Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI
SpaceKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Space Forum / Shuttle / February 2006



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

KSC to assemble CEV if Lockheed Martin wins

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
J3mia03@yahoo.com - 22 Feb 2006 22:54 GMT
February 22, 2006

KSC to assemble CEV if Lockheed Martin wins

Contract not yet awarded for NASA's next spaceship

BY JOHN KELLY
FLORIDA TODAY

Lockheed Martin would assemble NASA's Crew Exploration Vehicle at the
Kennedy Space Center if the company wins the spaceship contract later
this year, company officials announced at a news conference this
afternoon.

Lockheed made its decision because of pre-existing facilities near the
launch site and a large, pre-existing workforce of space experts. The
work would initially involve 300-400 jobs, the company said.

The company, however, also said the state of Florida has put together
a "generous" package of economic development incentives. The state is
offering at least $45 million worth of incentives to pay for training
programs, transportation upgrades and facility renovation at the space
center. Funds must still be approved by state legislators.

Florida and Brevard County have been lobbying for months to lure the
CEV final assembly work to the Space Coast. Lockheed Martin would
manufacture the spaceships in pieces in other states and then ship
those components here for assembly and launch.

The final assembly and integration work is critical to Lockheed's
concept for operating the new fleet of spaceships. The first launch
carrying astronauts is targeted for no later than 2014.

Lockheed vice president for space exploration John Karas, speaking
before an assembled crowd of state and local economic development
officials and news media this afternoon, said that his company
conducted a thorough evaluation of possible assembly sites.

Florida won, in part, because of a workforce that has "the skills,
dedication and track record" in such projects, Karas said.

Lockheed Martin is battling the team of Northrop Grumman and Boeing
for the contract to build and operate the new ships, which are
envisioned to replace the space shuttles and carry astronauts to the
International Space Station, the moon and Mars.

NASA, which expects to pick a winning contractor this summer, wants
the new spaceships to be built, maintained and flown with fewer
workers than the shuttles require.

The 15,000 or so people who currently work at the space center could
shrink by one-third or more during the transition from the
shuttle-station era to the new moon program.

So Florida and local governments are trying to retain as many of those
space jobs as possible by getting as much of the new program as they
can based at Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral. That means not
just launch, but also assembly and manufacture of key hardware
components.

Lockheed said the number of jobs created should start between 300 and
400 people, and Karas speculated "that number has nowhere to go but
up" in the long term operation of the new fleet.

Karas estimated that number is about 25 to 30 percent of the total
jobs on the CEV program if Lockheed wins. He said that the company
plans to make announcements in other states in coming weeks about
where it will manufacture the spaceship parts and where most of the
engineering work will be done.

Lt. Gov. Toni Jennings, who was at the announcement, said that she and
the governor are not finished recruiting parts of NASA's new moon
program.

Jennings said the state is going after other elements of the project.
To name just one example, she said Florida is the best choice for
refurbishing the spacecraft between missions. Lockheed's Karas said
today that refurbishment and maintenance would be done at KSC.

"Of course, Lockheed Martin stil has to win," said U.S. Rep. David
Weldon, R-Indialantic, who represents a large part of Brevard County
in Congress.

Jennings said the state also offered incentive packages to the
competing team of Northrop Grumman and Boeing. The other team has not
identified a final assembly site yet.
John Doe - 23 Feb 2006 05:26 GMT
> Lockheed Martin would assemble NASA's Crew Exploration Vehicle at the
> Kennedy Space Center if the company wins the spaceship contract

What exactly does this mean ?

The Shuttle is "assembled" at KSC as well. This is where they put the
orbiter, ET and SRBs together on the MLP before moving it to the launch site.

So the Lochheed could simply mean that KSC would get a finished apollo
capsule, SRB segments, ET and various shrouds etc and put them together
in the VAB.

Or does this mean that they would actually build the apollo capsule at
KSC ?  Or would it get a structural item and then just screw in the
individual systems inside the capsule ?
Bob Haller - 23 Feb 2006 10:40 GMT
Sounds like assembly of entire vehicle will be at or near KSC. Thats a
great sales tool!

Since it would help the job loss thats coming.

Besides I think its better to build and fly in the same location!

Hey we have this question lets go across the street and ask the
assembly workers..
ed kyle - 23 Feb 2006 15:20 GMT
> > Lockheed Martin would assemble NASA's Crew Exploration Vehicle at the
> > Kennedy Space Center if the company wins the spaceship contract
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> KSC ?  Or would it get a structural item and then just screw in the
> individual systems inside the capsule ?

It sounds to me that Lockheed is proposing to do almost exactly
what North American Aviation did with Apollo - and in the exact
same building no less.  NAA manufactured Apollo hardware in
California, then shipped it to KSC for final assembly and
checkout in what today is called the Operations and Checkout
Building.  The Lunar Modules were also finished in the same
way in the same building.

I wouldn't be surprised if Northrop didn't propose to do its final
CEV assembly in the same place.

The big unknown is where the manufacturing would occur.  There
was some talk of doing CEV construction at Michoud, but that
was before the hurricane.  The old C-5 factory in Georgia might
also be a possibility.

- Ed Kyle
Jorge R. Frank - 23 Feb 2006 15:23 GMT
> The big unknown is where the manufacturing would occur.  There
> was some talk of doing CEV construction at Michoud, but that
> was before the hurricane.

Michoud is still the frontrunner for the CaLV core stage (which makes sense
since it's ET-derived), and the CLV second stage (if LockMart wins it).

Signature

JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Jeff Findley - 23 Feb 2006 18:30 GMT
>> The big unknown is where the manufacturing would occur.  There
>> was some talk of doing CEV construction at Michoud, but that
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> sense
> since it's ET-derived), and the CLV second stage (if LockMart wins it).

It's not a coincidence that the CaLV, CLV, and CEV proposals all seem to
keep jobs in the areas that currently have shuttle jobs.  Because of this,
I'm extremely skeptical of any "cost savings" when compared to the shuttle
program.

Jeff
Signature

Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

ed kyle - 23 Feb 2006 20:07 GMT
> >> The big unknown is where the manufacturing would occur.  There
> >> was some talk of doing CEV construction at Michoud, but that
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> I'm extremely skeptical of any "cost savings" when compared to the shuttle
> program.

If money is to be saved, the CEV effort has to end up involving
fewer total workers than shuttle.  Lockheed's proposed CEV
assembly effort was said to involve 300-400 workers.  One
clue would be to compare this total with the numbers currently
employed to prepare shuttle orbiters and payloads for flight.  I
don't know what that number is, but I suspect it is more than
300.

- Ed Kyle
ed kyle - 23 Feb 2006 20:07 GMT
> >> The big unknown is where the manufacturing would occur.  There
> >> was some talk of doing CEV construction at Michoud, but that
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> I'm extremely skeptical of any "cost savings" when compared to the shuttle
> program.

If money is to be saved, the CEV effort has to end up involving
fewer total workers than shuttle.  Lockheed's proposed CEV
assembly effort was said to involve 300-400 workers.  One
clue would be to compare this total with the numbers currently
employed to prepare shuttle orbiters and payloads for flight.  I
don't know what that number is, but I suspect it is more than
300.

- Ed Kyle
Rand Simberg - 23 Feb 2006 23:10 GMT
On 23 Feb 2006 12:07:22 -0800, in a place far, far away, "ed kyle"
<edkyle99@hotmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

>> It's not a coincidence that the CaLV, CLV, and CEV proposals all seem to
>> keep jobs in the areas that currently have shuttle jobs.  Because of this,
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>don't know what that number is, but I suspect it is more than
>300.

Does that include CEVLV?
ed kyle - 23 Feb 2006 20:29 GMT
> On 23 Feb 2006 12:07:22 -0800, in a place far, far away, "ed kyle"
> <edkyle99@hotmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> Does that include CEVLV?

No.  The 300-400 would just be for final assembly and check
out, and presumably launch vehicle integration and launch
support, of the CEV "payload" on top of the launch vehicle.

- Ed Kyle
Brian Thorn - 23 Feb 2006 23:49 GMT
>It's not a coincidence that the CaLV, CLV, and CEV proposals all seem to
>keep jobs in the areas that currently have shuttle jobs.  Because of this,
>I'm extremely skeptical of any "cost savings" when compared to the shuttle
>program.

Well, they're shutting down the three expensive Shuttle Orbiter
Processing Facilities (OPFs) and going back to using the O&C Building,
so there should be some big savings there.

By the way, several of us Constellation supporters last summer said
exactly that would happen, and were generally taken to task for
suggesting they'd go away from the OPFs. But I'm not crowing... :-)

Brian
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.