DOCSLIB.ORG

NASA Routine Payload Environmental Assessment (Draft)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
NASA Routine Payload Environmental Assessment (Draft) NASA Routine Payload Draft EA August 17, 2011 ii NASA Routine Payload Draft EA August 17, 2011 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR LAUNCH OF NASA ROUTINE PAYLOADS ON EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLES TITLE PAGE Lead Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Cooperating Agencies: Federal Aviation Administration, Air Force Space and Missile System Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command. Proposed Action: NASA routine spacecraft as payloads on expendable launch vehicles from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida; Vandenberg Air Force Base, California; Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site at the U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll in the Republic of the Marshall Islands; NASA Wallops Flight Facility, Virginia; and Kodiak Launch Complex, Alaska. For Further Information: George Tahu, Program Executive, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street, SW, Mail Stop 3X63, Washington, D.C. 20546. Date: July 2011 Abstract: This Draft Environmental Assessment updates the Final Environmental Assessment for Launch of NASA Routine Payloads on Expendable Launch Vehicles from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida and Vandenberg Air Force Base, California (June 2002) and addresses NASA’s proposed action to launch a variety of spacecraft missions. The spacecraft used in these missions are considered routine payloads; the same threshold quantities and characteristics describe them all, and they would present no new or substantial environmental impacts or hazards as compared to previously analyzed and documented impacts. These scientific and technology demonstration missions are needed for U.S. space and Earth exploration. All spacecraft (referred to as NASA routine payloads [NRP]) examined in this environmental assessment would meet rigorously defined criteria to ensure that the spacecraft and their launch and operation would not present any new or substantial environmental or safety concerns. The NRPs would launch from existing launch facilities (or those currently under construction) at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida; Vandenberg Air Force Base, California; the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site at U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll in the Republic of the Marshall Islands; NASA Wallops Flight Facility, Virginia; and Kodiak Launch Complex, Alaska. National Environmental Policy Act documentation exists that analyzes the potential environmental impacts at each of these launch sites for the evaluated launch vehicles. iii NASA Routine Payload Draft EA August 17, 2011 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK iv NASA Routine Payload Draft EA August 17, 2011 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................1 ES.1 PROPOSED ACTION .....................................................................................................1 ES.2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ACTION ..................................................................3 ES.3 PURPOSE OF THE NASA ROUTINE PAYLOAD SPACECRAFT EA .......................4 ES.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED .................................................................................4 ES.5 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE .......................................................................................5 ES.6 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .........................................................5 ES.7 SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................9 1 Purpose and Need ......................................................................................................1–1 1.1 Proposed Action .......................................................................................................1–1 1.2 Purpose of the Proposed Action ...............................................................................1–2 1.3 Need for the Proposed Action ..................................................................................1–3 1.4 NEPA Strategy .........................................................................................................1–3 2 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives ...................................................2–1 2.1 Proposed Action .......................................................................................................2–1 2.1.1 Envelope Spacecraft Description .....................................................................2–3 2.1.2 Routine Payload Checklist ...............................................................................2–6 2.1.3 NASA Routine Payload Launch Vehicles .....................................................2–10 2.1.4 Space Launch Complexes and Pads ...............................................................2–29 2.1.5 Payload Processing Facilities .........................................................................2–39 2.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action ......................................................................2–43 2.3 No-Action Alternative ...........................................................................................2–43 3 Affected Environment ...............................................................................................3–1 3.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................3–1 3.2 Environmental Topics Common to All Launch Sites ..............................................3–1 3.2.1 Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................3–1 3.2.2 Health and Safety .............................................................................................3–2 3.2.3 Water Quality ...................................................................................................3–3 3.2.4 Air Quality .......................................................................................................3–5 3.2.5 Noise and Vibration .........................................................................................3–7 3.2.6 Biological Resources .......................................................................................3–9 3.2.7 Historical and Cultural Resources .................................................................3–10 3.2.8 Environmental Justice ....................................................................................3–10 3.2.9 Global Environment .......................................................................................3–11 3.2.10 Orbital and Reentry Debris ............................................................................3–13 3.3 Specific Launch Site Environments .......................................................................3–14 3.3.1 Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) and Kennedy Space Center (KSC) ....................................................................................................3–14 3.3.2 Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) ............................................................3–29 3.3.3 U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll/Reagan Test Site (USAKA/RTS) .....................3–43 3.3.4 Wallops Flight Facility (WFF).......................................................................3–65 3.3.5 Kodiak Launch Complex (KLC) ...................................................................3–90 4 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives ........................................................4–1 4.1 Impacts of the Proposed Action ...............................................................................4–1 v NASA Routine Payload Draft EA August 17, 2011 4.1.1 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste ....................................................4–2 4.1.2 Health and Safety .............................................................................................4–7 4.1.3 Geology and Soils ..........................................................................................4–11 4.1.4 Water Resources ............................................................................................4–12 4.1.5 Air Quality .....................................................................................................4–15 4.1.6 Noise and Sonic Boom...................................................................................4–24 4.1.7 Launch Accident Suborbital, Orbital and Reentry Debris .............................4–25 4.1.8 Biological Resources .....................................................................................4–30 4.1.9 Historical and Cultural Resources .................................................................4–33 4.1.10 Economic Factors...........................................................................................4–33 4.1.11 Environmental Justice ....................................................................................4–33 4.1.12 Cumulative Effects .........................................................................................4–34 4.1.13 Detailed Discussion of Impacts of Proposed Action at Each Launch Site ....4–35 4.1.14 No Action Alternative ....................................................................................4–53 5 LIST OF PREPARERS AND LIST OF PERSONS & AGENCIES CONSULTED .....................................................................................................................5–1 5.1 List of Preparers .......................................................................................................5–1
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Spacex Launch Manifest - a List of Upcoming Missions 25 Spacex Facilities 27 Dragon Overview 29 Falcon 9 Overview 31 45Th Space Wing Fact Sheet
    COTS 2 Mission Press Kit SpaceX/NASA Launch and Mission to Space Station CONTENTS 3 Mission Highlights 4 Mission Overview 6 Dragon Recovery Operations 7 Mission Objectives 9 Mission Timeline 11 Dragon Cargo Manifest 13 NASA Slides – Mission Profile, Rendezvous, Maneuvers, Re-Entry and Recovery 15 Overview of the International Space Station 17 Overview of NASA’s COTS Program 19 SpaceX Company Overview 21 SpaceX Leadership – Musk & Shotwell Bios 23 SpaceX Launch Manifest - A list of upcoming missions 25 SpaceX Facilities 27 Dragon Overview 29 Falcon 9 Overview 31 45th Space Wing Fact Sheet HIGH-RESOLUTION PHOTOS AND VIDEO SpaceX will post photos and video throughout the mission. High-Resolution photographs can be downloaded from: http://spacexlaunch.zenfolio.com Broadcast quality video can be downloaded from: https://vimeo.com/spacexlaunch/videos MORE RESOURCES ON THE WEB Mission updates will be posted to: For NASA coverage, visit: www.SpaceX.com http://www.nasa.gov/spacex www.twitter.com/elonmusk http://www.nasa.gov/nasatv www.twitter.com/spacex http://www.nasa.gov/station www.facebook.com/spacex www.youtube.com/spacex 1 WEBCAST INFORMATION The launch will be webcast live, with commentary from SpaceX corporate headquarters in Hawthorne, CA, at www.spacex.com. The webcast will begin approximately 40 minutes before launch. SpaceX hosts will provide information specific to the flight, an overview of the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon spacecraft, and commentary on the launch and flight sequences. It will end when the Dragon spacecraft separates
    [Show full text]
  • Launch and Deployment Analysis for a Small, MEO, Technology Demonstration Satellite
    46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit AIAA 2008-1131 7 – 10 January 20006, Reno, Nevada Launch and Deployment Analysis for a Small, MEO, Technology Demonstration Satellite Stephen A. Whitmore* and Tyson K. Smith† Utah State University, Logan, UT, 84322-4130 A trade study investigating the economics, mass budget, and concept of operations for delivery of a small technology-demonstration satellite to a medium-altitude earth orbit is presented. The mission requires payload deployment at a 19,000 km orbit altitude and an inclination of 55o. Because the payload is a technology demonstrator and not part of an operational mission, launch and deployment costs are a paramount consideration. The payload includes classified technologies; consequently a USA licensed launch system is mandated. A preliminary trade analysis is performed where all available options for FAA-licensed US launch systems are considered. The preliminary trade study selects the Orbital Sciences Minotaur V launch vehicle, derived from the decommissioned Peacekeeper missile system, as the most favorable option for payload delivery. To meet mission objectives the Minotaur V configuration is modified, replacing the baseline 5th stage ATK-37FM motor with the significantly smaller ATK Star 27. The proposed design change enables payload delivery to the required orbit without using a 6th stage kick motor. End-to-end mass budgets are calculated, and a concept of operations is presented. Monte-Carlo simulations are used to characterize the expected accuracy of the final orbit.
    [Show full text]
  • Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Support to Commercial Space Launch
    The Space Congress® Proceedings 2019 (46th) Light the Fire Jun 4th, 3:30 PM Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Support to Commercial Space Launch Thomas Ste. Marie Vice Commander, 45th Space Wing Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.erau.edu/space-congress-proceedings Scholarly Commons Citation Ste. Marie, Thomas, "Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Support to Commercial Space Launch" (2019). The Space Congress® Proceedings. 31. https://commons.erau.edu/space-congress-proceedings/proceedings-2019-46th/presentations/31 This Event is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Space Congress® Proceedings by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Support to Commercial Space Launch Colonel Thomas Ste. Marie Vice Commander, 45th Space Wing CCAFS Launch Customers: 2013 Complex 41: ULA Atlas V (CST-100) Complex 40: SpaceX Falcon 9 Complex 37: ULA Delta IV; Delta IV Heavy Complex 46: Space Florida, Navy* Skid Strip: NGIS Pegasus Atlantic Ocean: Navy Trident II* Black text – current programs; Blue text – in work; * – sub-orbital CCAFS Launch Customers: 2013 Complex 39B: NASA SLS Complex 41: ULA Atlas V (CST-100) Complex 40: SpaceX Falcon 9 Complex 37: ULA Delta IV; Delta IV Heavy NASA Space Launch System Launch Complex 39B February 4, 2013 Complex 46: Space Florida, Navy* Skid Strip: NGIS Pegasus Atlantic Ocean: Navy Trident II* Black text – current programs;
    [Show full text]
  • Small Space Launch: Origins & Challenges Lt Col Thomas H
    Small Space Launch: Origins & Challenges Lt Col Thomas H. Freeman, USAF, [email protected], (505)853-4750 Maj Jose Delarosa, USAF, [email protected], (505)846-4097 Launch Test Squadron, SMC/SDTW Small Space Launch: Origins The United States Space Situational Awareness capability continues to be a key element in obtaining and maintaining the high ground in space. Space Situational Awareness satellites are critical enablers for integrated air, ground and sea operations, and play an essential role in fighting and winning conflicts. The United States leads the world space community in spacecraft payload systems from the component level into spacecraft, and in the development of constellations of spacecraft. The United States’ position is founded upon continued government investment in research and development in space technology [1], which is clearly reflected in the Space Situational Awareness capabilities and the longevity of these missions. In the area of launch systems that support Space Situational Awareness, despite the recent development of small launch vehicles, the United States launch capability is dominated by an old, unresponsive and relatively expensive set of launchers [1] in the Expandable, Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELV) platforms; Delta IV and Atlas V. The EELV systems require an average of six to eight months from positioning on the launch table until liftoff [3]. Access to space requires maintaining a robust space transportation capability, founded on a rigorous industrial and technology base. The downturn of commercial space launch service use has undermined, for the time being, the ability of industry to recoup its significant investment in current launch systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Indigenous Encounters
    From Islands to Atoll: Relating Reefs of History at Kwajalein Greg Dvorak 1. Atollism Islands of starvation, islands of abundance, islands of connectedness: the nearly one hundred flat coral islets that form Kwajalein in the Marshall Islands, the largest atoll on earth, are a gigantic ring on the water, strung together by a dynamic reef. The lagoon it encloses—indeed the entire atoll—is a microcosm of Oceania, a metaphor for the contradictory and interconnected histories of the contemporary world. I choose Kwajalein to explore the idea of “encounter” not only because it was the site of a major battle of the Pacific War and a place of unfathomable change throughout the twentieth century between Marshall Islanders, Japanese, and Americans; I focus on Kwajalein also because it was my childhood hometown, where I spent the first decade of my life. Because the main island of the atoll is leased to the US Army as a missile-testing base, my early years in American suburbia there provided my first taste of the ways in which huge nations and small localities intersect. Haunted by the ghosts of Japanese soldiers and the lullabies of our Marshallese housekeeper, I knew that this atoll had been home to many others before me, yet I felt linked to those other people through the common idea of home, and through the genealogy of the atoll itself. Coral colonizes: Polyps voyage in the ocean currents, joining with other coral communities atop subaquatic volcanoes that rise miles from the sea floor to break the surface. Their migrations are based on the flows of the sea, and their settlements are serendipitous.
    [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]
  • United States Army Garrison- Kwajalein Atoll Information Handbook
    United States Army Garrison- Kwajalein Atoll Information Handbook Produced by DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL LLC Last updated: 4 September 2019 U.S. ARMY GARRISON KWAJALEIN ATOLL/ REAGAN TEST SITE U.S. ARMY INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT COMMAND KWAJALEIN ATOLL, MARSHALL ISLANDS I. INSTALLATION DATA Name of Site: The installation is currently called “United States Army Garrison - Kwajalein Atoll/ Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site” (USAG-KA/RTS) effective 01 October 2013. The installation has undergone multiple name changes since its inception: U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll/ Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site (USAKA/RTS) from 15 June 2001 to 01 October 2013; U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll/ Kwajalein Missile Range (USAKA/KMR) from 01 March 1998 to 15 June 2001; U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll (USAKA) from 14 November 1986 to 30 September 1997; Kwajalein Missile Range (KMR) from 15 April 1968 to 13 November 1986; Kwajalein Test Site from 1 July 1964 to 14 April 1968. Between 1945 and 30 June 1964, while under the command of the United States Navy, the installation was referred to at various times as the Navy Operating Base Kwajalein, Naval Air Station Kwajalein, Naval Station Kwajalein and Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) Kwajalein. Site Number: NQ100 [for Military Real Property Inventory purposes, assigned by the U.S. Army Chief of Engineers per paragraph 2.2.1 (3) of AR 405-45] U.S. Mail Address: PSC 701-PO Box 26, APO AP 96555-0001 Status: USAG-KA/RTS is a Class II site (Active) of the United States Army and is designated a subordinate activity of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Nasa's Acquisition of Commercial Launch Services
    FEBRUARY 17, 2011 AUDIT REPORT OFFICE OF AUDITS REVIEW OF NASA’S ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL LAUNCH SERVICES OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL National Aeronautics and Space Administration REPORT NO. IG-11-012 (ASSIGNMENT NO. A-09-011-00) Final report released by: Paul K. Martin Inspector General Acronyms COTS Commercial Orbital Transportation Services CRS Commercial Resupply Services DOD Department of Defense EELV Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle ELV Expendable Launch Vehicle ESMD Exploration Systems Mission Directorate GAO Government Accountability Office GLAST Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope IBEX Interstellar Boundary Explorer ICBM Intercontinental Ballistic Missile ICESat-II Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite IDIQ Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity ISS International Space Station LADEE Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer LCROSS Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite LRO Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter LSP Launch Services Program NLS NASA Launch Services OCO Orbiting Carbon Observatory OIG Office of Inspector General PPBE Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution SMAP Soil Moisture Active Passive SMD Science Mission Directorate SOMD Space Operations Mission Directorate ULA United Launch Alliance REPORT NO. IG-11-012 FEBRUARY 17, 2011 OVERVIEW REVIEW OF NASA’S ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL LAUNCH SERVICES The Issue Commercial U.S. launch services providers compete domestically and internationally for contracts to carry satellites and other payloads into orbit using unmanned, single-use vehicles known as expendable launch vehicles (ELVs). However, since the late 1990s the global commercial launch market has generally declined following the downturn in the telecommunications services industry, which was the primary customer of the commercial space industry. Given this trend, U.S. launch services providers struggling to remain economically viable have been bolstered by the Commercial Space Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-303), which requires NASA and other Federal agencies to plan missions and procure space transportation services from U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 6. Chemical-Nuclear Propulsion MAE 342 2016
    2/12/20 Chemical/Nuclear Propulsion Space System Design, MAE 342, Princeton University Robert Stengel • Thermal rockets • Performance parameters • Propellants and propellant storage Copyright 2016 by Robert Stengel. All rights reserved. For educational use only. http://www.princeton.edu/~stengel/MAE342.html 1 1 Chemical (Thermal) Rockets • Liquid/Gas Propellant –Monopropellant • Cold gas • Catalytic decomposition –Bipropellant • Separate oxidizer and fuel • Hypergolic (spontaneous) • Solid Propellant ignition –Mixed oxidizer and fuel • External ignition –External ignition • Storage –Burn to completion – Ambient temperature and pressure • Hybrid Propellant – Cryogenic –Liquid oxidizer, solid fuel – Pressurized tank –Throttlable –Throttlable –Start/stop cycling –Start/stop cycling 2 2 1 2/12/20 Cold Gas Thruster (used with inert gas) Moog Divert/Attitude Thruster and Valve 3 3 Monopropellant Hydrazine Thruster Aerojet Rocketdyne • Catalytic decomposition produces thrust • Reliable • Low performance • Toxic 4 4 2 2/12/20 Bi-Propellant Rocket Motor Thrust / Motor Weight ~ 70:1 5 5 Hypergolic, Storable Liquid- Propellant Thruster Titan 2 • Spontaneous combustion • Reliable • Corrosive, toxic 6 6 3 2/12/20 Pressure-Fed and Turbopump Engine Cycles Pressure-Fed Gas-Generator Rocket Rocket Cycle Cycle, with Nozzle Cooling 7 7 Staged Combustion Engine Cycles Staged Combustion Full-Flow Staged Rocket Cycle Combustion Rocket Cycle 8 8 4 2/12/20 German V-2 Rocket Motor, Fuel Injectors, and Turbopump 9 9 Combustion Chamber Injectors 10 10 5 2/12/20
    [Show full text]
  • Spaceflight, Inc. General Payload Users Guide
    Spaceflight, Inc. SF‐2100‐PUG‐00001 Rev F 2015‐22‐15 Payload Users Guide Spaceflight, Inc. General Payload Users Guide 3415 S. 116th St, Suite 123 Tukwila, WA 98168 866.204.1707 spaceflightindustries.com i Spaceflight, Inc. SF‐2100‐PUG‐00001 Rev F 2015‐22‐15 Payload Users Guide Document Revision History Rev Approval Changes ECN No. Sections / Approved Pages CM Date A 2011‐09‐16 Initial Release Updated electrical interfaces and launch B 2012‐03‐30 environments C 2012‐07‐18 Official release Updated electrical interfaces and launch D 2013‐03‐05 environments, reformatted, and added to sections Updated organization and formatting, E 2014‐04‐15 added content on SHERPA, Mini‐SHERPA and ISS launches, updated RPA CG F 2015‐05‐22 Overall update ii Spaceflight, Inc. SF‐2100‐PUG‐00001 Rev F 2015‐22‐15 Payload Users Guide Table of Contents 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Document Overview ........................................................................................................................ 7 1.2 Spaceflight Overview ....................................................................................................................... 7 1.3 Hardware Overview ......................................................................................................................... 9 1.4 Mission Management Overview .................................................................................................... 10 2 Secondary
    [Show full text]
  • The Annual Compendium of Commercial Space Transportation: 2012
    Federal Aviation Administration The Annual Compendium of Commercial Space Transportation: 2012 February 2013 About FAA About the FAA 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 51 United States Code, Subtitle V, Chapter 509 (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 encourage, facilitate, and promote commercial space launches and reentries. Additional information concerning commercial space transportation can be found on FAA AST’s website: http://www.faa.gov/go/ast Cover art: Phil Smith, The Tauri Group (2013) 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. • i • Federal Aviation Administration’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation Dear Colleague, 2012 was a very active year for the entire commercial space industry. In addition to all of the dramatic space transportation events, including the first-ever commercial mission flown to and from the International Space Station, the year was also a very busy one from the government’s perspective. It is clear that the level and pace of activity is beginning to increase significantly.
    [Show full text]
  • Aas 14-281 Suborbital Intercept And
    AAS 14-281 SUBORBITAL INTERCEPT AND FRAGMENTATION OF ASTEROIDS WITH VERY SHORT WARNING TIMES Ryan Hupp,∗ Spencer Dewald,∗ and Bong Wiey The threat of an asteroid impact with very short warning times (e.g., 1 to 24 hrs) is a very probable, real danger to civilization, yet no viable countermeasures cur- rently exist. The utilization of an upgraded ICBM to deliver a hypervelocity as- teroid intercept vehicle (HAIV) carrying a nuclear explosive device (NED) on a suborbital interception trajectory is studied in this paper. Specifically, this paper focuses on determining the trajectory for maximizing the altitude of intercept. A hypothetical asteroid impact scenario is used as an example for determining sim- plified trajectory models. Other issues are also examined, including launch vehicle options, launch site placement, late intercept, and some undesirable side effects. It is shown that silo-based ICBMs with modest burnout velocities can be utilized for a suborbital asteroid intercept mission with an NED explosion at reasonably higher altitudes (> 2,500 km). However, further studies will be required in the following key areas: i) NED sizing for properly fragmenting small (50 to 150 m) asteroids, ii) the side effects caused by an NED explosion at an altitude of 2,500 km or higher, iii) the rapid launch readiness of existing or upgraded ICBMs for a suborbital asteroid intercept with short warning times (e.g., 1 to 24 hrs), and iv) precision ascent guidance and terminal intercept guidance. It is emphasized that if an earlier alert (e.g., > 1 week) can be assured, then an interplanetary inter- cept/fragmentation may become feasible, which requires an interplanetary launch vehicle.
    [Show full text]