CCiCap was announced, SpaceX and Boeing were selected

[PakledHostage]

For this phase of the CCtDev selection, SpaceX bid for 2.6 billion and Boeing bid for 4.2 billion. SpaceX has stated that their bid was $900 million lower than Boeing's, which makes it $3.3 billion.

You mean SNC's bid was 900 million lower than Boeing's?

[Nibb31]

Yes, sorry for the confusion

[Frozen_Heart]

Boeing could have offered a paper airplane as their spacecraft. They still would have got the contract.

The CST-100 does look reasonably ok admittedly though lacking on innovation. However I just don't get how they can offer it for that price when SpaceX and SN are both so much cheaper.

[Streetwind]

The CST-100 does look reasonably ok admittedly though lacking on innovation. However I just don't get how they can offer it for that price when SpaceX and SN are both so much cheaper.

Post #184 in this thread already answered that, you just need to read it...

[Nibb31]

Boeing could have offered a paper airplane as their spacecraft. They still would have got the contract.

The CST-100 does look reasonably ok admittedly though lacking on innovation. However I just don't get how they can offer it for that price when SpaceX and SN are both so much cheaper.

Innovation for innovation's sake is meaningless. They could build a spaceship out of chocolate. That would be innovative.

Innovation was not a requirement. The purpose of the CCtDev competition was not to spur innovation.

Also, DreamChaser isn't that innovative. It's based on HL20, a 20 year-old design that was based on BOR-4 and X-24 which are 40 year-old designs. It's the latest in a long heritage of lifting-body vehicles that have repeatedly been cancelled and rejected for various reasons. Those reasons might be unrelated to the current competition, but still, it says something about the idea of a lifting body spacecraft: it's pretty, but nobody really needs it.

So yes, it's pretty. The *only* reason you guys are fond of it is because it's pretty, but when you balance the pros and cons against other designs, it has no clear benefit over a simpler more robust design.

Edited September 30, 2014 by Nibb31

[StolenWatson]

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

Based on what? NASAs source selection documentation says they were scored almost the same.

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.

.

except if that's what happened, the GAO will uphold the protest, since source selection is weighted equally. this means that if SNC scored green on the other sections and came in lower cost, NASA has to select them based on their source selection criteria. IMO, this was a big risk in sticking FAR rules on NASA when they don't have appropriately trained KOs.

[B787_300]

it has no clear benefit over a simpler more robust design.

MORE ROBUST‽‽‽‽

a plane that can land and guide it self IS INHERENTLY more ROBUST than a capsule that is restricted to a ballistic reentry with a modicum of steering and landing under parachutes... Heck DC can land at ALMOST ANY INTERNATIONAL airport... while a CST or DV2 landing needs other ground support if they have to do a emergency reentry. Plus under emergency scenarios a SpacePlane is much better for crew Survival IF the heat shield is undamaged, which unlike the shuttle, the DC heat shield has very low chance of getting damaged by the launch.

overall it seems that NASA went with Boeing because they are BOEING and have a "history" of space capsules (they bought the company that made the Apollo capsules), which is why SNC is protesting and if the GAO says that NASA did it unfairly then they HAVE to reopen the contest and by then SpaceX will more then likely be flying and then it will just be a slug out between Boeing and SNC and SNC has the overall better design.

Edited September 30, 2014 by B787_300
using the underused ‽

[sojourner]

So, a spaceplane requiring a runway to land is somehow more robust than a capsule that can land on either sea or any patch of land? Yeah, not buying that bit of logic.

[B787_300]

So, a spaceplane requiring a runway to land is somehow more robust than a capsule that can land on either sea or any patch of land? Yeah, not buying that bit of logic.

no what i am saying is that they design and stresses on the airframe are a lot higer for a Spaceplane design and the fact that it can land at any intl airport is better than ONLY landing on land (CST is not rated for water landings)

[Kryten]

the fact that it can land at any intl airport is better than ONLY landing on land

The latter logically includes the former, unless there are some flying or floating international airports I don't know about.

(CST is not rated for water landings)

It's intended to have contingency water-landing capability, and has done self-righting tests.

[Streetwind]

To add some further credibility to that statement:

[Simon Ross]

While the romantic in me would love to have seen Dreamchaser win one of the spots, the realist in me thinks that NASA made the right choices.

Boing were ALWAYS going to be selected, vast experience in providing manned flight systems, a history of technical excellence and not forgetting that all important election coming up :-)

So it really just came down to SpaceX and Dreamchaser.

Ultimately I think the biggest factor was simply technical risk rather then simple cost. Yes, a lifting body design has some inherent advantages over a ballistic capsule, but it is also a more complex design path. Add to this the fact that SpaceX seem to be much further down the path with Dragon One, it really was a bit of a no brainer.

Simon

[Tommygun]

I know very little about SNC vehicle.

Does anyone know if SNC Dream Chaser is maneuverable enough to safely land at an international airport that are usually surrounded by a dense urban city?

Lifting bodies from what I have seen are not as forgiving as something like the US shuttle and they both get one shot at landing.

Unless Dream chaser has a landing engine that gives it a go around ability.

[B787_300]

Tommy it has better glide characteristics than the shuttle

[sojourner]

Tommy it has better glide characteristics than the shuttle

A wrench has a better glide ratio than the shuttle.

[Nibb31]

I know very little about SNC vehicle.

Does anyone know if SNC Dream Chaser is maneuverable enough to safely land at an international airport that are usually surrounded by a dense urban city?

It "could" land at an international airport. However, as it can only fly in a straight line, can't go around, has only one shot at a landing, and has to be safed before being towed away on a truck, it would be a high-priority landing, which would mean clearing the airspace and closing the airport to regular trafic for several hours.

Lifting bodies from what I have seen are not as forgiving as something like the US shuttle and they both get one shot at landing.

Unless Dream chaser has a landing engine that gives it a go around ability.

No, you're right. There is no go-around capability and diverting is limited. Lifting bodies do not land like aircraft. They come in extremely fast (it's more of a controlled free-fall) and flare a few seconds before touching down. If something goes wrong with the glide slope, or if you reenter in the wrong place, you have to ditch in the ocean or crash in the desert.

NASA and the USAF went through a lot crashes during the X-24 and M2-Fx programs in the 60's and 70's.

Note that the Space Shuttle wasn't forgiving either. It looked like a gentle landing, but if your were to land like that in an 737, there would be brown pants in the cabin.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nibb31

[Nibb31]

Based on what? NASAs source selection documentation says they were scored almost the same.

except if that's what happened, the GAO will uphold the protest, since source selection is weighted equally. this means that if SNC scored green on the other sections and came in lower cost, NASA has to select them based on their source selection criteria. IMO, this was a big risk in sticking FAR rules on NASA when they don't have appropriately trained KOs.

That is just speculation. NASA hasn't published the selection criteria or the weight that was attributed to each of them. Since NASA didn't select SNC, we can only assume that:

- either SNC's proposal scored below the other competitors, regardless of the price difference.

- or NASA disregarded federal law, its own rules, and the selection criteria that it specified itself to illegally favor another competitor.

I don't believe NASA is made up of idiots that would go with the latter, so I think that the former is closer to the truth.

[Nibb31]

MORE ROBUST‽‽‽‽

a plane that can land and guide it self IS INHERENTLY more ROBUST than a capsule that is restricted to a ballistic reentry with a modicum of steering and landing under parachutes...

We are talking about robustness, not elegance. A lifting body (sorry, DreamChaser is not a plane, it doesn't have wings) might be more elegant, but a capsule is more robust.

Ability to landing or splashdown anywhere trumps needing a runway. If something goes wrong during reentry, or if weather does not allow landing, you can land in the ocean or in the desert. And because there would have been only 2 vehicles, if one DreamChaser ditches or crashes, even if the crew survives, 50% of the fleet is put out of order and the program is no longer viable.

Also, capsules only reenter ballistically when something goes wrong, but that is what makes them more robust. If a lifting body loses control authority during hypersonic reentry phase, it breaks up. In a nominal controlled reentry, capsules have a positive L/D ratio and can be steered. Parachutes have proven pretty reliable until now. The only LOC event due to parachute malfunction on a spacecraft was Soyuz 1.

Heck DC can land at ALMOST ANY INTERNATIONAL airport... while a CST or DV2 landing needs other ground support if they have to do a emergency reentry. Plus under emergency scenarios a SpacePlane is much better for crew Survival IF the heat shield is undamaged, which unlike the shuttle, the DC heat shield has very low chance of getting damaged by the launch.

I've already pointed out several times that DreamChaser's TPS is exposed to MMOD damage during the entire 6 month loiter period on orbit. MMOD strikes are quite frequent on the ISS. The Cupola already has several impacts on it, and it's offers a smaller surface area than DC's heat shield:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/09/iss-evaluate-mmod-strike-cupola-window/

The risk of an MMOD strike on the heat shield is non-negligeable and might have caused negative points in the evaluation process. Again, capsules are more robust in this respect, because their heat shield is protected until the last minutes before reentry.

overall it seems that NASA went with Boeing because they are BOEING and have a "history" of space capsules (they bought the company that made the Apollo capsules),

You are aware that Boeing built the X-37B, right? They know how to build a spaceplane if they need to. But they also know how to design a proposal to respond to an RFP. There are no bonus points for exceeding requirements, for making the prettiest spaceship, or sticking the word "innovative" on your proposal. They took the requirements and built what they felt best met those requirements. They could have built something based on the X-37, and I'm pretty sure there were long design meetings at Boeing where this was debated, but they ultimately felt that a capsule was a better response to NASA's requirements.

which is why SNC is protesting and if the GAO says that NASA did it unfairly then they HAVE to reopen the contest and by then SpaceX will more then likely be flying and then it will just be a slug out between Boeing and SNC and SNC has the overall better design.

If they reopen the contest, nobody flies and NASA spends those billions on buying Soyuz seats until the ISS is switched off. At the same time, SNC becomes the most hated company in the space industry.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nibb31

[Simon Ross]

The single biggest problem for a lifting body design is simply the lack of abort options during the launch phase. If there is ever a malfunction with the booster, effectively a lifting body crew has no choice then to bail out of the craft before it hits the sea...hard !

Simon

[Nibb31]

The single biggest problem for a lifting body design is simply the lack of abort options during the launch phase. If there is ever a malfunction with the booster, effectively a lifting body crew has no choice then to bail out of the craft before it hits the sea...hard !

Simon

Well, to be fair, it's not necessarily that bad.

First of all, you can't bail out of DreamChaser because the hatch is on the top and you would hit the rear stabiliser. It's supposed to have a backup parachute so you have two options:

- If you are going fast enough and high enough, you can try to "glide" unpowered to a landing site.

- If you're not, you open the parachute and hope you'll survive the splash down.

I don't think a parachute landing on land is survivable. Splashing down on a parachute is a last chance thing. The crew would probably survive, but the vehicle would be a write-off.

Note that I use "glide" in quotes. A lifting body behaves more like a cannonball with fins than an unpowered airliner. It's somewhat controlled, but it's still pretty scary with a high descent rate and a steep angle, and you need a lot of speed and altitude to have any cross range.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nibb31

[StolenWatson]

That is just speculation. NASA hasn't published the selection criteria or the weight that was attributed to each of them. Since NASA didn't select SNC, we can only assume that:

- either SNC's proposal scored below the other competitors, regardless of the price difference.

- or NASA disregarded federal law, its own rules, and the selection criteria that it specified itself to illegally favor another competitor.

I don't believe NASA is made up of idiots that would go with the latter, so I think that the former is closer to the truth.

The weighting is in the solicitation on FBO

[B787_300]

I don't think a parachute landing on land is survivable. Splashing down on a parachute is a last chance thing. The crew would probably survive, but the vehicle would be a write-off.

Note that I use "glide" in quotes. A lifting body behaves more like a cannonball with fins than an unpowered airliner. It's somewhat controlled, but it's still pretty scary with a high descent rate and a steep angle, and you need a lot of speed and altitude to have any cross range.

1. DreamChaser has a better glide ratio than the shuttle

2. the parachute system is based off the CPAS and some of those airframes are recertified for flight because the plane landed on it's gear and no damage was incured other than the damage from the CPAS it self (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_Recovery_Systems)

[Nibb31]

1. DreamChaser has a better glide ratio than the shuttle

You've said that already. The Shuttle had a crappy glide ratio and had similar characteristics to a lifting body: steep descent angle, high sink rate, poor manoeuverability, and no go-around. Like DreamChaser, it would break up it if it wasn't actively flown by the computer during reentry.

2. the parachute system is based off the CPAS and some of those airframes are recertified for flight because the plane landed on it's gear and no damage was incured other than the damage from the CPAS it self (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_Recovery_Systems)

Those CAPS systems are for light aircraft that weigh 1.5 tons. DreamChaser weighs 11 tons and is made of composites. It's going to hit hard and break, even with a much larger chute.

[Simon Ross]

Again, it just another level of complexity to the design (and additional weight) if you have to add parachutes to a lifting body. The problem is without them, Dreamchaser really doesn't have a safe abort mode during boost phase. Yep it can glide a bit, but it's cross range ability is pretty limited.

At the end of the day you have X amount of energy at a given altitude and velocity, and that is all the ship will have at it's disposal. Getting back to a prepared runway under those circumstance seems a pretty remote prospect.

Simon

[Albert VDS]

What I would like to know is, why does SNC want to sue? I can imagine that they think they should be the real winners and that it's a great injustice(also they'll probably want the money).

To me it seems pointless and I doubt they'll gain something out of this. Why don't they just take it like it is and try to focus on completing the DC.