January 2011 

NASA/TM-2011-217043 

NESC-RP-10-00674 

 

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Timmy R. Wilson/NESC 

Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia 
NASA STI Program . . . in Profile

 Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to 

the advancement of aeronautics and space science. 

The NASA scientific and technical information (STI) 

program plays a key part in helping NASA maintain 

this important role. 

 The NASA STI program operates under the 

auspices of the Agency Chief Information Officer. It 

collects, organizes, provides for archiving, and 

disseminates NASA’s STI. The NASA STI program 

provides access to the NASA Aeronautics and Space 

Database and its public interface, the NASA Technical 

Report Server, thus providing one of the largest 

collections of aeronautical and space science STI in 

the world. Results are published in both non-NASA 

channels and by NASA in the NASA STI Report 

Series, which includes the following report types: 

 TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of 

completed research or a major significant phase 

of research that present the results of NASA 

programs and include extensive data or 

theoretical analysis. Includes compilations of 

significant scientific and technical data and 

information deemed to be of continuing 

reference value. NASA counterpart of peerreviewed formal professional papers, but having 

less stringent limitations on manuscript length 

and extent of graphic presentations. 

 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientific 

and technical findings that are preliminary or of 

specialized interest, e.g., quick release reports, 

working papers, and bibliographies that contain 

minimal annotation. Does not contain extensive 

analysis. 

 CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and 

technical findings by NASA-sponsored 

contractors and grantees. 

 CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected 

papers from scientific and technical 

conferences, symposia, seminars, or other 

meetings sponsored or co-sponsored by NASA. 

 SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific, 

technical, or historical information from NASA 

programs, projects, and missions, often 

concerned with subjects having substantial 

public interest. 

 TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. Englishlanguage translations of foreign scientific and 

technical material pertinent to NASA’s mission. 

 Specialized services also include creating custom 

thesauri, building customized databases, and 

organizing and publishing research results. 

 For more information about the NASA STI 

program, see the following: 

 Access the NASA STI program home page at 

http://www.sti.nasa.gov

 E-mail your question via the Internet to 

help@sti.nasa.gov

 Fax your question to the NASA STI Help Desk 

at 443-757-5803 

 Phone the NASA STI Help Desk at 

443-757-5802 

 Write to: 

 NASA STI Help Desk 

 NASA Center for AeroSpace Information 

 7115 Standard Drive 

 Hanover, MD 21076-1320 
National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration 

Langley Research Center 

Hampton, Virginia 23681-2199 

 

January 2011 

NASA/TM-2011-217043 

NESC-RP-10-00674 

 

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Timmy R. Wilson/NESC 

Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia 
Available from: 

NASA Center for AeroSpace Information 

7115 Standard Drive 

Hanover, MD 21076-1320 

443-757-5802 

The use of trademarks or names of manufacturers in the report is for accurate reporting and does not 

constitute an official endorsement, either expressed or implied, of such products or manufacturers by the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

1 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

December 2, 2010
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

2 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674

Approval and Document Revision History 

NOTE: This document was approved at the December 2, 2010, NRB. This document was 

submitted to the NESC Director on December 8, 2010, for configuration control.

Approved

Version:

Original Signature on File 12/8/10

1.0 NESC Director Date

Version Description of Revision Office of Primary 

Responsibility

Effective Date

1.0 Initial Release Mr. Tim Wilson, NESC 

Deputy Director

12/2/10
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

3 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674

Table of Contents 

Volume I: Consultation Report 

1.0 Notification and Authorization ........................................................................................ 4

2.0 Signature Page ................................................................................................................... 5

3.0 Team List ........................................................................................................................... 6

3.1 Acknowledgement .............................................................................................................. 6

4.0 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 7

5.0 Background ....................................................................................................................... 8

6.0 Approach ........................................................................................................................... 8

6.1 Specific Comments ............................................................................................................. 8

7.0 Findings, Observations, and NESC Recommendations .............................................. 10

7.1 Findings ............................................................................................................................ 10

7.2 Observations ..................................................................................................................... 10

7.3 NESC Recommendations.................................................................................................. 10

8.0 Alternate Viewpoints ...................................................................................................... 11

9.0 Other Deliverables .......................................................................................................... 11

10.0 Lessons Learned .............................................................................................................. 11

11.0 Definition of Terms ......................................................................................................... 11

12.0 Acronyms List ................................................................................................................. 12

Volume II: Appendices 

Appendix A. Literature Search Results................................................................................... 14

Appendix B. Bangham Presentation........................................................................................ 22
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

4 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674

Volume I: Assessment Report

1.0 Notification and Authorization

The Constellation Program (CxP) Safety & Mission Assurance (S&MA) requested an 

independent assessment of the Peer Review of Launch Environments.

A NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) out-of-board activity was approved on October 

13, 2010. Mr. Tim Wilson, NESC Deputy Director, was assigned to perform a peer review of a 

launch environments assessment conducted by Bangham Engineering, Huntsville, Alabama. The 

Bangham work models propagation of the shock wave and fireball from an exploding launch 

vehicle based on historical data and visual imagery. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

5 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674

2.0 Signature Page 

Submitted by:

Team Signature Page on File – 12/8/10

Mr. Timmy Wilson Date

Significant Contributors:

Dr. Michael Gilbert Date Mrs. Kelly Currin Date

Mr. Roberto Garcia Date Dr. Curtis Larsen Date

Dr. Ivatury Raju Date Dr. David Schuster Date

Mr. Kenneth Johnson Date Mr. Steven Rickman Date

Signatories declare the findings and observations compiled in the report are factually based from 

data extracted from Program/Project documents, contractor reports, and open literature, and/or 

generated from independently conducted tests, analyses, and inspections. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

6 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674

3.0 Team List

3.1 Acknowledgements

Mr. David Gilmore of The Aerospace Corporation and a member of the NESC Passive Thermal 

Technical Discipline Team (TDT) is acknowledged for providing numerous documents for this 

peer review. Mr. Laurence Reinhart of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) is acknowledged for 

identifying additional resources for both liquid and solid propellants.

Name Discipline Organization/Location

Core Team

Tim Wilson NESC Deputy Director LaRC

Kelly Currin Resident Engineer KSC

Michael Gilbert Principal Engineer LaRC

Roberto Garcia NASA Technical Fellow for Propulsion MSFC

Curt Larsen

NASA Technical Fellow for Loads and 

Dynamics JSC

Ivatury Raju NASA Technical Fellow for Structures LaRC

Dave Schuster NASA Technical Fellow for Aerosciences LaRC

Ken Johnson NASA Technical Fellow for Statistics MSFC

Steve Rickman NASA Technical Fellow for Passive Thermal JSC

Chris Johansen MTSO Program Analyst LaRC

Administrative Support

Tina Dunn-Pittman Project Coordinator ATK, LaRC

Linda Burgess Planning and Control Analyst ATK, LaRC

Christina Williams Technical Writer ATK, LaRC
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

7 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674

4.0 Executive Summary

The NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) conducted a peer review of blast effects 

modeling work begun by Bangham Engineering for Constellation Program (CxP) Safety & 

Mission Assurance (S&MA). The Bangham work uses empirical data gathered from tests and 

historical launch vehicle failures to predict blast effects. The NESC concurs with Bangham’s

approach and with the results presented to date; however the data is limited and the statistical 

treatment could be stronger. The project would benefit from a more comprehensive attempt to 

collect relevant data and analyze using more current and advanced statistical tools. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

8 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674

5.0 Background

Catastrophic failures of launch vehicles during launch and ascent are currently modeled using 

equivalent trinitrotoluene (TNT) estimates. This approach tends to over-predict the blast effect 

with subsequent impact to launch vehicle and crew escape requirements. Bangham Engineering,

located in Huntsville, Alabama, assembled a less-conservative model based on historical failure 

and test data coupled with physical models and estimates. This white paper summarizes NESC’s 

peer review of the Bangham analytical work completed to date.

6.0 Approach

Experts with backgrounds in Aerosciences, Structures, Dynamics, Passive Thermal Systems, 

Propulsion, and Statistics were represented on the NESC team. Team members reviewed the 

Bangham Engineering summary ―Accident-Based Empirical Launch Vehicle Blast Modeling,‖ 

by James Blackwood, dated July 2010, reproduced in Appendix B, interviewed Bangham 

representatives, conducted a literature search, and inspected the company’s launch vehicle 

explosion database. Findings, observations, and NESC recommendations were developed on the 

basis of team members’ technical expertise. No independent tests or analyses were performed. 

6.1 Specific Comments

The team offered the following specific comments in reference to the Bangham Engineering 

presentation (located in Appendix B).

Page 6 – This chart discusses similitude of liquid oxygen/rocket propellant (LOX/RP) and LOX/

liquid hydrogen (LH2) and uses overpressure as the study variable. However AIAA-29456-588 

Liquid-Propellant Explosions, Fletcher, R. F., Journal of Spacecraft (Engineering Notes), 

October 1968, pp. 1227-1229, states that ―[I]n most liquid-propellant explosions, the amount of 

thermal energy exceed the amount of shock energy.‖ So, while this chart focuses on 

overpressure, given that the thermal energy exceeds the shock energy, the statement that ―This 

allows limited accident data to be statistically relevant for both LOX/RP and LOX/LH2‖ may be 

inaccurate for a thermal comparison of the two propellants. The chart on page 21, ―Work 

Remaining,‖ does acknowledge that thermal (and fragmentation) analysis is only partially 

complete.

Page 6 – The data assessment presented here could be improved and LH2/RP variability better 

treated with a more complex regression model than was used to build this chart. There is some 

evidence of sensor saturation, as well as some data structures which may indicate something of 

interest not fully accounted for.

Page 9 – Minimal data exists to support the blast wave speed assertions made on this chart. 

There is some evidence of sensor saturation at 2000 ft/sec. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

9 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674

Page 11 – The analytical prediction of fireball radius as a function of propellant mass (and time) 

should be plotted to see how it correlates with the data on the chart. Data in NASA TM X-53314 

Size and Duration of Fireballs From Propellant Explosions, Gayle, J. B., Bransford, J. W., July 

1965, may be beneficial as this reference provides curve fits (although not analytically derived) 

from incidents and tests relating fireball radius and duration to propellant mass.

Page 12–13 – This data represented on this chart may be better described and analyzed by 

classifying the events according to a fault tree rather than by a single distribution. For each node 

on the tree, a distribution of warning times could be built, informed by the real world data. An 

occurrence time distribution and probability of occurrence of each tree node could be included, 

as well. This will allow designers and risk managers to address the problem of response time 

realistically. 

Page 14 – This chart indicates that in-flight data is sparse for a specified altitude regime. 

Recommend reviewing AIAA-3542-256 Explosion of Propellants, Fletcher, R. F., Gerneth, D., 

Goodman, C., AIAA Journal (Technical Notes), April 1966, pp. 755-757. This white paper, 

although an analytical study, focuses on the explosion of liquid propellants in vacuum and in an 

atmosphere with the objective of giving an upper bound to overpressures on a surface near an 

explosion as well as at a distance from the explosion. While there may not be flight incident or 

experimental data for this altitude regime, it may be worthwhile to combine ground test, accident 

data, and analytical predictions over the entire altitude regime to see if trends consistent across 

the data and analysis emerge. The final result may be a combined empirical and analytical curve. 

A Bayesian method of leveraging both data and analysis may be useful. The reference AIAA-99-

3776 Blast Wave Stage of Explosion of Launch Vehicle in Flight, Surzhikov, S.T. also explores, 

analytically, the effects of altitude on the explosion.

Page 21 – In addition to fireball radius and fireball temperature as a function of time, the study 

should determine and publish environmental (likely analytically derived) heating fluxes as a 

function of time and distance from the explosion center. Project PYRO, documented in some of 

the references below, conducted a variety of tests in which convective and radiative heat fluxes 

as well as fireball temperatures were obtained.

General comments – Assembly and maintenance of an explicit model that organizes and shows 

the relationships between elements of the conceptual model could help with sensitivity and gap 

analysis. One may well be in work. If not, a tool as simple as a fault tree could be useful. 

Bayesian networks (see references) might be very helpful. There are certainly other applicable 

methods. Due to expense of testing, use of efficient engineering test design methods such as 

design of experiments (DOE) is strongly encouraged. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

10 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674

7.0 Findings, Observations, and NESC Recommendations 

7.1 Findings 

The following findings were identified: 

F-1. The team concurs with the approach taken and with the results presented to date. 

However, the data is limited and the statistical treatment could be stronger. The project 

would benefit from a more comprehensive attempt to collect relevant data and analyze 

using more current and advanced statistical tools. Data taken and analyses performed 

should consider the effect of missing data (e.g., data censoring due to saturated sensors). 

F-2. The Bangham presentation focuses on overpressure. It appears little—if any—thermal or 

fragmentation modeling or assessment have been performed. 

F-3. Data collected has been captured in a spreadsheet, not a relational database. 

.2 Observations 

The following observations were identified: 

O-1. Current and future launch sites should be better equipped with instrumentation suitable 

for collecting pressure / thermal data to improve insight into nominal and off-nominal 

launch and blast effects. 

O-2. A bibliography or list of references used in assembling these data would be helpful for 

verifying all pertinent data sources have been identified and reviewed. 

O-3. In preparation for this peer review, a literature search was performed to obtain data on 

previous testing and analysis of overpressure, fireball growth, and heat transfer. The 

references obtained are listed in the Literature Search Results, Appendix A. 

O-4. An explicit model which shows dependencies and relationships between the conceptual 

model elements could be helpful. 

O-5. If this work will be used for critical decisions in design, development, and ground and 

flight operations, NASA-STD-7009, Standard for Models and Simulations, should be 

reviewed for applicability. 

.3 NESC Recommendation 

The following NESC recommendation was identified and directed towards the stakeholder: 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

NESC-RP10-00674 

Version: 

1.0 

Title: 

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #: 

11 of 66 

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674

R-1. Further pursue this effort with a team augmented by data mining, statistical, and subject 

matter experts. All data collected, including assumptions and data descriptions, should 

be fully documented in a relational database for future review and analysis. 

8.0 Alternate Viewpoints 

There were no alternate viewpoints. 

9.0 Other Deliverables 

There were no other deliverables. 

10.0 Lessons Learned 

There were no lessons learned. 

11.0 Definition of Terms 

Corrective Actions Changes to design processes, work instructions, workmanship practices, 

training, inspections, tests, procedures, specifications, drawings, tools, 

equipment, facilities, resources, or material that result in preventing, 

minimizing, or limiting the potential for recurrence of a problem. 

Finding A conclusion based on facts established by the investigating authority. 

Lessons Learned Knowledge or understanding gained by experience. The experience may 

be positive, as in a successful test or mission, or negative, as in a mishap 

or failure. A lesson must be significant in that it has real or assumed 

impact on operations; valid in that it is factually and technically correct; 

and applicable in that it identifies a specific design, process, or decision 

that reduces or limits the potential for failures and mishaps, or reinforces a 

positive result. 

Observation A factor, event, or circumstance identified during the assessment that did 

not contribute to the problem, but if left uncorrected has the potential to 

cause a mishap, injury, or increase the severity should a mishap occur. 

Alternatively, an observation could be a positive acknowledgement of a 

Center/Program/Project/Organization’s operational structure, tools, and/or 

support provided. 

Problem The subject of the independent technical assessment. 

Proximate Cause The event(s) that occurred, including any condition(s) that existed 

immediately before the undesired outcome, directly resulted in its 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

NESC-RP10-00674 

Version: 

1.0 

Title: 

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #: 

12 of 66 

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674

occurrence and, if eliminated or modified, would have prevented the 

undesired outcome. 

Recommendation An action identified by the NESC to correct a root cause or deficiency 

identified during the investigation. The recommendations may be used by 

the responsible Center/Program/Project/Organization in the preparation of 

a corrective action plan. 

Root Cause One of multiple factors (events, conditions, or organizational factors) that 

contributed to or created the proximate cause and subsequent undesired 

outcome and, if eliminated or modified, would have prevented the 

undesired outcome. Typically, multiple root causes contribute to an 

undesired outcome. 

12.0 Acronyms List

CxP Constellation Program 

DOE Design of Experiments 

JPL Jet Propulsion Lab 

JSC Johnson Space Center 

LaRC Langley Research Center 

LH2 Liquid Hydrogen 

LOX Liquid Oxygen 

MSFC Marshall Space Flight Center 

NESC NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

NRB NESC Review Board 

RP Rocket Propellant 

S&MA Safety & Mission Assurance 

TNT Trinitrotoluene 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

13 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674

Volume II. Appendices

Appendix A. Literature Search Results

Appendix B. Bangham Presentation
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

14 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674

Appendix A. Literature Search Results

AIAA-99-3776 Blast Wave Stage of Explosion of Launch Vehicle in Flight, Surzhikov, S.T.

This paper focuses on the ―blast wave‖ stage of the explosion and develops a methodology 

which is applied at various altitudes (6 km, 25 km and 55 km) for a 155 ton propellant case at 

each altitude. The paper gives a calculation of the radius of the boundary between scattering 

explosion products and the surrounding air. The paper also discusses the high temperature 

region and mentions that experimental data shows that these temperatures may reach 2500-2800 

K. Temperatures as the radius of the fireball grows are also explored. The methodology 

assumes that gaseous explosion products are fully mixed and are scattering with a specified 

average kinetic energy and the part of the fuel that does not evaporate does not contribute to the 

gas dynamic field. Also, it is assumed that the explosion takes place over a short period of time 

so no chemical reactions are assumed to be in progress when the blast wave moves away from 

the point of detonation.

AIAA 2006-1177 Proposed Approach for Estimate Launch Vehicle Explosive Risk, Claus, 

R. W., Zampino, E.

The Apollo launch system is used as an example to illustrate to assess explosive risk and 

expected blast yields for a probabilistic risk analysis. A simple worst-case analysis is explored 

assuming all propellants are consumed in a single explosion. But the paper also points to sources 

DOD Ammunition and Explosives Safety Standards, DOD 6055.9-STD, July 1999.

Tomei, E.J., “Explosive Equivalence of Liquid Propellants,” JANNAF PDCS & SEPS Joint 

Meeting, April 1998.

LockheedMartin TA-9 Final Report no: LM-000071, contract NAS8-01098.

Tomei, E.J., “Propellant Explosive Hazards Study: Volume II Technical Discussions” Aerospace 

Corp. Report No.: TOR-0089(4025-04)-1.) 

that suggest that estimates formulated using this assumption are high by one to two orders of 

magnitude. However, explosive yield estimates in this paper rely on TNT equivalency. The 

methodology uses DOD Ammunition and Explosives Safety Standards, DOD 6055.9-STD and 

suggests effective yields for LOX/LH2 and LOX/RP cases. Subsequently, Kingery, C.N., 

“AirBlast Parameters Versus Distance For Hemispherical TNT Surface Bursts,” U.S. Army 

Ballistic Research Laboratory Report No. 1344, Sept. 1966 is used to calculate blast wave 

overpressures. The results of the analysis suggest that TNT effective yields are significantly 

lower than those presented in the DOD standard.
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

15 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674

AIAA 2003-508 Time-Dependent Spectral Radiation of Fire Ball Generated at Rocket 

Explosion, Surzhikov, S. T., Levine, J.

The paper predicts, via numerical simulation, data on spectral radiation emission of a fireball 

resulting from a rocket explosion. Two radiative heat transfer methods are used. The ultimate 

goal is prediction of the fireball spectral signature time dependence calculated over its typical 

lifetime of approximately 20 seconds. Evolution of the fireball is discussed in stages. The 

important role of heat transfer via radiation is emphasized. Species considered include: H2O, 

H2, CO, CO2, O2 and N2. Calculations were performed for a completely filled rocket with fuel 

components: N2O4, C2H8N4, C7H14, H2O2. The paper provides analytical predictions of 

fireball growth and temperature as a function of time.

AIAA-97-0810 Comparison of Parachute Fabric Response to Radiation Heat Transfer, 

Thielman, G. W.

This paper does not deal directly with rocket vehicle explosions or the resulting fireball but it 

does present how the resulting fireball data is applied to material analysis, in this case, parachute 

materials. Radiation and fireball heating from a military aircraft crash is to determine the 

exposure environment and a temperature estimate is given in Pelch-Blyer, A. C., Tubis, R. I., 

“Survivability of Parachute Cloth and Human Skin Exposed to Fireball Radiant Heat”, NWC 

TM 5733, May 1986. Correlations to fuel quantity and fireball radius were taken from published 

empirical data are given in High, R. W., The Saturn Fireball, Annals New York Academy of 

Sciences, 152, art. 1, pp. 441-451, 28 Oct 1968.

AIAA-30365-793 Liquid-Propellant Rocket Abort Fire Model, Bader, B. E., Donaldson, A. 

B., Hardee, H. C., Journal of Spacecraft, Vol. 8, No. 12, December 1971.

This paper discusses the severe thermal environment experienced as a result of a fireball during 

a rocket launch pad abort. Heat flux versus time from the fireball is determined from a model as 

a function of time for any initial propellant quantity. It is claimed that existing data support the 

validity of the model. The paper references the original work on thermal radiation from an abort 

fireball performed by Van Nice and Carpenter in 1965 and referenced in Van Nice, L. J. and 

Carpenter, H. J., "Thermal Radiation from Saturn Fireballs," NAS 9-4810, Dec. 1965, TRW 

Systems, Redondo Beach, Calif. The paper also cites experimental data on launch abort fireballs 

in 

High, R. W. and Fletcher, R. F., "Estimation of Fireball from Saturn Vehicles Following Failure 

on Launch Pad," 1181, Aug. 1965, NASA.

Gayle, J. B. and Bransford, J. W., "Size and Duration of Fireballs from Propellant Explosions," 

TM X-53314, Aug. 1965, NASA. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

16 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674

Pesante, R. E., Nishibayashi, et al, "Blast and Fireball Comparision of Cryogenic and 

Hypergolic Propellants," 0822-01(01)FP, June 1964, Aerojet-General Corp., Downey, Calif.

Kite, F. D., Webb, D. M., and Bader, B. E., "LaunchHazards Assessment Program, Report on 

Atlas/Centaur Abort,"SC-RR-65-333, Oct. 1965, Sandia Labs., Albuquerque, N. Mex.

Mansfield, J. A., "Heat Transfer Hazards of Liquid Propellant Explosions," URS 706-5, Feb. 

1969, URS Research Company, Burlingame, Calif.

This paper presents a generalized version of an earlier model.

AIAA-29456-588 Liquid-Propellant Explosions, Fletcher, R. F., Journal of Spacecraft 

(Engineering Notes), October 1968, pp. 1227-1229

This engineering note discusses the detonation and deflagration phases of an explosion and 

draws comparisons between propellant-related explosions and TNT estimates. With regard to 

fireballs, the paper states that ―[I]n most liquid-propellant explosions, the amount of thermal 

energy exceed the amount of shock energy. A large amount of air is consumed in the 

deflagration process, and the prediction of fireball characteristics is based on the availability of 

this air.‖ Empirical data for fireballs are presented in Figure 6 within the document for various 

fuel/oxidizer combinations as a function of total liquid propellant weight.

AIAA 2008-6912 Simulation of Propellant Explosions Resulting from Crew Launch 

Vehicle Tank Failure, Hosangadi, A., Madavan, N. K., August 2008

In summary of the work described, this paper assesses a specific failure resulting from a 

catastrophic disintegration during ascent of the LH2-LOX tank and the subsequent release of the 

bulk propellants from the Ares I launch vehicle and involves the interaction at the interfaces 

between the LH2 and LOX and the surrounding high-speed air, the deformation of the liquid 

interfaces due to mixing, the vaporization of the liquids, and, finally, the potential combustion of 

the vapor leading to a possible fireball explosion. The goal of the assessment is to determine the 

strength and propagation of the blast wave if the mixture ignites and the time scales of the 

various processes.

AIAA-3542-256 Explosion of Propellants, Fletcher, R. F., Gerneth, D., Goodman, C., 

AIAA Journal (Technical Notes), April 1966, pp. 755-757

This paper focuses on the explosion of liquid propellants in vacuum and in an atmosphere with 

the objective of giving an upper bound to overpressures on a surface near an explosion as well as 

at a distance from the explosion.
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

17 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674

NASA TM X-53314 Size and Duration of Fireballs From Propellant Explosions, Gayle, J. 

B., Bransford, J. W., July 1965

Data from tests and vehicle incidents have been compiled and analyzed with respect to fireball 

diameters and durations. Both variables were found to be dependent on the cube root of the 

weight of the combined propellants and independent of the particular propellant combination. 

Fireball diameters also appear to be roughly dependent on the cube root of the ambient pressures.

For fireball diameter, the scatter of the data about a fitted curve corresponded to a standard error 

of approximately 30%. Data for fireball durations exhibited a much degree of scatter.

The report also refers to the work performed by the U.S. Air Force Rocket Propulsion 

Laboratory in connection with Project Pyro.

Fireball diameters and durations were obtained either from the literature or by reduction of 

photographic records of various tests and incidents. The data used in this study is presented in 

the report appendix. For RP-1/LOX, data from 47 tests was used and ranged from 10 to 250,000 

lbs. For LH2/LOX, data from 23 tests and one incident was used. Propellant weights ranging 

from 3 to 225 lbs were used. The incident involved 100,000 lbs propellant. For RP1/LH2/LOX, data from 12 tests was used and ranged from 110 lbs to 44,000 lbs. For 

N2O4/UDMH-Hydrazine, data from 26 tests was used. Data is also presented for TNT in which 

14 explosions was used.

PEP 25 179 Measurement of the Size, Duration and Thermal Output of Fireballs Produced 

by a Range of Propellants, Merrifield, R., Pyrotechnica, 25, pp. 179-185, 2000

This paper presents information on the size, duration and thermal output of fireballs produced on 

ignition of 1, 5 and 25 kg quantities of a range of propellants. Propellants studied were: FNH 

014 and FNH 014 (Graphited), FNH 024, DX/S 56-14, EX03, Hodgdon H4198, Vectan AO and 

AS 24, Vihtavuori N320 and N340, Alliant Bullseye, Red Dot, Green Dot, Unique, Blue Dot, 

2400, and Reloader 7, Hodgdon HS7 and H110. Data linking flame diameter and charge mass 

are presented from the experiments performed for this paper plus from data published elsewhere 

including a number of liquid propellants (from the reference above). 

AFRPL TR-68-89 Heat Transfer Hazards of Liquid Rocket Propellant Explosions, Final 

Report, Mansfield, J. A., February 1969.

This report is a summary of the thermal or heat transfer measurements from the Project PYRO. 

This experimental program was conducted in order to improve the definition of hazards 

associated with liquid rocket propellant explosions. Tests using propellant quantities ranging 

from 200 to approximately 100,000 lbs of LO2/RP-1, LO2/LH2 and up to 1000 lbs for the 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

18 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674

hypergolic propellant combination of N2O4/50% UDMH-50% N2H4 were conducted. From 

measurements within the fireball, data are given for the total (convective plus radiant) heat flux 

density, radiant flux density, and fireball temperature – from remote measurements for the 

fireball temperature (photo-pyrometric) and radiant flux density. The PYRO program was 

composed of more than 300 propellant tests.

AFRPL TR-68-92 Volumes 1, 2 and 3 Liquid Propellant Explosive Hazards, Final Report, 

Willoughby, A. B., Witton, C, Mansfield, J., December 1968

Volume 1 is a comprehensive technical report to the basic Project PYRO program. 

Volume 2 is the test data. Volume 3 is the prediction methods.

AFRL-PR-ED-TR-1999-0006 Propellant Sensitivity Program, Merrill, C., Air Force 

Research Laboratory, June 2003

The Propellant Sensitivity program investigated explosive and fire safety of solid rocket booster 

propellants and how safety/hazards are influenced by composition, propellant combustion at 

pressures outside normal motor operating pressures, and high temperature environment. The 

effort did not often work with more costly rocket motors since rocket motor safety is largely 

governed by innate properties of the propellants. Propellants tested were HTPB/Al/AP (hydroxy 

terminated polybutadiene/aluminum/ ammonium perchlorate) and CTPB/Al/AP (carboxy 

terminated polybutadiene /aluminum /ammonium perchlorate) compositions.

Additional Resources Identified But Not Reviewed

For Liquid Propellants:

Liquid Propellant Explosion Modeling - Steven L. Hancock, Foils Engineering - September 8, 

2006 

NSA3-19231 : Workbook for Predicting Pressure Wave and Fragment Effects of Exploding 

Propellant Tanks and Gas Storage Vessels - W. E. Baker [et al.] - September 1977

Characteristics of Liquid Propellant Explosions - R. F. Fletcher - Annals of the New York 

Academy of Sciences, vol. 152, pp 432-440 - October 28, 1968

WSTF-TR-0985-001-01-02: Correlation of Liquid Propellants, NASA Headquarters RTOP, Test 

Report - Johnson Space Center - January 23, 2003
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

19 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674

NASA TN D-5382: Some Liquid Oxygen/Liquid Hydrogen Explosive Effects in Controlled 

Failure-Mode Tests - Richard W. High - September 1969

NASA CR-134538 : Assembly and Analysis of Fragmentation Data for Liquid Propellant 

Vessels - W. E. Baker, V. B. Parr, R. L. Bessey, and P. A. Cox - January 1974

NASA-CS-187872 : Prediction of Explosive Yield and Other Characteristics of Liquid Rocket 

Propellant Explosions, Final Report - E. A. Farber, J. H. Smith, E.H. Watts - June 30, 1973

Explosive Equivalence of Liquid Propellants - E. J. Tomei - 1996

Delta II (NAVSTAR GPS IIR-1) - Patrick Air Force Base - January 17, 1997

NASA TN D-563: Investigation of S-IV All Systems Vehicle Explosion - J. B. Gayle -

September 1, 1964

GDC-BTD66-034: Range Safety Aerodynamics Data for Atlas/Centaur/Surveyor Direct Ascent 

Flights - T. Chacon - May 4, 1966

Fire and Explosion Hazards of Liquid Propellants - Jim Cochiaro - CPIA Bulletin, vol. 24, no. 1, 

pp. 4-7 - January 1998

NASA SP-2000-4408: Challenge to Apollo: the Soviet Union and the Space Race, 1945-1974 -

Asif A. Siddiqi - 2000

Explosive Shocks in Air, 2nd ed. - G. Kinney and K. Graham - Springer Verlag, 1985 

Detonation of Cryogenic Gaseous Hydrogen-Oxygen Mixtures - M. Plaster, F. J. Benz, J. E. 

Shepherd, J. H. S. Lee - International Colloquium on Dynamics of Explosions and Reactive 

Systems, Ann Arbor, MI, United States, July 23-28, 1989

Explosions in Air - V. E. Baker - University of Texas Press, 1973 

Propellant Explosions in Cargo Bay: Presented at Patrick AFB - D. Lehto - November 20, 1985

FSC-ESD-217-88-435: Centaur in-Tank Explosion Flow Fields within STS and Titan IV 

Payload Spaces - M. Eck, M. Mukunda - December 1988

CWO 28 : On the Analytical Methods Used to Establish the Cassini Abort Environments, Final 

Report to JPL Contract 959658 - Marshall B. Eck, Steven L. Hancock - November 1996
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

20 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674

Fragment Data from Selected Space Vehicle Explosions - Hazards of Chemical Rockets and 

Propellants Handbook, vol. 1, General Safety Engineering Design Criteria, p. 2-61 - May 1972

Photo instrumentation for Warhead Characterization - R. Campbell and C. R. Wilkinson -

Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium of Ballistics, 7-11 May 2001, Interlaken, 

Switzerland, pp. 867-874 - 200

NAS 3-00031: Cassini Titan IV/Centaur RTG Safety Databook, Rev. B - Lockheed Martin -

March 1997 

New Horizons SAR Databook - JPL - September 2005 

Linear and Nonlinear Waves - G. B. Whitham - John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1974 

For Solid Propellants:

Solid Propellant Blast Modeling - Steven L. Hancock - February 7, 2007

Technical Report No. 99-400/11.1-02: FY99 BLASTX/C Development Activities - Paul Wilde, 

Shaw Kang, Mark Anderson - September 1999

UCRD-ID-130077: Propellant Impact Risk Assessment Team Report: PERMS Model to 

Describe Propellant Energetic Response to Mechanical Stimuli - Jon L. Maienschein, John E. 

Reaugh, Edward L. Lee - February 27, 1998

Risk Assessments with Various TNT Equivalency Models - J. D. Collins - JANNAF Safety and 

Hazard Classification Panel Meeting, Huntsville, Alabama, April 29, 1997

Titan IV SRMU Failure Modes and Explosive Yield of Impacting Propellant: TRW Support to 

Propellant Impact Risk Assessment Team (PIART) - Paul K. Salzman - February 18, 1998

Development of a Yield Histogram for Space Shuttle Blast Risks Analyses - Paul Wilde and 

Mark Anderson - 1999 JANNAF Safety and Environmental Protection Subcommittee, San 

Diego, CA 26-30 April

Titan IV SRMU Solid Propellant Impact Hazards Analysis in Support of the Cassini Mission, 

Final Report - Robert L. Geisler, Edward L. Lee, William G. Nance, Richard T. Rauch -

September 30, 1995

ESCM/SEM Report #84-1: Detonability of Large Solid Rocket Motors - Louis J. Ullian - August 

10, 1984
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

21 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674

On the Nature of Impact-Induced HTPB Explosions, Final Report for RIT P.O. 00089959S -

Steven L. Hancock, Marshall B. Eck - April 1998

CTH: A Software Family for Multi-Dimensional Shock Physics Analysis - E. S. Hertel, Jr., R. L. 

Bell, M. G. Elrick, A. V. Farnsworth, G. I. Kerley, J. M. McGlaun, S. V. Petney, S. A. Silling, P. 

A. Taylor, and L. Yarrington - Sandia National Laboratories - Proceedings of the 19th 

International Symposium on Shock Waves, Marseille , France 26-30 July 1993, Volume I, pp. 

377-382

ARBRL-TR-02555: Airblast Parameters from TNT Spherical Air Burst and Hemispherical 

Surface Burst - Charles N. Kingery, Gerald Bulmash - April 1984

New Horizons SAR Databook - JPL - September 2005 

Investigation of USAF Launch Vehicle Accident, Delta II-241/G.P.S. IIR-1, 17 January 1997 -

Cape Canaveral Air Station
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

22 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674

Appendix B. Bangham Presentation
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

23 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

24 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

25 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

26 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

27 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

28 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

29 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

30 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

31 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

32 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

33 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

34 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

35 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

36 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

37 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

38 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

39 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

40 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

41 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

42 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

43 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

44 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

45 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

46 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

47 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

48 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

49 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

50 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

51 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

52 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

53 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

54 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

55 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

56 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

57 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

58 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

59 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

60 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

61 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

62 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

63 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

64 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

65 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #:

NESC-RP10-00674

Version:

1.0

Title:

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

Page #:

66 of 66

NESC Request No.: TI-10-00674
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

2. REPORT TYPE 

Technical Memorandum

 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Peer Review of Launch Environments 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

 6. AUTHOR(S)

Wilson, Timmy R.

 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

NASA Langley Research Center

Hampton, VA 23681-2199

 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, DC 20546-0001

 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

L-19979 NESC-RP-10-00674

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NASA

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Unclassified - Unlimited

Subject Category 15 Launch Vehicles and Launch Operations

Availability: NASA CASI (443) 757-5802

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

STI Help Desk (email: help@sti.nasa.gov)

14. ABSTRACT

Catastrophic failures of launch vehicles during launch and ascent are currently modeled using equivalent trinitrotoluene (TNT) 

estimates. This approach tends to over-predict the blast effect with subsequent impact to launch vehicle and crew escape 

requirements. Bangham Engineering, located in Huntsville, Alabama, assembled a less-conservative model based on historical 

failure and test data coupled with physical models and estimates. This white paper summarizes NESC's peer review of the 

Bangham analytical work completed to date. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Constellation Program; NASA Engineering and Safety Center; Safety & Mission Assurance

18. NUMBER

 OF 

 PAGES

71

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

(443) 757-5802

a. REPORT

U

c. THIS PAGE

U

b. ABSTRACT

U

17. LIMITATION OF 

 ABSTRACT

UU

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

October 2010 - December 2010

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

869021.01.07.01.06

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT

 NUMBER(S)

NASA/TM-2011-217043

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and 

Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person 

shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

01- 01 - 2011