-
Glenn wins $2b CEV deal
by
James Lowe1
on 13 May, 2006 22:34
-
-
#1
by
Bruhn
on 13 May, 2006 23:51
-
Good for them. GRC is also designing the TVC for the Upper Stage Engine and the Upper Stage Hazgas detection system.
-
#2
by
Jim
on 14 May, 2006 02:24
-
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
-
#3
by
simonbp
on 14 May, 2006 16:42
-
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
-
#4
by
Jim
on 14 May, 2006 18:27
-
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)
-
#5
by
vt_hokie
on 14 May, 2006 22:04
-
-
#6
by
Flightstar
on 14 May, 2006 22:07
-
-
#7
by
Propforce
on 15 May, 2006 01:35
-
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.
-
#8
by
Propforce
on 15 May, 2006 01:44
-
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.
-
#9
by
wannamoonbase
on 16 May, 2006 01:23
-
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.
-
#10
by
Jim
on 16 May, 2006 02:05
-
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.
-
#11
by
publiusr
on 18 May, 2006 20:37
-
How would you go about VSE? Would you close down MSFC and limit Glenn's scope? If you were Griffin--how would you proceed?
-
#12
by
Jim
on 19 May, 2006 00:27
-
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
-
#13
by
Propforce
on 19 May, 2006 00:34
-
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.
-
#14
by
publiusr
on 16 Jun, 2006 22:01
-
But which contractors? We have ATK. Goal fulfilled. I think Jim is just mad that Boeing isn't running the whole thing
-
#15
by
Jim
on 17 Jun, 2006 13:49
-
ATK does not build launch vehicles, only SRM's. They are not an aerospace contractor. LM and Boeing and others have more experience
-
#16
by
publiusr
on 30 Jun, 2006 22:58
-
And there are pro-CaLV folks there too--just like the pro-EELV folks.
-
#17
by
Jim
on 01 Jul, 2006 14:27
-
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
