SEARCH · Engineering Papers
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.
NASA WSTF Hydrogen Activities: a) Aerospace Test; b) System Certification & Verification; c) Component, System, & Facility Hazard Assessment; d) Safety Training Technical Transfer: a) Development of Voluntary Consensus Standards and Practices; b) Support of National Hydrogen Infrastructure Development.
The history of space endeavors stretches far from the first liquid-fueled rocket created by the father of modern rocketry, Robert Goddard, in 1926 and will certainly extend far beyond the construction of the International Space Station (ISS) scheduled to be complete with the addition of the Permanent Multipurpose Module on STS-133/ULF5. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the ISS International Partners (IPs) will be the unrelenting venue used to satisfy the curiosities of man as we seek an understanding of space through various experiments (also referred to as payloads) conducted in microgravity. The NASA Payload Safety Review Panel (PSRP) continues to serve as the lead for the review and assessment of payload hardware to assure facility and crew safety. This is the second in a series of papers and presentations that illustrate challenges and lessons learned in the areas of communication, safety requirements, and processes which have been vital to the PSRP.
Estimates range from 65-90 percent of catastrophic mishaps are due to human error. NASA's human factors-related mishaps causes are estimated at approximately 75 percent. As much as we'd like to error-proof our work environment, even the most automated and complex technical endeavors require human interaction... and are vulnerable to human frailty. Industry and government are focusing not only on human factors integration into hazardous work environments, but also looking for practical approaches to cultivating a strong Safety Culture that diminishes risk. Industry and government organizations have recognized the value of monitoring leading indicators to identify potential risk vulnerabilities. NASA has adapted this approach to assess risk controls associated with hazardous, critical, and complex facilities. NASA's facility risk assessments integrate commercial loss control, OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) Process Safety, API (American Petroleum Institute) Performance Indicator Standard, and NASA Operational Readiness Inspection concepts to identify risk control vulnerabilities.
NASA-Lewis has undertaken the planning and coordination of a joint NASA/DOE/DOD Nuclear Propulsion Project which will investigate both nuclear electric and nuclear thermal concepts. The three-agency team has been tasked with the development of an Interagency Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding, as well as the drafting of a statement as to astronaut crew guidelines and values, the assessment of human-rating requirements, the development of an interagency safety and environmental assessment plan, and the development of test facility requirements. Attention is to be given to the role of SP-100 for nuclear-electric propulsion applications.
NASA has conducted a study to assess alternatives to refurbishing existing launch vehicle modal test facilities as opposed to developing new test facilities to meet the demands of a very fiscally constrained test and evaluation environment. The results of this study showed that Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Test Stand (TS) 4550 could be made compliant, within reasonable cost and schedule impacts, if safety processes and operational limitations were put in place to meet the safety codes and concerns of the Fire Marshall. Trades were performed with key selection criteria to ensure that appropriate levels of occupant safety are incorporated into test facility design modifications. In preparation for the ground vibration tests that were to be performed on the Ares I launch vehicle, the Ares Flight and Integrated Test Office (FITO) organization evaluated the available test facility options, which included the existing mothballed structural dynamic TS4550 used by Apollo and Shuttle, alternative ground vibration test facilities at other locations, and construction of a new dynamic test stand. After an exhaustive assessment of the alternatives, the results favored modifying the TS4550 because it was the lowest cost option and presented the least schedule risk to the NASA Constellation Program for Ares Integrated Vehicle Ground Vibration Test (IVGVT). As the renovation design plans and drawings were being developed for TS4550, a safety concern was discovered the original design for the construction of the test stand, originally built for the Apollo Program and renovated for the Shuttle Program, was completed before NASA s adoption of the currently imposed safety and building codes per National Fire Protection Association Life Safety Code [NFPA 101] and International Building Codes. The initial FITO assessment of the design changes, required to make TS4550 compliant with current safety and building standards, identified a significant cost increase and schedule impact. An effort was launched to thoroughly evaluate the applicable life safety requirements, examine the context in which they were derived, and determine a means by which the TS4550 modifications could be made within budget and on schedule, while still providing the occupants with appropriate levels of safety.
NASA/KSC Launch Services Division Safety (SA-D) services include: (1) Assessing the safety of the launch vehicle (2) Assessing the safety of NASA ELV spacecraft (S/C) / launch vehicle (LV) interfaces (3) Assessing the safety of spacecraft processing to ensure resource protection of: - KSC facilities - KSC VAFB facilities - KSC controlled property - Other NASA assets (4) NASA personnel safety (5) Interfacing with payload organizations to review spacecraft for adequate safety implementation and compliance for integrated activities (6) Assisting in the integration of safety activities between the payload, launch vehicle, and processing facilities
During the summer of 2018 I supported the Safety & Mission Assurance Directorate (SMA) and Operations Support Division (QA-20) at Stennis Space Center. The mission of the SMA team is to prove safety, risk, reliability, independent assessments, configuration management and quality assurance guidance, and services for all NASA Stennis Space Center (SSC) programs, facilities, and supporting infrastructure. The office actively participates and contributes to the Agency-level Safety & Mission Assurance (S&MA) effort. Over the course of the Summer I participated in three projects. Two of them were focused around Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) and the third focused on relief valves for their E-1 engine test stand.
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.
The Liquid Rocket Booster (LRB) Systems Definition Handbook presents the analyses and design data developed during the study. The Systems Definition Handbook (SDH) contains three major parts: the LRB vehicles definition; the Pressure-Fed Booster Test Bed (PFBTB) study results; and the ALS/LRB study results. Included in this volume are the results of all trade studies; final configurations with supporting rationale and analyses; technology assessments; long lead requirements for facilities, materials, components, and subsystems; operational requirements and scenarios; and safety, reliability, and environmental analyses.
In order to provide the scientific community, as well as NASA management, with a preview of typical safety restrictions for the proposed Black Brant XII sounding rocket, a risk assessment for a typical payload has been performed. This paper details the considerations which ensure minimal risk for projects managed by Wallops Flight Facility and the safety criteria required to conduct an operation. Specifically, three launch scenarios for the Black Brant XII have been considered. The first case assumes a test launch from Wallops, and the other two cases analyze typical scientific missions from Poker Flat Research Range.
Safety guidelines are presented. Waste form, waste processing and payload fabrication facilities, shipping casks and ground transport vehicles, payload primary container/core, radiation shield, reentry systems, launch site facilities, uprooted space shuttle launch vehicle, Earth packing orbits, orbit transfer systems, and space destination are discussed. Disposed concepts and risks are then discussed.
An assessment of a draft AIAA standard for flight dynamics model exchange, ANSI/AIAA S-119-2011, was conducted on behalf of NASA by a team from the NASA Engineering and Safety Center. The assessment included adding the capability of importing standard models into real-time simulation facilities at several NASA Centers as well as into analysis simulation tools. All participants were successful at importing two example models into their respective simulation frameworks by using existing software libraries or by writing new import tools. Deficiencies in the libraries and format documentation were identified and fixed; suggestions for improvements to the standard were provided to the AIAA. An innovative tool to generate C code directly from such a model was developed. Performance of the software libraries compared favorably with compiled code. As a result of this assessment, several NASA Centers can now import standard models directly into their simulations. NASA is considering adopting the now-published S-119 standard as an internal recommended practice.
The Mars Sample Return campaign aims to use three flight missions and one ground element to safely bring rock cores, regolith and atmospheric samples from the surface of Mars to Earth to answer key questions about the geologic and climate history of Mars, including the potential for ancient life. Since its landing in Jezero Crater in 2021, the first mission, NASA’s Mars 2020, has collected a number of samples on the crater floor and on the delta using the Perseverance rover. Subsequent missions would recover the sealed sample tubes, launch them into Mars orbit, and transport them back to Earth. The ground element would be a high-containment facility that would isolate and protect the samples during initial sample characterization, which would include sample safety assessments and time-sensitive scientific investigations. These elements are currently in the planning and design stages of development, and represent an international effort of NASA, the European Space Agency (ESA), and many industry partners. The work presented here provides an overview of the planetary protection strategy of the third flight mission, the ESA-led Earth Return Orbiter (ERO), which hosts the NASA-provided Capture, Containment, and Return System (CCRS). ERO-CCRS would capture the container with up to 30 sealed tubes previously put in Martian orbit, contain them in redundant containers to ensure that no potentially hazardous Mars particles are released, and return them to Earth through an entry vehicle. Both NASA and ESA policies comply with the United Nations’ Outer Space Treaty by planning to protect Earth’s biosphere from any potential adverse effects from material returned from solar system bodies beyond the Earth-Moon system. In the conduct of Mars Sample Return, the two agencies have agreed to apply approaches consistent with their own planetary protection standards to the campaign elements each provides.
The Mars Sample Return campaign aims to use three flight missions and one ground element to safely bring rock cores, regolith and atmospheric samples from the surface of Mars to Earth to answer key questions about the geologic and climate history of Mars, including the potential for ancient life. Since its landing in Jezero Crater in 2021, the first mission, NASA’s Mars 2020, has collected a number of samples on the crater floor and on the delta using the Perseverance rover. Subsequent missions would recover the sealed sample tubes, launch them into Mars orbit, and transport them back to Earth. The ground element would be a high-containment facility that would isolate and protect the samples during initial sample characterization, which would include sample safety assessments and time-sensitive scientific investigations. These elements are currently in the planning and design stages of development, and represent an international effort of NASA, the European Space Agency (ESA), and many industry partners. The work presented here provides an overview of the Planetary Protection strategy of the third flight mission, the ESA-led Earth Return Orbiter (ERO), which hosts the NASA-provided Capture, Containment, and Return System (CCRS). ERO-CCRS would detect and capture the container with up to 30 sealed tubes previously put in Martian orbit, contain them in redundant containers to ensure that no potentially hazardous Mars particles are released, and return them to Earth through an entry vehicle. Both NASA and ESA policies comply with the United Nations’ Outer Space Treaty by planning to protect Earth’s biosphere from any potential adverse effects from material returned from solar system bodies beyond the Earth-Moon system. In the conduct of Mars Sample Return, the two agencies have mutually agreed to apply approaches consistent with their own planetary protection standards to the campaign elements they each provides.
The Mars Sample Return campaign aims to use three flight missions and one ground element to safely bring rock cores, regolith and atmospheric samples from the surface of Mars to Earth to answer key questions about the geologic and climate history of Mars, including the potential for ancient life. Since its landing in Jezero Crater in 2021, the first mission, NASA’s Mars 2020, has collected a number of samples on the crater floor and on the delta using the Perseverance rover. Subsequent missions would recover the sealed sample tubes, launch them into Mars orbit, and transport them back to Earth. The ground element would be a high-containment facility that would isolate and protect the samples during initial sample characterization, which would include sample safety assessments and time-sensitive scientific investigations. These elements are currently in the planning and design stages of development, and represent an international effort of NASA, the European Space Agency (ESA), and many industry partners. The work presented here provides an overview of the planetary protection strategy of the third flight mission, the ESA-led Earth Return Orbiter, which hosts the NASA-provided Capture, Containment, and Return System. The orbiter would detect and capture the container with up to 30 sealed tubes previously put in Martian orbit, contain them in redundant containers to ensure that no potentially hazardous Mars particles are released, and return them to Earth through an entry vehicle. Both NASA and ESA policies comply with the United Nations’ Outer Space Treaty by planning to protect Earth’s biosphere from any potential adverse effects from material returned from solar system bodies beyond the Earth-Moon system. In the conduct of Mars Sample Return, the two agencies have mutually agreed to apply approaches consistent with their own planetary protection standards to the campaign elements they each provide.
A multifaceted program is presented that addresses both the operational aspects of Shuttle-cargo integration and the needs of the STS Cargo Community. The program consists of the following key elements: (1) processing team awareness of cargo needs and requirements; (2) standardization of Orbiter preparation and cargo integration procedures and methods; (3) maximum application of state-of-the-art ADP techniques in all relevant areas; (4) continual review of cargo integration facility and ground system capabilities versus requirements and enhancement; (5) continual assessment of proposed cargo processing changes for safety and other needs; and (6) review of cargo processing philosophies, policies, and concepts for potential improvements.
An overview is presented of the specific system safety activities required to support the ground support technology program associated with the design of an aerospace plane. Safe zones must be assessed to ensure that explosive safety requirements are attained to protect the vehicle, personnel, and support and operational facilities. Attention is given to the specific and unique design requirements connected with the utilization of cryogenic fuels as they apply to the design and development of an aerospace plane.
In 2000, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Environmental Office at the John C. Stennis Space Center (SSC) developed an Environmental Geographic Information Systems (EGIS) database. NASA had previously developed a GIS database at SSC to assist in the NASA Environmental Office's management of the Center. This GIS became the basis for the NASA-wide EGIS project, which was proposed after the applicability of the SSC database was demonstrated. Since its completion, the SSC EGIS has aided the Environmental Office with noise pollution modeling, land cover assessment, wetlands delineation, environmental hazards mapping, and critical habitat delineation for protected species. At SSC, facility management and safety officers are responsible for ensuring the physical security of the facilities, staff, and equipment as well as for responding to environmental emergencies, such as accidental releases of hazardous materials. All phases of emergency management (planning, mitigation, preparedness, and response) depend on data reliability and system interoperability from a variety of sources to determine the size and scope of the emergency operation. Because geospatial data are now available for all NASA facilities, it was suggested that this data could be incorporated into a computerized management information program to assist facility managers. The idea was that the information system could improve both the effectiveness and the efficiency of managing and controlling actions associated with disaster, homeland security, and other activities. It was decided to use SSC as a pilot site to demonstrate the efficacy of having a baseline, computerized management information system that ultimately was referred to as the Emergency Environmental Response Tool (EERT).