Northrop Grumman–Boeing CEV

Page 3 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

n_kitson

Guest
I don't have a monthly breakdown, but even over 6 months I am sure Airbus wins. In November 2005, Boeing was well over 200 orders ahead of Airbus. The latter booked a phenomenal amount of orders in December, which should place it well in the lead for the last 6 months.<br /><br />If the OP meant January to date, then Boeing is ahead on orders booked. However this is an arbitrary measure as Airbus likes to delay order annoucements until the Paris Airshow.
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
Probably not, but Boeing will sell a great many more 787's than Airbus will sell A380's. Further, if Boeing does decide to upgrade the 747.... Begin to see the picture here?<br /><br />Please don't misunderstand me, I do think that it is truly fantastic what both Airbus and Arianespace have done. When you consider that these products lines are made cooperatively by countries that for hundreds of years had been at war with one another, and truly hated one another during most of the history of these very countries, then such cooperation is truly amazing.<br /><br />Another example of how cooperation, rather than war is so very good. Is what is now considered to be one the greatest engineering triumphs of the last century, that is the Chunnel under the English Channel between England and France. Two countries that had been at war during the 16th to 19th centuries for more than a hundred years of that period! <br /><br />It really shows what an incredible waste war and hatred really is!!<br />
 
R

rocketman5000

Guest
Perhaps he was referring to the last 6 months, not 2005.<br /><br />exactly
 
P

propforce

Guest
<font color="yellow">As an employee of another contractor to NASA, I have often found Boeing to be very aloof as I go about my job representing NASA to them, with my presence always called into question about why I'm there and usually necessitating a phone call between NASA and Boeing before I'm allowed to do my job. They are also not above starting whispering campaigns. <br /></font><br /><br />I think you'll find that's the case with most contractors, they maybe confused as to what your role is, since in their minds they're reporting directly to the customer - NASA. Therefore unless your NASA COTR make clear that you are asking questions on their behalf, they would be reluctant to responding to you. Also, while this may not apply to you individually, it would seems like the goal for a majority of NASA and its hired "consultants" coming into a major review or TIM is to find faults. They look at their personal values, of having been brought into this meeting, by how many questions they asked and how many RIDS they can generate. Many of them coming without having followed the program and lack of background information. All these can fustrate a contractor who's trying to get his job done but is forced to addressed many of what seemed like peripheral questions & RIDS.<br /><br />My experience with NASA recently has not been positive, it is not the "old NASA" that I once knew. They have gone in the world of micro-management, that by itself is not as annoying if these guys were at least technically competent, but judging from the questions asked I can't help but feeling I am performing tutorial duty training these guys. <br /><br />Now NASA personnel feel they're qualified to take "lead" in CEV and CLV design & integration? Well, last time they attempted to do this was the X-34 program and they failed miserably. I don't know what makes them think they have the capabilities that they can go back to the "Apollo era" management style. I know my opinio <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

danwoodard

Guest
>>For them space has always been sort of a hobby type of business, other than their very successful SeaLaunch business that is! <br /><br />Agree. Boeing is transferring the entire Delta business to the new United Lunch Alliance, where Delta IV may not have much of a future, since ULA will also operate the Atlas V.<br /><br />Regarding the 5 meter CEV, it would fit perfectly on the existing Delta IV Heavy. Of course it's not likely to happen, since the Launch Systems Architecture Study found that <br /><br />1) To launch the CEV on the Delta IV an entirely new pad and servicing facilities would have to be constructed. In reality CX-17 is underutilized now and would only need an additional swingarm for crew access, <br /><br />2) A new upper stage would be needed because the current stage has a design load safety factor of 1.25 (DOD spec) and NASA wants 1.4 (even though the Delta IV is already flying and the actual flight loads could be measured with strain guages, and of course load variations and vibration are much lower with liquids than solids. <br /><br />Even with these questionable expenses the Delta IV still had the same launch cost as the SRB-based CEV launch vehicle. This seems less than believeable since the CLV hasn't even been designed, let alone built, and will certainly have cost overruns. So to eliminate the EELVs, <br /><br />4) The LSAS found that while the single-core EELVs were "reliable", the CEV would have to use "the unreliable triple-core EELVs" <br />Why three identical liquid fueled core stages, each sufficiently reliable, would make an unreliable launch vehicle was not stated. If anyone knows where the reliability figures for the ESAS come from, I'd be interested.<br /><br />I've seen most of the Delta IV facilities, from the transport ship to the mobile service tower. It is all 'clean sheet' design and extremely efficient and the only modern rocket made entirely in the US. Unfortunately it cannot compete with Russian manufacturing costs. Sealau
 
D

danwoodard

Guest
That would be true for statistically random recurring failures. There aren't many of these. Most actual failures are due to unanticipated failure modes. A suprising number of failures have been due to software or other electronic system errors, at least two that I know of in solid propellant systems. <br /><br />Failures in solid propellant systems due to overpressure or structural failure tend to propogate quite rapidly; there would be little time to activate an escape system.
 
Y

yurkin

Guest
Break even for the 787 is around 350 planes. So far they have 291 firm orders and 379 announced. Of course no one gets paid till the airline takes delivery. So both the 787 and A380 will have total negative cash flow till sometime in the next decade.
 
M

mlorrey

Guest
"So why is Boeing not on NASA's good side anymore? ISS work? "<br /><br />Perhaps Boeing likes to get paid. I don't know how they treat their big contractors, but I've heard from several small projects with other groups that were awarded NASA funding but never got the check.
 
J

john_316

Guest
Remember also folks that EELV was an Air Force thing not a NASA thing thus NASA doesnt like to play along with the AF anymore in such activities. Remember the AF screwed NASA with its conditions for the STS program too.<br /><br />Yay! Thank you USAF for doing an outstanding job in manipulating a Civilian intended project!!!!!!!!<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /><br /><br />Still though Boeing will build your UCAVS and you will pay!!! (Pay up that is!)<br />
 
B

blacknebula

Guest
I'd like to point out that the Air Force was not the guilty one. When NASA tried to push through their unrealistic 40+ shuttle launches a year to justify the creation of the shuttle program, they made the White House order the Air Force to discontinue use of the Titan/Atlas/Delta systems so that NASA could (at least try to) maintain that launch manifest. The Air Force objected because its never a good idea to put all your eggs in one basket, but NASAs opinion was actually taken over the USAFs. In order for the shuttle to provide the Air Force with a wide range of launch options, various cross range conditions were forced on the shuttle (mostly due to abort options from Vandenberg). <br /><br />I wouldn't place blame on either NASA or the Air Force. Let's just keep it with the politicians <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />.
 
J

john_316

Guest
You know your right! Perhaps I should edit that post...<br /><br />I think with the Boeing tanker scandal and the spying deal I can understand why people are hating Boeing right now.<br /><br />But they do build a mean AH-64 Apache Helicopter!!!!!<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">Also NG is the prime not Boeing.</font>/i><br /><br />Isn't the current plan for the Prime-Sub role to reverse if they get the second phase of the contract?</i>
 
S

steve82

Guest
"That was back in the spiral 1 spiral 2 days..."<br /><br />Oh, the spirals are long gone. Griffen threw the spiral development model out first thing. Probably good that he did, too.
 
S

SpaceKiwi

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"For the record I think its much cooler looking then Lockheed’s design. " <br /><br />Why thank you<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />SG, are you able to comment on which part of the design you were specifically involved with? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts