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)
• #20 by josh_simonson on 01 Sep, 2006 01:36
• I wonder if now the un-manned ISS CEV will just happen to fit on the Atlas V 552 when Cots take 2 comes about?
• #21 by Jim on 01 Sep, 2006 01:49
• Quote

  josh_simonson - 31/8/2006  9:23 PM
  
  I wonder if now the un-manned ISS CEV will just happen to fit on the Atlas V 552 when Cots take 2 comes about?

  
  Same weight as manned.
• #22 by yinzer on 01 Sep, 2006 03:16
• But without survivable abort requirements (and the associated SM propellant), the Atlas can lift it.
• #23 by josh_simonson on 01 Sep, 2006 04:35
• Indeed, they lose 4t just with the LAS, then there's 7t of propellant that can either be dropped or used as a third stage if Atlas is sturdy enough to lift it.   Supposedly a CEV could get down around 16t if it only needs to go to ISS.
• #24 by bad_astra on 01 Sep, 2006 06:43
• Well my company lost, but good luck to Lockheed.
• #25 by jabe on 01 Sep, 2006 13:04
• when will the contract be made for the "lunar module"..yeah know the part that goes to the moon?  not sure what to call it.  (can't use LM for obvious reasons.     )  Will NG get that contract or has it already been given out.  Have heard conflicting stories on if it will use CH4 or other fuels..any news on that regard that I have missed
• #26 by Jim on 01 Sep, 2006 13:19
• It is the LSAM.  That contract won't be for a few years.  The study phase hasn't even started
• #27 by spacedreams on 01 Sep, 2006 16:21
• Kayla, a question for you and just something in general to ponder: How much dialog can/will there be between between the Lockheed CEV team and the ULA folks? Geographically and culturally (at least the Atlas half) they will be somewhat similar. Considering you will arguably have a collection of the best rocket scientists in the country in very close proximity to people working on America's new capsule will there be any integral efforts. It has been said before by NASA that whoever builds Orion certainly has the option to build models for other uses. Could there possibly a commercial effort to combine the two which could be a convienent back-up option if the stick doesn't quite pan out or are there regulations against ULA participation in non-DOD efforts? Or even more interesting, could DOD procure an Orian capsule for their own uses to integrate with their EELV?
  
  Did Colorado just overtake California in terms of Aerospace market or were they already ahead of them?
• #28 by Jim on 01 Sep, 2006 16:33
• Quote

  spacedreams - 1/9/2006  12:08 PM
  
  Kayla, a question for you and just something in general to ponder: How much dialog can/will there be between between the Lockheed CEV team and the ULA folks? Geographically and culturally (at least the Atlas half) they will be somewhat similar. Considering you will arguably have a collection of the best rocket scientists in the country in very close proximity to people working on America's new capsule will there be any integral efforts. It has been said before by NASA that whoever builds Orion certainly has the option to build models for other uses. Could there possibly a commercial effort to combine the two which could be a convienent back-up option if the stick doesn't quite pan out or are there regulations against ULA participation in non-DOD efforts? Or even more interesting, could DOD procure an Orian capsule for their own uses to integrate with their EELV?
  
  Did Colorado just overtake California in terms of Aerospace market or were they already ahead of them?

  
  1.  Technically LM or Boeing spacecraft divisions have to put firewalls up between them and their respective LV divisions.  Same goes for ULA.  this is to prevent either of those spacecraft divisions getting an unfair advantage over NGST, Loral, OSC etc spacecraft.
  
  2.  Those 'other" uses are NASA's
  
  3.  ULA is not only DOD, it will produce LV's for NASA and commercial customers
  
  4.  LM can't build a whole CEV on its own, there are systems provided by NASA, such as the docking system, parachutes, airbags, etc
  
  5.  DOD has no use for a CEV
• #29 by Kayla on 01 Sep, 2006 18:09
• Quote

  spacedreams - 1/9/2006  11:08 AM
  
  Kayla, a question for you and just something in general to ponder: How much dialog can/will there be between between the Lockheed CEV team and the ULA folks? Geographically and culturally (at least the Atlas half) they will be somewhat similar. Considering you will arguably have a collection of the best rocket scientists in the country in very close proximity to people working on America's new capsule will there be any integral efforts. It has been said before by NASA that whoever builds Orion certainly has the option to build models for other uses.

  
  Karas has already indicated his desire to use portions of the CEV for commercial purposes if LM were to win the CEV.
  
  The CEV is the back bone to continued American human presence in space, be it LEO or beyond.  It is in NASA's, America's and now LM's interest to make sure that the CEV is very successful.  Obviously performing on the CEV development is absolutely key to this.  But having a launch vehicle is just as important.  We've all heard the numerous problems regarding the Aries I.  At this point NASA is still moving forward on the Aries I, but who knows what the future holds.  It is not in anyone’s interest (other than maybe ATK) to bet America's future crew launch capability on Aries I development, especially when the Atlas and Delta can provide ready alternatives for a small fraction of the price and schedule.  When NASA is ready, the EELV's will be more than willing to provide CEV launch and help America's future launch needs.
  
• #30 by spacedreams on 01 Sep, 2006 18:39
• But will integration capability and interfaces with EELV be considered in the design of CEV? Is this a priority or could this possibly be a special projects type thing on a separate charge code? Will Lockheed want to put any investment into this possibility?
  
  And IF this type of effort is pusued for commercial use would it be operated by Lockheed (with a contract to ULA to pruchace booster), USA,  or sold off to a commercial venture like Space Adventures?  
  
  Like I have said before, I don't care how we get there or where the money goes, I just want to see a viable commercial market emerge. These recent events are starting to make me believe we can get there.
• #31 by Jim on 01 Sep, 2006 19:07
• Quote

  spacedreams - 1/9/2006  2:26 PM
  
  1. But will integration capability and interfaces with EELV be considered in the design of CEV? Is this a priority or could this possibly be a special projects type thing on a separate charge code? Will Lockheed want to put any investment into this possibility?
  
  2. And IF this type of effort is pusued for commercial use would it be operated by Lockheed (with a contract to ULA to pruchace booster), USA,  or sold off to a commercial venture like Space Adventures?  
  .

  
  1. No, since it is NASA vehicle.  Any "commercial" version would have to be a separate design (different dash number for those who understand eng drws).
  
  2.  Anything goes
• #32 by Avron on 02 Sep, 2006 21:11
• Quote

  Kayla - 1/9/2006  1:56 PM
    When NASA is ready, the EELV's will be more than willing to provide CEV launch and help America's future launch needs.
  

  
  
  Thanks, that closes the loop for me...  yes, I think we will see ATK run a whole suite of tests and maybe a few launches.. then IN TIME  in the name of safety we will have some congressional comission who will tell NASA to move away from solids and Hello EELV.'s...
  
  Thats is where I am putting my money...  time to buy more shares...