NASA selects contractors: t/space is out

[frodo1008]

II do not know why you keep insisting that I am somehow against the efforts of the new private start-up companies. Most of us on these boards that support NASA and its proven contractors are perfectly happy with the efforts of these companies. <br /><br />People like yourself however, who seem to have nothing but negativity for both NASA and its people, and the contractors who actually do most of the work of NASA and their people do not appear to even give a little in your negativity. I would actually LIKE to think that I am wrong in this, what do you say? Is it so terrible to have actual experience in an area of such high technology and danger as space flight?<br /><br />Getting mankind into space in a large way IS NOT some kind of contest. By the way almost all of the incredibly successful probes and rovers that have given us such truly great information (including some information that will be essential for the future human exploration) on the planet Mars were taken to Mars on board a Delta II rocket manufactured by Boeing, how has Boeing then failed NASA and the space program?? <br /><br />The EELV programs of both Boeing and LM (run and paid for by the military and not NASA) were both designed to get the price of a pound of material down to the $2000 per pound range (meaning a full level satellite of some 10,000 lbs costing some $20 mill) which is quite close to the cost put forth by the smaller new companies. It is in general the number of launches that will actually determine the eventual cost per pound of getting to LEO. The greater the number of launches the lower the per pound cost. <br /><br />Also, both LM and Boeing have changed the way launch vehicles are manufactured. The newer methods of the EELV program are far less expensive as the Common Booster Cores (CBC's) and the liquid rocket engines will not longer be built on a one of a kind basis. These components will now be mass produced in special manufacturing facilities at a fraction of the cost of

 

[crix]

Hasn't SpaceX disqualified themselves from America's Space Prize by accepting government/military contracts? <br /><br />...<br /> <br />Nevermind, I just reread the rules:<br />"9. The Competitor must not accept or utilize Government development funding related to this Contest of any kind, nor shall there be any Government development funding related to this Contest of any kind, nor shall there be any Government ownership of the Competitor. Using Government test and launch facilities shall be permitted;"

 

[frodo1008]

Sorry my error, I do ge the two mixed up. However, as I ahve said (regardless of what others may think I have said) I do fully support the efforts of these start up companies. And would further wish that NASA had allthe necessary funding to give them all a chance, but I am not a congressperson and can therefore see what Griffen is doing here.

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">I do not know why you keep insisting that . . .</font><br /><br />I don't know why you keep insisting that I'm saying things that I'm not saying. I also don't know why you are insisting that no one agrees with what you're saying. Maybe you need to read these posts more than once.<br /><br />IMO you are unusual around here in being "perfectly happy with the efforts of these companies." Not alone by any means, but if you haven't seen a lot of criticism of BoeLock coming from folks besides spacester, you're simply not paying attention. If you choose to ignore that criticism, that's not my fault.<br /><br />I agree about the RS-68, I followed its development, I applaud Rocketdyne for that effort. I give little credit to Boeing for that, all they did was buy the company.<br /><br />The CBC approach makes sense, I applaud Boeing for that effort.<br /><br />BoeLock vs. the upstarts is not a black and white thing for me. I see lots of shades of gray. I'm not "counting out" the big dogs, but neither am I "counting on" them to deliver the goods. If it wasn't for Griffin, they'd still be in the same ol' cost-plus parasite mode they've been in for 20 years. I have a hard time believing they're not more interested in preserving the status quo than anything else.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

OK, I am more than willing to stop debating with you and all the rest of the critics of the larger companies. However, I really do not think that I am alone in my opinions it is just that those of us who have favoable opinions of the traditional American Aerospace industry (and this includes NASA itself) are less likely to be antagonistic about our opinions, and therefore less likely to show up as debators on these threads. <br /><br />Just one point however, cost-plus was ended long ago. Not by Griffin or even by NASA it was effectively ended by the DOD on the EELV projects.<br /><br />Also, the DOD didn't want to pay for a launch, but only to pay for the placing of whatever satellite that was being launched in its proper orbit. Both Boeing and LM havee actually agreed to this. So as you can see they can even be reasonable when someone holds them to a high standard. Hopefully Griffin will continue this policy!!

 

[spacester]

frodo, I concede your first point, I seem to observe the same thing. One reason why I have tried to only bash NASA if it's important, and have even been known to come to their defense.<br /><br />I accept your correction on cost-plus, but maintain that the system does not encorouge good value for Joe Taxpayer's bucks. That's what the upstarts are about, more value for your space dollar.<br /><br />It's nice to see a solid reason for hope that BA and LM are going to deliver the goods this time, thanks for that. <br /><br />We're both optimists, frodo. I'm the rebel and you're the traditionalist. Works for me, kinda fun actually. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[formulaterp]

"I've put you in the ignorant category, offically."<br /><br />Why, because he confused the name of a company which has never actually launched anything, with another company which has never actually launched anything?

 

[cdr6]

For those of you who see the “small cutting edge” companies as the good guys and the big boys as the evil empire I offer the following…<br /><br />Long time ago in a land far, far away (read Reno, Nevada circa 1979) I left NASA and went to work for a promising firm, building a new type of aircraft, the first all composite business aircraft, the Lxxx Fan. In my 3+ years with the firm the following actually occurred. <br /><br />For a little back ground... The company plan was to build the aircraft in N. Ireland (Just down the lane from the ex Chrysler guy building the stainless steel car.) Anyway, the completed aircraft were to be flown to the plant in Reno and painted and furnished to customer specifications. The British Government was providing funding for same. Deposit for the purchase of an aircraft was a nonrefundable 200K dollars. (Better than 200 such orders were taken, before the plane even flew…) <br /><br />Promises about salary, job assignments, and inferred benefits never materialized. (It was some months later when I found out this was the plan from the outset.)<br /><br />The company was set up in two parts, Corp US, and LTD, they in turn were under Lxxx Avia, both co-located at the same site. While this kind of arrangement is not to awful uncommon. However, if you worked for one “division” the management of the other, considered you the enemy…and visa-versa (They played for keeps.) <br /><br />We came under FBI investigation about a casino bombing.<br /><br />We came under FBI investigation concerning money laundering for organized crime.<br /><br />One manager who went to the N. Ireland facility was “hit” by the IRA. (He survived, however his wife and kids did not.)<br /><br />Back in the good ole USof A the power struggle was on, the experimental shop foreman was relived, replaced and then reinstated no less than 3 times. <br /><br />A new president was installed, he brought along his management team (One step ahead of ax at his old company.) This included you gue

 

[frodo1008]

I guess that I am perfectly happy to accept your calling me ignorant if you wish. Unlike yourself I guess that a lifetime of continued learning has not made me perfect. I do get the names of these two companies mixed up and for that I appologize. <br /><br />However, dose that invalidate all that I am saying here? It would seem that even spacester is willing to be reasonable, for which I wish to thank him!!<br /><br />

 

[frodo1008]

I too worked for some smaller companies during the inevitable lay-offs that sometimes occur in even the largest of aerospace companies. And while my experience was not as bad as yours I also found that politics plays and even greater part in the day to day operations of smaller companies than it did for the laarger ones. Because of this a person of integrity can be treated very badly if not actually just fired outright. <br /><br />At least with NASA and its larger contractors, management within the companies can not completely run over their employees. After all, these companies are in some ways direct employers of government types of technological people and bad publicity is a factor. <br /><br />If Boeing or LM truly decide to get something done thay both have the people and the facilities to do great things quickly. Both of these companies have their own small high powered groups within them, The Skunk works for LM, and the Phantome works for Boeing. Both companies heve designed and manufactured some of the greatest aircraft the military and civilian sectors have ever seen. Both companies also have the legacy of some of the finest aerospace companies that ever existed. Almost all of the spacecraft and satellite launchers that the US has built have come from the design boards and machine shops of these companies. I really don't understand the extreme bad mouthing that goes on here. Most of the critics are themselves conservative Republican types (at least I don't think they are big government liberal types) that are very flag waving in their attitudes in other areas (such as posts on free space). Well people, these are American (as are most of the start up companies also) large aerospace companies that this countries military as well as a grreat deal of the economic power of the US has depended upon for many years. While I am perfectly aware that these companies as well as NASA itself are far from perfect (name me ANY human endeaver that is!) they are so

 

[frodo1008]

No problem! I too would very much wish that some of these efforts would fully pan out. After all, the main thing is to get humanity into space as (1) safely, (2) Quickly, and (3) as cheaply as possible. I would actually like to see a certain amount of NASA's budget set aside (with a corresponding increase in the budget if possible) for the serious investigation of such efforts.<br /><br />My only real disagreement with some on this thread is that Mike Griffin and NASA can't go with such at this time. He must go with a proven track record as he is constrained both by time and budget as of now. And compaining about this isn't going to help.<br /><br />Now, if some of these relatively small start up efforts do work out (and I am one who certainly hopes they do) then I can see NASA working with them as well as the more proven companies. I hope this attitude is satisfactory to most on these boards!!

 

[formulaterp]

"I would think it would be worth your while to actually look into some of these small companies you'd rather discount. Some of them may* actually do something significant. "<br /><br />Not exactly a ringing endorsement there. Personally, I'm convinced Virgin Galactic will get off the ground, as will SpaceX's Falcon boosters. Whether they make any money or not, that remains to be seen. But you seriously have to wonder about some of the other upstarts like Aeraspace. Has anybody checked these clowns, er I mean .. guys out? Word of advice, if you plan on designing a suborbital spacecraft, make sure everyone in the company knows how to spell the name properly. On their website, they have THREE different ways of spelling the name of their vehicle, which is named after one of the stars in the Summer Triangle. Oh yeah, they managed to mispell the name of the star as well. You must check out their promo video:<br /><br />http://www.aeraspace.com/gallery.html<br /><br />Good stuff there.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">For those of you who see the “small cutting edge” companies as the good guys and the big boys as the evil empire I offer the following…</font>/i><br /><br />Wow! Reads like a movie script.<br /><br />Walter McDougall in his American history book "Freedom Just Around the Corner" describes America as a country of "hustlers", and he means this in two ways. Positive: people who work hard because they see that they really can get ahead by working hard. Negative: people who cheat others in order to get ahead.<br /><br />Small businesses tend to be attractive to both types of hustlers.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">My only real disagreement with some on this thread is that Mike Griffin and NASA can't go with such at this time. He must go with a proven track record as he is constrained both by time and budget as of now.</font>/i><br /><br />Yes, Griffin has mentioned several times his concern about relying on the yet-to-emerge private market. My frustration with this, however, is that he seems to imply that everytime NASA has embarked on an effort it has succeeded. That is: private market might not get something done, but NASA always gets something done.</i>

 

[frodo1008]

I really don't think it is quite fair to say that Griffin (who has only been the NASA administrator for some two months now) believes that NASA has always been successful. Heck, even NASA supporters like myself know that they occasionaly goof up big-time. <br /><br />But name me a governemtal program (or private for that matter) that is always successful. I mean, have we actually won the "War on Poverty" yet? Just look around any city in America at the Homeless on the streets. Do you really think it will be possible (even with military budgets in the 500 billion dollar range) to actually win the "War on Terrorism"? I am truly sorry, but at least this patriotic American doesn't think so.<br /><br />But with NASA, we did go to the moon (except, of course for the nut cases that deny that we did), we have and are studying Mars and our general knowledge of astronomy has increased by many, many times, all due to a great part to NASA, The Hubble alone has been called by a great many scientists as the greeatest scientific instrument of the 20th century.<br /><br />And remember, those who do not try great things will never accomplish great things!!

 

[gladiator1332]

Not coming to a space center near you...<br /><br />http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17117<br /><br />http://www.transformspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=media_gallery.viewalbum&albumid=7AAE884D-BB61-80D0-05861B9666624BC0

 

[spacester]

Um, has anybody talked about the possibility that t/space will go forward without the money from NASA?<br /><br />Is there a difference between the carrier craft for the CXV and the carrier craft for Virgin's initial space tourist vehicle?<br /><br />If you have the carrier craft and suborbital capability and ISS needs rides, how hard would it be to go forward with CXV anyway? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jpeachman]

this is BS. The lockheed and Boeing proposals are just so alike that it's ridiculous. Obviously the "culture change" at NASA has failed: we still have a bureaucracy influenced more by politics than common sense.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"The lockheed and Boeing proposals are just so alike that it's ridiculous."</font><br /><br />How so? To my knowledge -- no one outside NASA has seen the Boeing/Northrup proposal yet. However, the best guess is that it's still a capsule-based system. The LM proposal is designed around a lifting body. They could not be much more different than that and still be designed for the same goal. If that's not different enough -- what exactly were you looking for to differentiate the two?<br /><br />On another note -- who all submitted a proposal for the CEV? t/Space did not -- making this whole thread a bit ridiculous. They submitted an independent (and unsolicited) proposal for what they're calling the <b>CXV</b> which is a craft they made up on their own. It doesn't meet the requirements for the CEV -- nor was it meant to. Beyond that -- who else submitted bids? If no one did, then who else could have won except Lockmart/Boeing?

 

[grooble]

Boeing or Lockheed could factor t/space into the equation if they chose to. Let t/space handle the To orbit part, and Lockheed or Boeing could concentrate their efforts on an awesome space only CEV system.<br /><br />They could contract out the work right?

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">has anybody talked about the possibility that t/space will go forward without the money from NASA?</font>/i><br /><br />They may still get money from NASA. t/Space did not submit a proposal for the CEV, so there was no chance to win. (Question: How many teams submitted proposals? Was it just the two?)<br /><br />And while Griffin has said he would not fund two CEVs going forward (following an early 2006 decision), he has also said he doesn't want to be in a situation where a single vehicle loss grinds the whole progream to a halt. The CXV effort could be considered a different category and still receive funding. That is, Griffin will not fund two <b>large</b> CEV efforts, but he may fund one large CEV and one backup plan.<br /><br />Also, some of the work has been done and continues to be done for other agencies (e.g., DARPA).<br /><br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">Is there a difference between the carrier craft for the CXV and the carrier craft for Virgin's initial space tourist vehicle?</font></i><br /><br />I doubt anyone outside Rutan's inner circle knows that the two vehicles will look like. Since the Virgin craft will need to be much larger than White Knight, it is conceivable that the same development effort can be used for both projects.<br /><br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">If you have the carrier craft and suborbital capability and ISS needs rides, how hard would it be to go forward with CXV anyway?</font>/i><br /><br />The cost of developing the boosters will probably be very high. For example, even though Musk is quite rich and is self-funding Falcon 1, he said he will need to go to outside sponsors for development of Falcon 5.<br /><br />If (1) the tourists show up for suborbital flights as expected and money is being made, and (2) either Bigelow is successful with his orbital platforms or ISS is opened up to more tourists (i.e., there is some place to go), then investors may come forwa</i></i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Heck, even NASA supporters like myself know that they occasionaly goof up big-time.</font>/i><br /><br /><i>Occasionaly</i> goof up? NASA's manned space program has been a major financial and usually technical failure for over three decades. Nothing has reached their technical objectives. Nothing has come in close to projected development or operational budgets. Most efforts have been cancelled after hundreds of millions or billions were spent without ever flying any real hardware.<br /><br />I will agree that NASA's unmanned space program has done well, but I cannot believe any objective analysis can come to the same conclusion for their manned space program.</i>

 

[wvbraun]

"Was it just the two?"<br /><br />NASA has said the Boeing and Lockmart proposals were the only acceptable ones...

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">TLAD<br /><font color="white"><br />Around here thats the office junior that makes hot drinks.</font></font>

 

[grooble]

That was my job once, when i worked at an Estate Agents.