Reader's Favorites
Media Casualties Mount

Administration Split On Europe Invasion

Administration In Crisis Over Burgeoning Quagmire

Congress Concerned About Diversion From War On Japan

Pot, Kettle On Line Two...

Allies Seize Paris

The Natural

Gore Book Sales Tank, Supporters Claim Unfair Tactics

Satan Files Lack Of Defamation Suit

Why This Blog Bores People With Space Stuff

A New Beginning

My Hit Parade
Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds)
Tim Blair
James Lileks Bleats
Virginia Postrel
Kausfiles
Winds Of Change (Joe Katzman)
Little Green Footballs (Charles Johnson)
Samizdata
Eject Eject Eject (Bill Whittle)

Space
Alan Boyle (MSNBC)
Space Politics (Jeff Foust)
Space Transport News (Clark Lindsey)
NASA Watch
NASA Space Flight
Hobby Space
A Voyage To Arcturus (Jay Manifold)
Dispatches From The Final Frontier (Michael Belfiore)
Personal Spaceflight (Jeff Foust)
Mars Blog
The Flame Trench (Florida Today)
Space Cynic
Rocket Forge (Michael Mealing)
COTS Watch (Michael Mealing)
Curmudgeon's Corner (Mark Whittington)
Selenian Boondocks
Tales of the Heliosphere
Out Of The Cradle
Space For Commerce (Brian Dunbar)
True Anomaly
Kevin Parkin
The Speculist (Phil Bowermaster)
Spacecraft (Chris Hall)
Space Pragmatism (Dan Schrimpsher)
Eternal Golden Braid (Fred Kiesche)
Carried Away (Dan Schmelzer)
Laughing Wolf (C. Blake Powers)
Chair Force Engineer (Air Force Procurement)
Spacearium
Saturn Follies
JesusPhreaks (Scott Bell)

Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« Time To Negotiate | Main | Off To The Cape »

Decision Explained

The source selection rationale is apparently out for the CEV decision:

Doug Cooke, NASA's source selection authority, wrote in the Aug. 31 document that although both team's proposals were sound, Lockheed's possessed a "clear advantage." Both received ratings of "very good" in overall mission suitability, but Lockheed's was numerically ranked somewhat higher because of its superior technical approach.

...Cooke deemed Lockheed's past performance on Phase 1 of the CEV program "exceptional," saying there is "no better predictor" for how a company will perform in Phase 2. Lockheed's past performance was rated "very good," and Northrop/Boeing's was rated "good."

Good apparently wasn't good enough.

I wonder if Northrop Grumman and Boeing are reconsidering their future relationship. I think that part of the strategy of the team became obsolete when Admiral Steidle was forced out by Mike Griffin. It looked as though the team was designed to appeal to him (having Northrop Grumman, a major Joint Strike Fighter contractor) leading would give him more comfort than Boeing (Steidle was in charge of the program during its development). But with Steidle's departure, the spiral development concept vanished, as did the NGB basic strategy.

I suspect that there was a lot of complacency on the team as well, though, due to all of the manned space heritage within Boeing. Many probably couldn't imagine NASA going with anyone else.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 07, 2006 12:28 PM

Comments

Lockheed's past performance was rated "very good," and Northrop/Boeing's was rated "good."

Of course! Look at their past performance on VentureStar -- this is a vehicle that had no operational failures, ever! Posted by Mike G in Corvallis at September 7, 2006 02:40 PM

Sounds like a lame rationale to me, though I admit to being on the losing side where sour grapes abound.

I distinctly remember Lockheed's original concept being nothing like what NASA had asked for, and I also remember that the final submittal date for the RFQ began to slide to the right at that time. It certainly *feels* like NASA slowed down the procurement to let Lockheed catch up...

Not confidence inspiring. I hope I am wrong.

Posted by J. Craig Beasley at September 7, 2006 03:14 PM

Why is everyone focusing so much on VentureStar? That program had two major new technologies that were going into it, both of which didn't turn out so well. The composite, weirdly shaped tank, and the linear aerospike engine. If anything killed the VS, it was those two items.

The Orion CEV has neither of those elements in it, and seems to me to have no major new tech development required. It will instead involve building and integrating stuff that LockMart has done before.

Sounds like a lot of sour grapes to me.

Posted by Astrosmith at September 7, 2006 03:20 PM

What the BorNor team never knew was the Lockmart was hungry for this one, including building full size structural articles that they did drop tests for and a lot of other work as well.

The small business work in the BoNor proposal was slipshod as well from what I understand with Northrup being responsible for all of the small business set asides as the prime contractor and Boeing with no responsibilities in this area. It was a CF from the start.

Posted by A Birdie at September 7, 2006 03:48 PM

Well, at least when Lockmart has all the monster cost overruns and schedule slips, the Boeing folk can point at them and say that their proposal would have worked much better.

The people really unhappy with Lockmart must be their legal team. It seems to me that whenever LM loses a big contract that the lawyers suddenly come out and start proceedings.

In a perfect world, of course, the Boeing commercial group would absorb the space guys and create their own commercial lunar vehicle.

Posted by K at September 7, 2006 05:49 PM

> The Orion CEV has neither of those elements in it, and seems to me to
> have no major new tech development required.

Then why is Lockheed getting so much money for Orion research and development?

Just a few years ago, Lockheed was saying it could build a huge Second Generation RLV for only $5-6 billion. Now, Lockheed is getting $3.9 billion just to build a little space capsule.

NASA pitched Orion on the basis that it was old technology -- "the only thing that we know works," but now that contracts have been awarded, the spin is changing. T.L. James says, "Another flaw in your comment is the assertion that Orion is using 1960s technology. Not ture. It is the same general approach used by the manned spacecraft of the 1960s -- a capsule riding atop a rocket -- and the same shape as Apollo, but other than that the technology is different. ECLSS, GN&C, communications, crew systems, materials, manufacturing methods, etc., are all new."

> Sounds like a lot of sour grapes to me.

It would be "sour grapes" if people wanted NASA to build space capsules before Lockheed won. For the most part, that's not true. Most of the people criticizing Orion did so from the beginning. The only sour grapes here is the charge of "partisanship" from some Lockheed employees who are sore winners. :-)

Posted by Edward Wright at September 7, 2006 06:35 PM

Astrosmith writes:

> Why is everyone focusing so much on VentureStar?

Because that's the only manned space vehicle Lockheed has ever attempted to build, and it ended in a spectacular failure. Essentially, the fuel tank -- the main structural element of the vehicle to which nearly everything else was attached -- blew up when it was first de-fueled.

Nor is the unmanned side of the house much better. They lost the Mars Climate Orbiter because of a metric / English units screw-up and the Mars Polar Lander because firing the landing rocket triggered the touch-down indicator, shutting off the landing rocket. Splat! Then there was Genesis, whose parachute failed to open because the atmospheric entry detector (basically an acceleromter) was designed upside down. And let's not forget that gem NOAA N-prime, which was badly damaged when Lockheed forgot to bolt it down before tipping it over. Oops!

On the opposing side the Northrop/Boeing team had the legacy of building the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo capsules, the LEM, Skylab, the Space Shuttle, the Space Station, and the Delta Clipper. Heck, then-McDonnell Douglas was even prime contrator for the SpaceHab modules.

Had there been a major technical advantage of Lockheed's design over Northrop/Boeing's, one might understand the decision. But to cite *past performance* of the two teams as the deciding factor is a crock.

This one smells. Badly.

Mike

Posted by Michael Kent at September 7, 2006 06:51 PM

Because that's the only manned space vehicle Lockheed has ever attempted to build, and it ended in a spectacular failure.

Lockheed didn't attempt to build Venturestar. They attempted to build X-33, which was not a manned vehicle.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 7, 2006 06:58 PM

I think a lot of the grudge against X-33 still stems from Lockheed simply being selected for the project. I think a lot of us wanted to see McDonnell Douglas attempt Son of DC-X, and "knew" that Lockheed's proposal was doomed from conception.

Yeah, it may not have been manned, but it is still fun to complain about.

I don't actually have an opinion Lockheed vs. NG-B, though. To me it's a side show, and my money (and plans) are on COTS and the private side.

Posted by PSS at September 7, 2006 07:28 PM

But to cite *past performance* of the two teams as the deciding factor is a crock.

Read what the quote said - it was:
Phase 1 of the CEV program "exceptional," saying there is "no better predictor" for how a company will perform in Phase 2.

LM outperformed NGB on phase 1, which was pitched to the contracting teams as being critical to getting the contract.

Posted by anon at September 7, 2006 07:45 PM

Both received ratings of "very good" in overall mission suitability, but Lockheed's was numerically ranked somewhat higher because of its superior technical approach.

So in other words they aren't going to disclose.

Posted by Chris Mann at September 7, 2006 08:03 PM

Did I miss something, Kent? Surely LM has had a few successes in space, and Boeing and NG have had a few failures.

Posted by T.L. James at September 7, 2006 09:52 PM

K - The people really unhappy with Lockmart must be their legal team. It seems to me that whenever LM loses a big contract that the lawyers suddenly come out and start proceedings.

You're full of it. Let's look at a recent competition between Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. That article is old as the issue has now been escalated to the GAO thus putting the program on hold for an additional 120 days.

Posted by Leland at September 8, 2006 07:54 AM

If Lockheed Martin is so bad, then why did Boeing have to steal their documents a few years ago? Hmmm?

And I can't recite a litany of Boeing or Northrup Grumman failures, but it's not because there haven't been any. The DC-X crash comes to mind.

NG and Boeing should sign an agreement with Welch's or Ocean Spray to bottle up all that sour grape juice and sell it.

Posted by Astrosmith at September 8, 2006 11:20 AM

If Lockheed Martin is so bad, then why did Boeing have to steal their documents a few years ago? Hmmm?

Because Boeing is just as "bad," and sometimes worse.

And I can't recite a litany of Boeing or Northrup Grumman failures, but it's not because there haven't been any. The DC-X crash comes to mind.

You're kidding, right?

Posted by PSS at September 8, 2006 02:53 PM

Heh. Sometimes I kid, and sometimes I don't.

Posted by Astrosmith at September 9, 2006 03:30 PM

I simply don't like Lockmart because I had to work for them. All the managers I had to deal with from them were complete A$$holes. Especially, the regional manager who lectured us on the #1 priority of Lockfart was to make money. Even a decision that came down to a gaining or losing $1000 they'd always go the way of the money. My first thought on this was, "Well duh!" What American company doesn't, just don't advertise that fact as your number goal. That attitude just makes you look chintzy. I saw that attitude in every decision they made. They'd promise the customer the Sun and Moon and then turn around and tell us to deliver it with little to no training or resources. Then, after every one of their departmental meetings you'd get 4 different managers calling about the same thing that you didn't do as promised. Bunch of greedy f'ing bastards.

Posted by Joshua Reiter at September 9, 2006 11:18 PM


Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?