Is anyone else worried about the LM Orion Contract

Is anyone else worried about the LM Orion Contract by Zoomer30 on 03 Sep, 2006 20:28
...that the same company that spent about $900M and failed to produce the Venture Star is now going to produce the CEV? Yes yes I know the VS was a totally new system with yet-to-be-deveoped aerospike engines and all that, but still.

Lets hope what ever issues there were are gone now, the US cant afford another 900M dollar white elephant.
#1 by oscar71 on 03 Sep, 2006 20:46
From what I understand, the Venture Star was essentially an all purpose launch vehicle. Orion, for lack of a better word, is a payload. One can't easily make comparisons between the two.
#2 by apollolanding on 03 Sep, 2006 20:56
X-33/Venture Star was a huge leap forward in spacecraft design and construction. The CEV, while not a minivan coming out of a Chrysler plant, is much simpler in design and will be much easier to construct. IMO, LM will deliver the CEV. There are no exotic composite fuel tanks or propulsion systems. The entire CEV design was picked for it's simplicity and for the fact that we have an existing knowledge base when it comes to designing/building and flying cone shaped spacecraft. I don't think that Boeing or any other aerospace company would have been able to build X-33/VS given the same amount of time and money LM had. I do think that NG/Boeing or LM can build CEV. It's LM's job now. What I am more worried about is that LM will have a CEV built but no launch vehicle for it to ride on.
#3 by Jim on 03 Sep, 2006 20:58
Quote
Zoomer30 - 3/9/2006 4:15 PM

...that the same company that spent about $900M and failed to produce the Venture Star is now going to produce the CEV? Yes yes I know the VS was a totally new system with yet-to-be-deveoped aerospike engines and all that, but still.

Lets hope what ever issues there were are gone now, the US cant afford another 900M dollar white elephant.

Wrong, it was the X-33 and it was a shared program,50% - 50% with NASA. NASA was part of the reason for the cancellation. It wasn't all LM's fault. And really, no was no one's fault. Just too early and too many technical risk to do such a project.

Every contractor has had stillborn projects.

Boeing isn't squeaky clean. They recently screwed up the FIA program so bad that most of it was taken awaly from them and given to LM. This contract is worth more than the CEV.
#4 by Avron on 04 Sep, 2006 00:26
Trend.. he wonders...
#5 by simonbp on 04 Sep, 2006 01:04
Besides, Orion will _not_ make any money for LM, it's really just prestige they and NG/Boeing were fighting over...

Simon
#6 by MKremer on 04 Sep, 2006 01:49
Quote
simonbp - 3/9/2006 7:51 PM

Besides, Orion will _not_ make any money for LM, it's really just prestige they and NG/Boeing were fighting over...

Simon

Ummm, no, Orion will make LM a profit - they wouldn't be bidding on it if it didn't.

The concern is with controlling costs and making sure NASA management does a good job to keep the contractors from frequently demanding additional money for design and development unless absolutely necessary.
#7 by Mobius Stripper on 04 Sep, 2006 02:18
I wouldn't worry about the X-33 past performance issues with LM. First any good company is made of individuals. Second LM is made of several companies. LMSO out of Houston has a significant role in the CEV and there performance and collaboration with JSC has a long history of both good and bad. But mostly good, since some of the same people that the LMSO crew has worked with over the years at JSC choose LM for the CEV. LMSSC had the major role in the X-33, but many of the individuals in charge of CEV had nothing to do with the X-33. People always matter, and in this case I think that there are some great folks in the CEV program. Mr Karas is the top guy within LM for the exploration systems and on the hook for the CEV and I can tell you he is a good guy that will slaughter any of his CEV personnel if they do anything that keeps us from flying on time with anything but the best possible vehicle.

I will add the note that I do have a personal bias since I both work for LM and I am part of the CEV team. All opinions expressed are mine and not need be that of LM.

I look forward to the design details of the LM CEV coming out over the next several weeks as LM has put a lot of work into the design already and the innovations will please most of the space junkies out there. Oh, and I read a thread here wondering about why the round arrays, they are Ultraflex arrays from what used to be Able engineering that was bought by ATK a while back. That was probably mentioned but if not there it is. They can ahndle the worst case burn accelerations from the EDS and they can be deployed in at least 1g without any special fixtures to support them.
#8 by Jim on 04 Sep, 2006 02:32
LMSSC (denver) did not do X-33, skunkworks did. I am surprise about LMSO, since it is a virtual company, its only asset is people, unlike LMSSC.
#9 by Mobius Stripper on 04 Sep, 2006 03:22
Sorry about that Jim, I get Sunnyvale and the other operations in CA confused sometimes. I'm a LMSO weenie stuck in lovely temperate Houston. LMSSC did fab the troublesome tanks for X-33 along with a bunch of other stuff at the MAF and in Denver, but you are correct the major design role and integration place for the X-33 was the skunkworks.

I thought that the concern about the X-33 was pretty lame since there is no technical relationship between the programs, as far as I am aware, and I've seen the MELs for all of the subsystems within the CEV. However there is a relationship between the Mars probes, the Mars reentry systems, some special programs projects and other successful projects that don't get mentioned since there are no significant design details available yet.

I think that Keith Cowing's mention about the X-33 on NASAwatch is misguided and a bit odd. Why not pick on Northrup for the Peacemaker flight hardware bought at Radio shack while he's at it? It is silly to assume that LM or any other contractor is a big borg collective that is interconnected to the point to have some kind of perpetual Achillies heel.
#10 by Zoomer30 on 04 Sep, 2006 03:30
From what I have read, a NASA contract is like the Goose that Laid the Golden Egg. High budget and overruns are not a big deal and EXPECTED in some cases. I agree that VS and Orion (got to get used to calling it that now) are apples and oranges.

Now all they gotta develop is some SSME style engines for the sticks 2nd stage that you can afford to not get back. Looking forward to seeing it fly.
#11 by MATTBLAK on 04 Sep, 2006 06:30
Venturestar was always underfunded for such a challenging design and even in the late '90s when America had a budget surplus, there was little patience for cost 'overruns' and delays.
#12 by james on 04 Sep, 2006 06:36
Small point of fact, Mobius: LMSSC did not make the "troublesome tanks" for X-33. The composite LH2 tanks (the tanks with which there was so much trouble) were subcontracted to ATK by the Skunk Works. Michoud (successfully) built the LOx tank.
#13 by Chris Bergin on 04 Sep, 2006 13:30
Quote
james - 4/9/2006 7:23 AM

Small point of fact, Mobius: LMSSC did not make the "troublesome tanks" for X-33. The composite LH2 tanks (the tanks with which there was so much trouble) were subcontracted to ATK by the Skunk Works. Michoud (successfully) built the LOx tank.

The MAF guys called the composite tanks the "compost tanks" they were so bad.

Wrote up the mess involved with the X-33 a while ago:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=4180
#14 by meiza on 04 Sep, 2006 14:40
Still, isn't it the responsibility of the prime contractor to supervise the subcontractors?
#15 by yinzer on 04 Sep, 2006 17:39
If the VentureStar succeeded, it would be a large threat to a big revenue stream for Lockheed Martin, as well as to huge chunks of the workforce at NASA (costs 10% as much to launch as Shuttle means employs 10% as many people as Shuttle). Given how fiercely both are protected, it's no surprise than the VentureStar "failed". On the other hand, Orion threatens nobody involved in its design and manufacture, only the budget and the viability of the VSE as a whole, so there's much less reason to worry about it.
#16 by CypherArts.com on 04 Sep, 2006 18:05
In reality, we should be worried that so much money and expense is going into a project that is so inefficient and breaks no new technological ground. Had NASA stuck with the X-33, we might have a new launch vehicle ready in 3-4 years. Instead, Bush Jr. is selling us a giant white elephant. NASA is way too afraid about test pilots (re: astronauts) dying. Risk is an inherent activity when pushing the envelope.

See http://www.nasaproblems.com/ for a cost effective alternative that is available now. It is time to make what we have work and upgrade it, then incrementally build from there. NASA has a terminal case of ADD.

It doesn't matter whether Lockheed or Boeing/Northrop got the contract, the reult woill be the same, cost overruns and a new approach in 3-4 years. It is time to build some new Shuttles and continue to improve them each year.
#17 by Jim on 04 Sep, 2006 18:32
Quote
CypherArts.com - 4/9/2006 1:52 PM

In reality, we should be worried that so much money and expense is going into a project that is so inefficient and breaks no new technological ground. Had NASA stuck with the X-33, we might have a new launch vehicle ready in 3-4 years. Instead, Bush Jr. is selling us a giant white elephant. NASA is way too afraid about test pilots (re: astronauts) dying. Risk is an inherent activity when pushing the envelope.

See http://www.nasaproblems.com/ for a cost effective alternative that is available now. It is time to make what we have work and upgrade it, then incrementally build from there. NASA has a terminal case of ADD.

SSTO RLV is the holy grail of spaceflight. It would have never worked. Same comment applies to yinzer's post

That website is full of inaccuracies and too many to mention here
#18 by vt_hokie on 07 Sep, 2006 01:37
CypherArts, I agree with you 100%.

Quote
Jim - 4/9/2006 2:19 PM

SSTO RLV is the holy grail of spaceflight. It would have never worked.

SSTO would not have, but a fully reusable TSTO system is well within our reach. It seems to me that a VentureStar type of vehicle mated to a liquid fueled flyback booster along the lines of what was proposed to replace the shuttle SRB's would be very feasible. And if the orbital vehicle's engines are firing for the entire launch duration, as is the case with the shuttle orbiter, then a variable expansion ratio could still be advantageous for a two-stage system. (Or would that be considered "1.5 stage"?) I'd have loved to see those linear aerospikes in action on the X-33!
#19 by wannamoonbase on 10 Sep, 2006 01:42
Quote
MATTBLAK - 4/9/2006 2:17 AM

Venturestar was always underfunded for such a challenging design and even in the late '90s when America had a budget surplus, there was little patience for cost 'overruns' and delays.

Exactly the X-33 and Venturestar required massive technology development to make a RLV SSTO viable and they were given almost nothing to do it.

Part of the problem is the same as now, they tried (half hearted) to develop a new vehicle (although scaled down and suborbital) while actually building the ISS at the time and flying the billion-consuming STS.

If, you really wanted to make it work, find 10 or 20 billion and put some brains into developing new technology for 10 years then you might have something close.

It was not LMs fault, they put some of their own money into. They are a great integrator and systems company and have experience with F-22, F-35, USA, Atlas V and Skunk Works.

NG/BA have experience from 45 years ago which means little since almost everyone of those guys is now playing shuffle board in south Florida somewhere.

Its the first new spacecraft in 30+ years, but in many ways it is going to be less complex than F-22 or F-35. Its different in many ways but less complex. I have complete faith in LMs abilities to develop a great vehicle.

As for the inevitable 'sticking it to the government' aspect they are no worse or no better than any other of the big boys.
#20 by MKremer on 10 Sep, 2006 06:30
It tends to be more about management appeasing the board, and the BOD appeasing the groups of largest shareholders (who tend to want their holdings worth lots of money *now* rather than 5-10 or 20 years in the future).
#21 by wannamoonbase on 10 Sep, 2006 19:04
Quote
MKremer - 10/9/2006 2:17 AM

It tends to be more about management appeasing the board, and the BOD appeasing the groups of largest shareholders (who tend to want their holdings worth lots of money *now* rather than 5-10 or 20 years in the future).

BA, NG and LM are in a long term industry. If you are buying LM shares expecting a rapid payoff you are in the wrong stock. I would buy any one of the three companies for my 401K. Because they will all get their share of commercial and defense money.
#22 by MartianBase on 10 Sep, 2006 19:51
Quote
Jim - 4/9/2006 1:19 PM

SSTO RLV is the holy grail of spaceflight. It would have never worked. Same comment applies to yinzer's post

LM have done some of the most amazing work in space and the Lockheed Martin Atlas 5 rocket is probably the best and most reliable launcher on the planet.

I agree the X-33 or X-34 was never going anywhere near space no matter how much the best stunt pilots wanted them to. Especially traveling at mach 5 ?? we don't have the abilty to build some Gene Roddenberry type airccraft that will fly off into space on Energy that comes from nothing. There are some people who are not grounded in reality and this whole X-plane/ George Lucas Starship idea that can do a single stage to orbit is staring to remind me of the time Lockheed metric confusion caused a Mars orbiter loss
#23 by bad_astra on 11 Sep, 2006 01:22
Quote
I agree the X-33 or X-34 was never going anywhere near space no matter how much the best stunt pilots wanted them to. Especially traveling at mach 5 ?? we don't have the abilty to build some Gene Roddenberry type airccraft that will fly off into space on Energy that comes from nothing. There are some people who are not grounded in reality and this whole X-plane/ George Lucas Starship idea that can do a single stage to orbit is staring to remind me of the time Lockheed metric confusion caused a Mars orbiter loss

There's nothing Sci-Fi about an SSTO. Atlas was almost an SSTO. An SSTO RLV is a bit of a reach and it's payload would be so small it wouldn't be cost effective at this moment, but it certainly doesn't depend on zero point energy or Hollywood screen writers. As for an SSTO RLV, it won't happen until there is demand for it (in the rate of launches). We don't need an SSTO RLV right now.
#24 by josh_simonson on 11 Sep, 2006 19:55
>As for an SSTO RLV, it won't happen until there is demand for it (in the rate of launches). We don't need an SSTO RLV right now.

Indeed, it's a chicken and egg problem. There wasn't suddenly a chicken (vehicle) or egg (demand), rather they evolved together over time until becoming our familiar breakfast and dinner components. The launch industry will have to develop in the same manner unless a dramatic discovery reduces launch costs (including DEVEOPMENT costs).
#25 by vt_hokie on 11 Sep, 2006 22:40
Quote
wannamoonbase - 10/9/2006 2:51 PM

BA, NG and LM are in a long term industry. If you are buying LM shares expecting a rapid payoff you are in the wrong stock. I would buy any one of the three companies for my 401K. Because they will all get their share of commercial and defense money.

That's what I thought about Honeywell. I stupidly left money in my old AlliedSignal/Honeywell 401k invested in HON stock, and man, that's been worthless over the last 6 or 7 years. It's still a lot better than losing every dollar that I put into Loral stock, but that's another story. I think I'm done with investing in company stock. Might as well let the fund managers who supposedly know what they're doing make those decisions. (Although, my other funds haven't done well either. I'm tempted just to invest in money market accounts and be happy with my measly 5% return. It beats losing money!)
#26 by simonbp on 12 Sep, 2006 17:41
But as I said, the Orion contract will not make any substantial money for LM (we're talking about a company whose revenues last year were triple the entire NASA budget), it's just pretige, the ability to say to investors "we're really high-tech; we make spaceships!", that they were bidding for.

And besides, why is everyone whining about X-33 when at the same time LM designed the very nice, very sucessful Atlas V, which is far more comparable to the CEV (in that it is not a techology demonstrator, but an existing technology, goal-oreinted program)...

Simon
#27 by josh_simonson on 13 Sep, 2006 05:32
The XRS-2200 had a T/W of 27, while SSME has a T/W of 54, and the J-2 (which it was based on) would have a T/W of 69 if it's performance degraded simlar to SSME at sea level.

How can you build a SSTO with that engine when it takes up fully 1/3 of the available non-fuel weight of your vehicle?

Lessons learned from X-33:
Linear aerospikes - suck.
Composite tanks - don't save much weight.
Needed mass fraction for SSTO - unobtainable with current state-of-the-art technology.

Spending 1 billion (hardly 'underfunded') to learn those lessons on the subscale demonstrator is far better than spending $5bln to learn it on a prototype venturestar, and continuing on that path now would only be throwing good money after bad down a hole. Certainly the idea should be revisited when a few basic technology improvements have been made, but for now there isn't much that's happened in the last 4 years to justify trying to do it better.