Northrop Grumman and Boeing sign on CEV

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
This just turned up from one of the people I know. Is it new?<br /><br /> />Northrop Grumman Corporation and The Boeing Company have signed a memorandum of agreement that outlines the structure of a team that will compete for NASA's Crew Exploration Vehicle and other elements of Project Constellation, a planned architecture of human and robotic space systems that will allow astronauts to travel to and explore the moon, Mars and beyond. The two companies expect to finalize the agreement in the near future. <
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
It is new, I'm told. Here's the rest of it with quotes. There's also a picture (not the one on the BBC site in the other thread started after this). Don't know how to attatch it.<br /><br /> />CEV, the first of several space systems envisioned within Project Constellation, will serve as the architecture's central human space transportation system. A NASA competition to begin development of the CEV is expected to begin in 2005. <br />"A Northrop Grumman-Boeing team will bring together two proven leaders in the development, production and successful deployment of reliable, advanced technology space systems," said Gary Ervin, sector vice president for Northrop Grumman's Integrated Systems sector. "Northrop Grumman's systems integration skills, technology innovation and track record of superior space systems performance, coupled with Boeing's extensive experience in human space flight, offers NASA a team that can develop and deliver an innovative, highly affordable CEV to serve the nation's space exploration needs safely and reliably well into the future." <br />Under the agreement, Northrop Grumman will serve as the team's leader and prime contractor during the initial development phase of the CEV, known as Spiral 1. During this period, which will demonstrate the CEV's ability to operate safely with astronauts in low Earth orbit, Boeing would serve as Northrop Grumman's principal teammate and major subcontractor. <br />In subsequent Spirals of Project Constellation, NASA's focus will expand from operating the CEV in low Earth orbit to transporting astronauts to the Moon and beyond. In Spiral 2, the Prime Contractor leadership role will shift to Boeing for new human lunar CEV transportation system elements, with Northrop Grumman serving as Boeing's principal teammate and major subcontractor. Northrop Grumman and Boeing will also determine the prime/subcontractor relationship for subsequent elements of Spiral 2 and 3 as NASA further defines Project Constellation. <br />"This
 
N

nacnud

Guest
When you preview your post there is and option to attach a picture. You need to save the picture in your system somewhere and then browse for it. <br /><br />Good find <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />
 
G

grooble

Guest
It's on the bbc news website, the link is in the topic i just posted.
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
Yeah, but in typical BBC style it was very weak in substance and lacked any of the quotes aforementioned in the release. Excellent find, though Grooble, as that's a pic of interest. I'll add it to here too.
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
Thanks Nacnud.<br /><br />Here's the pic with the Boeing Presser
 
G

grooble

Guest
I'm glad NASA are going back to capsules. So in essence, this will be a follow up to Apollo?
 
P

propforce

Guest
Here're more details.....<br /><br />Wed, 11/10/04 <br /><br />Aerospace giants hope to build next craft <br />Boeing division and California firm team up in bid to develop successor to NASA's shuttle<br /><br />Houston Chronicle 11/10/04 <br />author: Mark Carreau <br />(Copyright 2004)<br /><br /><br />Boeing NASA Systems of Houston will team with another aerospace giant to bid on building the successor to the space shuttle, a spacecraft that would take explorers to the moon and Mars, officials from the two companies announced Tuesday.<br /><br />The partnership of the Boeing division and the smaller California-based Northrop Grumman could extend to work on an even wider range of human and robotic spacecraft required to fulfill President Bush's space initiative announced in January. The strategy calls for lunar landings by 2020 and the first human explorations of Mars a decade later.<br /><br />Though Congress has yet to approve funding, NASA plans to award design contracts to a pair of competitors for the new Crew Exploration Vehicle by late next year and wants to settle on a single spacecraft-development team in 2008.<br /><br />"Now, we have the minds of two major companies put together to come up with innovations to make this more affordable and more sustainable," said Doug Young, the lead executive for Project Constellation at Northrop Grumman's Integrated System Sector office in suburban Los Angeles. "If we were doing this separately, we might not get some of the synergies that come from our deep experience bases."<br /><br />The Congressional Budget Office recently projected spending nearly $25 billion by 2020 on the new exploration vehicle. It projected costs of $64 billion for all human and robotic exploration efforts during the same period.<br /><br />NASA hasn't said whether it will manage the growing exploration work from Washington, as it does now, or through one or more of its field centers. Johnson Space Center in Houston has figured prominently in human space explor <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
N

nacnud

Guest
If you are looking for more info on the CEV and constellation projects have a look here: http://www.projectconstellation.us/news/<br /><br />This seems to be a good site that is often updated with any news of developments and has a good collection of pictures so far presented by lockmart boeing and nasa, but you might have to search a bit for info on tspace and the rest. <br />
 
S

scottb50

Guest
Let's see, $48million to research if you can even design and build a vehicle. Burt's right, what a waste of time and money. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
While Virgin Space Ship Ones are cheap for a reason <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> This CEV design looks pretty crap. I prefer the Lockheed Martin version (looks like a shuttle with a Delta Heavy stuck up it's arse).
 
G

grooble

Guest
The lockheed ones look like smaller version of Enterprise shuttles, very cool.
 
N

nacnud

Guest
I thought the latest images from lockmart they had dropped the flat iron shape and had presented an almost cylindrical shape. The flat iron shape seemed to be left over from the OSP design.
 
N

najab

Guest
><i>This CEV design looks pretty crap....</i><p>Looks are immaterial. What matters is if it gets the job done as efficiently and safely as possible.</p>
 
M

mrmorris

Guest
<font color="yellow">"Looks are immaterial."</font><br /><br />True enough in this case -- it's a government contract. However -- it's not *always* true. In designing the Gemini-3X -- I'm trying to keep esthetics in mind. One of the things that is possible (and might be essential) for assisting in the financing of a private spacecraft is corporate sponsership.<br /><br />Ergo -- a spacecraft that <b>looks</b> really cool has an edge.
 
R

rocketwatcher2001

Guest
Naj-<br /><font color="yellow">>This CEV design looks pretty crap....<br />Looks are immaterial. What matters is if it gets the job done as efficiently and safely as possible.</font><br /><br />Come on, it's got to look cool. Can you imagine how the Astonauts would get teased if they were flying dorky looking space craft? I doubt they would get any applicants, and they might have to draft cargo pilots. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
G

grooble

Guest
If you want the public interested, then it needs to look good.
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
I know what you mean, but I'm not technical so all I can comment on is how it inspires people. The Boeing CEV doesn't inspire (personally) - wheras the Shuttle and the likes of do. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I'm not qualified on costings and ability to perform, so that's all I can comment on, which seems bourne out in comments afterwards - even on such an Anti-Shuttle forum as this! <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> You bloody Delta fans <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />
 
H

halman

Guest
Scottb50,<br /><br />Well, I guess that it is all relative. I mean, if it is important, we seem to come up with the money. For instance, the bill has just come in for the 2004 summer Olympics held in Athens, Greece.<br /><br />11.6 billion dollars.<br /><br />Not counting infrastructure improvements, such as extending the Metro line to the airport. A tram line built for the Olympics cost $344 million.<br /><br />The Olympics run for about 12 days, so that is about a billion dollars a day. For what has essentially become television programming. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>
 
R

rocketwatcher2001

Guest
News-<br />Now that you mention it, I do love the RC-3 SeaBee, and that's about as ugly as an airplane can be. I plan on doing a ground-up resoration of one someday with my kids. They can even get their A&P tickets that way.......maybe. The Airframe part for sure, but I don't know about the Powerplant. But I'll want to put in a Lycoming IO-540 with a reversing prop, instead of the Franklin B9F, although the Frank does use Chrysler car parts, which are cheaper! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
I thought Space Ship One looked pretty rubbish on first glance, but then seeing it punching through the atmosphere it became beautiful. So correct.<br /><br />Anyone remember this lady?<br /><br />
 
R

rocketwatcher2001

Guest
RTF-<br />Yeah, that's an ugly bird, too. We need to get busy building ships like DISCOVERY in Clark's 2001. That thing looked cool. I bet that they would get lots of applicants for that crew, once they got their computer "fixed" anyway. "What are you doing, rocketwatcher?, I'm afraid, I cant let you do that." <br /><br />I guess for back and forth from Earth's surface to LEO, nothing beats the Space Shuttle........it looks really cool when it lands. Taking off is not bad either, but because of it's off-axis thrust, it has to climb out at what most engineers describe as "a funky angle", and that takes away from it's good looks. Plus that external tank is just wrong. It needs to be a lot smaller, better yet, two, one under each wing, and maybe one big booster in the middle. That would look cool taking off. <br /><br />They need to put me in charge of picking out designs. No more dorky looking spacecraft.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
N

nacnud

Guest
If a space ship has wings it should be for one reason only, down mass, and normally soft squidgy down mass that complains at high g loads <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> . I'm looking forward to when engineers are able to take advantage of the space environment for the properties that are there rather that have to build for an atmosphere as well. <br /><br />Inflatable, tethers, solar arrays and concentrators, etc. spindly and volumus craft that are free from the constraints of gravity and atmosphere is how spaceships appear in my imagination.<br /><br />Form needs to follow function. Some may say the rigging of a yacht looks ugly yet the yacht as a whole is beautiful, one is impossible without the other.<br />
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts