-
#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.
