Just got the news, prior to the announcement. Congratulations to the Lockmart team.

And no, I have nothing profound to say about it. I only saw one proposal, so I don’t have any basis on which to judge whether or not this was a good decision. Of course, I’m on record as thinking the program itself misbegotten, regardless of who builds it.

[Update while listening to the NASA webcast]

I should add that I want to offer my condolences to the NGB team, many of whom I’ve worked with for the last year, and who put in a lot of long hours, for naught. Unfortunately, someone has to win, and someone has to lose. We’ll find out in due course what NASA thought the key weaknesses of the NGB offer were.

[Update about 4:30]

They just showed a model. It has circular solar panels.

A reporter is asking about human space experience vis a vis Lockmart. Horowitz makes the point (with which I agree) that no one has experience in developing manned spacecraft. We’re a new generation.

[Update about 4:40]

I find it interesting (and a little amusing) that everyone in comments seems to think that this was Boeing versus Lockmart. Northrop Grumman was the team lead.

[Update]

On further reflection, I should add that this is a bitter pill for Boeing (not legacy Boeing people, but the former McDonnell-Douglas and Rockwell folks), because they remember the X-33 program, when Lockmart conned NASA, and pissed away a billion dollars of taxpayer money, while devastating prospects for reusable vehicles for years (something from which the agency hasn’t recovered, given its current launcher development choices). I’m sure that a lot of them are thinking that this just happened again. The difference, of course, is that this isn’t a technology development program, but I can understand the bitterness, if it exists.

[Update at 5:45 PM EDT]

An emailer who wants to remains anonymous defends Lockmart:

…it’s worth noting that aside from the inherent problems with the concept, the execution was botched by Skunk Works, due to a combination of handing it to their “second string” team and lingering Lockheed/Martin Marietta rivalries. LMSW wouldn’t listen to Michoud when told that what they were doing on the LH2 tanks was wrong, for example, despite Michoud having the bulk of the corporation’s expertise in that area. For another, LMSW couldn’t *ever* seem to grasp the notion that they were designing a (suborbital) spacecraft rather than a plane, and indeed continued to call X-33 and VentureStar “the airplane” throughout the program.

Thankfully, LMSW has nothing to do with Orion, so the X-33 debacle doesn’t directly apply here (aside from the bitter lessons learned coming from the Michoud side). Denver and Michoud are the primary business units involved, so we at least have *some* clue what we’re doing on this project.

I’ll also add, per a comment, that Lockmart doesn’t share sole responsibility for the X-33 fiasco. I would assign at least as much, if not more blame to Marshall, for letting themselves be snookered. It does take two to tango, after all.

[Update a little after 6 PM EDT]

Boy, CNN is really bashing Lockmart, too. As my anonymous emailer notes, this really isn’t fair, but it’s also not ununderstandable (if that isn’t a word, it oughtta be. As should “oughtta”).