DOCSLIB.ORG

Cape Canaveral Spaceport Complex Master Plan 2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cape Canaveral Spaceport Complex Master Plan 2013 Cape Canaveral Spaceport Complex Master Plan 2013 Cape Canaveral Spaceport Complex Master Plan SPACE FLORIDA TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary I. The Cape Canaveral Spaceport ..................................................................... 1 4. Capability Analysis II. The Master Plan .............................................................................................. 2 4.1 Cape Canaveral Spaceport ...........................................................................39 III. The Goals ......................................................................................................... 3 4.2 Launch Vehicle Facilities .............................................................................. 39 IV. Market Analysis and Forecast........................................................................ 4 4.3 Payload Processing Facilities....................................................................... 43 V. Fiscal Impacts ................................................................................................. 5 4.4 CCS Airspace and Control Centers............................................................... 43 VI. Existing Facilities and Infrastructure ............................................................ 5 4.5 Horizontal Launch and Landing Facilities .................................................. 44 VII. Capabilities ..................................................................................................... 6 4.6 UAS Global Leadership ................................................................................ 45 VIII. Development Plan/Capital Improvement Plan ............................................ 7 5. CCS Development Plan 1. Introduction 5.1 CCS Master Plan Goals and Objectives ....................................................... 47 1.1 Cape Canaveral Spaceport Overview ........................................................... 9 5.2 Recommended Projects .............................................................................. 48 1.2 Role of Space Florida ................................................................................... 10 5.3 Implementation ............................................................................................ 50 1.3 Purpose of Master Plan ................................................................................ 12 1.4 Relationship to Other Master Plans ............................................................ 13 Appendices 1.5 FAA and FDOT Requirements ..................................................................... 15 Appendix A - Stakeholder Engagement .................................................................. 51 2. Market Analysis and Forecasts Appendix B - Call For Projects .................................................................................. 51 Appendix C - Baseline and Growth Scenarios ......................................................... 52 2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 17 Appendix D - Economic Analysis ............................................................................. 54 2.2 Space Launch Market and Competing World Spaceports ......................... 17 Appendix E - Call for Projects Forms ....................................................................... 56 2.3 Developments in the Spaceport Industry .................................................. 18 2.4 Launch Forecast 2012–2021 ........................................................................ 18 2.5 Game Changers ............................................................................................ 21 2.6 Market Scenarios .......................................................................................... 22 2.7 Fiscal Impacts ............................................................................................... 24 3. Existing Facilities and Infrastructure 3.1 Existing Facilities .......................................................................................... 25 3.2 Multi-modal connections to CCS (roadways, rail, air, port, transit).......... 33 3.3 Utilities and Infrastructure .......................................................................... 34 3.4 Regional Assets ............................................................................................ 36 Cape Canaveral Spaceport Complex Master Plan SPACE FLORIDA i Figures Executive Summary Figure 2.4-3: Mission to the ISS ....................................................................... 19 Figure 4.4-1: Morrell Operations Center, CCAFS ........................................... 44 Figure 2.4-4: Bigelow Space Station ............................................................... 19 Figure 4.4-2: Cape Canaveral Air Space restrictions ..................................... 44 Figure E.I-1: Cape Canaveral Spaceport ............................................................1 Figure 2.4-5: NASA TDRS Communications Satellite..................................... 20 Figure 4.6-1: Conceptual Rendering of Unmanned Aircraft System ............ 45 Figure E.I-2: Spaceport Infrastructure Partners ...............................................1 Figure 2.4-6: Virgin Galactic ............................................................................ 20 Figure 4.6-2: Projected Florida Detailed UAS Economic Impact .................. 45 Figure E.II-1: CCS Competitive Capabilities ......................................................2 Figure 2.4-7: XCOR Lynx .................................................................................. 20 Figure 4.6-3: Projected Florida Annual Employment.................................... 45 Figure E.II-2: CCS Facilities Investmented in the State of Florida ....................2 Figure 2.5-1: F6 Concept .................................................................................. 21 Figure 4.6-4: Projected Florida Spending and Economic Impact ................. 45 Figure E.II-3: CCS Facilities Investments by the State of Florida .....................2 Figure 2.5-2: SEP Airlock Concept................................................................... 21 Figure E.III-1: Space Florida System and Master Planning ..............................3 Figure 2.5-3: On-Orbit Propellant Depot Concept ........................................ 21 5. CCS Development Plan Figure E.III-2: CCS Goals and Objectives ...........................................................3 Figure 2.6-1: Overall Addressable Market: Commercial Orbital .................. 22 Figure E.IV-1: Baseline Scenario Orbital Launches ..........................................4 Figure 5.1-1: CCS Masterplan Goals Development ....................................... 47 Figure 2.6-2: Overall Addressable Market: Government Orbital ................. 22 Figure E.IV-2: Baseline Scenario Suborbital Launches.....................................4 Figure 5.1-2: Space Florida Goals ................................................................... 47 Figure 2.6-3: Overall Addressable Market: Commercial Suborbital ............ 22 Figure E.IV-3: Growth Scenario Orbital Launches ............................................4 Figure 5.2-1: CCS Land Use and Development Plant with FY14/15 Submitted Figure 2.6-4: Baseline Scenario Orbital Launches ......................................... 22 Figure E.IV-4: Growth Scenario Suborbital Launches ......................................4 Projects..................................................................................................... 48 Figure 2.6-5: Baseline Scenario Suborbital Launches ................................... 22 Figure E.V-1: Economic Impacts of CCS Master Plan ........................................5 Figure 5.2-2: FY 14/15 Submitted Projects .................................................... 49 Figure 2.6-6: Growth Scenario Orbital Launches .......................................... 23 Figure E.VI-1: Existing Mission-Related Facilities .............................................5 Figure 5.2-3: Capital Improvement Plan Funding Recommendations ........ 49 Figure 2.6-7: Growth Scenario Suborbital Launches .................................... 23 Figure E.VII-1: CCS Launch Complexes and Launch Vehicle Programs ...........6 Figure 5.3-1: Space Infrastructure Partners ................................................... 50 Figure 2.7-1: Baseline Scenario Launch Revenue .......................................... 24 Figure E.VII-2: XCOR Lynx ...................................................................................6 Figure 5.3-2: FDOT Five Year Work Program Process .................................... 50 Figure 2.7-2: Growth Scenario Launch Revenue ........................................... 24 Figure E.VII-3: Eastern Range Launch Azimuths ..............................................6 Figure 5.3-3: Typical FDOT Space Infrastructure Funding ............................ 50 Figure 2.7-3: Notional Cost per Launch and Seat Calculation ...................... 24 Figure E.VII-4: CCS Available ELV and Payload Performance ..........................6 Figure 5.3-4: Space Transportation and the STTF – Next Steps ................... 50 Figure 2.7-4: Economic Impacts of CCS Master Plan ..................................... 24 Figure E.VIII-1: Space Florida Goals ...................................................................7 Appendices Figure E.VIII-2: FY 14/15 Submitted Projects ....................................................7 3. Existing Facilities and Infrastructure
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 1993 (179Kb Pdf)
    February 4, 1993 KSC Contact: Bruce Buckingham KSC Release No. 10-93 Notice To Editors/News Directors: KSC NEWS CENTER OFFICE HOURS FOR PEGASUS ARRIVAL The NASA B-52 aircraft carrying the Orbital Sciences Cor- poration Pegasus rocket is scheduled to arrive at KSC on Sunday, Feb. 7, with launch targeted for Feb. 9. The aircraft is currently scheduled to depart Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., at about 10:00 a.m. EST on Sunday with a single refueling stopover planned at Sheppard AFB, Texas. If weather permits, arrival of the aircraft at KSC's Shuttle Landing Facility should be about 4:30 p.m. EST. Status updates regarding the cross-country flight will be made on KSC's codaphone over the weekend. This can be reached by calling 407/867-2525. Public Affairs officers will be in the KSC Press Site office by 9:30 a.m. Sunday in order to provide status updates by phone. The office, however, will not officially open until it is deter- mined the aircraft will in fact be arriving at KSC. If it is determined that the aircraft will be successful in completing the day-long trip to KSC on Sunday, the office will officially open at 3:00 p.m. In that event, media interested in viewing the B-52/Pegasus arrival should plan on calling the KSC news center at 407/867-2468 for departure times to the Shuttle Landing Facility. News media who do not possess current credentials must con- tact the Public Information Office before close of business Friday, Feb.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to Brevard County
    Table of Contents Electricity .……………………………...2 Utilities ………………………………....3 Department of Motor Vehicles ………4 Housing & Public Transportation...….5 Medical Services……………………...6 Area Hospitals………………………...7 Post Offices……………………………8 Public Libraries………………………..9 Law Enforcement……………………10 ELECTRICITY Florida Power & Light Co. (FPL) FPL requires a deposit that varies according to customer’s credit rating. An initial services charge is included on the first bill. A certificate of occupancy following an electrical inspection is required for first time service. To receive FPL service, contact: Customer Service: (321) 723-7795 or go to: www.fpl.com Back to Contents Gas, Water, Sewer, Trash Florida City Gas supplies natural gas to most of Brevard. For Customer Service: 800-993-7546 or go to: www.floridacitygas.com Water Sewer & Trash services are provided by City. Cocoa: For Customer Service: (321) 433-8400 or go to: www.cocoafl.org Melbourne: For Customer Service: (321) 953-6390 or go to: www.melbourneflorida.org Titusville: For Customer Service: (321) 383-5775 or go to: www.titusville.com Palm Bay: For Customer Service: (321) 952-3420 or go to: www.palmbayflorida.org Back to Contents DRIVER’S LICENSE, VEHICLE REGISTRATION, TAG, & TITLE SERVICES For details about how to obtain Florida Driver’s License Go to: http://www.hsmv.state.fl.us/html/dlnew.html Now, you can take appointment online for driver licenses, driving tests, & Florida ID cards Go to: http://www.hsmv.state.fl.us/offices/brevard.html This web page also provides links to:- Motor Vehicle Services at Brevard county Tax Collector’s office for your vehicle registration, tag, and titles.
    [Show full text]
  • Built Commercial Spaceport in the World. the FAA-Licensed Launch Complex Is Situated on 18,000 Acres Adjacent to the U.S
    Spaceport America is the first purpose- built commercial spaceport in the world. The FAA-licensed launch complex is situated on 18,000 acres adjacent to the U.S. Army White Sands Missile Range in southern New Mexico. Some of the most respected companies in the commercial space industry are tenants at Spaceport America: Virgin Galactic, HAPS Mobile/ AeroVironment, UP Aerospace, and SpinLaunch. Spaceport America hosts the world’s largest intercollegiate rocket engineering conference and competition- the Spaceport America Cup- each June, hosting thousands of participants from 15+ countries. Spaceport America’s STEM outreach program plays an active role in enhancing New Mexico’s STEM education. NMSA Director of Aerospace Operations Dr. Bill shares his passion for science with students and encourages them to pursue careers in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). Spaceport America is influencing scientists of the future one school at a time. SPACEPORT AMERICA FACTS Spaceport America features a Our 18,000-acre spaceport 12,000-foot x 200- is home to four permanent foot concrete runway for tenants. customers to use for research, launches, and development. We have launched over 300 Spaceport America is rockets from Spaceport approximately 4,600 feet America. Spaceport America above sea level compared to provides horizontal launch coastal space launch facilities. and vertical launch areas This gives customers a with amenities not available one-mile head start towards anywhere else in the world. reaching space. Spaceport America has Spaceport America takes full access to 6,000 sq. miles advantage of its 340 days of of restricted airspace. This sunshine and low humidity to allows our customers to launch into clear skies! launch without air traffic restrictions.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Summaries
    TIROS 8 12/21/63 Delta-22 TIROS-H (A-53) 17B S National Aeronautics and TIROS 9 1/22/65 Delta-28 TIROS-I (A-54) 17A S Space Administration TIROS Operational 2TIROS 10 7/1/65 Delta-32 OT-1 17B S John F. Kennedy Space Center 2ESSA 1 2/3/66 Delta-36 OT-3 (TOS) 17A S Information Summaries 2 2 ESSA 2 2/28/66 Delta-37 OT-2 (TOS) 17B S 2ESSA 3 10/2/66 2Delta-41 TOS-A 1SLC-2E S PMS 031 (KSC) OSO (Orbiting Solar Observatories) Lunar and Planetary 2ESSA 4 1/26/67 2Delta-45 TOS-B 1SLC-2E S June 1999 OSO 1 3/7/62 Delta-8 OSO-A (S-16) 17A S 2ESSA 5 4/20/67 2Delta-48 TOS-C 1SLC-2E S OSO 2 2/3/65 Delta-29 OSO-B2 (S-17) 17B S Mission Launch Launch Payload Launch 2ESSA 6 11/10/67 2Delta-54 TOS-D 1SLC-2E S OSO 8/25/65 Delta-33 OSO-C 17B U Name Date Vehicle Code Pad Results 2ESSA 7 8/16/68 2Delta-58 TOS-E 1SLC-2E S OSO 3 3/8/67 Delta-46 OSO-E1 17A S 2ESSA 8 12/15/68 2Delta-62 TOS-F 1SLC-2E S OSO 4 10/18/67 Delta-53 OSO-D 17B S PIONEER (Lunar) 2ESSA 9 2/26/69 2Delta-67 TOS-G 17B S OSO 5 1/22/69 Delta-64 OSO-F 17B S Pioneer 1 10/11/58 Thor-Able-1 –– 17A U Major NASA 2 1 OSO 6/PAC 8/9/69 Delta-72 OSO-G/PAC 17A S Pioneer 2 11/8/58 Thor-Able-2 –– 17A U IMPROVED TIROS OPERATIONAL 2 1 OSO 7/TETR 3 9/29/71 Delta-85 OSO-H/TETR-D 17A S Pioneer 3 12/6/58 Juno II AM-11 –– 5 U 3ITOS 1/OSCAR 5 1/23/70 2Delta-76 1TIROS-M/OSCAR 1SLC-2W S 2 OSO 8 6/21/75 Delta-112 OSO-1 17B S Pioneer 4 3/3/59 Juno II AM-14 –– 5 S 3NOAA 1 12/11/70 2Delta-81 ITOS-A 1SLC-2W S Launches Pioneer 11/26/59 Atlas-Able-1 –– 14 U 3ITOS 10/21/71 2Delta-86 ITOS-B 1SLC-2E U OGO (Orbiting Geophysical
    [Show full text]
  • Space Launch System (Sls) Motors
    Propulsion Products Catalog SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM (SLS) MOTORS For NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS), Northrop Grumman manufactures the five-segment SLS heavy- lift boosters, the booster separation motors (BSM), and the Launch Abort System’s (LAS) launch abort motor and attitude control motor. The SLS five-segment booster is the largest solid rocket motor ever built for flight. The SLS booster shares some design heritage with flight-proven four-segment space shuttle reusable solid rocket motors (RSRM), but generates 20 percent greater average thrust and 24 percent greater total impulse. While space shuttle RSRM production has ended, sustained booster production for SLS helps provide cost savings and access to reliable material sources. Designed to push the spent RSRMs safely away from the space shuttle, Northrop Grumman BSMs were rigorously qualified for human space flight and successfully used on the last fifteen space shuttle missions. These same motors are a critical part of NASA’s SLS. Four BSMs are installed in the forward frustum of each five-segment booster and four are installed in the aft skirt, for a total of 16 BSMs per launch. The launch abort motor is an integral part of NASA’s LAS. The LAS is designed to safely pull the Orion crew module away from the SLS launch vehicle in the event of an emergency on the launch pad or during ascent. Northrop Grumman is on contract to Lockheed Martin to build the abort motor and attitude control motor—Lockheed is the prime contractor for building the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle designed for use on NASA’s SLS.
    [Show full text]
  • Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC
    COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATIONFAA/AST Staff ADVISORY COMMITTEE October 2020 Membership Major General James Armor, USAF (Ret) CEO, The Armor Group Ms. Sharon L. Pinkerton Senior Vice President, Legislative and Regulatory Policy Dr. Greg Autry Airlines for America Vice President of Space Development National Space Society Mr. Lee Rosen Vice President of Customer Operations and Integration Mr. Bill Beckman Space Exploration Technologies Director, NASA Programs The Boeing Company Ms. Robbie Sabathier Vice President, Government Operations & Strategic Communications Major General Edward L. Bolton, USAF (Ret) United Launch Alliance Former FAA Assistant Administrator Mr. Eric Stallmer Hon. Shana Dale President Board Member Commercial Spaceflight Federation Firefly Black, LLC Ms. Charity Weeden Mr. Paul E. Damphousse Vice President of Global Space Policy Vice President of Business Development Astroscale U.S., Inc. Calspan Holdings, LLC Ms. Ann Zulkosky Dr. Mary Lynne Dittmar Director President & CEO Lockheed Martin Corporation The Coalition for Deep Space Exploration Ms. Karina Drees CEO and General Manager Mojave Air and Space Port Mr. Mike French Vice President, Space Systems Aerospace Industries Association Mr. Christopher C. Hassler President & CEO Syndetics Inc. Mr. Dale Ketcham Vice President, Government & External Relations Space Florida Ms. Kate Kronmiller Vice President of Government Relations Jacobs Mr. Steven Lindsey Senior Vice President of Strategy and Programs Sierra Nevada Corporation Space Systems Mr. Mike Moses President Virgin Galactic Mr. Clay Mowry Vice President, Sales, Marketing & Customer Experience Blue Origin Mr. Dale K. Nash CEO and Executive Director Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority .
    [Show full text]
  • New Mexico Company Wins Major Space Contract Spaceport America Experience Key to Winning NASA Bid
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham Contact: Bruce Krasnow Cabinet Secretary Alicia J. Keyes Br​ [email protected] Deputy Secretary Jon Clark 505- 795-0119 Aug. 20, 2020 New Mexico Company Wins Major Space Contract Spaceport America Experience Key to Winning NASA Bid SANTA FE, N.M. – A New Mexico company with operational ties to Spaceport America has been awarded a major contract at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Cabinet Secretary Alicia J. Keyes announced today. Fiore Industries Inc. has secured the 10-year contract from JPL in Pasadena, CA. to provide campus-wide security and fire protection services. The newly awarded contract provides JPL with critical life safety support for all campus personnel and is worth $130 million over the next decade. Bill Miera, founder and CEO of Fiore Industries, is a New Mexico native who earned his bachelor's and master's degrees at the University of New Mexico. The JPL contract comes after Fiore gained experience with smaller contractual work at NASA White Sands and Spaceport America. Fiore will expand from 140 to 200 employees after the JPL contract transition on Oct. 1. Many of the operations and support positions will remain in Albuquerque with approximately 30 employees located at Spaceport America, as part of its obligations for security and protection of the 18,000-acre Spaceport, near Truth or Consequences, N.M. “We are a New Mexico company and we try to do all the support out of Albuquerque," Miera said. “We have all local vendors, hire engineers in Albuquerque, and even do our own manufacturing.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • 2017 State of the System Report
    2017 STATE OF THE SYSTEM 2017 State of the System Report Space Coast Transportation Planning Organization Brevard County, Florida Prepared By: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 225 E. Robinson Street, Suite 355 Orlando, FL 32801 (407) 540-0555 Project No. 20741.02 October 2018 i The preparation of this report has been financed in part through grant(s) from the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, under the State Planning and Research Program, Section 505 [or Metropolitan Planning Program, Section 104(f)] of Title 23, U.S. Code. The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... ix Countywide Performance Measures ........................................................................................................................................... ix Countywide Trends ..................................................................................................................................................................... ix Countywide Safety ....................................................................................................................................................................... x Introduction…………….. ..................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Learning from Other People's Mistakes
    Learning from Other People’s Mistakes Most satellite mishaps stem from engineering mistakes. To prevent the same errors from being repeated, Aerospace has compiled lessons that the space community should heed. Paul Cheng and Patrick Smith he computer onboard the Clementine spacecraft froze immediately after a thruster was commanded to fire. A “watchdog” algorithm designed to stop “It’s always the simple stuff the thrusters from excessive firing could not execute, and CTlementine’s fuel ran out. !e mission was lost. Based on that kills you…. With all the this incident, engineers working on the Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR) program learned a key lesson: the testing systems, everything watchdog function should be hard-wired in case of a com- puter shutdown. As it happened, NEAR suffered a similar computer crash during which its thrusters fired thousands looked good.” of times, but each firing was instantly cut off by the still- —James Cantrell, main engineer operative watchdog timer. NEAR survived. As this example illustrates, insights from past anoma- for the joint U.S.-Russian Skipper lies are of considerable value to design engineers and other mission, which failed because program stakeholders. Information from failures (and near its solar panels were connected failures) can influence important design decisions and pre- vent the same mistakes from being made over and over. backward (Associated Press, 1996) Contrary to popular belief, satellites seldom fail because of poor workmanship or defective parts. Instead, most failures are caused by simple engineering errors, such as an over- looked requirement, a unit mix-up, or even a typo in a docu- ment.
    [Show full text]