CCiCap was announced, SpaceX and Boeing were selected

[Nibb31]

What I would really like to see is SpaceX and SNC working together. Why not make the two systems compatible with each other and slap a DreamChaser on top of an F9R booster?

Why would SpaceX divert resources to adapt an inadequate spacecraft onto their working rocket instead of their own spacecraft.

I love spaceplanes (only when they're used for LEO, though) and I was really sad to learn that Boeing's "Nothing new" capsule was elected over Dream Chaser. DC had many advantages over CST-100, including reduced G forces (for delicate experiments and hurt crew members) and the cross-range capability.

DreamChaser isn't a spaceplane. It's a lifting body capsule, an overcomplicated design that still goes up on a freaking Atlas V. The lifting body shape only makes it more much complex and riskier than it needs to be for the job.

Nobody asked for "reduced G-forces" and "cross-range". And CST-100 has many advantages over DreamChaser, including a protected TPS, a proven and reliable aerodynamic profile, survivable abort modes, and engines that actually work.

The legal appeal process is only going to add more delays to the program without changing the outcome. The whole Commercial Crew Program only has time for 6 to 8 flights before the ISS is cancelled. More delays only means less flights, which makes the whole point of spending $6.8 billion for the program pointless.

[B787_300]

Granted the SNC Suit wont DELAY anything except for pay outs... but SpaceX is already on the way to make the Capsule and Boeing was not going to win the contract according to some rumors and then there was an inexplicable delay in the announcement and BOOM SpaceX and Boeing with boeing getting WAY more money... Source on the delay and boeing (https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport/status/512292169840099329 , this guy was on top of things for CCiCap announcements and is pretty darn good about spaceflight events, highly trusted)... So I smell a stink in the air so i think it is good that SNC is challenging.

also a little bit more digging found this gem... https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport/status/512293986602848256 same guy but if your launcher thinks you are dead and then BOOM you get the contract is smelling like an under the table deal.

PLUS, NASA has avoided discussing how the winners were chosen, even after direct questioning...

Edited September 28, 2014 by B787_300

[Nibb31]

Granted the SNC Suit wont DELAY anything except for pay outs... but SpaceX is already on the way to make the Capsule and Boeing was not going to win the contract according to some rumors

It was pretty clear to anyone following the process that SNC was not in a position to win. They had a much riskier design, some fundamental design flaws, and no engine.

and then there was an inexplicable delay in the announcement and BOOM SpaceX and Boeing with boeing getting WAY more money... Source on the delay and boeing (https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport/status/512292169840099329 , this guy was on top of things for CCiCap announcements and is pretty darn good about spaceflight events, highly trusted)... So I smell a stink in the air so i think it is good that SNC is challenging.

Rumors are rumors. For each rumor I could find a counter-rumor. And some guy on twitter is not a "source".

[Streetwind]

That "some guy on twitter" has more government and industry contacts than you can shake a stick at, a long history on digging up stuff that isn't usually made public, and usually predicts important decisions ahead of time correctly in 9 out of 10 cases. If you have genuine interest in the US space program, you ought to be following him, not dismissing him.

That said, yes - rumors are rumors. Wait until the laundry is hung out to try before trying to call out who it belongs to. If Mr Lurio's inside info is correct, there will probably be laundry hung out before they year is over, and then we'll know more. Right now it's just one of multiple indicators that not all involved parties are convinced everything went its proper course with the contract awards.

Sierra Nevada had the following to say:

“In its 51 year history SNC has never filed a legal challenge to a government contract award. However, in the case of the CCtCap award, NASA’s own Source Selection Statement and debrief indicate that there are serious questions and inconsistencies in the source selection process. SNC, therefore, feels that there is no alternative but to institute a legal challenge.â€Â

The company also waited until the day of the deadline to issue the challenge, another indicator that they didn't do this lightly.

The really interesting part will be when the aforementioned Source Selection Statement (NASA's reasoning behind their choices) is made public. Since all parties have now been debriefed and the challenge deadline has passed, technically this should happen relatively soon. However, SNC's legal challenge may mean that the document is held back for the time being.

[Woopert]

I think SpaceX is the real winner in the Commercial Crew Program. SpaceX offers their services at fixed price points while Boeing (and ULA with their rockets) operate with the cost-plus system that makes their customers spend WAY more money than they need to.

I used to be all for Dream Chaser, but now that I look over it Dragon V2 and CST-100 are safer options and that's ultimately more important. SpaceX gets my vote for #1 with their low cost, safety, and innovation. Boeing's craft still appears to be a rock-solid option with proven capabilities but Boeing hasn't really been known for their low expenses. Also, SpaceX is 100% American manufactured. Atlas V uses the RD-180 for the time being until Blue Origin gets the BE-4 engine up and running as a replacement for the first stage. (although, I've heard CST-100 can be adapted for the Falcon 9).

[deadshot462]

Alternate options for SNC are unmanned cargo launches to the ISS or developing a manned ship for ESA/JAXA. They still have NASA funding until 2015 so hopefully they will find a Plan B.

[Kryten]

The studies with DLR and JAXA were for uncrewed launches. Crewed launches would require a US LV, which neither organisation is likely to be willing to depend on.

[B787_300]

It was pretty clear to anyone following the process that SNC was not in a position to win. They had a much riskier design, some fundamental design flaws, and no engine.

Nibb, THEY DID HAVE AN ENGINE... it was a Hybrid design, their Acquiring of the LF Engine manufactures was not related to CCtCap, and they told NASA hey we are planning on using the Hybrid engine, but this Liquid engine is also a possibility should you want it. It is called a Baseline design with options.

Rumors are rumors. For each rumor I could find a counter-rumor. And some guy on twitter is not a "source".

Okay then i challege you, find a specific credible counter "rumor" for this one. Lurio is HIGHLY respected and usually digs up information that was never meant to be public. Also he is a darn good reported for the aerospace world.

[Streetwind]

I think SpaceX is the real winner in the Commercial Crew Program. SpaceX offers their services at fixed price points while Boeing (and ULA with their rockets) operate with the cost-plus system that makes their customers spend WAY more money than they need to.

All CCtCap contracts are fixed price. Boeing and SpaceX got exactly the same deal, namely: finish development of the spacecraft and perform a demonstration mission to the ISS with NASA personel onboard before the end of 2017. After this, beginning no later than 2017, launch no less than two but as many as six regular commercial crew flights to the ISS, as required by NASA. The spacecraft must perform the regular 6-month lifeboat duty during these missions.

Both Boeing and SpaceX got exactly the money they were asking for, too. They both told NASA "we believe we need X to be able to fulfill this contract", and NASA said "okay, you shall have it". Boeing is asking for more here because their launch platform is more expensive, and because they have more work to perform still - their capsule hasn't been launched at all yet, whereas the cargo Dragon (using the same pressure vessel, RCS system etc.) has already collected regular mission experience. Boeing has also elected to place some milestones into the CCtCap contract that SpaceX placed into the prior CCiCap contract. Both companies were free to set their milestones as they thought suitable.

[Kryten]

The hybrid isn't a workable baseline, because it doesn't work. You might want to try looking into VG's trials with the same one.

[B787_300]

Kryten i agree that they were having issues, which is undoubtedly why they bought the LF Engine company... but the fact that Lurio has found info that it was going to be SpaceX and SNC even with the engine issues is throwing up some BIG red flags for me

[Kryten]

Unsubstantiated rumours via one guy on Twitter aren't worth an awful lot. I've been following space for a while, and is literally never heard of this guy or how trustworthy he's supposed to be until now; that's the part that seems fishy to me.

[Nibb31]

Nibb, THEY DID HAVE AN ENGINE... it was a Hybrid design, their Acquiring of the LF Engine manufactures was not related to CCtCap, and they told NASA hey we are planning on using the Hybrid engine, but this Liquid engine is also a possibility should you want it. It is called a Baseline design with options.

The hybrid engine is the same one that SpaceShipTwo is struggling with. It's based on the one that was used in SpaceShipOne but they are having problems scaling it up. It simply isn't working properly and they can't get it ready for flight testing, which is causing delays in both SS2 and DC programs, with a high risk that it might never work properly. Both SNC and Scaled Composites are now working on getting a liquid engine for their vehicles.

Switching to a liquid engine at this stage in the design process is extremely late. It changes your center of mass, which changes the vehicle dynamics and requires new tanks and redesigned systems. Basically all the glide and drop tests that SNC has done are invalidated by the change. The orbital manoeuvering characteristics might also change. This means more delays and also a high risk that the vehicle might not be ready soon enough for it to be worthwhile (remember the ISS will only be around until 2020-2024).

The delays in getting an engine ready is probably the main reason why DreamChaser was not selected, although there are a few other reasons why it was not an appropriate design for the Commercial Crew program.

Okay then i challege you, find a specific credible counter "rumor" for this one. Lurio is HIGHLY respected and usually digs up information that was never meant to be public. Also he is a darn good reported for the aerospace world.

Respected by who? I've never heard of this Lurio guy until today. Who is he? What does he do for a living? It takes more than a "tweet" to make a rumor. There were other analysts and journalists that predicted that Boeing and SpaceX would win. Oh look, rumors from Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-10/musk-s-spacex-vies-with-boeing-to-build-nasa-taxi-to-mars.html

http://online.wsj.com/articles/boeing-takes-lead-to-build-space-taxi-1410820865

Rubbish speculative journalism if you ask me, but that's what rumors are about. You can look at these forums. Some other guy on the internet (me actually) predicted that either DreamChaser or SpaceX would get the cut. You could call that another cool rumor. Just pick the one you want to believe.

However, the truth is that Boeing getting the contract was pretty certain because they had met all milestones and their design sticks more closely to the quick and safe space taxi that NASA wanted. Boeing was high-cost and low-risk. SpaceX was low-cost and medium-risk. SNC was medium-cost and high-risk. NASA clearly favored low-risk over cost concerns, which makes sense for a program that is to provide "assured access to the ISS".

Edited September 29, 2014 by Nibb31

[Sky_walker]

Unsubstantiated rumours via one guy on Twitter aren't worth an awful lot. I've been following space for a while, and is literally never heard of this guy or how trustworthy he's supposed to be until now; that's the part that seems fishy to me.

Then you did rather poor job following it.

Guy's legit. Got plenty of contacts in the industry. Here is his website: http://www.thelurioreport.com/

[B787_300]

{Some Articles From WSJ and Bloomberg}

both of those are based on some ....y journalism from a earlier unsubstaniated article...

However, the truth is that Boeing getting the contract was pretty certain because they had met all milestones and their design sticks more closely to the quick and safe space taxi that NASA wanted. Boeing was high-cost and low-risk. SpaceX was low-cost and medium-risk. SNC was medium-cost and high-risk. NASA clearly favored low-risk over cost concerns, which makes sense for a program that is to provide "assured access to the ISS".

Boeing is VERY high Cost and low risk, SpaceX is Low Cost, Low risk (Honestly the difference in SpaceX and Boeing for CCtCap is water vs land landings, SpaceX will not try to do propulsive landings with CCtCap right now, which is why they should get low risk) and SNC is Medium Cost Medium risk, most of their risk is from engines, which is a point that i dont like, but is inevitable with their design.

Also as Sky_walker said Lurio is VERY good at what he does

[Kryten]

Claiming Boeing are higher risk than SNC is nonsense. Boeing have a full pressure vessel, working engines, and a completed set of parachute landing tests. SNC haven't got an engine, their one attempt at a glide test ended so badly they pretend it never happened, and their pressure vessel is, so far, a single open piece of carbon composite. I don't see any areas in which they have retired any risk.

[B787_300]

kryten read http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/09/dream-chaser-fight-snc-protest-cctcap-decision/#.VCX0vuBpYtM.twitter especially the paragraph where they say

“SNC’s Dream Chaser proposal was the second lowest priced proposal in the CCtCap competition. SNC’s proposal also achieved mission suitability scores comparable to the other two proposals. In fact, out of a possible 1,000 total points, the highest ranked and lowest ranked offerors were separated by a minor amount of total points and other factors were equally comparable.â€Â

[Kryten]

'Mission suitability' and 'price' are not 'being able to build a working spacecraft'. I know which one I'd prioritise.

[Nibb31]

both of those are based on some ....y journalism from a earlier unsubstaniated article...

That was my point. Until the official announcement, everything was just speculation and rumors from unnamed sources. One man's speculation is just as good as another's. There is no evidence that your Lurio guy had no more evidence than the other journalists.

Boeing is VERY high Cost and low risk, SpaceX is Low Cost, Low risk (Honestly the difference in SpaceX and Boeing for CCtCap is water vs land landings, SpaceX will not try to do propulsive landings with CCtCap right now, which is why they should get low risk) and SNC is Medium Cost Medium risk, most of their risk is from engines, which is a point that i dont like, but is inevitable with their design.

None of the competitors are planning water landings. Both CST and Dragon land on land. CST is assisted with airbags, Dragon is assisted with SuperDracos. We don't know yet whether Dragon will go propulsive all the way or if it will use parachutes for most of the deceleration.

The Boeing proposal was only 20% more expensive than SNC's. SNC's proposal was 20% more expensive than SpaceX's. By your metric, then SNC was "VERY high Cost" too, compared to SpaceX.

As to how you can determine "medium risk", with all the uncertainties that were attached to the DreamChaser proposal. Let me recap again: no engines, unconvincing aborts and exposed TPS. You can't deny that the program risk was much higher than the others.

I don't think that SNC has a case here. The competition was fair, there is no evidence that it wasn't. Challenging the decision will only introduce delays in achieving the goal of CCtCap, which is assured independant access to the ISS.

Edited September 30, 2014 by Nibb31

[B787_300]

not sure where you are getting your numbers from, but the Combined SpaceX SNC total was 5.2 BN the Combined SpaceX Boeing total is 6.8 BN from Lurio and others so, the combined total is cheaper for SNC+SPX

also per http://aviationweek.com/space/boeing-spacex-get-68-billion-commercial-crew-flights and http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/08/dragon-v2-rely-parachutes-landing/ SpaceX is most certainly doing water landings...

and the end result will not be delayed, the GAO has till Jan 15th to respond, No money is likely to be given out before then that has not already been accounted for so there will be no delays UNLESS the GAO decides that Boeing competed unfairly, at which point i have no idea what happens

[Albert VDS]

To me it seems like SNC wasn't selected because it had a landing gear failure on it's first test.

That's something really basic which shouldn't fail, ever.

So how can the crew safe itself if that happened in a manned flight?

[B787_300]

while it was dumb for the gear to fail, the REST of the flight went flawlessly... and the ONLY reason they pretend the test didnt happen Kryten was that it failed... why has SpaceX not released the video of the F9RDev that exploded? because it FAILED...

So how can the crew safe itself if that happened in a manned flight?

the structure is strong enough to protect the crew... just like it did on the test (just damage to the structure landing would have been survivable) now that particular article might not be recertified for space flight, but it would have protected the crew

[Streetwind]

also per http://aviationweek.com/space/boeing-spacex-get-68-billion-commercial-crew-flights and http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/08/dragon-v2-rely-parachutes-landing/ SpaceX is most certainly doing water landings...

SpaceX is currently doing water landings with the cargo Dragon. You will find no claim in either of these two articles that the manned DragonV2 will do water landings - although it, like the CST-100 too, is perfectly capable of doing so in a pinch In fact, the Nasaspaceflight article describes in detail how DragonV2 will touch down on land under parachutes while waiting for the DragonFly program to fully certify the propulsive descent method.

Admittedly, Aviation Week's choice of grammar is clumsy, but it too refers exclusively to the cargo Dragon.

[Nibb31]

To me it seems like SNC wasn't selected because it had a landing gear failure on it's first test.

That's something really basic which shouldn't fail, ever.

So how can the crew safe itself if that happened in a manned flight?

I don't think that the actual crash played a major role. The gear used on the test article was a placeholder only, scavenged from an old F-16 (I think) because the DC's own landing gear hadn't been developed yet.

What worried me more than the crash was that they actually rushed the landing test with a placeholder in the first place. There isn't much point in a landing test if you are not using the actual landing gear, unless you are grasping at straws to meet deadlines. Of course, even though the damage was repairable, crashing the ETA meant more delays in the drop tests, more missed milestones. I don't think there has been another drop test since then.

Also note that a drop test only models the last few seconds of the mission. There is currently no way to test the performance during reentry and through hypersonic flight without launching it on a rocket. The only actual test data of lifting body reentry comes from the old Soviet BOR-4 test in the early 80's, and we don't know how applicable it is to DreamChaser or how reliable that data is. On the other hand, we are quite familiar with capsule reentry, especially using the Apollo moldline.

Edited September 30, 2014 by Nibb31

[Nibb31]

not sure where you are getting your numbers from, but the Combined SpaceX SNC total was 5.2 BN the Combined SpaceX Boeing total is 6.8 BN from Lurio and others so, the combined total is cheaper for SNC+SPX

For this phase of the CCtDev selection, SpaceX bid for 2.6 billion and Boeing bid for 4.2 billion. SpaceX SNC has stated that their bid was $900 million lower than Boeing's, which makes it $3.3 billion. That's pretty much slap bang in the middle, with SNC having the same price differential compared to SpaceX as Boeing had compared to SNC. Cut it the way you want, Boeing's offer was only 20% more expensive than SNC's while having a much higher chance of staying on track and meeting the requirements.

Source:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/27/us-usa-boeing-spacetaxi-sierra-nevada-idUSKCN0HM0H720140927

Sure, SNC was cheaper than Boeing, but price isn't the only factor. NASA evidently put a larger value on the lower risk proposals than on cost alone, which is quite justifiable. If the goal of the CCtDev competition was "sexiest spacecraft" or "most innovative solution" or "reusable spaceship that lands like a plane", then DreamChaser might have won, but it wasn't, and there were no requirements for "low-g reentry and crossrange". The goal was to take people reliably and safely to the ISS and back. Exceeding requirements doesn't earn you any points in these competitions. Meeting requirements and milestones does. Boeing's proposal might not look as pretty, but the company knows how to respond to an RFP.

Now, what I would really like is to see NASA embrace and fund DreamChaser as an X vehicle, a successor to X-38 and HL-20. There is a use for low-g reentry and lifting bodies, and it's NASA's role to study them, but unfortunately it isn't in this particular program.

Edited September 30, 2014 by Nibb31