Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Launch”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1979

Launch vehicle effluent measurements during the May 12, 1977, Titan 3 launch at Air Force Eastern Test Range

Airborne effluent measurements and cloud physical behavior for the May 21, 1977, Titan 3 launch from the Air Force Eastern Test Range, Fla. are presented. The monitoring program included airborne effluent measurements in situ in the launch cloud, visible and infrared photography of cloud growth and physical behavior, and limited surface collection of rain samples. Airborne effluent measurements included concentrations of HCl, NO, NOx, and aerosols as a function of time in the exhaust cloud. For the first time in situ particulate mass concentration and aerosol number density were measured as a function of time and size in the size range of 0.05 to 25 micro meters diameter. Measurement results were similar to those of earlier launch monitorings. Maximum HCl and NOx concentrations ranged from 10 ppm and 500 ppb, respectively, several minutes after launch to about 1 ppm and 100 ppb at 45 minutes after launch.

Gregory, G. L.↗
NASA NTRS1993

Design of an airborne launch vehicle for an air launched space booster

A conceptual design is presented for a carrier vehicle for an air launched space booster. This airplane is capable of carrying a 500,000 pound satellite launch system to an altitude over 40,000 feet for launch. The airplane features a twin fuselage configuration for improved payload and landing gear integration, a high aspect ratio wing for maneuverability at altitude, and is powered by six General Electric GE-90 engines. The analysis methods used and the systems employed in the airplane are discussed. Launch costs are expected to be competitive with existing launch systems.

Chao, Chin↗
NASA NTRS2006

Development of the J-2X Engine for the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle and the Ares V Cargo Launch Vehicle: Building on the Apollo Program for Lunar Return Missions

The United States (U.S.) Vision for Space Exploration directs NASA to develop two new launch vehicles for sending humans to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. In January 2006, NASA streamlined its hardware development approach for replacing the Space Shuttle after it is retired in 2010. Benefits of this approach include reduced programmatic and technical risks and the potential to return to the Moon by 2020, by developing the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) propulsion elements now, with full extensibility to future Ares V Cargo Launch Vehicle (CaLV) lunar systems. This decision was reached after the Exploration Launch Projects Office performed a variety of risk analyses, commonality assessments, and trade studies. The Constellation Program selected the Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne J-2X engine to power the Ares I Upper Stage Element and the Ares V Earth Departure Stage. This paper narrates the evolution of that decision; describes the performance capabilities expected of the J-2X design, including potential commonality challenges and opportunities between the Ares I and Ares V launch vehicles; and provides a current status of J-2X design, development, and hardware testing activities. This paper also explains how the J-2X engine effort mitigates risk by building on the Apollo Program and other lessons lived to deliver a human-rated engine that is on an aggressive development schedule, with its first demonstration flight in 2012.

Snoddy, Jim↗
NASA NTRS2006

Spitzer Pre Launch Mission Operations System - The Road to Launch

Spitzer Space Telescope was launched on 25 August 2003 into an Earth-trailing solar orbit to acquire infrared observations from space. Development of the Mission Operations System (MOS) portion prior to launch was very different from planetary missions from the stand point that the MOS teams and Ground Data System had to be ready to support all aspects of the mission at launch (i.e., no cruise period for finalizing the implementation). For Spitzer, all mission-critical events post launch happen in hours or days rather than months or years, as is traditional with deep space missions. At the end of 2000 the Project was dealt a major blow when the Mission Operations System (MOS) had an unsuccessful Critical Design Review (CDR). The project made major changes at the beginning of 2001 in an effort to get the MOS (and Project) back on track. The result for the Spitzer Space Telescope was a successful launch of the observatory followed by an extremely successful In Orbit Checkout (IOC) and operations phase. This paper describes how the project was able to recover the MOS to a successful Delta (CDR) by mid 2001, and what changes in philosophies, experiences, and lessons learned followed. It describes how projects must invest early or else invest heavily later in the development phase to achieve a successful operations phase.

observatory↗
NASA NTRS2007

Development of the J-2X Engine for the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle and the Ares V Cargo Launch Vehicle: Building on the Apollo Program for Lunar Return Missions

The United States (U.S.) Vision for Space Exploration has directed NASA to develop two new launch vehicles for sending humans to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. In January 2006, NASA streamlined its hardware development approach for replacing the Space Shuttle after it is retired in 2010. Benefits of this approach include reduced programmatic and technical risks and the potential to return to the Moon by 2020, by developing the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) propulsion elements now, with full extensibility to future Ares V Cargo Launch Vehicle (CaLV) lunar systems. The Constellation Program selected the Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne J-2X engine to power the Ares I Upper Stage Element and the Ares V Earth Departure Stage. This decision was reached during the Exploration Systems Architecture Study and confirmed after the Exploration Launch Projects Office performed a variety of risk analyses, commonality assessments, and trade studies. This paper narrates the evolution of that decision; describes the performance capabilities expected of the J-2X design, including potential commonality challenges and opportunities between the Ares I and Ares V launch vehicles; and provides a current status of J-2X design, development, and hardware testing activities. This paper also explains how the J-2X engine effort mitigates risk by testing existing engine hardware and designs; building on the Apollo Program (1961 to 1975), the Space Shuttle Program (1972 to 2010); and consulting with Apollo-era experts to derive other lessons lived to deliver a human-rated engine that is on an aggressive development schedule, with its first demonstration flight in 2012.

Greene, William D.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Development of the J-2X Engine for the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle and the Ares V Cargo Launch Vehicle: Building on the Apollo Program for Lunar Return Missions

The United States (U.S.) Vision for Space Exploration has directed NASA to develop two new launch vehicles for sending humans to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. In January 2006, NASA streamlined its hardware development approach for replacing the Space Shuttle after it is retired in 2010. Benefits of this approach include reduced programmatic and technical risks and the potential to return to the Moon by 2020 by developing the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) propulsion elements now, with full extensibility to future Ares V Cargo Launch Vehicle (CaLV) lunar systems. The Constellation Program selected the Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne J-2X engine to power the Ares I Upper Stage Element and the Ares V Earth Departure Stage (EDS). This decision was reached during the Exploration Systems Architecture Study and confirmed after the Exploration Launch Projects Office performed a variety of risk analyses, commonality assessments, and trade studies. This paper narrates the evolution of that decision; describes the performance capabilities expected of the J-2X design, including potential commonality challenges and opportunities between the Ares I and Ares V launch vehicles; and provides a current status of J-2X design, development, and hardware testing activities. This paper also explains how the J-2X engine effort mitigates risk by testing existing engine hardware and designs; building on the Apollo Program (1961 to 1975), the Space Shuttle Program (1972 to 2010); and consulting with Apollo era experts to derive other lessons learned to deliver a human-rated engine that is on an aggressive development schedule, with its first demonstration flight in 2012.

Greene, WIlliam↗
NASA NTRS2008

Powering Exploration: The Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle and Ares V Cargo Launch Vehicle

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)'s Constellation Program is depending on the Ares Projects to deliver the crew and cargo launch capabilities needed to send human explorers to the Moon and beyond. The Ares Projects continue to make progress toward design, component testing, and early flight testing of the Ares I crew launch vehicle, as well as early design work for Ares V cargo launch vehicle. Ares I and Ares V will form the core space launch capabilities the United States needs to continue its pioneering tradition as a spacefaring nation. This paper will discuss programmatic, design, fabrication, and testing progress toward building these new launch vehicles.

Cook, Stephen A.↗
NASA NTRS2008

Taking the Next Steps: The Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle and Ares V Cargo Launch Vehicle

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)'s Constellation Program is depending on the Ares Projects Office (APO) to deliver the crew and cargo launch capabilities needed to send human explorers to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. The APO continues to make progress toward design, component testing, and early flight testing of the Ares I crew launch vehicle, as well as early design work for the Ares V cargo launch vehicle. Ares I and Ares V will form the core space launch capabilities that the United States needs to continue its pioneering tradition as a spacefaring nation (Figure 1). This paper will discuss design, fabrication, and testing progress toward building these new launch vehicles.

Cook, Stephen A.↗
NASA NTRS2007

The First Year in Review: NASA's Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle and Ares V Cargo Launch Vehicle

The U.S. Vision for Space Exploration guides NASA's challenging missions of scientific discovery.' Developing safe, reliable, and affordable space transportation systems for the human and robotic exploration of space is a key component of fulfilling the strategic goals outlined in the Vision, as well as in the U.S. Space Policy. In October 2005, the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate and its Constellation Program chartered the Exploration Launch Projects Office, located at the Marshall Space Flight Center, to design, develop, test, and field a new generation of launch vehicles that would fulfill customer and stakeholder requirements for trips to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. The Ares I crew launch vehicle is slated to loft the Orion crew exploration vehicle to orbit by 2014, while the heavy-lift Ares V cargo launch vehicle will deliver the lunar lander to orbit by 2020 (Fig. 1). These systems are being designed to empower America's return to the Moon to prepare for the first astronaut on Mars. The new launch vehicle designs now under study reflect almost 50 years of hard-won experience gained from the Saturn's missions to the Moon in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and from the venerable Space Shuttle, which is due to be retired by 2010.

Dumbacher, Daniel L.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Constellation Ground Systems Launch Availability Analysis: Enhancing Highly Reliable Launch Systems Design

Success of the Constellation Program's lunar architecture requires successfully launching two vehicles, Ares I/Orion and Ares V/Altair, within a very limited time period. The reliability and maintainability of flight vehicles and ground systems must deliver a high probability of successfully launching the second vehicle in order to avoid wasting the on-orbit asset launched by the first vehicle. The Ground Operations Project determined which ground subsystems had the potential to affect the probability of the second launch and allocated quantitative availability requirements to these subsystems. The Ground Operations Project also developed a methodology to estimate subsystem reliability, availability, and maintainability to ensure that ground subsystems complied with allocated launch availability and maintainability requirements. The verification analysis developed quantitative estimates of subsystem availability based on design documentation, testing results, and other information. Where appropriate, actual performance history was used to calculate failure rates for legacy subsystems or comparative components that will support Constellation. The results of the verification analysis will be used to assess compliance with requirements and to highlight design or performance shortcomings for further decision making. This case study will discuss the subsystem requirements allocation process, describe the ground systems methodology for completing quantitative reliability, availability, and maintainability analysis, and present findings and observation based on analysis leading to the Ground Operations Project Preliminary Design Review milestone.

Gernand, Jeffrey L.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Constellation Ground Systems Launch Availability Analysis: Enhancing Highly Reliable Launch Systems Design

Success of the Constellation Program's lunar architecture requires successfully launching two vehicles, Ares I/Orion and Ares V/Altair, in a very limited time period. The reliability and maintainability of flight vehicles and ground systems must deliver a high probability of successfully launching the second vehicle in order to avoid wasting the on-orbit asset launched by the first vehicle. The Ground Operations Project determined which ground subsystems had the potential to affect the probability of the second launch and allocated quantitative availability requirements to these subsystems. The Ground Operations Project also developed a methodology to estimate subsystem reliability, availability and maintainability to ensure that ground subsystems complied with allocated launch availability and maintainability requirements. The verification analysis developed quantitative estimates of subsystem availability based on design documentation; testing results, and other information. Where appropriate, actual performance history was used for legacy subsystems or comparative components that will support Constellation. The results of the verification analysis will be used to verify compliance with requirements and to highlight design or performance shortcomings for further decision-making. This case study will discuss the subsystem requirements allocation process, describe the ground systems methodology for completing quantitative reliability, availability and maintainability analysis, and present findings and observation based on analysis leading to the Ground Systems Preliminary Design Review milestone.

Gernand, Jeffrey L.↗
NASA NTRS2008

Analysis of Proposed 2007-2008 Revisions to the Lightning Launch Commit Criteria for United States Space Launches

Ascending space vehicles are vulnerable to both natural and triggered lightning. Launches under the jurisdiction of the United States are generally subject to a set of rules called the Lightning Launch Commit Criteria (LLCC) (Krider etal., 1999; Krider etal., 2006). The LLCC protect both the vehicle and the public by assuring that the launch does not take place in conditions posing a significant risk of a lightning strike to the ascending vehicle. Such a strike could destroy the vehicle and its payload, thus causing failure of the mission while releasing both toxic materials and debris. To assure safety, the LLCC are conservative and sometimes they may seriously limit the ability of the launch operator to fly as scheduled even when conditions are benign. In order to safely reduce the number of launch scrubs and delays attributable to the LLCC, the Airborne Field Mill (ABFM II) program was undertaken in 2000 - 2001. The effort was directed to collecting detailed high-quality data on the electrical, microphysical, radar and meteorological properties of thunderstorm-associated clouds. Details may be found in Dye et al., 2007. The expectation was that this additional knowledge would provide a better physical basis for the LLCC and allow them to be revised to be less restrictive while remaining at least as safe. That expectation was fulfilled, leading to significant revisions to the LLCC in 2003 and 2005. The 2005 revisions included the application of a new radar-derived quantity called the Volume Averaged Height Integrated Radar Reflectivity (VAHIRR) in the rules governing flight through anvil clouds. VAHIRR is the product of the volume averaged radar reflectivity times the radardetermined cloud thickness. The reflectivity average extends horizontally 5 km west, east, south and north of a point along the flight track and vertically from the 0 C isotherm to the top of the radar cloud. This region is defined as the "Specified Volume". See Dye et al., 2006 and Merceret et al., 2006 for a more thorough description of VAHIRR. The units are dBZ km (not dBZ per kilometer) and the threshold is 10 dBZ km. It is safe to fly through an anvil cloud for which VAHIRR is below this threshold everywhere along the flight track as long as (1) the entire cloud within 5 nmi. (9.26 km) of the flight track is colder than 0 C, (2) the points at which VAHIRR must be evaluated are at least 20 km from any active convective cores and recent lightning, and (3) the radar return is not being attenuated within the Specified Volume around those points.

Dye, James E.↗
NASA NTRS2008

Analysis of Proposed 2007-2008 Revisions to the Lightning Launch Commit Criteria for United States Space Launches

Ascending space vehicles are vulnerable to both natural and triggered lightning. Launches under the jurisdiction of the United States are generally subject to a set of rules called the Lightning Launch Commit Criteria (LLCC). The LLCC protect both the vehicle and the public by assuring that the launch does not take place in conditions posing a significant risk of a lightning strike to the ascending vehicle. Such a strike could destroy the vehicle and its payload, thus causing failure of the mission while releasing both toxic materials and debris. To assure safety, the LLCC are conservative and sometimes they may seriously limit the ability of the launch operator to fly as scheduled even when conditions are benign. In order to safely reduce the number of launch scrubs and delays attributable to the LLCC, the Airborne Field Mill (ABFM) program was undertaken in 2000 - 2001. The effort was directed to collecting detailed high-quality data on the electrical, microphysical, radar and meteorological properties of thunderstorm-associated clouds. The expectation was that this additional knowledge would provide a better physical basis for the LLCC and allow them to be revised to be both safer and less restrictive. That expectation was fulfilled, leading to significant revisions to the LLCC in 2003 and 2005. The 2005 revisions included the application of a new radar-derived quantity called the Volume Averaged Height Integrated Radar Reflectivity (VAHIRR) in the rules governing flight through anvil clouds. Analysis of the ABFM data has continued, and two additional revisions to the LLCC were proposed in late 2006 for adoption in 2007 or 2008. One proposal was to apply the VAHIRR concept to debris clouds, and the other was to reduce the "stand-off distances" in the rules for anvil and/or debris clouds. The stand-off distance is the clearance (out side of the cloud) required between the flight path of the vehicle and the edge of a cloud that it is not permissible to fly through. This paper will discuss these proposed changes in the LLCC and the scientific rationale for adopting or rejecting them based on ABFM data.

Dye, J. E.↗
NASA NTRS2013

NASA's Space Launch System: Moving Toward the Launch Pad

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) Space Launch System (SLS) Program, managed at the Marshall Space Flight Center, is making progress toward delivering a new capability for human space flight and scientific missions beyond Earth orbit. Developed with the goals of safety, affordability, and sustainability in mind, the SLS rocket will launch the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV), equipment, supplies, and major science missions for exploration and discovery. Supporting Orion's first autonomous flight to lunar orbit and back in 2017 and its first crewed flight in 2021, the SLS will evolve into the most powerful launch vehicle ever flown, via an upgrade approach that will provide building blocks for future space exploration and development. NASA is working to develop this new capability in an austere economic climate, a fact which has inspired the SLS team to find innovative solutions to the challenges of designing, developing, fielding, and operating the largest rocket in history. This paper will summarize the planned capabilities of the vehicle, the progress the SLS program has made in the 2 years since the Agency formally announced its architecture in September 2011, and the path the program is following to reach the launch pad in 2017 and then to evolve the 70 metric ton (t) initial lift capability to 130-t lift capability. The paper will explain how, to meet the challenge of a flat funding curve, an architecture was chosen which combines the use and enhancement of legacy systems and technology with strategic new development projects that will evolve the capabilities of the launch vehicle. This approach reduces the time and cost of delivering the initial 70 t Block 1 vehicle, and reduces the number of parallel development investments required to deliver the evolved version of the vehicle. The paper will outline the milestones the program has already reached, from developmental milestones such as the manufacture of the first flight hardware and the record-breaking testing of the J-2X engine, to life-cycle milestones such as the vehicle's Preliminary Design Review. The paper will also discuss the remaining challenges in both delivering the 70 t vehicle and in evolving its capabilities to the 130 t vehicle, and how the program plans to accomplish these goals. As this paper will explain, SLS is making measurable progress toward becoming a global infrastructure asset for robotic and human scouts of all nations by harnessing business and technological innovations to deliver sustainable solutions for space exploration

Creech, Stephen D.↗
NASA NTRS2013

NASA's Space Launch System: Moving Toward the Launch Pad

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) Space Launch System (SLS) Program, managed at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), is making progress toward delivering a new capability for human space flight and scientific missions beyond Earth orbit. Designed with the goals of safety, affordability, and sustainability in mind, the SLS rocket will launch the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV), equipment, supplies, and major science missions for exploration and discovery. Supporting Orion's first autonomous flight to lunar orbit and back in 2017 and its first crewed flight in 2021, the SLS will evolve into the most powerful launch vehicle ever flown via an upgrade approach that will provide building blocks for future space exploration. NASA is working to deliver this new capability in an austere economic climate, a fact that has inspired the SLS team to find innovative solutions to the challenges of designing, developing, fielding, and operating the largest rocket in history. This paper will summarize the planned capabilities of the vehicle, the progress the SLS Program has made in the 2 years since the Agency formally announced its architecture in September 2011, the path it is following to reach the launch pad in 2017 and then to evolve the 70 metric ton (t) initial lift capability to 130-t lift capability after 2021. The paper will explain how, to meet the challenge of a flat funding curve, an architecture was chosen that combines the use and enhancement of legacy systems and technology with strategic new developments that will evolve the launch vehicle's capabilities. This approach reduces the time and cost of delivering the initial 70 t Block 1 vehicle, and reduces the number of parallel development investments required to deliver the evolved 130 t Block 2 vehicle. The paper will outline the milestones the program has already reached, from developmental milestones such as the manufacture of the first flight hardware, to life-cycle milestones such as the vehicle's Preliminary Design Review (PDR). The paper will also discuss the remaining challenges both in delivering the 70-t vehicle and in evolving its capabilities to the 130-t vehicle, and how NASA plans to accomplish these goals. As this paper will explain, SLS is making measurable progress toward becoming a global infrastructure asset for robotic and human scouts of all nations by harnessing business and technological innovations to deliver sustainable solutions for space exploration.

Creech, Stephen D.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Modeling in the State Flow Environment to Support Launch Vehicle Verification Testing for Mission and Fault Management Algorithms in the NASA Space Launch System

Analysis methods and testing processes are essential activities in the engineering development and verification of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) new Space Launch System (SLS). Central to mission success is reliable verification of the Mission and Fault Management (M&FM) algorithms for the SLS launch vehicle (LV) flight software. This is particularly difficult because M&FM algorithms integrate and operate LV subsystems, which consist of diverse forms of hardware and software themselves, with equally diverse integration from the engineering disciplines of LV subsystems. M&FM operation of SLS requires a changing mix of LV automation. During pre-launch the LV is primarily operated by the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Ground Systems Development and Operations (GSDO) organization with some LV automation of time-critical functions, and much more autonomous LV operations during ascent that have crucial interactions with the Orion crew capsule, its astronauts, and with mission controllers at the Johnson Space Center. M&FM algorithms must perform all nominal mission commanding via the flight computer to control LV states from pre-launch through disposal and also address failure conditions by initiating autonomous or commanded aborts (crew capsule escape from the failing LV), redundancy management of failing subsystems and components, and safing actions to reduce or prevent threats to ground systems and crew. To address the criticality of the verification testing of these algorithms, the NASA M&FM team has utilized the State Flow environment6 (SFE) with its existing Vehicle Management End-to-End Testbed (VMET) platform which also hosts vendor-supplied physics-based LV subsystem models. The human-derived M&FM algorithms are designed and vetted in Integrated Development Teams composed of design and development disciplines such as Systems Engineering, Flight Software (FSW), Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) and major subsystems and vehicle elements such as Main Propulsion Systems (MPS), boosters, avionics, Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GN&C), Thrust Vector Control (TVC), liquid engines, and the astronaut crew office. Since the algorithms are realized using model-based engineering (MBE) methods from a hybrid of the Unified Modeling Language (UML) and Systems Modeling Language (SysML), SFE methods are a natural fit to provide an in depth analysis of the interactive behavior of these algorithms with the SLS LV subsystem models. For this, the M&FM algorithms and the SLS LV subsystem models are modeled using constructs provided by Matlab which also enables modeling of the accompanying interfaces providing greater flexibility for integrated testing and analysis, which helps forecast expected behavior in forward VMET integrated testing activities. In VMET, the M&FM algorithms are prototyped and implemented using the same C++ programming language and similar state machine architectural concepts used by the FSW group. Due to the interactive complexity of the algorithms, VMET testing thus far has verified all the individual M&FM subsystem algorithms with select subsystem vendor models but is steadily progressing to assessing the interactive behavior of these algorithms with LV subsystems, as represented by subsystem models. The novel SFE applications has proven to be useful for quick look analysis into early integrated system behavior and assessment of the M&FM algorithms with the modeled LV subsystems. This early MBE analysis generates vital insight into the integrated system behaviors, algorithm sensitivities, design issues, and has aided in the debugging of the M&FM algorithms well before full testing can begin in more expensive, higher fidelity but more arduous environments such as VMET, FSW testing, and the Systems Integration Lab7 (SIL). SFE has exhibited both expected and unexpected behaviors in nominal and off nominal test cases prior to full VMET testing. In many findings, these behavioral characteristics were used to correct the M&FM algorithms, enable better test coverage, and develop more effective test cases for each of the LV subsystems. This has improved the fidelity of testing and planning for the next generation of M&FM algorithms as the SLS program evolves from non-crewed to crewed flight, impacting subsystem configurations and the M&FM algorithms that control them. SFE analysis has improved robustness and reliability of the M&FM algorithms by revealing implementation errors and documentation inconsistencies. It is also improving planning efficiency for future VMET testing of the M&FM algorithms hosted in the LV flight computers, further reducing risk for the SLS launch infrastructure, the SLS LV, and most importantly the crew.

Trevino, Luis↗
NASA NTRS1973

Launch vehicle test and checkout plan. - Volume 2: Saturn 1B launch vehicle Skylab R (rescue) and AS-208 flow plan and listings

The launch operations test and checkout plan is a planning document that establishes all launch site checkout activity, including the individual tests and sequence of testing required to fulfill the development center and KSC test and checkout requirements. This volume contains the launch vehicle test and checkout plan encompassing S-1B, S-4B, IU stage, and ground support equipment tests. The plan is based upon AS-208 flow utilizing a manned spacecraft, LUT 1, and launch pad 39B facilities.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1984

Airborne measurements of launch vehicle effluent of STS-2 launch on November 12, 1981 at Cape Canaveral, Florida

The second Space Shuttle (STS-2) was launched from the John F. Kennedy Space Center at 1010 EST on November 12, 1981. An instrumented light airplane was used to measure the emitted concentration of Shuttle exhaust products produced during launch. The airplane accomplished 31 passes through and under the exhaust cloud in the 1 hr 45 min immediately following the launch. Measurements included the following: (1) particulate data in the form of a light scattering coefficient obtained from an integrating nephelometer, (2) particulate concentrations and mass concentrations obtained from a spectrometer probe, (3) gaseous HCl and total HCl concentrations obtained from a gas-filter-correlation instrument and a chemiluminescent instrument, respectively, and (4) outside-air temperature and dew-point temperature. These data are presented along with time, altitude, and position for each cloud pass. These data are within the range of values observed during similar measurements made during the first Space Shuttle launch on April 12, 1981.

Maddrea, G. L., Jr.↗