NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
SLS / Orion / Beyond-LEO HSF - Constellation => Orion and Exploration Vehicles => Topic started by: James Lowe1 on 05/13/2006 10:34 pm
-
http://www.cleveland.com/cuyahoga/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1147509585181800.xml&coll=2
-
Good for them. GRC is also designing the TVC for the Upper Stage Engine and the Upper Stage Hazgas detection system.
-
I am disappointed. Spacecraft project management is not one GRC's core strengths or business. This is just spreading the $ around to make it hard to cancel. The Apollo CM and SM weren't managed by different centers. THe CEV is one contract and it is really one spacecraft that happened to split apart. It doesn't make sense.
Also the winning CEV contractor is going to do most of the work and JSC is going to have the contract, so where does the $2B come from and what GRC will have in the contract other than being a technical monitor.
Also the thread title is misleading, GRC didn't win $2B or a deal. It was assigned to manage a project that could cost $2B
-
Jim - 13/5/2006 9:11 PM
I am disappointed. Spacecraft project management is not one GRC's core strengths or business. This is just spreading the $ around to make it hard to cancel. The Apollo CM and SM weren't managed by different centers. THe CEV is one contract and it is really one spacecraft that happened to split apart. It doesn't make sense.
Also the winning CEV contractor is going to do most of the work and JSC is going to have the contract, so where does the $2B come from and what GRC will have in the contract other than being a technical monitor.
Also the thread title is misleading, GRC didn't win $2B or a deal. It was assigned to manage a project that could cost $2B
Yeah, North American did both the CM and SM and were so overloaded that NASA had to bring outside management consultants...
GRC has the most NASA in-house experience with in-space propulsion, and since when is making CEV hard to kill a bad thing?
Simon ;)
-
simonbp - 14/5/2006 12:29 PM
Jim - 13/5/2006 9:11 PM
I am disappointed. Spacecraft project management is not one GRC's core strengths or business. This is just spreading the $ around to make it hard to cancel. The Apollo CM and SM weren't managed by different centers. THe CEV is one contract and it is really one spacecraft that happened to split apart. It doesn't make sense.
Also the winning CEV contractor is going to do most of the work and JSC is going to have the contract, so where does the $2B come from and what GRC will have in the contract other than being a technical monitor.
Also the thread title is misleading, GRC didn't win $2B or a deal. It was assigned to manage a project that could cost $2B
Yeah, North American did both the CM and SM and were so overloaded that NASA had to bring outside management consultants...
GRC has the most NASA in-house experience with in-space propulsion, and since when is making CEV hard to kill a bad thing?
Simon ;)
The CEV contractor is responsible for the propulsions system, really what could they bring? Spacecraft propulsion expertise is with most of the spacecraft contractors, since NASA doesn't build or integrate spacecraft. (except for JPL)
-
NASA Glenn lands major role in moon mission (http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/state/14573303.htm)
The center's workers make an average of $83,000 a year...
Hmm, obviously I am working at the wrong place! ;)
-
vt_hokie - 14/5/2006 4:51 PM
NASA Glenn lands major role in moon mission (http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/state/14573303.htm)
The center's workers make an average of $83,000 a year...
Hmm, obviously I am working at the wrong place! ;)
Me too!
-
simonbp - 14/5/2006 9:29 AM
Yeah, North American did both the CM and SM and were so overloaded that NASA had to bring outside management consultants...
NASA has always bring in outside consultants. That's a prudent program management practice, but it did not mean that North American could not handle the job.
-
Bruhn - 13/5/2006 4:38 PM
GRC is also designing the TVC for the Upper Stage Engine and the Upper Stage Hazgas detection system.
That's a "bone" that MSFC thrown to GRC. Why is GRC tasked with the TVC "trade study" while MSFC has alreay baselined the EMA for TVC?
Besides, we all know that it is the industry that has the design experience on the TVC and we all know what company is this work going to. :)
-
I think with the internet, fiberoptics, cell phones and software better than Microsoft for project management that the spacecraft can easily be managed from a site, even if it is never assembled on their site.
Drawings, Design reviews, change orders, requests for information all can be managed with the internet.
If nothing else it puts more brains inside NASA. Which should make NASA better. Hiring your brains from somewhere else makes you ignorant and at the mercy of contractors (re: shuttle)
The Apollo CSM and LEM were both troubled by terrible design and revision control which cost billions (in the 60s) and did significant damage to the schedule (ie. making up the Apollo 8 mission because the LEM was so far behind and not to mention the Apollo 1 fire). If done right Glenn can avoid much of this and make the schedule and budget much smoother this time.
Good decision, now just execute it right.
-
wannamoonbase - 15/5/2006 9:10 PM
I think with the internet, fiberoptics, cell phones and software better than Microsoft for project management that the spacecraft can easily be managed from a site, even if it is never assembled on their site.
Drawings, Design reviews, change orders, requests for information all can be managed with the internet.
If nothing else it puts more brains inside NASA. Which should make NASA better. Hiring your brains from somewhere else makes you ignorant and at the mercy of contractors (re: shuttle)
The Apollo CSM and LEM were both troubled by terrible design and revision control which cost billions (in the 60s) and did significant damage to the schedule (ie. making up the Apollo 8 mission because the LEM was so far behind and not to mention the Apollo 1 fire). If done right Glenn can avoid much of this and make the schedule and budget much smoother this time.
Good decision, now just execute it right.
Doesn't work that way. Onsite management has been proven to be better.
This will be no different than the shuttle way of doing things.
This is JSC giving away work to another center, nothing to do with how NASA manages a project.
-
How would you go about VSE? Would you close down MSFC and limit Glenn's scope? If you were Griffin--how would you proceed?
-
publiusr - 18/5/2006 4:24 PM
How would you go about VSE? Would you close down MSFC and limit Glenn's scope? If you were Griffin--how would you proceed?
Give it to the contractors that have the experience in developing new LV's
-
Jim - 18/5/2006 5:14 PM
publiusr - 18/5/2006 4:24 PM
How would you go about VSE? Would you close down MSFC and limit Glenn's scope? If you were Griffin--how would you proceed?
Give it to the contractors that have the experience in developing new LV's
Good point. NASA's job should focus on managing the requirements and managing the interfaces.
-
But which contractors? We have ATK. Goal fulfilled. I think Jim is just mad that Boeing isn't running the whole thing ;)
-
ATK does not build launch vehicles, only SRM's. They are not an aerospace contractor. LM and Boeing and others have more experience
-
And there are pro-CaLV folks there too--just like the pro-EELV folks.
-
publiusr - 30/6/2006 6:45 PM
And there are pro-CaLV folks there too--just like the pro-EELV folks.
You can be both. The biggest issue is CLV