DOCSLIB.ORG

A History of the Lightning Launch Commit Criteria and the Lightning Advisory Panel for America's Space Program

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A History of the Lightning Launch Commit Criteria and the Lightning Advisory Panel for America's Space Program NASA/SP—2010–216283 A History of the Lightning Launch Commit Criteria and the Lightning Advisory Panel for America’s Space Program Francis J. Merceret, Editor NASA, John F. Kennedy Space Center John C. Willett, Editor Air Force Research Laboratory (Retired) Hugh J. Christian University of Alabama in Huntsville James E. Dye National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado E. Phillip Krider University of Arizona, Department of Atmospheric Sciences John T. Madura NASA, John F. Kennedy Space Center T. Paul O’Brien Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, California W. David Rust National Severe Storms Laboratory Richard L. Walterscheid Aerospace Corporation, Space Sciences Department, El Segundo, California National Aeronautics and Space Administration John F. Kennedy Space Center Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899 August 2010 Executive Summary Since natural and artificially-initiated (or ‘triggered’) lightning are demonstrated hazards to the launch of space vehicles, the American space program has responded by establishing a set of Lightning Launch Commit Criteria (LLCC) and Definitions to mitigate the risk. The LLCC apply to all Federal Government ranges and have been adopted by the Federal Aviation Administration for application at state-operated and private spaceports. The LLCC and their associated definitions have been developed, reviewed, and approved over the years of the American space program starting from relatively simple rules in the mid-twentieth century (that were not adequate) to a complex suite for launch operations in the early 21st century. During this evolutionary process, a “Lightning Advisory Panel (LAP)” of top American scientists in the field of atmospheric electricity was established to guide it. This history document provides a context for and explanation of the evolution of the LLCC and the LAP. A companion document on the rationale is currently being prepared by the LAP to provide the physical, mathematical, and operational justification for the current LLCC. Lightning that takes place naturally in thunderstorms was recognized as a threat to spaceflight early in the space age, and the early launch rules prohibited flight through thunderstorms. What had not been recognized until Apollo XII was launched in 1969, was that an ascending rocket could “trigger” lightning if it flew into highly electrified clouds, even in the absence of natural lightning. Apollo XII was struck twice by triggered lightning, and as a result, additional rules were added to forbid flying within 5 NM of thunderstorms or through certain non-thunderstorm clouds that experience showed had the potential of being electrified. During the time between Apollo XII and the beginning of the Space Shuttle Program, several important research programs were carried out to learn more about lightning and cloud electricity in Florida, and additional instrumentation was installed at the KSC and Eastern Range (ER). The LLCC were modified for the Skylab program in 1973 and again for the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project in 1975. Expendable launch vehicles (ELV) had their own separate but similar rules. In 1979 the nascent Shuttle program adopted a set of LLCC that included constraints and waivers that were based on surface electric field mill measurements. The ELV rules did not adopt the field mill criteria. In 1987, triggered lightning caused the loss of Atlas/Centaur 67 (AC 67) and its Fleetsatcom payload. A major cause of this accident was the failure of the ELV rules to include a field mill criterion. The Shuttle rules would have prohibited the launch of AC 67. In the aftermath of several investigations and a Congressional Hearing, a lightning “Peer Review Committee”, a predecessor of the LAP, was established to guide NASA and the Air Force in the drafting of LLCC and the conduct of associated research. Several major research projects were undertaken, including the first “Airborne Field Mill Program” (ABFM I, 1990-1992) in which direct measurements of electric fields in Florida clouds were made from a specially instrumented aircraft. ABFM I resulted in several improvements to the LLCC, and the lessons learned ultimately led to an even more successful ABFM II campaign a decade later. As new knowledge and additional operational experience has been gained, the LLCC have been updated to preserve or increase their safety and increase launch availability. All launches of ELV and manned vehicles now use the same rules, which simplifies their understanding and application and minimizes the cost of the weather infrastructure to support them. In the future, the processes and procedures that have evolved can be used to facilitate further improvements in both launch availability and safety as new research findings become available. i Preface Natural and triggered lightning is a demonstrated hazard to the launch of space vehicles, and the American space program has responded by establishing the “Lightning Launch Commit Criteria (LLCC)” to mitigate the risk. These LLCC are a complex set of rules with associated Definitions which must be satisfied before the launch of a space vehicle is permitted. The Definitions are an integral part of the LLCC and the term LLCC as used in this History is explicitly intended to include those Definitions. They apply to all Federal Government ranges including not only the well-known Eastern Range at Cape Canaveral, Florida and the Western Range at Vandenberg AFB, California, but also to smaller ranges such as the NASA range at Wallops Island, Virginia and the Air Force range at Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific Ocean and others. In addition, these same LLCC have been adopted by the Federal Aviation Administration for application at state-operated and private spaceports. The LLCC are developed and approved through a complex process, but the core science and recommendations for precise wording of the operative parts of the rules are provided by a “Lightning Advisory Panel (LAP)” consisting of American scientists working in atmospheric electricity and related disciplines including cloud physics and statistics. The LAP works closely with the operational personnel who must implement the LLCC in practice to assure that the rules are not only scientifically sound, but also realistic and practical. The LLCC have evolved over the history of the American space program from relatively simple mid-twentieth century rules that proved inadequate to the complex suite that governs launch operations in the early part of the 21st century. Following the destruction of an Atlas-Centaur launch vehicle by triggered lightning in 1987, the LAP was established to guide the process. Expert guidance is required because there is always a tension between the essential need to fly safely by avoiding lightning strikes and the need to fly economically by avoiding unnecessary launch delays and scrubs. The LLCC have become complex because increased knowledge has permitted exceptions under certain conditions from what are otherwise broad prohibitions to flight. These exceptions reduce the number of occasions under which a launch will be scrubbed for violation of the LLCC when, in fact, it would have been safe to fly. As the LLCC have become more complex, launch vehicle operators, range managers, and safety personnel have continuously requested briefings and discussions on the origin of the rules and the rationale behind them. This history document is designed to provide a historical context and explanation for the origin of the LLCC and the LAP. A companion rationale document is being prepared by the LAP to provide the scientific, mathematical, and operational basis for the current LLCC. Acknowledgements Reconstructing more than 50 years of the history of weather support required a substantial effort not only by the authors and editors of this document, but also by colleagues and associates. Much of the history has not been formally documented before, and much of what existed at one time has now apparently been lost. This task would not have been possible without the assistance of many people who took time away from their busy workloads and deadlines to help us track down important events that are shrouded in the mists of the past. We especially appreciate and recognize the contributions and assistance of the USAF 45th Weather Squadron at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) and Patrick AFB in Florida and the NOAA Spaceflight Meteorology Group (SMG) at Johnson Spaceflight Center in Houston, Texas. We thank Bill Roeder and Billie Boyd of the 45th Weather Squadron and Michael Maier and David Chapman of the Eastern Range Technical Services Contractor (Computer Sciences Raytheon) for providing the history of lightning-related and other instrumentation at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and CCAFS. We thank Tim Oram of SMG for his insights on weather support during the early years of manned spaceflight. Bill Bihner and Jack Ernst (retired) at NASA headquarters provided recollections of the formation of the Peer Review Committee and its evolution into the modern Lightning Advisory Panel. Launa Maier of the KSC Safety and Mission Assurance Directorate provided valuable recollections of the research programs and lightning infrastructure development during the years immediately following the AC 67 accident. In addition to providing a figure and some references for the document, Jennifer Wilson of the KSC Weather Office handled the logistics of several face-to-face meetings of the LAP at KSC. Without these meetings dedicated to this History’s organization and production, it could not have been completed. Jennifer Rosenberger of the KSC Launch Processing Directorate did extensive reformatting and copy editing to prepare the original manuscript for public release in this NASA Special Publication series. We appreciate her diligence and attention to detail that substantially reduced the number of errors and inconsistencies in the presentation of the material. Funding for the project was provided by the NASA Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) Assurance Management Office (AMO). The authors and editors appreciate OSMA/AMO reviews of the final draft of this paper by Launa Maier and Tony Willingham.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NASA Manned Launch Vehicle Lightning Protection Development
    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20090037586 2019-08-30T08:05:42+00:00Z View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by NASA Technical Reports Server NASA Manned Launch Vehicle Lightning Protection Development Matthew B. McCollum NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama, USA Steven R. Jones NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama, USA Jonathan D. Mack NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama, USA ABSTRACT understanding of the lightning environment has highlighted the vulnerability of the protection Historically, the National Aeronautics and Space schemes and associated risk to the vehicle, which Administration (NASA) relied heavily on lightning has resulted in lost launch opportunities and avoidance to protect launch vehicles and crew from increased expenditures in manpower to assess lightning effects. As NASA transitions from the Space Shuttle vehicle health and safety after Space Shuttle to the new Constellation family of lightning events at the launch pad. launch vehicles and spacecraft, NASA engineers are imposing design and construction standards on the Because of high-percentage launch availability and spacecraft and launch vehicles to withstand both the long-term on-pad requirements, LCC constraints are direct and indirect effects of lightning. no longer considered feasible.[5] The Constellation vehicles must be designed to withstand direct and A review of current Space Shuttle lightning indirect effects of lightning. A review of the vehicle constraints and protection methodology will be design and potential concerns will be presented as presented, as well as a historical review of Space well as the new catenary lightning protection system Shuttle lightning requirements and design.
    [Show full text]
  • Observational Estimates of Detrainment and Entrainment in Non-Precipitating Shallow Cumulus
    Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 21–33, 2016 www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/21/2016/ doi:10.5194/acp-16-21-2016 © Author(s) 2016. CC Attribution 3.0 License. Observational estimates of detrainment and entrainment in non-precipitating shallow cumulus M. S. Norgren1, J. D. Small2, H. H. Jonsson3, and P. Y. Chuang4 1Dept. of Physics, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, USA 2Dept. of Meteorology, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI, USA 3Center for Interdisciplinary Remotely-Piloted Aircraft Studies, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA, USA 4Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, USA Correspondence to: P. Y. Chuang ([email protected]) Received: 4 July 2014 – Published in Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss.: 26 August 2014 Revised: 27 November 2015 – Accepted: 3 December 2015 – Published: 14 January 2016 Abstract. Vertical transport associated with cumulus clouds method could be readily used with data from other previous is important to the redistribution of gases, particles, and en- aircraft campaigns to expand our understanding of detrain- ergy, with subsequent consequences for many aspects of the ment for a variety of cloud systems. climate system. Previous studies have suggested that detrain- ment from clouds can be comparable to the updraft mass flux, and thus represents an important contribution to ver- 1 Introduction tical transport. In this study, we describe a new method to deduce the amounts of gross detrainment and entrainment One of the important ways cumulus clouds affect the at- experienced by non-precipitating cumulus clouds using air- mosphere is through vertical transport. The redistribution craft observations.
    [Show full text]
  • Dicionarioct.Pdf
    McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Earth Science Second Edition McGraw-Hill New York Chicago San Francisco Lisbon London Madrid Mexico City Milan New Delhi San Juan Seoul Singapore Sydney Toronto Copyright © 2003 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Manufactured in the United States of America. Except as permitted under the United States Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication may be repro- duced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher. 0-07-141798-2 The material in this eBook also appears in the print version of this title: 0-07-141045-7 All trademarks are trademarks of their respective owners. Rather than put a trademark symbol after every occurrence of a trademarked name, we use names in an editorial fashion only, and to the benefit of the trademark owner, with no intention of infringement of the trademark. Where such designations appear in this book, they have been printed with initial caps. McGraw-Hill eBooks are available at special quantity discounts to use as premiums and sales promotions, or for use in corporate training programs. For more information, please contact George Hoare, Special Sales, at [email protected] or (212) 904-4069. TERMS OF USE This is a copyrighted work and The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. (“McGraw- Hill”) and its licensors reserve all rights in and to the work. Use of this work is subject to these terms. Except as permitted under the Copyright Act of 1976 and the right to store and retrieve one copy of the work, you may not decom- pile, disassemble, reverse engineer, reproduce, modify, create derivative works based upon, transmit, distribute, disseminate, sell, publish or sublicense the work or any part of it without McGraw-Hill’s prior consent.
    [Show full text]
  • Spm September 2014
    September 2014 Vol. 1 No. 6 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Kennedy Space Center’s MAGAZINE ‘SWARMIES’ TO SCOUR KENNEDY PREPPING CHIEF TECHNOLOGIST OTHER PLANETS FOR NEXT 50 YEARS TARGETS INNOVATIONS FOR WATER, FUEL OF U.S. SPACEFLIGHT FOR EXPLORATION PAGE 4 PAGE 14 PAGE 38 Ground Systems ISS and Spacecraft Launch Services Commercial Center Planning History Engineering Development and Processing Program Crew Program and Development Operations NASA’S KENNEDY SPACE CENTER’S LAUNCH SPACEPORT MAGAZINE SCHEDULE Maneuvering SPHERES Date: No Earlier Than Maneuvering SPHERES Sep. 19 -- 2:38 a.m. EDT Mission: SpaceX 4 Commercial Resupply Services CONTENTS flight with ISS-RapidScat 5 �������������������Mechanical rovers to mimic ants Description: Launching from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla., SpaceX-4 9 �������������������NASA completes second Orion Underway will deliver cargo and crew Recovery Test supplies to the International Space Station. It will also carry 12 ����������������New app encourages kids to play along in the ISS-RapidScat instrument, adventure of rocketry a replacement for NASA’s QuikScat Earth satellite to monitor ocean winds for 14 ����������������Kennedy prepping for 50 more years of American climate research, weather spaceflight predictions, and hurricane monitoring. ����������������Hydrogen leak detection tape earns R&D award 21 Date: Sep. 25 Mission: Expedition 41 26 ����������������Flight test preparations draw on Launch to the International Launch Services Program’s expertise Space Station Description: Barry Wilmore, Elena Serova and Alexander online more ����������������Weather manager helped develop launch commit 32 Samokutyaev will launch on criteria Soyuz 40 from the Baikonur Middle school Zero Robotics finals intrigue students Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan 39 ����������������Chief technologist leads team of innovators Energy levels were high as more than 60 middle school students and their Date: No Earlier Than Oct.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ten Different Types of Clouds
    THE COMPLETE GUIDE TO THE TEN DIFFERENT TYPES OF CLOUDS AND HOW TO IDENTIFY THEM Dedicated to those who are passionately curious, keep their heads in the clouds, and keep their eyes on the skies. And to Luke Howard, the father of cloud classification. 4 Infographic 5 Introduction 12 Cirrus 18 Cirrocumulus 25 Cirrostratus 31 Altocumulus 38 Altostratus 45 Nimbostratus TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE 51 Cumulonimbus 57 Cumulus 64 Stratus 71 Stratocumulus 79 Our Mission 80 Extras Cloud Types: An Infographic 4 An Introduction to the 10 Different An Introduction to the 10 Different Types of Clouds Types of Clouds ⛅ Clouds are the equivalent of an ever-evolving painting in the sky. They have the ability to make for magnificent sunrises and spectacular sunsets. We’re surrounded by clouds almost every day of our lives. Let’s take the time and learn a little bit more about them! The following information is presented to you as a comprehensive guide to the ten different types of clouds and how to idenify them. Let’s just say it’s an instruction manual to the sky. Here you’ll learn about the ten different cloud types: their characteristics, how they differentiate from the other cloud types, and much more. So three cheers to you for starting on your cloud identification journey. Happy cloudspotting, friends! The Three High Level Clouds Cirrus (Ci) Cirrocumulus (Cc) Cirrostratus (Cs) High, wispy streaks High-altitude cloudlets Pale, veil-like layer High-altitude, thin, and wispy cloud High-altitude, thin, and wispy cloud streaks made of ice crystals streaks
    [Show full text]
  • 2011 Presidential Rank Award
    2011 Presidential Rank Award Each year, the President recognizes and celebrates a small group of career Senior Executives with the President’s Rank Award for exceptional long-term accomplishments. Winners of this prestigious award are strong leaders, professionals and scientists who achieve results and consistently demonstrate strength, integrity, industry, and a relentless commitment to excellence in public service. There are two categories of rank awards: Distinguished and Meritorious. Award winners are chosen through a rigorous selection process. They are nominated by their agency heads, evaluated by boards of private citizens, and approved by the President. The evaluation criteria focus on leadership and results. Meritorious Executive Susan P. Kroskey Chief Financial Officer The President of the United States of America has conferred on Susan P. Kroskey the rank of Meritorious Executive in the Senior Executive Service for sustained superior accomplishment in management of programs of the United States Government and for noteworthy achievement of quality and efficiency in the public service. Tracy L. Wetrich Director, Human Resources Office The President of the United States of America has conferred on Tracy L. Wetrich the rank of Meritorious Executive in the Senior Executive Service for sustained superior accomplishment in management of programs of the United States Government and for noteworthy achievement of quality and efficiency in the public service. Honorable Mention Distinguished Service Medal This is NASA’s highest form of recognition that is awarded to a Government employee who, by distinguished service, ability, or vision has personally contributed to NASA’s advancement of United States’ interests. The individual’s achievement or contribution must demonstrate a level of excellence that has made a profound or indelible impact on NASA mission success, and therefore, the contribution is so extraordinary that other forms of recognition by NASA would be inadequate.
    [Show full text]
  • The Kiwi Kids Cloud Identification Guide
    Droplets The Kiwi Kids Cloud Identification Guide Written by Paula McKean Droplets The Kiwi Kids Cloud Identification Guide ISBN 1-877264-27-X Paula McKean MEd Hons (Science Ed), BEd, DipTchg 2009 © Crown Copyright 2009 Contents 1. Cloud Classification 2. How Clouds are formed 3. The Water Cycle 4. Cumulus Altitudes 5. Stratus Altitudes 6. Precipitating Cloud Altitudes 7. Cirrus Cloud Altitudes 8. Cumulus 10. Altocumulus 12. Cirrocumulus 14. Stratus 16. Stratocumulus 18. Altostratus 20. Cirrostratus 22. Nimbostratus 24. Cumulus Congestus 26. Cumulonimbus 28. Cirrus 30. Contrails 32. References 33. Acknowledgements Cloud Classification Since Luke Howard developed the first cloud classification system in 1802, clouds have been classified according to the altitude of the cloud base and the shape of the cloud. There are three main categories: Low level- Clouds that form below 2000 m: Cumulus, Stratocumulus, Stratus (including Fog, Haze and Mist), Nimbostratus and Cumulonimbus. Mid level - Clouds that form between 2000 m and 7000 m: Altocumulus and Altostratus. High level - Clouds that form above 5000 m: Cirrus, Cirrocumulus, Cirrostratus and Contrails. In this guide cloud types have been organised by their characteristics so it is easier to distinguish between clouds that appear to be similar and to help determine the cloud type when the altitude can’t be determined. Clouds have been grouped into four categories: • Cumulus (heaped, puffy appearing clouds). • Stratus (flat clouds that extend over large sections of sky). • Precipitating (clouds that can produce rain, hail or snow). • Cirrus (wispy high altitude clouds). By using a combination of the altitude system and characteristic based system used in this guide, cloud identification will be easier and more accurate.
    [Show full text]
  • Origins of 21St Century Space Travel
    O RIGINS of ORIGINS of 21st-Century Space Travel ASNER A History of NASA’s Decadal Planning Team and the Vision for & GARBER Space Exploration, 1999–2004 Glen R. Asner Stephen J. Garber ORIGINS of 21st-Century Space Travel A History of NASA’s Decadal Planning Team and the Vision for Space Exploration, 1999–2004 The Columbia Space Shuttle accident on 1 February 2003 presented the George W. Bush administration with difficult choices. Could NASA safely resume Shuttle flights to the International Space Station? If so, for how long? With two highly visible Shuttle trag- edies and only three operational vehicles remaining, administration officials concluded on the day of the accident that major decisions about the space pro- gram could be delayed no longer. NASA had been supporting studies and honing plans for several years in preparation for an opportu- nity to propose a new mission for the space program. As early as April 1999, NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin had established the Decadal Planning Team (DPT) to provide a forum for future Agency leaders to begin considering goals more ambitious than send- ing humans on missions to near-Earth destinations and robotic spacecraft to far-off destinations, with no relation between the two. Goldin charged DPT with devising a long-term strategy that would inte- grate the entire range of the Agency’s capabilities, in science and engineering, robotic and human space- flight, to reach destinations beyond low-Earth orbit. When the Bush administration initiated inter- agency discussions in 2003 to consider a new spaceflight strategy, NASA was prepared with tech- nical and policy options, as well as a team of individ- uals who had spent years preparing for the moment.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of the Lightning Launch Commit Criteria and the Lightning Advisory Panel for America’S Space Program
    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20110000675 2019-08-30T13:44:50+00:00Z NASA/SP—2010–216283 A History of the Lightning Launch Commit Criteria and the Lightning Advisory Panel for America’s Space Program Francis J. Merceret, Editor NASA, John F. Kennedy Space Center John C. Willett, Editor Air Force Research Laboratory (Retired) Hugh J. Christian University of Alabama in Huntsville James E. Dye National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado E. Phillip Krider University of Arizona, Department of Atmospheric Sciences John T. Madura NASA, John F. Kennedy Space Center T. Paul O’Brien Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, California W. David Rust National Severe Storms Laboratory Richard L. Walterscheid Aerospace Corporation, Space Sciences Department, El Segundo, California National Aeronautics and Space Administration John F. Kennedy Space Center Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899 August 2010 Executive Summary Since natural and artificially-initiated (or ‘triggered’) lightning are demonstrated hazards to the launch of space vehicles, the American space program has responded by establishing a set of Lightning Launch Commit Criteria (LLCC) and Definitions to mitigate the risk. The LLCC apply to all Federal Government ranges and have been adopted by the Federal Aviation Administration for application at state-operated and private spaceports. The LLCC and their associated definitions have been developed, reviewed, and approved over the years of the American space program starting from relatively simple rules in the mid-twentieth century (that were not adequate) to a complex suite for launch operations in the early 21st century. During this evolutionary process, a “Lightning Advisory Panel (LAP)” of top American scientists in the field of atmospheric electricity was established to guide it.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Agency Honor Awards Program
    Foreword Message from the NASA Administrator 2019 Agency Honor Awards NASA continues to go further, increase our scientific knowledge faster, and improve the human condition better than anyone else, because we have the world’s best workforce. The Agency Honor Awards is a special occasion to recognize those whose dedicated work has propelled NASA higher and has enabled humanity to take one more step to making the unthinkable possible. I am pleased that this year’s Honor Awards is hosted at the Goddard Space Flight Center as it celebrates its 60th anniversary. Named after American rocket propulsion pioneer Dr. Robert H. Goddard, employees here build on his legacy by helping to advance space and Earth science. Thousands of dedicated civil servants and contractors provide vital support to numerous NASA missions, and display daily their commitment to further discovery for the benefit of all of humanity. This year, the attention of the world once again turned to NASA as we celebrated the golden anniversary of the Apollo 11 Moon landing and further unveiled our plans to return to the Moon and go forward to Mars. The story of our herculean effort to land men on the Moon in the late 1960s is an able guide to help us – the Artemis generation – prepare to advance humanity’s future in space exploration. This bold plan will require the talents of all of the NASA family. Together, I am confident we will unleash our true potential and lead humanity to greater heights of scientific and technological achievement. No problem is too great or mission too difficult for our talented workforce.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program
    FINAL Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program ENOVARUM PRAESTARUM (Affordability Through Innovation) EXPE D N E D V A L B L O E V E L E A U L N I C C H V E H March 2000 SCO152209.00.03.01.03\Covers EELV GBC Cover-1.FH8 03/00 COVER SHEET FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAM a. Responsible Agency: U.S. Air Force b. Cooperating Agencies: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) c. Proposed Action: To allow the addition of up to five strap-on solid rocket motors (SRMs) to the Atlas V lift vehicle and to allow the use of larger SRMs on the Delta IV lift vehicle. Both vehicles are part of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program. d. Inquiries on this document should be directed to: Mr. Jonathan D. Farthing, Chief, Environmental Analysis Division, HQ AFCEE/ECA, 3207 North Road, Brooks Air Force Base, Texas, 78235-5363, (210) 536-3668, facsimile number (210) 536-3890. e. Designation: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) f. Abstract: This FSEIS has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Implementation of the EELV program was previously assessed in the April 1998 Final Environmental Impact Statement, Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program. The Proposed Action of this FSEIS is to allow the addition of up to five strap-on SRMs to the Lockheed Martin Corporation (LMC) Atlas V launch vehicle and to allow the use of larger SRMs on the Boeing Delta IV launch vehicle, both of which are part of the EELV program.
    [Show full text]
  • 938 607072Main Whenbiosphe
    | THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK by Michael Meltzer NASA SP-2011- 4234 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Meltzer, Michael. When biospheres collide : a history of NASA’s planetary protection programs / by Michael Meltzer. p. cm. -- (NASA SP ; 2011-4234) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Space pollution. 2. Space environment. 3. Outer space-- Exploration--Environmental aspects. 4. Environmental protection-- Moral and ethical aspects. I. Title. TL1499.M45 2010 363.739--dc22 2008005759 CONTENTS List of Figures vii List of Tables xi Preface xiii Foreword xv Acknowledgments xix Chapter 1: Why We Must Protect Planetary Environments 1 Chapter 2: In the Beginning: The Need for Planetary Protection Is Recognized 15 Chapter 3: Developing Effective Planetary Protection Approaches 77 Chapter 4: Back Contamination: The Apollo Approach 113 Chapter 5: Planetary Protection for Mars: The Viking Experience 247 Chapter 6: Small Bodies of the Solar System 301 Chapter 7: Return to Mars 359 Chapter 8: Do We Have the Right To Contaminate? The Ethical and Legal Aspects of Planetary Protection 433 Chapter 9: Conclusion 457 Appendices 461 A. Detailed Planetary Protection Requirements 461 B. The Impact of “Faster, Better, Cheaper” on Planetary Protection Priorities 471 C. Biohazard Identification: The Synergism Between Bioterror Prevention and Planetary Protection Research 474 D. Committees, Organizations, and Facilities Important to the Development of Planetary Protection 476 E. Timeline of Important Planetary Protection–Related Events 481 F. Planetary Protection Approaches Used on Various Missions 484 Acronyms and Abbreviations 493 The NASA History Series 497 Index 515 v THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK LIST OF FIGURES Image Page Description 2.1 17 Joshua Lederberg in a laboratory at the University of Wisconsin, October 1958.
    [Show full text]