Boeing going after Ares I ?

[radarredux]

I read this in the New York Times article about Lockheed winning the CEV contract:<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Tanya Deason-Sharpe, a Boeing spokeswoman, said that while Boeing was disappointed, it would compete for other manned space vehicle contracts, <font color="yellow">including the Ares I rocket</font>that will launch Orion into space and the Ares V cargo launcher, also part of the program.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Does this mean that the Delta IV might be used in addition to (or instead of) the ATK stick?

 

[rybanis]

A definate possability, considering how much ATK says the stick is going to cost. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[propforce]

I would think that Boeing should go after <i>both</i>, not that I get paid the big bucks to make these decisions <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />.<br /><br />As a minimal, Boeing would go after the Ares 1 upper stage. But I am sure Boeing would just love it if then can convince NASA to use the Delta IV heavy instead <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

There are several develpments that could lead to the LM Orion (and who says Boeing still will not end up with even a piece of that, Boeing lost the F22 to LM and now makes about 40% of that vehicle in sub-contract to LM!) being launched on Boeing launch vehicles. One is indeed the greed of ATK, and the other is that it now seems that the performance of the single stick is itself in question.<br /><br />The Delta IV also has two very great positives over the Atlas V also. One is that the Delta IV Heavy has already flown, and it may even be that the Atlas V Heavy may never fly as LM is more interested in the medium range for commercial satelites.<br /><br />Also, (while I don't necessarily like this kind of thing) the engines for the Delta IV are RS68's manufactured by the American company Rocketdyne. Now ironically (as they used to be the bitterest if rivals) a division of United Techmologies Pratt & Whitney!<br /><br />While international cooperation on the ISS is understandable, I don't see our present congress being very happy with placing Americans on the moon with Russian engines! I personally like both the Russians, their space program, and their very good equipment, but I don't see our congress doing this. Perhaps that might just even be one of those kinds of hidden political reasons that LM won the Orion (so as to end up giving the launch vehicle contract to an all American vehicel in Boeings' Delta IV Heavy, without badly hurting either Boeing nor LM)!<br /><br />And as Mike Griffin himself seems rather put out by ATK's attitude, I would say there is a very good possibility for the Delta IV Heavy being used for the Ares I, and even more an upgraded version being used for the Ares V!<br /><br />It would seem to me to be relatively easy to upgrade the number of Common Booster Cores from three to four, surrounding a larger new central core for an upgraded Delta IV Heavy. Also, some of my contacts at Rocketdyne were talking about a possible program to upgrade t

 

[edkyle98]

This is about the Ares I Upper Stage and Instrument Unit contracts, which are next up for competition. Orion isn't going to fly on a Delta IV. That decision was made years ago now. <br /><br />Boeing's Delta IV tank-building skills should give it an assist in the Ares I Upper Stage competition, since both use big cryo tanks. But Lockheed already builds the shuttle External Tank (world's largest flying cryo tank) at Michoud (where Upper Stage is to be manufactured) out of Aluminum Lithium (which will be used for the Upper Stage).<br /><br />- Ed Kyle

 

[PistolPete]

<font color="yellow">Boeing lost the F22 to LM</font><br /><br />Sidenote: Boeing did not loose the ATF competition to LM. It was Northrup's YF-23 that lost to the LM YF-22, you may be thinking of the JSF competition. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

Thank you for the correction. My main point is that regardless of who gets one of these very large aerospace contracts the loser usually ends up with a very good sized portion of the work!<br /><br />I still thank you, as I do like to get my facts straight however!

 

[CalliArcale]

And as a minor correction, the situation here is actually quite similar. Boeing did not lose directly to Lockheed. They lost at an earlier stage, and consequently chose to throw their lot in with Northrup Grumman. So Boeing already wasn't vying for the prime. It was Northrup versus Lockheed.<br /><br />That was part of the reason I was rooting so strongly for Northrup; Boeing and Lockheed already have too much of the pie.<br /><br />Regarding the Ares, does anybody know if Orbital is still trying for a piece? They certainly would have their work cut out for them, seeing as they have no past history of building heavy-lift boosters. But it would be extremely cool to see them get a piece of it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[steve82]

"Boeing did not lose directly to Lockheed. They lost at an earlier stage, and consequently chose to throw their lot in with Northrup Grumman. So Boeing already wasn't vying for the prime. It was Northrup versus Lockheed. "<br /><br />Very true. And I think the way people and the media are still talking about how "Boeing" lost explains in part why they lost. NASA saw through the partnership/subcontract relationship Boeing was purported to have with N/G and didn't want it or didn't think N/G had strong enough management to rein in Boeing. Boeing will be back, but right now they are the integrating contractor holding the bag for ISS's problems whether or not they are truly at fault.<br />

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">Orbital is on the lockheed Team </font><br /><br />for Ares 1? What can they contribute? (I said that with the most respect to Orbital... of course). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[PistolPete]

<font color="yellow">or didn't think N/G had strong enough management to rein in Boeing</font><br /><br />The same thing happended to Northrup with McDonald-Douglas and the F/A-18. All the F/A-18 is, is a navalized version of the YF-17, a purely Northrup design. The purpose of Bringing McDonald-Douglas on board was because they had experience making Navy aircraft and knew what they wanted. However, within a year it became known as a McDonald-Douglas/Northrup project. Untill MD became absorbed by Boeing, the F/A-18 was known exclusively as an MD aircraft with no mention of Northrup. NG doesn't have the intestinal fortitude it takes to lead a massive project like the CEV. In hindsight LM was the only option. I wonder if LM will give the project to Skunk Works. I know that they don't have much experience with spacecraft (outside of the failed X-33), but they have done a lot more complicated projects than the CEV, and finished them on-time and under budget (ie SR-71 and the F-117).<br /><br /><br /><br />BTW does anyone know exactly what NG does anymore? What was the major contract that they won? I can't remember the last aircraft that either Northrup or Grumman built. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">Idon't see our present congress being very happy with placing Americans on the moon with Russian engines!</font><br /><br />I agree with you here. I also have a great admiration toward the Russian engine technologies. Frankly, we as a nation stopped developing new engines since the SSME in the late '70s, while the Russian continued in the past 30 years, and we did not pick up where we left off until the RS-68 came around (but designed for a cost-driven engine rather than high performance). I do hope that Rocketdyne will get to complete the new J-2X engine development, even with a different white house adminstration. <br /><br />The NASA MSFC folks had toured Boeing's Delta manufacturing facility in the nearby Decatur, AL and most were impressed with its capability. I can see that Boeing supplies the 5.5m propellant tanks for the Ares 1, since the Michoud's tank tooling is for the much larger diameter ET. According to Boeing, only ~ 30% of its current toolings need to be upgraded to accommodate 5.5 meter. It would also be much easier for the MSFC engineers to "supervise" the Ares 1 tank production which I would think that MSFC would prefer.<br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">It would seem to me to be relatively easy to upgrade the number of Common Booster Cores from three to four</font><br /><br />A study for NASA was made a few years ago and upto 6 CBCs can be made (with 1 core and 5 liquid strap-on). So I don't see issue with only 4 CBCs. Actually, I think there will be many possible configurations especially if Rocketdyne develops the J-2X. A Delta IV-Heavy with a much more powerful J-2X with "stretched" 2nd stage propellant tankss bring a lot of payload class possibilities. Most of all, an all-liquid stages using the high performing LO2/LH2 combination can make a very powerful launch vehicle, even for NASA.<br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">Also, some of my contacts at Rocketdyne were talking about a possible progr</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">I wonder if LM will give the project to Skunk Works. I know that they don't have much experience with spacecraft (outside of the failed X-33), but they have done a lot more complicated projects than the CEV, and finished them on-time and under budget (ie SR-71 and the F-117). </font><br /><br />I think it would be a big mistake for LM to hand this CEV job to the skunk works. Everyone has their area of expertise (domain knowledge), and for the skunk works it was the airplane, not rockets, nor space vehicles. I think their expertise runs out as air gets thin.<br /><br />LM does have a very strong and recent expereince in space vehicles. In fact, most of NASA JPL spacecrafts were built by LM in Sunnyvale, CA, including the one with confused english to metric unit conversion <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />. But I think LM's lack of previous <i>manned spacecraft experience</i> may have in fact helped them in winning the CEV, as they would be more likely to listen to NASA and take their opinions seriously. Whereas NG/Boeing may have the attitude of "we've done this before", thus being perceived as more difficult to manage by NASA. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Very true. And I think the way people and the media are still talking about how "Boeing" lost explains in part why they lost. NASA saw through the partnership/subcontract relationship Boeing was purported to have with N/G and didn't want it or didn't think N/G had strong enough management to rein in Boeing. Boeing will be back, but right now they are the integrating contractor holding the bag for ISS's problems whether or not they are truly at fault. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />That makes sense. I hadn't thought of that possibility, but I know I've seen it happen with other contractors. I don't have much experience with Northrup Grumman, but I do have experience with other companies teaming with Boeing. Boeing is an 800 pound gorilla, and when it comes to contracts, behaves like one. Working with them can be rewarding, but it has some particular challenges, mainly in that they are extremely good at leveraging any bit of control they may have over a project. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[trailrider]

So far as the RD-180's are concerned, yes, they are a Russian design (and a VERY good one, at that), but about 1/3-1/2 of them are built right here by PW, I think in Florida. (Oh, BTW, for those who don't like them "ferrin'-built" Toyotas, I think a lot of the parts are being built in Tennessee. Likewise, my "Ferd" has about 50 percent of its parts coming from Canada or Mexico. It's a global economy, friends!) <br /><br />I'm not worried about Congress' view of Russian engines as much as I am about them trying to kill the whole program, especially if there is a drastic change in the political flavor of the White House and the Congress in the future!<br /><br />Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!

 

[edkyle98]

"So far as the RD-180's are concerned, yes, they are a Russian design (and a VERY good one, at that), but about 1/3-1/2 of them are built right here by PW, I think in Florida."<br /><br /><br />I don't think that the U.S. licensed production has ever been started. The last I heard, the RD Amross joint venture would not be ready to deliver a mission-ready co-produced U.S. RD-180 engine until 2012 at the earliest. My understanding is that RD-180s are simply shipped over from Russia ready-to-run. Russian Energomash engineers and techs babysit them right through launch. Plans to establish a U.S. production site have been put off due to costs.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle