Conference 7.286::space

    What's the intent of the ASRM?  Greater reliability?  Payload? 
    Efficiency?
    
John

    More payload mostly. I seem to recall that the new design requires less
    throttling back and up again from the SSMEs which may improve their
    reliability, I guess.
    
    There is a fair amount of criticism of the ASRM, mostly along the lines
    of 'why bother?' and 'why not build liquid propellant boosters?'.
    
    gary

>    More payload mostly. I seem to recall that the new design requires less
>    throttling back and up again from the SSMEs which may improve their
>    reliability, I guess.
    
    I thought solid rocket motors were throttled by the exposed surface
    area of the fuel as it burned.  I guess I don't see where that gives
    anything back in reliability.
    
John

>    throttling back and up again from the SSMEs which may improve their
                                           ^^^^
    The different thrust profile of the ASRMs is supposed to require less
    thrust variation of the Space Shuttle Main Engines. I was speculating
    that this may improve the reliability of the SSMEs. The ASRMs should
    also reduce the requirements to run the SSMEs at 104% thrust, which
    will definitely increase the operational life of the SSMEs.
    
    You are correct about varying thrust of the solids, it is a function of
    the area of the burning surface (or more correctly the ratio of burning
    surface area to nozzle throat area).
    
    gary

>>    throttling back and up again from the SSMEs which may improve their
>                                           ^^^^
    
    I guess the abbreviation didn't register.  Thanks for the explanation. 
    It certainly makes sense now.
    
John

    Some additional info about ASRM:
    
    From CSP Associates, Inc (Aerospace consultants)
    "..........
    NASA had been investigating improved solid rocket boosters for the
    Shuttle since 1984. While the STS was expected to provide a launch
    capacity of 65,000 lbs. to low earth orbit (220-300 nm), the actual
    performance has been 53-57,000 lbs. (tahe orbiter Columbia, being
    the first and heaviest, has the poorest performance; the orbiter
    Atlantis, being the newest and lightest has the best performance).
    NASA's original intent was to focus solely on achieving a 10-12,000
    lb. performance upgrade, as this was considered critical to ensuring
    that the Shuttle would be able to support Space Station launches
    in the mid-1990s.
    
    Prior to the Cahllenger explosion, Congressional interest in the
    ASRM was lukewarm at best. Instead, the Congress was interested
    in second sourcing the existing design. NASA effectively countered
    this pressure by stating that the production rate would not support
    two low cost producers; and second sourcing would only yield two
    producers of the inadequate SRM desing. NASA's pitch to the authori-
    zation and appropriations subcommittees in favor of the ASRM was
    that it would lower the cost of space transportaion by reducing
    the absolute cost of each flight set of SRM's, and by decreasing
    the cost per pound of payload delivered to orbit; dual sourcing
    of the new motor was alos offered as a palliative to those Congress-
    men tht wanted to break Morton Thiokol's monopoly position.
    
    After the Challenger explosion, Congress became an ardent supporter
    of the program. The motivations were twofold. First, Congress (es-
    pecially on the House Authorization subcommittee) felt that a safer
    design was needed. Richard Truly (Associate Administrator for the
    Office of Space Flight) noted that in additioin to an inherently
    safer SRM, the improved performance of the solid motors would allow
    NASA to run the liquid-fueled Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs)
    at a lower power setting, thus enhancing SSME safety margins. Second,
    it was tacitly understood (though never stated) that it was unaccept-
    able to allow Morton Thiokol to continue as NASA's sole supplier......"
               
    And now DEC gets in the picture!!!
    
    Lockheed will be building a manufacturing campus in Yellow Creek,
    Miss (NE corner of state). The plants will operate a sophisticated
    automated production facility. Right now it looks like DEC will
    provide all the H/W for the site, and also S/W, networks, and
    application integration from the factory floor to the administrative
    systems. This will be a very state-of-the-art CIM operation.

From: [email protected] (Peter E. Yee)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: NASA awards contract to develop Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (Forwarded)
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 15 May 90 16:13:47 GMT
Sender: [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected] (Peter E. Yee)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Lines: 107

Mark Hess
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                       May 14, 1990
(Phone:  202/453-4164)

Jerry Berg
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.
(Phone:  205/544-6540)


RELEASE:  90-68

NASA AWARDS CONTRACT TO DEVELOP ADVANCED SOLID ROCKET MOTOR


     NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala., on 
Friday, May 11, awarded an approximately 5-year-long contract to 
Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., Sunnyvale, Calif., for the design, 
development, test and evaluation of the Space Shuttle advanced 
solid rocket motor (ASRM).

     The new Shuttle motor will be phased in, during the mid-
1990s, as a replacement for the current redesigned solid rocket 
motor.  It will provide improved safety, reliability and 
performance for the Shuttle flight program well into the 21st 
Century.

     The value of the basic contract is $971 million and calls 
for production of 20 of the new rocket motors -- one as a 
nonflying, form-and-fit "pathfinder," seven for ground test-
firing and qualification, and 12 (6 flight sets) for Shuttle 
launches.

     Under an option for production of additional ASRM flight 
motors, NASA could order up to 88 motors (44 sets) to support the 
Shuttle flight program.  The additional production option could 
be valued at up to $1.388 billion if the maximum of 88 motors is 
purchased.

     Lockheed is teamed with Aerojet Space Boosters Co., 
Sacramento, Calif., as its principal subcontractor for 
development of the advanced motor, and with Rust International, 
Birmingham, Ala., as the facility construction contractor.

     Preliminary design efforts on the project have been underway 
since December 1989 under interim contracts between NASA and 
Lockheed -- one for hardware and the other for facilities design 
activities.

     The development schedule calls for delivery of the first 
flight set of motors in 1995.  NASA plans to phase-in the ASRM 
hardware over approximately a 3-year period for replacement of 
the redesigned solid rocket motor.

     Facilities for production and testing of the ASRM hardware 
will be constructed under a companion facilities contract with 
Lockheed, planned for award in the near future.  The facilities 
construction contract is to be an approximately $292-million 
effort, plus an additional $236 million to provide for purchase 
and installation of tooling and equipment for ASRM production.  

     Major facilities to be built for the project will be for 
production of motor segments, nozzles and associated hardware, at 
a rate of up to 30 motors per year.  The facilities will be 
constructed at the Yellow Creek site in extreme northeastern 
Mississippi near the city of Iuka. 

     Specialized facilities also will be constructed at the John 
C. Stennis Space Center near Bay St. Louis, Miss., for ground 
testing of the ASRM.  The Stennis Center long has been NASA's 
primary testing center for liquid fueled rocket engines and now 
will have the unique test stands and apparatus required for 
static firing of powerful solid rocket motors.  It also is 
planned that a part of the manufacturing effort will be done 
utilizing NASA's existing facilities at the Michoud Assembly 
Facility outside New Orleans.

     The most significant benefits of the new solid rocket motor 
will be in enhanced reliability, safety and performance for the 
Shuttle system.  The safety and reliability advances will be 
realized through quality and reproducibility improvements, which 
in turn will result from using state-of-the-art automation and 
process-control technology.

     In terms of performance, the new motor is intended to 
provide the Shuttle with a capability to lift heavier payloads 
into orbit, with a design goal of a 12,000-pound increase over 
current payload delivery performance.

     Signing of the contract between NASA and Lockheed concludes 
the process of definitization or spelling out in detail the types 
of work the contractor is required to perform, as well as the 
resources necessary to accomplish the job as specified.

     Lockheed was selected after a review of the technical, 
management and cost proposals received in response to NASA's 
August 1988 request for proposals.  

     Other subcontractors, in addition to Aerojet and Rust 
International, are:  Babcock and Wilcox, headquartered in New 
Orleans, La. (fabrication of steel cases); Thiokol Corp., Ogden, 
Utah (production of motor nozzles at NASA's Michoud Assembly 
Facility in New Orleans); and Lockheed Austin Division, Austin, 
Texas (supply of support equipment).

     The Marshall Space Flight Center has management 
responsibility for the ASRM and will directly manage performance 
of the contract.

definitization?????????????????????


Is that like "definition"?

Burns

    So much for the cost effectiveness of the shuttle.
    
    Divide 1.388B by 44 (88 motors/2) and you get $32M, JUST for the SRM!
    
    Does anyone know the present cost per motor or motor set?
    
    You would have thought that an advanced motor would help lower the cost
    to orbit.  I know the new engines allow 6 tons more to orbit.  Are they
    worth it?
    
    Tony
    Boy the aerospace plane is looking better and better and better.

The motors may cost $32M, but its not like you are throwing them away after
they are used.  You have to amortize the cost of each motor over the number
of flights it can safely make - that ends up being the real cost.  Darned
if I know what that is or if it is better or worse than today's SRMs.

If they increase the lifting capacity by 6 tons, then they would reduce 
launch costs of big things (like the Space Station), by reducing the numbers
of launches needed - that's where the big bucks go.  [This won't reduce the
cost of Freedom, since they probably have already factored in the ASRMs anyway.]

- dave
[Speaking of cost effectiveness, wait'll you see the aerospace plane after
 congress gets ahold of it for a few years!]

Can more than two ASRMs be used with the Shuttle? (as strapons)

Is the Shuttle C dead?

Are there plans to incorporate the ASRMs into any other programs (expendables?)

    Yea, right, I forgot, you get maybe 10-20 launches from each motor. 
    They don't state the reuse cost do they?  That is the cost of
    collection, refurb and new propellant/fuel.  I bet that is a
    significant fraction of $32M, like probably over .5.
    
    You could be right on what congress might do to the aerosopace plane.
    But my hope is that it will be something like the b-52.  The b-52 would
    never make a good comercial transport, but what Boeing learned with the
    b-52 enabled them to make the dash80, the precourser to the 707, and as
    we all know, the rest is history.
    
    The aerospace plane SHOULD be a design with less complexity than the
    shuttle, probably only a little more complexity than the concorde, ok
    maybe a lot more complexity than the concorde, but a lot less than the
    shuttle.  And it could be the base for a more economical trans pacific
    aircraft (a VAST potential market!) than 747's, due to its speed, i.e.
    the capital cost would be amoritized over more flights over the year. 
    My understanding is that the potential benefits are so great that the
    teams decided to merge, so that noone would be left out.
    
    Tony

    A minor nit. I think the Dash 80/707 owe more to the B-47 than to the
    B-52. The point is the same; use a requirements driven design to
    develope the technology and then apply that to cost driven followups.
    
    The NASP is more the B-47 than Dash 80 in this model.
    
    I got the impression that the team mergers were because the technical
    hurdles were so great.
    
    gary

Re:
    
><<< Note 536.14 by STAR::HUGHES "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it Fred." >>>

>    A minor nit. I think the Dash 80/707 owe more to the B-47 than to the
>    B-52. The point is the same; use a requirements driven design to
>    develope the technology and then apply that to cost driven followups.
 
    OK, it might have been the b-47, I kinda forgot about that one.
       
>    The NASP is more the B-47 than Dash 80 in this model.
    
    Absolutely!!!!  NASP is largely govt funded, maybe not 100%, but
    mostly.  I think that space is really going to open up when someone
    comes out with the follow-on to the NASP, OUT OF THEIR OWN POCKET!
    
>    I got the impression that the team mergers were because the technical
>    hurdles were so great.
    
    I got the impression that it was for a lot of reasons:  Technical
    hurdles, hopefully lowering govt support levels to make them less
    likely to be cut, fear of losing out on technology, and combined
    excellence, etc.  Anyways lots of reasons.
    
    Tony

Jim Cast
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                       May 25, 1990
(Phone:  202/453-8536)                                 4 p.m. EDT
 
Jerry Berg
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.
(Phone:  205/544-0034)
 
 
RELEASE:  C90-r
 
NASA AWARDS ADVANCED SOLID ROCKET MOTOR FACILITIES CONTRACT
 
     NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala., today 
awarded an approximately 3-1/2-year contract to Lockheed Missiles 
and Space Co., Sunnyvale, Calif., for design and construction of 
facilities to produce and test the next-generation Space Shuttle 
solid rocket motor.

     The new Shuttle motor, designated the Advanced Solid Rocket 
Motor (ASRM), will replace the Shuttle's current booster motors 
in the mid-1990s.

     The contract awarded today is a companion to one awarded to 
Lockheed on May 11, covering design, development, test and 
evaluation of the new rocket motor.  Lockheed is subcontracting 
the ASRM facilities work to RUST International, Birmingham, Ala.

     The facilities contract is valued at $550 million, with 
approximately $314 million of that designated for design and 
construction of new buildings or modification of existing 
structures, and approximately $236 million for purchase and 
installation of tooling and equipment.

     The facilities will be constructed principally at Yellow 
Creek, a government-owned site in extreme northeastern 
Mississippi, near the city of Iuka.  In addition to the 
construction of manufacturing facilities there, a static motor 
test-firing stand will be added at NASA's Stennis Space Center 
near Bay St. Louis, Miss.; nozzle production capability will be 
added at the NASA Michoud Assembly Facility near New Orleans; and 
test installations at the Marshall Space Flight Center in 
Huntsville will be expanded.

     In April 1989, NASA announced the selection of the 
contractor team for negotiations leading to award of the ASRM 
prime contract.  The principal members of the team are Lockheed, 
the ASRM Division of Aerojet as the motor design and plant 
operation subcontractor and RUST International as the facilities 
subcontractor.

     The construction effort will employ a peak work force of 
approximately 1,000 to 1,500 people.  More than 60 buildings at 
Yellow Creek, Stennis and Michoud will be constructed, 
refurbished or expanded, with Yellow Creek being the site of most 
of this activity.  Approximately two-thirds of the facilities at 
Yellow Creek will be new buildings and the other third will be 
modifications to existing buildings.

     The Marshall Center has management responsibility for the 
ASRM and will directly manage performance of the contract.



From: [email protected] (Peter E. Yee)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: NASA awards Advanced Solid Rocket Motor facilities contract (Forwarded)
Date: 25 May 90 20:35:07 GMT
Reply-To: [email protected] (Peter E. Yee)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA

George H. Diller                                   Dec. 7, 1992
Kennedy Space Center


KSC Release No. 165-92


     The first major items of ground support equipment for the Advanced Solid
Rocket Motor (ASRM) arrived at the Kennedy Space Center yesterday by barge.
Called Kneel-Down Transporters, or KDTs, they are special-purpose trucks
designed to carry ASRM segments when loaded on special transportation pallets.
Each segment with pallet weighs 795,000 pounds.

     The two KDTs are the first of four transporters that have been ordered
from KAMAG Transportation Company of Germany. They were moved from Germany by
cargo ship to Jacksonville, Fla. where they were loaded onto NASA's external
tank barge for transportation to KSC. These transporters will eventually be
taken to the Yellow Creek, Mississippi manufacturing site for ASRM when these
facilities are complete.  The cost of the first set of transporters is $5.8
million dollars.  Two more identical KDTs will be delivered later for use by
KSC and will cost somewhat less money.

     The term "kneel down transporter" refers to both the action of the
transporter in kneeling down to pick up the pallets, as well as the
configuration of a wheel set, or "bogie." Looking at an individual bogie, one
can see that its supporting leg does indeed have a pivot point like a
knee--hence the term kneel down transporter.

     The mission of the transporter includes several tasks:

- move the filled and unfilled motor segments during the
manufacturing process at Yellow Creek, Mississippi.

-  load the completed rocket motor segments onto the barge at
Yellow Creek for transportation to Kennedy Space Center, Stennis
Space Center, Miss., or Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville,
Ala.

- unload the rocket motor segments from the barge at KSC for
transportation to and between ordnance storage facilities and the
Vehicle Assembly Building.

     The transporter can also be configured for a variety of other general
purpose applications.

     A 600-horsepower diesel engine furnishes the primary power for the
transporter and its associated electrical and hydraulic systems.  The
transporter provides precision speed control ranging from creep to a maximum of
10 mile per hour.  The transporter is highly maneuverable, having a turning
radius of only 30 feet.  The front and rear bogies pivot at different angles
about the two center rows of bogies, which are fixed.  Combined with the
precision speed control, this maneuverability allows the operator to position
the transporter precisely under the load.

     The operator's glass-enclosed cab at the front of the transporter is
raised to provide good visibility.  The driver's seat swivels 180 degrees and
the controls are arranged so that the transporter can be driven forward or in
reverse with equal ease.

     Redundant systems includes an emergency steering system and a fail-safe
braking system.  The maximum braking force is limited to prevent an overturning
force when carrying a rocket segment in the vertical position.

     An operator from KAMAG arrived with the first two transporters to drive
them off the barge to their storage area which is north of the Vehicle Assembly
Builiding. He will then assist in training the drivers who are to be furnished
by the KSC Shuttle processing contractor, the Lockheed Space Operations Co.

Kneel-Down Transporter Statistics:

Weight: 177,628 pounds               Fuel capacity: 200 gallons
Length: 66 feet                      Number of wheel bogies: 24
Width:  20 feet                      Number of axle rows: 11
Height: 13.3 feet                    Number of tires: 96
Platform size: 20 ft. x 56.8 feet

Mark Hess
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                     October 18, 1993

June Malone
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.

Myron Webb
Stennis Space Center, Mississippi

RELEASE:  93-189

        NASA today took action to limit expenditures on the Advanced Solid
Rocket Motor (ASRM) program.  NASA informed its field installations, involved
with the ASRM program, that if the pending appropriations bill becomes law, it
would require termination of the ASRM program.  Accordingly, NASA issued
direction to its field installations to "take immediate action to mitigate the
costs of terminating the ASRM program."

        The U.S. House of Representatives is taking final action on the Fiscal
Year 1994 VA-HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill and is expected
to pass the bill later this week.  If the Senate also approves the bill with
the proposed House amendment, the language effectively will terminate the ASRM
program once the President signs the bill into law.

        If changes to the bill are enacted, $100 million in Fiscal Year 1994
will be appropriated to cover the ASRM programUs termination costs.  Should the
final appropriations bill language be modified, further program direction will
be sent to the NASA centers.

        NASA Headquarters has directed all affected offices to develop an
implementation plan to terminate the ASRM program within the available budget
($100 million plus any uncosted/unobligated program funds).  The plan is to be
provided to Headquarters no later than November 1.

        The field installations have been directed to provide information, as
detailed as feasible, to all ASRM contractors of the recent Congressional
action and its consequences should the bill become law to assist the
contractors in their planning.

        About 3600 contractors currently work on the program.  Lockheed Space
and Missile Co. in Sunnyvale, Calif., is the prime contractor for the ASRM. The
number of actual job terminations required as a result of this action will be
determined by the individual contractors and subcontractors working on the
program.

        The ASRM program is managed by the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center,
Huntsville, Ala. Fabrication of the motor was to be accomplished at facilities
under construction in Iuka, Mississippi. Additional facilities for the
qualification testing of the motors were under construction at the Stennis
Space Center, Mississippi. The motor, which would replace the Redesigned Solid
Rocket Boosters used to launch the Space Shuttle, was started in June 1990.
It's projected development cost was $3.8 billion, and its first flight was
scheduled for December 2000.

Allen Clark
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                                              
December 2, 1993
(Phone:  202/358-1400)                                          

June Malone
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.
(Phone:  205/544-7061)


RELEASE:  93-215

YELLOW CREEK FACILITIES TARGETED FOR SHUTTLE NOZZLE WORK

NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin today announced agency plans to use 
its nearly-completed Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (ASRM) Yellow Creek 
facilities in Iuka, Miss., for manufacture of nozzles for the current 
Space Shuttle Redesigned Solid Rocket Motor (RSRM) program. 

"Initial assessments of the agency's assets at the Yellow Creek location 
indicate that relocation of the manufacture of Thiokol Corp.'s RSRM 
nozzle work appears to be an alternative worth pursuing.  I have, 
therefore, directed the Office of Space Flight, through the Marshall 
Space Flight Center, to proceed with detailed planning and definitization 
for the implementation of this activity," Goldin said. 

NASA has taken a team approach in an effort to optimize the facilities 
located at Yellow Creek.  Reviews currently are underway within the 
Department of Labor, Department of Commerce, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
General Services Administration and other federal agencies for future 
use.  By bringing these diverse groups together, the government will be 
able to maximize the impact of the taxpayer's investment. 

Congress recently directed NASA to terminate the ASRM program which was 
to have represented the next generation of advanced motor design for the 
Space Shuttle fleet.  For the Shuttle Program, the relocation of the RSRM 
nozzle manufacturing from Utah to Yellow Creek provides the opportunity 
to upgrade and consolidate the manufacturing process under one roof and 
increase the use of automation.  

Thiokol proposes to establish a nozzle "center of excellence" at Yellow 
Creek and invest in nozzle research.  This effort potentially will be of 
benefit to NASA and the American launch industry as a whole, once 
enhancements are perfected. 

Goldin explained that "The federal government has invested a significant 
amount of taxpayer money in the construction of state-of-the-art 
facilities at Yellow Creek.  With the termination of ASRM, NASA is 
committed to obtaining the maximum possible return on this investment 
while at the same time attempting to mitigate the economic impact on the 
Iuka region resulting from ASRM temination." 

The Marshall center has been requested to develop a preliminary 
engineering report for the required Yellow Creek facilities and to 
provide a program plan -- including funding requirements and manpower 
impact data -- for review by NASA Headquarters within 90 days.  A 
decision to proceed with full implementation of the plan will be made at 
that time.