Why Sierra Nevada Did Not Win Any Commercial Crew Funds
Why NASA Rejected Sierra Nevada’s Commercial Crew Vehicle, Aviation Week
“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.”
– SNC Protest Halts NASA Commercial Crew Efforts, earlier post
– NASA Tells Boeing and SpaceX to Proceed Despite SNC Protest, earlier post
As I understand it, Boeing’s CST-100 is planned to have only a pad abort test before crewed flight.
SpaceX has both a pad abort and a flight abort.
It seems this may be something that also will create “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.“
If it is decided (and it should be), that Boeing has to test that critical function, would that not also “greatly stress the schedule”?
Someone’s getting a free ride here (plus getting paid for it!)
On page 12 of this it shows a pad abort test and a ascent abort test
http://www.boeing.com/asset…
Boeing canceled the test. NASA said, hey we trust you guys, you’re the real pros
.
Thanks for the heads up, hadn’t seen that. Do you have a link for it?
http://www.spaceflightnow.c…
Atlas Vs and capsules are way too expensive to waste on basic tests of critical crew survival. Remember, Boeing got only the minimum grant to accomplish the certification. How could anyone run adequate testing on only 50% more cash than SpaceX got?? NASA understands how tough it can be to have to actually perform within a schedule and budget when bloated gorging at the public trough is standard business operating procedure.
SpaceX has always been saying test flights in 2016 and Boeing was always at least a year later. According to that article Boeing is going to do a test flght now in 2016 also … To give the impression Boeing and SpaceX are even and on the same track?
I think the latest I saw, Boeing has since slipped to very early 2017 for uncrewed (Jan I think) and Nov for crewed. I need to check.
Boeing vs SpaceX. Old vs New. David vs Goliath. The Collier Trophy to the first commercial team to put a human crew in orbit! Either way, the winner will be American. For those who have spent half a century hoping for the excitement of a new space race, I have just four words: The race is on!
the winner will be American
Unless it’s an Atlas V, powered by our
SovietRussian friends, NPO EnergomashMy only problem with this is that if NASA wasn’t willing to accept additional technical and schedule risk, it could have just awarded Boeing a cost-plus contract from the beginning for the low-risk capsule approach and skipped the whole “commercial crew” charade. I think we’re throwing away some great long-term potential for the sake of meeting short-term mission requirements. And I also think that if our cash strapped space agency is going to be simultaneously developing three separate manned spacecraft, one of them should be a reusable lifting body shuttle, bringing some real diversity and additional capability to the fleet. Instead we have three different capsules under development, only one of which promises to bring rapid reusability and lower operational costs. (And of course that’s the one receiving the least amount of funding.)
We’re missing out on the valuable potential of “dissimilar redundancy”. Having a spaceplane and a capsule provides the benefits of differing capabilities and characteristics, and enhances NASA’s bang-for-the-buck in fertilizing multiple technologies, rather than 3 peas in a pod.
Agree 100%!
I agree, but in that case why did NASA abandon the X-37 in 2004? Oh, I remember. Because it wasn’t relevant to the singular mission of sending four brave souls to the “Moon, Mars, and Beyond”.
Edited a silly comment.
If I did that, most of my comments would be blank! ;-p
Yes, the keyword in the program is “commercial”. By definition some risk of changing ways of doing business had to be baked into the program, for the simple reason that any business as usual cost estimate would have quickly shown costs far beyond the amounts available. And yet Boeing gets chosen, even as reps make public statements that they see no commercial potential for the crew carrying system? The Atlas alone is not commercially competitive, and we are to believe that somehow adding a CST-100 atop it will be commercially competitive or further commercial, private passenger transport to space and back?
As usual, Gerst has thought who can probably do this with the least risk – if I throw enough money their way? It’s amazing we still have leadership that neglects programmatic risks – that burning through the money is most of the risk NASA programs face today – the potential to burn through money and time in any phase of the life cycle to a degree that puts the entire program at risk.
This is borderline incompetence.
When it comes to “burning through money” the SLS/Orion is so far in the lead that everything else is almost negligible by comparison.
“This is borderline incompetence.”
I think it clearly crosses the border.
“even as reps make public statements that they see no commercial potential for the crew carrying system?”
Don’t forget that Boeing and SpaceX live in different ‘bubbles’. Boeing’s bubble is whatever NASA provides. SpaceX has their own bubble-making machine.
And that’s abut the end of the bubble metaphor.
It would be nice to develop a spaceplane option to orbit for the U.S. I hope the government finds some funding for the DreamChaser. But given the extra development needed, I think not putting it on a critical path for Commercial Crew was a wise decision.
As much as we would all like to see Dreamchaser take flight , we really do need to stack it on top of a different booster , or at least one not using Russian engines. Which makes accelerated development of a relatively economical All-American kerosene engine in the 500,000 lb. thrust range all the more pressing.
I think we can all agree that the days are numbered for the Atlas with Russian engines.
SNC’s design just won’t work.
I mean, just look at the X37-B.
</sarcasm>
My point precisely. The economics of spaceplanes remain uncertain, but there’s a good reason both the Shuttle and the X-37 separate the roles of wings and fuselage. After more than a decade of experimentation with lifting bodies, NASA concluded in the Sixties that one structure cannot do both jobs (lift and cargo containment) well. The DC was a modest evolution from the Soviet BOR-4, an elegant and intuitive concept, but not one that was actually supported by rigorous and objective examination.
To REALLY kick off the commercial age. NASA should help them build a 30 person fully reusable space taxi not just 6 or seven.
In the public eye, a space plane is magic.
A capsule ain’t.
Very true.
But when a dragon v2.0 first lands on blasting tail jets, the awesomeness rating of capsules may make a serious increase…
This isn’t a feat the Boeing capsule is designed to follow, tho. After SpaceX’s demo and a few more winged landings from Boeings own X-37 (and possibly dream chaser too), Boeing’s CST is going to be popping down in fields and ponds the same as an Apollo era ship.
The ultimate question is if we’re gaining anything more than broken bones for the trouble. Its not the cheapest ship and its not innovative.
If these quotes are from formal decision documents, this is concerning (for procurement integrity reasons and for failure to control internal documents). Comparing proposals 1 to 1 is frowned upon when doing tradeoff analysis and in this case the wording seems to be 1 to 1 to 1. I think SNC has a real chance of having their protest sustained by GAO and for NASA to need to peform corrective actions on their evaluation documents.
Agree, thanks for bringing this up.
MEMO to Gerstenmaier : Specificity, please.
I agree. Once burned, twice shy.