NEPA and Launch Authorization Overview for ENDURE
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
NEPA↗
SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Results for “NEPA”
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.
NEPA and Launch Authorization Overview to SpaceX
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
NEPA↗
Mars SRP Environmental Impact Statement NEPA Tier II Approach
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Janani Vedanth↗
X-33 Environmental Impact Statement: A Fast Track Approach
NASA is required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to prepare an appropriate level environmental analysis for its major projects. Development of the X-33 Technology Demonstrator and its associated flight test program required an environmental impact statement (EIS) under the NEPA. The EIS process is consists of four parts: the "Notice of Intent" to prepare an EIS and scoping; the draft EIS which is distributed for review and comment; the final ETS; and the "Record of Decision." Completion of this process normally takes from 2 - 3 years, depending on the complexity of the proposed action. Many of the agency's newest fast track, technology demonstration programs require NEPA documentation, but cannot sustain the lengthy time requirement between program concept development to implementation. Marshall Space Flight Center, in cooperation with Kennedy Space Center, accomplished the NEPA process for the X-33 Program in 13 months from Notice of Intent to Record of Decision. In addition, the environmental team implemented an extensive public involvement process, conducting a total of 23 public meetings for scoping and draft EIS comment along with numerous informal meetings with public officials, civic organizations, and Native American Indians. This paper will discuss the fast track approach used to successfully accomplish the NEPA process for X-33 on time.
McCaleb, Rebecca C.↗
Ecological Impacts of the Space Shuttle Program at John F. Kennedy Space Center, Florida
The Space Shuttle Program was one of NASAs first major undertakings to fall under the environmental impact analysis and documentation requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Space Shuttle Program activities at John F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and the associated Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge (MINWR) contributed directly and indirectly to both negative and positive ecological trends in the region through the long-term, stable expenditure of resources over the 40 year program life cycle. These expenditures provided support to regional growth and development in conjunction with other sources that altered land use patterns, eliminated and modified habitats, and contributed to cultural eutrophication of the Indian River Lagoon. At KSC, most Space Shuttle Program related actions were conducted in previously developed facilities and industrial areas with the exception of the construction of the shuttle landing facility (SLF) and the space station processing facility (SSPF). Launch and operations impacts were minimal as a result of the low annual launch rate. The majority of concerns identified during the NEPA process such as potential weather modification, acid rain off site, and local climate change did not occur. Launch impacts from deposition of HCl and particulates were assimilated as a result of the high buffering capacity of the system and low launch and loading rates. Metals deposition from exhaust deposition did not display acute impacts. Sub-lethal effects are being investigated as part of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulatory process. Major positive Space Shuttle Program effects were derived from the adequate resources available at the Center to implement the numerous environmental laws and regulations designed to enhance the quality of the environment and minimize impacts from human activities. This included reduced discharges of domestic and industrial wastewater, creation of stormwater management systems, remediation of past contamination sites, implementation of hazardous waste management systems, and creation of a culture of sustainability. Working with partners such as the USFWS and the St Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), wetlands and scrub restoration and management initiatives were implemented to enhance fish and wildlife populations at the Center. KSC remains the single largest preserve on the east coast of Florida in part due to NASAs commitment to stewardship. Ongoing Ecological Program projects are directed at development of information and knowledge to address future KSC management questions including the transition to a joint government and commercial launch facility, enhanced habitat management requirements for wetlands and scrub, potential impacts of emerging contaminants, and adaptation to climate change including projected sea level rise over the next 50-75 years.
Space Shuttle Program↗
A preliminary study of environmental parameters associated with the feasibility of a polygeneration plant at Kennedy Space Center
The feasibility of a polygeneration plant at Kennedy Space Center was studied. Liquid hydrogen and gaseous nitrogen are the two principal products in consideration. Environmental parameters (air quality, water quality, biological diversity and hazardous waste disposal) necessary for the feasibility study were investigated. A National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) project flow sheet was to be formulated for the environmental impact statement. Water quality criteria for Florida waters were to be established.
Barnes, G. D.↗
Final environmental impact statement for the Galileo Mission (Tier 2)
This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) addresses the proposed action of completing the preparation and operation of the Galileo spacecraft, including its planned launch on the Space Transportation System (STS) Shuttle in October 1989, and the alternative of canceling further work on the mission. The only expected environmental effects of the proposed action are associated with normal launch vehicle operation, and are treated in published National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents on the Shuttle (NASA 1978) and the Kennedy Space Center (NASA 1979), and in the KSC Environmental Resources Document (NASA 1986) and the Galileo Tier 1 EIS (NASA 1988a). The environmental impacts of a normal launch were deemed insufficient to preclude Shuttle operations. Environmental impacts may also result from launch or mission accidents that could release plutonium fuel used in the Galileo power system. Intensive analysis of the possible accidents associated with the proposed action reveal small health or environmental risks. There are no environmental impacts in the no-action alternative. The remote possibility of environmental impacts of the proposed action must be weighed against the large adverse fiscal and programmatic impacts inherent in the no-action alternative.
Source record↗
Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Ulysses Mission (Tier 2)
This Final (Tier 2) Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) addresses the environmental impacts which may be caused by implementation of the Ulysses mission, a space flight mission to observe the polar regions of the Sun. The proposed action is completion of preparation and operation of the Ulysses spacecraft, including its planned launch at the earliest available launch opportunity on the Space Transportation System (STS) Shuttle in October 1990 or in the backup opportunity in November 1991. The alternative is canceling further work on the mission. The Tier 1 EIS included a delay alternative which considered the Titan 4 launch vehicle as an alternative booster stage for launch in 1991 or later. This alternative was further evaluated and eliminated from consideration when, in November 1988, the U.S. Air Force, which procures the Titan 4, notified that it could not provide a Titan 4 vehicle for the 1991 launch opportunity because of high priority Department of Defense requirements. The Titan 4 launch vehicle is no longer a feasible alternative to the STS/Inertial Upper Stage (IUS)/Payload Assist Module-Special (PAM-S) for the November 1991 launch opportunity. The only expected environment effects of the proposed action are associated with normal launch vehicle operation and are treated elsewhere. The environmental impacts of normal Shuttle launches were addressed in existing NEPA documentation and are briefly summarized. These impacts are limited largely to the near-field at the launch pad, except for temporary stratospheric ozone effects during launch and occasional sonic boom effects near the landing site. These effects were judged insufficient to preclude Shuttle launches. There could also be environmental impacts associated with the accidental release of radiological material during launch, deployment, or interplanetary trajectory injection of the Ulysses spacecraft. Intensive analysis indicates that the probability of release is small. There are no environmental impacts in the no-action alternative; however, the U.S. Government and the European Space Agency would suffer adverse fiscal and programmatic impacts if this alternative were adopted. The scientific benefits of the mission would be delayed and possibly lost. There could be significant impacts on the ability of the U.S. to negotiate international agreements for cooperative space activities.
Source record↗
Planetary protection, legal ambiguity and the decision making process for Mars sample return
As scientists and mission planners develop planetary protection requirements for future Mars sample return missions, they must recognize the socio-political context in which decisions about the mission will be made and pay careful attention to public concerns about potential back contamination of Earth. To the extent that planetary protection questions are unresolved or unaddressed at the time of an actual mission, they offer convenient footholds for public challenges in both legal and decision making realms, over which NASA will have little direct control. In this paper, two particular non-scientific areas of special concern are discussed in detail: 1) legal issues and 2) the decision making process. Understanding these areas is critical for addressing legitimate public concerns as well as for fulfilling procedural requirements regardless whether sample return evokes public controversy. Legal issues with the potential to complicate future missions include: procedural review under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); uncertainty about institutional control and authority; conflicting regulations and overlapping jurisdictions; questions about international treaty obligations and large scale impacts; uncertanities about the nature of the organism; and constitutional and regulatory concerns about quarantine, public health and safety. In light of these important legal issues, it is critical that NASA consider the role and timing of public involvement in the decision making process as a way of anticipating problem areas and preparing for legitimate public questions and challenges to sample return missions.
NASA Discipline Number 59-10↗
Overview of U.S. nuclear launch safety approval process, supporting launch vehicle databook and probabilistic risk assessment methods
This paper provides an overview of the U.S. space nuclear power system launch approval process as defined by the two separate requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Presidential Directive/National Security Council Memorandum No. 25 (PD/NSC-25).
nuclear safety launch vehicle risk assessment↗
A Survey of Current Russion RTG Capabilities
Supplying radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTG) to American space missions became very complex. The process is marred by many obstacles: high cost, lack of new developments, difficult launch approval and NEPA compliance. At the same time there are many ambitious space missions for which an RTG would indisputably be the lightest, smallest and most robust power source. An American delegation investigated status of RTG production in Russia to decide if our product line could be supplemented by the Russian designs.
radioisotope thermoelectric generators RTG Russian↗
Jake Garn Mission Simulator and Training Facility, Building 5, Historical Documentation
In response to President George W. Bush's announcement in January 2004 that the Space Shuttle Program (SSP) would end in 2010, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) completed a nation-wide historical survey and evaluation of NASA-owned facilities and properties (real property assets) at all its Centers and component facilities. The buildings and structures which supported the SSP were inventoried and assessed as per the criteria of eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in the context of this program. This study was performed in compliance with Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (Public Law 89-665), as amended; the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (Public Law 91-190); Executive Order (EO) 11593: Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment; EO 13287, Preserve America, and other relevant legislation. As part of this nation-wide study, in September 2006, historical survey and evaluation of NASA-owned and managed facilities at was conducted by NASA's Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston, Texas. The results of this study are presented in a report entitled, "Survey and Evaluation of NASA-owned Historic Facilities and Properties in the Context of the U.S. Space Shuttle Program, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas," prepared in November 2007 by NASA JSC's contractor, Archaeological Consultants, Inc. As a result of this survey, the Jake Gam Mission Simulator and Training Facility (Building 5) was determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, with concurrence by the Texas State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The survey concluded that Building 5 is eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and C in the context of the U.S. Space Shuttle program (1969-2010). Because it has achieved significance within the past 50 years, Criteria Consideration G applies. At the time of this documentation, Building 5 was still used to support the SSP as an astronaut training facility. This documentation package precedes any undertaking as defined by Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended, and implemented in 36 CFR Part 800, as NASA JSC has decided to proactively pursue efforts to mitigate the potential adverse affects of any future modifications to the facility. It includes a historical summary of the Space Shuttle program; the history of JSC in relation to the SSP; a narrative of the history of Building 5 and how it supported the SSP; and a physical description of the structure. In addition, photographs documenting the construction and historical use of Building 5 in support of the SSP, as well as photographs of the facility documenting the existing conditions, special technological features, and engineering details, are included. A contact sheet printed on archival paper, and an electronic copy of the work product on CD, are also provided.
Slovinac, Trish↗
X-33 Reusable Launch Vehicle Demonstrator, Spaceport and Range
The X-33 was a suborbital reusable spaceplane demonstrator, in development from 1996 to early 2001. The intent of the demonstrator was to lower the risk of building and operating a full-scale reusable vehicle fleet. Reusable spaceplanes offered the potential to lower the cost of access to space by an order of magnitude, compared with conventional expendable launch vehicles. Although a cryogenic tank failure during testing ultimately led to the end of the effort, the X-33 team celebrated many successes during the development. This paper summarizes some of the accomplishments and milestones of this X-vehicle program, from the perspective of an engineer who was a member of the team throughout the development. X-33 Program accomplishments include rapid, flight hardware design, subsystem testing and fabrication, aerospike engine development and testing, Flight Operations Center and Operations Control Center ground systems design and construction, rapid Environmental Impact Statement NEPA process approval, Range development and flight plan approval for test flights, and full-scale system concept design and refinement. Lessons from the X-33 Program may have potential application to new RLV and other aerospace systems being developed a decade later.
Letchworth, Gary F.↗
Radioisotope Power Systems Program Status and Expectations
The Radioisotope Power Systems (RPS) Programs goal is to make RPS available for the exploration of the solar system in environments where conventional solar or chemical power generation is impractical or impossible to use to meet mission needs. To meet this goal, the RPS Program manages investments in RPS system development and RPS technologies. The RPS Program exists to support NASA's Science Mission Directorate (SMD). The RPS Program provides strategic leadership for RPS, enables the availability of RPS for use by the planetary science community, successfully executes RPS flight projects and mission deployments, maintains a robust technology development portfolio, manages RPS related National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Nuclear Launch Safety (NLS) approval processes for SMD, maintains insight into the Department of Energy (DOE) implementation of NASA funded RPS production infrastructure operations, including implementation of the NASA funded Plutonium-238 production restart efforts. This paper will provide a status of recent RPS activities.
Radioisotope↗
Thermal Architecture of A Conceptual Mars Sample Return Lander during Cruise and on Mars
A Pre-Project team is currently studying a conceptual Mars Sample Return (MSR) architecture that would return samples collected by Mars 2020 to Earth. The basic architecture comprises of acquisition of these samples using a sample retrieval lander (SRL), which also would also house the Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV) and Sample Fetch Rover (SFR). The MAV would put the orbiting sample container (OS) in a Martian orbit, which would then rendezvous with an Earth return orbiter (ERO) and be sent to Earth. This paper focuses on the SRL portion of the potential MSR campaign. The thermal architecture of this mission during cruise to Mars presents several challenges that pertain to the thermal control of the spacecraft and the lander/MAV/rover throughout cruise under varying thermal environments & operating conditions. Additionally, the control of these systems within their allowable operating temperature limits on the Martian surface is very challenging because of the large fluctuations in the environment, operating conditions and limited electrical power and energy availability. This paper will describe the thermal architecture for a potential SRL mission, the key thermal requirements and interfaces.It should be noted that the decision to implement MSR will not be finalized until NASA’s completion of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. This document is being made available for information purposes only.
Nicholas, Austin↗
Analytical Needs in a Sample Receiving Facility: Input from the MSR Operation Definition Team
The return of scientifically selected samples from Mars would provide a rare opportunity forinvestigation with the full range of the latest technology available, but to take full advantageof this opportunity, it is important to plan ahead to ensure the pristine nature of the samplesupon arrival within the Earth environment until scientific investigations can begin.The NASA/ESA science community-driven MSR Science Planning Group – Phase 2 (MSPG2)delivered recommendations and guidance regarding curation (1) and science (2, 3) activities tobe performed on the samples under containment. High-level requirements for the infrastruc-ture were also developed by MSPG2 (4). In order to prepare infrastructure-targeted input forthe ESA and NASA facility studies planned in the 2022-2023 timeframe, the agency-led MSROperational Scenarios Definition Team (MOSDT) was assembled to conceptualize the sampleoperations that will inform future architecture teams. Emphasis was placed on the respon-sibility of MOSDT to use community-defined requirements and to represent the view of the international scientific community.All necessary and sufficient instruments and analytical needs described in MSPG2 were inte-grated in MOSDT main deliverable, the operational workflow (see Hays et al, this conference).In MSPG2, notional instruments were split between curation analytical needs, and objective-driven (time-sensitive and sterilization-sensitive) science analytical needs. In MOSDT, whilethe first phases of curation, “pre-Basic Characterization” and “Basic Characterization” wererather streamlined and separate from other analytical needs, “Preliminary Examination” and“Science” instruments were not always physically segregated. In addition to the necessary andsufficient instruments described by MSPG2, the MOSDT recommended additional supportequipment for sterilization, cleanliness and contamination monitoring.It was sometimes necessary for the MOSDT to rely on assumptions to integrate instruments inthe activity workflow. In general, the assumptions were very conservative to limit contaminationand cross-contamination risks. It is expected that future work to refine limits of contaminationwill enable optimization of instrumentation.The community was consulted during the course of the MOSDT work. This abstract’s aimis two-fold: on one hand, inform the scientific community and overall MSR stakeholders, tobring their attention on the analytical needs currently considered as necessary and sufficient;on the other hand, to solicit feedback from a larger community audience to optimize and refineanalytical needs during the next phases of MSR ground-segment preparation.Disclaimer: The decision to implement Mars Sample Return will not be finalized until NASA’scompletion of the program’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. This docu-ment is being made available for informational purposes only.[1] Tait et al. (2021) Preliminary planning for Mars Sample Return (MSR) curation activities ina Sample Receiving Facility (SRF). Astrobiology in press, doi:10.1089/ast.2021.0105. [2] Toscaet al. (2021) Time-sensitive aspects of Mars Sample Return (MSR) science. Astrobiologyin press, doi:10.1089/ast.2021.0115. [3] Velbel et al. (2021) Planning implications relatedto sterilization-sensitive science investigations associated with Mars Sample Return (MSR).Astrobiology in press, doi:10.1089/ast.2021.0113. [4] Carrier et al. (2021) Science and curationconsiderations for the design of a Mars Sample Return (MSR) Sample Receiving Facility (SRF).Astrobiology in press, doi:10.1089/ast.2021.0110.
Mars Sample Return↗
Mars Sample Return (MSR) Sample Receiving Facility (SRF) Assessment Study (MSAS)
NASA, in partnership with the European Space Agency (ESA), is seeking to return Martian geological and atmospheric samples to Earth for scientific study in the early 2030s. Due to the possibility that the samples could contain extraterrestrial life, Mars Sample Return (MSR) is classified as a Category V: Restricted Earth Return mission by the NASA Planetary Protection Office. As a result of this classification, a MSR Sample Receiving Facility (SRF) must not only provide a pristine environment to ensure samples are protected from terrestrial contamination for scientific investigations, it must also provide high-containment (biosafety level 4 [BSL-4]-equivalence) to isolate the samples from Earth’s biosphere until the samples are deemed safe for release and/or sterilized. The nominal utilization period for a SRF is anticipated to be 2-5 years and is intended to enable curation activities, biohazard assessment, select early science activities, and the rapid release of samples to the scientific community. However, to account for possible delays in schedule or the identification of extant life, this anticipated period of time must be flexible to accommodate schedule extensions and contingency plans. Due to requirements for high-level biological containment and cleanliness, a traditional receiving/curation facility cannot be utilized for MSR. Therefore, beginning in 2022, NASA Johnson Space Center is performing a MSR SRF Assessment Study (MSAS) to investigate the most optimal facility modality for a MSR SRF, as well as start to define programmatic early estimate of costs and schedules before the initial design phase begins. NASA is partnering with industry contractors (architectural and engineering firms with BSL-4 and cleanroom technology experience, as well as other contracted infrastructure and construction specialists) along with selected experts from NASA, ESA, existing U.S. BSL-4 facilities, and other U.S. government agencies, to carry out the assessment study. The MSAS should also aid in the future refinement of the science requirements (e.g., contamination control, equipment accommodations) before site-specific design would commence. As part of the MSAS, NASA is planning to assess an array of possibilities for a MSR SRF. One of the main considerations is the facility modality and whether an existing BSL-4 facility can be utilized (for some or all functions); or, if new constructure would be required, would a traditional fixed facility or a modular facility the best choice. MSAS will also investigate the ability of the modalities to accommodate two different facility capability endmembers: 1) a minimal facility focusing on biohazard assessment and curation tasks with a small footprint, and 2) an enhanced facility with additional capabilities to enable expedited processing and the completion of time-sensitive and (some) sterilization-sensitive science. The assessment is intended to generate information that will inform the selection of facility modalities for high-level conceptual design development. While the assessment study will focus on SRF requirements for accommodating curation, science, and sample safety assessment infrastructure, it will also consider an array of other factors, such as ease of access for international users, decommissioning, repurposing, future sale or lease following MSR’s use of the facility, and uncontained preparatory laboratory spaces. Upon completion of the study, the preferred modality and refined requirements would be utilized for site-specific design but will not be finalized until NASA’s completion of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.
A.D. Harrington↗
Dynamic Radioisotope Power System (DRPS) Design Reference Mission (DRM) Lunar Rover
The Radioisotope Power Systems (RPS) Program tasked the Compass Team to evaluate use of Dynamic Radioisotope Power Systems (DRPS) for lunar science rovers. The object was to identify their advantages and challenges as well as to influence the technology developments with flight-type requirements. This was easily done by using the promising Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover (VIPER) solar- powered rover mission as a platform to ‘swap in’ a DRPS. The ‘pickup truck bed’ approach allowed both simplified installation and operation of the DRPS while keeping the forward lunar surface ‘blocked’ from the DRPS waste heat which could sublimate the icy surface. It was found that with the Stirling DRPS option the mass is within the planned VIPER lander capability and is very close to VIPER mass and size (the DRPS replaces large battery pack/solar arrays). The Stirling DRPS option produced ~300 Watts electrical (We) using six general purpose heat source (GPHS) bricks and eight Stirling convertors. Replacing the solar/battery power with radioisotope power allows a continuous presence (instead of 6 hours) in a permanently shadowed region (PSR) and over 18 months of operations with minimal science impact (rearward surface heating). It was also found that use of a dynamic system (instead of a thermoelectric system) reduces the heat impact on the science environment two-to-three times. The DRPS, along with a relay link (like Gateway), can provide continuous access to PSRs. The system was also found to be capable of roving for 8 hours per day with a range of over 500 km in 18 months. Preliminary cost estimates fit into a Class D mission but only assuming VIPER heritage and launch, lander, operations, nuclear specific costs [National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), fueling, transport, Launch Services Program (LSP), etc.] and DRPS are not included.
DRPS↗