Sierra Nevada has built spacecraft for 50 years, they integrate defense aircraft that support our troops, they were arguably the most innovative business case with agreements with other space agencies but they lost because they werent Boeing or SpaceX.
Any news on what transpired in the Court of Federal Claims yesterday in SNC's attempt to block NASA's resume work order? See http://tiny.cc/7fgynx.
Quote from: WindyCity on 10/19/2014 02:16 amAny news on what transpired in the Court of Federal Claims yesterday in SNC's attempt to block NASA's resume work order? See http://tiny.cc/7fgynx.From http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/snc-v-nasa-boeing-and-spacex-alllowed-to-intervene-next-hearing-date-set"Today, Judge Marian Blank Horn granted motions from Boeing and SpaceX to "intervene" in the case and ordered that they file their submissions by Monday, October 20, at noon. The next hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, October 21, at 2:30 pm ET.".
Quote from: getitdoneinspace on 10/19/2014 02:28 amQuote from: WindyCity on 10/19/2014 02:16 amAny news on what transpired in the Court of Federal Claims yesterday in SNC's attempt to block NASA's resume work order? See http://tiny.cc/7fgynx.From http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/snc-v-nasa-boeing-and-spacex-alllowed-to-intervene-next-hearing-date-set"Today, Judge Marian Blank Horn granted motions from Boeing and SpaceX to "intervene" in the case and ordered that they file their submissions by Monday, October 20, at noon. The next hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, October 21, at 2:30 pm ET.".Thanks. Obviously, the judge won't issue a ruling without hearing countervailing testimony. What I'm curious about is why he allowed Boeing and SpaceX to jump in. SNC's request was for an injunction to force NASA to reinstate its stop-work order. I should think that only NASA would have standing, no?
Apparently I missed the memo that SpaceX's Integrated CDR milestone 13 was split into two milestones before July, and then split again for total of four milestonesin late July. From NASA Extends SpaceX CCiCap Award Period Into 2015, Splits Up Company's Critical Design Review Milestone, AmericaSpace, July 30:Quote“NASA approved SpaceX’s request to split some content from its Integrated Critical Design Review (Milestone 13) to two, resulting in Milestone 13A and 13B,” said Kraft. “More recently, NASA approved SpaceX’s request to shift some content from Milestone 13A to two new milestones, Milestone 13C and 13D, along with commensurate funding. SpaceX has completed the newly formed Milestone 13A. Milestones 13B, 13C and 13D are planned for later this year. None of the original milestone content was removed from the agreement, just shifted among the milestones, nor was any content added to the agreement.”(There is an error in the article which shows milestone 13A as Dragon primary structure qualification test, which is milestone 12 and which as far as I can tell has not been completed.)A good summary can be found at An Updated List of NASA's Commercial Crew Partner Milestones which shows:M13A: Integrated Crew Vehicle Critical Design Review (complete)M13B: Operations Critical Design ReviewM13C: Crew Vehicle Technical Interchange MeetingsM13D: Delta Crew Vehicle Critical Design Review
“NASA approved SpaceX’s request to split some content from its Integrated Critical Design Review (Milestone 13) to two, resulting in Milestone 13A and 13B,” said Kraft. “More recently, NASA approved SpaceX’s request to shift some content from Milestone 13A to two new milestones, Milestone 13C and 13D, along with commensurate funding. SpaceX has completed the newly formed Milestone 13A. Milestones 13B, 13C and 13D are planned for later this year. None of the original milestone content was removed from the agreement, just shifted among the milestones, nor was any content added to the agreement.”
Take a look at http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_24(a) Intervention of Right. On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who:(1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or(2) claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.
Charles A. Lurio @TheLurioReportGov't req1:Despite SpaceX dev. lead, 2 fly 'NASA cert. vehicle' w/crew by 2017 must start CCtCap all-out now incl. much discussion w/Agency.Gov't req 2: So if SpaceX requires all-out to have crewed "NASA certification flight" by 2017, how can Boeing do it given its hardware lag?Gov't req'ts make 2017 a challenge;Cong. likely 2 underfund,force slip;Gerst. freaks re dubious 'risk' w/SNC's lower bid than Boeing. Sense?
Quote from: Ronsmytheiii on 10/18/2014 10:44 pmSierra Nevada has built spacecraft for 50 years, they integrate defense aircraft that support our troops, they were arguably the most innovative business case with agreements with other space agencies but they lost because they werent Boeing or SpaceX.If the internal info on CCtCap that is being quoted in the press is true, then it likely that it wasn't that SNC was being too innovative, but had not eliminated enough unknowns on the Dream Chaser to be worth the risk for NASA.Remember the #1 goal for NASA is that whoever is bidding has to have a realistic chance of being ready by 2017. It appears that NASA was not confident enough that SNC would be ready with Dream Chaser, and decided to go with the two most qualified bidders - both of whom they felt had realistic chances of being ready by 2017.And if that is the reason, then SNC will have no chance in their protest, because NASA will be able to show reasonable justification for why they didn't think SNC was qualified for an award. It makes me sad, since I wanted Dream Chaser to get an award...
I think they were hoping the engine on SS2 would act as a test mule for the abort engines on Dream Chaser.
DC doesn't need as much delta V as SS2 so difficulties with SS2 may not have been directly transferable.
New (old) troubles for Boeing:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-20/boeing-seeks-revised-schedule-for-u-s-aerial-tanker.htmlAfter the McDonnel Douglas deal they have lost the engineering touch; really curious to see how this will evolve.
The Air Force and the U.S. Government Accountability Office have praised Boeing’s progress on the $51 billion program to build 179 of the planes, which is based on the company’s 767 jetliner and designated the KC-46. However, the service estimates that Boeing will have to absorb $1 billion in costs for exceeding a $4.9 billion ceiling to develop the first four planes.
Quote from: Patchouli on 10/22/2014 12:48 amI think they were hoping the engine on SS2 would act as a test mule for the abort engines on Dream Chaser.No. Dreamchaser doesn't have the lower vibration requirements of SS2.Quote from: PatchouliDC doesn't need as much delta V as SS2 so difficulties with SS2 may not have been directly transferable.Yep.SNC offered to do a liquid system because NASA kept harping on about the hybrid motors. They don't have any problems with them.
SNC hasn't actually decided to change to liquid-fueled engines on Dream Chaser. They just started studying the option.
Quote from: Nindalf on 10/22/2014 03:27 pmSNC hasn't actually decided to change to liquid-fueled engines on Dream Chaser. They just started studying the option.That is not correct. A liquid engine has been baselined for DreamChaser. The Hybrid motor has been abandoned.http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/08/19/snc-abandons-hybrid-motors-dream-chaser/