-
LIVE: NASA Announces Contractor for Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle by jacqmans on 24 Aug, 2006 21:52
-
Aug. 24, 2006
Michael Braukus/Beth Dickey
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-1979/2087
Kelly Humphries
Johnson Space Center, Houston
281-483-5111
MEDIA ADVISORY: M06-137
NASA ANNOUNCES CONTRACTOR FOR ORION CREW EXPLORATION VEHICLE
NASA Exploration Systems' managers will host a press conference at 4
p.m. EDT Thursday, Aug. 31, to announce the prime contractor to
design, develop, and build Orion, America's next human spacecraft.
The press conference will be in the NASA headquarters auditorium, 300
E Street S.W., Washington. It will air live on the Web and on NASA
TV. Reporters may ask questions from participating NASA locations.
Reporters should coordinate with local agency centers by 4 p.m. EDT
Wednesday, Aug. 30 for access information.
Associate Administrator for the Exploration Systems Mission
Directorate Scott Horowitz, Exploration Deputy Associate
Administrator Doug Cooke, Constellation Program Manager Jeff Hanley,
and CEV Project Manager Caris A. (Skip) Hatfield will announce the
selection and discuss the program.
Orion is the vehicle NASA is developing to carry a new generation of
explorers back to the moon and later to Mars. Orion will succeed the
space shuttle as NASA's primary vehicle for human space exploration.
Orion's first flight with astronauts aboard is planned for no later
than 2014 to the International Space Station. Its first flight to the
moon is planned for no later than 2020.
For NASA TV streaming video, downlink and scheduling information,
visit:
http://www.nasa.gov/ntv
For information about NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate
visit:
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration
-end-
-
#1 by space1999 on 26 Aug, 2006 12:57
-
Would anybody like to speculate who the winner might be and what their solution is ? (I gather Its only a two horse race, Lockhead Martin and Boeing ).
-
#2 by DaveS on 26 Aug, 2006 13:35
-
Quote
space1999 - 26/8/2006 2:44 PM
Actually 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 ). -
#3 by astrobrian on 26 Aug, 2006 16:03
-
Hopefully they dont have another slip up with the air to ground channel if they choose to pre record a statement from the ISS
-
#4 by punkboi on 26 Aug, 2006 16:21
-
Quote
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.
-
#5 by NASA_Twix_JSC on 30 Aug, 2006 23:05
-
Quote
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
Although those on L2 already know
-
#6 by vt_hokie on 30 Aug, 2006 23:22
-
Quote
space1999 - 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!
-
#7 by Mark Max Q on 31 Aug, 2006 00:29
-
Quote
vt_hokie - 30/8/2006 6:09 PM
Quotespace1999 - 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!
As it should be, unless someone wishes to change physics. -
#8 by vt_hokie on 31 Aug, 2006 02:00
-
I don't think that physics precludes other approaches, but economics probably does given NASA's budgetary restraints. NASA simply cannot afford to venture into the unknown. (As I recall, the original Apollo CM was one of several proposed shapes, including more complex lifting bodies, and was chosen essentially because it was the easiest, quickest route.)
-
#9 by astrobrian on 31 Aug, 2006 02:37
-
Quote
NASA_Twix_JSC - 30/8/2006 5:52 PM
QuoteAlthough those on L2 already know
Yup, L2 members have known for a week now who the winner is
-
#10 by Spacely on 31 Aug, 2006 07:04
-
Despite all the flim-flam regarding CLVs, EELVs, ESAS, and politics, politics, politics, it's nevertheless pretty amazing that in less than 16 hours the U.S. government will have picked a primary contractor for a new spaceship. This thing is actually going to be built. I remember January 2004 and thinking, "Man, VSE's great, but it's going to take forever for this thing to come together." Well, here we are. I wonder where we'll be in another 31 months.
-
#11 by Space Lizard on 31 Aug, 2006 09:57
-
The Northrop-Grumman team includes Boeing.
This means they already did:
- X15 (as North American)
- Mercury (as McDonnell)
- Gemini (as McDonnell)
- Apollo CSM (as North American)
- Apollo LM (as Grumman)
- Skylab (as McDD)
- Shuttle Orbiter (as Rockwell)
- Spacehab (as McDD)
- ISS Modules (as Boeing)
Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin's backlog is far less impressive:
- X-23 "PRIME" (as Martin)
- X-33??? (ahem!) -
#12 by Jim on 31 Aug, 2006 11:18
-
Quote
astrobrian - 30/8/2006 10:24 PM
QuoteNASA_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
Don't count on it
EDIT:
Let me rephrase this. No one really knows, outside a very few. -
#13 by Chris Bergin on 31 Aug, 2006 16:02
-
We'll carry the announcement here live.
Smart money is on Boeing/NG. -
#14 by SimonShuttle on 31 Aug, 2006 16:06
-
Will we get to see the full presentations of the bids from each party, or will all that be classified past this?
-
#15 by Jim on 31 Aug, 2006 16:13
-
Won't see them, unless the contractors release them themselves.
-
#16 by hyper_snyper on 31 Aug, 2006 16:16
-
Quote
Jim - 31/8/2006 12:00 PM
Won't see them, unless the contractors release them themselves.
I know satisfying a curious public isn't high on the agenda but is there any reason why they won't release them? -
#17 by gladiator1332 on 31 Aug, 2006 16:30
-
I have my money on NG/Boeing, but hey you never know, there could be an upset and LM walks away with it.
-
#18 by Jim on 31 Aug, 2006 16:35
-
Propriety information and cost data is in the proposals, therefore NASA can't release them. It is up to the contractors. We will never see the actual proposals but NASA and the contractor will provide PR documents.
In programs I have worked, the proposals get destroyed and the relievant data is in the contract, since that is the binding document -
#19 by Chris Bergin on 31 Aug, 2006 17:06
-
Quote
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.
I think they'll be some group hugging of LM, maybe with some system technologies (at a guess)...but that won't negate from the fact that everyone seems to think this is going to NG/Boeing. -
#20 by space1999 on 31 Aug, 2006 17:13
-
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 -
#21 by Chris Bergin on 31 Aug, 2006 17:28
-
Quote
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
The stock prices pretty much show it's Boeing/NG too. -
#22 by Jim on 31 Aug, 2006 17:55
-
Quote
Chris Bergin - 31/8/2006 1:15 PM
Quotespace1999 - 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 -
#23 by Chris Bergin on 31 Aug, 2006 18:09
-
Quote
Jim - 31/8/2006 6:42 PM
QuoteChris Bergin - 31/8/2006 1:15 PM
Quotespace1999 - 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
Lockheed down, NG up. -
#24 by Jim on 31 Aug, 2006 18:51
-
I made the mistake that I corrected many people on, I looked at Boeing
-
#25 by Terry Rocket on 31 Aug, 2006 19:16
-
How much is this deal worth in cold hard cash?
-
#26 by Chris Bergin on 31 Aug, 2006 19:24
-
Quote
Terry Rocket - 31/8/2006 8:03 PM
How much is this deal worth in cold hard cash?
Around $4,500 million. -
#27 by James (Lockheed) on 31 Aug, 2006 19:33
-
Going with the lifting body in round one didn't help us.
-
#28 by Flightstar on 31 Aug, 2006 19:35
-
COTS was a shocker with SpaceX getting in. But whoever this goes too will do a good job.
-
#29 by Shuttle Man on 31 Aug, 2006 19:36
-
I still remember all of this the first time around. NG has the pedigree.
-
#30 by rfoshaug on 31 Aug, 2006 19:38
-
Of course for the companies involved, it means a lot in terms of money and jobs, but are there any significant technical differences that we know of? Or major differences in the construction/shape/capabilities etc.?
-
#31 by joncz on 31 Aug, 2006 19:39
-
Quote
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.
Funny, but that was exactly my thought about Kistler... at least SpaceX has hardware, not just a wine-bottle shaped powerpoint.
-
#32 by Jim on 31 Aug, 2006 19:40
-
Pedigee does not count since it has "expired". Nobody who worked Apollo is still with the companies
-
#33 by edkyle99 on 31 Aug, 2006 20:01
-
Quote
Jim - 31/8/2006 2:27 PM
Pedigee does not count since it has "expired". Nobody who worked Apollo is still with the companies
And, if I'm remembering correctly, many of the facilities where the vehicles were built are long-gone. The companies are long-gone, too, for all practical purposes. North American Aviation and Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation haven't issued paychecks in awhile!
- Ed Kyle -
#34 by Chris Bergin on 31 Aug, 2006 20:08
-
Press conference in 10 mins. www.nasa.gov/ntv
-
#35 by Namechange User on 31 Aug, 2006 20:11
-
Yahoo is running a story that LM has won siting Congressional sources......
-
#36 by Jim on 31 Aug, 2006 20:15
-
Congress is usually called before the contractor
-
#37 by Felix on 31 Aug, 2006 20:16
-
-
#38 by jacqmans on 31 Aug, 2006 20:19
-
-
#39 by Chris Bergin on 31 Aug, 2006 20:21
-
Quote
OV-106 - 31/8/2006 8:58 PM
Yahoo is running a story that LM has won siting Congressional sources......
That'd be a shocker. -
#40 by spacedreams on 31 Aug, 2006 20:27
-
Lockheed's website says the same
-
#41 by Chris Bergin on 31 Aug, 2006 20:27
-
Goodness me, stop babbling and announce it already.
-
#42 by jacqmans on 31 Aug, 2006 20:31
-
LM it is...
-
#43 by Jamie Young on 31 Aug, 2006 20:31
-
Wow. So Boeing will get the upperstage?
-
#44 by CS24 on 31 Aug, 2006 20:32
-
It's LM
-
#45 by mong' on 31 Aug, 2006 20:32
-
Congratz LM ! fly us to the moon...
-
#46 by Heg on 31 Aug, 2006 20:33
-
#47 by jacqmans on 31 Aug, 2006 20:35
-
-
#48 by MKremer on 31 Aug, 2006 20:35
-
The US is still to be determined. Just because LM won the CEV doesn't mean Boeing will automatically get the US.
-
#49 by Heg on 31 Aug, 2006 20:37
-
BTW, these circular solar panels look a bit weird
-
#50 by Flightstar on 31 Aug, 2006 20:37
-
Good for this site seen as there's far more folks from LM than Boeing here.
-
#51 by bad_astra on 31 Aug, 2006 20:40
-
It wasn't just Boeing.
-
#52 by zinfab on 31 Aug, 2006 20:40
-
boy, that just broke the over/under!
congrats to LM! I look forward to lots of cool stuff on this site! -
#53 by gladiator1332 on 31 Aug, 2006 20:41
-
Well there you go, another dark horse comes from nowhere and takes it home!
-
#54 by Chris Bergin on 31 Aug, 2006 20:46
-
Noticed that it's got the 4x6 RCS blocks on the SM, as per DAC-2.
-
#55 by astrobrian on 31 Aug, 2006 20:46
-
yeah, was sure Boeing had it based on people here. hmph, dark horse indeed.
I agree with the round slar panels looking strange, but if they are more efficient than I say go for it -
#56 by bobthemonkey on 31 Aug, 2006 20:58
-
wasn't a smilar design used/proposed for one of the mars landers slar arrays. IIRC they unfold in a similar way to a Japenese fan.
-
#57 by edkyle99 on 31 Aug, 2006 21:00
-
Sounds like LM decision to emphasize final build at KSC was key.
- Ed Kyle -
#58 by astrobrian on 31 Aug, 2006 21:01
-
I think that was the sample return mission, but not 100% sure on that one
-
#59 by Rocket Ronnie on 31 Aug, 2006 21:01
-
Who's GAO?
-
#60 by Spiff on 31 Aug, 2006 21:02
-
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. -
#61 by MKremer on 31 Aug, 2006 21:04
-
#62 by bobthemonkey on 31 Aug, 2006 21:05
-
i would have thought flat against the outer bulkhead heading towards the engine bell.
-
#63 by spacedreams on 31 Aug, 2006 21:08
-
Question: I know Jeff, Skip, and Doc, but does anybody know anything about Cooke? Just curious what his background is.
-
#64 by Chris Bergin on 31 Aug, 2006 21:09
-
Quote
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.
Like MXER (search for the video on the video section).
-
#65 by MKremer on 31 Aug, 2006 21:11
-
Quote
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.
They look very similar the the panels being used for the new Mars Phoenix lander. It allows a large deployed surface area stored in a smaller package than plain panels.
You can see a video that shows how they deploy here: http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/multimedia/videos/video/phoenix_animation.mov
-
#66 by RedSky on 31 Aug, 2006 21:19
-
A question came up in the press conference asked why the round solar panels. The answer was that they provided for less problematic moments than from large wing-like rectangles during major propulsion events, and less stress on hinges & joints.
-
#67 by Spiff on 31 Aug, 2006 21:26
-
Cheers guys!
Nice examples. Looks easy if you look at it.
-
#68 by hyper_snyper on 31 Aug, 2006 21:30
-
I hope they can push the 2014 date foward, Skip made it clear the date is unfirm for now. A while back LM said their proposal can beat it.
-
#69 by mong' on 31 Aug, 2006 21:45
-
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 -
#70 by vt_hokie on 31 Aug, 2006 21:58
-
Quote
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
That's what I thought when X-33 was announced!
Maybe they'll have better luck with this!
-
#71 by eeergo on 31 Aug, 2006 22:05
-
Mmmh... they talked about building habitats! At least they talk about it, which is something...
-
#72 by Chris Bergin on 31 Aug, 2006 22:06
-
The full press conference on the announcement and videos of the LM Orion...free to people registered on the forum.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=4124&start=1&posts=1 -
#73 by nacnud on 31 Aug, 2006 22:09
-
Thanks for that I missed the conferance.
LM is a bit of a shock but I like the choice. Must watch the vid now. -
#74 by ApolloLee on 31 Aug, 2006 22:29
-
LM is a pleasant surprise. LM’s CEV has many advantages over Boeing’s, namely its ability to be extremely upgradeable on the hardware and software side to avoid the shuttle’s problem of relying on 1970s technology into the 20th century.
I also like the fact that appearance wise, it looks like a step up from Apollo, as opposed to Boeing’s design that looked strictly like a rerun. And heck, I love the circular solar panels. With all the criticism of Orion being a step backwards, at least here’s something to grab on to that’s looking forward.
That said, I thought Boeing/Northrop’s political muscle would win out in the end.
-
#75 by Chris Bergin on 31 Aug, 2006 23:34
-
Lockheed release:
Lockheed Martin Selected by NASA
For ORION crew exploration vehicle
Lockheed Martin Team To Design and Build Successor To Space Shuttle as NASA's Primary Vehicle
For Human Space Exploration
Washington, D.C., August 31, 2006 – The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announced today that it has selected the Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] team to design and build the agency’s next-generation human space flight crew transportation system known as Orion, with an initial contract value of approximately $4 billion.
Orion, an advanced crew capsule design utilizing state-of-the-art technology, is a key element of NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration, and will succeed the Space Shuttle in transporting a new generation of human explorers to and from the International Space Station, the Moon, and eventually to Mars and beyond.
In partnership with NASA, Lockheed Martin will serve as prime contractor and will lead a world-class industry team that includes Honeywell, Orbital Sciences Corporation, United Space Alliance and Hamilton Sundstrand, supporting NASA in the design, test, build, integration and operational capability of Orion.
"We are honored by the trust that NASA has placed in the Lockheed Martin team for this historic and vital step forward in human space exploration," said Bob Stevens, chairman of the board, president and chief executive officer of Lockheed Martin Corporation. "Our entire team is fully committed to supporting NASA as we join together to help make the vision for space exploration a reality."
Orion will transport up to six crew members to and from the International Space Station, and up to four crew members for lunar missions. The new crew vehicle is designed to be an order of magnitude safer, more reliable, more affordable and more operationally efficient than previous human space flight systems.
“We are humbled and excited as we continue our legacy of five decades of partnership with NASA in every aspect of human and robotic space exploration,” said Joanne Maguire, executive vice president of Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company. “Work already is underway and we are fully focused on the vital tasks that lie ahead to meet NASA’s requirements for the program. We have a world-class team of highly dedicated, highly experienced women and men who are passionate about the success of NASA’s missions.”
- more -
The Lockheed Martin Orion program office is located in Houston, TX, co-located with NASA’s Johnson Space Center, providing support in the areas of program management, requirements development, software development, avionics, human factors, and system qualification testing. Large structures and composites will be built at NASA’s Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans, LA. Final assembly, checkout and acceptance testing of Orion for both the Crew Module and Service Module will be performed in the Operations and Checkout (O&C) facility at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center.
Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company is one of the major operating units of Lockheed Martin Corporation. Space Systems designs, develops, tests, manufactures and operates a variety of advanced technology systems for military, civil and commercial customers. Chief products include a full range of space launch systems, including heavy-lift capability, ground systems, remote sensing and communications satellites for commercial and government customers, advanced space observatories and interplanetary spacecraft, fleet ballistic missiles and missile defense systems.
Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin employs about 135,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The corporation reported 2005 sales of $37.2 billion.
-
#76 by Jim on 31 Aug, 2006 23:45
-
I said don't read into anything before they announced it
-
#77 by Jim on 31 Aug, 2006 23:51
-
Quote
Jamie Young - 31/8/2006 4:18 PM
Wow. So Boeing will get the upperstage?
No guarantee -
#78 by CEV Now on 01 Sep, 2006 00:24
-
Wow, Lockheed Martin. All the media were placing NG as favorite. Hope Lockheed Martin have learned from X-33.
-
#79 by edkyle99 on 01 Sep, 2006 01:29
-
A couple of weeks ago, this group voted its prediction. Northrop/Boeing won the vote 37 to 13!
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=3863&posts=25&mid=57758&highlight=&highlightmode=1&action=search#M57758
I'm pleased to see that I was one of the 13, but I can't brag since I see that I misspelled "Northrop" at the time.
- Ed Kyle -
#80 by astrobrian on 01 Sep, 2006 01:33
-
Quote
Jim - 31/8/2006 6:38 PM
QuoteJamie 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
-
#81 by edkyle99 on 01 Sep, 2006 01:37
-
Quote
astrobrian - 31/8/2006 8:20 PM
QuoteJim - 31/8/2006 6:38 PM
QuoteJamie 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
North American Aviation won both the Apollo CSM contract *and* the Saturn V S-II stage contract. People were surprised when NAA won the CSM contract, since McDonnell had more manned spacecraft experience and Martin had the highest proposal rating.
- Ed Kyle -
#82 by astrobrian on 01 Sep, 2006 01:42
-
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
-
#83 by edkyle99 on 01 Sep, 2006 03:14
-
Quote
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
I just remembered that at least *two* major production contracts remain to be let for the Ares I launch vehicle. One is for the upper stage itself. Another will be for the Instrument Unit that will sit atop the upper stage, containing avionics that will control the entire launch vehicle. The Instrument Unit contract could be a nice plum - worth far more in dollars than its relative size suggests.
- Ed Kyle -
#84 by Avron on 01 Sep, 2006 03:52
-
Quote
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.
Boeing is going to get Zero work directly... LMT has done one fantastic job in covering all the bases, and I mean all the bases..(how many presentations have you seen from LM and how many from BA on this site as an example) now there may be some action behind the work effort to keep a few boeing people happy.. If you see much in the way of issues from congress I will be amazed, in fact I dont see Delta getting much work from NASA going forward.. it will be LM and Atlas (what ever way that plays out) for NASA.. LM has the relationship with NASA and has it covered, has tested the waters many times over at least the last four years (at least) and has picked up the Big one...
LMT had the plan, and worked the plan, now they own the work, the Money and control the relationship. and played the focus game very well...
A great job, very well executed.. and much deserved...
The better team won out, if you look back its a clear win (Boeing was out a long time ago). What you see today, was not won on just one proposal, and never is with that many Billions up for grabs
Congratulations LMT...
-
#85 by Jonesy STS on 01 Sep, 2006 08:32
-
UK news playing on the "NASA goes back to the 60s" angle.
-
#86 by Captain Scarlet on 01 Sep, 2006 09:21
-
Quote
Jonesy 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. -
#87 by Jim on 01 Sep, 2006 11:21
-
Quote
Avron - 31/8/2006 11:39 PM
LM has the relationship with NASA
So does Boeing: USA, ISS, Shuttle and Delta -
#88 by Chris Bergin on 01 Sep, 2006 13:04
-
The BBC seem to have changed their feature. Doesn't mention the X-33 angle now.
-
#89 by zinfab on 01 Sep, 2006 14:15
-
This seems so different than the X-33 program. This time around, it's clear that the space shuttle will be retired, which puts additional pressure and need into "the next spaceship." That will make the difference.
In addition, this is clearly part of an entire exploration architecture (VSE), instead of a single new craft. -
#90 by hyper_snyper on 01 Sep, 2006 14:34
-
Quote
Captain Scarlet - 1/9/2006 5:08 AM
QuoteJonesy 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.
Most of the news articles I've read about this contain some sort of negative angle. Which is dissapointing to say the least.
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. -
#91 by vt_hokie on 01 Sep, 2006 16:07
-
Quote
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.
In the words of Lockheed Martin Vice President John Karas, "we're not shooting as far... I'd say it (Orion) is within reach."
I think because they're aiming low and not taking on any tough technical challenges, there is a higher probability of success. Of course, we're re-defining what success is. Compare the goals of a decade ago, when people had dreams of routine access to space, to the scaled back goals of today.
It seems that NASA has really backed itself into a corner, as the space shuttle surely is due for retirement, and NASA needs something affordable in the near term that it knows will work. So, given that reality, updated Apollo-era designs might be the logical choice. But I fear that it will hold back true progress over the long term. -
#92 by CEV Now on 02 Sep, 2006 02:23
-
Have Lockheed Martin released any detailed presentations past the videos we saw yesterday?
-
#93 by MKremer on 02 Sep, 2006 03:15
-
To me it's rather interesting that most people focus on the shape much more than the purpose. Also, I think many people (even in the media) don't realize the amount of up-to-date and new technologies this thing is going to have - materials and construction, power, computing and communications, life support, thermal regulation, and even on down to things like the controls, displays, and crew seats.
Apollo capsules are going to look like Model-T's in comparison.
-
#94 by SpaceCat on 02 Sep, 2006 04:21
-
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!
-
#95 by vt_hokie on 02 Sep, 2006 04:40
-
Quote
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.
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. With this expensive hardware, that's all NASA can afford to do. That, to me, is hardly a compelling reason to gut other worthwhile programs in order to fund VSE. Sure, there has been vague talk of lunar bases and an eventual attempt at sending humans to Mars, but realistically, NASA will be lucky to afford those two Apollo style flights per year. What's the point? (And I ask that in all seriousness.) -
#96 by rdale on 02 Sep, 2006 04:48
-
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. -
#97 by vt_hokie on 02 Sep, 2006 04:54
-
Quote
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
I have, but I will review it again.QuoteThe goal is to get us to Mars. The "training ground" is the moon.
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. -
#98 by MKremer on 02 Sep, 2006 07:15
-
Quote
vt_hokie - 1/9/2006 11:27 PM
QuoteMKremer - 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.
Eh. To me, the purpose is to get 4-6 people into LEO, building on the parts of the Shuttle system already developed and proven safe (from past hard-earned experience), and do it safely (ie- abort options).
The purpose isn't the destination!
The purpose is to have a basic vehicle (CM/SM (CEV)) that can do a ground-to-orbit-and-reentry as efficiently as possible while still retaining the as much of the existing workforce/experience left over from the Shuttle program as they can (meaning involving and upgrading Shuttle legacy hardware). It's as much political as it is trying to be practical.
If NASA can get a reliable, safe means of getting a crew of 4-6 people from the ground to LEO (and back again), then their final destination, using additional safe space hardware, shouldn't matter, IMO.
-
#99 by MKremer on 02 Sep, 2006 07:18
-
Quote
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.
Please define "vintage technology" as it applies to anything other than the outer shape of the CEV.
-
#100 by vt_hokie on 02 Sep, 2006 08:23
-
Quote
MKremer - 2/9/2006 3:05 AM
Please define "vintage technology" as it applies to anything other than the outer shape of the CEV.
SRB's and other expendable launch vehicle hardware, primarily. And it sounds like the "Orion" capsule might not even be reusable. -
#101 by MATTBLAK on 02 Sep, 2006 10:41
-
(Adopts Irish accent) "'Twill be a fine ship, this O'Ryan. 'Tis a fine name for a ship of the heavens, to be sure, to be sure!!"
-
#102 by Jim on 02 Sep, 2006 14:18
-
Quote
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!
It is the stretchout of the $ -
#103 by PlanetStorm on 02 Sep, 2006 14:59
-
Quote
Jim - 2/9/2006 3:05 PM
QuoteSpaceCat - 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 $
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. -
#104 by vt_hokie on 02 Sep, 2006 15:05
-
Quote
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.
The SST is already retired! Sadly, STS isn't far behind.
-
#105 by rdale on 02 Sep, 2006 15:38
-
"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."
No - it was made quite clear at the last two Constellation press conferences that if there was unlimited funds, we could do this notably faster. -
#106 by Avron on 02 Sep, 2006 20:21
-
Quote
Jim - 1/9/2006 7:08 AM
QuoteAvron - 31/8/2006 11:39 PM
LM has the relationship with NASA
So does Boeing: USA, ISS, Shuttle and Delta
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...
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.
None of this should be taken as negitive in terms of the workforce.. but it will impact the workforce.. and to some degree that is the Sad part.. -
#107 by Jim on 02 Sep, 2006 20:51
-
Quote
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.
1. You are trying to see something that isn't there. LM isn't the "in" and Boeing is on the "outs" LM just won the next contract. That is all. LM has losts other, but that didn't mean they were on the "out"
2. You are trying to see something that isn't there. LM is just a resident contractor. Others can work in the same facility. MAF doesn't equate to LM. It is just like Air Force Plant 42 in Palmdale. NG made the B-2, Boeing the B-1 and shuttle, and LM the X-33 all in the same facility. MAF is a place for contractors to build items for NASA -
#108 by Avron on 02 Sep, 2006 23:13
-
Time will tell..
Maybe they'll have better luck with this!