space1999 - 26/8/2006 2:44 PMActually the two lead competitors ofr the Orion contract is Lockheed-Martin and Northrup-Grumman.
Would anybody like to speculate who the winner might be and what there solution is ? (I gather Its only a two horse race, Lockhead Martin and Boeing ).
astrobrian - 26/8/2006 8:50 AM Hopefully they dont have another slip up with the air to ground channel if they choose to pre record a statement from the ISS
Haha... I don't think they're gonna try that again. Or maybe they will...but with an STS-115 crewmember assuming Atlantis gets off sometime before Wednesday. ;)
astrobrian - 26/8/2006 10:50 AM
Hopefully they dont have another slip up with the air to ground channel if they choose to pre record a statement from the ISS
space1999 - 26/8/2006 8:44 AM
Would anybody like to speculate who the winner might be and what their solution is ?
vt_hokie - 30/8/2006 6:09 PMQuotespace1999 - 26/8/2006 8:44 AM
Would anybody like to speculate who the winner might be and what their solution is ?
I'm guessing that regardless of the winner, the solution will look something like a glorified Apollo capsule! ;)
NASA_Twix_JSC - 30/8/2006 5:52 PMQuoteAlthough those on L2 already know :)Yup, L2 members have known for a week now who the winner is :)
astrobrian - 30/8/2006 10:24 PMQuoteNASA_Twix_JSC - 30/8/2006 5:52 PM Although those on L2 already know :)Yup, L2 members have known for a week now who the winner is :)
Jim - 31/8/2006 12:00 PM
Won't see them, unless the contractors release them themselves.
gladiator1332 - 31/8/2006 5:17 PM
I have my money on NG/Boeing, but hey you never know, there could be an upset and LM walks away with it.
space1999 - 31/8/2006 6:00 PM
The contractor teams vying to build the Orion vehicle, which NASA hopes will take astronauts back to the moon, include a who's who of industry titans, and at least two companies will benefit regardless of which team wins the multibillion-dollar contract
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8JRGHI00.htm?sub=apn_tech_up&chan=tc
Chris Bergin - 31/8/2006 1:15 PMQuotespace1999 - 31/8/2006 6:00 PM
The contractor teams vying to build the Orion vehicle, which NASA hopes will take astronauts back to the moon, include a who's who of industry titans, and at least two companies will benefit regardless of which team wins the multibillion-dollar contract
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8JRGHI00.htm?sub=apn_tech_up&chan=tc
The stock prices pretty much show it's Boeing/NG too.
Jim - 31/8/2006 6:42 PMQuoteChris Bergin - 31/8/2006 1:15 PMQuotespace1999 - 31/8/2006 6:00 PM
The contractor teams vying to build the Orion vehicle, which NASA hopes will take astronauts back to the moon, include a who's who of industry titans, and at least two companies will benefit regardless of which team wins the multibillion-dollar contract
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8JRGHI00.htm?sub=apn_tech_up&chan=tc
The stock prices pretty much show it's Boeing/NG too.
Don't see the change
Terry Rocket - 31/8/2006 8:03 PM
How much is this deal worth in cold hard cash?
Flightstar - 31/8/2006 3:22 PM
COTS was a shocker with SpaceX getting in. But whoever this goes too will do a good job.
Jim - 31/8/2006 2:27 PM
Pedigee does not count since it has "expired". Nobody who worked Apollo is still with the companies
OV-106 - 31/8/2006 8:58 PM
Yahoo is running a story that LM has won siting Congressional sources......
Rocket Ronnie - 31/8/2006 3:48 PM
Who's GAO?
Spiff - 31/8/2006 9:49 PM
my first thought on the circular (decagonal? Is that a word?) is 'how are they going to fold those away during launch?
Seems a lot easier with the popular rectangular shape.
Spiff - 31/8/2006 3:49 PM
my first thought on the circular (decagonal? Is that a word?) is 'how are they going to fold those away during launch?
Seems a lot easier with the popular rectangular shape.
mong' - 31/8/2006 5:32 PM
we are at the beginning of something great. history is being written right now.
and I'm glad to be around to see it this time, this is a great day for the space program.
It doesn't matter if NG/Boeing or LM got the contract, what is important is that constellation has become real, there is now a contractor with a clear order and a deadline.
now it is just a matter of time to see it fly
Jamie Young - 31/8/2006 4:18 PM
Wow. So Boeing will get the upperstage?
Jim - 31/8/2006 6:38 PMQuoteJamie Young - 31/8/2006 4:18 PM Wow. So Boeing will get the upperstage?No guarantee
They would give both to one company? I find that hard to believe
astrobrian - 31/8/2006 8:20 PMQuoteJim - 31/8/2006 6:38 PMQuoteJamie Young - 31/8/2006 4:18 PM Wow. So Boeing will get the upperstage?No guaranteeThey would give both to one company? I find that hard to believe
astrobrian - 31/8/2006 8:29 PM
Just wouldn't think these days with the politics of it all that it would still be like that though. I wouldn't mind it really, just wouldn't expect it to happen
MKremer - 31/8/2006 4:22 PM
The US is still to be determined. Just because LM won the CEV doesn't mean Boeing will automatically get the US.
Jonesy STS - 1/9/2006 3:19 AM
UK news playing on the "NASA goes back to the 60s" angle.
Avron - 31/8/2006 11:39 PM
LM has the relationship with NASA
Captain Scarlet - 1/9/2006 5:08 AMQuoteJonesy STS - 1/9/2006 3:19 AM
UK news playing on the "NASA goes back to the 60s" angle.
BBC had a big feature too, saying "But we've seen this before. 10 years ago Al Gore revealed the X-33, but a billion dollars later it was dead."
And then did the "that was also Lockheed Martin" and made a big thing out of them being a company that is making money out of the war and they are getting repaid for that.
hyper_snyper - 1/9/2006 10:21 AM
Also, of all the previous attempts to get a new vehicle built this one has gone the farthest along and I'm confident it will continue to gain mometum.
MKremer - 1/9/2006 11:02 PM
To me it's rather interesting that most people focus on the shape much more than the purpose.
rdale - 2/9/2006 12:35 AM
Have you read over any of the VSE material? http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/exploration/main/index.html
The goal is to get us to Mars. The "training ground" is the moon.
vt_hokie - 1/9/2006 11:27 PMQuoteMKremer - 1/9/2006 11:02 PM
To me it's rather interesting that most people focus on the shape much more than the purpose.
So far, I haven't seen a good explanation of the purpose, beyond sending 4 people to the moon for a weeklong stay two times per year starting 13 years from now.
vt_hokie - 1/9/2006 11:41 PM
It just seems that with this vintage technology, we'll be doing too little at too much cost to really establish a meaningful presence on the moon or beyond.
MKremer - 2/9/2006 3:05 AM
Please define "vintage technology" as it applies to anything other than the outer shape of the CEV.
SpaceCat - 2/9/2006 12:08 AM
A little historical perspective.... Without going into the books for absolute time hacks- from the time the first major Apollo contracts were awarded until the '11' landing roughly 8 years passed. Granted, there was alot more money to play with then; but at that point we had essentially no infrasturcture for construction or launch, and little more than 15 minutes worth of spaceflight experience. We now have the industrial capabilities in place, we have a launch complex which will need modifictions- but it's not like we have to build a VAB and LC39 from scratch- and we have an incredible number of hours logged in space. Yet- the best guess for a moon landing is THIRTEEN years away! This tells me a number of things, including:
1) We are not as smart as we used to be.
2) We can anticipate a good dose of 'milking.'
3) I find myself idolizing people like Rocco Petrone even more.
But.... I hope it works even if I probably won't be alive to see it! :)
Jim - 2/9/2006 3:05 PMQuoteSpaceCat - 2/9/2006 12:08 AM
A little historical perspective.... Without going into the books for absolute time hacks- from the time the first major Apollo contracts were awarded until the '11' landing roughly 8 years passed. Granted, there was alot more money to play with then; but at that point we had essentially no infrasturcture for construction or launch, and little more than 15 minutes worth of spaceflight experience. We now have the industrial capabilities in place, we have a launch complex which will need modifictions- but it's not like we have to build a VAB and LC39 from scratch- and we have an incredible number of hours logged in space. Yet- the best guess for a moon landing is THIRTEEN years away! This tells me a number of things, including:
1) We are not as smart as we used to be.
2) We can anticipate a good dose of 'milking.'
3) I find myself idolizing people like Rocco Petrone even more.
But.... I hope it works even if I probably won't be alive to see it! :)
It is the stretchout of the $
PlanetStorm - 2/9/2006 10:46 AM
I think it has more to do with having to complete the ISS and retire the SST in the same time frame as developing some elements of Constellation.
Jim - 1/9/2006 7:08 AMQuoteAvron - 31/8/2006 11:39 PM
LM has the relationship with NASA
So does Boeing: USA, ISS, Shuttle and Delta
Avron - 2/9/2006 4:08 PM
1. No Jim... sorry but I am not talking about "had" the relationship.. I am talking "Has" "The" relationship... Boeing clearly will still have "A' relationship with NASA, until Boeing makes the move to either take it back they will have "A" relationship or choose not to have one at all...
2. Now for the US.. based on what we have seen in the last four years when the pressure was on, it seems like MSFC/MAF have a great relaitionship with LM.. I see no change .. its all about sales and corperate relationships.