DOCSLIB.ORG

NASA Range Safety Annual Report This 2010 Range Safety Annual Report Is Produced by Virtue of Funding and Support from the Following

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
NASA Range Safety Annual Report This 2010 Range Safety Annual Report Is Produced by Virtue of Funding and Support from the Following https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20110007919 2019-08-30T14:56:11+00:00Z 2010 NASA Range Safety Annual Report This 2010 Range Safety Annual Report is produced by virtue of funding and support from the following: Bryan O'Connor, Chief Safety and Mission Assurance NASA Headquarters Robert D. Cabana Director, Kennedy Space Center Michael E. Wetmore Director, Safety and Mission Assurance Humberto Garrido Deputy Director, Safety and Mission Assurance 2 Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 7 II. RANGE SAFETY PROGRAM OVERVIEW AND 2010 HIGHLIGHTS ... 8 III. AGENCY PROGRAM ........................................................................... 9 A. RANGE SAFETY TRAINING 2010 UPDATES ................................... 9 1. Range Safety Orientation (SMA-SAFE-NSTC-0074) ............................................. 9 2. Range Flight Safety Analysis (SMA-SAFE-NSTC-0086) ..................................... 10 3. Range Flight Safety Systems (SMA-SAFE-NSTC-0096) ..................................... 11 4. Range Safety Operations Course (SMA-SAFE-NSTC-0097) .............................. 12 B. RANGE SAFETY POLiCy ................................................................ 14 1. NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 8715.5A ................................................ 14 2. Launch Support Policy ......................................................................................... 14 3. Range Commanders Council Range Safety Group (RSG) .................................. 15 4. Common Standards Working Group (CSWG) ..................................................... 17 C. INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENTS ..................................................... 19 IV. CENTER REPORTS .......................................................................... 20 A. NASA HEADQUARTERS ................................................................. 20 B. KENNEDY SPACE CENTER ............................................................ 21 1. DDT&E Support ...................................................................................................21 a. Constellation (CxP) ........................................................................................ 21 b. 21 st Century Space Launch Complex (21 CSLC) ............................................ 21 c. Commercial Crew Development Planning Office (CCDPO) ........................... 24 2. Current Operations (Eastern and Western Range) .............................................. 25 3. Emerging Operations ...........................................................................................26 a. Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Policy Development ................................. 26 b. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Predator........................................ 26 c. E-Green .......................................................................................................... 27 d. Global Hawk ................................................................................................... 28 e. Max Launch Abort System (MLAS) Flight Test Vehicle 2 (FTV-2) ................. 29 C. WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY ......................................................... 31 1. Balloon Program Office ....................................................................................... 31 3 2. WFF Aircraft Office .............................................................................................. 32 3. Sounding Rocket Program .................................................................................. 32 4. Earth Science Research Support ........................................................................ 34 5. Launch Support ................................................................................................... 34 6. Flight Facility Infrastructure Improvements .......................................................... 34 D. DRYDEN RESEACH CENTER ......................................................... 37 1. Enhanced Flight Termination System .................................................................. 37 2. Orion .................................................................................................................... 37 3. Small UASs ......................................................................................................... 38 4. Blended Wing Body Low Speed Vehicle ............................................................. 39 5. NASA Global Hawk ............................................................................................. 39 6. Ikhana ..................................................................................................................40 E. JOHNSON SPACE CENTER ............................................................ 43 1. Constellation Range Safety Panel ...................................................................... .43 a. Air Force Space Command Manual (AFSPCMAN) 91-710 Requirements Tailoring ......................................................................................................... 43 b. Ares I-X Post-Flight Data Report ................................................................... .43 c. Range Safety and Ascent Abort Debris Risk Assessments ............................ 43 d. Orion Launch Abort System (LAS) Flight Termination System (FTS) Determination Analysis .................................................................................. 43 2. Shuttle Range Safety Panel ............................................................................... .44 a. Shuttle Limit Lines .......................................................................................... 44 b. Solid Rocket Booster Linear Shaped Charge Vibration Qualification ............. 44 c. FOV1 Software Version 2.5 ........................................................................... .45 d. Launch Collision Avoidance (COLA) Process ............................................... .46 F. AMES RESEARCH CENTER ........................................................... 47 G. LANGLEY RESEARCH CENTER .................................................... 47 1. Airborne Subscale Transport Aircraft Research (AirST AR) Project .................... .48 2. SUAVELab ..........................................................................................................49 3. FLiC .....................................................................................................................50 4. Rapid Evaluation Concept (REC) ........................................................................ 51 H. STENNIS RESEARCH CENTER ...................................................... 53 1. Engine Testing ..................................................................................................... 54 2. Small Arms Range ............................................................................................... 55 4 3. Special Forces Integrated Training ...................................................................... 55 4. Stennis International Airport ................................................................................ 56 5. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles - Certificate of Authority ............................................ 56 V. EMERGING TECHNOLOGY ............................................................... 57 A. AUTONOMOUS FLIGHT SAFETY SYSTEM (AFSS) ....................... 57 B. JOINT ADVANCED RANGE SAFETY SYSTEM (JARSS) ............... 58 VI. SPECIAL INTEREST ITEMS ..............................................•............... 61 A. EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE (ELV) PAYLOAD SAFETY PROGRAM ........................................................................................ 61 1. AFSPCMAN 91-710(T) ........................................................................................61 2. Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) Pyrovalve Waiver ............................................. 61 3. EL V Payload Safety Program Training Course ................................................... 63 B. FALCON 9 LAUNCH ........................................................................ 64 C. JULIER UHLMANN -IMPROVEMENTS TO STATISTICAL TECHNIQUES FOR RANGE SAFETY ANALYSIS ........................... 65 SUMMARy ............................................................................................... 67 5 Table of Figures FIGURE 1: TOTAL NUMBER OF CLASSES AND STUDENTS TAUGHT .................................................. 9 FIGURE 2: 2011 COURSE SCHEDULE ...................................................................................................... 9 FIGURE 3: RANGE SAFETY ORIENTATION COURSE OUTLINE .......................................................... 10 FIGURE 4: CURRENT RANGE FLIGHT SAFETY ANALYSIS COURSE OUTLlNE ................................. 11 FIGURE 5: RANGE FLIGHT SAFETY SYSTEMS COURSE OUTLINE .................................................... 12 FIGURE 6: RANGE SAFETY OPERATIONS COURSE OUTLINE ........................................................... 13 FIGURE 7: VAB RES DEMO .....................................................................................................................23 FIGURE 8: CAPE 1A AND CAPE 1 B COMMAND SYSTEMS .................................................................. 24 FIGURE 9: EASTERN AND WESTERN RANGE MISSIONS 2010 .......................................................... 26 FIGURE 10. PREDATOR B GUARDIAN ..................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nasa Engineering & Safety Center
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA ENGINEERING & SAFETY CENTER 2008 TECHNICAL UPDATE www.nasa.gov 1 It gives me a lot of pleasure to recognize the 5th anniversary of the establishment of the NASA Engineering and Safety Center. It also offers, for me, a valuable reminder that it is important always to be open to new ideas and new approaches to solving problems. When the NESC was established, I was more than a bit pessimistic that it could work, that it could provide value for the Agency over and above that offered by our various center engineering directorates. I was wrong. The synergy that has been achieved by the NESC and its cross-agency approach to solving difficult technical problems has been truly impressive. It is, in my mind, a useful model for future endeavors and a great example that it is actually possible for us to “be NASA”, to rise above some of the parochial geographic concerns which have plagued NASA for five decades. These days, when someone tells me that the NESC is looking at a particular issue, I am reassured, because I know that if a solution can be found, this group will find it. – Dr. Michael D. Griffin, NASA Administrator 2 Table of Contents Stakeholder Messages ........................................................................................ 2 NESC Leadership ................................................................................................ 3 Overview: How the NESC Works .......................................................................... 4 NESC Academy: Learning from the Past ............................................................... 8 Technical Highlights Collecting Flight Force Measurements to Improve Coupled Loads Analysis ... 11 Analysis of Constellation Program Mass Properties ....................................... 11 Prediction and Reduction of Ares SRB Thrust Oscillation ............................... 12 Review of the Launch Abort System Motor Qualification Plan .......................
    [Show full text]
  • FY2009 NRO Congressional Budget Justification Book
    NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE 14675 Lee Road Chantilly, VA 20151-1715 6 July 2009 Mr. Steven Aftergood Senior Research Analyst Federation of American Scientists 1725 DeSales St NW, 6th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036 Dear Mr. Aftergood: This is in response to your faxed letter, dated 5 March 2008, received in the Information Management Services Center of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) on 7 March 2008. Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), you requested "a copy of all unclassified portions of the NRO Congressional Budget Justification Book (CBJB) for Fiscal Year 2009.° Your request was processed in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, as amended. A thorough search of our files and databases located one record, consisting of 465 pages that is responsive to your request. This record is being released to you in part. Material withheld is denied pursuant to FOIA exemption(b) (3) which applies to information specifically exempt by statute, 50 U.S.C. § 403-1(i) which protects intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure. AS you are aware, the FOIA authorizes federal agencies to assess fees for record services. Based upon the information provided, you have been placed in the "other" category of requesters, which means that a requester is responsible for charges incurred for the cost of search time exceeding two hours and duplication in excess of the first 100 pages of document reproduction in the processing of this request. In your request, you expressed a willingness to pay fees up to the amount of $50.00.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Events Occurred During This Period Which Together Constitute a Major Milestone in the Way Meteorological Data Are Pr
    6.1 DESIGNING WEATHER SUPPORT FOR FUTURE RANGES – RESULTS FROM THE ADVANCED RANGE TECHNOLOGY WORKING GROUP WEATHER SUBGROUP William P. Roeder1 and John T. Madura2 145th Weather Squadron, Patrick Air Force Base, FL 2Weather Office, Kennedy Space Center, FL 1. INTRODUCTION 2. ARTWG WEATHER TECHNOLOGY ROADMAP The Advanced Range Technology Working Group The ARTWG Weather Subgroup, which included (ARTWG) was formed to identify the technologies government, industry and university participants, prepared required for the best performing, most cost-effective future a technology roadmap summarizing desired major space launch and test Ranges, and the R&D required to capabilities for optimal meteorological support to space achieve those technologies. The ARTWG resulted from a ranges for 25 years into the future. The 25-year planning White House Office of Science and Technology Policy time was further divided into three sub-periods (Table-2). (2000) report on the future of America’s space program. The near term requirements can be met with technology The White House tasked NASA and the U.S. Air Force to that is currently available and implementation can begin cooperatively identify the R&D requirements necessary to immediately. The mid term requirements are those that ensure the future competitiveness of U.S. ranges. Two will likely be available in 5-10 years or will require a small parallel initiatives resulted, the ARTWG (2004) co-chaired amount of development. The far term requirements are by NASA and the Air Force, and the companion Advanced advanced capabilities that will require considerable time Spaceport Technology Working Group (ASTWG) (2003), for research and development.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 84, No. 72/Monday, April 15, 2019
    15296 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2019 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Docket: Background documents or FSS—Flight safety system comments received may be read at PC—Probability of casualty Federal Aviation Administration http://www.regulations.gov at any time. PI—Probability of impact Follow the online instructions for RLV—Reusable launch vehicle 14 CFR Parts 401, 404, 413, 414, 415, accessing the docket or go to the Docket Table of Contents 417, 420, 431, 433, 435, 437, 440, and Operations in Room W12–140 of the 450 I. Overview of Proposed Rule West Building Ground Floor at 1200 II. Background [Docket No.: FAA–2019–0229; Notice No. New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, A. History 19–01] DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday B. Licensing Process through Friday, except Federal holidays. C. National Space Council RIN 2120–AL17 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For D. Streamlined Launch and Reentry Licensing Requirements Aviation Streamlined Launch and Reentry questions concerning this action, contact Randy Repcheck, Office of Rulemaking Committee Licensing Requirements III. Discussion of the Proposal Commercial Space Transportation, A. The FAA’s Approach To Updating and AGENCY: Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Streamlining Launch and Reentry Administration (FAA), Department of Independence Avenue SW, Washington, Regulations Transportation (DOT). DC 205914; telephone (202) 267–8760; B. Single Vehicle Operator License ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking email [email protected]. C. Performance-Based Requirements and (NPRM). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Means of Compliance D. Launch From a Federal Launch Range SUMMARY: This rulemaking would Authority for This Rulemaking E.
    [Show full text]
  • THE MAX LAUNCH ABORT SYSTEM – CONCEPT, FLIGHT TEST, and EVOLUTION Michael G
    THE MAX LAUNCH ABORT SYSTEM – CONCEPT, FLIGHT TEST, AND EVOLUTION Michael G. Gilbert(1), PhD (1) Principal Engineer, NASA Engineering and Safety Center 11 Langley Blvd., MS 116,Hampton VA 23681 USA Email:[email protected] Abstract escape system Maxime Faget [1]. The effort was intended to provide The NASA Engineering and Safety Center programmatic risk-reduction for the (NESC) is an independent engineering Constellation Program (CxP) Orion Crew analysis and test organization providing Exploration Vehicle (CEV) project. support across the range of NASA programs. In 2007 NASA was developing The CEV project baseline Launch Abort the launch escape system for the Orion System (LAS) development is an evolution spacecraft that was evolved from the of the Apollo towered-rocket design, Fig. traditional tower-configuration escape 2. Unlike the Apollo LAS, the CEV LAS systems used for the historic Mercury and incorporated an attitude control motor to Apollo spacecraft. The NESC was tasked, ensure stable flight following the escape as a programmatic risk-reduction effort to motor burn. At the time the MLAS project develop and flight test an alternative to the was initiated, the CEV LAS was Orion baseline escape system concept. experiencing development delays related This project became known as the Max to the LAS attitude control motor. Launch Abort System (MLAS), named in Therefore, the MLAS project was to honor of Maxime Faget, the developer of consider escape system concepts that the original Mercury escape system. Over would not require active attitude control or the course of approximately two years the stabilization following escape motor NESC performed conceptual and tradeoff burnout.
    [Show full text]
  • Testing Strategies and Methodologies for the Max Launch Abort System Dawn M
    Testing Strategies and Methodologies for the Max Launch Abort System Dawn M. Schaible Daniel E. Yuchnovicz NASA Engineering and Safety Center Hampton, Virginia ABSTRACT The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) was tasked to develop an alternate, tower-less launch abort system (LAS) as risk mitigation for the Orion Project. The successful pad abort flight demonstration test in July 2009 of the “Max” launch abort system (MLAS) provided data critical to the design of future LASs, while demonstrating the Agency’s ability to rapidly design, build and fly full-scale hardware at minimal cost in a “virtual” work environment. Limited funding and an aggressive schedule presented a challenge for testing of the complex MLAS system. The successful pad abort flight demonstration test was attributed to the project’s systems engineering and integration process, which included: a concise definition of, and an adherence to, flight test objectives; a solid operational concept; well defined performance requirements, and a test program tailored to reducing the highest flight test risks. The testing ranged from wind tunnel validation of computational fluid dynamic simulations to component ground tests of the highest risk subsystems. This paper provides an overview of the testing/risk management approach and methodologies used to understand and reduce the areas of highest risk — resulting in a successful flight demonstration test. KEY WORDS: Testing, risk management, flight test, launch abort systems MLAS PROJECT OVERVIEW NASA’s next generation crewed spacecraft, named Orion, is a part of the overall Constellation Program. The baseline Orion design includes a launch abort system (LAS) with tower, derived from the Apollo design.
    [Show full text]
  • 1.1 a Survey of the Lightning Launch Commit Criteria
    1.1 A Survey Of The Lightning Launch Commit Criteria William P. Roeder and Todd M. McNamara 45th Weather Squadron, Patrick AFB, FL 1. 45 WS MISSION The 45th Weather Squadron (45 WS) provides comprehensive weather services to America’s space program at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) and NASA’s Kennedy Space Center (KSC) (Harms et al., 1999). These services include weather support for pre-launch, launch, post-launch, routine weather forecast, 24/7 watches/warnings, flight briefings, and special missions. A major part of the 45 WS support to launch is evaluating and forecasting the Lightning Launch Commit Criteria (LLCC) (Roeder et al., 1999) and User Launch Commit Criteria (Boyd et al., 1995). The LLCC protect against natural and rocket triggered lightning strikes to the in-flight rocket. The User Launch Commit Criteria include low level winds so the rocket doesn’t Figure 1. Average cloud-to-ground lighting flash density topple or get blown back into the launch pad 2 during launch, and ceiling and visibility so the (flashes/km •year) for the CONUS (1989–1993), corrected for detection efficiency. Data are from the ascending rocket can be tracked by camera to National Lightning Detection Network. Figure provided ensure it is on the correct trajectory. Launch by Dr. Richard Orville, Texas A&M University. customers include the DoD, NASA, and commercial customers for approximately 30 launches per year. The launch vehicles supported 2. INTRODUCTION TO THE LIGHTNING recently include Titan, Atlas, Delta, Athena, LAUNCH COMMIT CRITERIA Pegasus, and Space Shuttle space launch vehicles, and Trident ballistic missiles.
    [Show full text]
  • Inside Wallops National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island, Va
    Inside Wallops National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island, Va. Volume XX-08 Number 10 March 24, 2008 Max Launch Abort System Development Early last year, the Wallops Flight Facility enough and with enough distance Representatives from the Sounding embarked on a challenging effort to downrange to permit the CM to execute a Rockets Program Office and NASA support NASA Engineering and Safety nominal landing. Sounding Rocket Operations Contract, Center (NESC) with the development of (NSROC), have provided technical a composite crew module for the In addition to a wealth of solid rocket motor support associated with the solid rocket Exploration Orion spacecraft. knowledge and experience at Wallops, the motor systems. NSROC will play a major NESC found an engineering staff well- role in vehicle hardware and mechanical The NESC will design, develop, and test suited to rapid-response system GSE fabrication. an alternate concept launch abort system development. Personnel from many (LAS) for the Orion crew module (CM) Wallops organizations have joined the Team members from the Facilities as a risk mitigation for the Orion Project’s MLAS team. LAS development. Management Branch are responsible for procurement and construction of a custom Having an effective means for the crew The Wallops’ Guidance, Navigation & launch pad shelter and for infrastructure to escape in an emergency during launch Control and Mission Systems Engineering improvements related to transportation of is critical in establishing launch system Branch, have supported design and flight the MLAS demonstrator from the Wallops reliability and crew safety for the dynamics analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • America's Spaceport
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration America’s Spaceport www.nasa.gov America’s Spaceport John F. Kennedy Space Center “This generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. We mean to be a part of it — we mean to lead it.” President John Fitzgerald Kennedy September 12, 1962 he John F. Kennedy Space Center — America’s Spaceport — is the doorway to upon Spanish treasure ships laden with riches from space. From its unique facilities, humans and machines have begun the exploration the mines of Mexico and Peru. Shoals, reefs and T of the solar system, reaching out to the sun, the moon, the planets and beyond. storms also exacted their toll on the treasure fleets, While these spectacular achievements have fired the imagination of people throughout leaving behind a sunken bonanza now being reaped the world and enriched the lives of millions, they represent only a beginning. At America’s by modern-day treasure hunters. Spaceport, humanity’s long-cherished dream of establishing permanent outposts on the new space frontier is becoming a reality. By the early 18th century, America’s Spaceport Origins echoed with the footsteps of other intruders: Yet, our leap toward the stars is also an epilogue to a rich and colorful past . an almost English settlers and their Indian allies (the latter to forgotten legacy replete with Indian lore, stalwart adventurers, sunken treasure and hardy become known as the Seminoles) from colonies in pioneers. Georgia and South Carolina. Thus began a new era of conflict and expansion that ouldw continue until The sands of America’s Spaceport bear the imprint of New World history from its earliest the end of the Second U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Fy2010 Defense Budget
    U N I T E D S T A T E S D E P A R T M E N T O F D E F E N S E FISCAL YEAR 2010 BUDGET REQUEST S U M M A R Y J U S T I F I C A T I O N • M A Y 2 0 0 9 On behalf of the President, I am pleased to transmit to Congress this volume that presents the Department of Defense’s budget request of $533.8 billion for Fiscal Year 2010. The purpose of the Secretary’s Summary Justification is to inform Cong ress and provide the American people a clear understanding of how their tax dollars are being invested to provide for our Nation’s defense. It includes: • An explanation of the Department’s missions, accomplishments, and priorities; • A summary of the request by Military Department and Defense agencies; • Information on special areas of interest and emphasis for Fiscal Year 2010; and • Details on the Department’s major weapons programs. The Military Departments and Defense agencies will provide Congress with additional detailed justification materials on this request. The requested funds would: provide military pay, benefits, and world-class healthcare for 2.3 million Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen ($163.9 billion); support military operations and force readiness ($160.9 billion); invest in modernization ($186.1 billion); and support family housing and facilities ($23.0 billion). In addition to the $533.8 billion request, the Administration requests $130.0 billion for Fiscal Year 2010 to support ongoing Overseas Contingency Operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Delta II Aquarius/SAC-D Mission Overview
    Mission Overview Delta II Aquarius/SAC-D Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA PMS 280C PMS 279C PMS 123C Black United Launch Alliance (ULA) is proud to launch the Aquarius/SAC-D mission. Aquarius/SAC-D will be launched aboard a Delta II 7320-10C launch vehicle from Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB), California. The Delta II will deliver the Aquarius/SAC-D spacecraft into Sun-synchronous orbit, where it will begin its mission to improve our understanding of Earth’s climate system by mapping the concentration of dissolved salt at the ocean’s surface. ULA provides Delta II launch services under the NASA Launch Services (NLS) contract with the NASA Kennedy Space Center Launch Services Program. We are delighted that NASA has chosen the Delta II for this mission developed by the Comision Nacional de Actividades Espaciales (CONAE), Argentina and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and built by Investigciones Aplicades (INVAP), Argentina. I congratulate the entire team for their significant efforts. ULA looks forward to continued launches of scientific space missions. Vernon L. Thorp NASA Program Manager United Launch Alliance 1 Atlas V AEHF-1 AQUARIUS/SAC-D OBSERvatORY | Overview The Aquarius/SAC-D Observatory is a joint U.S./Argentinian mission to map the salinity—the concentration of dissolved salt—at the ocean surface. This information is critical to improving our understanding of two major components of Earth’s climate system: the water cycle and ocean circulation. By measuring ocean salinity from space, the Aquarius/SAC-D mission will provide new insights into how the massive natural exchange of freshwater between the ocean, atmosphere and sea ice influences ocean circulation, weather and climate.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenges for a South Texas Spaceport
    Space Traffic Management Conference 2014 Roadmap to the Stars Nov 5th, 2:00 PM Challenges For A South Texas Spaceport Edward Ellegood Florida SpacerePort, [email protected] Wayne Eleazer Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.erau.edu/stm Ellegood, Edward and Eleazer, Wayne, "Challenges For A South Texas Spaceport" (2014). Space Traffic Management Conference. 17. https://commons.erau.edu/stm/2014/wednesday/17 This Event is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Space Traffic Management Conference by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Safety Challenges for a South Texas Spaceport By Wayne Eleazer and Edward Ellegood, ERAU Space Traffic Management Conference, November 2014 Introduction On September 22, 2014, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) broke ground on a new spaceport facility at Boca Chica, a remote beach located east of Brownsville, Texas, less than three miles north of the U.S./Mexico border. The groundbreaking followed the successful completion of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation (FAA-AST), and the commitment of millions of dollars in financial assistance from Texas state and local governments. In addition to purely environmental/ecological impacts, the EIS focused on some other public safety risks, all of which were found to be acceptable with mitigating actions proposed by SpaceX. The EIS was an important step toward gaining community and state/local government support for the Boca Chica spaceport. The successful EIS triggered pledges of about $30 million in financial incentives that SpaceX plans to leverage to develop and operate the spaceport, a project expected to cost in excess of $100 million over several years.
    [Show full text]