Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
CEV Contractor To Be Announced 8/31  
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 915 posts, RR: 51
Posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3352 times:

According to SpaceRef.com, NASA will announce the prime contractor for the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle on Thursday, August 31.

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.


The two competing bids are from:

- Northrop Grumman/Boeing
- Lockheed Martin

A pleathora of secondary contractors are associated with both teams, including EADS, the United Space Alliance, Honeywell, Orbital Sciences, etc.

Any thoughts?

29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3318 times:

I had NO IDEA it was this soon. Thanks for the heads up.

I was not born when Apollo/Mercury/Gemini was announced, I was a little boy when the Shuttle was announced(Apollo cancellation and orbit only did not make this a big thrill), and I thought I was at this point again when Al Gore unveiled the VentureStar, only to be sorely disappointed.

I just hope they dont do a "space station" and keep making cuts until it doesn't serve its original purpose, or cant.

Now that things have changed so much with the design, is there a link that shows what the real configuration is to be, including the Mars piece of the puzzle? I have not come across one yet.



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineN844AA From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1352 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3284 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Thread starter):
The two competing bids are from:

- Northrop Grumman/Boeing
- Lockheed Martin

Y'know, it's like they took every major contractor from the space race, mixed them up in a pot, and distilled them down into these two companies. It would be interesting to see some kind of graphical representation of each subcontractor on, say, Apollo, and plot their corporate lineages against time, reflecting the acquisitions and mergers that took place over the years.



New airplanes, new employees, low fares, all touchy-feely ... all of them are losers. -Gordon Bethune
User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3284 times:

Quoting N844AA (Reply 2):
It would be interesting to see some kind of graphical representation of each subcontractor on, say, Apollo, and plot their corporate lineages against time, reflecting the acquisitions and mergers that took place over the years.

This might be close enough. Some like Thiokol wont be ther because this is for fixed wing military, but it is still sort of relevant.

Please note, the Northrup/Grumman aquisition by LockMart never happend.

American Aircraft Companies Family Tree


[Edited 2006-08-28 22:49:29]


Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineN844AA From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1352 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3276 times:

That's exactly what I had in mind; great find. If I were any good at design, I'd come up with a diagram like that, except with the Saturn V on the Y-axis, broken down into components and listing the prime contractor for each, and then tracing the acquisitions to follow.

By the way, what put an end to the LM-Northrop merger? Antitrust concerns?



New airplanes, new employees, low fares, all touchy-feely ... all of them are losers. -Gordon Bethune
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 915 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3276 times:

Quoting N844AA (Reply 2):

Y'know, it's like they took every major contractor from the space race, mixed them up in a pot, and distilled them down into these two companies

There is a lot of truth to that.

In some ways, I am deeply disappointed that many decisions about the CEV and EAS program are being made to satisfy the corperate (and thus political) interests of the major Shuttle contractors.

A new program should be a chance to design new hardware with a clean sheet. Certain baggage is better left behind. I'm not suggesting re-inventing the wheel at every opportunity, but scientific goals, budget guidelines, and spacecraft capabilities are taking a back seat to corperate and political interest.

For example, using a Thikol-based SRB to launch the CEV rather than the EELV developed by the DoD. For example, retaining Apollo configurations versus potentially more practical solutions like the T/Space CXV. I think that is wrong, and places a great burden on the space community.

Oh well. I just hope something flies!


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 915 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3272 times:

Quoting N844AA (Reply 4):
I'd come up with a diagram like that, except with the Saturn V on the Y-axis, broken down into components and listing the prime contractor for each, and then tracing the acquisitions to follow.

Well, without a diagram, it went something like this:

------

Saturn IC first stage - the Boeing Company

Saturn II second stage - North American Aviation Company (eventually by Boeing in the Rockwell merger)

Saturn IVB third stage - Douglas Aircraft Company (eventually aquired by Boeing in the MD merger)

Apollo CM/SM - North American Aviation Company (eventually aquired by Boeing)

Apollo LM - Grumman Aircraft Company (eventually merged into Northrop Grumman)

------

So as you can see, the vast majority of Apollo and Saturn heritage eventually wound-up at the Boeing Company.

Now keep in mind that NASA has already announced the new heavy lift vehicle (Ares V) and there is little Saturn legacy involved. Boeing has also divulged of their Rocketdyne unit that was responsible for the Shuttle SSME and Delta-IV RS68 that will be used on the Ares V. The majority of propulsion technology is now handled by Lockheed (Shuttle ET), Thikol (Shuttle SRB), and Pratt (SSME, RS68).

I believe Pratt is responsible for the J2X as well?


User currently offlineAreopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1368 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3261 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 5):
In some ways, I am deeply disappointed that many decisions about the CEV and EAS program are being made to satisfy the corperate (and thus political) interests of the major Shuttle contractors.

A new program should be a chance to design new hardware with a clean sheet. Certain baggage is better left behind. I'm not suggesting re-inventing the wheel at every opportunity, but scientific goals, budget guidelines, and spacecraft capabilities are taking a back seat to corperate and political interest.

For example, using a Thikol-based SRB to launch the CEV rather than the EELV developed by the DoD. For example, retaining Apollo configurations versus potentially more practical solutions like the T/Space CXV. I think that is wrong, and places a great burden on the space community.

They did consider EELVs, if you can believe the final architecture report (section 6):
After thorough analysis of multiple Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle- (EELV-) and Shuttle-derived options for crew and cargo transportation, Shuttle-derived options were found to have significant advantages with respect to cost, schedule, safety, and reliability. Overall, the Shuttle-derived option was found to be the most affordable by leveraging proven vehicle and infrastructure elements and using those common elements in the heavy-lift CaLV as well as the CLV.

However, I don't know that they seriously considered alternative CEV configurations, such as Soyuz modularity or L1 rendezvous. That's what bothers me.


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day ago) and read 3254 times:

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 1):
Now that things have changed so much with the design, is there a link that shows what the real configuration is to be, including the Mars piece of the puzzle? I have not come across one yet.

That information is still proprietary to NG-Boeing and LockMart, so no, it's not out there. Even after the winner is named, the information will still be preliminary... expect the design of Orion to change once detailed work begins on it (i.e., YF-22 to F-22A.) But we should have a good idea of Orion's layout this weekend.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 6):

So as you can see, the vast majority of Apollo and Saturn heritage eventually wound-up at the Boeing Company.

True, but a moot point now, more or less. You are very unlikely to find anyone at Boeing who had anything to do with Saturn V or Apollo. Boeing had to reinvent a large launcher development team when it competed for EELV, and they lost that competition (Delta IV came to Boeing with the McDonell-Douglas merger.) Boeing's major claims to fame in space/rocketry that were still going concerns in the 80s/90s were Minuteman and IUS... solid propellant technology having nothing to do with Saturn V. Even their current satellite business is not Boeing heritage, its the former Hughes Satellite Systems acquired from United Technologies a few years ago.

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 7):
They did consider EELVs, if you can believe the final architecture report (section 6):

Yep, but nearly all of those assumptions are now invalid, yet NASA stubbornly refused to reconsider EELV. Still, there's nothing set in stone yet... Congress could well force them to switch to EELV, especially if the rumored collapse of the Ares 1 project is true.

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 7):
However, I don't know that they seriously considered alternative CEV configurations, such as Soyuz modularity or L1 rendezvous. That's what bothers me.

They focused on short and cheap development, so they reused the well-understood Apollo shape (so did ESA with its ARD program) and a relatively simple mission profile (no L1 complications.)


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 915 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3133 times:

Well the big day is tomorrow. Anyone want to share their opinions as to who may win? Possibility that NASA may delay until later?

User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3119 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 9):
Well the big day is tomorrow. Anyone want to share their opinions as to who may win?

Northop-Grumman/Boeing.

Lockheed-Martin will get either Ares 1 Stage 2, or (if NASA has any common sense left) Atlas 5 contracts to launch Orion.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12065 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3091 times:

Quoting Thorny (Reply 8):
Even their current satellite business is not Boeing heritage, its the former Hughes Satellite Systems acquired from United Technologies a few years ago.

I thought the entire SeaLaunch package was a Boeing idea and product, (they just didn't build the two ships).


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3075 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):

I thought the entire SeaLaunch package was a Boeing idea and product, (they just didn't build the two ships).

No, the rocket is a Zenit 3, which began life as the strap-on boosters for Russia's Energia launch vehicle. Boeing bankrolled and markets the vehicle, but they had little to do with the engineering.


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3015 times:

It's Lockheed-Martin!

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/main/index.html


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3015 times:

The announcement has been made, and the decision is:

Lockheed.

From the announcement -


Objectives:
Go to Moon, space stations.
3 variants: Space station transit vehicle, cargo vehicle and lunar transit vehicle.


Background:
First manned craft to be developed in 30 years by NASA.
Shuttle to be retired in 2010, worlds first reusable space craft.
The second stage of Aries I will definitely be J2 in origin.
CEV will be able to be placed into polar orbit around the moon.
CEV will be unmanned while the lander is on the moons surface.
Not decided if landing will be mostly on water or land.

CEV is intended to stop the current thinking that space is a once in a while destination.


User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5676 posts, RR: 48
Reply 15, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2996 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 14):
CEV is intended to stop the current thinking that space is a once in a while destination.

Unfortunately that's what they said about the space shuttle too though I have higher hopes for Orion. It should be an easier vehicle to launch into space w/o many of the issues that troubled the shuttle.



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineN844AA From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1352 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2991 times:

What's the expected EIS?

Whatever it is, it's not going to make it in time  Sad



New airplanes, new employees, low fares, all touchy-feely ... all of them are losers. -Gordon Bethune
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2988 times:

Quoting N844AA (Reply 16):
What's the expected EIS?

Nothing firm yet, but 2014 was mentioned as unfirm in the briefing.


User currently offlineN844AA From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1352 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2987 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 17):
Nothing firm yet, but 2014 was mentioned as unfirm in the briefing.

Forgive my ignorance, but what is the United States supposed to do about manned spaceflight between 2010-2014? Is the U.S. going to be leasing seats on Soyuz, or will we be taking a break?



New airplanes, new employees, low fares, all touchy-feely ... all of them are losers. -Gordon Bethune
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5676 posts, RR: 48
Reply 19, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2986 times:

Quoting N844AA (Reply 18):
Forgive my ignorance, but what is the United States supposed to do about manned spaceflight between 2010-2014? Is the U.S. going to be leasing seats on Soyuz, or will we be taking a break?

You got it. American's will be going on the Soyuz. If they can develop the Orion sooner then NASA is not exposed to that risk any longer than necessary.



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2966 times:

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 19):
You got it. American's will be going on the Soyuz.

The US Congress only waived the Iran Nonproliferation Act for NASA through 2012, so 2012-2014 will either need another waiver or we hope SpaceX or Rocketplane-Kistler come through with their spacecraft. I think there is zero chance of Orion flying before 2014.


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2966 times:

Lockheed Martin teamed with Honeywell and Orbital Science has won the NASA contract to build the Orion.

User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2962 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 21):
Lockheed Martin teamed with Honeywell and Orbital Science has won the NASA contract to build the Orion.

Interesting how EADS SPACE has been dropped from all announcements.


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2954 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 22):
Interesting how EADS SPACE has been dropped from all announcements.

As were a dozen other subcontractors.


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2947 times:

Quoting Thorny (Reply 23):
As were a dozen other subcontractors.

EADS SPACE was a primary partner during the selection phase of the competition, on equal parlance with Boeings connection to Northrop.


25 Thorny : No, they were second-tier. They are/were a subcontractor offering services to both LockMart and Northrop-Grumman/Boeing. They were on the same level
26 N844AA : Which sort of risk are you referring to? That we won't be able to use Soyuz for some period of time, either due to legal restrictions or Russian prod
27 DeltaDC9 : Did anyone catch the fact that Boeing is now number 3 military contracter in the anouncments? last I saw they were still number 2. Also, why is Mars n
28 RichardPrice : Because its a future thing, not even considered past marketing atm.
29 GDB : The US did no manned spaceflight between Apollo-Soyuz in July 1975 and STS-1 in April 1981. They apparently, could maybe have rigged a Saturn 1/Apollo
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic CEV Contractor To Be Announced 8/31
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
"Orion" Said To Be Name Of NASA's CEV Program posted Fri Jul 21 2006 10:42:36 by AerospaceFan
Was CV-64 Suppost To Be CV-63. posted Thu Oct 19 2006 01:31:19 by 747400sp
Orion Cockpit To Be Based On 787 posted Sat Oct 7 2006 04:43:32 by N328KF
CVN-77, USS Bush, To Be Christened 10/7/06 posted Thu Oct 5 2006 07:07:21 by BladeLWS
Firefly T-3A Fleet To Be Destroyed. posted Tue Sep 12 2006 03:07:30 by BOE773
C-17 To Be Unseated By New Airlift Design. posted Tue Jan 10 2006 14:18:02 by CX747
Memphis Belle To Be Restored In Dayton OH posted Sun Oct 9 2005 05:56:24 by DAYflyer
All Shuttle Flights To Be Grounded Again posted Thu Jul 28 2005 02:15:28 by ConcordeBoy
This Has Got To Be A Joke posted Sat Jun 18 2005 23:45:16 by Alberchico
Last C-141s To Be Retired This Month posted Thu Apr 14 2005 00:56:54 by Socal

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format