Space Ping! If you want on or off this list please Freepmail me.
Posted on 12/08/2005 2:23:31 PM PST by tricky_k_1972
Booster builder to design new rocket
Contract had been expected
BY JOHN KELLY
FLORIDA TODAY
CAPE CANAVERAL -- The maker of the shuttle's solid rocket boosters is NASA's choice to design and test a new rocket meant to carry astronauts on the first leg of their journey to the moon later next decade.
Wednesday's official announcement, awarding the work to Alliant Techsystems of Utah, came as no surprise. The space agency said months ago it would use a modified version of the tall, skinny shuttle solid rocket boosters as the launcher for its new Apollo-like spaceship.
Alliant Techsystems, or ATK, has built the solid rocket motors since the start of the shuttle era.
Furthermore, ATK managers and engineers have been working side by side with NASA on the "single stick" Crew Launch Vehicle concept for almost two years now. The contract's value is unknown, company officials said, because the engineering, development and testing of the new launcher is being done in concert with the firm's existing $370-million-a-year contract to deliver solid rocket boosters for up to 19 more shuttle missions. Still, it's big-time news for the company's workers in Utah and Florida.
"There's a cliff with the space shuttle after 2010, so this is a huge component of the company's future," company spokesman Bryce Hallowell said.
The majority of ATK's shuttle workers are in Utah. The company employs about 40 people at Kennedy Space Center, where the solid rocket motor segments are assembled into the towering twin white booster rockets that are attached to either side of the orange fuel tank, which has been plagued with foam debris problems.
However, NASA and United Space Alliance workers with experience doing that assembly and launch work likely will benefit too.
NASA is pursuing launchers derived from shuttle components, in part, so it can take advantage of the hardware, facilities and workers already in place. NASA cited ATK's existing facilities and people as the reason it chose the company without seeking bids from any potential competitors.
Contact Kelly at 242-3660 or jkelly@flatoday.net
"..carry astronauts on the first leg of their journey to the moon later next decade."
Why not cut out the middle man? Just take the money out and burn it.
I must say, your your screen name is apt.
Delete one "your" from that last post please, MuMBLe proofread damn it MuMbLe.
WTF is an "Apollo like" space craft? Apollo is ancient. The fact that we haven't developed something less 1960's is either sad or a testament to how tough space flight is.
I wish Wernher von Braun and his team were still alive.
HA! I just thought you were doing Jimmy Stewart.
If burning money would get us to another planet, and update our technology base while employing hundreds of thousands of people, then that might be a good idea.
As it is, flying in space is productive in the same way that exploring the planet was in the 15th century. It didn't bring in any money, but set up the world for what we have today.
In the age of supercomputers, 3D computer modeling and real-time simulators we are still building solid rocket motors (nothing more than a bomb with a controlled explosion) and "Apollo-type" spacecraft. What have these guys been doing for the last 30 years? Playing Doom?
This "Apollo II" program actually has many differences than the first Apollo, for instance the main computer aboard the "first" Apollo is out powered by the average calculator today.
Material science has progressed much since then so today’s materials are lighter and stronger.
Engines are both more powerful and more reliable.
This "new" design separates the crew ascent module from the cargo ascent module allowing for much greater flexibility in both cargo and crew designs.
The design also allows for flexibility in mission application by allowing for greater modification of the total ship (Crew module plus Cargo/Habitat module).
That "Bomb" as you refer to it has had two flights on every one of over a hundred Shuttle flights and not one screw up.
I think that provides for a modicum of safety for our would be astronauts.
As for the rest of your comments read my post #11.
"If burning money would get us to another planet, and update our technology base while employing hundreds of thousands of people, then that might be a good idea."
I disagree.
"Updating our technology" is the job of busines, not the gvt. The gvt is historically inefficent at anything it does, and this is no exception.
And as for "employing hundreds of thousands of people": Once again, make work projects arent't the way to go. This too should not be a gvt objective. Private enterprise does it better.
And as to getting to another planet: What real benefit is that to us?
Except January 1986.
And the uppity-ups weren't listening to the engineers at Thiokol.
"In the age of supercomputers, 3D computer modeling and real-time simulators we are still building solid rocket motors "
Physics still works like it did in the 60's. The staged rocket is still the best way to go, especially if you are going to the moon.
Other, more exotic propulsion systems may well be workable at some point, but not to get you into LEO.
The space shuttle proved how good an idea the "Apollo-type" spacecraft hoisted into space with non-returnable payload really was...... The space shuttle set space travel back 30 years - now we're back to making progress, hopefully.
"I wish Wernher von Braun and his team were still alive."
Von Braun- he aimed for the stars. (unfortunately sometimes he hit London)
I wish I could remember the source for this gem.....
A response I wrote to a fellow believer in government funded space exploration:
I'm sorry they won't get it until China is standing on the Moon or on asteroids and launching well aimed rocks down on us and then their bleating will be heard, "Oh why, Ohh how did this happen, how is it now that the greatest nation on this Earth is now going to be destroyed in the next 15 min and the Government can't do anything about it."
If they think China isn't seeing space as the ultimate weapon’s platform and that any UN declaration is going to stop them they are so far gone there is no hope for them.
Our industry will not go there because there is no profit in it, yet, except for LEO. China on the other hand doesn’t need profit for it to make sense. China sees space as their ultimate defense plan, and we are just plain stupid if we don't see that. Nobody inspects China's rockets for weapons or asks them what their projects are for weapons platforms, why ask anyway, they'd just lie.
U.S. industry couldn't develop space based weapons on their own if they tried, some leftist freak would scream bloody murder, and again there is no profit in it.
If we cede the high ground to other nations then it's our own stupid fault when we are looking down the barrel of a gun. Imagine if Japan had developed the ICBM before us and what the world could have looked like.
As to the value of exploring other planets, how about breathing room, how about exploration for explorations sake, how about manifest destiny, how about the freedom to truly live how you would want to live.
Are any of those ideas or ideals that a corporation could see a profit in and therefore "burn" the money to provide it, or are some things important to the human race and freedom whether there is a "profit" in them or not.
Did you miss the subject of the article? It's about Alliant Techsystems, private company, building stuff and making a profit.
The gvt is historically inefficent at anything it does, and this is no exception.
They know that. That's why they hired Alliant Techsystems.
And as for "employing hundreds of thousands of people": Once again, make work projects arent't the way to go.
The world is full of make work projects. The TSA for example, because there will never be another 9/11, because cockpit doors are hardened, crews will no longer come out because of a disturbance, and the passengers will take out any bad guy before he could take over a plane. All they can do is crash a plane, and they don't need to be on board to do that (hear about that rocket launched at an American Airlines plane out of LAX last week?).
Conclusion: the TSA is a government make work project. I'd much rather they spent my make-work-money paying rocket scientists than paying ham fisted people to search me every time I fly.
This too should not be a gvt objective. Private enterprise does it better.
"Private enterprise" will never initiate non-profitable long term projects. Just as it took government in 1869 to "build the transcontinental railway", by hiring private enterprise. Once built, the railroad enabled private enterprise to thrive in the entire country like never before, in places a long way away from California and Missouri.
Space flight. Same thing.
And as to getting to another planet: What real benefit is that to us?
Christopher Columbus was a government contractor too. And none of his trips made a dime of profit for the government. Same with most of the exploration of the 16th century. I'm just d@mn glad they did it despite people who must have protested that it was a bad idea. Just like you.
Your right they did have that as the failure, but that was fixed and there hasn't been an incident since, yet further evidence that this is the design to use, one with the bugs worked out of it instead of some fancy new design.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.