DOCSLIB.ORG

Of Two NASA Facilities the World’S Largest Manufacturing Plants

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

with centralized administrative processing services such as laboratory testing, supply services. Federal, state, academic and private chain management, customized training organizations also make use of the available programs, lean six sigma consultation, and resources, off-setting the cost of owning and other production support activities. Currently, Centralized and operating the facility. Michoud manufactures and assembles SLS components, and manufactures large structures Michoud Assembly Facility Mission Overview for the Orion crew exploration vehicle. The Michoud Assembly Facility supports NASA’s Efficient Management exploration missions by providing expertise in The SACOM contract not only consolidated the the assembly and manufacture of large space management of activities across two separate systems and hardware. With 43 acres under NASA facilities in two separate states; it also one roof, the Michoud campus boasts one of required an administrative consolidation of three of Two NASA Facilities the world’s largest manufacturing plants. Other previously separate contracts. Before SACOM, SACOM: A Shared Vision to Support Unique Mission of the RS-25 engines that will power highlights of the campus include a working port the same scope of work had been managed under two operations and maintenance contracts Requirements NASA’s new Space Launch System with deep-water access and state-of-the-art manufacturing equipment, including automated and one contract focused exclusively on the ebruary 1, 2016 marked the first day of the NASA (SLS), in addition to performing tests for machining, automated fiber placement machines Stennis rocket testing requirements. Ensuring Synergy Achieving Consolidated Operations and commercial companies. F and friction stir welding. a smooth transition from three contracts to one Maintenance (SACOM) contract, a culmination of required extensive collaboration and discussion several years of effort by the Syncom Space Services “SLS is the next generation heavy-lift Like Stennis, Michoud houses a variety of between the customer and the contractor. (S3) joint venture team comprised of PAE and BWXT. rocket for human space exploration,” said occupants from commercial and government Under SACOM, the S3 team manages the operations Mike. “It will launch the Orion spacecraft, sectors that take advantage of many support and maintenance activities as well as the unique mission which will allow astronauts to travel into requirements of two NASA facilities: the Stennis Space deep space for an extended amount Center in Hancock County, Mississippi and the Michoud of time. Traveling to Mars is one of the Assembly Facility in New Orleans, Louisiana. explorations SLS will support.” It is a very exciting time to be part of “We do everything from cutting the grass to supporting Stennis is also host to NASA’s Shared space exploration history. advanced manufacturing and rocket engine testing,” said Services Center, which provides NASA S3 President and General Manager Mike Matteson. “We work closely with NASA to understand their needs and make recommendations for efficiencies and innovations “ that will save money over the life of the contract. The ultimate purpose is to support space flight systems that will enable NASA’s next phase of human space exploration.” ” Some services are integrated for the joint benefit and efficient management of both centers, while others are uniquely catered to the specific mission of each site, described below. Stennis Space Center Mission Overview Stennis Space Center is NASA’s primary rocket propulsion testing facility. With state-of-the-art facilities, a canal waterway system and a 125,000 acre acoustical PAE’s joint venture S3 buffer zone, the center provides propulsion test services provides consolidated for NASA, Department of Defense and the private sector. Through history, Stennis has flight-certified the Saturn services across state V rocket used for the Apollo program, the engines used lines at two NASA in all the space shuttle vehicles, and is now testing all facilities under the new 19 Q1 2016 | Inside PAE | Technical Services SACOM contract. Q1 2016 | Inside PAE | Technical Services 20 Preparation Smooths Transition In preparation for go-live, the “We have a highly talented Supporting Deep Space Exploration S3 management team initiated workforce,” said Mike “and “It is a very exciting time to be part of space significant transition and on day one, operations at exploration history,” said Mike. “Between both consolidation planning activities each site continued without facilities, we will support a major portion of the with the NASA customer and the any interruption or impact to work needed to prepare the SLS for deep space incumbent contractors who held the customer mission. NASA exploration. We will support the manufacturing of the three contracts under which received the engineering, test the lower stage of the SLS at Michoud and the the scope of work was previously and manufacturing services it testing of the engines at Stennis. The testing of RS- managed. required to continue its mission 25’s four engines will be the first multi-engine test at each site, and hundreds at Stennis since Apollo. This is a really significant Aerial view of Michoud “Having open communications of tenants at each site ate at milestone and a very exciting mission to support.” Assembly Facility in New was a priority because this the dining facilities, had their Orleans, Louisiana. consolidation is a major change work spaces cleaned, received Striving for Excellent Performance affecting hundreds of contracted their mail and were generally SACOM stands out as a significant contract within employees who have supported supported by the S3 base PAE’s portfolio. “NASA and other government each center for years,” explained operations services. The team agencies are looking to reduce costs,” explained Mike. “We held eight town did an outstanding job.” Mike “and we can anticipate more contracts hall meetings, seven of which consolidating existing work in order to do so. were targeted towards the Achieving excellent performance on SACOM existing employee base, prior through the S3 joint venture could lead to business to contract start date, and made on other consolidated contracts as well. Specific to sure information was available On day one, NASA, we look forward to reporting efficiencies that Pictured from left to right: PAE CEO John through a public website.” will translate into more available funding for future Heller, S3 Test Operations Manager Terrence operations at each NASA missions.” Over the course of a month site continued Burrell and S3 President Mike Matteson at and a half, S3 hired and on- Stennis in front of a simulated launch pad. Aerial View of Stennis Space SACOM can also serve as a doorway for new work boarded over 900 employees, Center in Hancock County, without any on other PAE contracts with NASA. PAE’s team at 97% of which were incumbent Mississippi. Johnson Space Center in Texas recently submitted Pictured on previous page from left to employees. All employees interruption or a bid to transport a section of the SLS to JSC in right: S3 Logistics Manager Cliff Plaxco; completed the orientation, Houston for acoustic vibration testing. “We want Below: S3 hosted several BWXT Technical Services Group, training and certification activities impact to the NASA to know that PAE is ready and able to support town hall meetings to maintain Director, Business Development Dave needed to become operational many of the critical components of the mission,” open communications with the customer mission. Ferris; BWXT President of Technical and execute the objectives of “ said Mike. incumbent workforce. Services and Nuclear Energy Bill Fox; the contract successfully prior to PAE Chief Operating Officer and member the official go-live date. of the S3 Board Karl Williams; BWXT Chief Operating Officer Rex Geveden; S3 Deputy General Manager for Stennis Synergies Space Center Jim Holt; S3 President Mike PAE provides maintenance, Matteson; BWXT President and CEO operations, engineering and Sandy Baker; BWXT Technical Services construction services to NASA Group, COO Dave Richardson; BWXT ” at the Johnson Space Center. VP and Chief Business Development More information in “Rigging Officer and member of the S3 Board Ken Department Brings Innovative Camplin; BWXT VP, Programs, Contracts Solutions to NASA” in the Q3 and Business Development and member 2015 edition of Inside PAE. of the S3 Board Gary Camper; and S3 Deputy General Manager for Michoud Assembly Facility Michael Keene. 21 Q1 2016 | Inside PAE | Technical Services Q1 2016 | Inside PAE | Technical Services 22.
Recommended publications
  • HLS 17RS-1433 ORIGINAL 2017 Regular Session HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 41 by REPRESENTATIVE GARY CARTER SPECIAL DAY/WEEK/MO

    HLS 17RS-1433 ORIGINAL 2017 Regular Session HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 41 by REPRESENTATIVE GARY CARTER SPECIAL DAY/WEEK/MO

    HLS 17RS-1433 ORIGINAL 2017 Regular Session HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 41 BY REPRESENTATIVE GARY CARTER SPECIAL DAY/WEEK/MONTH: Commends several Tulane University students upon winning NASA's BIG Idea Challenge competition 1 A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 2 To commend Tulane University students John Robertson, Otto Lyon, Benjamin Lewson, 3 Matthew Gorban, Ethan Gasta, Maxwell Woody, and Afsheen Sajjadi upon their 4 selection as winners of NASA's 2017 BIG Idea Challenge competition. 5 WHEREAS, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is widely 6 regarded as the finest space exploration organization in the world and has an exceptional 7 reputation; and 8 WHEREAS, NASA hosts the BIG Idea Challenge, which is intended to produce 9 designs of crucial importance to manned spaceflight; and 10 WHEREAS, twenty-nine teams from top national universities submitted designs to 11 the BIG Idea Challenge competition; and 12 WHEREAS, the group of students representing Tulane designed a revolutionary solar 13 electric propulsion cargo transport spacecraft, called "The Sunflower", and submitted their 14 design to the BIG Idea Challenge competition in November of 2016; and 15 WHEREAS, in December of 2016, the students were selected to be among five 16 finalist teams and were invited to present their design before a panel of distinguished judges 17 at NASA's Langley research facility in Hampton, Virginia; and 18 WHEREAS, the judges selected the Tulane team and their design as the winner of 19 the BIG Idea Challenge competition; and Page 1 of
  • Assessment of Data Used to Manage Real Property Assets (IG-11-024

    Assessment of Data Used to Manage Real Property Assets (IG-11-024

    AUGUST 4, 2011 AUDIT REPORT OFFICE OF AUDITS NASA INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES: ASSESSMENT OF DATA USED TO MANAGE REAL PROPERTY ASSETS OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL National Aeronautics and Space Administration REPORT NO. IG-11-024 (ASSIGNMENT NO. A-11-001-00) Final report released by: Paul K. Martin Inspector General Acronyms FERP Facilities Engineering and Real Property Division GAO Government Accountability Office GSA General Services Administration NPR NASA Procedural Requirements NTC NASA Technical Capabilities OIG Office of Inspector General O&M Operations and Maintenance RPMS Real Property Management System SPF Space Power Facility REPORT NO. IG-11-024 AUGUST 4, 2011 OVERVIEW NASA INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES: ASSESSMENT OF DATA USED TO MANAGE REAL PROPERTY ASSETS The Issue NASA’s real property holdings include approximately 5,000 buildings and structures such as wind tunnels, laboratories, launch pads, and test stands. In total, the assets occupy 44 million square feet and represent more than $26.4 billion in current replacement value.1 However, 80 percent of NASA’s facilities are 40 or more years old and many are in degraded condition. Moreover, NASA is dealing with the challenge of its aging infrastructure at a time of large and growing budget deficits that are straining the resources of all Federal agencies. As discretionary funding continues to decline, NASA will be required to make more prudent decisions regarding its infrastructure. In addition, the issue of the Agency’s aging infrastructure has been identified by NASA, the
  • The International Space Station and the Space Shuttle

    The International Space Station and the Space Shuttle

    Order Code RL33568 The International Space Station and the Space Shuttle Updated November 9, 2007 Carl E. Behrens Specialist in Energy Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division The International Space Station and the Space Shuttle Summary The International Space Station (ISS) program began in 1993, with Russia joining the United States, Europe, Japan, and Canada. Crews have occupied ISS on a 4-6 month rotating basis since November 2000. The U.S. Space Shuttle, which first flew in April 1981, has been the major vehicle taking crews and cargo back and forth to ISS, but the shuttle system has encountered difficulties since the Columbia disaster in 2003. Russian Soyuz spacecraft are also used to take crews to and from ISS, and Russian Progress spacecraft deliver cargo, but cannot return anything to Earth, since they are not designed to survive reentry into the Earth’s atmosphere. A Soyuz is always attached to the station as a lifeboat in case of an emergency. President Bush, prompted in part by the Columbia tragedy, made a major space policy address on January 14, 2004, directing NASA to focus its activities on returning humans to the Moon and someday sending them to Mars. Included in this “Vision for Space Exploration” is a plan to retire the space shuttle in 2010. The President said the United States would fulfill its commitments to its space station partners, but the details of how to accomplish that without the shuttle were not announced. The shuttle Discovery was launched on July 4, 2006, and returned safely to Earth on July 17.
  • A FAILURE of INITIATIVE Final Report of the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina

    A FAILURE of INITIATIVE Final Report of the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina

    A FAILURE OF INITIATIVE Final Report of the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina U.S. House of Representatives 4 A FAILURE OF INITIATIVE A FAILURE OF INITIATIVE Final Report of the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina Union Calendar No. 00 109th Congress Report 2nd Session 000-000 A FAILURE OF INITIATIVE Final Report of the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina Report by the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoacess.gov/congress/index.html February 15, 2006. — Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed U. S. GOVERNMEN T PRINTING OFFICE Keeping America Informed I www.gpo.gov WASHINGTON 2 0 0 6 23950 PDF For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COVER PHOTO: FEMA, BACKGROUND PHOTO: NASA SELECT BIPARTISAN COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE PREPARATION FOR AND RESPONSE TO HURRICANE KATRINA TOM DAVIS, (VA) Chairman HAROLD ROGERS (KY) CHRISTOPHER SHAYS (CT) HENRY BONILLA (TX) STEVE BUYER (IN) SUE MYRICK (NC) MAC THORNBERRY (TX) KAY GRANGER (TX) CHARLES W. “CHIP” PICKERING (MS) BILL SHUSTER (PA) JEFF MILLER (FL) Members who participated at the invitation of the Select Committee CHARLIE MELANCON (LA) GENE TAYLOR (MS) WILLIAM J.
  • Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

    Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

    Final Constellation Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES The potential environmental consequences of both the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) to continue preparations for and to implement the Constellation Program, and the No Action Alternative, not continue preparations for nor implement the Constellation Program, are summarized in Chapter 2 and are presented in detail in this Chapter. In addition, this Chapter presents in Cumulative Impacts (see Section 4.3) the potential environmental consequences of two overlapping but individual NASA actions: implementing the Constellation Program and close-out of the Space Shuttle Program. 4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) Under the Proposed Action, NASA would continue preparations for and implement the Constellation Program. This Program would involve activities at many U.S. Government and commercial facilities. Although detailed aspects of the Constellation Program and the full scope of the activities that might occur at each facility are not fully known, the activities described in Section 2.1 present enough information to broadly estimate the nature of the potential environmental impacts that might occur if NASA implements the Proposed Action. Figure 2-2 presents a high-level summary of the major Constellation Program activities that would be expected to occur at each of the primary U.S. Government facilities, as well as commercial facilities with the potential for significant environmental impacts. Given the long-term nature of the Constellation Program, and NASA’s desire to utilize as much of the Space Shuttle Program infrastructure as practicable, it is expected that over time, many of the existing facilities currently used by the Space Shuttle Program and planned to be used for the Constellation Program would require maintenance, upgrading, renovation, and/or replacement.
  • NASA's Strategic Direction and the Need for a National Consensus

    NASA's Strategic Direction and the Need for a National Consensus

    NASA's Strategic Direction and the Need for a National Consensus NASAs Strategic Direction and the Need for a National Consensus Committee on NASAs Strategic Direction Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu PREPUBLICATION COPYSUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. NASA's Strategic Direction and the Need for a National Consensus THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study is based on work supported by Contract NNH10CC48B between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the agency that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-XXXXX-X International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-XXXXX-X Copies of this report are available free of charge from: Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences National Research Council 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.
  • STENNIS SPACE CENTER HISTORY When President John F

    STENNIS SPACE CENTER HISTORY When President John F

    STENNIS SPACE CENTER HISTORY When President John F. Kennedy issued his 1961 challenge for the United States to send humans to the Moon and back by the end of 27 Saturn V rocket stages that decade, a site was needed to test the powerful rocket engines were tested at Stennis and stages that would propel them on the historic journey. Space Center, including stages that carried For NASA officials, the rough terrain of Hancock County, the first humans to the Mississippi, provided five essentials for testing the large Apollo surface of the Moon Program engines and stages: isolation from large population centers, water and road access for transportation, available public during the Apollo 11 utilities, supporting local communities and a climate conducive mission. to year-round testing. The site was selected – and in May 1963, workers cut the first tree to launch a daunting building project. The effort marked the largest construction effort in the state of 2,307 Space shuttle main Mississippi and one of the largest in the United States at the time. engine tests were conducted at Stennis Despite a pressing schedule, inevitable setbacks and even the Space Center from May disruption of Hurricane Betsy in 1965, construction workers prevailed. 19, 1975 to July 29, On April 23, 1966, a Saturn V second-stage prototype was test-fired 2009, totaling 820,475.68 on the newly completed A-2 Test Stand on the site. With the shake, seconds of hot fire. rattle and roar of the test, south Mississippi was blasted into the space age. 1 million Until 1972, Stennis test-fired first and second stages of the Saturn V Seconds of space shuttle rockets used in the the Apollo Program.
  • The New Vision for Space Exploration

    The New Vision for Space Exploration

    Constellation The New Vision for Space Exploration Dale Thomas NASA Constellation Program October 2008 The Constellation Program was born from the Constellation’sNASA Authorization Beginnings Act of 2005 which stated…. The Administrator shall establish a program to develop a sustained human presence on the moon, including a robust precursor program to promote exploration, science, commerce and U.S. preeminence in space, and as a stepping stone to future exploration of Mars and other destinations. CONSTELLATION PROJECTS Initial Capability Lunar Capability Orion Altair Ares I Ares V Mission Operations EVA Ground Operations Lunar Surface EVA EXPLORATION ROADMAP 0506 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 LunarLunar OutpostOutpost BuildupBuildup ExplorationExploration andand ScienceScience LunarLunar RoboticsRobotics MissionsMissions CommercialCommercial OrbitalOrbital Transportation ServicesServices forfor ISSISS AresAres II andand OrionOrion DevelopmentDevelopment AltairAltair Lunar LanderLander Development AresAres VV and EarthEarth DepartureDeparture Stage SurfaceSurface SystemsSystems DevelopmentDevelopment ORION: NEXT GENERATION PILOTED SPACECRAFT Human access to Low Earth Orbit … … to the Moon and Mars ORION PROJECT: CREW EXPLORATION VEHICLE Orion will support both space station and moon missions Launch Abort System Orion will support both space stationDesigned and moonto operate missions for up to 210 days in Earth or lunar Designedorbit to operate for up to 210 days in Earth or lunar orbit Designed for lunar
  • Stennis Interesting Facts

    Stennis Interesting Facts

    STENNIS INTERESTING FACTS For five decades and counting, Stennis Space Center An active Advanced Technology and Technology Transfer in south Mississippi has served as NASA’s primary rocket Branch at Stennis Space Center works to develop and share propulsion test site, providing test services for NASA and the space-related technologies that benefit daily life. The Department of Defense, as well as the commercial sector. branch also partners with schools, libraries and institutions to Stennis is home to NASA’s Rocket Propulsion Test Program, help tell the story of how NASA is benefiting all of life. which manages all of the agency’s propulsion test facilities. Stennis consists of two defined areas – a 13,800-acre area Stennis was established in the 1960s to test first and second that is home to all site facilities and a surrounding 125,000-acre stages of the Saturn V rocket for the Apollo lunar landing buffer zone protecting against the noise and power of large program. Stennis tested 27 Saturn V stages, including ones rocket engine and stage tests. that carried humans to the Moon. Seven-and-one-half miles of canal waterways, featuring a From 1975 to 2009, Stennis tested main engines that powered lock-and-dam system, are used at Stennis to transport large 135 space shuttle missions – 2,307 space shuttle main rocket stages and cryogenic barges to and from the Gulf of engine tests in all for a total firing time of 820,475 seconds. Mexico via the Pearl River. Stennis is testing RS-25 engines and stages that will help power federal, state, academic and private NASA’s new Space Launch System, which will send the first More than 50 organizations and several technology-based companies, woman and next man to the Moon by 2024 as part of NASA’s including the U.S.
  • COMPLIANCE IS MANDATORY John C. Stennis Space Center Environmental Resources Document

    COMPLIANCE IS MANDATORY John C. Stennis Space Center Environmental Resources Document

    SCWI-8500-0026-ENV Rev. C November 2012 National Aeronautics and Space Administration John C. Stennis Space Center Stennis Space Center, MS 39529-6000 COMPLIANCE IS MANDATORY John C. Stennis Space Center Environmental Resources Document RELEASED - Printed documents may be obsolete; validate prior to use. Stennis SCWI-8500-0026-ENV C Common Work Number Rev. Effective Date: November 21, 2012 Instruction Review Date: November 21, 2017 Page 2 of 268 Responsible Office: RA02/Environmental Management – Center Operations Directorate SUBJECT: Environmental Resources Document This document was prepared under the Stennis Space Center (SSC) Facility Operating Services Contract for the NASA/SSC Center Operations and Support Directorate in support of the SSC Environmental Management System (EMS). Approval/Concurrence Original Signed by David K. Lorance 11/21/2012 NASA/SSC Environmental Officer Date Document History Log Change/ Change Date Originator/ Phone Description Revision Basic 12.9.2005 Wendy Robinson Initial release. 8-2752 A 01.31.2006 Wendy Robinson Changed the effective date to January 31, 2006 8-2752 throughout the document. Changed the review date to January 31, 2011 to reflect 5 years from the effective date throughout the document. Changed the word “revise” date to “review” date in the header throughout the document. Page i – Added signature section above Document History Log. Page ii - Changed telephone number of contact agency to 2584. B 10.03.2008 Jenette Gordon Reviewed and redlined all sections to reflect regulatory 8-1416 changes per media. The section for Natural Resources was rewritten to incorporate the SSC Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan requirements. Additionally, the effective date was changed to May 30, 2008 throughout the document along with the review date to May 30, 2013 to reflect 5 years from the effective date throughout the document.
  • Do NASA's Wind Tunnel and Propulsion Test Facilities Serve

    Do NASA's Wind Tunnel and Propulsion Test Facilities Serve

    NEWS RELEASE RESEARCH BRIEF CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS Do NASA’s Wind Tunnel and Propulsion Test Facilities Serve National Needs? RAND RESEARCH AREAS he nation has invested billions of dollars in CHILD POLICY CIVIL JUSTICE wind tunnel and propulsion test facilities— Abstract EDUCATION investments that have created a testing NASA’s wind tunnel and propulsion test facil- ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT infrastructure that has helped secure the PROJECT HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE ities continue to be important to U.S. com- Tcountry’s national security and prosperity through INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS petitiveness across the military, commercial, MEMORANDUM NATIONAL SECURITY advances in commercial and military aeronautics and space sectors. But management issues POPULATION AND AGING and space systems. are creating real risks. This research shows PUBLIC SAFETY Many of these facilities exist within the National SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY that NASA needs to develop an aeronautics SUBSTANCE ABUSE Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). test technology vision and plan, analyze the TERRORISM AND Over the past two decades, NASA has reduced the HOMELAND SECURITY viability of a national test facility plan, iden- TRANSPORTATION AND number of these facilities by one-third, has identi- tify and maintain its minimum set of facilities, INFRASTRUCTURE fied additional facilities to be closed, and is experi- and identify shared financial support to keep encing patterns of declining use in some facilities its underutilized but essential facilities from that suggest they too may face closure. entering financial collapse. Given these trends, the RAND Corporation was asked to clarify the nation’s aeronautic testing needs and the continuing place that NASA’s facilities have in serving these needs.
  • Mars Earth Return Vehicle (MERV) Propulsion Options

    Mars Earth Return Vehicle (MERV) Propulsion Options

    Mars Earth Return Vehicle (MERV) Propulsion Options Steven R. Oleson,1 Melissa L. McGuire,2 Laura Burke,3 James Fincannon,4 Joe Warner,5 Glenn Williams,6 and Thomas Parkey7 NASA Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio 44135 Tony Colozza,8 Jim Fittje,9 Mike Martini,10 and Tom Packard11 Analex Corporation, Cleveland, Ohio 44135 Joseph Hemminger12 N&R Engineering, Cleveland, Ohio 44135 John Gyekenyesi13 ASRC Engineering, Cleveland, Ohio 44135 The COMPASS Team was tasked with the design of a Mars Sample Return Vehicle. The current Mars sample return mission is a joint National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and European Space Agency (ESA) mission, with ESA contributing the launch vehicle for the Mars Sample Return Vehicle. The COMPASS Team ran a series of design trades for this Mars sample return vehicle. Four design options were investigated: Chemical Return /solar electric propulsion (SEP) stage outbound, all-SEP, all chemical and chemical with aerobraking. The all-SEP and Chemical with aerobraking were deemed the best choices for comparison. SEP can eliminate both the Earth flyby and the aerobraking maneuver (both considered high risk by the Mars Sample Return Project) required by the chemical propulsion option but also require long low thrust spiral times. However this is offset somewhat by the chemical/aerobrake missions use of an Earth flyby and aerobraking which also take many months. Cost and risk analyses are used to further differentiate the all-SEP and Chemical/Aerobrake options. 1COMPASS Lead, DSB0, 21000 Brookpark Road, and AIAA Senior Member. 2COMPASS Integration Lead, DSB0, 21000 Brookpark Road, non-member. 3Mission Designer, DSB0, 21000 Brookpark Road, and Non-Member.