posted 09-27-2014 08:40 AM               

Please use this topic to discuss Sierra Nevada Corp.'s legal challenge to the award of contracts to Boeing and SpaceX under NASA's Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) program.

posted 09-27-2014 08:42 AM            

That said, of the two winners, SpaceX has proven flight hardware through its many Dragon CRS missions to date, so Boeing is the weakest link.

posted 09-27-2014 10:40 AM               

So from that perspective, SpaceX is only marginally ahead of Boeing, and Boeing has completed its Critical Design Review (CDR), whereas SpaceX has yet to do so (they are, I believe, slated to complete the CDR in March).

posted 09-27-2014 01:56 PM               

First thing I am very disappointed with is NASA not considering that the Dream Chaser will expand technology and knowledge in both space and aeronautics.

It's also disappointing that NASA chose the path of crony capitalism by giving the high bidder (Boeing) the money to rehash an Apollo capsule rather than supporting exploration of new technology and diversification through the Dream Chaser program.

It's a shame that we are returning to 1950's technology for the same development cost as the entire shuttle program, and not seeing any advancement in technology from the bargain. Wouldn't it be better to fund one capsule "for reliability sake" and then also fund Dream Chaser in keeping with NASA's directive to encourage and develop new technology?

posted 09-28-2014 09:40 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Dragon v1 is not v2 (now known as Crew Dragon), so it is not as clear cut as saying SpaceX has flight experience... So from that perspective, SpaceX is only marginally ahead of Boeing...

---

Have you ever participated in a CDR? Don't read more into that check-in-the-box than there really is. Successful engineering is ALL about Lessons Learned and experience. SNC has experience. Demonstrating autonomous flight and landing was a MAJOR milestone. SpaceX flying to the ISS is a MAJOR milestone. Boeing is a giant political machine but when are they flying?

posted 09-28-2014 09:51 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aeropix:
Anyway, rant over, I just hope that the decision is reconsidered for the sake of future spacecraft development not being stuck in the past.

---

posted 09-28-2014 10:21 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mercsim:
I still can't believe you said "not as clear cut as saying SpaceX has flight experience." That hurts engineers from all walks of life...

---

But you're right, all past experience informs (to some degree) future flights, and to that end, Boeing's experience working on the space station informs its development of CST-100.

SNC's flight test was indeed a major milestone (no where did I suggest it was not). SpaceX's parachute tests for the Crew Dragon were an important milestone, too (as will be its two upcoming abort flight tests).

Boeing performed parachute and airbag drop tests of its CST-100.

For whatever it's worth, I want to see Dream Chaser succeed, too, but I don't subscribe to the unfounded claims that Boeing cheated the system to be selected. SNC's protest will delay NASA releasing its source selection statement, so we will all have to wait to learn more about how the three companies scored on NASA's assessment.

posted 10-02-2014 09:04 AM               

The legal challenge stops any work to be executed under the Boeing and SpaceX contracts, according to Stephanie Schierholz, a NASA spokesperson.

"Pursuant to the GAO protest, NASA has instructed Boeing and SpaceX to stop performance of the CCtCap contract," Schierholz said.

Officials did not say if the work stoppage prevents activities using internal funds.

The GAO has until Jan. 5 to recommend a response to Sierra Nevada's challenge, but the congressional watchdog agency could release a ruling within weeks.

...if the GAO rules in favor of Sierra Nevada, NASA could change its decision or re-compete the commercial crew contract.

posted 10-02-2014 09:49 AM               

The September document, among other things, indicates that the bid by Sierra Nevada, based in Sparks, Nev., had "technical uncertainty and schedule risk" partly because "complex hardware and software development remained" to be done.

Boeing's submission was considered "excellent" for "mission suitability," whereas SpaceX got a "very good" ranking. The numerical scores for that category, according to one person familiar with the details, were separated by more than 60 points out of a possible 1,000. The document shows Boeing also garnered the highest ranking of "excellent" for technical approach and program management, compared with "very good" rankings for SpaceX.

Based on Boeing's performance on a preliminary contract, NASA concluded it had "very high confidence" in that company's likelihood of delivering what it promised — the highest ranking possible.

posted 10-02-2014 08:16 PM               

When I watched the announcement of Boeing and SpaceX getting the award, I thought about how SNC would react. Can't say I blame them for feeling discouraged over not getting the award, but this could be a problem if it is not resolved in time.

posted 10-09-2014 03:06 PM               

NASA exercises authority to proceed with commercial crew contracts

On Sept. 16, NASA announced U.S. astronauts once again will travel to and from the International Space Station (ISS) from the United States on American spacecraft under groundbreaking contracts. The agency unveiled its selection of Boeing and SpaceX to transport U.S. crews to and from the space station using their CST-100 and Crew Dragon spacecraft, respectively, with a goal of ending the nation's sole reliance on Russia in 2017.

On Sept. 26, Sierra Nevada Corporation filed a protest of the commercial crew contracts with the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Pursuant to the GAO protest, NASA instructed Boeing and SpaceX to suspend performance of the contracts.

On Oct. 9, under statutory authority available to it, NASA has decided to proceed with the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contracts awarded to The Boeing Company and Space Exploration Technologies Corp. notwithstanding the bid protest filed at the U.S. Government Accountability Office by Sierra Nevada Corporation.

The agency recognizes that failure to provide the CCtCap transportation service as soon as possible poses risks to the International Space Station (ISS) crew, jeopardizes continued operation of the ISS, would delay meeting critical crew size requirements, and may result in the U.S. failing to perform the commitments it made in its international agreements. These considerations compelled NASA to use its statutory authority to avoid significant adverse consequences where contract performance remained suspended.

NASA has determined that it best serves the United States to continue performance of the CCtCap contracts that will enable safe and reliable travel to and from the ISS from the United States on American spacecraft and end the nation's sole reliance on Russia for such transportation.

posted 10-12-2014 09:02 AM               

The internal document, signed by NASA Associate Administrator William Gerstenmaier on Sept. 15, the day before the contract awards were announced, says, "I consider SNC's (Sierra Nevada Corp.) design to be the lowest level of maturity, with significantly more technical work and critical design decisions to accomplish. The proposal did not thoroughly address these design challenges and trades." Gerstenmaier goes on to say that Sierra's proposal "has more schedule uncertainty. For example, some of the testing planned after the crewed flight could be required before the crewed flight, and the impact of this movement will greatly stress the schedule."

Although the document praises Sierra's "strong management approach to ensure the technical work and schedule are accomplished," it cautions that the company's Dream Chaser had "the longest schedule for completing certification." The letter also states that "it also has the most work to accomplish which is likely to further extend its schedule beyond 2017, and is most likely to reach certification and begin service missions later than the other 'Offerors'."

posted 10-13-2014 09:34 AM               

"I consider SNC's (Sierra Nevada Corp.) design to be the lowest level of maturity, with significantly more technical work and critical design decisions to accomplish."

It's again disappointing that NASA, whose "mission" is to promote research and development in both aeronautics and space, is choosing technology based on the fastest and easiest route without awarding consideration for the long-term benefit, that is the future benefits that could be derived from bringing the Dream Chaser philosophy to maturity.

I thought the whole point of this new paradigm of commercial space was to foster a diversity of methods of transportation into LEO, not repeating the mistakes of the early space race where (to quote from the "Right Stuff") we took the fastest route possible to get a man in space "quick and dirty, and any way we can".

posted 10-13-2014 09:47 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aeropix:
...NASA should be promoting this kind of endeavor BECAUSE it has the most technical work to accomplish.

---

But at the end of the day, NASA's need (and congressionally-mandated requirement) is to resume manned flights from the U.S. to the space station in the soonest and safest way possible.

posted 10-13-2014 07:06 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mercsim:
SNC has experience. Demonstrating autonomous flight and landing was a MAJOR milestone.

---

quote:

---

Boeing is a giant political machine but when are they flying?

---

posted 10-13-2014 07:15 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aeropix:
It's again disappointing that NASA, whose "mission" is to promote research and development in both aeronautics and space, is choosing technology based on the fastest and easiest route without awarding consideration for the long-term benefit, that is the future benefits that could be derived from bringing the Dream Chaser philosophy to maturity.

---

1. Having wings does not equate to being better or more advanced. In fact, it is drawback in this application.

2. Capsules are not retro or backwards. CST-100 will land on the ground and Dragon may perform propulsive landings.

3. CCP is to service the ISS first while promoting commercial space. It is not to advance the science. Anyways, if you have a problem with the spacecraft; what about the launch vehicles?

4. CST-100 is a more adaptable vehicle than Dream Chaser and is more adaptable to other missions.

posted 10-14-2014 02:13 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim Behling:
Having wings does not equate to being better or more advanced. In fact, it is drawback in this application.

---

quote:

---

Capsules are not retro or backwards. CST-100 will land on the ground

---

quote:

---

...and Dragon may perform propulsive landings.

---

quote:

---

CCP is to service the ISS first while promoting commercial space. It is not to advance the science.

---

quote:

---

Anyways, if you have a problem with the spacecraft; what about the launch vehicles?

---

quote:

---

CST-100 is a more adaptable vehicle than Dream Chaser and is more adaptable to other missions.

---

I hope that my contentions are not misconstrued as whining or wishful thinking. I understand the exigencies of choosing the right tool for the job, and staying within budget etc.

I guess I'm just frustrated with the situation that NASA, a research arm of our government, is not distributing money in the way that I as both a space enthusiast and taxpayer, believe to be in the long term interest of the greater good. Further, I hope that a reconsideration of this selection can be used to foster further innovation, protect the intellectual assets we have invested heavily in during the Shuttle era, and still return US astronauts to indigenous vehicles in the short term.

posted 10-14-2014 05:02 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aeropix:
Winged space vehicles provide more opportunities for landing.

---

quote:

---

With some cost in upmass capability. And not to mention the complications of this as yet untried technology.

---

1. So what if it does, the booster has the capability, and
   
2. the propellant for landing is the same that would be used in case of a launch abort. If there is no launch abort, then there is access propellant for landing.

quote:

---

...instead of letting all this acquired skill and knowledge die off.

---

quote:

---

...then the money for CST should come out of deep-space or lunar funding rather than the budget for the LEO taxi.

---

quote:

---

So I believe that a mixed approach of choosing both a capsule and winged vehicle would satisfy the scientific/research goals concurrent with the aim of providing a variety of methods for access to space.

---

posted 10-15-2014 09:28 AM               

I don't doubt both the Dream Chaser and the CST-100 will work. Now the question is which will work out economical. It all comes down to propellant weight vs. payload weight.

posted 10-16-2014 06:14 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
...the company could still file for an injunction to again halt Boeing's and SpaceX's work.

---

Sierra Nevada on Wednesday asked the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington to prevent Boeing and SpaceX, as the Southern California company is known, from receiving payments under separate contracts awarded last month by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to develop, test and operate commercial-crew vehicles to take U.S. astronauts into orbit.

...Mark Sirangelo, head of space systems at Sierra Nevada, on Wednesday confirmed that "we have filed with the federal court." A NASA spokeswoman declined to comment on the litigation.

Both the original protest and the court papers filed Wednesday remain under seal, covered by a GAO protective order that is common while such a protest is being considered.

The GAO, which received a draft version of the request for an injunction before it was filed, declined to comment except to say that the agency would continue to evaluate Sierra Nevada's underlying claims of contract irregularities.

posted 10-21-2014 07:09 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
...the company could still file for an injunction to again halt Boeing's and SpaceX's work.

---

A federal court ruled against a motion by Sierra Nevada Corp. Oct. 21 to reinstate a suspension of work by two companies on commercial crew contracts awarded by NASA last month.

Judge Marian Blank Horn issued the order after a hearing earlier in the day on a motion filed by Sierra Nevada with the Court of Federal Claims here Oct. 15 requesting that a stop-work order on two Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contracts that NASA overrode earlier this month be restored.

"Given the urgency to resolve the override issue, the court provided the parties with a verbal decision declining to overrule the override," Horn wrote in a brief order issued by the court. The order did not explain the rationale for the decision, and the hearing was closed to the public.

posted 01-05-2015 11:13 AM               

On January 5, 2015, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) denied a protest filed by Sierra Nevada Corp., of Louisville, Colorado, challenging the award of contracts to The Boeing Co., Space Exploration, of Houston, Texas, and to Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX), of Hawthorne, California, by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for NASA's Commercial Crew Transportation Capability Contract (CCtCap). Sierra Nevada argued, among other things, that NASA's evaluation departed from the solicitation's stated evaluation and selection criteria by significantly elevating NASA's stated "goal" of obtaining an integrated crew transportation system no later than the end of 2017, and by failing to put offerors on notice that the agency's goal would be central to the evaluation and selection decision.

...GAO disagreed with Sierra Nevada's arguments about NASA's evaluation, and found no undue emphasis on NASA's consideration of each offeror's proposed schedule, and likelihood to achieve crew transportation system certification not later than 2017. GAO also noted that, contrary to Sierra Nevada's assertions, the RFP clearly advised offerors that their proposals would be evaluated against the goal of certification by the end of 2017.

Sierra Nevada also argued that NASA conducted an inadequate review of the realism of SpaceX's price and overall financial resources, conducted a flawed and disparate evaluation of proposals under the mission suitability evaluation factor, and improperly evaluated the relevance of offerors' past performance. Based on our review of the issues, we concluded that these arguments were not supported by the evaluation record or by the terms of the solicitation.

The GAO decision takes no position on the relative merits of these proposal approaches to NASA's Commercial Crew Transportation Capability Contract. Instead, GAO reviewed the conclusions reached by NASA to determine if they were reasonable, and consistent with the evaluation approach NASA set out in its solicitation.

posted 01-05-2015 12:52 PM               

I need to check with a pal of mine in Houston to get an idea what the astronauts thought of the Dream Chaser. I assume that a few of them would rather fly something back with wings than riding a capsule.

posted 01-05-2015 05:38 PM               

An astronaut will do just about anything to fly in space, regardless what they're in, if they have no other options...

posted 01-05-2015 06:29 PM               

I'm actually a big capsule advocate for our current situation. The capsule is really the simplest thing that you can build to get off the surface of the Earth.

My feeling is that we want the safest, we want the simplest and we want the soonest. And I call that S cubed [S3].

Because you can't go anywhere if you don't get off the Earth. Coming back into the atmosphere you want the simplest system.