It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lockheed Wins 4 Billion Contract

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Lockheed has beaten out Grumman on the Orion space craft that will take astronauts to space and eventually the moon. The contract has been valued thus far at 3.9 to 4 billion dalliers.


Lockheed Martin Corp., the world's largest defense company, won a NASA contract to build a spacecraft that will return U.S. astronauts to the moon, beating a Northrop Grumman Corp.-led team.

The craft, called Orion, will include a cone-shaped capsule and be able to carry a crew of six. It is the centerpiece of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's $122 billion effort to return to the moon as early as 2018. The contract, announced by NASA in a PR Newswire release today, is valued at about $3.9 billion through 2013.



Full story click hear


Adtional links

hear

and hear

and hear




posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Im surprised there is not more post on this topic.

I think that this will be great for space exploration and the creation of new technology.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heckman
Im surprised there is not more post on this topic.

I think that this will be great for space exploration and the creation of new technology.


Your right this will be great for exploration. The aspect of another moon mission will bring alot of people to the tv sets and the live feed on the net. The conspircy theory theoryists will be spinning there own conclusions and there will be four new idles, and the new technology thats devolped. What I exspect to be more discushen on is weather or not the government should be pouring the four billion into the project.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 08:29 PM
link   
At this MSNBC web page there is a pretty good video of the Aires and Orion crafts. What I found rather strange was that the lauch vehicle is really not much different from the Apollo vehicles.

It also talks about how they have plans for a long term base on the moon, to have people stationed there for up to six months.

Something else they plan to do this with out the space plane. I found that rather suprising. The space plane would first seem to be a more economical way to go.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heckman
Im surprised there is not more post on this topic.

I think its because of the poor title line (no offense)...But you would of attracted more people with something a little spicier.


Congrats to Lockheed, I cant wait to see is take to the skies in 2014 (hopefully earlier)




posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Well that is not suprise . . . but did they got any other companies to fight them for the contract.

Cheney's wife use to work for them while he was working for Haliburton.


No surprise at all.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   
RTFA marg, they beat out Northrop Grumman and Boeing for the contract which is kind of surprising actually. Also, it's a peanuts deal as well in the grand scheme of the 122 billion total budget for this mission.
I'm sure the competitors will be raking in some dough from the sub-contracts and such.

[edit on 31-8-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
I think its because of the poor title line (no offense)...But you would of attracted more people with something a little spicier.




I just thought the four billion price tag would be what draws coments, guess not. But the Chaney name comeing up was interesting. I wonder if the main streem media will pick up on that any?



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 01:50 AM
link   
And I for one cannot wait till they get there arses handed to them on a plate by the Russians in 2011...

See Murcs russian moon mission thread, and just look at the beauty there going to build, compared to this massive white elephant of a tin can...

Didn't they get over the whole capsule thing in the 1960's / 70's ?? Ugly as sin and a money pit beyond compare.

X-33 lockheed fiasco any one?



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 01:55 AM
link   
The Shuttle was worse actually as for development costs. From an engineering perspective, looks count for nothing and infact cost a lot. Seperate Cargo and Crew setups makes much more sense too(as well as a planeed specialized ISS version as well). Why oh why are people so hung up on wings. You don't need them in space or on the moon... Parachute landings are inconvient sure, but what is lost there you gain in total cargo space available.

And as for the Russians beating the Yanks to the moon, I'll believe it when I see it. The Russians are inventing a new platform. The US is using a tried and tested methodology and just increasing the scale of the project. One of these missions is not like the other.


[edit on 1-9-2006 by sardion2000]

[edit on 1-9-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 03:54 AM
link   
you have to ask though is Lockheed Martin really the best company to build the new space craft? especially if the whistleblower shown here is telling the truth, the new generation of craft could end up the same as the space shuttle just built down to a certain cost with inbuilt bugs and design problems



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 04:10 AM
link   
Well if they fail royally on this contract it will be a very public failure on their part and the part of the people who chose them... though to be fair, the launch business is a completely different beast and that portion of the company may be top notch. or the youtube video was a hoax by a disgruntled employee and it's a non-issue. It is an election year afterall... sort of like a year long april fools day IMHO...



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000 Why oh why are people so hung up on wings. You don't need them in space or on the moon... Parachute landings are inconvient sure, but what is lost there you gain in total cargo space available.


Although be it you have made your point on wings, I just favored the re useable craft. So that is why I said it is unforchant that it will no longer be used.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by RedGolem

Originally posted by sardion2000 Why oh why are people so hung up on wings. You don't need them in space or on the moon... Parachute landings are inconvient sure, but what is lost there you gain in total cargo space available.


Although be it you have made your point on wings, I just favored the re useable craft. So that is why I said it is unforchant that it will no longer be used.


Where does it say that Orion will not be reusable? I see no real obsticles in making the vehicle completely reusable.

I think that future "Mission" modules(I like that approach too, nice and modular) should be designed to double as habitation or some other function like a small scale refinery/smelter to see if we can make any usefull stuff from moon dust and rocks. We really got to go to stay this time...(or maybe even smaller modules of a much larger ship whos ultimate destination will be Mars and beyond)

[edit on 1-9-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 04:29 AM
link   
Your right no where did it say the rocket was not reauseable, did not say anything about being dispencible either. I was just makeing the statment because of the past Apollo missions.
Will be good when they state weather or not they will be re useable.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 05:09 AM
link   
Well the impression from the video that I got was that it was going to be reusable due to his mention of the shuttle in that fashion. I know it's not direct and from an engineering standpoint, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be reusable.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Although be it you have made your point on wings, I just favored the re usable craft. So that is why I said it is unforchant that it will no longer be used.



Orion will be reusable as many as 10 times and, unlike the Apollo capsules, will touch down on land, avoiding costly retrieval at sea

www.bloomberg.com...

I think that reusable craft create the tendency to use them too often and for too long. This causes things such as metal fatigue among other types of natural aging to occur when something is used often and becomes old. These are things that the engineers have trouble predicting ending up with a dangerous spacecraft.

The idea of a reusable craft with use limits , not one that can be used forever.. (like the mentality with the shuttle) will be safer IMHO.

As far as the price tag is concerned. I consider it to be a sound investment in the advancement of technologies. If not for the investment by the government since the 50s into space exploration the "space age" technology that we all enjoy today would not exist.



[edit on 1-9-2006 by Heckman]



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Yay! We're going to the Moon!

...Again!

...For the Fifth Time.


"Uh Housten, this is Eagle One...uh...still a dead rock, over."

"Roger that Eagle One, uh............try licking the rocks this time."

Seriously, unless we're building a base or having a special ops team blow up the soul collector on the moon, whats the point of being there again? WHy not make a concentrated effort to go to Mars?



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 07:54 AM
link   
A Lunar Base is the ultimate goal and will create the necessary knowhow if we want to ever get to Mars and stay there.

I don't want to see us go to Mars until we get a self-sufficient moon base setup(ei They grow all their own food, refine oxygen and nitrogen from Rocks and Soil, etc). That way, when we finally do go to Mars, we will have all the tools necessary to go there permanantly.

Also if anything goes wrong on the moon, the trip back to earth isn't that bad.

[edit on 1-9-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
I'm sure the competitors will be raking in some dough from the sub-contracts and such.
[edit on 31-8-2006 by sardion2000]


You are right to the point,
see the roads all end with the big daddy in the business . . . Lockheed.

A while back we had a nice thread talking about all these big companies, the all link by subsidiaries.


The only thing they lost is to have their name on the finished product.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join