NASA OIG Report On Commercial Resupply: Concerns With Dream Chaser
NASA OIG Audit of Commercial Resupply Services to the International Space Station
“However, despite a requirement to compete task orders among all contractors, NASA approved sole-source awards for all 31 CRS-1 missions and the 8 CRS-2 missions awarded as of December 2017. With the addition of a third contractor under CRS-2, we believe NASA has more flexibility to compete task orders or possibly open the contract to new entrants through its On-Ramp clause that allows NASA to recompete contracts with new contractors for any missions beyond the guaranteed six. In addition, we believe NASA could realize substantial savings if Sierra Nevada uses a less expensive launch vehicle than the Atlas V currently planned for the company’s first two missions.
… we question as premature $4.4 million paid to Sierra Nevada to begin certifying its second Dream Chaser configuration. We believe ISS Program officials should have delayed these payments until after the first Dream Chaser configuration is successfully demonstrated.
… Although less risky than the CRS-1 missions, all three contractors face technical and schedule risks as they prepare for their CRS-2 missions. Development and launch of the Dream Chaser spacecraft poses the greatest technical and schedule risk to NASA due to its lack of flight history and Sierra Nevada’s plan to not conduct a demonstration flight. Additionally, Sierra Nevada intends to only build one Dream Chaser and this raises concerns about potential schedule delays if an anomaly or failure occurs.”
** First, my apologies if I appear to vent… cause I am… OIG’s “omniscient” tendencies do that. And no, I don’t work for SNC, but I do like their concept and I like to keep our US spacecraft options open.**
1. Okay, out of one side of their mouth, OIG says: “… we believe NASA could realize substantial savings if Sierra Nevada uses a less expensive launch vehicle than the Atlas V currently planned for the company’s first two missions.”
Outside of the versatile (and available) Atlas V, the only other LVs that might carry DC are:
— The F9 Heavy (and I am dubious of Elon allowing any other cargo-carrying spacecraft that doesn’t sport the SpX logo),
— Delta IV (is EXTINCT, aside from the Heavy, and USG is hogging the last few… which btw are heads above costlier than the A-V)
— Vulcan or OmegA (but both aren’t even built yet and are years further down the road than SNC can afford to wait)
— FOREIGN: Ariane 5 (down in Guiana), or a Russian Proton (Vlad’s Techs would LOVE to “help integrate” the DC… extra fees needed to ensure it’ll work). India?? China???
— And I haven’t forgotten the Antares! But it’s just not powerful enough – lifting the DC admittedly will take more muscle
Atlas V already can launch enhanced Cygnus (bigger than Antares can lift), and Boeing is supposedly on board for its CST-100 (BTW: Why isn’t OIG whining about Boeing?). So…, yes, Atlas V may be a pricey, but it also has the highest reliability then any of the others, and that makes up for it not being a blue-light special! (And you’ve got to assume SNC has already done its trade studies on the best LV currently available.)
2. OIG then goes on to say: “… we question as premature $4.4 million paid to Sierra Nevada to begin certifying its second Dream Chaser configuration. We believe ISS Program officials should have delayed these payments until after the first Dream Chaser configuration is successfully demonstrated.”
By “first DC configuration,” if OIG means SNC’s original crewed version, and the “second config” is the Cargo variant, well, that crewed DC is long gone (beyond that ETA used on drop tests); I’m not aware SNC is even going to revisit that type until long after the DC-cargo gets some orbital mileage. If they mean the “first” and “second” tail numbers of a pair, well OIG has already complained at the end of this report that SNC is planning only one (1) vehicle. That leads me to think OIG is talking about the Crewed vs UnCrewed types. (unless someone knows of SNC having two very different cargo designs)
3. Next, OIG says (with the other side of their mouth): “Development and launch of the Dream Chaser spacecraft poses the greatest technical and schedule risk to NASA due to its lack of flight history and Sierra Nevada’s plan to not conduct a demonstration flight.“
*Ahem* How can SNC do any FLIGHT, let alone for demonstration, if you (NASA IG) don’t want them to LAUNCH using the only LV that can CARRY THEM RIGHT NOW? (BTW: I’m thinking that their FIRST launch IS for Demonstration, and that the SECOND one in turn is for Certification).
4. Finally, back on the subject of SNC having just the one bird: “… Sierra Nevada intends to only build one Dream Chaser and this raises concerns…”
Look, the thing’s basically a robotic mini-space shuttle! This far is more complex in build and operation – and is correspondingly made at a higher investment – than gum-drop shaped cargo capsules (passive reentries… not that there’s anything wrong with that). As I said before, this will be at SNC’s risk with having the one bird. It’s a business decision. They might have another one in mind, but for now, this is their choice to fly one at-risk test-article.
PS: in noting that OIG is not (to my knowledge) crying over Boeing, or even LM (Orion) for that matter, using the same applicable complaints, makes me wonder: for whose best interest was this report made?
** Okay, done venting! Comfortably deflated, now! **
I agree with most of your nits. However, one bird and one bird only means that if they lose just one then their part in the program is over. It won’t just be grounded for a few months while they find the flaw and fix it. That is something that I hadn’t considered and is a serious schedule risk for NASA and a potentially terminal survival risk for SNC. They MUST build a second bird as soon as the design for the first bird is set, built, and fully tested.
Besides, there will be other stations to fly to and missions to perform that don’t involve the ISS. That is an important and documented part of Commercial Resupply and Commercial Crew. They’ll need more than just one or even two birds.
Oh, and I’m sure Elon would be willing to fly FH birds for SNC’s Dream Chaser…but that would add to the schedule risk issue with the F9 design flying for two of the three resupply providers if the F9 craters another launch pad somewhere.
Some misunderstandings here:
1. Here OIG is suggesting NASA and SNC re-negotiate the contract for the third and subsequent Dream Chaser launches, they’re not asking SNC to switch away from Atlas V on the first two flights.
2. The two DC configurations in question are the berthing configuration and docking configuration. NASA only ordered berthing configuration flights, but they paid $4.4M for docking configuration work, OIG is basically saying “why not wait until you actually need it”
3. See #1 for Atlas V suggestion. Also the first flight of DC is very much not a demo, it would carry 5t of cargo. SpaceX and Orbital’s demo flights only takes a few hundred kg of low value cargo.
4. OIG explained that the risk to NASA is that if DC gets delayed because they had to build another one, then NASA needs to pay SpaceX and Orbital extra to get more flights to cover for DC.
Thanks, NIH, for the clarity…. just wish OIG was also more plain spoken… but, hey, it the OIG: I think second only to the OGC when if comes to bureaubabblese.
1. As noted above, the report was less than crystal… it still reads like they not only were concerned about the follow-on launches, but the first two as well. Still, the DC is LV-agnostic, so if they can find a (domestic) launcher, that qualifies to their need, fine.
2. Totally forgot about the berth/dock variations. So I sort of get what OIG is saying. But still, if SNC can put that $4.4M to good use — and on time — NASA will have a craft with a 2-for-1 flexibility.
3. Surprised about the large cargo haul (so… it’s not 5t of cheese, or spring water?). If it’s really pricey cargo for the ISS, NASA would certainly have a say on what gets sent up there and be what means – and if they are that spooked by a “non-demo” flight (only called that, because it’ll be fully loaded with Goodie$) then OIG should focus their displeasure at the customer: NASA ISS.
4. As I noted, it’s at SNC’s risk if they lose the DC; but you’re also right about NASA then having to find alternative cargo transport until SNC is able to build (after finding out what went wrong) tail number two.
Congress bans on Russian engines? Russian congress has just introduced a
bill to ban Russian engine sales to US. No new US engines or launchers
will be available for 2-3 years. I think that ULA has some in stock, but
O-ATK doesn’t. The only quick fix is O-ATK to use the RSRM 1.5 segment
,Page 52 in their ’16 catalog. All American and NASA might save some
money. These are the Shuttle SRB, just less segments. Take out the
Ukraine booster and insert RSRM. Same diameter. Should be fast and easy
to do NASA OIG.
That is the first I’ve heard of this. I think I remember them talking like this before.
It’ll never pass. They need the cash.