CEV down select is near, wanna guess?

[no_way]

Its LockMart<br />http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/007663.html#007663

 

[josh_simonson]

NASA just agreed to pay to build a TSTO RLV via RpK. While it's much less likely to fly than if it were a NASA flagship project, it's also much more likely to be cost effective if it succeeds. As a government agency, NASA does not have the incentive to build a cost effective vehicle themselves, and expecting them to do so is both a waste of time and counterproductive in that it competes with potentially less expensive possibilities in the private sector.

 

[vt_hokie]

Never have I been so passionate about a spacecraft before. Unfortunately, I hate this thing with a passion! <br /><br />It really says something that this will be the first human spacecraft from the U.S. in 30 years* (assuming Blackstar doesn't exist), and this is the best we could come up with. <br /><br />*No, I'm not counting the suborbital SS1.

 

[crix]

WOAHH!!!<br /><br />I'm totally blown away. I thought for sure it would be NG/Boeing. Holy moly! Lockheed kicks butt!!

 

[vt_hokie]

It's a sad day for me. I'm watching any chance of seeing a reusable space plane during my lifetime slip away as we commit billions to this Apollo revival. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" />

 

[crix]

That's a lame attitude. Orion is a beautiful ship.

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>Orion is a beautiful ship.</i><br /><br /><br />This Orion, maybe... <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />

 

[barrykirk]

Sorry that your disappointed VT.<br /><br />I know that you've been a big fan of winged vehicles.<br /><br />I think that it's a good idea going with capsules, but<br /><br />there are some people out there who were going to be disappointed no matter what the decision is.

 

[vt_hokie]

Yeah, well, I was disappointed a long time ago, and today's selection really didn't make any difference, as NASA dictated the basic design regardless of which company was chosen. <br /><br />I'm 31 now, so if this program eats up the bulk of NASA's budget for the next 25+ years (which seems likely), NASA won't even begin thinking about a next generation vehicle until I'm pushing 60! That's depressing! When I was hired to work on the X-33 program back in 1997, I thought maybe it would lead toward a career in the RLV area. So much for that! <br /><br />But hey, if they could cancel X-33, they can always cancel this too!

 

[DuhFly]

Here are updated pics.<br /><br />http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=17675&rsbci=21&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400

 

[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 />"Now that's a CYA statement if I ever read one. Either way, you'll be proved correct in your prediction. "<br /><br /><br />Exactly. And I was right! <br /><br />It is good to see that NASA went with the team that has demonstrated better project management success in recent years. Lockheed's decision to emphasize final build at KSC, helping to alleviate job slashing a wee bit there, may have been key. <br /><br />- Ed Kyle

 

[lunatic133]

I'm from Colorado so I'm thrilled that Lockheed got it. Maybe they'll still be hiring by the time I graduate and I can work on it ^_^ Also I've had bad experiences in the past with Northrop so I was really hoping they wouldn't win. I have no real ill will towards Boeing but I've always been supportive of Lockheed because it brings so much business to my home state. So Go Lockheed, Go Orion!

 

[frodo1008]

Will you NEVER wake up and smell the roses! I don't like to rain on anybodies parade, but you are so tiring with your continual whining that I am rapidly becomming glad you are so disappointed you big baby!<br /><br />In the first place NASA does NOT at this time have the resources to do anything other that what they are doing. Period, end of story, finale, stop, halt, etc, etc!!!!!<br /><br />And I too, like the idea of the original NASP, a vehicle that starts on conventional jets, switches to scram jets and then finishes with rockets to get to LEO! But the techno;ogy just isn't ready yet (and not only NASA sees this, but so do the very competent Russians!).<br /><br />But it isn't going to take another 30 years for this to change! Send Burt Rutan an application, if you are as good as you seem to think yourself, I am certain that he would be interested! He is going to have a sub orbital system to actually take people into space on a paying basis in about three years. He will use this as the basis for the funding to build a system to take people all over the Earth in less than two hours as his next step I am certain (it IS the next logical step beyond just landing at the same place as you take off at). I would say that this will take place within a decade at the most. Even a commercial aircraft manufacturer such as Boeing would be very interested in such an effort. And Boeing (despite what some would think here), has a whole lot of money to fund such an effort!.<br /><br />Finally, I would think that Rutan would be actually getting into orbit itself within the next fifteen years at most. And he IS going to have to do it with some form of a craft that is relatively comfortable, has a low gravity gradient, and has some form of windows. So it is HE that is going to design and built the next generation of lifing body craft to take large numbers of people (rich to begin with, but eventually less so) into LEO, probably to space stations and modules placed into LEO by

 

[lunatic133]

Hee, I don't understand why people complain so much about Orion being an Apollo Clone. The Apollo program was cancelled before its time due to a variety of factors. Just because we have been to the moon before doesn't mean we've done everything there is to do there. The lunar exploration program was cancelled due to the vietnam war and poor policy decisions, not because the moon is particularly worthless. I see it not as doing whats already been done, but finishing what was started.

 

[BReif]

lunatic133,<br /><br />Exactly my sentiments. Finish what we started, or continue where we left off.

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>And physics and economics dictates that be done with a capsule design!</i><br /><br />Economics perhaps, but not physics. An Apollo CM shaped capsule isn't necessarily the best choice, but merely the easiest and cheapest. And it seems that our space program now is all about being lazy and cheap. <br /><br />Of course, we'll waste more money on operations in the long run by being cheap right now. This plan will ensure that human spaceflight remains prohibitively expensive.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Hee, I don't understand why people complain so much about Orion being an Apollo Clone.</font>/i><br /><br />I think for this mission (direct return from the Moon) at this time (with limited budget, history of cost overruns and cancelled projects), I think the capsule is just right. However ...<br /><br />A lot of people believe the only way humans can become a space faring race is to dramatically lower the cost to LEO. Once that is done, everything else is possible. Whether it is reusable SSTO or TSTO, space elavator, or whatever, these people want Cheap Access To Space (CATS). It should be the number one priority of NASA. It should be the foundation on which everything else is based.<br /><br />The capsule on an expendable rocket does very little to lower the cost to LEO, so it is not a transformational technology. Other than moving from a crew of 3 to a crew of 4 to the Moon, the Orion CEV provides very little new capability over the Apollo capsule from 40 years earlier.<br /><br />What about the ability to linger for 6 months at the Moon? Isn't that a new capability? Yes (sort of), but NASA currently has no mission and no budget for anything other than a few 2-week sorties to the Moon. Also, NASA has no budget for building a Mars mission (unless all the Lunar missions are cancelled for several years and those budget going to a Mars mission).<br /><br />Thus, because the CEV capsule approach does nothing to reduce the cost of accessing LEO, and because there are no planned budget increases in NASA's future, NASA will not be able to do anything beyond short term sorties to the Moon. In short, the CEV capsule approach is painting NASA into a corner.<br /><br />(I'll respond to my own post a little later <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> )</i>

 

[nacnud]

The CEV has nothing to do with lowing the cost to LEO, it has everything to do with reducing the risk and being able to return people from trans luna velocities. <br /><br />Why do the nay-sayers never get that?<br /><br />Want to reduce the cost to LEO thn look to COTS or private firms.<br /><br />

 

[frodo1008]

The Apollo capsule came back from the moon missions at a far higher velocity that the shuttle has ever experienced. Therefore the atmospheric heating would also be far higher! THAT is physics, NOT economics! <br /><br />We do NOT at this time have the capability to slow down such a craft (or any other design) to just obital velocity. This may change in the future, but not now! And NASA must deal with the reality of NOW!<br /><br />I gave you a direction, and STILL you fuss and cry! Go over to free space awhile, the ultra conservatives there would hand you your lunch over such an attitude problem!<br /><br />As I said, stop being such a baby!<br /><br />Especially, as you are NOT going to get your way anyway! Back in the 1960's we were just glad to see anything get off the launch pad, and we didn't feel like crying about it!<br /><br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">A lot of people believe the only way humans can become a space faring race is to dramatically lower the cost to LEO.</font>/i><br /><br />There are a lot of problems with this statement. First, there is no proof that access to space can be much cheaper than it is today. Right now the US, Russia, China, ESA, and India are all launching payloads into LEO, and (other than some cheaper labor costs) none have shown a dramatically lower approach to accessing space. We may be stuck at the current cost structure for a long time.<br /><br />Second, it is foolish to say "NASA must develop CATS". NASA isn't the only player in town. Not only are there multiple countries developing space access methods, there are now a number of private US companies developing their technologies. You can bet Burt Rutan has some plans for SpaceShipThree on the drawing board. And we know about the Kliper, and the recent COTS contracts to SpaceX and Rocketplane Kistler.<br /><br />Third, despite several attempts, NASA hasn't built a new human spacecraft in almost 30 years. NASA badly needs a win, and it needs one fast. The CEV Capsule should be able to service ISS before ISS is decomissioned, and with a little luck, the US may only have a 1-2 year down time between the Shuttle retirement and the CEV Capsule taking humans into LEO and to ISS. To develop an entirely new spacecraft would push the timeline out years and pretty much guarantee that the US would never have independent access to ISS after it is completed and before it is decommissioned. The capsule has the shortest timeline and the lowest technical risk of any other spacecraft.<br /><br />Fourth, the capsule provides the best solution for entering Earth's atmosphere at Lunar-return velocities. I don't think the Kliper or any other proposed spacecraft design is suited for the pressures and heat of such a return. If you want the capability for direct return to the Earth from beyond LEO velocities</i>

 

[vt_hokie]

<i><font color="yellow">I gave you a direction, and STILL you fuss and cry!</font>/i><br /><br />Thanks for the kind advice, but I'm thinking grad school is a better direction for me right now. And if I come across as arrogant, I'm sure a return to the academic world will quickly give me the humility you seem to think I'm lacking. I don't mean to come across as a know it all, as I'm far from it, but I feel very strongly about this issue, and I think that NASA is heading down a dead end road right now. Time will tell.<br /><br /><i><font color="yellow">Go over to free space awhile, the ultra conservatives there would hand you your lunch over such an attitude problem! </font>/i><br /><br />Believe me, I've had plenty of debates with ultra conservative ideologues. It's a pointless exercise, really, but one I am adept at.<br /><br /><i><font color="yellow">As I said, stop being such a baby! </font>/i><br /><br />I'm sorry that you think my disappointment and disgust with the state of our nation's space program makes me a cry baby, but I see nothing wrong with expressing my opinion on a message board. After all, isn't that what we're here to do - express and debate different opinions? <br /></i></i></i>

 

[josh_simonson]

That article said that they'd build about 8 orions for 7.5bln or so. NASA pissed away more than that between Columbia and RTF#1. One failure of the winged vehicle costed more than it costs to make the more reliable capsules.<br /><br />NASA isn't going to take you to space any more than the air force is going to fly you to a vacation in europe. If anything it is good that NASA's spacecraft is expensive - that'll encourage private industry to build something better. Shuttle squashed space launch plans across the board in the beginning with it's high promises, then left everyone scrambling when it turned out to be an albatross. CEV/ESAS will not do that because it is very conservative in design from the outset.<br /><br />Scales, SpaceX, Microcosm, SpK, et al. now know within 20-50% how much it's going to cost NASA to fly their vehicles for the next 20 years, as well as how much it costs to fly EELV which will also be around for the next 10 at least. There are no new launchers in the works from a big government contractor for some time, so those pieces are set and the upstarts can now set their sights on under-served niches in the market with confidence that the government won't simply throw unlimited money at that niche to compete with them.<br /><br />Beal folded when the government threw mountains of money in new launchers that competed with theirs. What would happen to today's equivalent companies if NASA decided to spend whatever it took to build a spaceplane they claim would cost $100/lb to LEO? They'd all throw in the towel, NASA would probably fail to deliver as promised, and we'd be in this situation again in 10-20 years. Opportunity spurs innovation and development, not government largesse, and CEV/ESAS leaves clear opportunities. Look at the reaction to ESAS compared to EELV, instead of shutting their doors the new companies are accelerating their plans and widening their ambitions. That's more progress than a proposed massive end-all-be-all NASA progr

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">NASA isn't going to take you to space any more than the air force is going to fly you to a vacation in europe.</font>/i><br /><br />Actually the Air Force did fly me back and forth between the US and Korea during a summer college break (space available), and the Air Force flew my mother back to the states on a C-130 for an emergency family leave. She said it was very noisy.<br /><br />I suspect NASA will not be flying dependents to the Moon (space available) to be with their folks during college breaks, however. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /></i>

 

[geminivi]

The US govnment flew me around the world a couple times too, but when it positively gotta get there, usually the call on the US Air Force/Navy/Marines and not FedEx. Same for putting living human beings into LEO. SpaceX/Kistler/Virgin(s) are great, but not as reliable as your own dedicated services. NASA is a monopoly for the US Government at least for the next 20 years. After that, who knows! Let the CEV parade roll on, and if the stick can get the job done, more power to em.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Beal folded when the government threw mountains of money in new launchers that competed with theirs. What would happen to today's equivalent companies if NASA decided to spend whatever it took to build a spaceplane they claim would cost $100/lb to LEO? They'd all throw in the towel, NASA would probably fail to deliver as promised, and we'd be in this situation again in 10-20 years."<br /><br />Excellent point! <br /><br />Some have complained (and continue to complain) that NASA isn't putting enough money into COTS. But you have well described the folly of such a choice. The only way NASA can achieve real cost reductions is by spending small amounts, seed money in effect, and not by some pseudo-manhattan-project style enormous program.