LockMart Wins CEV Contract - NASAWATCH

LockMart Wins CEV Contract - NASAWATCH

http://www.nasawatch.com/

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/new...thewritestuff/

-Rusty

Rusty wrote:
LockMart Wins CEV Contract - NASAWATCH

http://www.nasawatch.com/

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/new...thewritestuff/

-Rusty



NASA Official Announcement


http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006..._contract.html

RELEASE: 06-305

NASA Selects Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle Prime Contractor

NASA selected Wednesday Lockheed Martin Corp., based in Bethesda, Md.,
as the prime contractor to design, develop, and build Orion, America's
spacecraft for a new generation of explorers.

Orion will be capable of transporting four crewmembers for lunar
missions and later supporting crew transfers for Mars missions. Orion
could also carry up to six crew members to and from the International
Space Station.

The first Orion launch with humans onboard is planned for no later than
2014, and for a human moon landing no later than 2020. Orion will form
a key element of extending a sustained human presence beyond low-Earth
orbit to advance commerce, science and national leadership.

The contract with Lockheed Martin is the conclusion of a two-phase
selection process. NASA began working with the two contractor teams,
Northrop Grumman/Boeing and Lockheed Martin, in July 2005 to perform
concept refinement, trade studies, analysis of requirements and
preliminary design options. Lockheed Martin will be responsible for the
design, development, testing, and evaluation (DDT&E) of the new
spacecraft.

Manufacturing and integration of the vehicle components will take place
at contractor facilities across the country. Lockheed Martin will
perform the majority of the Orion vehicle engineering work at NASA's
Johnson Space Center, Houston, and complete final assembly of the
vehicle at the Kennedy Space Center, Fla. All 10 NASA centers will
provide technical and engineering support to the Orion project.

The contract is structured into separate schedules for DDT&E with
options for production of additional spacecraft and sustaining
engineering. During DDT&E, NASA will use an end-item
cost-plus-award-fee incentive contract. This makes the award fee
subject to final determination after the contractor has demonstrated
that it meets the technical, cost, and schedule requirements of the
contract.

DDT&E work is estimated to occur from Sept. 8, 2006, through Sept. 7,
2013. The estimated value is $3.9 billion.

Production and sustaining engineering activities are contract options
that will allow NASA to obtain additional vehicles as needed. Delivery
orders over and above those in the DDT&E portion will specify the
number of spacecraft to be produced and the schedule on which they
should be delivered.

Post-development spacecraft delivery orders may begin as early as Sept.
8, 2009, through Sept. 7, 2019, if all options are exercised. The
estimated value of these orders is negotiated based on future manifest
requirements and knowledge gained through the DDT&E process and is
estimated not to exceed $3.5 billion.

Sustaining engineering work will be assigned through task orders. The
work is expected to occur from Sept. 8, 2009, through Sept. 7, 2019,
with an estimated value of $750 million, if all options are exercised.

For information about Orion, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/orion

Rusty wrote:
LockMart Wins CEV Contract - NASAWATCH

http://www.nasawatch.com/

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/new...thewritestuff/

-Rusty


Here are lead times for previous U.S. manned spacecraft

Space Contract 1st manned
Craft Issued orbital flight Lead time

Mercury Feb 6, 1959 Feb 20, 1962 3 years 2 weeks

Gemini Dec 22, 1961 Mar 23, 1965 3 years - 3 months

Apollo CM Nov 28, 1961 Oct 11, 1968 6 years - 10-1/2 months

Apollo LM Jan 14, 1963 Mar 3, 1969 6 years - 1-1/2 months

Shuttle Jul 26, 1972 Apr 12, 1981 8 years - 8-1/2 months


Sources:

Mercury Chronology, Gemini Chronology, Apollo Chronology, KSC Shuttle
News Reference.


-Rusty

On 31 Aug 2006 18:18:10 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Rusty"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

Here are lead times for previous U.S. manned spacecraft

Space Contract 1st manned
Craft Issued orbital flight Lead time

Mercury Feb 6, 1959 Feb 20, 1962 3 years 2 weeks

Gemini Dec 22, 1961 Mar 23, 1965 3 years - 3 months

Apollo CM Nov 28, 1961 Oct 11, 1968 6 years - 10-1/2 months

Apollo LM Jan 14, 1963 Mar 3, 1969 6 years - 1-1/2 months

Shuttle Jul 26, 1972 Apr 12, 1981 8 years - 8-1/2 months


Sources:

Mercury Chronology, Gemini Chronology, Apollo Chronology, KSC Shuttle
News Reference.

With a mandate to NASA to "waste anything but time."

Not comparable to any program today, since space is no longer
important.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 31 Aug 2006 18:18:10 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Rusty"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

Here are lead times for previous U.S. manned spacecraft

Space Contract 1st manned
Craft Issued orbital flight Lead time

Mercury Feb 6, 1959 Feb 20, 1962 3 years 2 weeks

Gemini Dec 22, 1961 Mar 23, 1965 3 years - 3 months

Apollo CM Nov 28, 1961 Oct 11, 1968 6 years - 10-1/2 months

Apollo LM Jan 14, 1963 Mar 3, 1969 6 years - 1-1/2 months

Shuttle Jul 26, 1972 Apr 12, 1981 8 years - 8-1/2 months


Sources:

Mercury Chronology, Gemini Chronology, Apollo Chronology, KSC Shuttle
News Reference.

With a mandate to NASA to "waste anything but time."

Not comparable to any program today, since space is no longer
important.

Says you.
Just think what we could do if we didn't spend a $100 billion a year on
the war?
See:
http://nationalpriorities.org/index....per&Itemid=182

Tell me how many years it has taken NASA to spend $300 billion. Go
ahead, do it.

Eric

In article om,
Eric Chomko wrote:
With a mandate to NASA to "waste anything but time."
Not comparable to any program today, since space is no longer
important.

Says you.

Says anyone who's looked at the politics. Space was important, *then*,
because it had become a symbol of superpower capabilities in the Cold War,
not because it mattered in its own right. But the Cold War is gone, and
in any case, space's symbolic importance died rather earlier, when the
USSR lost the race to the Moon and largely abandoned using space
accomplishments as a propaganda tool.

There's no Cold War in progress or likely, and even if there was one,
no likely enemy is going to trumpet their space accomplishments as proof
of superiority to the US. Same reason for both: everyone sees what
happened to the last guys who tried that.

Today's NASA mostly runs a jobs program, not a space program.

Just think what we could do if we didn't spend a $100 billion a year on
the war?

That money wasn't taken away from spaceflight, and if the US stopped
spending it on the war, it wouldn't be spent on spaceflight instead.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 05:54:36 GMT, (Henry Spencer) wrote:

In article om,
Eric Chomko wrote:
With a mandate to NASA to "waste anything but time."
Not comparable to any program today, since space is no longer
important.

Says you.

Says anyone who's looked at the politics. Space was important, *then*,
because it had become a symbol of superpower capabilities in the Cold War,
not because it mattered in its own right. But the Cold War is gone, and
in any case, space's symbolic importance died rather earlier, when the
USSR lost the race to the Moon and largely abandoned using space
accomplishments as a propaganda tool.

With all due respect, I think there's a little more to it than that. At the time
of the beginning of the space race, there was still a sense that "progress"
would bring us amazing things and unrecognizably better lives. Look
at the big attractions of the world's fairs- predictions of the world of the
future.

Space travel was the ultimate extension of this. I don't think its importance
was simply political. It was sort of a manifest destiny. Space did matter
"in its own right". But the JFK assassination, the Vietnam War- well, you lived
through the '60s too. By the end of the decade, maybe even a couple of years
beyond, we'd stopped dreaming of the future. Just keeping what we had seemed
like a lofty goal.

Even with all the amazing advances over the past several decades, it
doesn't seem like that wide-eyed dream of the future has come back. It
probably will someday. It's always darkest before the dawn

Dale

In article ,
Dale wrote:
...Space was important, *then*,
because it had become a symbol of superpower capabilities in the Cold War,
not because it mattered in its own right. But the Cold War is gone, and
in any case, space's symbolic importance died rather earlier...

With all due respect, I think there's a little more to it than that. At the time
of the beginning of the space race, there was still a sense that "progress"
would bring us amazing things and unrecognizably better lives...
Space travel was the ultimate extension of this...

There's something to that, yes... but if you look at space activity before
Sputnik -- the point where Cold War power politics got involved -- you
find lots of enthusiasm, but not much *money*. As a case in point, for
all the hype about it, one reason why Project Vanguard progressed slowly
was that it was really rather poorly funded.

As Rand indirectly observed, you don't get a "waste anything but time"
mandate unless the results are of compelling *political* importance. You
may still see some government money, but it won't be on the Apollo scale.

Even with all the amazing advances over the past several decades, it
doesn't seem like that wide-eyed dream of the future has come back. It
probably will someday.

I agree, and it could be soon. But don't confuse this with Apollo or with
CEV/CLV/ESAS. The world of manifest destiny and wide-eyed dreams is also
a world of competing private projects on tight budgets, not government
projects spending money like water, because the political consensus that
drives the latter is unsustainable.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

(Henry Spencer) wrote:

The world of manifest destiny and wide-eyed dreams is also
a world of competing private projects on tight budgets

And, inevitably, considerable duplication of effort as the corollary
of something good: many innovators trying different solutions.

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 19:57:27 GMT, in a place far, far away, Monte
Davis made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

(Henry Spencer) wrote:

The world of manifest destiny and wide-eyed dreams is also
a world of competing private projects on tight budgets

And, inevitably, considerable duplication of effort as the corollary
of something good: many innovators trying different solutions.

That's how capitalism works. Having two gas stations across the
street from each other is obviously "duplication of effort."
Socialists see it as waste--capitalists see it as competition. Guess
which view generates more wealth, and plunges more prices...