Sierra Nevada Protests Commercial Crew Award
Sierra Nevada Corporation Protests NASA’s Commercial Crew Program Award, SpaceRef Business
“A representative from Sierra Nevada Corporation has confirmed to SpaceRef that they have filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office regarding the CCtCap contract.”
Sierra Nevada Corporation Challenges Award of NASA’s Commercial Crew Transportation Capability Contract
“Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) announced today that it has filed a legal challenge to the award of contracts to Boeing and SpaceX under the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) program. The CCtCap program will restore U.S. transportation capability to the International Space Station.
SNC, Boeing and SpaceX submitted separate proposals for the CCtCap program. While all three competitors were found to be compliant and awardable under the criteria set forth in the request for proposal (RFP), only two proposals were selected (Boeing and SpaceX), one of which would result in a substantial increased cost to the public despite near equivalent technical and past performance scores.”
As well they should! Giving the lion’s share to Boeing, a much smaller amount to Space X, and cutting SNC out completely certainly has the appearance of government corruption based upon what each company has done.
They really aren’t ready for Primetime. They just rebaselined their main propulsion system from hybrids to all liquid. This will likely take some development time. Boeing and SpaceX have their propulsion nearly ready to go.
Thanks James you hit the nail on the head.
No conspiracy here move along!
Boeing is way back on necessary hardware development. One of the reasons they requested vast amounts of cash.
SNC has 2 years to apply the new engines that already have flown.
Yes, conspiracy here.
SpaceTech
I just checked your comment history to try to learn your position on subjects. You have made some 592 comments yet your history is private. Why do you hide your other comments???
DTARS,
I simply don’t have to be transparent.
If Disqus had an IM I would explain but lets say it helps me keep my job.
Maybe. I think all I read was they bought Orbitec. People may be assuming they are going to liquid only. The Orbitec website says they also have hybrid tech. The liquid engine has already been flown on a rocket and NASA was there to watch it go. They say they spin the fuel to make a vortec in the combustion chamber. This keeps the high temps away from the walls. They do not use fuel cool the walls. No tubes. Musk said they had to go to 3-D printing to make Super Dracos. Orbtec did not have to, with this engine. It should be a lot cheaper. Does not sound like it would work. But whatever is keeping the walls cool is working. Those hybrids are long. These engines are short. Frees up space. May have to rearrange other components to place CG. These engines should be a lot lighter.
Looks like it is the liquid engines for dream chaser
http://www.sncorp.com/press…
SNC selected ORBITEC to provide the RCS engines for Dream Chaser using green, nontoxic propellants. The flexibility of fuel and oxidizer options along with the ability to quickly scale engine size makes ORBITEC’s Vortex technology the growing industry preferred choice for Reaction Control Systems (RCS), Upper Stage engines and potentially boost class engines.
Thanks. I either forgot or missed that.
Well we wouldn’t want the appearance of corruption. We try to hide corruption when ever possible, but we make the laws and there is little anyone can or will do about it.
Lol
Just a few months back we made it illegal for commercial crew not to use FAR rules. Now on the blog sites, they just except it. The people are like sheep.
They have their hand out for the money. That’s all they care about.
Paul
The other day I suggested that NASA should be in control of the award amount. Your answer It’s now illegal.
Well should they or not????
No-one who mentioned the FAR requirements is happy about it. Go ahead and shout to your congressman. Howl at the moon. Make the stars themselves fear you. No-one is saying you should blindly accept stupid decisions by your elected reps that actually harm the national interest.
The bid apparently were: SpaceX $2.6 billion, SNC $3.3 billion, Boeing $4.2 billion. SNC isn’t saying that NASA should have awarded different proportions than the bids, they are saying they had a better bid than, say, Boeing, under FAR rules, and they were thus dudded by the selectors.
To your question: I support SAA and equivalent contracts. FAR seems to be responsible for most of the big failures in govt contracting. I’d also like to see a greater use of prizes, contests, and bounties to push the state-of-the-art.
Won’t get them anywhere, though.
That’s the thing when the fix is in.
The fix is in.
To my mind, given limited funds, the choice should be to develop a crewed capsule system already mostly manrated – which is also the sibling of the existing proven cargo system – the SpaceX Falcon Dragon duo —and an innovative spaceplane. NOT two capsules. And NOT an undeserved reward to a military-industrial defense contractor with a proven record of squandering funds, missing deadlines, and overbilling the taxpayer with underperforming products. Boeing needs to develop something newer and better largely on their own dime. ( Use your lobbyist slush fund for seed money )
Your anti military, industrial complex boogie man rhetoric is laughable.
Just what “underperforming Boeing products” are you speaking of?
Facts please!
Newsflash No government contractors are into much developing anything on their own dimes–that’s why they are government contractors.
The Boeing 787 airliner program was years late, full of bugs and over budget. Many airlines are very unhappy with what they got.
Ignoring your insulting tone, Your anti military, industrial complex boogie man rhetoric is laughable.
Just what “underperforming Boeing products” are you speaking of?, here is just a teeny-tiny random sampling:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003…
http://abcnews.go.com/US/st…
http://aviationweek.com/spa…
http://www.nytimes.com/2007…
http://www.reuters.com/arti…
http://articles.latimes.com…
http://www.chicagotribune.c…
http://rt.com/usa/167728-gm…
http://www.nbcnews.com/stor…
http://www.foxnews.com/tech…
http://www.theaustralian.co…
http://www.bizjournals.com/…
http://abcnews.go.com/Trave…
http://www.gao.gov/products…
http://247wallst.com/aerosp…
http://www.analysisgroup.co…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik…
http://www.freerepublic.com…
http://community.seattletim…
I can’t believe he would say that about Boeing when they have been in the news for almost 2 decades with failures and overruns.
Newsflash
That’s why Boeing shouldn’t have even been invited to this party at all.
They are not interested in reducing the cost of human spaceflight at all.
COMMERCIAL crew transportation Capability
That’s right because its called big business!
Fleecing the government is big business!
NASA isn’t concerned with lowering the cost of HSF just look at SLS because it’s big business.
Why should the big business of spaceflight be any different?
You guys can piss and moan all you want about the costs, jobs programs, lack of progress, cry about not being on Mars all you want but you will not ever change the fact that the BIG picture is ALL about business.
Yup
We agree 🙂
Which is why the guy with the best business model will dominate the Solar system with in a 100 years.
Spacex
Yeah, it is business. Government is inefficient and paralyzed. Nimble businesses with a vision will dominate. Boeing, Lockheed, EADS, Astrium, the various Russian enterprises, etc. are dinosaurs who are just noticing that the asteroid has hit.
Two
I think Dennis is right about Orion being canceled once CST-100 flies.
No. CST-100 is not at all a replacement for Orion. CST-100 is being designed to get to ISS and thats it. Orion is an exploration vehicle. The fact that they are both capsules does not mean they are the same thing.
Evilbert
Orion is not a deep space vehicle either.
It has a limit of about 24 days in space. It is way to small for any deep space missions other than moon sorties. At the same time it is much heavier than Apollo capsule which creates design problems with its parachute recovery system as well as makes it require a massive rocket to get it in space. Years back when Robert Zubrin of the Mars Society learned how big it would be he had a fit.
CST-100 is a better size which could be hardened to be a a deep space return capsule that could be mated with a REAL deep spaceship perhaps built by Bigelow with the help of NASA.
In short NASA has wasted 10 billion dollars on a poor design solution for a deep Space vehicle by trying to stuff it into an over sized Apollo capsule when that money could have been used to build a deep space vehicle that stays in orbit. Such a spaceship could have been assembled and outfitted at the space station. Still could.
Why not cancel SLS and Orion and make a real spaceship using the space station as a construction platform as it was originally intended?? And use commercial cargo(falcon heavies) to get the components up there?
It is even smaller now than the original design.
You can always argue that NASA could make more efficient plans and decisions. However, Orion as a part of their exploration program is a given. It is a given that a “Mission Module” will be needed to pull off any deep space mission. Orion may not be a stand-alone solution, but it is all they can afford now. The lunar lander was scrubbed because they couldn’t afford to develop it at the same time as Orion. Just like Shuttle was ended because they couldn’t afford to fly it at the same time as they developed Constellation. So what I’m saying is don’t expect any ideal exploration and CCV solution. There are political and budgetary forces which overwhelm even reasonable programs. I think it would be reasonable to use CCV vehicles to ferry Exploration crews to Exploration assets in LEO. I’m just not expecting the Boeing CCV vehicle would ever be adapted as Exploration vehicles, ie sent beyond LEO. If SpaceX wants to push Dragon onto NASA to replace Orion, they will meet with quite a bit of resistance, Just how I see it.
Business/ Maybe. Exploration? yes. But does NASA really need to pay for the development of THREE capsule craft…Dragon, Orion, and CST-100 while neglecting the alternative and innovative manned spaceplane configuration, which they have some experieince with also…the shuttle and the Dreamchaser being based on the NASA HL-20. It makes no sense to have three capsules in the pipeline.
I have always wished for a winged vehicle that could fly 30 or 40 people to space. I think that such a craft may fly on a reusable falcon heavy one day soon. I had hoped dream chaser could have evolved into such a craft. Tinker always said humans make for profitable cargo per pound
DTARS:
I’m working on just that! Shhhh….;)
tinker
DTARS:
Don’t feed the trolls! 😉
t
SpaceTechie- please review Boeing’s colossal failure and $ 6 billion cost overrun in developing the Future Imagery Architecture ( FIA) space surveillance system, 1999-2005. For starters.
And SpaceX isn’t doing this all on their own dime either, a fact that gets ignored.
Oh… I forgot. NASA is in fact supporting and paying for THREE capsules. I failed to fold in the mighty Orion program , whose all NASA development absolutely overshadows all the others in costs, and a lot of that goes to Boeing…like the up and back cram reentry test hop at the end of this year being on a Delta IV.
Why three manned capsules, instead of just two and a manned spaceplane?
Orion is not being designed to ferry crew to ISS. It is part of the exploration program. Orion+SLS to ferry crew to ISS would be insanely expensive. Not a factor in this discussion.
eb:
Dragon is cheaper, roomier and more capable then Orion will ever be for exploration. As you say, not a factor in this discussion but Dewdle is right to ‘forget’ about Orion. 🙂
tinker
Dragon in its V2 configuration can’t hold a candle to Orion when it comes to being a BEO vehicle. Maybe in the future when a Dragon V3 comes out it will be as capable but that is far into the future.
Dragon V2 is perfect for what it is being designed for (an LEO taxi).
If NASA is paying for it ( and Boeing gets the lion’s share of that to boot ), and it is a manned capsule, then it is most certainly relevant to the discussion at hand. When NASA’s budgets get fixed in place by Congress at x-dollars, but there are overruns ( think James Webb telescope) , NASA is forced to cannabalize other programs of value. We have suffered greatly for that in recent years. Do you honestly believe given its nearly 90 percent record of going over budget on any aerospace project that Boeing will not end up impacting NASA with the CST-100 when it goes into overrun mode ?
Although I agree with you that cost overruns by Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and others have been egregious I have to disagree with a number of your conclusions.
The CST-100 is a fixed price contract, not cost-plus. Boeing will have to pony up its own cash to finish up CST-100 if they have cost-overruns.
Orion is being built by Lockheed Martin, not Boeing. Their contribution is the D IV Heavy that will launch EFT-1.
Dewdle:
Only one contract was awarded for the James Web Telescope. That program could have learned from the Commercial Cargo arrangement if it hadn’t already been over budget and late by then. Two telescopes could probably have been built for less than JST’s budget that way.
Also, remember, a capsule in deep space has the same job as a capsule in low earth orbit… it’s the lifeboat home, the only part of the entire spacecraft that can survive reentry. That’s a minor role on a deep space mission. Most of the living and working would be done in larger modules. The propulsion system would be an external system as well.
For efficiency, the capsule might be used as a flight deck for the larger spacecraft but otherwise… it’s just a life boat.
If the capsule can withstand the rigors of deep space for the particular mission, it doesn’t need to do much else. Other systems and modules will support the crew for the most part.
Capsule’s ‘deep space capability’ is highly overrated.
tinker
The Web Telescope is a state of the art telescope and hence one of the reasons it is a cost plus contract. I know of no evidence that supports your statement that 2 companies could have made it cheaper.
because you can put three different capsules on top of the same rocket instead of two and have another rocket that can only carry the spaceplane
SpaceX has missed deadlines as well. For instance their launch escape system.
Yeah…so what ? It’s not about deadlines so much as it is expanded or new capability. Boeing slipped their deadlines because of incompetency and overreach. SpaceX went with delays due to improvement. Not the same.
The original Dragon escape system planned could have easily been ready by now. It was a ‘ standard’ tower, like what’s used on Soyuz or our old Apollo-Gemini-Mercury capsules. But Elon decided he could do better… the SuperDraco thruster cluster is now both the launch escape system and landing system. It will be tested twice here in the coming months…once from the pad, then once in flight. It is innovative. Uses proven storable propellants. Last I heard, Boeing’s CST100 uses the RS-88 Bantam engines which burn liquid alcohol and LOX…kinda hard to keep those viable in orbit for a long term , such as the 6 months the Dragon will and Soyuz do remain docked at ISS as lifeboats. The CST 100 lands on airbags…not exactly innovative. Is the capsule designed to be fully reusable ? Dunno about that.
It’s worth noting that Boeing’s contract with NASA requires that for all the money spent on the CST 100, it is being asked only to make two flights to ISS . Maybe as many as six, optionally , but contractural requirement is only two actual manned ISS missions. That works out to at least $ 3 billion development cost per flight, minimum, on a throwaway booster that costs 3X as much to launch as a Falcon 9 with a Russian engine driving it, for now. If the Russians let us, that is.
SpaceX developed the entirety of the Falcon-Dragon system from a blank sheet of paper for less than the cost of two space shuttle missions… new engine family , two boosters ( soon three) , two capsules, support technologies, launch facilities, etc. Lord knows what Boeing would have charged NASA and the US Treasury outright to do the same, or how long it would take to build the last spaceship instead of the next…
Dewdle:
It’d be nice to see the in-flight Dragon launch abort test flown on the first recovered liquid booster stage in history, eh? 🙂
tinker
Only 2 more chances in Dec. Kind of short to make Jan. Reiseman said it was a modified F-9. Since only going to max drag, I say the mods will be 3 engines on 1st stage. Low fuel, if that is possible. No engine or fuel 2nd. stage. Trunk, and Dragon. The lower weight of the 3 engines and low fuel will make up for the loss of 6 engines. I hope they will soon tell us what they will do. They may still try to fly back since one of the 3 engines could be in the middle.
I had not thought about the solid rocket fuel burning the parachutes in an abort on Atlas and SLS, Ares-1, Liberty. DC would not have that, since it glides back. I hope it could always have a runway in range. The launch profile could probably be adjusted.
You specifically accused “a military-industrial defense contractor” of missing deadlines. SpaceX, which you left out, has done the same. I don’t recall any other launch escape system proposed by SpaceX, but they’ve been going by their pusher system for a while, at least 6 years I think. It is currently about a year behind schedule. I think their ISS supply flights were significantly behind schedule as well.
Remember, SpaceX’s deadlines are self-imposed.
The actual milestones are self-imposed.
These “self imposed” deadlines and milestones are part of the NASA contract.
true and SpaceX are on track to meet them. Boeing set less aggressive targets, met them, and now has to actually build and test.
When in doubt……………Sue!
Can’t say I didn’t see this coming!
They are not suing anyone. They are protesting a government award, this allows them to find out exactly why they were passed over. Nothing more than a little light shining on the process.
Vlad,
You are exactly right its just a protest!
I was a little too quick to pull the trigger on using the word Sue.
That’s what happens when I make quick flyby comments!
Ya I know the feeling been hoisted by my own petard more than once.
I am a bit torn by this.
On the one hand I really wanted DC to win a contract. It is an innovative space plane based on years of research that has a number of advantages for transporting crew to and from orbit.
On the other hand as a number of other commenters have pointed out the change of propulsion system might have added a layer of complexity to the project that would have affected the readiness date.
According to their own press release SNC admits that the only thing they beat Boeing on was the price. They don’t appear to have beaten SpaceX on anything. We’ll have to wait and see if they have a case or not.
Joe:
Yeah, major overhaul changing Dream Chaser’s propulsion. Anything liquid fueled would be more complex than the extremely simple hybrid motors they planned to use. Even hypergolic (self igniting hydrazine and oxidizer like Dragon) motor development would set them back a fair bit.
I like the li’le spaceplane too. It a handy capability to have. What if both ISS taxis use the same parachute manufacturer and one malfs …
tinker
In this instance, it was a very good move to go to these particular liquids.
Sierra Nevada have an innovative design. Unfortunately it has a higher mass and lower payload volume than a capsule. That doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea for a prototype demonstration, but it is not as cost effective for the specific job of providing access to the ISS.
If DC weighs more than CST-100, then why does DC fly on an Atlas 412 while CST-100 fly on a 422?
Todd:
I’m pretty sure they talk about capsule weight, not including the service module which is further behind in development. My guess is the CST-100 will launch on 412 or, much safer, a 402 with no solid fuel boosters once the service module goes through a couple of iterations.
What?!? They’re fly both with twin upper stage motors? Why is that? Have they flown a twin engine Centaur stage before this?
tinker
http://upload.wikimedia.org…
http://depletedcranium.com/…
The dual engine Centaurs were flown more that 160 times prior to 2003, but the Atlas V never needed them.
From what I know, this is false on both counts (mass and volume) in at least this particular instance.
At a bare minimum, NASA should lay bare their rationale for their decision. Plus why they divvied up the money as they did.
It appears they payed each contractor what they asked for. Bidding lower ensured SpaceX of an award, since they could not match Boeing’s lobbying.
What really might have have hurt them is they said they would do a no crew Dec. ’16 and a crewed one year later. NASA wants a operational flight in Dec. ’17 not a test. Sure NASA could have been nice and flew SpaceX first. NASA may have used this as am excuse. I would have rather saved the money. I hope GAO socks it to NASA as they usually do. One ought to land at KSC. Dragon does not have steerable parachutes so it can not.
KSC has a large unobstructed area and SpaceX will soon have considerable propulsive touchdown control that might allow landing there. Armadillo had a steerable chute; unfortunate that they folded.
I agree with the person that said Boeing was picked over SNC because NASA was scared to send congress Spacex and SNC knowing congress wouldn’t fond it.
Nice video of the Orbitec Vortex engines for SNC:
http://www.youtube.com/watc…
Skim off $ 500 M from Boeing to keep SNC going. Boeing needs to have just a little more skin in this game. What ? are they going to walk or be late ?
This is hardly a surprise. If SNC couldn’t find something in an award this large and complex over which to file a protest, then they need to fire all their lawyers. Of course they’re going to exhaust every possible avenue before walking away from $3 billion. Who wouldn’t? Whether the protest is valid will be for the GAO to decide. This particular contract is so politically charged and so high-profile, that I do wonder if GAO will make a decision based strictly on the technical merits or legal questions, or will they try to find some way to tiptoe through the minefield, such as directing NASA to make some kind of 3-way award based on who knows what funding formula.
I really would like that SNC had got a chance with the CCtCap.
My only problem with their protest, is that the money will not be available for Space X, and Boeing until this issue will be settle (or who ever gets the money), and that may include a re-competition.
Does any one knows how long it takes to settle this kind of issues?
Alvaro
Boeing protested COTS. You might research that. GAO has to report next Jan. SpaceX are still working on their last contract. They are already working on V2 even if they are not being paid. I doubt no pay will slow them much. Boeing said they would have a capsule by the end of the year. That must be off. SNC have laid off people, that will slow them down. They are still working on the last contract though and will have some glide tests soon.
I am not sure if my last post made it. But, I am concerned that with the protest, the money for the two winning companies (whoever gets selected after the dust settles), will be withheld until the protest gets solved. Hint, we will be depending on the Russians in the meantime.
I don’t know how long that can last, but I am afraid that could be years.
Alvaro
Right but we are still a long ways away from that version of Dragon.
There is a logical progression that can be followed. Just like how 53 years of NASA flying in LEO has contributed greatly to the ability of commercial companies to do so flying Orion missions with an Aldrin cycler will contribute greatly to the commercial companies who will one day follow NASA BEO. NASA should take the lead and bear the burden of expanding human presence deeper into space while the commercial companies follow.
It’s not certain yet that NASA will be leading the way into deep space with humans. After all, deep space, Mars in particular, is a stated goal of Elon Musk and SpaceX. There exists the real possibility of SpaceX getting beyond LEO and cislunar space before NASA and ULA.
Nothing is certain yet. Musk and SpaceX are doing a great job but Mars missions for them alone are not going to happen for a long time (I could be wrong and if it does happen in less than 20 years I will be happy to be proven wrong).
I foresee the first Mars mission as a NASA driven one with SpaceX assistance (i.e. FH to launch cargo and or designing a Mars Lander based on Dragon’s propulsive landing capability).
I have not heard anything from Boeing on this. As I remember they protested COTS. The only thing they said the reason was to choose them was they were Boeing. A lot of experience was worth the extra price they wanted, I suppose. They lost. If GAO follows this example, since they are higher, they should lose again.
I think it was a bad decision.
They wanted to ensure that they get X number of flights so that is the criteria. They have to procure according to the FAR, so delivery of a working vehicle or default is ensured.
Why we need 3 different capsules is beyond me. We do not need 2 different capsules. 1 would have been adequate.
The Dream Chaser is a well developed design, initiated by the US decades ago, tested by the Soviets, considerable work having been done by Sierra Nevada; and its a far more versatile vehicle.
I would love to hear the rationale for the selection.
To me, the foolish decision to go with 2 capsules and to leave out the one innovative and advanced design that is reminiscent of our most advanced space vehicle, the Shuttle, is somewhat representative of all that is wrong with human space flight and NASA today. But that is what you get when people who have never designed or built anything themselves, which is essentially all of the NASA HSF management, are in charge of the decision; they go for the safety of an old design concept, over flexibility and innovation.
No, no one is going to Mars anytime soon. That is something that takes some kahunas. NASA lost theirs.
Very poor decision but somewhat accustomed we are to bad decisions by NASA.