Jump to content

Cross-­‐Waiver/Indemnification Authority (developer of experimental aerospace vehicle) -­ 42 U.S.C. 2458c


NASA

Recommended Posts

  • Publishers

(a) In General. – The Administrator may provide liability insurance for, or indemnification to, the developer of an experimental aerospace vehicle developed or used in execution of an agreement between the Administration and the developer.

(b) Terms and Conditions. –

    (1) In general.
    Except as otherwise provided in this section, the insurance and indemnification provided by the Administration under subsection (a) to a developer shall be provided on the same terms and conditions as insurance and indemnification is provided by the Administration under section 308 of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2458b) to the user of a space vehicle.
    (2) Insurance.

    (A) In general. – A developer shall obtain liability insurance or demonstrate financial responsibility in amounts to compensate for the maximum probable loss from claims by – (i) a third party for death, bodily injury, or property damage, or loss resulting from an activity carried out in connection with the development or use of an experimental aerospace vehicle; and (ii) the United States Government for damage or loss to Government property resulting from such an activity.
    (B) Maximum required. – The Administrator shall determine the amount of insurance required, but, except as provided in subparagraph (C), that amount shall not be greater than the amount required under section 70112(a)(3) of title 49, United States Code, for a launch. The Administrator shall publish notice of the Administrator’s determination and the applicable amount or amounts in the Federal Register within 10 days after making the determination.
    (C) Increase in dollar amounts. – The Administrator may increase the dollar amounts set forth in section 70112(a)(3)(A) of title 49, United States Code, for the purpose of applying that section under this section to a developer after consultation with the Comptroller General and such experts and consultants as may be appropriate, and after publishing notice of the increase in the Federal Register not less than 180 days before the increase goes into effect. The Administrator shall make available for public inspection, not later than the date of publication of such notice, a complete record of any correspondence received by the Administration, and a transcript of any meetings in which the Administration participated, regarding the proposed increase.
    (D) Safety review required before administrator provides insurance. – The Administrator may not provide liability insurance or indemnification under subsection (a) unless the developer establishes to the satisfaction of the Administrator that appropriate safety procedures and practices are being followed in the development of the experimental aerospace vehicle.

    (3) No indemnification without cross-waiver.
    Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Administrator may not indemnify a developer of an experimental aerospace vehicle under this section unless there is an agreement between the Administration and the developer described in subsection (c).

    (4) Application of certain procedures.
    If the Administrator requests additional appropriations to make payments under this section, like the payments that may be made under section 308(b) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2458b(b)), then the request for those appropriations shall be made in accordance with the procedures established by subsections (d) and (e) of section 70113 of title 49, United States Code.


(c) Cross-Waivers. –

    (1) Administrator authorized to waive. – The Administrator, on behalf of the United States, and its departments, agencies, and related entities, may reciprocally waive claims with a developer and with the related entities of that developer under which each party to the waiver agrees to be responsible, and agrees to ensure that its own related entities are responsible, for damage or loss to its property for which it is responsible, or for losses resulting from any injury or death sustained by its own employees or agents, as a result of activities connected to the agreement or use of the experimental aerospace vehicle.
    (2) Limitations.

    (A) Claims. – A reciprocal waiver under paragraph (1) may not preclude a claim by any natural person (including, but not limited to, a natural person who is an employee of the United States, the developer, or the developer’s subcontractors) or that natural person’s estate, survivors, or subrogees for injury or death, except with respect to a subrogee that is a party to the waiver or has otherwise agreed to be bound by the terms of the waiver.
    (B) Liability for negligence. – A reciprocal waiver under paragraph (1) may not absolve any party of liability to any natural person (including, but not limited to, a natural person who is an employee of the United States, the developer, or the developer’s subcontractors) or such a natural person’s estate, survivors, or subrogees for negligence, except with respect to a subrogee that is a party to the waiver or has otherwise agreed to be bound by the terms of the waiver.
    (C) Indemnification for damages. – A reciprocal waiver under paragraph (1) may not be used as the basis of a claim by the Administration or the developer for indemnification against the other for damages paid to a natural person, or that natural person’s estate, survivors, or subrogees, for injury or death sustained by that natural person as a result of activities connected to the agreement or use of the experimental aerospace vehicle.

    (3) Effect on previous waivers.
    Subsection (c) applies to any waiver of claims entered into by the Administration without regard to whether it was entered into before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act (Oct. 21, 1998).


(d) Definitions. – In this section:

    (1) Administration. – The term ‘Administration’ means the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
    (2) Administrator. – The term ‘Administrator’ means the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
    (3) Common terms. – Any term used in this section that is defined in the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2451 et seq.) has the same meaning in this section as when it is used in that Act.
    (4) Developer. – The term ‘developer’ means a United States person (other than a natural person) who – ”(A) is a party to an agreement that was in effect before the date of the enactment of this Act (Oct. 21, 1998) with the Administration for the purpose of developing new technology for an experimental aerospace vehicle; ”(B) owns or provides property to be flown or situated on that vehicle; or ”(C) employs a natural person to be flown on that vehicle.
    (5) Experimental aerospace vehicle. – The term ‘experimental aerospace vehicle’ means an object intended to be flown in, or launched into, suborbital flight for the purpose of demonstrating technologies necessary for a reusable launch vehicle, developed under an agreement between the Administration and a developer that was in effect before the date of the enactment of this Act (Oct. 21, 1998).
    (6) Related entity. – The term ‘related entity’ includes a contractor or subcontractor at any tier, a supplier, a grantee, and an investigator or detailee.


(e) Relationship to Other Laws.

    (1) Section 308 of national aeronautics and space act of 1958. – This section does not apply to any object, transaction, or operation to which section 308 of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2458b) applies.
    (2) Chapter 701 of title 49, united states code. – The Administrator may not provide indemnification to a developer under this section for launches subject to license under section 70117(g)(1) of title 49, United States Code.


(f) Termination.

    (1) In general. – The provisions of this section shall terminate on December 31, 2002, except that the Administrator may extend the termination date to a date not later than September 30, 2005, if the Administrator determines that such an extension is necessary to cover the operation of an experimental aerospace vehicle.
    (2) Effect of termination on agreements. – The termination of this section does not terminate or otherwise affect a cross-waiver agreement, insurance agreement, indemnification agreement, or any other agreement entered into under this section except as may be provided in that agreement.

    – Source –

    Pub. L. 105-276, title IV, Sec. 431, Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2513.

View the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Topics

    • By NASA
      Name: Matthew Kowalewski
      Title: Dragonfly Mass Spectrometer (DraMS) Lead Instrument Systems Engineer
      Formal Job Classification: Aerospace Engineer
      Organization:  Instrument and Payload Systems Engineering Branch (Code 592)
      Matthew Kowalewski is the lead instrument systems engineer for NASA’s Dragonfly Mass Spectrometer (DraMS). Photo courtesy of Matthew Kowalewski What do you do and what is most interesting about your role here at Goddard?
      As the DraMS lead instrument systems engineer for NASA’s Dragonfly mission, I lead the coordinated technical development, integrating systems and making sure communications across subsystems is maintained within the instruments as well as with the lander. I enjoy the diversity and complexity of this instrument.
      What do you enjoy most about your current position as the DraMS lead instrument systems engineer?
      I started this position in March 2023 and it has been like drinking from a fire hose ever since, but in a good way. The complexity of the instrument and the number of subsystems means this is really three separate instruments in one, and that makes my job exciting. I have to keep up with a range of disciplines across everything that Goddard does including mechanisms, lasers, mass spectrometers, gas flow systems, mechanical systems, thermal systems and electrical systems.
      I am always challenged and excited by those challenges too. Everything we do is necessary to meet the broad science requirements. Our goal is studying prebiotic chemistry on the surface of Titan.
      What is your educational background? Why did you become an aerospace engineer?
      I have a B.A. in astronomy and physics from Boston University and a master’s in physics from Johns Hopkins University.
      As a child, I was more interested in astronomy and physics. In college, I developed an extreme interest in experimental physics including the engineering required to perform these experiments.
      How did you come to Goddard?
      After college, I worked in missile defense for a private company supporting the Midcourse Space Experiment. After three years, in 1998, my wife and I wanted to move closer to family, so I came to Goddard as an instrument engineer supporting the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer-Earth Probe (TOMS/EP) mission. I have also supported the Ozone Monitoring Instrument on Aura, The Ozone Mapping Profiler Suite (OMPS) on Suomi NPP and JPSS, various airborne field campaigns, and the New Opportunities Office.
      What interesting field work did you do prior to joining DraMS?
      I largely did field work supporting Earth science research and new business development. We flew remote sensing instruments on high altitude aircraft in the United States, Costa Rica, South Korea [whose official name is the Republic of Korea], and Canada. Most field campaigns lasted about a month where we were housed in hotels or military bases. While supporting the New Opportunities Office, we developed instrument and mission concepts, evaluated and prioritized technologies, and fostered relationships with industry, universities, and other government organizations.
      How do you lead across multiple teams?
      I lead a large team engineers and technicians spanning across over six teams. Communication is the key. I rely on the expertise of our systems team and all of the subsystem leads. We have daily and weekly meetings where everyone is heard and they are free to approach me whenever they have concerns.
      I try to encourage open discussions including contrarian thoughts and ideas. I listen to all the options and opinions in an attempt to make the best-informed decision. Then I move forward with my decision.
      In a cost- and schedule-constrained environment, like most missions are, we cannot get stuck in the decision-making process. At some point, a decision needs to be made and the team then moves forward.
      Where have you traveled for work?
      I have been to multiple NASA centers and military bases in this country. In addition to Costa Rica, South Korea and Canada, I have also been to the Netherlands and France for mission development.
      What is the most memorable moment you have had at Goddard?
      In 2003, I was supporting the space shuttle Columbia mission, STS-107. We had a small payload in the shuttle cargo bay called a Hitchhiker. I was second shift in the Hitchhiker mission operations center. I got to interact with the astronauts both prelaunch and on orbit. It meant a lot to me. My last shift was just prior to their reentry. It really impacted me when I learned, after my shift, that the shuttle disintegrated with all hands lost.
      I had the honor of meeting these astronauts. It reminded me of the importance of the work that we do as we continue sending astronauts into orbit for missions.
      When you mentor someone, what do you advise them to do?
      I tell them to learn as much about everything that they can. For example, if they are an engineer, they should learn about science and other disciplines because a broad knowledge base will help them in the future. They will also learn why building a small piece of hardware is important for accomplishing the mission’s science goals. An electrical engineer building a circuit is actually building something for a far larger purpose.
      It is also very important to get along with others. We work with others every day, in all aspects of our lives, and we have to understand their perspectives and respect their opinions. There is more to our jobs than building things. Establishing relationships with others is what truly allows us to accomplish our goals.
      What do you do for fun?
      I have four kids and enjoy spending time with them. I coach soccer, mentor a robotics club, and participate in endurance swim races. This is my second year as a mentor to my son’s robotics club, which participates in an annual, national robotics competition to build a robot from scratch. This year we have a highly mobile, fast robot with a multi-jointed arm to manipulate objects. I think we have a good shot at going to nationals.
      Who would you like to thank?
      I wish to thank my wife Angie for supporting me over all these years as my career developed. She was often home alone with four kids during long stints of travel. I would not be where I am without her.
      I also owe much to my mentors, Scott Janz, Glenn Jaross, and Jay Al-Saadi for all their guidance, support and opportunities over the many years. Nobody can work alone, no matter how smart you are.
      What is your “five-word or phrase memoir”? A five-word or phrase memoir describes something in just five words or phrases.
      Understanding. Compassionate. Persistent. Hard-working. Curious about too many things.
      By Elizabeth M. Jarrell
      NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
      Conversations With Goddard is a collection of Q&A profiles highlighting the breadth and depth of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center’s talented and diverse workforce. The Conversations have been published twice a month on average since May 2011. Read past editions on Goddard’s “Our People” webpage.
      Share
      Details
      Last Updated Nov 12, 2024 EditorRob GarnerContactRob Garnerrob.garner@nasa.govLocationGoddard Space Flight Center Related Terms
      People of Goddard Dragonfly Goddard Space Flight Center People of NASA View the full article
    • By NASA
      In the ever-evolving aerospace industry, collaboration and mentorship are vital for fostering innovation and growth. Recent achievements highlight the positive impact of Mentor-Protégé Agreements (MPA) facilitated by Jacobs Engineering Group, now known as Amentum Space Exploration Group. Two standout partnerships have demonstrated remarkable success and expansion, underscoring the value of such initiatives.
      CODEplus and Amentum Space Exploration Group
      The 24-Month MPA between CODEplus and Amentum Space Exploration Group has proven to be a game-changer. Recognized as the FY24 Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Mentor-Protégé Agreement of the Year, this collaboration has significantly boosted CODEplus’s operations. Since the agreement’s inception on March 1, 2023, CODEplus has expanded its workforce to ten full-time employees and currently has two active job requisitions. This growth exemplifies the transformative potential of mentorship in nurturing small businesses within the aerospace sector.
      KS Ware and Amentum Space Exploration Group / CH2M Hill
      Another exemplary partnership involves KS Ware, which has benefitted from a 36-Month MPA with Amentum Space Exploration Group and CH2M Hill. This agreement has garnered accolades as both the FY23 NASA Agency Mentor-Protégé Agreement of the Year and the FY23 MSFC Mentor-Protégé Agreement of the Year. Through targeted business and technical counseling, KS Ware successfully launched a new drilling division in 2022 and expanded its offerings to include surveying services in 2023. The impact of this mentorship is evident, with a remarkable 30% growth rate reported for KS Ware.
      These success stories highlight the critical role of Mentor-Protégé Agreements in empowering small businesses in the aerospace industry. By fostering collaboration and providing essential support, Amentum Space Exploration Group has not only strengthened its partnerships but also contributed to the broader growth and innovation landscape. As the aerospace sector continues to evolve, such initiatives will be essential in driving future success.
      Published by: Tracy L. Hudspeth
      View the full article
    • By NASA
      NASA NASA pilot Joe Walker sits in the pilot’s platform of the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV) number 1 on Oct. 30, 1964. The LLRV and its successor the Lunar Landing Training Vehicle (LLTV) provided the training tool to simulate the final 200 feet of the descent to the Moon’s surface.
      The LLRVs, humorously referred to as flying bedsteads, were used by NASA’s Flight Research Center, now NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center in California, to study and analyze piloting techniques needed to fly and land the Apollo lunar module in the moon’s airless environment.
      Learn more about the LLRV’s first flight.
      Image credit: NASA
      View the full article
    • By NASA
      President John F. Kennedy’s national commitment to land a man on the Moon and return him safely to the Earth before the end of the decade posed multiple challenges, among them how to train astronauts to land on the Moon, a place with no atmosphere and one-sixth the gravity on Earth. The Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV) and its successor the Lunar Landing Training Vehicle (LLTV) provided the training tool to simulate the final 200 feet of the descent to the lunar surface. The ungainly aircraft made its first flight on Oct. 30, 1964, at NASA’s Flight Research Center (FRC), now NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center (AFRC) in California. The Apollo astronauts who completed landings on the Moon attributed their successes largely to training in these vehicles.

      The first Lunar Landing Research Vehicle silhouetted against the rising sun on the dry lakebed at Edwards Air Force Base in California’s Mojave Desert.
      In December 1961, NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C., received an unsolicited proposal from Bell Aerosystems in Buffalo, New York, for a design of a flying simulator to train astronauts on landing a spacecraft on the Moon. Bell’s approach, using their design merged with concepts developed at NASA’s FRC, won approval and the space agency funded the design and construction of two Lunar Landing Research Vehicles (LLRV). At the time of the proposal, NASA had not yet chosen the method for getting to and landing on the Moon, but once NASA decided on Lunar Orbit Rendezvous in July 1962, the Lunar Module’s (LM) flying characteristics matched Bell’s proposed design closely enough that the LLRV served as an excellent trainer. 

      Two views of the first Lunar Landing Research Vehicle shortly after its arrival and prior to assembly at the Flight Research Center, now NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center, in California.
      Bell Aerosystems delivered the LLRV-1 to FRC on April 8, 1964, where it made history as the first pure fly-by-wire aircraft to fly in Earth’s atmosphere. Its design relied exclusively on an interface with three analog computers to convert the pilot’s movements to signals transmitted by wire and to execute his commands. The open-framed LLRV used a downward pointing turbofan engine to counteract five-sixths of the vehicle’s weight to simulate lunar gravity, two rockets provided thrust for the descent and horizontal translation, and 16 LM-like thrusters provided three-axis attitude control. The astronauts could thus simulate maneuvering and landing on the lunar surface while still on Earth. The LLRV pilot could use an aircraft-style ejection seat to escape from the vehicle in case of loss of control.

      Left: The Lunar Landing Research Vehicle-1 (LLRV-1) during an engine test at NASA’s Flight Research Center (FRC), now NASA’s Armstrong Fight Research Center, in California’s Mojave Desert. Right: NASA chief test pilot Joseph “Joe” A. Walker, left, demonstrates the features of LLRV-1 to President Lyndon B. Johnson during his visit to FRC.
      Engineers conducted numerous tests to prepare the LLRV for its first flight. During one of the engine tests, the thrust generated was higher than anticipated, lifting crew chief Raymond White and the LLRV about a foot off the ground before White could shut off the engines. On June 19, during an official visit to FRC, President Lyndon B. Johnson inspected the LLRV featured on a static display. The Secret Service would not allow the President to sit in the LLRV’s cockpit out of an overabundance of caution since the pyrotechnics were installed, but not yet armed, in the ejection seat. Following a Preflight Readiness Review held Aug. 13 and 14, managers cleared the LLRV for its first flight.

      Left: NASA chief test pilot Joseph “Joe” A. Walker during the first flight of the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV). Right: Walker shortly after the first LLRV flight.
      In the early morning of Oct. 30, 1964, FRC chief pilot Joseph “Joe” A. Walker arrived at Edwards Air Force Base’s (AFB) South Base to attempt the first flight of the LLRV. Walker, a winner of both the Collier Trophy and the Harmon International Trophy, had flown nearly all experimental aircraft at Edwards including 25 flights in the X-15 rocket plane. On two of his X-15 flights, Walker earned astronaut wings by flying higher than 62 miles, the unofficial boundary between the Earth’s atmosphere and space. After strapping into the LLRV’s ejection seat, Walker ran through the preflight checklist before advancing the throttle to begin the first flight. The vehicle rose 10 feet in the air, Walker performed a few small maneuvers and then made a soft landing after having flown for 56 seconds. He lifted off again, performed some more maneuvers, and landed again after another 56 seconds. On his third flight, the vehicle’s electronics shifted into backup mode and he landed the craft after only 29 seconds. Walker seemed satisfied with how the LLRV handled on its first flights.

      Left: Lunar Landing Research Vehicle-2 (LLRV-2) during one of its six flights at the Flight Research Center, now NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center, in California in January 1967. Right: NASA astronaut Neil A. Armstrong with LLRV-1 at Ellington Air Force Base in March 1967.
      Walker took LLRV-1 aloft again on Nov. 16 and eventually completed 35 test flights with the vehicle. Test pilots Donald “Don” L. Mallick, who completed the first simulated lunar landing profile flight during the LLRV’s 35th flight on Sept. 8, 1965, and Emil E. “Jack” Kluever, who made his first flight on Dec. 13, 1965, joined Walker to test the unique aircraft. Joseph S. “Joe” Algranti and Harold E. “Bud” Ream, pilots at the Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC), now NASA’s Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston, travelled to FRC to begin training flights with the LLRV in August 1966. Workers at FRC assembled the second vehicle, LLRV-2, during the latter half of 1966. In December 1966, after 198 flights workers transferred LLRV-1 to Ellington AFB near MSC for the convenience of astronaut training, and LLRV-2 followed in January 1967 after completing six test flights at FRC. The second LLRV made no further flights, partly because the three Lunar Landing Training Vehicles (LLTVs), more advanced models that better simulated the LM’s flying characteristics, began to arrive at Ellington in October 1967. Neil A. Armstrong completed the first astronaut flights aboard LLRV-1 on Mar. 23, 1967, and flew 21 flights before ejecting from the vehicle on May 6, 1968, seconds before it crashed. He later completed his lunar landing certification flights using LLTV-2 in June 1969, one month before peforming the actual feat on the Moon.

      Left: Apollo 11 Commander Neil A. Armstrong prepares to fly a lunar landing profile in Lunar Landing Training Vehicle-2 (LLTV-2) in June 1969. Middle: Apollo 12 Commander Charles “Pete” Conrad prepares to fly LLTV-2 in July 1969. Right: Apollo 14 Commander Alan B. Shepard flies LLTV-3 in December 1970.
      All Apollo Moon landing mission commanders and their backups completed their lunar landing certifications using the LLTV, and all the commanders attributed their successful landings to having trained in the LLTV. Apollo 8 astronaut William A. Anders, who along with Armstrong completed some of the early LLRV test flights, called the training vehicle “a much unsung hero of the Apollo program.” During the flight readiness review in January 1970 to clear LLTV-3 for astronaut flights, Apollo 11 Commander Armstrong and Apollo 12 Commander Charles “Pete” Conrad, who had by then each completed manual landings on the Moon, spoke positively of the LLTV’s role in their training. Armstrong’s overall impression of the LLTV: “All the pilots … thought it was an extremely important part of their preparation for the lunar landing attempt,” adding “It was a contrary machine, and a risky machine, but a very useful one.” Conrad emphasized that were he “to go back to the Moon again on another flight, I personally would want to fly the LLTV again as close to flight time as possible.” During the Apollo 12 technical debriefs, Conrad stated the “the LLTV is an excellent training vehicle for the final phases. I think it’s almost essential. I feel it really gave me the confidence that I needed.” During the postflight debriefs, Apollo 14 Commander Alan B. Shepard stated that he “did feel that the LLTV contributed to my overall ability to fly the LM during the landing.”

      Left: Apollo 15 Commander David R. Scott flies Lunar Landing Training Vehicle-3 (LLTV-3) in June 1971. Middle: Apollo 16 Commander John W. Young prepares to fly LLTV-3 in March 1972. Right: Apollo 17 Commander Eugene A. Cernan prepares for a flight aboard LLTV-3 in October 1972.
      David R. Scott, Apollo 15 commander, stated in the final mission report that “the combination of visual simulations and LLTV flying provided excellent training for the actual lunar landing. Comfort and confidence existed throughout this phase.” In the Apollo 15 postflight debrief, Scott stated that he “felt very comfortable flying the vehicle (LM) manually, because of the training in the LLTV, and there was no question in my mind that I could put it down where I wanted to. I guess I can’t say enough about that training. I think the LLTV is an excellent simulation of the vehicle.” Apollo 16 Commander John W. Young offered perhaps the greatest praise for the vehicle just moments after landing on the lunar surface: “Just like flying the LLTV. Piece of cake.” Young reiterated during the postflight debriefs that “from 200 feet on down, I never looked in the cockpit. It was just like flying the LLTV.” Apollo 17 Commander Eugene A. Cernan stated in the postflight debrief that “the most significant part of the final phases from 500 feet down, … was that it was extremely comfortable flying the bird. I contribute (sic) that primarily to the LLTV flying operations.”

      Left: Workers move Lunar Landing Research Vehicle-2 from NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center for display at the Air Force Test Flight Museum at Edwards Air Force Base. Right: Lunar Landing Training Vehicle-3 on display outside the Teague Auditorium at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston.
      In addition to playing a critical role in the Moon landing program, these early research and test vehicles aided in the development of digital fly-by-wire technology for future aircraft. LLRV-2 is on display at the Air Force Flight Test Museum at Edwards AFB (on loan from AFRC). Visitors can view LLTV-3 suspended from the ceiling in the lobby of the Teague Auditorium at JSC.
      The monograph Unconventional, Contrary, and Ugly: The Lunar Landing Research Vehicle provides an excellent and detailed history of the LLRV.
      Explore More
      11 min read 35 Years Ago: STS-34 Sends Galileo on its Way to Jupiter
      Article 1 week ago 12 min read Five Years Ago: First All Woman Spacewalk
      Article 2 weeks ago 6 min read Cassini Mission: 5 Things to Know About NASA Lewis’ Last Launch
      Article 2 weeks ago View the full article
    • By NASA
      Credit: NASA NASA has selected Metis Technology Solutions Inc. of Albuquerque, New Mexico, to provide engineering services as well as develop and maintain software and hardware used to conduct simulations for aerospace research and development across the agency.
      The Aerospace Research, Technology, and Simulations (ARTS) contract is a hybrid cost-plus-fixed-fee and firm-fixed-price contract with an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity component and has a maximum potential value of $177 million. The performance period begins Sunday, Dec. 1, 2024, with a one-year base period, and options to extend performance through November 2029.
      Under this contract, the company will support the preparation, development, operation, and maintenance of future and existing simulators, integration laboratories, aircraft research systems, simulation work areas, and aircraft research systems. The scope of work also will include the development, testing, and validation of advanced air traffic management automation tools, including, but not limited to, advanced concepts for aviation ecosystems. Work will primarily be performed at NASA’s Ames Research Center in California’s Silicon Valley and NASA’s Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, as well as other agency or government locations, as needed.
      For information about NASA and agency programs, visit:
      https://www.nasa.gov
      -end-
      Tiernan Doyle
      Headquarters, Washington
      202-358-1600
      tiernan.doyle@nasa.gov
      Rachel Hoover
      Ames Research Center, Silicon Valley, Calif.
      650-604-4789
      rachel.hoover@nasa.gov
      Share
      Details
      Last Updated Oct 10, 2024 LocationNASA Headquarters Related Terms
      Ames Research Center Langley Research Center NASA Centers & Facilities NASA Headquarters View the full article
  • Check out these Videos

×
×
  • Create New...