View Full Version : Who is NASA's next builder?
Wheel-Nut
08-31-06, 11:32 AM
Who will build the next spacecraft?
By Laura Elder
The Daily News
Published August 31, 2006
CLEAR LAKE — Who will build the spacecraft to carry astronauts to the moon and Mars?
NASA will answer that question at 3 p.m. today when it awards the initial contract to build the shuttle’s successor, Orion.
NASA declined to give the value of the contract to be announced today, but estimates range from $1.5 billion to $4.2 billion.
The contest to build Orion, named for one of the brightest and most familiar constellations, comes down to two teams of aerospace contractors — Lockheed Martin and a team made of Northrop Grumman Corp. and The Boeing Co.
Orion will replace the shuttle, NASA’s primary vehicle for human space exploration, and relaunch a space exploration program upon which thousands of jobs depend.
The contract to be awarded today will create 700 to 1,100 new jobs in an area that economic development officials call Bay Area Houston. The area is made of 10 cities, including Dickinson, Friendswood, Kemah, League City, Nassau Bay and Seabrook.
“This is the most exciting thing to happen at the Johnson Space Center since the shuttle was announced,” said Bob Mitchell, director of aerospace marketing for Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership. “You’re talking about more than going to the moon for six or seven days; you’re talking six to nine months at a time and moving on from the moon to Mars. It’s an exciting time to be in the space business.”
For aerospace contractors, NASA’s announcement is a culmination of several years of planning strategies and team-building between major contractors.
The vehicle is the first of several space systems envisioned within Project Constellation, part of President Bush’s plan to return Americans to the moon by 2020. Billions of dollars’ worth of contracts will be awarded in Project Constellation.
In November 2004, Boeing and defense contractor Northrop Grumman Corp. said they would work together to win the contract to build the next spacecraft.
Boeing NASA Systems has nearly 2,300 Houston-area employees directly working on NASA-related contracts. Northrop Grumman, based in Los Angeles, is the nation’s third-largest defense contractor and has about 70 people employed in Houston.
Lockheed Martin Space Operations employs 2,600, including subcontractors, in the Houston area.
Space exploration is crucial for the region’s economy, officials say.
NASA and the more than 70 aerospace and defense firms employ more than 15,000 people. Cities within the area defined as Bay Area Houston are home to 92 percent of Houston’s aerospace jobs and 4.5 percent of Houston’s total employment.
The region employs more than 2,900 workers in biotech-related firms, which are conducting research projects.
Researchers, including some at the University of Texas Medical Branch, will play a huge role in keeping astronauts safe, officials say.
Where the vehicle is built depends upon which contractor wins. For example, both Boeing and Northrop Grumman have a big presence in southern California, where most of the work is likely to occur if that team wins the Orion contract.
Still, crew exploration vehicle work is centered at the Johnson Space Center, meaning a ramped-up work force in the area no matter which team wins the contract, officials say.
NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston manages the Constellation Program.
Orion’s first manned flight is planned for no later than 2014 to the International Space Station. Its first flight to the moon is planned for no later than 2020.
Orion will be capable of transporting cargo and up to six crewmembers to and from the space station, NASA officials say. It can carry four crew members on lunar missions. The spacecraft will return humans to the moon to stay for long periods as a testing ground for the longer journey to Mars, NASA officials say.
Orion, they say, will borrow its shape from space capsules of the past, but use the latest technology in computers, electronics, life support and propulsion and heat protection systems.
The capsule’s conical shape is the safest and most reliable for re-entering the Earth’s atmosphere, especially at the velocities required for a direct return from the moon, NASA officials say.
Orion will be 16.5 feet in diameter and have a mass of about 25 tons. Inside, it will have more than 2.5 times the volume of an Apollo capsule.
The final Apollo mission, which sent astronauts to the moon, ended in 1972.
“This is a vision we’ve been looking for for years,” Mitchell said. “The vision is becoming a reality.”
Denver here I come! :D
How does Denver fit in?
Insider dope on the outcome? ;)
So the work would be done there rather then in Houston?
No clue on outcome, been trying to find out all day... oh well.
There will be work everywhere I'm sure, spread out amongst all the contractors. If L-M does come up with it, I see it being spread out amongst all of Space Systems & Space Ops. L-M's HTV chambers are in Sunnyvale, CA, they do a fair amount of satty & solar system design out there. HQ in Denver is a huge design center and home for Atlas program and loads of other satty projects. As far as Houston goes, it would be more focused on human factors, point of contact with NASA & JSC, and home to the design work that requires interaction with the NASA directs and JSC facilities. There was a lot of go-between between Denver & Houston on projects when extra support was needed. But that was all mission specific work, EVA's, testing, flight analysis and such. Since this is a whole new launch vehicle, I'm sure there's loads more work for the other facilities because frequent interaction with astronauts & the mission directorate won't be absolutely necessary.
NASA Ames in CA & associated contractors will get a good amount of work because they have the best Arc Jet: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/technology-onepagers/arcjetcomplex.html
And I'm sure other centers like Goddard and those inbred back stabbing bastards at Marshall get their share too, as well as their respective prime engineering support contractors, which is probably Jacobs...
Will you be working on the project if L-M is awarded the contract?
If I moved.
But I'm too deeply entrenched in this whole shiny shirt, leased 3 series, cokewhores, VIP guest list, 30 thousandaire scene to quit it so easily :gomer:
I need my 335i w/ sport & luxury package remember? :)
Insomniac
08-31-06, 01:35 PM
I think Lockheed will be the prime.
Ed_Severson
08-31-06, 02:17 PM
Well, balls. I was gonna start this thread today too, had I gotten here earlier. Thanks for ruining my fun, Insomniac. :p
I'm anxious to see the announcement as well. As I fully revealed in the "Last 3 Books Read" thread -- where I totally outed myself as an uber-nerd by providing a list of six or seven consecutive books on the early days of NASA -- well, I like space. I'm in the middle of a great book right now that covers Grumman's adventures in builing the LM, and it's pretty interesting from both a technical perspective and in terms of overall project management. I've always felt a little unlucky that I wasn't actually around to have lived through that era, so now I'm excited that I can follow this process real-time and understand what the hell is going on. :gomer:
Oh, and my prediction on the prime contractor? I have no idea. :cry:
cameraman
08-31-06, 02:25 PM
Sending people to Mars is just plain stupid. For the same money they could populate the whole damn solar system with robots and actually learn something. :flame:
Ed_Severson
08-31-06, 02:37 PM
Sending people to Mars is just plain stupid.
You don't have to go if you don't wanna. :p
cameraman
08-31-06, 02:41 PM
Never was planning on going. It is just a number of my friends have been laid off because NASA is cancelling the scientific missions so they can afford to send astronauts on joy rides.
Sending people to Mars is just plain stupid. For the same money they could populate the whole damn solar system with robots and actually learn something. :flame:
If the thrill of exploration doesn't turn you on, perhaps some of these benefits (http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html) will light you up.
Ed_Severson
08-31-06, 03:01 PM
Never was planning on going. It is just a number of my friends have been laid off because NASA is cancelling the scientific missions so they can afford to send astronauts on joy rides.
Sorry to hear that. Not that it makes it any easier to accept, but our space program has always been that way. There's only so much money, and the ties to the government mean that both your budget and priorities can change in a hurry.
I've always been a bit torn on that issue, honestly. I'm fascinated by what NASA has accomplished, and at the time they were founded, you could have made the case that they were necessary for national defense, and therefore what they did could be considered a proper function of government. Not really so anymore, though. I would hate to see NASA disbanded, but I think at this point it really should be privatized. The defense angle doesn't really work anymore, and the libertarian in me hates seeing the federal government spending money on science for the sake of science.
Opposite Lock
08-31-06, 03:02 PM
If the thrill of exploration doesn't turn you on, perhaps some of these benefits (http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html) will light you up.
There's nothing in there about Tang. :mad:
:gomer:
Never was planning on going. It is just a number of my friends have been laid off because NASA is cancelling the scientific missions so they can afford to send astronauts on joy rides.
well, sure, it's not like 6 month moon missions and a mars ship are going to pose any engineering challenges and spawn new developments :rolleyes:
it's nasa, people get laid off, if it wasn't this it would've been something else sucking that budget away at some point in the near future, it sucks and I'm sorry to hear about your friends, but that's how it's always been, it's inevitable
cameraman
08-31-06, 03:13 PM
If the thrill of exploration doesn't turn you on, perhaps some of these benefits (http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html) will light you up.
There would be a hell of a lot more benefits for the same money if they funded the robotic missions at the same level. And we would learn far more in the process. There is no scientific reason for sending people to Mars. We can learn far more for the same $$$ spent by using a fleet of robots. The whole point of going there is to learn about the place not to populate it. There is absolutely nothing that a human on the ground will learn that couldn't be accomplished using robotic craft. Ultimately we will learn far less by spending 95% of our money on trying to keep a couple of astronauts alive in interplanetary space for a year or two.
Insomniac
08-31-06, 03:29 PM
Well, balls. I was gonna start this thread today too, had I gotten here earlier. Thanks for ruining my fun, Insomniac. :p
What did I do?!?!
Insomniac
08-31-06, 03:31 PM
it's nasa, people get laid off, if it wasn't this it would've been something else sucking that budget away at some point in the near future, it sucks and I'm sorry to hear about your friends, but that's how it's always been, it's inevitable
Just want to point out I doubt it was NASA that did the laying off. A contract was probably cancelled/not renewed. The contractor probably laid them off, but that's the nature of government contracting. It shouldn't have come as a surprise to the contractor and it's a shame the contractor didn't have other work for them and had to lay them off.
Ed_Severson
08-31-06, 03:32 PM
What did I do?!?!
You just beat me to the punch, that's all. Thanks to our new-and-disimproved wireless on campus, I couldn't get online until about 1:30.
I mean, it's cool. I hardly ever start a thread, and I was pretty fired up about this one, but, uh, you know, I don't mind that you stole my thunder. Really, I don't. I'll find something else interesting to start a conversation about. :( ;)
There would be a hell of a lot more benefits for the same money if they funded the robotic missions at the same level. And we would learn far more in the process. There is no scientific reason for sending people to Mars. We can learn far more for the same $$$ spent by using a fleet of robots. The whole point of going there is to learn about the place not to populate it. There is absolutely nothing that a human on the ground will learn that couldn't be accomplished using robotic craft. Ultimately we will learn far less by spending 95% of our money on trying to keep a couple of astronauts alive in interplanetary space for a year or two.
the budget isn't 95% manned flight, nowhere close.
And although I'm a proponent of pushing robotics, they do have many limitations. I don't think you truly understand how complicated & difficult some of NASA's proposed robotic missions are.
We'll take the Hubble maintenance proposal as a well known example, there was no way in hell they could design a robotic apparatus with a high probability of successfully docking with Hubble in the near future, let alone one that would further perform the required maintenance. Goddard was giddy over this and pursued it, but it just wasn't going to happen. Robots are limited, and they're machines, they fail from time to time.
Just want to point out I doubt it was NASA that did the laying off. A contract was probably cancelled/not renewed. The contractor probably laid them off, but that's the nature of government contracting. It shouldn't have come as a surprise to the contractor and it's a shame the contractor didn't have other work for them and had to lay them off.true, I didn't have my position for even 8 months in houston, but I knew going in the transient nature of things. 3 years ago, positioning myself to work on Orion was my primary goal, but even if I do follow that, I realize it can get nixed at a moment's notice and I need to develop skills that translate to other companies, positions and/or industries.
Wheel-Nut
08-31-06, 03:39 PM
Aren't there a couple of robotic rovers on Mars right now that we have zero chance of ever communicating with again not to mention recovering?
Aren't there a couple of robotic rovers on Mars right now that we have zero chance of ever communicating with again not to mention recovering?
One is in little tiny pieces and I think the other went sailing past the planet.
But we do still have two little rovers do a hell of a job there. :thumbup:
And the ESA's Beagle2 which is MIA.
(and the numbskull who bashed our rover into tiny little pieces was a L-M Denver guy :D)
List of all NASA centers and what they'll be in charge of:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/main/work_assign.html
Ames, Dryden, Glenn, Goddard, JPL, JSC, KSC, Langley, Marshall, Stennis
Nasa TV link (http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/) if anyone wants to watch the annoucement.
Hamilton Sundstrand, Orbital Sciences, Aerojet, ATK Thiokol (I think), LM center at Glenn Cleveland & Langley, and some others I think...
TKGAngel
08-31-06, 04:35 PM
Sending people to Mars is just plain stupid. For the same money they could populate the whole damn solar system with robots and actually learn something. :flame:
You know why we go to Mars? Borrowing from Aaron Sorkin,
...it's next. 'Cause we came out of the cave and we looked over the hill and we saw fire. And we crossed the ocean and we pioneered the West and we took to the sky. The history of man is hung on a timeline of exploration and this is what's next.
no ATK thiokol on Orion's main contractor group, but it will be their SRB on the Ares I, and I left out Honeywell
...it's next. 'Cause we came out of the cave and we looked over the hill and we saw fire. And we crossed the ocean and we pioneered the West and we took to the sky. The history of man is hung on a timeline of exploration and this is what's next.
Yep. People who don't get this will never understand.
cameraman
08-31-06, 05:43 PM
What you are missing here is NASA is cutting much of the science to pay for hauling people to Mars.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/13282.gif
What you are missing here is NASA is cutting much of the science to pay for hauling people to Mars.
Because it's not all about science. Regardless of the "human endeavor" element, there are many practical, engineering innovations that come from human travel in space. KLang's link is full of inventions that directly impact humans on Earth.
What you are missing here is NASA is cutting much of the science to pay for hauling people to Mars.
What I'm not missing is your blowing out of proportion how much cutting is being done. You're unaware of Constellation program's budget constraints and how much belt tightening has been done w/ shuttle & ISS program & their associated contractors. I'm not happy about my friends getting laid off because we're not making enough external tanks these days, or that there's a gap in the need for spacecraft management services from USA, but that's what happens. Budgets shrinks, schedules shift, people have to leave.
There's a perfectly functional X-38 sitting in a hanger at JSC complete with the shuttle mating trunions to boot that's sitting in mothballs. I'd say the need for a functional escape vehicle for a full station crew is more pressing than growing algae in zero G, but others don't see it that way, so there it sits. Everyone else moves on.
And regardless of the end product, there's plenty of science & research that's going to be conducted in order to meet the end goal. The end goal isn't everything, it's how they're going to get there too.
cameraman
08-31-06, 06:31 PM
I have no problem with the ISS or replacing the shuttle or even going back to the moon. Those are all perfectly reasonable although the moon thing is a bit extravagant. But sending people on multiyear interplanetary missions is a huge waste of very scarce funds. Whatever we gain is not worth the number of other missions cancelled or delayed to infinity in order to pay to get people to Mars. The cost:benefit of a Mars manned mission makes no sense.
The cost/benefit of 90% of the government doesn't make sense. There's far bigger waste than something which doesn't acount for .5% of the federal budget.
And Mars isn't the primary focus, yet. Right now it's a functional, reliable craft to provide regular access to and beyond low-earth orbit. After that, the moon. After that, moon station. After that, mars or whatever else.
Guiding hubble's descent is a possible mission, as are a myriad of other options.
Insomniac
08-31-06, 06:53 PM
You just beat me to the punch, that's all. Thanks to our new-and-disimproved wireless on campus, I couldn't get online until about 1:30.
I mean, it's cool. I hardly ever start a thread, and I was pretty fired up about this one, but, uh, you know, I don't mind that you stole my thunder. Really, I don't. I'll find something else interesting to start a conversation about. :( ;)
Now I'm confused. I didn't start this thread.
Insomniac
08-31-06, 06:57 PM
List of all NASA centers and what they'll be in charge of:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/main/work_assign.html
Ames, Dryden, Glenn, Goddard, JPL, JSC, KSC, Langley, Marshall, Stennis
It sucks we never get mentioned since we're under GSFC. NASA IV&V Facility (http://www.ivv.nasa.gov/)
Ed_Severson
08-31-06, 07:05 PM
Now I'm confused. I didn't start this thread.
****. :o
I think when I initially posted in the thread, your name was the first one I saw because yours was the most recent post, and the preceding posts are listed backwards underneath the text box.
In other words, I'm a tard. :gomer:
At any rate, I was just screwing around anyway. I'm not really upset about anything, but I am going to wring Wheel-Nut's neck for stealing my thread idea! :flame: :)
Insomniac
08-31-06, 10:27 PM
****. :o
I think when I initially posted in the thread, your name was the first one I saw because yours was the most recent post, and the preceding posts are listed backwards underneath the text box.
In other words, I'm a tard. :gomer:
At any rate, I was just screwing around anyway. I'm not really upset about anything, but I am going to wring Wheel-Nut's neck for stealing my thread idea! :flame: :)
No problem. I knew you weren't being serious, just a little baffled.
Ed_Severson
08-31-06, 10:32 PM
No problem. I knew you weren't being serious, just a little baffled.
All part of the master plan, my man ... keep everybody on their toes. ;)
Wheel-Nut
09-01-06, 09:36 AM
****. :o
At any rate, I was just screwing around anyway. I'm not really upset about anything, but I am going to wring Wheel-Nut's neck for stealing my thread idea! :flame: :)
Quit school, get a job and you too can surf the web all day. Just ask Ank. :)
Quit school, get a job and you too can surf the web all day. Just ask Ank. :)
yep. :thumbup:
hey, wait a minute :mad:
from the Times
Lockheed plans to spread out the work on the program in a number of locations where NASA already has a strong economic and political presence. Work is expected to be done in Houston, where Lockheed estimates that 1,200 new jobs will be created; in Denver, with 500 new jobs; in Florida, with 300; and at the Michoud plant in New Orleans, with 200.
Wheel-Nut
09-01-06, 03:03 PM
Go to N'awlins Ank. I hear its a great place now.
Go to N'awlins Ank. I hear its a great place now.
because all their criminals live in Houston now :mad:
coolhand
09-01-06, 03:31 PM
In other aerospace news
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-09-01T184244Z_01_WBT005892_RTRUKOC_0_US-ARMS-MISSILE-USA.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
Looks like I thought it would according to the requisitions out there, lots of human factors & cabin environment stuff, systems analysis, thermal & fluid analysis type stuff that would greatly benefit from interaction with JSC's staff & tools in Houston, plus various subsystem design work as they were used to doing for the past 40 years on SEAT contract.
Denver with some thermal & fluid analysis, test, & design, mech design, stress, system layout stuff, much of it related to liquid propulsion and spacecraft structures, which is what they're good at.
Denver stuff probably spawns HTV thermal testing jobs in Sunnyvale, CA in a few years.
Should've posted this 2 days ago on its 44 year anniv, but whatever... JFK @ Rice University
There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation many never come again. But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?
We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.
Should've posted this 2 days ago on its 44 year anniv, but whatever... JFK @ Rice University
:thumbup:
-Kevin
AEROSPACE DAILY & DEFENSE REPORT
09 JANUARY 07
NASA awards ATK $48M for work on Ares I first stage
NASA has awarded ATK Thiokol of Brigham City, Utah, a $48 million contract option to continue design and development of the first stage of the Ares I rocket. The first stage is a modified five-segment version of ATK's space shuttle solid rocket booster (SRB). Made under an existing shuttle contract, the award brings the total value of ATK's work on the Ares I so far to $111 million.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.