-
Who will win the CEV contract?
by
gladiator1332
on 05 Jun, 2006 22:51
-
There have been a few articles on other sites and this one as well talking of the different designs being proposed by Lockheed and Boeing, as well as the upcoming selection this Fall (I read that a final decision could come as early as August).
In your opinion who do you think will win the CEV contract, Northrop Grumman/Boeing or Lockheed Martin? The final decision will most likely be both an economical/engineering decision and a political one as well. While the designs may look the same on the outside, they are going to be very different on the inside. However most of that information is not available yet. But based upon what we know, who do you think it will be?
-
#1
by
wannamoonbase
on 06 Jun, 2006 16:04
-
I would like to say the best design (performance and cost) should win, but this will likely be more political.
I think Lockheed is a better systems integrator (and has more success with launch vehicles than either NG or B)
But NG is a good company with a strong heritage and B is great at lobbying.
So at this point its a toss up.
I don't think experience from 40 years ago (Grumman LEM, North American CSM and Rockwell STS is very applicable)
B's recent history of scandal could hurt that team and is likely why NG is the lead.
I want to pick LM but I think it will be NG. either way the vehicle should be a great achievement and I am looking forward to the selection and forward progress, and more public information no matter who wins.
There will be lots of work to go around for everyone.
-
#2
by
simonbp
on 06 Jun, 2006 16:40
-
Is it likely that whichever group looses the CEV will gain the CLV upper stage?
Simon
-
#3
by
Jim
on 06 Jun, 2006 17:19
-
simonbp - 6/6/2006 12:27 PM
Is it likely that whichever group looses the CEV will gain the CLV upper stage?
Simon
Not guaranteed
Just because they teamed for the CEV, doesn't meet NG and Boeing will team for the upperstage
-
#4
by
PlanetStorm
on 06 Jun, 2006 18:51
-
I didn't think there was sufficient information in the public domain (including this site) to attempt to make a call on the relative merits of the two designs.
Does anyone here know what the key differences are? If so, it would be very useful to have at least a bullet-point list so that we could compare features/approaches before voting.
-
#5
by
Jim
on 06 Jun, 2006 18:59
-
PlanetStorm - 6/6/2006 2:38 PM
I didn't think there was sufficient information in the public domain (including this site) to attempt to make a call on the relative merits of the two designs.
Does anyone here know what the key differences are? If so, it would be very useful to have at least a bullet-point list so that we could compare features/approaches before voting.
Correct.
The decision won't be based on design (NASA dictated most of the design)
Cost and management will matter
-
#6
by
gladiator1332
on 06 Jun, 2006 20:41
-
Right, from a design standpoint they will be putting forward a similar design. From what we know there are some differences. I am unsure whether Lockheed has changed their approach towards the SM, but it appears there's will be somewhat different from NG/Boeing.
NG/Boeing seems to be going with exactly what ESAS put forward, whereas Lockheed is making some changes. The deisgn above shows a SM with two engines and a more conical shape. NG/Boeing appear to have an exact clone of the ESAS CEV, however these images could already be outdated.
-
#7
by
simonbp
on 06 Jun, 2006 22:15
-
The Northrop one could have two SM engines as well; you can't tell from that image...
Simon
-
#8
by
Wisi
on 07 Jun, 2006 11:11
-
No, as far as i know the Boeing one has only one engine (Apollo-like and ESAS-like)
regards
-
#9
by
Norm Hartnett
on 08 Jun, 2006 00:14
-
Well given B's political embarrassments with the EELV scandal and HG’s problems with the NPOESS I have got to think LM has an inside track politically speaking.
-
#10
by
jjnodice
on 08 Jun, 2006 01:34
-
Norm Hartnett - 7/6/2006 7:01 PM
Well given B's political embarrassments with the EELV scandal and HG’s problems with the NPOESS I have got to think LM has an inside track politically speaking.
Don't forget LM's problems with SBIRS. Everybody in the mix has programs that they are not performing well on.
-
#11
by
gladiator1332
on 08 Jun, 2006 02:48
-
And not that it was entirely their fault, the last time NASA looked to Lockheed for a shuttle replacement was the X-33...we all know how that went.
-
#12
by
Avron
on 08 Jun, 2006 03:09
-
gladiator1332 - 7/6/2006 10:35 PM
And not that it was entirely their fault, the last time NASA looked to Lockheed for a shuttle replacement was the X-33...we all know how that went.
Well, if you where on the recieving end.. cash wise
-
#13
by
MATTBLAK
on 08 Jun, 2006 11:00
-
I think Lockheed-Martin may win, because scuttlebutt has it that Nasa has been unhappy with the performance of certain Boeing managers in recent years during the I.S.S. program. Unless there is a shakeup at Boeing, with or without Northrop-Grumman's intervention, Boeing's many fine Engineers will have to look next to the CLV Upper Stage and/or the LSAM.
-
#14
by
wannamoonbase
on 08 Jun, 2006 12:15
-
Good point that the ISS lesson won't be lost on people, as well as X-33. Not that X-33 had anywhere near enough money to be a real program.
Here is a question, because of the budget limits, is it possible that both designs will be good enough and that the determinining factor will be cost. Could which ever team has the lowest price and plan for getting it built cost effectively be the one that wins.
-
#15
by
bad_astra
on 09 Jun, 2006 03:14
-
Norm Hartnett - 7/6/2006 7:01 PM
Well given B's political embarrassments with the EELV scandal and HG’s problems with the NPOESS I have got to think LM has an inside track politically speaking.
And if NASA was controlled by the DoD, that would mean something.
-
#16
by
mlorrey
on 09 Jun, 2006 03:30
-
Yeah, given LM's failures wrt X-33, I doubt there is anyone at MSF that is blowing kisses their way, either.
-
#17
by
Jim
on 09 Jun, 2006 04:05
-
JSC has the CEV contract, what LM did with MSFC doesn't matter.
