yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) (07/27/88)
Barbara Selby July 26, 1988
Headquarters, Washington, D.C. 12:00 p.m. EDT
Jerry Berg
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.
RELEASE: 88-104
NASA ASRM PRODUCTION AND TESTING SITES ANNOUNCED
NASA today announced selection of the government sites for
the production and testing facilities for the agency's planned
Space Shuttle Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (ASRM). The Tennessee
Valley Authority property known as Yellow Creek, in northeastern
Mississippi has been selected for the location of the facility
for production of the ASRM, while NASA's Stennis Space Center
near Bay St. Louis, Miss., has been selected for testing of the
motor.
These sites will be identified as the government sites in a
Request for Proposals (RFP) to be issued in the near future for
the design, development, test and evaluation of the ASRM. The
companies responding to the RFP must use the selected location as
the basis for their proposals to build a government-owned,
contractor-operated facility, as well as a required proposal of a
privately financed option for the required facility.
In addition to the government sites, NASA's ASRM acquisition
plan encouraged interested companies to submit an optional
proposal for a privately-owned solid rocket motor facility at a
site of the offeror's choice.
Maximum utilization also will be made of available
manufacturing and computer capability at the Michoud Assembly
Facility and the Slidell Computer Complex, both located in
southeast Louisiana, to minimize total program costs. It is
estimated that job opportunities for about 1,400 people in the
northeast Mississippi area and employment of an additional 600
people in the area east of New Orleans could result.
The site selection official, J.R. Thompson Jr., Director of
the Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala., made the
selections with the concurrence of NASA Headquarters following
several months of evaluation by a NASA ASRM Site Evaluation
Board. The board, headed by Larry Ross, Deputy Director of the
Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, was formed to consider sites at
Yellow Creek, Stennis and Kennedy Space Center, Fla. The board
was instructed to consider at least the following factors:
transportation for raw materials and furnished products;
construction costs, including any costs to acquire or adopt the
site; environmental constraints; expansion capability, including
a buffer zone; support infrastructure; utilities availability;
availability of suitable labor base; industrial and public
safety; and security.
The planned ASRM, which will replace the current Redesigned
Solid Rocket Motors in the mid-1990s, will incorporate
substantive design changes to improve the reliability and safety
margins, as well as provide a significant added performance
capability to the Space Shuttle.beres@cadnetix.COM (Tim Beres) (07/27/88)
In article yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes: > >NASA ASRM PRODUCTION AND TESTING SITES ANNOUNCED > > NASA today announced selection of the government sites for >the production and testing facilities for the agency's planned >Space Shuttle Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (ASRM). The Tennessee >Valley Authority property known as Yellow Creek, in northeastern >Mississippi has been selected for the location of the facility >for production of the ASRM, while NASA's Stennis Space Center >near Bay St. Louis, Miss., has been selected for testing of the >motor. > How many NASA facilities are there - now, mothballed and planned? I am curious to know if there is *perhaps* a proliferation of centers, plants, labs, authorities and what not. Could this be due to pork-barrel politics? Would centralizing some of the facilities make sense from an administrative and/or technical aspect? Congress likes to make lots of noise about how much ~space~ costs, but do they get totally apoplectic when cutting fat from their district? Tim ..words to memorize words hypnotize words make my mouth exercise words all fail the magic prize... -- VF Tim Beres Cadnetix, 5775 Flatirons Pkwy, Boulder, CO 80301 beres@cadnetix.com {uunet,boulder,nbires}!cadnetix!beres
eugene@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov.arpa (Eugene N. Miya) (07/29/88)
In article <3417@cadnetix.COM> beres@cadnetix.COM (Tim Beres) writes: >In article yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes: >> >>NASA ASRM PRODUCTION AND TESTING SITES ANNOUNCED >> >How many NASA facilities are there - now, mothballed and planned? >I am curious to know if there is *perhaps* a proliferation of centers, >plants, labs, authorities and what not. Could this be due to pork-barrel >politics? Would centralizing some of the facilities make sense from >an administrative and/or technical aspect? Congress likes to make lots >of noise about how much ~space~ costs, but do they get totally apoplectic >when cutting fat from their district? There are, depending on who you talk to, 9 NASA Centers. Now, this is largely a convenience. In reality, "our" Dryden facility at EAFB is 400 miles away [I've driven down there for 1 day and back] I've also flown down in our shuttle plane. The people who work there have a different slant that the "Research" folk at Ames. Note JPL is physically closer. The Stennis facility is just a renaming (still a part of Marshall SC). Dryden originally had no name, just part of EAFB. The sames goes for Wallops Island which is now a part of Goddard's administration. Basically, there are no new planned facilities or significant mopthballed sites. The Space Station Office was moved to Virgina because the two HQ office buildings in WDC are full. Pork-Barrel. Well, let see, Tim you are in Colorado, no Centers there, but certainly grants. You have NCAR on Table Mesa, oh, the Walter Orr Roberts building by I.M. Pei, I think [Dad was an architect]. Well, I would say there is probably some ;-). Dryden was the last renaming. They were thinking of renaming JPL to some Congressmen (the scientists went into a roar), it's Just a Plain Laboratory, but I don't know where we kept the Jets while I was there. ;-) Anyway, we have this growth problem. The diversity of applications and projects for space would probably grow exponentially. What do you suggest we throw away? Manned space? unmanned space? microgravity? Human factors? (not saying this in a snide fashion, it's how we have to trim fat). Throw away computer research [I know people who want this]? Research on fuels? Materials? Space power systems? Speaking about centralization, perhaps we need more centralized rather than decentralized computer facilities. Yeah that's the ticket! Ok, you guys, back to your punch cards. None of this workstation stuff, If 1 person on a SUN is good, then 15 is 15x better. Right?! More seriously, I was talking to Brad Hagar (Seimsologist and skier from Caltech) about the newly emerging concept of NSF "Centers without Walls." We may have to resort to this in NASA as well. Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize."
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (07/29/88)
In article <3417@cadnetix.COM> beres@cadnetix.COM (Tim Beres) writes: >I am curious to know if there is *perhaps* a proliferation of centers, >plants, labs, authorities and what not. Could this be due to pork-barrel >politics? Would centralizing some of the facilities make sense from >an administrative and/or technical aspect? Congress likes to make lots >of noise about how much ~space~ costs, but do they get totally apoplectic >when cutting fat from their district? Need you even ask? You may notice that Johnson Space Center is in Lyndon Johnson's state. You may also notice that the Stennis Space Center (nee National Space Technology Labs -- test site for big rocket engines) is in Stennis's state. The stillborn NASA electronics center was going to be in Massachusetts, coincidentally Edward Kennedy's state. And so forth. Frankly, the sensible thing to do would be to put it all within fifty miles of the Cape. Fat chance. -- MSDOS is not dead, it just | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology smells that way. | uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
beres@cadnetix.COM (Tim Beres) (07/29/88)
In article <12474@ames.arc.nasa.gov> eugene@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov.UUCP (Eugene N. Miya) writes: >In article <3417@cadnetix.COM> beres@cadnetix.COM (ME) >> [paraphrasing myself...] Sure seems like a lot of NASA centers, all with >> big projects. >Anyway, we have this growth problem. The diversity of applications and >projects for space would probably grow exponentially. What do you >suggest we throw away? Manned space? unmanned space? microgravity? >Human factors? (not saying this in a snide fashion, it's how we have to >trim fat). Throw away computer research [I know people who want this]? >Research on fuels? Materials? Space power systems? To clarify: I am not upset at growth in programs, per se, but at possible savings that could accrue from centralizing administrative, facilities and support functions. As for applications and research, congress seems unable to comprehend any of the justifications or the technology anyway; they just see jobs/prestige/votes stemming from various facilities (NASA and otherwise). > >Speaking about centralization, perhaps we need more centralized >rather than decentralized computer facilities. Yeah that's the ticket! >Ok, you guys, back to your punch cards. None of this workstation stuff, >If 1 person on a SUN is good, then 15 is 15x better. Right?! Get real, Eugene. See comment below. >More seriously, I was talking to Brad Hagar (Seimsologist and skier from >Caltech) about the newly emerging concept of NSF "Centers without Walls." >We may have to resort to this in NASA as well. Now we're talking. How about research and developement occuring in this manner; build up and use university and corporate R&D centers - with a few computing hubs. Consolidate engineering and technology applications into a few NASA centers. I just wonder why it is necessary to launch from the cape (used to live in Fla, too - so I do know the effects of greasing the local economy with jobs/projects. Rep. Nelson was 1 district over from me. What he did for KSC and the local economy was good - but is it good for the nation's space program?), monitor/communicate from JSC, Marshall's in the loop and who knows who else takes part in each Shuttle mission. Why not merge some of these facilities into larger facilities, with combined support and resources. The nature of the jobs they do won't change, they'll just be under one roof. Thinking about this...no way congress will do it (assuming this *is* a good idea - I'm open to persuasion). >Another gross generalization from > >--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov Tim Beres ..words to memorize words hypnotize words make my mouth exercise words all fail the magic prize... -- VF Tim Beres Cadnetix, 5775 Flatirons Pkwy, Boulder, CO 80301 beres@cadnetix.com {uunet,boulder,nbires}!cadnetix!beres