Space News
space history and artifacts articles

Messages
space history discussion forums

Sightings
worldwide astronaut appearances

Resources
selected space history documents

  collectSPACE: Messages
  Mercury - Gemini - Apollo
  Project Mercury spacecraft contract runner-up

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Project Mercury spacecraft contract runner-up
Fra Mauro
Member

Posts: 1624
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002

posted 06-10-2015 12:59 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fra Mauro   Click Here to Email Fra Mauro     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Does anyone know who the runner-up was to McDonnell for the Mercury contract?

onesmallstep
Member

Posts: 1313
From: Staten Island, New York USA
Registered: Nov 2007

posted 06-10-2015 01:50 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for onesmallstep   Click Here to Email onesmallstep     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Grumman Aircraft was the losing company when the announcement of the winning contractor was made Jan. 12, 1959.

It and McDonnell ranked equally in terms of technical and managerial skills, but NASA felt an award to Grumman might disrupt its current design and development work of Navy aircraft (This New Ocean, Ch. 6).

Of course, Grumman did receive a consolation prize with its award of the Apollo lunar module contract years later.

calcheyup
Member

Posts: 125
From:
Registered: May 2014

posted 06-11-2015 02:35 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for calcheyup     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
A bit off-topic, but this got me around to wondering why NASA did not continue with McDonnell after success on the Mercury and Gemini capsules. In NASA's ratings, Martin finished first, General Dynamics and North American tied for second, and McDonnell and General Electric tied for third.

Martin was considered the "outstanding source for the Apollo prime contractor," but this NASA source explains why North American was chosen "...although its detailed Technical Approach was assessed as the weakest submitted."

North American Aviation [NAA] ...rated highest of all proposers in the major area of Technical Qualifications. North American's pertinent experience consisting of the X-15, Navajo, and Hound Dog coupled with an outstanding performance in the development of manned aircraft (F-100 and F-86) resulted in it[s] being the highest rated in this area. The lead personnel proposed showed a strong background in development projects and were judged to be the best of any proposed. Like Martin, NAA proposed a project managed by a single prime contractor with subsystems obtained by subcontracting, which also had the good features described for the Martin proposal. Their project organization, however, did not enjoy quite as strong a position within the corporate structure as Martin's did. The high Technical Qualification rating resulting from these features of the proposal was therefore high enough to give North American a rating of second in the total Technical Evaluation although its detailed Technical Approach was assessed as the weakest submitted. This relative weakness might be attributed to the advantage of the McDonnell Aircraft Corporation's Mercury experience, and the other three proposers' experience on the Apollo study contracts. The Source Evaluation Board is convinced that NAA is well qualified to carry out the assignment of Apollo prime contractor and that the shortcomings in its proposal could be rectified through further design effort on their part. North American submitted a low cost estimate which, however, contained a number of discrepancies. North American's cost history was evaluated as the best.

Fra Mauro
Member

Posts: 1624
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002

posted 06-12-2015 09:22 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fra Mauro   Click Here to Email Fra Mauro     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You really can't prove this but one has to wonder if politics plays a role, especially the fact of spreading out the contracts across the nation for political support. Cost is probably the major fact. I never knew that Grumman was bidding for Mercury.

Headshot
Member

Posts: 891
From: Vancouver, WA, USA
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 06-12-2015 09:28 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Headshot   Click Here to Email Headshot     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Are there any concept drawings of what a Grumman-built Mercury capsule might have looked like? I am wondering how different, if at all, it might have looked from the actual version.

onesmallstep
Member

Posts: 1313
From: Staten Island, New York USA
Registered: Nov 2007

posted 06-12-2015 01:48 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for onesmallstep   Click Here to Email onesmallstep     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Here are some photos of mockups and test models for the Grumman design.

GACspaceguy
Member

Posts: 2516
From: Guyton, GA
Registered: Jan 2006

posted 06-12-2015 02:06 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for GACspaceguy   Click Here to Email GACspaceguy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I know that General Dynamics was in the running at on point as I saw old concept drawings of the design. They were stored in a building I worked in when I was at Canadair in Montreal as they were once a General Dynamics company.

kr4mula
Member

Posts: 642
From: Cinci, OH
Registered: Mar 2006

posted 06-19-2015 07:25 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for kr4mula   Click Here to Email kr4mula     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
While I can't point to a specific interview from my time on the JSC Oral History Project, the general consensus among the guys who were around at that time was that certain higher up NASA officials (including some astronauts) wanted NAA to win. As the previous message says, they were impressed with NAA's experience on the X-15, for example. There was also the thought that McDonnell was too busy with Mercury and Gemini to focus enough expertise on Apollo, which was concurrent in the early days.

moorouge
Member

Posts: 2458
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009

posted 06-19-2015 11:05 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for moorouge   Click Here to Email moorouge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The Grumman proposal is interesting but it is my understanding that it was not one from which the final choice was made.

Briefly set out, the choices were as follows -

  • Northrop – a boost-glide system to orbital speed
  • Martin – a zero lift vehicle launched by Titan with the possibility of flight readiness by 1961
  • McDonnell – a ballistic re-entry vehicle based on the proposals of Maxine Faget, weighing 2400lbs, launched by an Atlas with a Polaris second stage
  • Lockheed – a twenty degree semi-apex cone with a one foot radius hemi-spherical tip, the pilot facing rearward and launched by an Atlas-Hustler combination
  • Convair – re-iterated a previous proposal for a manned space station but also stated that a minimum vehicle – a 1000lb sphere – could be launched in a year using an Atlas launcher
  • Aeronutronics – a cone with a one foot radius spherical tip, the pilot enclosed in a rotating sphere inside the vehicle so as to line-up with acceleration forces and to be launched by any one of several two stage launchers
  • Republic – a lifting body re-entry vehicle, triangular in shape with a 75 degree leading edge sweep and weighing 1000lbs; launched by a three stage rocket; the pilot would eject and land by parachute following a glide re-entry: ;later the launch vehicle was up-graded to a four stage rocket made up from a Minuteman first stage, Polaris second stage, Minuteman second stage as third and a Jumbo rocket as fourth stage
  • AVCO – a 1500lb sphere equipped with a stainless steel parachute the diameter being controlled by compressed air bellows so providing orientation in orbit, deceleration and controlled drag for re-entry and to be launched by a Titan
  • Bell – proposed boost-gliders but also offered a minimum spherical vehicle weighing 3000lbs
  • Goodyear – a spherical shape with a rear facing tail cone and ablative surface; flaps extending from the cone would provide drag and control for re-entry; launched by Atlas or Titan with a Vanguard second stage
  • North American – an X-15 launched by a three stage rocket into a single orbit landing in the Gulf of Mexico, the pilot ejecting before landing; there were no plans to recover the vehicle.

onesmallstep
Member

Posts: 1313
From: Staten Island, New York USA
Registered: Nov 2007

posted 06-19-2015 01:44 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for onesmallstep   Click Here to Email onesmallstep     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'm a little puzzled on why you say the Grumman proposal was not on the list - simply put, after twenty or so proposals by the bidding deadline (some quite daring or ahead of their time), the 'final' two, after a winnowing process that cut the companies down to eleven, then eight, and finally four, were in fact Grumman and McDonnell, almost identical in their capsule design and ranking equal in managerial and technical matters (This New Ocean, Chapters 5 and 6).

moorouge
Member

Posts: 2458
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009

posted 06-19-2015 02:36 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for moorouge   Click Here to Email moorouge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I stand corrected. My list is from January 1958. By November 1958 the specifications for the spacecraft had been issued to 20 firms and the selection process began from there.

moorouge
Member

Posts: 2458
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009

posted 06-22-2015 01:47 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for moorouge   Click Here to Email moorouge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Perhaps it might help to go back a little and follow through the dates.

Firm proposals for a 'manned satellite' were discussed throughout June 1958. This led to the Cook Electric Company submitting a proposal to McDonnell as part of this company's eleven month study of the design of a manned satellite. At the end of the month Republic Aviation briefed NACA on their proposals.

On the 7th November 1958 there was a briefing meeting attended by 40 firms who were prospective bidders for the contract. The actual specifications (Spec. #S-6) were issued a week later and final copies sent out to twenty firms. A month later, on 11th December, eleven firms submitted detailed proposals. These companies were AVCO, Cha nce-Vought, Convair, Douglas, Grumman, Lockheed, Martin, McDonnell, North American, Northrop and Republic. There was also an incomplete proposal from Winzen Research Laboratories.

In between the final decision to select McDonnell as the prime contractor for the Mercury spacecraft made on 9th January 1959, North American had been chosen to provide the air frame for the Little Joe rockets. Perhaps this was one of the reasons they didn't get the Mercury contract as NASA sought to share out the work load of putting a man into space.

On edit - perhaps there are no losers but merely "runners up." Could all the unsuccessful companies be "runners up" with no-one second or third, etc.

Fra Mauro
Member

Posts: 1624
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002

posted 03-17-2019 09:46 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fra Mauro   Click Here to Email Fra Mauro     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It naturally makes you wonder if McDonnell gets the Gemini contract if they lose out on Mercury.

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts

Copyright 2020 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a





advertisement