Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “day of launch processes”

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Space Launch System Launch Windows and Day of Launch Processes

Lunar missions benefit from varying the launch azimuth as a function of launch time to allow longer launch windows with minimum performance impacts. This variable azimuth approach allows the vehicle to track the Moon’s apparent motion due to Earth’s rotation. The Space Launch System (SLS) Block 1 vehicle design requires the mission to launch into an elliptical parking orbit to provide sufficient energy to insert Orion into a Trans-Lunar Injection (TLI) orbit. The primary benefit of varying the launch azimuth, and as a result the achieved orbit inclination, allows the SLS Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) to perform its TLI burn closer to perigee and take advantage of performing a burn in a location where the burn will optimally raise apogee.

launch window↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Space Launch System Launch Window and Day of Launch Processes

Lunar missions benefit from varying the launch azimuth as a function of launch time to allow longer launch windows with minimum performance impacts. This variable azimuth approach allows the vehicle to track the Moon’s apparent motion due to Earth’s rotation . The Space Launch System (SLS) Block 1 vehicle design requires the mission to launch into an elliptical parking orbit to provide sufficient energy to insert Orion into a trans-lunar trajectory. The primary benefit of varying the launch azimuth, and as a result the parking orbit inclination, allows the SLS Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) to perform its Trans-Lunar Injection (TLI) burn closer to perigee and take advantage of performing a burn in a location where the burn will primarily raise apogee.

A. S. Craig↗
NASA NTRS2011

Space Shuttle Systems Engineering Processes for Liftoff Debris Risk Mitigation

This slide presentation reviews the systems engineering process designed to reduce the risk from debris during Space Shuttle Launching. This process begins the day of launch from the tanking to the vehicle tower clearance. Other debris risks (i.e., Ascent, and micrometeoroid orbital debit) are mentioned) but are not the subject of this presentation. The Liftoff debris systems engineering process and an example of how it works are reviewed (i.e.,STS-119 revealed a bolt liberation trend on the Fixed Service Structure (FSS) 275 level elevator room). The process includes preparation of a Certification of Flight Readiness (CoFR) that includes (1) Lift-off debris from previous mission dispositioned, (2) Flight acceptance rationale has been provided for Lift-off debris sources/causes (3) Lift-off debris mission support documentation, processes and tools are in place for the up-coming mission. The process includes a liftoff debris data collection that occurs after each launch. This includes a post launch walkdown, that records each liftoff debris, and the entry of the debris into a database, it also includes a review of the imagery from the launch, and a review of the instrumentation data. There is also a review of the debris transport analysis process, that includes temporal and spatial framework and a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis. which incorporates a debris transport analyses (DTA), debris materials and impact tests, and impact analyses.

Mitchell, Michael↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Methodology and Development of SLS Ascent Loads

The methodology and development of the Space Launch System (SLS) Block 1 Boost and Core phase Ascent loads will be presented in this paper. As is common practice, a series of fixed time/mass Finite Element Models of the vehicle were developed for the purpose of evaluating the structural loads and accelerations for particular Mach or time ranges associated with the Boost and Core phases of flight. Load contributors, which vary between bins, include the flight mechanic induced portion of the loads (e.g., Static-Elastic (STEL) or Vehicle Load Indicator (VLI) tool results), gust loads, buffet loads, Solid Rocket Booster thrust oscillations, Core Stage Engine thrust oscillations, maneuvering loads, thrust vector-related dispersions, and Programmed Test Input induced loads. Each of these load contributors will be examined in this paper, as well as the Loads Combination Equations used to generate the final loads. In addition to the typical coupled loads analysis, an Ascent loads evaluation is included in the SLS Artemis 1 Day of Launch process; a summary of this evaluation will also be presented in this paper.

SLS↗
NASA NTRS2011

Space Shuttle Day-of-Launch Trajectory Design Operations

A top priority of any launch vehicle is to insert as much mass into the desired orbit as possible. This requirement must be traded against vehicle capability in terms of dynamic control, thermal constraints, and structural margins. The vehicle is certified to specific structural limits which will yield certain performance characteristics of mass to orbit. Some limits cannot be certified generically and must be checked with each mission design. The most sensitive limits require an assessment on the day-of-launch. To further minimize vehicle loads while maximizing vehicle performance, a day-of-launch trajectory can be designed. This design is optimized according to that day s wind and atmospheric conditions, which increase the probability of launch. The day-of-launch trajectory design and verification process is critical to the vehicle s safety. The Day-Of-Launch I-Load Update (DOLILU) is the process by which the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Space Shuttle Program tailors the vehicle steering commands to fit that day s environmental conditions and then rigorously verifies the integrated vehicle trajectory s loads, controls, and performance. This process has been successfully used for almost twenty years and shares many of the same elements with other launch vehicles that execute a day-of-launch trajectory design or day-of-launch trajectory verification. Weather balloon data is gathered at the launch site and transmitted to the Johnson Space Center s Mission Control. The vehicle s first stage trajectory is then adjusted to the measured wind and atmosphere data. The resultant trajectory must satisfy loads and controls constraints. Additionally, these assessments statistically protect for non-observed dispersions. One such dispersion is the change in the wind from the last measured balloon to launch time. This process is started in the hours before launch and is repeated several times as the launch count proceeds. Should the trajectory design not meet all constraint criteria, Shuttle would be No-Go for launch. This Shuttle methodology is very similar to other unmanned launch vehicles. By extension, this method would likely be employed for any future NASA launch vehicle. This paper will review the Shuttle s day-of-launch trajectory optimization and verification operations as an example of a more generic application of day-of-launch design and validation. With Shuttle s retirement, it is fitting to document the current state of this critical process and capture lessons learned to benefit current and future launch vehicle endeavors.

Harrington, Brian E.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Overview of the NASA Terrestrial Environments Support Role: Data and Applications

This presentation focuses on the terrestrial environment component of the Natural Environments Branch’s (NEB’s) support role and highlights the instrumentation and data sources used, how the data are quality controlled and archived, and the analyses and use-cases of these datasets. A detailed overview is provided about some individual data sources that are used by the branch, which includes a network of instruments (e.g., wind towers, balloons, and profilers) and models, such as the Earth Global Reference Atmospheric Model (Earth-GRAM). Additionally, the data archival and quality control processes that maintain the high-quality climatological datasets from these sources are discussed, as are the implemented and pending updates to this process. Examples of the different applications for these datasets are presented to showcase the analytical and operational capabilities of the NEB and demonstrate the culmination of the entire process. This includes the Range Reference Atmospheres created and maintained by the NEB, sea-state analyses for crewed return, certification of observation systems for space flight, and the day-of-launch support process. The NEB at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) supports the NASA Engineering Directorate (ED) and Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate (ESDMD) by providing the necessary environmental constraints to facilitate the safe design and operation of assets required for space travel. This includes, but is not limited to, the environmental considerations for assets residing at the launch sites, temporarily stationed at a launch site, traversing the [extra-]terrestrial atmosphere and open space, and arriving at their destination. As such, the Terrestrial and Planetary Environments Team within the NEB is but a part of the whole, delegated to quantify the environment that assets may encounter whilst on Earth and within its atmosphere. However, nearly all ESDMD assets are subjected to terrestrial conditions, which cover a diverse range of meteorological regimes and extremes. The team also supports day-of-launch operations for the Space Launch System (SLS), providing real-time monitoring of the winds and thermodynamics along the launch path using an amalgamation of observed, remotely sensed, and modeled output.

Systems Engineering↗
NASA NTRS2024

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

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

Space Launch System↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

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

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

Space Launch System↗
NASA NTRS1989

Progress in the use of wind profiling radars for Shuttle launch support

The use of wind profiling radars during Space Shuttle launches is examined. The way in which wind measurements are used in the launch process is described, including monitoring the day of launch winds, flight simulations, and the improvement of the data base which provides the mean winds and monthly variability of wind profiles. Results are presented from tests of two profilers conducted during March and April, 1985. The wind profiling characteristics of three profilers are listed and the winds provided by the profilers are compared to Jimsphere winds.

Smith, Steve A.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Space Launch System Day of Launch Loads for Artemis I

NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) was successfully launched on November 16, 2022. During the years leading up to the first flight, Artemis I, a DOLILU (Day of Launch I-Load Update) process was developed to design, verify, and upload the first stage flight trajectory on day-of-launch to ensure a safe flight. The evaluation of integrated vehicle loads is a key component of the DOLILU process. The SLS Artemis I DOL loads project has involved methodology development, software development, software testing and certification, operator training, and simulation and launch support. The resulting DOL process successfully calculated loads for all launch opportunities within the window, with the robust nature of the process contributing to all opportunities being go for loads.

SLS↗
NASA NTRS2005

STS-114: Discovery Post MMT Press Conference

Bruce Buckingham of NASA Public Affairs hosted this press conference. Wayne Hill, Space Shuttle Deputy Program Manager; John Muratore, Shuttle Systems and Integration Manager; Mike Wetmore, Director for Shuttle Processing were present. Wayne started with a video from Shuttle Logistics Depot showing details of a point sensor box commonly named the black box. Work with the trouble shooting continues on a day to day basis, no definite launching date is set. John reports that they are in a mission support mode all over the country until the sensor problem is solved. Mike reports his team will complete scrub and securing tasks through the next day, restore the facility to its normal mode, and will start to a four day process of getting back to launch once trouble shooting is completed. Tanking test, thermal environment, problem identification, engine cut-off sensor problems, sensors, risk, design reviews, test and analysis, correlation of the problem with Columbia, are some of the topics covered with the News media.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1999

Launch Vehicle Design Process Description and Training Formulation

A primary NASA priority is to reduce the cost and improve the effectiveness of launching payloads into space. As a consequence, significant improvements are being sought in the effectiveness, cost, and schedule of the launch vehicle design process. In order to provide a basis for understanding and improving the current design process, a model has been developed for this complex, interactive process, as reported in the references. This model requires further expansion in some specific design functions. Also, a training course for less-experienced engineers is needed to provide understanding of the process, to provide guidance for its effective implementation, and to provide a basis for major improvements in launch vehicle design process technology. The objective of this activity is to expand the description of the design process to include all pertinent design functions, and to develop a detailed outline of a training course on the design process for launch vehicles for use in educating engineers whose experience with the process has been minimal. Building on a previously-developed partial design process description, parallel sections have been written for the Avionics Design Function, the Materials Design Function, and the Manufacturing Design Function. Upon inclusion of these results, the total process description will be released as a NASA TP. The design function sections herein include descriptions of the design function responsibilities, interfaces, interactive processes, decisions (gates), and tasks. Associated figures include design function planes, gates, and tasks, along with other pertinent graphics. Also included is an expanded discussion of how the design process is divided, or compartmentalized, into manageable parts to achieve efficient and effective design. A detailed outline for an intensive two-day course on the launch vehicle design process has been developed herein, and is available for further expansion. The course is in an interactive lecture/workshop format to engage the participants in active learning. The course addresses the breadth and depth of the process, requirements, phases, participants, multidisciplinary aspects, tasks, critical elements,as well as providing guidance from previous lessons learned. The participants are led to develop their own understanding of the current process and how it can be improved. Included are course objectives and a session-by-session outline of course content. Also included is an initial identification of visual aid requirements.

Atherton, James↗
NASA NTRS2010

Space Shuttle Day-of-Launch Trajectory Design and Verification

A top priority of any launch vehicle is to insert as much mass into the desired orbit as possible. This requirement must be traded against vehicle capability in terms of dynamic control, thermal constraints, and structural margins. The vehicle is certified to a specific structural envelope which will yield certain performance characteristics of mass to orbit. Some envelopes cannot be certified generically and must be checked with each mission design. The most sensitive envelopes require an assessment on the day-of-launch. To further minimize vehicle loads while maximizing vehicle performance, a day-of-launch trajectory can be designed. This design is optimized according to that day s wind and atmospheric conditions, which will increase the probability of launch. The day-of-launch trajectory verification is critical to the vehicle's safety. The Day-Of-Launch I-Load Uplink (DOLILU) is the process by which the Space Shuttle Program redesigns the vehicle steering commands to fit that day's environmental conditions and then rigorously verifies the integrated vehicle trajectory's loads, controls, and performance. The Shuttle methodology is very similar to other United States unmanned launch vehicles. By extension, this method would be similar to the methods employed for any future NASA launch vehicles. This presentation will provide an overview of the Shuttle's day-of-launch trajectory optimization and verification as an example of a more generic application of dayof- launch design and validation.

Harrington, Brian E.↗
NASA NTRS2019

The Implementation of Maximum Likelihood Estimation in Space Launch System Vehicle Design

As NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) approaches first launch, the design has matured to a point where the manufacturing uncertainty has decreased now that many of the components of the launch vehicle have been manufactured and the flight engines have been successfully tested. Prior to this point, a method was required to qualify and capture the impact of the differences between simulation and reality, as well as any uncertainties in the SLS design. Two primary categories of uncertainty arise during the launch vehicle design process. The first represents flight-day uncertainties including dispersions due to winds and temperatures. These are typically examined by performing a Monte Carlo on 6 Degree of Freedom (6-DOF) simulations. The second category of uncertainties represents any manufacturing variations that are present at the individual component level of the launch vehicle design. These variations are constructed using statistical masses and tend to become better understood and refined as the design cycle matures, finally resulting in the launch vehicle as constructed and tested.

Stein, W. B.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Orion Versus Poseidon: Understanding How Nasa's Crewed Capsule Survives Nature's Fury

This presentation summarizes the Marshall Space Flight Center Natural Environments Terrestrial and Planetary Environments (TPE) Team support to the NASA Orion space vehicle. The Orion vehicle, part of the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle Program, is designed to carry astronauts beyond low-Earth orbit and is currently undergoing a series of tests including Exploration Flight Test (EFT)-1. This design must address the natural environment to which the capsule and launch vehicle are exposed during all mission phases. In addition, the design must, to the best extent possible, implement the same process and data to be utilized on launch day. The TPE utilizes meteorological data to assess the sensitivities of the vehicle due to the terrestrial environment. The presentation describes examples of TPE support for vehicle design and several tests, as well as support for EFT-1 and planning for upcoming Exploration Missions while emphasizing the importance of accounting for the natural environment's impact to the vehicle early in the vehicle's program.

Barbre, Robert E., Jr.↗
NASA NTRS1974

GOAL - A test engineer oriented language

The development of a test engineer oriented language has been under way at the Kennedy Space Center for several years. The result of this effort is the Ground Operations Aerospace Language, GOAL, a self-documenting, high-order language suitable for coding automatic test, checkout and launch procedures. GOAL is a highly readable, writable, retainable language that is easily learned by nonprogramming oriented engineers. It is sufficiently powerful for use at all levels of Space Shuttle ground processing, from line replaceable unit checkout to integrated launch day operations. This paper will relate the language development, and describe GOAL and its applications.

Mitchell, T. R.↗
NASA NTRS1987

Spacelab 3 Mission Science Review

Papers and abstracts of the presentations made at the symposium are given as the scientific report for the Spacelab 3 mission. Spacelab 3, the second flight of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) orbital laboratory, signified a new era of research in space. The primary objective of the mission was to conduct applications, science, and technology experiments requiring the low-gravity environment of Earth orbit and stable vehicle attitude over an extended period (e.g., 6 days) with emphasis on materials processing. The mission was launched on April 29, 1985, aboard the Space Shuttle Challenger which landed a week later on May 6. The multidisciplinary payload included 15 investigations in five scientific fields: material science, fluid dynamics, life sciences, astrophysics, and atmospheric science.

Fichtl, George H.↗