NG or LM

• NG or LM by norm103 on 31 Aug, 2006 07:38
• who will get the cev
• #1 by fajitapita on 31 Aug, 2006 14:42
• I guess the general thinking is that NG has been the favorite all along. All the rumors point to an NG win as well. Havent seen one rumor yet where LM was thought to win. Cant read to much into rumors I guess but I suppose when all rumors are one sided it kinda puts the writing on the wall so to speak.
• #2 by Framis on 31 Aug, 2006 17:32
• At least one of the rumors, first appearing on a website based in AL, was a gross misinterpretation of some events at JSC. In fact, the reality of the situation caused great distress at NG/B when NASA corrected their bad assumption.
• #3 by rdale on 31 Aug, 2006 18:26
• For those of us who don't have a clue what website that is or what caused distress - any help?
• #4 by punkboi on 31 Aug, 2006 18:41

• From another thread:

  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!)

• #5 by ryan mccabe on 31 Aug, 2006 19:06
• 
  In a perfect world, I would like to see Northrop-Grumman/Boeing build the CEV and Lockheed become responsible for an Atlas-V Heavy CLV...
• #6 by kraisee on 31 Aug, 2006 19:46
• On the assumption that NG/B gets both CEV and LSAM, then Lockheed will still make a very decent chunk of money out of the U/S of the Ares-I, the Core of the Ares-V and the EDS projects.   Not to mention that the staffing for operating the new program will be handled by a joint organisation like USA - if not USA, and they'll get money there too.
  
  I also suspect that the Atlas-V will take over most of the EELV duties in a few years time under ULA, with only the Delta-IV Heavy remaining of that line, so everyone will have plenty of work to go around for everyone throughout the business.
  
  Ross.
• #7 by rsp1202 on 31 Aug, 2006 20:23
• I would normally post this in Launcher forums, but you've raised the specific question I have: Has Delta IV become a hangar queen? What specifically has kept it from competing with Atlas, other than the government penalties levied against Boeing? Is it related to engine and lift performance of the non-Heavy versions, supposed reliability factors, cost, or mostly a political thing, with LM having more clout in this alliance than Boeing?
• #8 by Jim on 31 Aug, 2006 20:25
• LM and Boeing are not part of ULA yet.  D-IV has flown 6 times vs Atlas 5's eightl   Not a hangar queen.  have one on both coasts currently
• #9 by rsp1202 on 31 Aug, 2006 20:28
• I know! I've counted the missions for both. That's why my question. It just seems Delta is getting short-sheeted around here.
• #10 by yinzer on 31 Aug, 2006 20:31
• The Delta IV is just more expensive than the Atlas V.  They got a lot more of the initial EELV order via industrial espionage, but that was (rightfully) taken away, and Boeing is now facing a huge and certain legal defeat in the civil suit Lockheed has brought as a result.  The Delta IV product line is now only being kept alive as a second-source to the Atlas V, and since there aren't really any other viable competitors to the Atlas, the way to increase the value of a second-source is by price increases combined with shutdown threats.
• #11 by kraisee on 31 Aug, 2006 20:43
• Boeing lost a lost of cudos though with the strike.   That kept D-IV's from flying for over a year, and probably didn't make those workers look good to their new bosses at ULA.   Wouldn't surprise me at all if the ULA downsizing planned for two years time includes a lot of the same people who were on strike.
  
  When it comes to redundancies in a few years time, I don't think the strike will help "enthuse" anyone into retaining those staff who have that in their work-history. But that's just me...
  
  Ross.
• #12 by mike robel on 31 Aug, 2006 21:12
• in addition to the strike, there was a major battery issue for Delta II and IV with regard to the self-destruct/range safety package.
• #13 by kraisee on 31 Aug, 2006 21:25
• Add all of this to the variety of managerial scandals, and maybe it weakened Boeing critically in the CEV decision...
  
  I think LM had one heckuva job to do to be able to really get into this competition though.
  
  They must have pulled something pretty impressive out of the hat.
  
  Ross.
• #14 by MKremer on 31 Aug, 2006 21:57
• I wonder if all this will lead to any top level executive management shuffling or changes at Boeing. Or is the civilian space business parts of Boeing not contribute enough to overall corporate health to demand any shakeups yet?
  
• #15 by spacedreams on 31 Aug, 2006 22:06
• The impression I get from Boeing is that the big wigs would rather not be involved in the civilian space industry. They look at it as a profit sink. I think they would rather just make their money off of aircraft and military work. They sure didn't shed a tear about (almost) getting Delta at least half way off their plate.  But as others have said, this was a NG led team not Boeing so the risk would have been more on the NG side
• #16 by Jim on 31 Aug, 2006 23:50
• Quote

  kraisee - 31/8/2006  4:30 PM
  
  Boeing lost a lost of cudos though with the strike.   That kept D-IV's from flying for over a year, and probably didn't make those workers look good to their new bosses at ULA.   Wouldn't surprise me at all if the ULA downsizing planned for two years time includes a lot of the same people who were on strike.
  
  When it comes to redundancies in a few years time, I don't think the strike will help "enthuse" anyone into retaining those staff who have that in their work-history. But that's just me...
  
  Ross.

  
  The strike was a non factor.  Our management couldn't care less. It in fact, it didn't delay any mission, the batteries did.  
  The downsizing of strikers is illegal and techs layoffs are by seniority
• #17 by Kayla on 01 Sep, 2006 00:27
• The issues Delta has had over the past year, those with the Shuttle over the past 2.5 years, and all of the launch providers have had over the years are exactly why the concept of assured access is so vital.  Every rocket flying today has had it's issues at one time or another.  This is one of many reasons why I've argued strongly for NASA to choose an architecture that allows competition and backup, particularly in the launch arena.  Now that CEV has been awarded and is ready to move out, NASA should really take another look at launch.  Even if NASA insists on moving forward with Aries I (heaven forbid) the CEV should be integrated on one or more additional rockets.  For the ISS mission, the required performance is relatively minor.  An Atlas 522 is in the right ballpark for performance, cost and reliability.  Put the steam on the CEV team to get a block 1 CEV ready to fly in 2010!!!
  
  With regards to all of the comments regarding Delta and getting rid of people, I for one am truly looking forward to ULA and the opportunity to work with the Delta folks.  They have over come a lot of issues steming back to Delta III.  They have introduced some innovative concepts on the Delta IV that I for one look forward to finally being able to see the flight data and details of the designs.  I welcome all of the Delta and Atlas folks to ULA and look forward to a very positive work environment!
  
  The launch market has been an extreme financial challenge to everyone involved in the competitive market.  Both Boeing and LM have taken huge losses.  And NASA trying to continue a government owned competitor (currently shuttle, followed by SDLV) doesn't help the companies or the country at all.  Both LM and Boeing are relunctant to invest further in this money loosing business, hence ULA.  My only hope is that since ULA will sink or swim strictly due to launch, ULA will have a new focus that allows it to get extremely competitive, both with DoD as well as with NASA and the broad commercial market!
• #18 by kraisee on 01 Sep, 2006 00:35
• I'm wondering what Boeing's going to do now.
  
  They have been saying that they're considering scaling waaaay down on their space program activities if they didn't get this contract.
  
  They've already sold Rocketdyne, and are giving up Delta to ULA, and the ISS and Shuttle programs only have a finte number of years left in them.   I could easily see them pull out at this point.
  
  I think NG could go-it-alone with an LSAM entry later, without Boeing, but with CEV in their pocket, I think LM are in a very strong position to go for that themselves and win.
  
  Could this selection have very dire consequences for Boeing remaining in this field?   Only time will tell for sure, but it doesn't look "encouraging" to me.
  
  Ross.
• #19 by Jim on 01 Sep, 2006 00:55
• There still is Boeing Satellite Systems.  Delta is not "given" up to ULA, it is still part of Boeing, There is USA and Sealaunch.  Also Boeing does other studies.
  
  the Rocketdyne sale is part of the culture change to be system integrators vs part builders (horizontal vs vertically integrated company)