted on 2 March 1994. The detailed walkdown of Launch Pad 39B and MLP-1 also included the primary flight elements OV-102 Columbia (16th flight), ET-62 (LWT 55), and BI-064 SRB's. There were no significant facility or vehicle anomalies. After the launch on March 4th, a debris inspection of Pad 39B was performed. Damage to the pad overall was minimal. On-orbit photographs taken by the flight crew and two films from the ET/ORB umbilical cameras of the External Tank after separation from the Orbiter revealed no major damage or lost flight hardware that would have been a safety of flight concern. Orbiter performance on final approach appeared normal. Infrared imagery of landing gear deployment showed the loss of thermal barrier from the nose gear wheel well. The missing thermal barrier material was not recovered. The Solid Rocket Boosters were inspected at Hanger AF after retrieval. Both frustums had a combined total of 44 MSA-2 debonds over fasteners. Significant amounts of BTA had been applied to closeouts on the RH frustum, forward skirt, and aft skirt. Hypalon paint was blistered/missing over the areas were the BTA had been applied. The underlying BTA was not sooted (IFA STS-62-B-1). Investigation of this condition has concluded there was insufficient heat rates to cause blistering of the Hypalon until late in the ascent phase. A post landing inspection of OV-102 was conducted after the landing at KSC. The Orbiter TPS sustained a total of 97 hits, of which 16 had a major dimension of 1 inch or larger. The Orbiter lower surface had a total of 36 hits, of which 7 had a major dimension of 1 inch or larger. Based on these numbers and comparison to statistics from previous missions of similar configuration, both the total number of debris hits and the number of hits 1 inch or larger was less than average. Six thermal barriers, total size approximately 36 in. x 3 in. x 1.5 in., and one corner tile piece 4 in. x 4 in., were missing from the nose landing gear doors. Runway infrared cameras recorded these objects falling from the Orbiter when the nose landing gear doors were opened on final approach. A search of the area under the flight path failed to recover the missing thermal batteries, which may be submerged in the large body of water south of the runway. The cause for the loss of the material was attributed to the way the substrate was prepared for bonding at the vendor. Orbiter post landing microchemical sample results revealed a variety of residuals in the Orbiter window samples. These were attributed to SRB BSM exhaust, Orbiter TPS, window protective covers and processing, natural landing site products, and paints/primers from various sources. The residual sampling data do not indicate a single source of damaging debris and all of these materials have been documented previously in analyses for post landing sample reports. Data from residual sampling also showed no trends when compared to previous mission data. A total of ten Post Launch Anomalies, including one IFA, were observed during the STS-62 mission assessment.

Katnik, Gregory N.↗

Study of radioisotope safety devices for electric propulsion system, Volume 1: Summary report

A new reference design was prepared for the 5 kW(e) thermionic power supply. The safety equipment in this design is a passive containment system which does not rely on the operation of any mechanisms such as a launch escape rocket or deployment of parachutes. It includes: (1) a blast shield to protect against the explosion of the launch vehicle; (2) a combination of refractory thermal insulation and heat storage material to protect against a sustained launch pad fire; (3) a reentry body with a spherical nose and a large conical flare at the aft end to stabilize the reentry attitude and lower the terminal velocity in air; (4) composite graphite thermal protection to sustain the reentry heat pulse; (5) crushable honeycomb behind the nose to limit the deceleration of the radioisotope source due to impact on land at terminal velocity; (6) a double-walled secondary containment vessel surrounding the isotopic capsules; (7) neutron shielding to reduce external dose rates; (8) an auxiliary cooling system employing redundant heat pipes to remove the radioactive decay heat from the heat source and reject it to the surroundings or to a forced convection loop.

Bradshaw, G. B.↗

Land cover change detection using a GIS-guided, feature-based classification of Landsat thematic mapper data

Landsat TM data were combined with land cover and planimetric data layers contained in the State of Michigan's geographic information system (GIS) to identify changes in forestlands, specifically new oil/gas wells. A GIS-guided feature-based classification method was developed. The regions extracted by the best image band/operator combination were studied using a set of rules based on the characteristics of the GIS oil/gas pads.

Enslin, William R.↗

Analysis of Launch Vehicle Liftoff Debris: Historical Perspective from Space Shuttle and Application to Artemis I

Human exploration-class launch vehicles are inherently prone to debris due to the extreme environments generated during pre-launch operations, liftoff, and flight. The use of cryogenic propellants often requires thermal protection system (TPS) coatings, typically foam, to maintain the propellant conditions in the tank and prevent an accumulation ice on the external surface of the vehicle. Some ice growth is to be expected at umbilical interfaces, vents, flanges, or brackets where it is difficult to apply TPS. This ice may come loose at any time due to wind on the launch pad, structural vibration and acoustics after rocket ignition, or aerodynamic forces during flight. This phenomena is especially apparent on vehicles with no TPS, such as the Saturn V rockets used in the Apollo Program, see Figure 1. During propellant tanking, the thermal contraction of the underlying substrate may generate cracks in the TPS (Figure 1). Chunks of TPS can release due to the expansion of ingested gas from cryopumping or from aerodynamic forces if the crack creates an offset surface. Most foams will also have a certain amount of “popcorning” where small pieces of foam will pop off during flight because of the differential between the static surface pressure and the pressure of the gas trapped in the foam cell structure. There are a number of other coating or closeout materials that may be shed from the vehicle and become debris. During pre-launch operations and liftoff, the vehicle may also be exposed to debris originating from the launch pad or ground support equipment. This debris is separate from foreign object debris, or FOD, which is not intended to be present and is strictly controlled through operations and maintenance procedures. In this case, debris is generated from hardware and materials that are necessary for launch and are subject to the intense vibration, acoustics, and direct plume impingement of the launch environment. Examples include ice from umbilicals, tape and tie wraps that protect cables, and rust or corrosion from the launch platform. While NASA has historically been aware of debris as a potential issue that could cause a failure resulting in loss of mission, loss of vehicle, or loss of crew, the likelihood and severity of that risk was not always well understood or given sufficient weight in program and flight decisions. After the Space Shuttle Columbia accident (STS-107), the investigation found that foam TPS debris shed from the external tank was the proximate cause of the damage to the orbiter wing. Six previous observations of debris released from the foam ramp that covered the bipod connecting the forward end of the orbiter to the external tank resulted in minor changes or were determined to be accepted flight risks. Two occurrences of bipod ramp foam loss were not identified until the STS-107 investigation. Despite the damage inflicted by these debris strikes, the Shuttle Program Requirements Control Board deemed the vehicle safe to fly. During the Return to Flight effort following the Columbia disaster, NASA Engineering developed a process for the assessment of debris transport, impact, and damage tolerance to support independent assessments of risk by NASA Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA). Under this system, each element (vehicle or ground system) defines a catalog of all expected debris based on launch history, component testing, or analysis. Debris transport analysis (DTA) is conducted using the debris catalog characteristics and potential flow transport mechanisms (e.g., vehicle aerodynamics, gravity, wind, plume-driven). The predicted debris impact locations and velocities are provided to the hardware owners, who use available test data and analysis to determine whether each component can withstand the impacts. In cases where the element hardware may be severely damaged or fail, the options are to mitigate the debris source through some change in design or operation, or to work with S&MA to try to characterize the probability of the impact and damage for program risk acceptance. Because of the differences in debris characteristics and transport, the DTA has been divided between the Liftoff and Ascent regimes. The development and application of Liftoff DTA methodology from the Shuttle Program to the current Artemis Program is the subject of this paper. Liftoff DTA covers the time from the start of pre-launch operations at the launch pad, up until the vehicle clears the launch tower and there is no longer any interaction with ground systems. Debris transport during this period is broadly classified as either gravity, wind, and plume-entrained (GWPE) or plume driven (PD). GWPE debris is generally lower speed, travelling in a forward-to-aft direction. PD transport includes flow features from the rocket ignition transient, as well as plume impingement and recirculation that occur as the vehicle lifts off the launch platform. In these cases, the debris typically moves in an aft-to-forward direction at higher speeds. The applicable transport mechanisms must be considered for each piece of debris depending on the material, and release location and time. For example, rust or metallic debris from the tower could fall (GWPE) and impact the vehicle before landing on the launch platform deck where it could be also be transported by plume impingement (PD). However, falling ice (GWPE) from an umbilical is unlikely to survive impact with the vehicle or launch platform and be available for PD transport. Modeling of debris transport is accomplished using a set of DTA tools which simulate debris trajectories subject to a reference frame acceleration (i.e., gravity) and aerodynamic drag. Where the trajectory encounters a solid surface, the debris is allowed to rebound with a specified coefficient of restitution. The drag is calculated by interpolating the fluid state at each point in the debris trajectory from high-fidelity computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations of the launch vehicle and pad. The CFD data may either be static (steady state or time averaged), typically for GWPE transport, or dynamic (time-accurate) for PD flow features like the ignition transient. Examples of the CFD flow field solutions for the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and launch pad are shown in Figure 2. Typical SLS debris trajectory predictions from DTA are illustrated in Figure 3. The final version of this paper will include a more detailed examination of the Liftoff DTA process developed during the Shuttle Program, and how it has been augmented and applied to the SLS rocket under the Artemis Program. Comparisons with debris observations from the Artemis I launch will demonstrate validation of the tools and methodology.

Debris↗

STS-85 Mission Highlights Resources Tape

The flight crew of STS-85, Cmdr. Curtis L. Brown, Jr., Pilot Kent V. Rominger, Payload Cmdr. N. Jan Davis (Ph.D.), Mission Specialists Robert L. Curbeam, Jr. and Stephen K. Robinson (Ph.D.), and Payload Specialist Bjarni V. Tryggvason, present an overview of their mission. During the pre-launch activities the shuttle is shown being mated to the external tank and Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs). Also included: is the arrival of the crew at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC), their suit-up, the crew being transported to the pad, being strapped in, and launch control activities. The launch includes the count down, main engine start-up, SRB start-up, the launch, the roll maneuver and SRB separation. Once the crew is in orbit, they deploy the CRISTA-SPAS payload and conduct various micro-gravity experiments. In the last part of the video the crew is seen preparing for the landing phase of the mission.

Source record↗

STS-114: Discovery Mission Status Briefing

This video features mid-deck payloads being stowed at Pad 39B, a ribbon cutting ceremony at the NASA Shuttle Launch Facility (SLF) Air Traffic Control Tower and footage of the air traffic control radar constructed at Shiloh. The STS-114 Crewmembers, Commander, Eileen Collins, Pilot, James Kelly, Mission Specialist, Charles Camarda, Mission Specialist, Wendy Lawrence, Mission Specialist, Soichi Noguchi, JAXA, Mission Specialist, Stephen Robinson, and Mission Specialist Andrew Thomas are shown arriving at the Shuttle Landing Facility at Kennedy Space Center. Eileen Collins introduces each crew member and talks to the news media about their role during this mission. The astronauts are also shown during their spacesuit fit check at the Operations and Control Center (O&C) and footage of a practice flight is presented. The start of the countdown clock in the firing room 3 of the launch control center is shown

Source record↗

A Streamlined Approach to Spatial Mapping of Complex 3D Thermal Boundary Condition Data

Spatial mapping of 1D, 2D, and particularly 3D thermal boundary condition data is essential for accurate thermal simulation of spacecraft and launch vehicles. This information typically is available in simple ASCII file format but can be problematic to use for thermal simulations. Difficulties that can be encountered include the ability to directly use the available file format, transformation of the data into the desired reference coordinate system in 3D space, and accurate interpolation of the data onto the thermal calculation domain. This paper presents a streamlined approach to spatial mapping of complex unsymmetrical 3D cold wall heat flux data using the fields’ capability in Simcenter3D. A recent example of 3D thermal plume simulation at MSFC will be employed to illustrate the use of text, csv, and Excel files, specifying coordinate systems for transformation of data in 3D space, and use of the various interpolation schemes available for spatial mapping. Spatial boundary condition verification is also very important, and the spacecraft thermal analyst needs effective visualization tools to develop confidence in the boundary condition definitions. Visualization of the spacecraft plume raw field data, the calculated field data, and the interpolated field data onto the thermal calculation domain will be discussed, with a particular focus on real-time viewing of the interpolated data for available interpolation schemes. The objective of this paper is to outline the modeling techniques used with the integrated thermal analysis of a terrestrial lunar lander demonstrator. Specifically, the techniques outlined herein focus on spatial mapping of convective and radiative exhaust plume results from a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis. Two cases were investigated, however, the modeling techniques that were utilized translate to both cases seamlessly. Those two cases were as follows: • Lunar lander demonstrator firing on-pad (worst case). • Lunar lander demonstrator hovering at an elevated position above the launch pad. For the purposes of information control, this paper will focus on the modeling techniques only, using altered or dimensionless data where necessary. BACKGROUND The thermal model examined in this paper is of the lunar lander demonstrator known as XL-1T (terrestrial), born from a collaborative effort between Masten Space Systems (MSS) and NASA, under NASA’s Lunar CATALYST (also known as Lunar Cargo Transportation and Landing by Soft Touchdown) initiative. The lander is a reusable vertical takeoff/vertical landing (VTVL) test bed which is controlled by four throttleable main engines utilizing green hypergolic propellants.

Hawkins, Robert F.↗