Northrop Grumman–Boeing CEV

[rybanis]

I'd take my date around the moon in it! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[crix]

Yeah, I was thinking, "That capsule doesn't look any cooler than Lockheed's." <br /><br />In fact, I think the pic on this page looks better than that old NG capsule pic.<br /><br />http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0602/22cev/<br /><br />We'll have to wait a bit more I guess. *starts counting the seconds*

 

[jschaef5]

Lockheed's design looks like a small person in that picture. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[crix]

lol And a damn handsome one.

 

[larper]

I just realized that these CEV pictures should make all of these lifting body people happy. You could call those solar arrays wings. Thus, we have wings in space, just like they want. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[nibb31]

What is the reason that was given for the cutting the diameter to 5m? only weight saving? or did handling and logistics?<br /><br />Do they plan to carry the CEV inside a C5 or an Airbus Beluga ? I think those are the only planes around that can cope with a 5m payload. Am I wrong ?

 

[nibb31]

The Beluga should be able to cope quite nicely with a 5m CEV CM+SM. <br /><br />It would actually be quite nice to see NASA using an Airbus (maybe in exchange for european CEV seats) because Airbus used to use one of NASA's Super Guppies.

 

[mlorrey]

Not likely. NASA is so tied up with Boeing its insane. The US foreign trade balance essentially hinges on Boeings overseas sales, there is no way the US gov't would get away with buying airbuses. Haven't you paid any attention to the recent Dubai ports deal?

 

[jschaef5]

Are the guppies no longer in service?<br /><br />Whats the difference between that and the beluga, looks the exact same. <br /><br />EDIT: Wikipedia says that one super guppy is still around and flown by NASA. It looks like they may already have the hardware for the transportation. 25 foot diameter cargo bay. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">Actually Boeing has fallen out of favor with NASA. They are not liked at all. </font><br /><br />Yeah, why do you think they have to be a <i>subcontractor</i> to NG in the first place? <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nibb31]

The Super Guppies were modified Stratocruisers. They have been retired from Airbus and I know that at least one of them was returned to NASA.<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Guppy<br /><br />The Belugas are modified A300-600s. They look nothing like a Guppy or Super Guppy, or anything else for that matter!<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A300-600ST

 

[nibb31]

"The US foreign trade balance essentially hinges on Boeings overseas sales, there is no way the US gov't would get away with buying airbuses. Haven't you paid any attention to the recent Dubai ports deal?"<br /><br />The Dubai ports deal wasn't widely covered outside the US. I'm sure the US trade balance suffers more from Japanese car imports or Chinese electronics and textiles than from a single lease contract for a Beluga. Especially if it is traded for some free seats for ESA on the CEV. <br /><br />If operating a Beluga is cheaper than a C5 or a yet unavailable modified 747, then why would the american taxpayer complain ? I just think it would be neat. <br /><br />Sorry for taking the thread off track again. "WE NEED AN AIRCRAFT FORUM"

 

[frodo1008]

Quite frankly, Boeing itself is no longer really as interested in the space business as they were when they aquired all the space business of Rockwell International! They recently even sold Rocketdyne to its usually bitter rival, Pratt & Whitney (parent company United Technologies) for bargain basement prices. I think this will actually turn out very well for the "Rock" as they are a very good fit for P&W, and P&W is a much more forward looking company in some ways than Boeing is. <br /><br />Rgardless of whatever the somewhat anti Boeing members of these boards think, whatever it is that Boeing is doing, they must be doing it right, as their stock has never been at a higher price. I think that they wish to mainly concentrate on their bigger core business of defense (aircraft, whether piloted or remote), and their even large commercial aircraft business. For them space has always been sort of a hobby type of business, other than their very successful SeaLaunch business that is!<br /><br />However, I don't think they would turn down the CEV project as a part of NG!<br /><br />The bottom line is that Boeing unlike their other aerospace rivals, dosen't NEED that much business from NASA anyway!

 

[steve82]

"Actually Boeing has fallen out of favor with NASA. They are not liked at all."<br /><br />Whether or not it's all Boeing's fault, they were the integrating contractor while ISS ran up a $4 Billion cost increase during the Goldin era. Probably one of the main contributing reasons we don't have a Hab module now.<br /><br />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 /><br />Still, NASA managers have been retiring and going to work for boeing in droves over the last few years, and their new top management seems to finally be recognizing some of the core issues in their shop that nead cleaning up, so I'd give them about even odds of winning this one.<br /> <br />

 

[chriscdc]

To get around the aircraft difficulties has anyone looked at transport by airship. There are a few companies that are trying to build cargo carrying airships. There is also DARPA's Wulruss that they want to have a carrying capacity of 1000metric tons.<br />So it might take a day rather than hours to transport it and an initial extra investment but you can then carry a number of other oddly shaped pieces of equipment.

 

[rocketman5000]

Yes their 787 has really helped thier stock I am sure. Recently they have been getting all the orders and not Airbus. Something I kinda enjoy. It is nice to see an American product doing well in the world economy.

 

[nacnud]

Nice idea, and lockheed has just started testing a Walrus prototype. <br /><br />

 

[tap_sa]

The end is near, people are turning into Universes...

 

[nacnud]

Different universes can communitcate! Phyiscs revolutionized!

 

[propforce]

Ha ha ha ha .... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nacnud]

<small>sorry</small>

 

[n_kitson]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Recently they have been getting all the orders and not Airbus<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />This is unfortunately not the case. For 2005, the net orders are 1,055 for Airbus and 1,002 for Boeing.

 

[frodo1008]

But the VALUE of those orders goes overwhelmingly to Boeing! This is why it is far more Vital for Airbus that the A380 is very successful! Unfortunately it still has only half the orders it needs to even break even. From a pure financial standpoint Boeing is in the drivers seat!

 

[nibb31]

Half the orders needed to break even when the A380 isn't even in service yet is pretty good. Has Boeing broke even with the 787 yet ?

 

[n_kitson]

Agreed, Airbus has never been financially sound. In fact, with the possible exception of the A32X range, Airbus has yet to sell enough planes to recover development costs.