CEV down select is near, wanna guess?

[geminivi]

The decision is imminent, there are only two choices. Anybody have a good set of reasons why one proposal is better than the other?<br />Since I don't work for either LMT nor NG+B, I'll have to guess. I take NG+B since they were "righter" from the get go and basically knew what NASA wanted before NASA did.

 

[kane007]

About 10 days to go.

 

[PistolPete]

Trying to figure this one out is not nearly as exciting as trying to figure out who will win COTS. Both contractors basically have the same product. What's the fun in that? <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>

 

[yevaud]

Reading the Obit. notices for the one's who lost and went out spectacularly, of course. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[PistolPete]

At the very least, having one aerospace monopoly will make future competitions realy simple.<br /><br /><br />I find it kind of funny that during the space race, the communist Soviet Union had more aerospace contractors than the "capitolistic" US does today. <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>

 

[nyarlathotep]

"Trying to figure this one out is not nearly as exciting as trying to figure out who will win COTS."<br /><br />My money is on VC's not touching RPK with a 1100000 foot pole.

 

[j05h]

> My money is on VC's not touching RPK with a 1100000 foot pole.<br /><br />I'm with you on that. Kistler spent so much time in Development Hell and bankrucptcy that they must seem tainted. Their new partners (Rocketplane, OSC, Michoud) are all decent organizations but not enough to clean up the smell. I'm still confused about Aerojet now owning all the NK33 engines. I thought Kistler bought those from the Russians free and clear years ago?<br /><br />On the CEV downselect: I think the Northrup/Boeing team will get the capsule contract and Lockheed will get the vehicle contract by uprating Atlas. Nobody seems happy with ATK and the Stick right now. $3-5 Billion to modify an existing rocket? C'mon, guys, get real.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[crix]

I hope you're right, jo5h. But that sounds too good to be true. According http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V_rocket the Atlas 5 heavy can put 25mt in LEO with 5m fairing. Is that enough?<br /><br />Also, the downselect will be announced in two days: this Thursday, August 31st at 4pm.

 

[j05h]

> I hope you're right, jo5h. But that sounds too good to be true. According http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V_rocket the Atlas 5 heavy can put 25mt in LEO with 5m fairing. Is that enough? <br /><br />I hope I'm right, too. Yes, Atlas V has the throw-wieght to launch the proposed CEV. I really think ATK should lose whatever work they've been promised for CEV. The "Simple Safe Soon" has become "Complex, Very Dangerous, Late" and they shouldn't be allowed to continue the charade, Orin Hatch aside. The Stick has really turned into the Shaft. There is no need to replicate our under-used rocket infrastrcture (Delta, Atlas mostly).<br /><br />My biggest problem is this: we need spacelines, not state-run industry. The former Soviets are more "capitalist" in space than America. I'd like to see the CEV partners promise commercial access to their system. I'm not hopeful on that point, which is why i'm always so pro-SpaceX and Soyuz.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

My biggest problem is this: we need spacelines, not state-run industry. The former Soviets are more "capitalist" in space than America. I'd like to see the CEV partners promise commercial access to their system. I'm not hopeful on that point, which is why i'm always so pro-SpaceX and Soyuz. <br />------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />The current Russian space program is benefiting from the billions upon billions of dollars (and who knows how many lives) that Krushev, Breshinev, Andropov etc. poured into the former Soviet Space program. The current Russian program is like a crow feeding on the carcass of an elephant! <br />

 

[crix]

"The Shaft" haha, good call.

 

[geminivi]

To all who advocate Atlas V and Russian engines. What Congressional membership will vote to spend tax dollars on Russian equipment? I don't see it.<br />Delta IV is the only option from EELV. If not EELV, then some other flavor, made in America, is the only one to pass the taste test in Congress.<br /><br />

 

[j05h]

> To all who advocate Atlas V and Russian engines. What Congressional membership will vote to spend tax dollars on Russian equipment? I don't see it.<br />Delta IV is the only option from EELV. If not EELV, then some other flavor, made in America, is the only one to pass the taste test in Congress. <br /><br />Whatever it takes to get it done. I hope the Stick is doomed. I'm fine with NASA slapping "Orion" decals on a SpaceX Dragon and calling it CEV. The old way of doing business in space has to change, or we don't get to fly. EELV, Soyuz, other US capability, whatever it takes. Just not ATK's Stick, please. (If we're talking solids, let's go w/ the 260 inch Aerojet model, but that's another thread)<br /><br />Also, I take the point above about the Soviet investment in Soyuz. Like our launch infrastructure, it is a legacy to live by. I would argue that the investment was paid off a long time ago, in both nations. Where is the spaceline? For some reason, we just keep having to reinvent the wheel instead of getting it right the first (2nd, 3rd) time. <br /><br />from NASAWatch: "... to announce the prime contractor to design, develop, and build Orion, America's next human spacecraft."<br /><br />This is the problem I'm talking about. Fact is, Dragon capsules are just as likely to be America's next spacecraft. We need spacelines.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

Whatever it takes to get it done. I hope the Stick is doomed. I'm fine with NASA slapping "Orion" decals on a SpaceX Dragon and calling it CEV. The old way of doing business in space has to change, or we don't get to fly. EELV, Soyuz, other US capability, whatever it takes. Just not ATK's Stick, please. (If we're talking solids, let's go w/ the 260 inch Aerojet model, but that's another thread) <br />------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />So its "whatever it takes" as long as its not from ATK??? That makes absolutely no sense to me. <br /><br />And as for private "spacelines" -- well most (actually all) passenger AIRLINES still have a problem making profits and air travel has been around for a century! The fact is the vast majority of the world's passenger airlines are either heavily subsidized or owned outright by governments and operated at a loss as public service that--like public roads--(hopefully) enhances a countries economy. In fact the more you demand private, profit making space travel the LESS likely any of us will go into space. Cargo and unmanned satellites make money, hauling people around does not. Now if you have an essential skill that is needed off earth then there will probably be some company that will transport you just like oil companies transport their workers to remote locations. But if you are contemplating zipping off to the moon for a vacation then I think you should consider that even with air travel it took about 60 years of routine flight (and the technological innovation of 2 major wars) before anyone but the wealthiest could fly from America to Europe for pleasure. And I don't even think we have reached the Wright brothers stage yet in space flight. We are still in the balloons and airship stage--expensive, fragile, limited.

 

[edkyle98]

"To all who advocate Atlas V and Russian engines. What Congressional membership will vote to spend tax dollars on Russian equipment? I don't see it."<br /><br />They already have. The Lockheed/Energomash Atlas V has already flown two missions for NASA, has been awarded more NASA work, and has won numerous Pentagon launch contracts. Probably 10% of the taxpayer dollars spent on some Atlas mission go to Russia. <br /><br />Think of it - Russian Energomash RD-180 employees have clearance to go into Cape Canaveral Air Force Station and Vandenberg Air Force Base - and they are paid in U.S. taxpayer dollars to do so. Who won the Cold War again?<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[edkyle98]

Northrop Grumman has unfortunately associated itself with Boeing (the Boeing of grossly overbudget/behind schedule projects), so Lockheed Martin will win. OTOH, if grossly overbudget/behind schedule projects don't scare NASA, Northrop/Boeing will win. <br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[crix]

The winner has already been chosen I'm pretty sure; we're justing awaiting the announcement. With reports at nasawatch.com that rumors at NASA say NG/Boeing has won, well, I somehow believe it. I'll be very surprised if LM wins now.

 

[j05h]

> So its "whatever it takes" as long as its not from ATK??? That makes absolutely no sense to me. <br /><br />It makes perfect sense considering ATK's dire cost predictions on a vehicle that was marketed as almost out-of-the-box ready. We already have several medium-lift vehicles flying, why make an inferior vehicle do the same thing a few times per year? <br /><br /> /> And as for private "spacelines" -- well most (actually all) passenger AIRLINES still have a problem making profits and air travel has been around for a century!<br /><br />Fact is, I want to be able to buy a ticket and go for a ride. The current situation in the USA is that spaceflight is reserved for government employees and a select, politically-driven cast of extras. I'm not a Senator or Saudi Prince. I want to pay my own way and am willing to work hard for it. My only choice right now is Russian Soyuz and Space Adventures, with a hope of SpaceX offering tickets in the next decade. NASA is never going to offer tickets for sale, ergo their current spaceflight efforts are at odds with my (market) desires. My hope is that others are going to vote with their dollars, too. <br /><br /> /> And I don't even think we have reached the Wright brothers stage yet in space flight. We are still in the balloons and airship stage--expensive, fragile, limited.<br /><br />Agreed. We are still crawling. Apollo was the baby standing up for a few teetering steps. We've been sitting on the ground crying over dirty diapers since. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

Fact is, I want to be able to buy a ticket and go for a ride.<br />------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />Fact is I want to have a flying car and a big screen TV that roles up like a poster and safe, clean, cheap energy...oh well.<br /><br />NASA isn't in the paying passenger business anymore than the US Air Force or Navy is. Do you whine because you can't cruise the Caribbean on an aircraft carrier? Or fly to Europe in an F-15? On the other hand NASA isn't stopping people from building their own rockets--but most quickly learn just how difficult and hideously expensive it is. As for the Russians, well you have my take on their so called "free market" space program a few posts back.

 

[mattblack]

NG/Boeing. Then again... <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>

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>Northrop Grumman has unfortunately associated itself with Boeing (the Boeing of grossly overbudget/behind schedule projects), so Lockheed Martin will win. OTOH, if grossly overbudget/behind schedule projects don't scare NASA, Northrop/Boeing will win. </i><br /><br />The CEV is a waste of money either way, so it's not like it really matters. This whole program is more about pork than about technical merit.

 

[elguapoguano]

I'd say politics as usual. Since Lockheed Martin got the contract for the F-22 and the F-35, the contract will be given to the Boeing team. Gotta keep the other guys in bussiness too... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[lampblack]

Given the thorough lack of available information for justifying a guess one way or the other, for all the good it will do we might as well flip a coin and guess heads or tails. The GOOD news is that any one of us has a 50 percent chance of being right.<br /><br />As for me -- I'll guess <i>heads</i>. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[docm]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Griffin sez;<br /><br />NASA is set to announce on August 31 the prime contractor to design, develop, and build the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV)—now dubbed Orion—a replacement of the government’s space shuttle. As a system, the CEV will accomplish in many areas what the shuttle offers, Griffin said, but also must fly back and forth between the Earth and the Moon.<br /><br /><b>“In later decades, the CEV will be one piece of the Mars architecture. It’s how people will come home from Mars through the atmosphere. </b>So the CEV has some pretty stressing requirements on it,” Griffin explained.<br /><br />But the ultimate goal of the CEV program is not the creation of new technologies, Griffin warned.<br /><br /><b>“The CEV is primarily a tool for getting humans up through the atmosphere and back down through the atmosphere. And my goal is to do it as simply and safely as possible.”</b><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />So Orion is only relevant to LEO, moon missions and will only be used for return from LEO on Mars missions? Sure sounds like it.<br /><br />If thats the case then mod Dragon for the moon with a bigger SM & return engine for returning to ISS, put on JO5H's 'CEV sticker' and get on with it. <br /><br />There is no reason to build two tools for the same job, esp. if one is a corporate welfare program. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mattblack]

>>The CEV is a waste of money either way, so it's not like it really matters.<<<br /><br />Oh that's right: because it doesn't have a pair of wings to use for a FEW MINUTES at the end of a 2 week (or more) mission. Geez, man; change the record why don't ya??!! <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>