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").

Well that's a shock!

Yup. Just announced at the press conference.

yeah!

>>Unfortunately, someone has to win, and someone has to lose

Yeah, and as usual in NASA world, the winner is still picked at the starting line, rather than finish.
What was it about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result ?
Heck, USAF did at least a fly-off between YF-22 and YF-23. Though many might not agree with the ultimate decision, they at least flew them.

kert: Boeing has wasted enough of the government's money, lately.

I thought the Orion was powered by nukes.

Damn. Lets hope we actually get a vehicle this time for our money. *cough*x-33*cough*

"kert: Boeing has wasted enough of the government's money, lately."

ISS is in orbit. X-33 (and how many other projects besides?) is on pieces of paper and CDs in Lockheed's vault, some of the most expensive Power Point presentations ever created. How much more valuable is an overpriced something than an overpriced nothing? NASA should hire Zen Buddhists to ponder that one and rethink their decision.

One thing is for sure, if LochMart does not deliver on this one, they are proabally out of the manned space business at least as far as Uncle Sugar goes.

This is but one piece of the puzzle. Bigger plums are still to be awarded. Lockheed, busy building Orion, may miss out on LSAM or EDS or the big Ares liquid stages. Megabucks still to be won. The odds for a win by NG and/or Boeing on the next contract award may have gone up when this announcement was made.

- Ed Kyle

I agree with Ed.

I would bet my bottom dollar Boeing wins the LSAM inasmuch as its ascent stage is a glorified ISS part.

As for the LSAM, I want Masten and/or Aramdillo to be significantly involved with that. If they do well in October at Las Cruces.

Brian, the X-33, as horrific as it was, was completely trivial in comparison with ISS. For one to two percent of the cost of the ISS, they failed at, and ceased, a project. Meanwhile, the station project dumped vast amounts of good money after bad.

Whether it's flying or not is irrelevant. Its value is insignificant relative to its cost. The station is a much greater failure than the X-33.

Whether it's flying or not is irrelevant. Its value is insignificant relative to its cost. The station is a much greater failure than the X-33.

As was the case with X-33, this cannot be laid entirely (or even mostly) at the feet of the contractor. It was first and foremost a failure of NASA.

Swiderski,

Lockheed X-33: 1 Billion dollars gone.

Boeing FIA: 16 Billion and counting.

THE END.

Even with the additional contracts, it's a mistake giving CEV to Lockheed. They really don't devote the same degree of company resources to the space division that Boeing does, nor do they have anywhere near the experience in manned space systems. As far as I know, there's no significant new technology involved, so the chance of them pulling another X-33 may be small, but it will likely cost more and take longer than if Boeing was handling it.

I don't understand why Brian thinks that Boeing would have been in charge of this contract had the NGB team won. Just more denial, I guess.

They really don't devote the same degree of company resources to the space division that Boeing does, nor do they have anywhere near the experience in manned space systems.

I don't know about the company resources other than to say that LM has devoted a lot to this one. But as for experience in manned space systems, didn't Boeing actually lose a great deal of that when they moved the former MD Huntington Beach group to Houston, and most of the people refused to move there? And since we haven't built a new manned spacecraft since the 70's, the question of experience is moot anyway in my book, since both LM and NG/B would have everyone learning everything new.

FWIW, much of JSC isn't unhappy with this pick....

SO Lockheed's building both the 6 billion dollar capsule program for NASA and the lower-cost launcher and capsule program for Kistler?

I think I mentioned about a decade ago that this was going to be a Bad Idea. Is NASA going back through usenet to my decade-old posts and doing whatever I said was a Bad Idea?

Odd. Wasn't the X-33 unmanned? Even Venturestar was going to be unmanned.

As was the case with X-33, this cannot be laid entirely (or even mostly) at the feet of the contractor. It was first and foremost a failure of NASA.

I agree 100%; I didn't mean to imply otherwise. NASA drafted and signed the contracts which let both companies blow fantastic amounts of cash.

Boeing may have lost some of the incumbent engineers when they moved the Shuttle program to Houston, but they did not take a hit on Shuttle experience. Most of the positions were filled by folks from the Houston area with years, and sometimes decades of Shuttle experience that had been laid off or sdb'ed during the 1990s when Dan Goldin was getting rid of experienced engineers if they were too old, the wrong gender or the wrong skin color.

I suspect that the average experience actually increased, as many of the engineers that stayed at HB were younger folks who could not see moving to Houston to support a dying program when they could stay in CA.

NGST: NPOESS mess, JWST mess
Boeing: FIA mess

Don't think that NASA isn't aware of this.

X-33 is soooo 90s...

They really don't devote the same degree of company resources to the space division that Boeing does, nor do they have anywhere near the experience in manned space systems.

Really? Denver and Sunnyvale are full of staff with unmanned spaceflight experience in boosters and satellites. And the LM team had lots of engineers with 20+ years in manned space flight work at JSC and engineers working ET at Michoud. LM also built parts of ISS. I'd say that closes the gap. And the NG side was (from the meetings I heard about) staffed with engineers with little or no space experience before CEV.

There is a long litany of complaints from ISS and STS program offices about Boeing. They didn't help things when a large part of their staff working on return to flight after Columbia was reassigned to the Future Combat System project for DoD, leaving the STS office in the lurch.

Oh, and wait until the source selection letter comes out. NG/Boeing only matched LM in one area - SDB plan.

"Snookered", Rand? Do you mean LM intentionally deceived NASA on X-33? I'd attribute it more to arrogance and ignorance on the part of the Skunk Works than to fraud as the term "snookered" implies.

The degree of antipathy towards LM around the net is a little surprising, but somehow Swiderski's anti-LM bloviations don't surprise me in the least.

"Snookered", Rand? Do you mean LM intentionally deceived NASA on X-33?

Yes. Their "business plan" was nonsensical, and recognizably so to anyone but someone who has no business experience (i.e., a NASA bureaucrat). I don't believe that they (that is, the LM board) ever intended to put their own money into Venture Star, though I'm sure that the technical team was sincere. They just wanted to win the contract, keep Rockwell and McDAC from getting the money, and hope that NASA would eventually come to its senses and pay them to develop the operational vehicle. If they had developed a vehicle like that with their own money, it would certainly have been unprecedented for them. Lockheed hadn't done anything commercial since the failed Tri-Star (and nothing ever in space), and Martin Marrietta had no commercial experience. It was a foolish decision on NASA's part, and a no-lose proposition on LM's.

Re: "Snookered"...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Norm Augustine that pledged LM would develop VentureStar? That goal seemed to fade away when he left, though (without any particular reason for doing so) I was inclined to think his pedge sincere...

At this point it looks like we can finally say "Let the race begin!" between the COTS competitors and LM. While not a perfect one-to-one race, both programs share a similar ideal in providing both manned and unmanned services to NASA to space. It would be very interesting to see if SpaceX and/or RpK can make the cut.

Interesting even more so as both LM and Orbital Sciences are straddling both sides of the fence on this one as a subcontractor on both projects. If it ever comes down to it, do you think Orbital would risk their $500M subcontract on Orion (according to numbers in the WashPost today) for their part of the $200M RpK supportg contract should there ever be a conflict of resources between the two programs?

...wasn't it Norm Augustine that pledged LM would develop VentureStar?

I don't recall. Was the pledge that they'd do it with their own money?

Rand--yes, my understanding was that Norm Augustine, who was in charge during the X-33 bid, pledged about $4 billion of LM money towards realizing (eventually) VentureStar; but shortly after the contract was awarded, Augustine retired, and the new management re-adopted the "we build Titans, and won't put ourselves out of business at our own expense" refrain.

But again, this is only my understanding, and is heresay on my part at best :-)

> Horowitz makes the point (with which I agree) that no one has experience in developing manned spacecraft.

I guess Burt Rutan is officially a "no one."

I wonder what Homer would say about that. :-)

When I saw the word "Lockmart" for a moment I thought Lockheed had merged with Wal-Mart.

Maybe Bentonville could figure out a cheaper way to get us into space...