NASA's shuttle program today announced an extension of its reusable solid rocket motor contract, the latest modification needed since the final shuttle flights slipped from 2010 to 2011. The $42.1 million extension runs from October 2010 to December 2011, including support for two remaining scheduled flights and end-of-the-program processing work.
The change brings the total potential value of the contract to solid rocket booster manufacturer ATK Launch Systems Inc., of Brigham City, Utah, to $4.13 billion since the contract began in October 1998.
Two four-segment solid boosters provide the main thrust -- 71 percent -- needed to lift the space shuttle to an altitude of about 150,000 feet, along with three shuttle main engines that complete the trip to orbit.
Each 149-foot booster has a thrust of approximately 3.3 million pounds at launch. They are jettisoned about two minutes into flight and recovered from the Atlantic Ocean about 141 miles downrange.
NASA's Constellation program planned to use solid boosters on its Ares I and Ares V rockets, but their future after the shuttle is uncertain with the latest NASA authorization act abandoning those vehicles.
Click here for a story about work this summer at Kennedy Space Center to stack the boosters for the final shuttle missions.
IMAGE: At Kennedy Space Center on Oct. 27, a crawler-transporter moved a mobile launcher platform with two solid rocket boosters perched on top from the Vehicle Assembly Building's High Bay 1 to High Bay 3. Inside the VAB, the boosters will be joined to an external fuel tank in preparation for space shuttle Endeavour's STS-134 mission to the International Space Station. Photo credit: NASA/Ben Cooper
7 comments:
Biggest waste of time, effort and money associated with the space program; retrieving and refurbishing SRBs. If it's such an efficient thing to do, why didn't the Air Force do it with the Titan IV solids, or why doesn't Ariane do it with the Ariane 5 solids? They're all of comparable size. All that time, effort and money to refurbish steel cylinders. And why will we continue to do it, if they won't be used again? High priced museum pieces? This perpetuates the idea that manned space flight is nothing but a high-priced unemployment program.
Wow! You really don't know much about the Space Shuttle Program and especially the SRBs. Even now, there isn't anything that can lift as much for the cost over the life of a program.
And as far as the future goes, try to lift a vehicle and fuel for leaving Earth orbit with anything but solids. Can't be done without bringing back a Saturn V or developing new liquids which cost way too much money and time. The SRBs are already developed and ready to go.
Oh. And check your specs on the Space Shuttle RSRM versus Titan IV and Ariane solids. You're way off by comparing them with size and thrust.
Sometimes it is best to know that we do not know enough to make sense or give an opinion.
I am glad it was extended! Need to get to the next orbit sooner rather than later.
The extended forecast for available funding is rather grim and not in the black but a tint of red! It has been said that it will take 40 years to recuperate from the money loss that we have had and/or the economy to sustain what the country needs for the protection and health of our families...
40 Years from now...we will still be paying for today and most of those making comments will not be alive or too old to care.
I retrieved the solids aboard the recovery ships.
6:24pm has it basically right...
He does not debate the lift and throw weight...
he just points out that it is a waste to refurb them...
he is right.
Oh I also test fired the motors in UTAH. and tested at Marshall (redesign post Challenger)
The most important aspect of recovering the SRBs is to study them post-flight for safety reasons. Once you decide to recover them for safety/performance inspections, refurbishing them makes sense.
8:30 was the cook.
Post a Comment