This is interesting. The company is getting into the orbital assembly business:
Phase one of CIRAS began in September 2016 and will last a total of two years. During this period, Orbital ATK will lead the team in maturing technologies necessary for robotic assembly of large space structures, such as next-generation telescopes or solar-powered structures for transport or communications. These capabilities include methods to connect or disconnect joints on a structure and address precision measuring and alignment through a 15-meter robotic arm and a precision robot. The team will also develop the technology needed to conduct in-orbit modular assembly of structures, allowing parts to be brought to space as needed via multiple launches, which simplifies the design of spacecraft and reduces cost. [Emphasis mine]
They must realize that this increases the risk to SLS, and their SRB production. Have they decided that this new business focus is a better bet?
Looks familiar, except I called it OMAC. I also gave them the idea when I was at DARPA.
Speaking of DARPA, a few months ago I was reading another article that confirmed that shell shock is caused by shock from a shell shredding dendrites in the brain, causing a honeycomb damage pattern distinct from other forms of traumatic brain injury. They thought that maybe future helmet designs should try to block some of the shock wave, and I figured it would be easy to weld two old stacked metal helmets together and pull a vacuum between them. The vacuum of course won’t transmit a shock wave. Then stick it on some simulated, instrumented heads (perhaps with real skulls) and see if it helps.
But I don’t have any contacts at DARPA to suggest it.
Go to their website, George. Each office has a standing Broad Area Announcement, against which anyone can bid. The BAA’s are written very broadly, and you can usually find one that suits any new technology. I would suggest the bio tech office BAA, You can then submit an Executive Summary, and if they find it interesting enough, they may ask for a white paper. If they find THAT interesting enough, they may encourage you to propose a “seedling” study. These are up to $1 million, and need only the office Director’s signature.
You could do a very nice seedling on this for well under $1 million.
Oh, yes, and they also do SBIRs at DARPA. But the approach I just outlined is the standard one.
The idea is so simple and obvious that all they need is the suggestion itself, two old army helmets, a welder, and drilling and mounting a small vacuum fitting to evacuate the air in between the two stacked helmets.
Then they need to stick it on a fake head instrumented with acoustic/shock sensors to see how much of the blast wave is blocked by the helmet versus going around it or in through the facial bones.
And of course the final step would be testing it by putting it on furloughed Obama officials and setting off nearby high explosive charges, and then seeing if they recall auditing conservatives, destroying evidence, colluding with environmentalists, and various things like that.
Oh, one other thought is that if vacuum shockwave barriers prove useful, they would be trivial to add to armored vehicles. They wouldn’t even add an ounce. Welding together a couple slabs of armor plate, pulling a vacuum, and then testing the plate’s performance by hitting them with various simulated IED’s and RPG’s would likewise be pretty trivial.
I think it’s pretty obvious even to them that the flight rate of SLS won’t keep them in cognac and caviar.
What’s flight rate got to do with maintianing a standing army of workers ready to leap into action (subject to union rules) when it’s time to build one – worked with Shuttle for years!
Guess maybe they see other threats to SLS
Just thinking out loud, but aren’t wide-diameter launchers the greatest enemy of the SRB business? And doesn’t packing really heavy things into narrow-diameter launchers increase the need for strap-on SRBs?
increase the need for strap-on SRBs?
Not if you’re using LRBs 😀
When I interviewed with ATK a few years ago I was told that NASA contracts were only a small part of their business- a part they wanted to reduce. SLS may be profitable, but it was (and is) politically risky.