CEV configuration/contractor choice 2006, place your bets!

[gunsandrockets]

Okay folks time to put up or shut up. NASA will choose the winning contractor for the CEV project in early 2006. What kind of CEV do you think will win? A Kliper style biconic lifting body re-entry capsule as in the NASA reference studies? The Lockheed-Martin lifting body? The Northrop-Grumman Soyuz clone? Something like the original Boeing proposed pseudo Apollo semi-ballastic capsule? Something else? Place your bets now!<br /><br />Put me down for the Lockheed-Martin lifting body.

 

[erauskydiver]

I'll vote for Lockheed Martin. I bet 1 chicken and a Pez dispenser.

 

[wvbraun]

Northrop Grumman/Boeing

 

[spacefire]

the LM CEV is not going to land on a runway, therefore I would prefer a simpler, biconic lifting body if that's the only option. Requirements will probably be revised again and again, so it's still possible that the end result will be something neat like the HL42, which is the prettiest spacecraft ever designed.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[rogers_buck]

To accurately predict the winner one would have to investigate the trail-of-pork. NASA has to look to the future after all. Funding engineering is a major element in all such systems.<br /><br />From a purely technical standpoint, NASA won't want to fish anything out of the sea again. We don't really have a good analog to Khazakstan so unless they can arrange for an Edwards or KSC landing they probably will turn their nose up at a technology. I guess that narrows it down some...

 

[gunsandrockets]

" I guess that narrows it down some... "<br /><br />Down to what?

 

[gunsandrockets]

"...so it's still possible that the end result ..."<br /><br />Pick a result. What do you think NASA will choose in 2006?

 

[rogers_buck]

I think I ruled out son of Soyuz, son of Apollo leaving the Lockmart entry. What I don't know is how the pork divys up. I guess that might be even steven given that they are both DoD contractors and there is more in play than just the CEV... <br /><br />Maybe NASA could choose to fund both major concepts initially "in the spirit of continued competition" just to keep support of important senators. Not too sure how that could work out financially but it might be a good thing. Maybe one size fits all for ISS and lunar missions is a bad engineering call. Maybe a Soyuz/Apollo would be a better ship for lunar missions and a reusable lifting body better for the ISS. Perhaps it could be argued that a dual-use spaceship would cost more to develop than two systems with many interchangeable sub-systems...<br /><br />But, enough of waffling... I'll predict that they'll go with the Lockmart entry.

 

[mattblack]

I'll bet on Boeing. The pork argument makes a lot of sense in one way: LockMart has the Joint Strike Fighter and Boeing has in recent history taken a pounding in it's airliner sales. With Boeing needing Aerospace money, I'd bet they'll get the CEV job with their simpler, less technically risky and probably cheaper enlarged "Apollo clone." Also, many Shuttle workers from Rockwell (which Boeing bought) may end up keeping their expertise retained.<br /><br />But what would I want for a CEV, from an engineering standpoint? A Blunt-biconic shape that comes with a "short' Service Module for orbital missions, and a "long" SM, perhaps with landing legs, for Moon/Mars landings. Weight of "Short CEV": 28-30 tons. "Long CEV": 40-45 tons.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[john_316]

I would agree with you there some Matt. I think the Apollo-2 rendition will make the cut. I however think it will be better and larger than the original.<br /><br />I like the idea of the short and long SM. If you think about it the short could also be solar where the long could be solar and fuel cell. But I would like the SM to be also refurbished in orbit if at all possible. This would make for continued use of ISS as a base of operations for lunar operations and gives an excuse to expand it from the crew of 3 to alot more...<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[steve82]

" LockMart has the Joint Strike Fighter and Boeing has in recent history taken a pounding in it's airliner sales"<br /><br />True, but Boeing also has a lot more executives under criminal scrutiny now than LM has. On the other hand, quite a few NASA Space Station managers have retired and gone to work for Boeing the last few years. At any rate, I wouldn't lose too much sleep trying to predict anything NASA will do.

 

[no_way]

flip a coin. doesnt really matter either way<br /><br />EDIT: a clarification. Pick a winner before the run. See well the runners will perform and even if they have motivation to finish at all.

 

[larper]

I was working for Lockheed Martin (really Martin Marietta, the Lockheed merger just screwed everything up) during the X-33 bidding. I had quit and was on my way out the door with my last paycheck when the selection was televised. Big crowd in the atrium, waiting for word. Gore pulls off the box and I see the dorito. "****", I said. No one else even knew what they were looking at until Gore actually said the company name. Then, everyone erupted. I knew the moment it was revealed that we would never see one fly.<br /><br />I think I will have that same, sinking feeling if Lockheed is picked for the CEV. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[yurkin]

<b>Boeing/Northrop</b> that’s been my bet for over a year now.<br /><br />Lockheed has got some smart people working for them but there are so many companies teamed with them. And Lockheed itself is so spread out I think it will work to their disadvantage.<br /><br />Boeing and Northrop are two of the three most capable companies and they have a history of working together. With Boeings technology and Northrops management this is the winning team.<br /><br />Following the Pork is usually a good idea but I don’t think it will work in this case. Boeing and Lockheed both get so many government contracts that neither is really lacking.

 

[mrmorris]

I know that it's absolutely shocking, but I'll put my guess down on Boeing-Northrup and a capsule of some type. I really think their end craft will be Apolloesque rather than Soyuz-derived, but they've been so close-mouthed that I don't hold that opinion particularly strongly. Both designs have talking points.

 

[chriscdc]

Northrop-Grumman. That is if Griffin doesn't chuck out both companies designs and go with butans CXV.<br />Hopefully the 60 day architecture study will make all companies make their designs better. By the way how many days has the study taken?

 

[cdr6]

Put me down for Boeing...Ah! I'll see your pez dispenser, and raise you a bag of M&Ms and two paper clips....

 

[crix]

I'm pretty sure we can count the stubby-winged Lockmart design out of serious consideration. Both Lockmart and Norgrumboe (heh, having a little fun here) will both present capsule designs I'm guessing. But, given nothrop-grumman's closer affiliation to military I'm assuming that this will give them a leg up and their team will be building our CEV.<br /><br />The wording for the phase II CFI was confusing. At one point it sounded like only the two big guys would have the opportunity to perform the phase II research but at the same time seemed like t-space might be able to. Dunno, I just read it real quick before lunch.

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">I'm pretty sure we can count the stubby-winged Lockmart design out of serious consideration.</font><br />I'm pretty sure not. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>Put me down for the Lockheed-Martin lifting body.<<br /><br />Yep, me too. <br /><br />From documents I've seen just today (one which came in a batch that we're ripping off the amazing images of SDLV vehicles and processing as we speak). LockMart's favourite for the CEV to the ISS element.

 

[serak_the_preparer]

Hasn't this already been determined? Didn't Boeing get the contract? I seem to recall reading somewhere that the capsule design favored by Boeing had been selected. Does this mean Lockheed Martin may still be awarded the contract, so long as LM agrees to produce a capsule version of the CEV?

 

[shuttle_rtf]

No mate, nothing is decided. <br /><br /> />Does this mean Lockheed Martin may still be awarded the contract, so long as LM agrees to produce a capsule version of the CEV?<<br /><br />Not at all.

 

[crix]

I thought a capsule design had pretty much been decided too.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

For the moon and mars, sure - that's the general understanding. It's not been signed off on it though.<br /><br />As far as the Lockmart lifting body...to the ISS....looks favourite....but again, nothing's been signed off on anything.<br /><br />So I think we'll see the pie being spread on this whole package.

 

[elguapoguano]

The Capsule winning has been implied. KISS afterall... But, tell you the truth, I wouldn't mind seeing all three built and flown. CXV, Lock-mart, and Boeing. It would be nice to have options, so if one has problems, you can always fly another one. Not be grounded like the Shuttle whenever there is a problem with them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>