DOCSLIB.ORG

Mobility Research Center & Vehicle Proving Grounds

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mobility Research Center & Vehicle Proving Grounds MOBILITY RESEARCH CENTER & VEHICLE PROVING GROUNDS DEVELOPMENT STUDY PUBLIC INTERNAL CONFIDENTIAL SECRET PUBLIC INTERNAL CONFIDENTIAL SECRET PUBLIC INTERNAL CONFIDENTIAL SECRET PUBLIC INTERNAL CONFIDENTIAL SECRET PUBLIC INTERNAL CONFIDENTIAL SECRET Development Study – After Completion > August 2019 - Analyze / Digest Deliverables - TnECD Review - Develop Governance - Ownership Model / Partnerships > September / October / Nov / Dec 2019 - Governor / Lt Gov / Legislative Leadership Review - TDOT Review > January / May 2020 - Legislative Review Process > July 2020 - Funding Available - Bid Pack Development etc PUBLIC INTERNAL CONFIDENTIAL SECRET PUBLIC INTERNAL CONFIDENTIAL SECRET PUBLIC INTERNAL CONFIDENTIAL SECRET Scope of Works 1. Market Study 2. Design • 1.1 Benchmarking • 2.2 Concept Design • 1.2 Location Analysis 3. Financial Analysis • 1.3 Test Requirements in USA • 3.1 Cost Estimations • 1.4 Market Research (Identify potential users) • 3.2 Business Plan 2. Design • 3.3 Economic Impact in the region • 2.1 Master Plans 4. Business models • 2.2 Concept Design (partially done) 5. Risk Analysis 6. Implementation Plan Done Done PUBLIC INTERNAL CONFIDENTIAL SECRET Project Activities – Proving Grounds Benchmarking IDIADA is BoD member of International Committee for Proving Ground Safety (ICPGS) based in US. Direct Access to PGs in US ( Facilities status & condition / users ) PUBLIC INTERNAL CONFIDENTIAL SECRET Project Activities – Proving Grounds Benchmarking Continent Company Country/Estate Owner Type Transportation Research Center TRC USA, OHIO Honda MULTI-USER Nevada Automotive Test Centre USA, NEVADA MULTI-USER FT Techno of America USA, MICHIGAN FT Techno, Toyota MULTI-USER PMG CANADA PMG Technologies MULTI-USER Aberdeen Proving Ground USA, MAINE Public MULT-USER Larson Larson Transportation USA, Transportation Institute PENNSYLVANIA Institute MULTI-USER Keweenaw Research Center USA, Michigan Michigan Tech MULTI-USER Michigan Technical Resource Park USA, Michigan Smith Winter Test USA, Michigan Smithers Rapra COMPONENT Dearborn Development Center USA, Michigan Ford VEHICLE MANUFACTURER Ford Proving Ground Romeo USA, Michigan Ford VEHICLE MANUFACTURER Florida Evaluation Center USA, Florida Ford VEHICLE MANUFACTURER Navistar PG USA, Indiana Navistar VEHICLE MANUFACTURER TAPG USA, Arizona Toyota VEHICLE MANUFACTURER GM MESA USA, Arizona GM closed VW Arizona PG USA, Arizona VW VEHICLE MANUFACTURER AMERICA Ford Arizona PG USA, Arizona Ford VEHICLE MANUFACTURER GM Mildford USA, Michigan GM VEHICLE MANUFACTURER GM Yuma USA, Arizona GM VEHICLE MANUFACTURER Chrysler Chelsea USA, Michigan FCA VEHICLE MANUFACTURER Nissan Arizona USA, Arizona Nissan VEHICLE MANUFACTURER Honda PG Center of California USA, California Honda America VEHICLE MANUFACTURER Chrysler Yucca USA, Arizona FCA VEHICLE MANUFACTURER Hyundai California PG USA, California Hyundai VEHICLE MANUFACTURER Continental Uvalde USA, Texas Continental COMPONENT Brimley Continental Center USA, Michigan Continental COMPONENT Bosch Flat Rock USA, Michigan Bosch COMPONENT Goodyear PG San Angelo USA, Texas Goodyear COMPONENT Goodyear PG Akron USA, Ohio Goodyear COMPONENT Bridgetone/Firestone PG USA, Texas Bridgestone COMPONENT Eaton PG USA, Michigan Eaton COMPONENT USA, South Michelin Laurens PG Caroline Michelin COMPONENT PUBLIC INTERNAL CONFIDENTIAL SECRET Project Activities – Market Research Customer Discovery Meetings / Interviews / Questionaires IDIADA Customers OEMs, Tier Suppliers & Stakeholders Over 100 Entities ( w/NDA ) SAE Congress 2019 ( April ) in Detroit TennSMART 2019 ( April ) in Nashville PUBLIC INTERNAL CONFIDENTIAL SECRET Project Activities - Concept Design Customer Discovery … Facilities Required T1. HIGHWAY / HIGH SPEED OVAL F1. WELCOME CENTER T2. EXTERNAL NOISE TESTTRACK F2. PARKING AREA T3. DYNAMIC PLATFORM F3. MAIN BUILDING T4. BRAKING TRACK F4. CONTROL TOWER / CENTER T5. DRY HANDLING TRACK F5. WORKSHOPS/ GARAGES T6. WET HANDLING TRACK F6. FUELING STATION T7. WET SKID PAD F7. MAINTENANCE SERVICES T8. FATIGUE AND DURABILITY TRACK F8. TECHNO PARK ( LABS, OFFICES ) T9. CAV PERFORMANCE TRACK F9. LOGISTICS / RECEIVING T10. CAV PLATFORM T11. CAV URBAN AREA 11. ACCESS ROAD T12. TEST HILLS 12. BELTWAYROAD T13. FOREST TRACK T14. PERFORMANCE DOWNTRACK PUBLIC INTERNAL CONFIDENTIAL SECRET Project Activities – Site Analysis (8) Site Options Analysed (6) Site Visits ( April 2019 ) Data Collection of existing infrastructure, facilities, utilities, enviromental, constraints, soil and topograghy conditions . PUBLIC INTERNAL CONFIDENTIAL SECRET Project Activities – Site Analysis LOCATION Dimensions & Shape Land Aquisition ….. Timing & Cost Land Topography Utilities & Communications / Access / Environmental Optimization / Rearrangement of Existing Facilities PUBLIC INTERNAL CONFIDENTIAL SECRET Conclusions Market Reseach – Site Analysis: Most Suitable sites : Lawrenceburg North Loop Main Strength: Site Dimensions and Shape, To be considered: Utilities / 5G / Road Access Arnold Air Force Base – UT Space Institute - Tullahoma Main Strength: Proximity to Nashville / Interstate 24 / GIG City Culture of Academics, Testing, Evaluation & Certification To be considered: Land Transfer / Extended Use Lease / Road Access PUBLIC INTERNAL CONFIDENTIAL SECRET Project Activities - Concept Design- Master Plan 1. Lawrenceburg North Loop PUBLIC INTERNAL CONFIDENTIAL SECRET Project Activities - Concept Design - Master Plan 4. UT Space Institute - Tullahoma PUBLIC INTERNAL CONFIDENTIAL SECRET Conclusions Based on Customer Discovery … Market Reseach – Threats and Risks Other PG initiatives progress ( California, Indiana, etc ) …. Existing PGs remodelled both physically and management structure The 10 designated sites from US DOT Grant could present develop projects The TN RC&PG Project REQUIRES ‘Quick to Market’ implementation ‘ If TN does not …. Someone else will ‘ PUBLIC INTERNAL CONFIDENTIAL SECRET Conclusions Market Reseach – Strengths and Opportunities: Many Proving Grounds in the USA, but Private / Government TRC (Ohio), NHTSA base, is considered one of the most independent … but currently has major maintenance issues. NO Comprehensive, State of the Art & Independent PG facilities in the US. Important OEM without PG has immediate need for “something similar to IDIADA in the USA” . PUBLIC INTERNAL CONFIDENTIAL SECRET Conclusions Market Reseach – Strengths and Opportunities: TN Weather is FAVORABLE for Year Round Operation Nashville is considered ‘COOL’ for Business Travel Tire Testing and CAV State-of-the-Art Facilities MOST Requested & Required NOW CAV REQUIRES New Testing Protocols / Facilities PUBLIC INTERNAL CONFIDENTIAL SECRET Conclusions Market Reseach – Strengths and Opportunities: Academic Leadership is an ABSOLUTE Requirement Time Difference allows continued work day Tire Manufacturing Industry Location Domestic, Asian & European OEMs Location PUBLIC INTERNAL CONFIDENTIAL SECRET Financial Analysis Construction cost estimation: Lawrenceburg – North Loop PUBLIC INTERNAL CONFIDENTIAL SECRET Financial Analysis Construction cost estimation: UT Space Institute - Tullahoma PUBLIC INTERNAL CONFIDENTIAL SECRET Financial Analysis - Conservative ➢ Operational Breakeven + 8 yrs ➢ Cashflow + 5 yrs ➢ EBITDA + 5 yrs ➢ DCF + 5 yrs EBITDA OPERATIONAL BREAK EVEN $1 $45.000.000 $1 $40.000.000 $0 $35.000.000 $0 $30.000.000 $0 $25.000.000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 $0 $20.000.000 $0 $15.000.000 -$1 $10.000.000 $5.000.000 -$1 $0 -$1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 -$5.000.000 -$1 EX`PENSES EBITDA -$1 CASH FLOW DISCOUNTED CASH FLOW $40.000.000 $10.000.000 $5.000.000 $30.000.000 $0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 $20.000.000 -$5.000.000 -$10.000.000 $10.000.000 -$15.000.000 $0 -$20.000.000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 -$25.000.000 -$10.000.000 -$30.000.000 -$20.000.000 -$35.000.000 -$40.000.000 -$30.000.000 -$45.000.000 -$40.000.000 -$50.000.000 PUBLIC INTERNAL CONFIDENTIAL SECRET Financial Analysis Economic Impact : Operating Expenditures USD $ PURCHASES 2010 2018 Purchases ALBORNAR HQ 7,479,657 27,897,412 External Services ALBORNAR HQ 14,781,419 40,393,941 Percentage in the the same county 39.8% 33% $68 Mill Purchases acquired in the same county 3,363,901 9,206,146 External services acquired in the same county 6,647,796 13,330,000 Total budget within the same county 10,011,696 22,536,146 Sales tax purchases 9.50% 9.50% Sales tax purchases 319,571 874,584 PUBLIC INTERNAL CONFIDENTIAL SECRET Financial Analysis Economic Impact : Proving Ground – Hotel Nights HOTEL NIGHTS DIRECT IMPACT HOTEL NIGHTS TOTAL MANAGED BY EXPENSES $/DAY SALES TAX TN AMOUNT/YEAR YEAR OPERATOR 110 9.5% 2005 25200 $ 2,772,000 $ 263,340 $ 3,035,340 2010 36700 $ 4,037,000 $ 383,515 $ 4,420,515 2015 53400 $ 5,874,000 $ 558,030 $ 6,432,030 2018 59000 $ 6,490,000 $ 616,550 $ 7,106,550 2019 Forecast = 64,000 PUBLIC INTERNAL CONFIDENTIAL SECRET Financial Analysis Economic Impact : Summary of Jobs YEAR ESTIMATION SUMMARY JOBS 1 5 10 15 20 25 Proving Ground Operation 5 58 78 85 94 104 Construction works 200 25 25 25 25 25 PG Customer permanent teams 0 50 100 200 400 500 Engineering and testing 0 250 500 1000 2000 2500 External services 1 35 70 125 249 350 Indirects 21 42 77 144 277 348 TOTAL 226 460 850 1579 3045 3827 PUBLIC INTERNAL CONFIDENTIAL SECRET Implementation Planning - Timeline 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 PHASE ID DESCRIPTION 0
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Conclusions in Verse
    RepresentativeRepresentative SamplingSampling forfor EnergeticEnergetic CompoundsCompounds atat MilitaryMilitary TrainingTraining RangesRanges Sampling near tank target Sampling near low-order 500 lb YakimaTraining Center bomb, Camp Guernsey Red crater at CFB Gagetown Alan D. Hewitt, Thomas F. Jenkins, Marianne E. Walsh, Michael R. Walsh, Susan Taylor, Charles Ramsey, and Judith C. Pennington MajorMajor ClassesClasses ofof EnergeticEnergetic ChemicalsChemicals UsedUsed byby DoDDoD NO 2 CH3 N O 2 N NO2 Nitroaromatics N N O N (TNT) 2 NO 2 NO2 Nitramines (RDX) H C-O-NO 2 2 Nitrate Esters HC-O-NO (NG) 2 H 22 C-O-NO EnergeticEnergetic ChemicalsChemicals inin MilitaryMilitary ExplosivesExplosives • Composition B (artillery/mortar) 60% Military grade RDX (Contains about 10% HMX) 39% Military grade TNT (Contains about 1% other TNT isomers and DNTs) • Composition C4 (demolition explosive) 91% Military Grade RDX • Tritonal (Air Force Bombs) Military grade TNT, aluminum • Composition A4 (40-mm grenades) Military grade RDX • TNT (artillery) Military grade TNT • Composition H-6 (Air Force bombs) Military grade RDX and TNT, aluminum • Octol (Antitank rockets) Military grade HMX and TNT EnergeticEnergetic ChemicalsChemicals inin MilitaryMilitary GunGun PropellantsPropellants • Nitrocellulose (NC) Polymer used in all gun propellants • Nitroglycerin (NG) Component of double and triple base propellants • Nitroguanidine (NQ) Component of triple base propellants • 2,4-Dinitrotoluene (2,4-DNT) Energetic plasticizer in some single base propellants PhysicalPhysical
    [Show full text]
  • Jack Rabbit II Test Report (Final)
    ATEC Project No. 2015-DT-DPG-SNIMT-F9735 WDTC Document No. WDTC-SPD-FTR-001 FINAL TEST REPORT FOR JACK RABBIT (JR) II Damon Nicholson Norman Lian Allison Hedrick Special Programs Division Eric Schmidt Team SURVICE UNDER CONTRACT NO. W911S6-16-C-0003 Report Produced By West Desert Test Center US Army Dugway Proving Ground Dugway, UT 84022-5000 Report Produced For Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) Chemical Security Analysis Center (CSAC) Aberdeen Proving Ground – Edgewood Area, MD 21010-5424 AUGUST 2017 INTENTIONALLY BLANK Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to the Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION. 1. REPORT DATE 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED August 2017 Final Test Report (FTR) From August 2015 to September 2016 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a.
    [Show full text]
  • GROUNDS for PERMANENT WAR Land Appropriation, Exceptional
    GROUNDS FOR PERMANENT WAR Land Appropriation, Exceptional Powers, and the Mid-Century Militarization of Western North American Environments by Brandon C. Davis A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (History) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) May 2017 © Brandon C. Davis, 2017 ABSTRACT Few areas across globe have escaped the pressures of militarization. Despite the many significant developments and repercussions tied to the military control of vast areas of national territories, the complex intersections between militarization and the environment have only recently attracted scholarly attention. This dissertation argues that the contemporary condition of global permanent war and ongoing state of emergency are rooted in the military control of land and other natural resources. During the mid-twentieth century buildup of North American defense forces, the practice of military land appropriation not only legitimized and expanded certain types of unilateral, emergency powers but also produced secret and legally permissive spaces in which the exercise of such extraordinary powers and related military land use practices could be more freely conducted. A major impetus driving these mid-century land use developments was the rise of unconventional weapons of mass destruction. Not only did such weapons technologies destabilize the global political order but they also brought about a multitude of disruptions at local sites. By investigating the establishment and operations of two of the world’s largest, most secretive, and longest-lasting chemical and biological weapons proving grounds—the U.S. Army’s Dugway Proving Ground in western Utah and the Canadian-and U.K.-controlled Suffield Experimental Station in southeastern Alberta—this study reveals how the imperatives of permanent war have had critical influence in shaping the workings of power between local citizens, government, and the environment in western North America.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Memories of My Career at General Motors
    SPECIAL MEMORIES OF MY CAREER AT GENERAL MOTORS JOSEPH M. COLUCCI RETIRED EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR GENERAL MOTORS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER JUNE 27, 2017 1 GM RESEACH LABORATORIES JOURNEY FROM DAYTON TO THE GENERAL MOTORS TECHNICAL CENTER 1909 - 1955 Charles F. Kettering’s first laboratory, 1909-1911, in a barn in Dayton, Ohio. This was the birthplace of an improved automotive battery ignition system and the electric self- starter. Charles “Boss” Kettering First home of GM Research Corporation, Moraine City, Ohio, 1921 2 In 1929, GM Research moved to Michigan, in the Argonaut Building on West Milwaukee Avenue in Detroit. In 1955, GM Research moved to the newly established GM Technical Center in Warren, MI. The iconic spiral staircase in the lobby of the GM Research Administration Building Pictures from: “75 YEARS OF INSPIRATION, IMAGINATION AND INNOVATION,” JUNE 1995 3 SPECIAL MEMORIES OF MY CAREER AT GENERAL MOTORS I was blessed to have had an extremely interesting and satisfying career at General Motors, mostly spent in the Fuels and Lubricants Department of the GM Research Laboratories. The people I worked with made it a pleasure to go to work. Their technical accomplishments were outstanding and helped make GM, the auto industry, and the world a better place. Their accomplishments have been documented in “The GMR-GM R&D Fuels and Lubricants Department – Its History and Accomplishment,” SAE Paper 2016-01- 0176, April 4, 2015, and rewarded with the 2017 SAE Arnold W. Siegel Humanitarian Award. In addition to their accomplishments, the people, and others to whom my position gave me access, provided many memorable and often humorous stories that are the basis for this memoir.
    [Show full text]
  • 166 Public Law 86-500-.June 8, 1960 [74 Stat
    166 PUBLIC LAW 86-500-.JUNE 8, 1960 [74 STAT. Public Law 86-500 June 8. 1960 AN ACT [H» R. 10777] To authorize certain construction at military installation!^, and for other pnriwses. He it enacted hy the Hemite and House of Representatives of the 8tfiction^'Acf°^ I'raited States of America in Congress assemoJed, I960. TITLE I ''^^^* SEC. 101. The Secretary of the Army may establish or develop military installations and facilities by acquiring, constructing, con- \'erting, rehabilitating, or installing permanent or temporary public works, including site preparation, appurtenances, utilities, and equip­ ment, for the following projects: INSIDE THE UNITED STATES I'ECHNICAL SERVICES FACILITIES (Ordnance Corps) Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland: Training facilities, medical facilities, and utilities, $6,221,000. Benicia Arsenal, California: Utilities, $337,000. Blue Grass Ordnance Depot, Kentucky: Utilities and ground improvements, $353,000. Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey: Research, development, and test facilities, $850,000. Pueblo Ordnance Depot, Colorado: Operational facilities, $369,000. Redstone Arsenal, Alabama: Community facilities and utilities, $1,000,000. Umatilla Ordnance Depot, Oregon: Utilities and ground improve­ ments, $319,000. Watertow^n Arsenal, Massachusetts: Research, development, and test facilities, $1,849,000. White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico: Operational facilities and utilities, $1,2'33,000. (Quartermaster Corps) Fort Lee, Virginia: Administrative facilities and utilities, $577,000. Atlanta General Depot, Georgia: Maintenance facilities, $365,000. New Cumberland General Depot, Pennsylvania: Operational facili­ ties, $89,000. Richmond Quartermaster Depot, Virginia: Administrative facili­ ties, $478,000. Sharpe General Depot, California: Maintenance facilities, $218,000. (Chemical Corps) Army Chemical Center, Maryland: Operational facilities and com­ munity facilities, $843,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Yuma Proving Ground HAER No. Klr-3 Yuma County HA£Lpv Arizona
    Yuma Proving Ground HAER No. klr-3 Yuma County HA£LPv Arizona * WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA Historic American Engineering Record National Park Service Departmentt of the Interior Washington',' DC 20013-7127 HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD Yuma Proving Ground AZ-5 Location: In southwestern Arizona in Yuma County/ east of the Colorado River. Date of Construction: Established in 1942. Owner: Department of the Army Significance: Yuma Proving Ground was established during World War II by the Corps of Engineers for the testing of a new floating bridge. In 1951, the facility shifted in emphasis to become a testing center for many types of Army equipment, from tanks to water purification units, Historical Report Prepared by: William Brenner, 1984 Prepared for Transmittal by: Robie S. Lange, HABS/HAER, 1985. Yuma Proving Grounds HAER No. A2-5 page 5, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Yuma Proving Ground, part of the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command, occupies 838,174 acres in southwestern Arizona. The installation conducts artillery, aircraft, and desert mobility tests, as well as various environmental tests. It contains a highly instrumented multipurpose aircraft armament testing range, vehicular test courses, amphibious testing areas, and a large gunnery range. The origins of the proving ground date from 1942, when the land it now occupies was included in Maneuver Area B of General George S. Patton's Desert Training Center, renamed the California-Arizona Maneuver Area in 1943. One of the training center's six temporary division tent camps, Camp Laguna, was located on the site of the present Mobility Test Area. In early 1943, the Army Corps of Engineers began testing a new floating bridge on the Colorado River below Imperial Dam, several miles northwest of Camp Laguna.
    [Show full text]
  • Michigan-Is-Automobility-Report-1.Pdf
    #1 for operational U.S. Department of Transportation funded and connected vehicle deployments with 11 projects. $12 billion business funded automotive R&D occurs in Michigan annually. 19 universities and colleges in Michigan offer nationally-ranked undergraduate engineering programs and four offer nationally-ranked Michigan: Global Leader in graduate programs. Next-Generation Mobility Rooted in a century of design engineering and manufacturing expertise, Michigan is leading the automotive industry’s 22 vehicle models were assembled evolution from traditional manufacturer in Michigan in 2018. to the research, testing, and deployment of next-generation mobility technology. Comprised of top-notch manufacturers, technology companies, access to the + global supply chain, a highly skilled 500 miles of roadway equipped for connected vehicle testing by 2020. workforce, and best-in-class research institutions, Michigan is home to the world’s most dense automotive industry cluster and is well-positioned to drive the industry’s transformation and growth into the next century. 18 original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) have headquarters or technology centers in Michigan. 96 of the top 100 automotive suppliers to North America have % a presence in Michigan and 60 17 of all 2018 U.S. vehicle production and 11% of all North are headquartered here. American vehicle production occurred in Michigan. $29 billion in OEM and supplier investment in Michigan since 2009, more than three times any other state. Publication Sources: Automotive News, Bloomberg LP, Center for Automotive Research, Detroit Regional Chamber research, Emsi, FCA Group corporate website, fDi Intelligence from 1 The Financial Times Ltd., FIRST in Michigan, Ford Motor Company corporate website, General Motors corporate website, International Trade Administration, Michigan Department of Transportation, Michigan Economic Development Corporation, Michigan Venture Capital Association, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Engineer Research and Development Center Identity and Distribution of Residues of Energetic Compounds at Military ERDC TR-05-10 Live-Fire Training Ranges
    US Army Corps of Engineers® Engineer Research and Development Center Identity and Distribution of Residues of Energetic Compounds at Military ERDC TR-05-10 Live-Fire Training Ranges Thomas F. Jenkins, Sonia Thiboutot, Guy Ampleman, November 2005 Alan D. Hewitt, Marianne E. Walsh, Thomas A. Ranney, Charles A. Ramsey, Clarence L. Grant, Charles M. Collins, Sylvie Brochu, Susan R. Bigl, and Judith C. Pennington Fort Wainwright, AK Hand Grenade Range CFB Valcartier, Quebec Fort Greely, AK Training Ranges (Donnelly Training Area) Test Ranges Cold Lake Air Weapons Range, Alberta Air-Surface Range CFB-Shilo, Manitoba CFB Gagetown, CFB-Wainwright, New Brunswick Fort Richardson, AK Alberta Battlerun Training Ranges Petawawa, Ontario Training Ranges Training Ranges Training Ranges Fort Lewis, WA Training Ranges Yakima Training Center, WA Training Ranges Camp Bonneville, WA Hand Grenade Range Massachusetts Military Reservation, MA Fort Ord, CA Anti-Tank Range Jefferson Proving Ground, IN Camp Guernsey, WY Artillery Range Artillery Range Fort Carson, CO 29 Palms, CA Artillery Range Camp Shelby, MS Training Ranges Marine Corps Fort Bliss, NM Training Ranges Training Ranges Eglin Air Force Base, FL Air-Surface Range Holloman AFB, NM Bombing Range Fort Leonard Wood, MO Hand Grenade Range Schofield Barracks, HI Fort Hood, TX Training Ranges Training Ranges Fort Polk, LA Training Ranges Pohakuloa Military Engineer Research and Development Center Reservation, HI Training Ranges Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. ERDC TR-05-10 November 2005 Identity and Distribution of Residues of Energetic Compounds at Military Live-Fire Training Ranges Thomas F. Jenkins, Sonia Thiboutot, Guy Ampleman, Alan D. Hewitt, Marianne E.
    [Show full text]
  • Register of Graduates & Former Cadets Glossary of Abbreviations
    Register of Graduates & Former Cadets Glossary of Abbreviations & Codes Indicates a direct ancestor or a direct descendent, or both, of another graduate * Indicates a Distinguished Cadet (order of merit) A–age/aged ABMC–American Battle Monuments Commission A–Appointed Abn–Airborne A–Armored AC–Army Air Corps A–Army AcadAffrs–Academic Affairs A–Assistant ACC–Army Communications Command A–Attaché Acct–Account/Accounting AA–Additional Appointee ACDA–Arms Control & Disarmament Agency AA–Anti-Aircraft (Artillery) ACDC–Army Combat Developments Command AA–Army Attaché ACE–Analysis and Control Element A&A–Astronomy & Astrophysics ACEMLF–Allied Command Europe Mobile Land Force AAA–Anti-Aircraft Artillery ACERT–Army Computer Emergency Response Team AAC–Anti-Aircraft Command ACJCS–Assistant to the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff AAC–Army Acquisition Corps ACLC–Aviation Center Logistics Command AAC&GMC–Anti-Aircraft and Guided Missile Center ACM–Afghanistan Campaign Medal AAC&GMS–Anti-Aircraft and Guided Missile School AcqPolDiv–Acquisition Policy Division AACS–Airways and Air Communications Service ACR–Armored Cavalry Regiment AAD–Air Assault Division AC/RC–Active Component/Reserve Component AADAC–Army Air Defense Artillery Center ACS–Air Commando Squadron AADC–Army Armament Development Center ACS–Assistant Chief of Staff AADC–Army Armament Development Command ACSAC–Assistant Chief of Staff for Automation & AAE–Aeronautical & Astronautics Engineer Communications AAF–Army Air Forces ACSC–Air Command & Staff College AAF–Army Airfield ACSCCIM–Assistant
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution and Fate of Energetics on Dod Test and Training Ranges: Final Report Judith C
    ERDC TR-06-13 ERDC TR-06-13 Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program Distribution and Fate of Energetics on DoD Test and Training Ranges: Final Report Judith C. Pennington, Thomas F. Jenkins, Guy Ampleman, November 2006 Sonia Thiboutot, J. M. Brannon, Alan D. Hewitt, Jeff Lewis, Sylvie Brochu, Emmanuela Diaz, Michael R. Walsh, Marianne E. Walsh, Susan Taylor, Jason C. Lynch, Jay Clausen, Thomas A. Ranney, Charles A. Ramsey, Charolett A. Hayes, Clarence L. Grant, Charles M. Collins, Susan R. Bigl, Sally Yost and Katerina Dontsova Engineer Research Engineer Research Center and Development Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. This report was prepared under contract to the Department of Defense Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP). The publication of this report does not indicate endorsement by the Department of Defense, nor should the contents be construed as reflecting the official policy or position of the Department of Defense. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the Department of Defense. Strategic Environmental Research ERDC TR-06-13 and Development Program November 2006 Distribution and Fate of Energetics on DoD Test and Training Ranges: Final Report Judith C. Pennington and J. M. Brannon U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center Environmental Laboratory 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199 Thomas F. Jenkins, Alan D. Hewitt, Michael R. Walsh, Marianne E. Walsh, Susan Taylor, Jay Clausen, Charles M. Collins, and Susan R. Bigl U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory 72 Lyme Road, Hanover, NH 03755-1290 Guy Ampleman, Sonia Thiboutot, Sylvie Brochu, Jeff Lewis, and Emmanuela Diaz Defence Research and Development Canada - Valcartier 2459 Pie XI Blvd North, Val-Bélair, Québec, G3J 1X5 Jason C.
    [Show full text]
  • Fort Hancock and the Sandy Hook Proving Ground Historic District And/Or Common Fort Hancock 2
    National Historic Landmarks Nomination NPS Form 10-900 FedgM Agency Nomination (7-ai) RevWd November 9, 1982 Q ' ^ - United States Department of the Interior EXP. it/ National Park Service For NPS use only National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form See instructions in How to Complete National Register Forms Type all entries complete applicable sections_______________ 1. Name historic Fort Hancock and the Sandy Hook Proving Ground Historic District and/or common Fort Hancock 2. Location street & number Sandy Hook > state Route 36 not for publication city, town Highlands vicinity of 25 state New Jersey code 34 county Monmouth code 3. Classification Category Ownership Status Present Use A district X public X occupied agriculture Ay museum building(s) private unoccupied commercial X park structure both work in progress _X _ educational X private residence site Public Acquisition Accessible entertainment religious object in process X yes: restricted _X _ government scientific being considered yes: unrestricted industrial transportation no _X _ military other: 4. Owner off Property name National Park Service, Washington Office (See continuation Sheet) street & number city, town Washington vicinity of state DC 20240 5. Location of Legal Description courthouse, registry of deeds, etc. Monmouth County Courthouse street & number city, town Freehold state New Jersey 6. Representation in Existing Surveys____ .... Richard E. Greenwood, "National Register Survey" . 4 . ,. , title ' 3 has this property been determined eligible? yes no date 1977 federal state county local depository for survey records National Park Service, North Atlantic Region f, town state 7. Description Condition Check one Check one excellent X deteriorated unaltered ^ original site _X_good X.
    [Show full text]
  • Download the Teacher's Guide
    Studebaker National Museum Teacher Guide Prepared by Zach Stewart for the Studebaker National Museum Last updated: June 2019 © 2019 ┤ 1 ├ Studebaker National Museum Teacher Guide TABLE OF CONTENTS Planning Your Trip………………………………………………………………………………………………3 Pre-Visit Lesson Plan……………………………………………………………………………………………4 Teacher’s Guide…………………………………………………………………………………………………5 SECTION I: Academic Standards………………………………………………………………………5 SECTION II: The Studebaker History………………………………………………………………… 7 SECTION III: Activity Sheets………………………………………………………………………… 14 Activity Sheet A………………………………………………………………………………15 Activity Sheet B………………………………………………………………………………16 Activity Sheet C………………………………………………………………………………17 Activity Sheet D………………………………………………………………………………18 Activity Sheet E………………………………………………………………………………19 Post-Visit Test………………………………………………………………..……………… 20 SECTION IV: Answer Key…………………………………………………………………………… 21 Glossary……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 23 NOTE TO TEACHERS: The Teacher Guide contains information for planning your trip to the Studebaker National Museum, Indiana academic standards, a brief history of Studebaker, blank student activity worksheets, an answer key, and a glossary. The Student Workbook only includes the brief history, blank worksheets, and a glossary. The Museum Post-Visit Test is NOT included in the Student Workbook and can only be found in this Teacher Guide. ┤ 2 ├ Studebaker National Museum Teacher Guide STUDEBAKER NATIONAL MUSEUM School Field Trips: Planning Your Trip The Museum is open for school trips Monday-Saturday from 10am-5pm and Sunday 12pm-5pm EST. Planning Your Trip 1. Choose dates and make your reservation: Rebecca Best (574) 235-9664 ext. 239 [email protected] 2. Watch your mailbox! Once we’ve received your reservation, we will send you a confirmation with your assigned tour date and time as well as the admission fee for your group. Tour Length The tour of the Studebaker National Museum generally takes 1 - 1½ hours. A tour guide can be arranged at no extra charge.
    [Show full text]