Northrop and Boeing quick to jump on the CEV money-train!

spacefire · Oct 12, 2005

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=18022 they already have a design? what next? Lockheed gets the second stage of the SRB derived launcher? and everybody's happy cause they get a piece of the pie... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

soccerguy789 · Oct 12, 2005

Look at beoings plans befor hand, this doesnt look any different from what they had befor for the Crew module and Service module. the only place they need to change from thier previous designs was the EDS and LSAM. which aren't shown, so it's not a new design, its just a new pic.

gladiator1332 · Oct 13, 2005

Is that really the best way...I mean NASA is pretty much leaving out any chances of LM or Beoing saying, "But wouldn't it be cool if we did this..." There are other innovative and practical ideas out there. However, you can run into trouble with this...X-33. There was just parts of that design that were too advanced for their time. So maybe NASA has finally found the right way to do things. Maybe there isn't that 50/50, everybody wins, way to do this. NASA get's what they want, hoever LM and Boeing can't go about things the way they want to. On the other hand, if you give the contractors this freedom, NASA doesn't always end up with what they want.

frodo1008 · Oct 13, 2005

I don't quite understand the direction of this thread. Is there something wrong with either Boeing or LM trying to make a profit out of the future of sending humans to the moon to stay, and then going on to Mars? I thought that this was basically a capitalistic type of sytem( I can guarantee that the conservative types over on free space would say it is!). Now, NASA has not yet seleted a final design or contractor for this project, so I would think that even such people as t-space would have a shot at it! Sometimes I get the impression that some on these boards thinK the Boeing and LM are NOT private companies. This iS so much of a lie as to almost not even be worth the time to comment on! Any company that is listed on the NYSE, and that you can invest in as a private company, IS a private company. Both Boeing and LM and Northrup, and the other large aerospace companies also employ hundreds of thousands of middle class people! This is even the last area where the US still leads most of the world. Perhaps for space enthusiasts it might be time to stop knocking such companies!!

gladiator1332 · Oct 13, 2005

NASA has narrowed it down to the two contractors, there was an announcement about this over the summer I think. And the entire point of the ESAS was to define the requirements for the design, which states that the CEV must use the Apollo cone shape. This time around LM and Boeing do not have any freedom in the design if they want to win. Sure they both could have given NASA biconics and duked it out, however, Boeing has given NASA what they want, now LM must do the same if they want to win. But don't get me wrong, I like NG/Boeing's design, but I would like to see Lockheed do something different. That's what makes these competitions for contracts fun...see what each team throws out there.

centsworth_II · Oct 13, 2005

At least the White House did not simply direct NASA to hand the contract to Haliburton.<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

propforce · Oct 13, 2005

"...This time around LM and Boeing do not have any freedom in the design if they want to win. ..." There's soooo much more to a win-design than just a shape of capsul, and there's much much more to a win-strategy than just a win-design. Keep in mind the "winners" are major subsystem suppliers who provide to BOTH prime contractors. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

wvbraun · Oct 13, 2005

"Now, NASA has not yet seleted a final design or contractor for this project, so I would think that even such people as t-space would have a shot at it!" LM and Boeing are the only teams still the running for the CEV but t/space has a good chance of winning a contract in NASA's commercial crew/cargo services program to be announced next month.

gladiator1332 · Oct 13, 2005

Personally, I believe Lockheed may push forward with their lifting body, fully knowing they will lose the CEV contract, and instead concentrating on winning the contract for an ISS crew transport vehicle.

radarredux · Oct 13, 2005

> NASA defined the over all design. Lockheeds will look the same. The difference between the contractors will be in the details./i> And their management plan. In both cases, though, the difference won't be detectable by comparing pictures <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

radarredux · Oct 13, 2005

> Sometimes I get the impression that some on these boards thinK the Boeing and LM are NOT private companies. This iS so much of a lie as to almost not even be worth the time to comment on!/i> While I agree the Boeing and Lockheed are private commercial companies, there are philosophical differences, especially with respect to development costs. For example, suppose Boeing develops a CEV on the government dollar, while Virgin Galactic develops one on investor dollars. Is it fair that both can enter the market offering commercial services? Virgin would need to price their service for both operations and to cover development costs, while Boeing would only need to cover operations (since the government paid for development). Surprisingly, Boeing has fought this fight before (and continues today) with Airbus -- the European governments pour money into Airbus to help develop their aircraft (e.g., the A380), while Boeing has to develop their aircraft (e.g., 787) using internal dollars and then recover those costs when selling the plane. Boeing believes Airbus should be penalized for this. Here is Griffin on the process: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />When we use a conventional prime contractor approach, which is emphatically not commercial, not entrepreneurial,/b> it is more expensive. No one would ever say that the government and government prime contractor activities represent the most efficient use of the nation's resources.<hr /></blockquote> So while Boeing or Lockheed are private companies, when the government pays for the development of a new system (airplane, rocket, whatever), it move that system outside what can be considered a pure commercial effort.

nacnud · Oct 13, 2005

There is the rumored comercial ISS resupply contract still to be formaly announced...

frodo1008 · Oct 13, 2005

The only answer to your post would be to shut down ALL government operations that require contracting, if said contracts could ever result in possible pure commercial use! Do you think that the government is going hamstring itself like that?????? At least in this instance the contract was not a no bid contract to a company that the vice president was once CEO of! According to Shuttle-guy the bidding is now over, and Boeing and LM were the only two bidders. That is neither the fault of NASA nor the two bidding companies. Perhaps t-space thought that the project would have been too much for them at this time, a relatively prudent decision, as they are putting their considerable skills into building spacshiptwo at this time. What I was referring to was a general attitude by some on these boards. The argument that Boeing has used (and I think it is a good one) is that the European Union has given direct help to Airbus. Now, most of the help that Boeing had gotten is indirect from military contracts. Indeed much of the knowledge of building large jet engined aircraft which put Boeing in the lead in this area came from building such military aircraft as the B-52. Now, neither Boeing nor the US itself has objected to Airbus getting this kind of help also, it is the low or even no interest direct loans to Airbus that is the bone of contention here. However, I read the other day where if Airbus wants to develope an aircraft in competition with the new Boeing 787, the Eurpopean Union has told Airbus management they are going to have to go this one alone. So the whole argument may be somewhat moot at this point!

soccerguy789 · Oct 13, 2005

"Personally, I believe Lockheed may push forward with their lifting body, fully knowing they will lose the CEV contract, and instead concentrating on winning the contract for an ISS crew transport vehicle. " Not happening. LM wants the CEV contract. As much as I liked thier lifting body, price wise, it can't compete with the current leader for private ISS resuply. that is, tSpace. NASA does intend to use the CEV for ISS resupply, but they also are looking for someone to deveolope a cheap private system. LM wont win because the CEV they made was expensive, and designed to do a lot. the tSpace design is cheap simple and specialized.

disownedsky · Oct 13, 2005

You are right. I have been there, and am sure they meet frequently to discuss their strategy for not only winning the job and keeping it funded (they will lobby very hard), but for then making as much money out of it as possible. All of this is normal, and even though a little underhanded, can be part of a healthy process for getting things done.

radarredux · Oct 13, 2005

> The only answer to your post would be to shut down ALL government operations that require contracting, if said contracts could ever result in possible pure commercial use!/i> No, but I do believe that when NASA pays for the development, NASA/government should own the intellectual property as well as the spacecraft and tooling. If NASA/government should so choose, it could essentially make all the intellectual property "open source", so Boeing, Lockheed, t/Space, or any other group could develop the tools and spacecraft themselves. The team that developed the initial system for the government would probably have an advantage because they would have experience on their side. Regarding Boeing vs. Airbus, I agree that it is not clear cut. More recent examples include the development and application of composites under military contract applied to commercial aircraft and the attempted sweetheart deals by the Air Force for refueling tankers.

frodo1008 · Oct 14, 2005

From what I understand, unless a company proprietory process is used, then NASA contracts are indeed open as for as the designs are concerned. The only organization that I can think of that will not allow the information about the various systems out to others is the military which for security teasons (good or bad) will not allow information out. But, NASA being a purely civilian effort of the government, does indeed allow such information out. If a startup company such as t-space or space-x want to use such information in future NASA contract bidding I don't think there is anything stopping them. However, as you pointed out experience is sometimes quite valuable and difficult to obtain! Last I read the deal for Boeing for the refuelling tankers was off, and the program was going to be opened to all, including Airbus. So your very last phrase is now somewhat moot, right?

radarredux · Oct 14, 2005

> Last I read the deal for Boeing for the refuelling tankers was off, and the program was going to be opened to all, including Airbus. So your very last phrase is now somewhat moot, right?/i> I was trying to point out that it was complex, not trying to solve anything. Senator McCain has apparently blocked the original refueling deal, but several Congress people have come out saying that no way would they allow this deal to go to a non-American company -- which following the consolidation over the last 10-15 years pretty much means Boeing. But then again, I think the next helicopter for the President will be European! So who know?

radarredux · Oct 14, 2005

> From what I understand, unless a company proprietory process is used, then NASA contracts are indeed open as for as the designs are concerned./i> I think we are on the same page on this, but lawyers have different positions. I am currently involved in a large intellectual property lawsuit between one group that developed some technology under government contracts and another one that developed the technology under VC funding. Sigh...

frodo1008 · Oct 15, 2005

For the most part on both of your last two posts we find ourselves in agreement. I admit to siding with the congress people that would want a large aircraft contract for the US military to go to an American company, if this means Boeing, then so be it. On the other hand I would not expect a large contract for the European military for aircraft to go to a non-European company either! After all, if the contract is going to be for your contries' military, then why give it to somebody else elsewhere in the world, and lay off your own people! I know, that the Corporations, including Boeing and LM, unfornumately, really don't care about this as much as profits to go to shareholders, but our government and our military should!!

gaetanomarano · Oct 16, 2005

I don't understand why MANY want to dismantle the Shuttles "as soon as possible" or (best) TO-DAY! I don't understand why the Shuttle can't be used WITHOUT crew (after conversion) for 100+ cargo flights as explained here www.gaetanomarano.it/spaceShuttle/spaceshuttle.html and here http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=missions&Number=345521&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=7&fpart=16&vc=1 I don't understand why so much people are so much "excited" about the new-old-looking CEV-SDLV-Lunar program! The image www.gaetanomarano.it/spaceShuttle/CEVpollo13.jpg synthetize WHAT (I think) may happen in 2025 if the "CEVpollo" will be REALLY made... [ this image can be freely distributed and published, but without changes ]

space_dreamer · Oct 16, 2005

The shuttles would still be very expensive as unmanned cargo launchers and they are getting old. The SDLV is the best thing the shuttles can be used for. People are “excited" about the new-old-looking CEV-SDLV-Lunar program because 1 there’s a lot of science to do on the moon. 2 There resources on the moon that can bring down the cost of space flight. 3 It gives a new destination, meaning there will be more pay loads needed to be launched which in it self will make a proper re-useable shuttle economically viable! 4 There a lot of cool things we can do with 125ton lifter, which we can’t do which STS. 5 The CEV-SDLV-Lunar program is geared to developing technology to go to mars!!! It is NASAs job to trail blaze not to run a space air line! The CEV is the simplest, cheapest way for NASA to get to LEO and return to the moon. Private industry will make new shuttles (with higher flight rates) learning from the mistakes of the STS program. Private industry’s space planes will be far better than the STS or Shenzhou. However if NASA starts saying it will make newer better shuttles then Private industry won’t build anything, which would be really bad! All NASA needs the shuttle to do is launch the rest of the space station; this will create a demand for cheaper ways of getting to orbit. However, I would like to see the shuttle launch rate increased from next year to maybe 8 or 9 flights a year! Get the ISS finished ASAP then retire the STS and get back to the Moon!!!

gladiator1332 · Oct 16, 2005

That might be one of the most rediculous things I have ever seen. For one thing, that Chinese spacecraft would take many more years and funds to build than the CEV ever will. Two why would you EVER take wings to the Moon? Tell me, is there an atmosphere on the Moon that we've somehow missed? Leave the sexy winged spacecraft to the Burt Rutans out there. The CEV may not look as nice as the winged craft in that image, however, it is what gets the job done. And why si everyone making the Chinese out to be the new leaders in technology? THEY ARE USING AN OLD 1960's STYLE CAPSULE TOO!!!! And once again, they can't even afford more than one flight every year or so, how are they ever going to build a nice sleep winged spacecraft like that? All of you who are trying to make the CEV out to be a waste are doing a realy poor job of it. So far your only argument is that it looks like something out of date. Yet, those of us who actually see the advanteges to a capsule for lunar flight have actual facts to back up our beliefs. You do not need wings to fly to the Moon. You only need wings for the last part of the mission, which can be handled by parachutes, which are a fraction of the weight of wings. And why does NASA new Moon ship look like Apollo? Well, take ground transportation. If I told you I need a large vehicle to move a large amount of goods at one time. Would you honestly give me a stretch VW Beetle, or a Corvette? I think most people would then draw something that looks very much like an 18 Wheeler. And don't get me wrong, I'm not against winged spacecraft. We deffinatly need wings for LEO and for private spaceflight. If I'm going to pay millions of dollars to fly to the ISS, I don't want to be cramped in some small capsule that lands by parachute. I want something like a giant space ship one that will land me on a runway like an airplane in comfort. But why do NASA's astronauts need sleek spacecraft and comfort? It's a part of t

gaetanomarano · Oct 16, 2005

answers... The shuttles would still be very expensive as unmanned cargo launchers and they are getting old. The SDLV is the best thing the shuttles can be used for. Shuttle are expensive and dangerous for crews but EXIST (and can be used as a crewless cargo for 10 years), SDLVs will not exist for 8 to 15 years (time depends of funds, tests, problems, reliability, etc.), if you need to go office 250 day per year in the next 10 years, do you use a car (or a train or a bus) that EXIST or a car that DON'T EXIST??? People are “excited" about the new-old-looking CEV-SDLV-Lunar program because 1 there’s a lot of science to do on the moon. I was VERY enthusiast of Apollo missions because was great and fascinating adventures, but, on the moon there is NOTHING of useful to do or to find: no bacteriums, no organic materials, no fossils, no water (certainly not so much water like on earth!!!!), no E.T.s, no rare minerals, no gold, no oil (however, extracting lunar water will costs 100 times more than send the same amount of champagne on the moon!!!); you will see with your eyes, when the lunar missions will be done the astronauts will find and bring to earth only a few new rocks!!! Some say that, probably, on the moon there is the precious Helium3 for Fusion Reactors... but there is a (little) problem... on earth there are NO working fusion reactors able to give energy in quantity, the max fusion time was of fraction of seconds and probably a true fusion reactor will be available after 2030-2050... 2 There resources on the moon that can bring down the cost of space flight. ABSOLUTELY NO! to build anything from mineral you need to send on the moon the ENTIRE line of trasformation and manufacturing available on earth, and this will cost MANY TRILLIONS dollars!!!!! 3 I

space_dreamer · Oct 16, 2005

Dude, even if the shuttle is unmanned with a flight rate of 12 flights a year, it will still be much more expensive than using EELVs or better still Falcon9s. If there’s water ice on the moon, then we can make rocket fuel on the moon, which means we can kick start the Luna economy. I suggest you read Mining the Sky by John S. Lewis

Northrop and Boeing quick to jump on the CEV money-train!

spacefire

Guest

soccerguy789

Guest

gladiator1332

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

gladiator1332

Guest

centsworth_II

Guest

propforce

Guest

wvbraun

Guest

gladiator1332

Guest

radarredux

Guest

radarredux

Guest

nacnud

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

soccerguy789

Guest

disownedsky

Guest

radarredux

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

radarredux

Guest

radarredux

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

gaetanomarano

Guest

space_dreamer

Guest

gladiator1332

Guest

gaetanomarano

Guest

space_dreamer

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page