DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Assessment for the Expansion of the Wallops Flight Facility Launch Range

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Assessment for the Expansion of the Wallops Flight Facility Launch Range FINAL REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY LAUNCH RANGE Prepared for National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center Wallops Flight Facility Wallops Island, VA 23337 August 2009 Prepared by URS Group, Inc. 200 Orchard Ridge Drive, Suite 101 Gaithersburg, MD 20878 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EXPANSION OF THE WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY LAUNCH RANGE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY WALLOPS ISLAND, VA 23337 Lead Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Cooperating Agency: Federal Aviation Administration Office of Commercial Space Transportation Proposed Action: Expansion of the Wallops Flight Facility Launch Range on Wallops Island, Virginia For Further Information: Joshua A. Bundick NEPA Program Manager Code 250.W Goddard Space Flight Center’s Wallops Flight Facility National Aeronautics and Space Administration Wallops Island, VA 23337 (757) 824-1579 Date: August 2009 This page intentionally left blank. Executive Summary ABSTRACT This Environmental Assessment addresses the proposed expansion of the launch range at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) Wallops Flight Facility (WFF), which is located on the Eastern Shore of Virginia. Under the Proposed Action, NASA and Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS) facilities would be upgraded to support up to and including medium large class suborbital and orbital expendable launch vehicle (ELV) launch activities from WFF. The Proposed Action would have both adverse and beneficial impacts to environmental and socioeconomic resources; however, most adverse impacts are minor and of short duration. Adverse impacts would be mitigated to the greatest extent practicable to minimize the effects on resources. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ACTION The purpose of the Proposed Action is to expand and enhance the respective NASA and MARS facilities at WFF such that they are able to accommodate a wider variety of new launch vehicles and payloads. The expansion would be consistent with national space policies, including the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 and the 1994 National Space Transportation Policy, both of which contain the primary objective of keeping the United States at the forefront of space transportation technology. The Proposed Action is needed to support NASA’s mission and further the objectives of the U.S. space policy by enhancing the ability of NASA’s WFF and MARS to serve the rapidly growing civil, defense, academic, and commercial aerospace market. Additionally, WFF and MARS are located within the only NASA-controlled launch range, and therefore they provide an established location solely under NASA control and focused on NASA’s schedule, budget, and mission objectives. Additionally, under Title II of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-8), the U.S. Congress appropriated $14,000,000 specifically to WFF and stated “WFF is an important national asset that can be better utilized by focusing on emerging technologies that meet national needs and NASA priorities.” Implementation of the Proposed Action would fulfill this Congressional directive. ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTIONS No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, NASA and MARS would not expand launch activities at WFF. The full potential of the launch range capacity at WFF would not be utilized in support of the WFF and MARS missions. Existing launch activities, which consist of a maximum of 12 orbital rocket launches per year from Pad 0-B, would continue. Alternative One Under Alternative One NASA and MARS would expand and upgrade facilities to support up to and including medium large class suborbital and orbital ELV launch activities from WFF. Components of Alternative One include site improvements required to support launch operations (such as facility construction and infrastructure improvements); testing, fueling, and processing operations; up to two static fire tests per year; and launching of up to six ELVs and associated 26-AUG-09\\ i Executive Summary spacecraft per year from Pad 0-A. Orbital Sciences Corporation’s Taurus II ELV would be the largest ELV that would be launched from Pad 0-A. Implementation of Alternative One would result in a maximum of 18 orbital-class launches from MARS Launch Complex 0 per year (12 existing launches from Pad 0-B, and 6 additional launches from Pad 0-A). Site Improvements to Support Launch Operations NASA would implement the following: • Minor modifications to the boat dock on the north end of Wallops Island; • Construction of a Payload Processing Facility (PPF); • Construction of a dedicated Payload Fueling Facility (PFF); • Construction of a Horizontal Integration Facility (HIF); • Construction of new roads and minor upgrades to existing roads; and • Minor interior modifications to launch support facilities. MARS would implement the following: • Construction of a new launch complex in approximately the same location as the existing Pad 0-A, including a Liquid Fueling Facility (LFF). Transportation, Handling, and Storage The transportation and handling of various cargo, launch vehicle, and payload components would be ongoing as the components are delivered to Wallops Main Base or Wallops Island via truck, barge, rail, or airplane, and then transported via road to various facilities and the launch pad. Alternative Two Under Alternative Two, NASA and MARS would maximize the use of existing facilities to support up to and including medium large class suborbital and orbital ELV launch activities from WFF. Alternative Two includes site improvements required to support launch operations; testing, fueling, and processing operations; and up to two static fire tests per year. A maximum of three orbital-class launches per year would occur from Pad 0-A with Orbital Sciences Corporation’s Taurus II ELV being the largest ELV. Implementation of Alternative Two would result in a maximum of 15 orbital-class launches from MARS Launch Complex 0 per year (12 existing launches from Pad 0-B, and 3 additional launches from Pad 0-A). Site Improvements to Support Launch Operations NASA would implement the following: • Minor modifications to the boat dock on the north end of Wallops Island; • Construction of a “high-bay” addition to Building V-45 to be used for payload processing; • Construction of new roads and minor upgrades to existing roads; and • Minor interior modifications to launch support facilities. MARS would implement the following: 26-AUG-09\\ ii Executive Summary • Construction of a new launch complex in approximately the same location as the existing Pad 0-A, including an LFF. Transportation, Handling, and Storage The transportation and handling of various cargo, launch vehicle, and payload components would be ongoing as the components are delivered to Wallops Main Base or Island via truck, barge, rail, or airplane, and then transported via road to various facilities and the launch pad. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Under the No Action Alternative, activities would remain at present levels and there would be no additional impacts to environmental resources. Potential environmental impacts resulting from the proposed action alternatives are summarized below. Resource Alternative One Alternative Two Topography Site improvement activities would not Under Alternative Two, less ground substantially alter topography; therefore, disturbance would occur compared to changes to natural drainage patterns would Alternative One, so there would be be minor. fewer changes to topography from site improvements. Geology and Construction activities along with spills or Impacts to soils and geology would be Soils leaks of pollutants that may occur during the same as those described for construction or transportation of materials Alternative One, although fewer would have the potential to affect soils. impacts would occur due to 50 percent NASA and MARS would implement site- less site disturbance. specific best management practices for vehicle and equipment fueling and maintenance, and spill prevention and control measures. Driven piles would create long-term changes to the subsurface geology immediately around the driven piles; however, the changes would be site specific and negligible. Surface Waters Construction activities, spills or leaks of Under Alternative Two, up to 0.3 Including pollutants during construction activities, spill hectare (0.8 acre) of wetlands would be Wetlands or leaks during transportation of materials or affected. Prior to construction, NASA from storage facilities, expected launch and MARS would complete additional emissions, and launch failures that may wetland delineations as needed, and result in release of liquid propellants would obtain a USACE jurisdictional all have the potential to affect surface waters determination and necessary permits. including wetlands. NASA and MARS NASA would implement mitigation would minimize adverse impacts to surface measures to ensure no net loss of waters by acquiring permits as necessary, wetlands. Impacts to surface waters and implementing site-specific best from construction would be the same management practices to reduce potential as Alternative One, although fewer impacts. Approximately 1.7 hectares (4.1 ELV launches under Alternative Two acres) of wetlands would be affected. Prior would create less potential for spills. to construction, NASA and MARS would 26-AUG-09\\ iii Executive Summary Resource Alternative
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Robenschain GSFC July 2012
    Goddard Space Flight Center NASA Goddard Space Flight Center • NASA’s first Space Flight Center (established 1959) • We TRANSFORM Human Understanding of Earth and Space • Largest Collection of Scientists & Engineers in the U.S. • Nearly 300 successful missions including the World’s First Weather Satellite and the Hubble Space Telescope • 2006 Nobel Prize in Physics [Big Bang/Cosmic Background] • Hubble Supported 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics • WMAP Team Awarded 2012 Gruber Prize for Cosmology 2 Our Facilities • GSFC Greenbelt, Maryland • GSFC Wallops Flight Facility, Virginia • IV&V Facility, West Virginia • Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York Wallops Flight Facility • Ground Stations at White Sands Complex, New Mexico White Sands Complex Greenbelt Goddard Institute for Independent Verification and Space Studies Validation Facility 3 Our Lines of Business Cross Cutting Earth Science Technology and Capabilities Suborbital Platforms Astrophysics Planetary & Lunar Human Exploration Science & Operations Communications && Navigation GSFC’s Contributions to a Diverse Mission Portfolio QuikSCAT dinW dinW Voyager O-E1 O-E1 teoSer teoSer SBRE SBRE ACRIMSAT RHESSI TSOM TSOM TMMR TMMR Geotail OOHS OOHS aquA aquA ICESat DETMI DETMI SAMPEX Landsat 7 TRACE THEMIS TOPEX CALIPSO Tarer Tarer ECA ECA GRACE SORCE Cluster SOEP SOEP ODS ODS GEAMI GEAMI MIA MIA aruA aruA TSFA TSFA SGOE SGOE oPlar oPlar MGP MGP SMM SMM Solar-B XEBI XEBI PPN PPN Aquarius CloudSat TDRSS LMCD LMCD Osiris-Rex (Sample Return) PSBR PSBR PAMW PAMW TWINS Cassini (Instrument)
    [Show full text]
  • HLS 17RS-1433 ORIGINAL 2017 Regular Session HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 41 by REPRESENTATIVE GARY CARTER SPECIAL DAY/WEEK/MO
    HLS 17RS-1433 ORIGINAL 2017 Regular Session HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 41 BY REPRESENTATIVE GARY CARTER SPECIAL DAY/WEEK/MONTH: Commends several Tulane University students upon winning NASA's BIG Idea Challenge competition 1 A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 2 To commend Tulane University students John Robertson, Otto Lyon, Benjamin Lewson, 3 Matthew Gorban, Ethan Gasta, Maxwell Woody, and Afsheen Sajjadi upon their 4 selection as winners of NASA's 2017 BIG Idea Challenge competition. 5 WHEREAS, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is widely 6 regarded as the finest space exploration organization in the world and has an exceptional 7 reputation; and 8 WHEREAS, NASA hosts the BIG Idea Challenge, which is intended to produce 9 designs of crucial importance to manned spaceflight; and 10 WHEREAS, twenty-nine teams from top national universities submitted designs to 11 the BIG Idea Challenge competition; and 12 WHEREAS, the group of students representing Tulane designed a revolutionary solar 13 electric propulsion cargo transport spacecraft, called "The Sunflower", and submitted their 14 design to the BIG Idea Challenge competition in November of 2016; and 15 WHEREAS, in December of 2016, the students were selected to be among five 16 finalist teams and were invited to present their design before a panel of distinguished judges 17 at NASA's Langley research facility in Hampton, Virginia; and 18 WHEREAS, the judges selected the Tulane team and their design as the winner of 19 the BIG Idea Challenge competition; and Page 1 of
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Data Used to Manage Real Property Assets (IG-11-024
    AUGUST 4, 2011 AUDIT REPORT OFFICE OF AUDITS NASA INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES: ASSESSMENT OF DATA USED TO MANAGE REAL PROPERTY ASSETS OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL National Aeronautics and Space Administration REPORT NO. IG-11-024 (ASSIGNMENT NO. A-11-001-00) Final report released by: Paul K. Martin Inspector General Acronyms FERP Facilities Engineering and Real Property Division GAO Government Accountability Office GSA General Services Administration NPR NASA Procedural Requirements NTC NASA Technical Capabilities OIG Office of Inspector General O&M Operations and Maintenance RPMS Real Property Management System SPF Space Power Facility REPORT NO. IG-11-024 AUGUST 4, 2011 OVERVIEW NASA INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES: ASSESSMENT OF DATA USED TO MANAGE REAL PROPERTY ASSETS The Issue NASA’s real property holdings include approximately 5,000 buildings and structures such as wind tunnels, laboratories, launch pads, and test stands. In total, the assets occupy 44 million square feet and represent more than $26.4 billion in current replacement value.1 However, 80 percent of NASA’s facilities are 40 or more years old and many are in degraded condition. Moreover, NASA is dealing with the challenge of its aging infrastructure at a time of large and growing budget deficits that are straining the resources of all Federal agencies. As discretionary funding continues to decline, NASA will be required to make more prudent decisions regarding its infrastructure. In addition, the issue of the Agency’s aging infrastructure has been identified by NASA, the
    [Show full text]
  • Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts: Vehicles, Technologies and Spaceports
    Commercial Space Transportation 2006 Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts: Vehicles, Technologies and Spaceports January 2006 HQ003606.INDD 2006 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts About FAA/AST About the Office of Commercial Space Transportation The Federal Aviation Administration’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation (FAA/AST) licenses and regulates U.S. commercial space launch and reentry activity, as well as the operation of non-federal launch and reentry sites, as authorized by Executive Order 12465 and Title 49 United States Code, Subtitle IX, Chapter 701 (formerly the Commercial Space Launch Act). FAA/AST’s mission is to ensure public health and safety and the safety of property while protecting the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States during commercial launch and reentry operations. In addition, FAA/AST is directed to encour- age, facilitate, and promote commercial space launches and reentries. Additional information concerning commercial space transportation can be found on FAA/AST’s web site at http://ast.faa.gov. Federal Aviation Administration Office of Commercial Space Transportation i About FAA/AST 2006 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts NOTICE Use of trade names or names of manufacturers in this document does not constitute an official endorsement of such products or manufacturers, either expressed or implied, by the Federal Aviation Administration. ii Federal Aviation Administration Office of Commercial Space Transportation 2006 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts Contents Table of Contents Introduction . .1 Significant 2005 Events . .4 Space Competitions . .6 Expendable Launch Vehicles . .9 Current Expendable Launch Vehicle Systems . .9 Atlas 5 - Lockheed Martin Corporation .
    [Show full text]
  • L AUNCH SYSTEMS Databk7 Collected.Book Page 18 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM Databk7 Collected.Book Page 19 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM
    databk7_collected.book Page 17 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM CHAPTER TWO L AUNCH SYSTEMS databk7_collected.book Page 18 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM databk7_collected.book Page 19 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM CHAPTER TWO L AUNCH SYSTEMS Introduction Launch systems provide access to space, necessary for the majority of NASA’s activities. During the decade from 1989–1998, NASA used two types of launch systems, one consisting of several families of expendable launch vehicles (ELV) and the second consisting of the world’s only partially reusable launch system—the Space Shuttle. A significant challenge NASA faced during the decade was the development of technologies needed to design and implement a new reusable launch system that would prove less expensive than the Shuttle. Although some attempts seemed promising, none succeeded. This chapter addresses most subjects relating to access to space and space transportation. It discusses and describes ELVs, the Space Shuttle in its launch vehicle function, and NASA’s attempts to develop new launch systems. Tables relating to each launch vehicle’s characteristics are included. The other functions of the Space Shuttle—as a scientific laboratory, staging area for repair missions, and a prime element of the Space Station program—are discussed in the next chapter, Human Spaceflight. This chapter also provides a brief review of launch systems in the past decade, an overview of policy relating to launch systems, a summary of the management of NASA’s launch systems programs, and tables of funding data. The Last Decade Reviewed (1979–1988) From 1979 through 1988, NASA used families of ELVs that had seen service during the previous decade.
    [Show full text]
  • Doing Business with Wallops Flight Facility
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Doing Business with NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) in Virginia provides agile, low-cost flight and launch range ser- vices to meet government and commercial sector needs for accessing flight regimes worldwide from the Earth’s surface to the moon and beyond. As a multi-user facility with operational launch range, spaceport, and airfield assets, Wallops is well-positioned to meet ongoing and emerging needs in the science, aerospace, defense, and commercial industries. WALLOPS RANGE The Wallops Range supports many of the mission activities around WFF and abroad. Project managers utlize the support of range services to provide a broad array of technical and instrumentation services, such as radar, optical tracking, telemetry, meteorological, command and control, surveillance and recovery, financial analysis and engineering services to support scientific research and technology development. WALLOPS MOBILE ASSETS Wallops has semi-permanent downrange instrumentation as well as mobile instrumentation to include radar, telemetry, command/control, and data systems that can be transported to offsite and remote locations. Campaigns have been conducted from the semi-permanent locations in Bermuda and North Carolina, as well as from the Arctic and Antarctic regions, South America, Africa, Europe, Australia and even at sea, with our mobile systems. WFF personnel have extensive experience in planning and conducting downrange support and mobile campaigns, developing equipment and systems to support these operations. Downrange and mobile systems include the following: C-band radar, meteorology, optical tracking, orbital tracking, flight termination, telemetry, timing, surveillance, and recovery. Keith Thompson, Wallops Advanced Projects Office | 757-824-1680 www.nasa.gov/wallops MID-ATLANTIC REGIONAL SPACEPORT Virginia’s Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport at Wallops supports two launch facilities, one medium-lift liquid-fueled pad and a medium-lift solid propellant pad.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of Policy on Waiving Ground Safety Regulations At
    Commercial Space Transportation 800 Independence Ave., SW. Washington, DC 20591 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Parts 415, 417, 431, and 435 Statement of Policy on Waiving Ground Safety Regulations at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Vandenberg Air Force Base, Wallops Flight Facility, and Kennedy Space Center. AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT ACTION: Policy Statement SUMMARY: This action establishes the FAA’s policy applicable to waivers of FAA ground safety requirements for licensed commercial launch and reentry activities at certain Federal ranges. The Federal ranges that currently meet the criteria for application of this policy are: Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Vandenberg Air Force Base, Wallops Flight Facility, and Kennedy Space Center. DATES: The policy described herein will be effective 3 November 2020. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information concerning this action, contact Executive Director, Office of Operational Safety, via letter: 800 Independence Ave SW, Washington, DC 20591; via email: [email protected]; via phone: 202-267-7793. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, as amended and codified at 51 U.S.C. §§ 50901-50923, authorizes the Department of Transportation, and the FAA through delegation, to oversee, license, and regulate commercial launch and reentry activities, and the operation of launch and reentry sites as carried out by U.S. citizens or within the United States. Section 50905(b)(3) allows the Secretary to waive a requirement, including the requirement to obtain a license, for an individual applicant if the Secretary decides that the waiver is in the public interest and will not jeopardize the public health and safety, safety of property, and national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.1 This policy statement provides public notice of the FAA’s approach to evaluating waiver applications under 51 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Alternatives
    Final Constellation Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES The potential environmental consequences of both the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) to continue preparations for and to implement the Constellation Program, and the No Action Alternative, not continue preparations for nor implement the Constellation Program, are summarized in Chapter 2 and are presented in detail in this Chapter. In addition, this Chapter presents in Cumulative Impacts (see Section 4.3) the potential environmental consequences of two overlapping but individual NASA actions: implementing the Constellation Program and close-out of the Space Shuttle Program. 4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) Under the Proposed Action, NASA would continue preparations for and implement the Constellation Program. This Program would involve activities at many U.S. Government and commercial facilities. Although detailed aspects of the Constellation Program and the full scope of the activities that might occur at each facility are not fully known, the activities described in Section 2.1 present enough information to broadly estimate the nature of the potential environmental impacts that might occur if NASA implements the Proposed Action. Figure 2-2 presents a high-level summary of the major Constellation Program activities that would be expected to occur at each of the primary U.S. Government facilities, as well as commercial facilities with the potential for significant environmental impacts. Given the long-term nature of the Constellation Program, and NASA’s desire to utilize as much of the Space Shuttle Program infrastructure as practicable, it is expected that over time, many of the existing facilities currently used by the Space Shuttle Program and planned to be used for the Constellation Program would require maintenance, upgrading, renovation, and/or replacement.
    [Show full text]
  • NASA's Strategic Direction and the Need for a National Consensus
    NASA's Strategic Direction and the Need for a National Consensus NASAs Strategic Direction and the Need for a National Consensus Committee on NASAs Strategic Direction Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu PREPUBLICATION COPYSUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. NASA's Strategic Direction and the Need for a National Consensus THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study is based on work supported by Contract NNH10CC48B between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the agency that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-XXXXX-X International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-XXXXX-X Copies of this report are available free of charge from: Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences National Research Council 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.
    [Show full text]
  • Aeronautical, Spacecraft, and Launch Vehicle Examples
    The Value of Identifying and Recovering Lost GN&C Lessons Learned: Aeronautical, Spacecraft, and Launch Vehicle Examples Cornelius J. Qennehy 1 NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) Steve Labbe2 NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, 77058 · Kenneth L. Lebsock3 Orbital Sciences Corporation, Technical Services Division, Greenbelt, MD 20770 Within the broad aerospace community the importance of identifying, documenting and widely sharing lessons learned during system development, flight test, operational or research programs/projects is broadly acknowledged. Documenting and sharing lessons learned helps managers and engineers to minimize project risk and improve performance of their systems. Often significant lessons learned on a project fail to get captured even though they are well known 'tribal knowledge" amongst the project team members. The physical act of actually writing down and documenting these lessons learned for the next generation of NASA GN&C engineers fails to happen on some projects for various reasons. In this paper we will first review the importance of capturing lessons learned and then wlll discuss reasons why some lessons are not documented. A simple proven approach called 'Pause and Learn' will be highlighted as a proven low-impact method of organizational learning that could foster the timely capture of critical lessons learned. Lastly some examples of "lost"GN&C lessons learned from the aeronautics, spacecraft and launch vehicle domains are briefly highlighted. In the context of this paper "lost" refers to lessons that have not achieved broad visibility within the NASA-wide GN&C CoP because they are either undocumented, masked or poorly documented in the NASA Lessons Learned Information System (LLIS).
    [Show full text]
  • In This Issue
    Vol. 38 No.12, September 2013 Editor: Jos Heyman FBIS In this issue: Satellite Update 4 Cancelled projects: Conestoga 5 News Ardusat 3 Arirang-5 7 Dnepr 1 7 Dream Chaser 7 Eutelsat and Satmex 2 Fermi 7 Gsat-14 7 HTV-4 3 iBall 3 Kepler 4 Orion 7 PicoDragon 3 Proton M 2 RCM 2 Russian EVAs 2 SARah 4 SGDC-1 4 SPRINT A 4 TechEdSat-3 3 WGS-6 4 HTV-4 Unpressurised Logistics Carrier with STP-H4 TIROS SPACE INFORMATION Eutelsat and Satmex 86 Barnevelder Bend, Southern River WA 6110, Australia Tel + 61 8 9398 1322 Eutelsat has acquired Mexico’s Satmex, a major communicaions satellite operator in the Latin (e-mail: [email protected]) American region. o o The Tiros Space Information (TSI) - News Bulletin is published to promote the scientific exploration and Satmex has currently three satellites in orbit at 113 W (Satmex-6), 114.9 W (Satmex-5) and commercial application of space through the dissemination of current news and historical facts. 116.8 oW (Satmex-8) and it can be expected that, once the acquisition has been completed, In doing so, Tiros Space Information continues the traditions of the Western Australian Branch of the these satellites will be renamed as part of the Eutelsat family. In addition Satmex has the Astronautical Society of Australia (1973-1975) and the Astronautical Society of Western Australia (ASWA) Satmex-7 and -9 satellites on order from Boeing. It is not clear whether these satellites will (1975-2006). remain on order. The News Bulletin can be received worldwide by e-mail subscription only.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Appalachia
    University of Kentucky UKnowledge Appalachian Studies Arts and Humanities 2-28-2001 A History of Appalachia Richard B. Drake Click here to let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Thanks to the University of Kentucky Libraries and the University Press of Kentucky, this book is freely available to current faculty, students, and staff at the University of Kentucky. Find other University of Kentucky Books at uknowledge.uky.edu/upk. For more information, please contact UKnowledge at [email protected]. Recommended Citation Drake, Richard B., "A History of Appalachia" (2001). Appalachian Studies. 23. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/upk_appalachian_studies/23 R IC H ARD B . D RA K E A History of Appalachia A of History Appalachia RICHARD B. DRAKE THE UNIVERSITY PRESS OF KENTUCKY Publication of this volume was made possible in part by grants from the E.O. Robinson Mountain Fund and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Copyright © 2001 by The University Press of Kentucky Paperback edition 2003 Scholarly publisher for the Commonwealth, serving Bellarmine University, Berea College, Centre College of Kenhlcky Eastern Kentucky University, The Filson Historical Society, Georgetown College, Kentucky Historical Society, Kentucky State University, Morehead State University, Murray State University, Northern Kentucky University, Transylvania University, University of Kentucky, University of Louisville, and Western Kentucky University. All rights reserved. Editorial and Sales Offices: The University Press of Kentucky 663 South Limestone Street, Lexington, Kentucky 40508-4008 www.kentuckypress.com 12 11 10 09 08 8 7 6 5 4 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Drake, Richard B., 1925- A history of Appalachia / Richard B.
    [Show full text]