NASA Instituting Crowd Control on Shuttle

From the story at:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/print?id=606743

NASA Instituting Crowd Control on Shuttle

NASA Instituting Strict Crowd Control to Better Protect Public During
Shuttle Launches, Landings

By MARCIA DUNN
The Associated Press

Mar. 23, 2005 - NASA said Tuesday it will institute strict crowd
control for space shuttle launches and landings, and rely more on a
seldom-used touchdown site in New Mexico, to better protect the public
once flights resume in a few months.

Columbia's breakup during re-entry forced a re-evaluation of the space
agency's public safety policy. More than 85,000 pounds of debris
rained down on Texas and Louisiana as Columbia headed toward its Cape
Canaveral landing strip in February 2003. No one was injured by the
falling pieces.

"Philosophically, what we're trying to do ... is to ensure that
whatever it is we're doing, does not add significantly to the overall
risk that the public already accepts," said Bryan O'Connor, chief of
safety and mission assurance and a former shuttle commander.

No one on the ground has ever been hurt by a U.S. spaceflight.

O'Connor said that when Discovery lifts off on the first post-Columbia
flight, as early as mid-May, it will be the first shuttle mission in
which public safety is factored into deciding where to bring the
spacecraft home.

Kennedy Space Center will remain the primary landing site, but only if
the shuttle has no problems that might endanger people on the ground,
such as a problem with the flight-control system or damage to the
ship's thermal skin.

In that case, the shuttle would be directed to White Sands, N.M., a
remote, dusty missile range that has seen a shuttle landing only once,
back in 1982.

"This is a risk trade," O'Connor said. "You'd have to be sure that all
other things being equal, that you have good weather there, that
there's not some other matter like, for example, crew safety or you're
about to run out of consumables because you've already been on orbit
for a couple of days, waiting to come down. All those things will be
factored in, but for the first time now, public safety will be one of
those factors."

As for shuttle launches, the number of people allowed to gather at the
three- to four-mile safety perimeter will be greatly reduced, as will
the size of the crowd at the Kennedy runway for landing. NASA will
also bar people from being beneath the final glide path.

Unlike an airplane, a space shuttle glides to a landing and cannot
change its flight path once the braking rockets are fired one hour
before touchdown.

In unveiling the 288-page plan, NASA said it is looking increasingly
difficult to stick to the May 15 launch date for Discovery, which is
still in the hangar undergoing last-minute repairs and inspections.
Shuttle program manager Bill Parsons said he will re-evaluate the
launch date in mid-April.

The delays in getting the shuttle ready to be moved to the launch pad
a step now targeted for early April are for technical reasons, such as
wiring inspections and landing-gear checks.

As far as meeting the Columbia Accident Investigation Board's 15
recommendations for resuming shuttle flights, seven have been fully
met and another is on the verge of being fulfilled. Of the remaining
seven, virtually all of the necessary paperwork has been submitted to
the task force that is overseeing NASA's return-to-flight effort.

The task force will meet March 31 to consider NASA's progress.

NASA estimates the return-to-flight expenses will exceed $1.6 billion.


On the Net:

http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/main/index.html

I guess Edwards doesn't provide enough public safety.

Anyone happen to have a chart for a shuttle re-entry profile from ISS
orbit to White Sands?

-A.L.

"Andrew Lotosky" wrote in
oups.com:

I guess Edwards doesn't provide enough public safety.

Anyone happen to have a chart for a shuttle re-entry profile from ISS
orbit to White Sands?

The groundtrack for a particular entry depends strongly on the crossrange;
it can vary up to 800 nmi either way.

The range of groundtracks possible for each landing site was depicted in
one of the shuttle program's return-to-flight briefings, and I vaguely
recall that it was available on the web, but I haven't found it yet.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 12:39:11 -0600, Bill wrote:


In that case, the shuttle would be directed to White Sands, N.M., a
remote, dusty missile range that has seen a shuttle landing only once,
back in 1982.

And it was an incredible mess. Some of the problems resulted from
landing there being a last-minute decision, with all the convoy
equipment having to be loaded onto a train at Dryden, but a lot of it
was caused by the White Non-Sands. That stuff is very fine, not at
all like sand, and hygroscopic, so the Orbiter went from being filled
with dust to being filled with sticky mud. When the mud dried out, it
was very hard and very difficult to remove, particularly from inside
small holes, behind panels, etc.

"Dusty" is an understatement, by the way.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"Reunite Gondwanaland" wrote in message
...
"Dusty" is an understatement, by the way.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer


I was waiting for Mary or Henry to respond to this. ;-)

The "incredible mess", as Mary put it, has to be the biggest reason that
there has only been one landing at White Sands.

If I remember right, NASA didn't land at KSC until well after the White
Sands landing.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

Jeff Findley wrote:

I was waiting for Mary or Henry to respond to this. ;-)

The "incredible mess", as Mary put it, has to be the biggest reason
that
there has only been one landing at White Sands.

If I remember right, NASA didn't land at KSC until well after the
White
Sands landing.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

Early 1984 to be exact, STS 41-B (though at least one flight earlier
had been scheduled for KSC but diverted).

I seem to recall at least one of the early post-Challenger missions
being diverted from Edwards to KSC, which IMHO illustrates just how
much of a "last resort" White Sands has been seen as.

-A.L.

"Jeff Findley" wrote in
:

"Reunite Gondwanaland" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" is an understatement, by the way.

I was waiting for Mary or Henry to respond to this. ;-)

The "incredible mess", as Mary put it, has to be the biggest reason that
there has only been one landing at White Sands.

Of course, it's not a factor in this scenario. Remember, we are talking
about an orbiter that is already *known* to be compromised. Even assuming
it lands intact, that bird will never fly again. So cleaning up the
"incredible mess" would become the Smithsonian's problem, not NASA's.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.