Author Topic: Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 1  (Read 640856 times)

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #460 on: 10/19/2014 12:57 am »
If there wasn't the Russian situation, and if all partners had agreed to extend the station to 2024, at least, then SNC might have had a chance. NASA is in a hurry, and they are the least likely to finish on time. And FFP makes sure that everybody finishes on price.
COTS had a lot of more margin, and it was a kind of experiment.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10198
  • Likes Given: 11927
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #461 on: 10/19/2014 01:17 am »
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.

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...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline WindyCity

Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #462 on: 10/19/2014 02:16 am »
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.

Offline getitdoneinspace

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 140
  • Liked: 305
  • Likes Given: 224
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #463 on: 10/19/2014 02:28 am »
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.

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."

Offline WindyCity

Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #464 on: 10/19/2014 02:30 am »
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.

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?

Offline getitdoneinspace

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 140
  • Liked: 305
  • Likes Given: 224
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #465 on: 10/19/2014 02:40 am »
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.

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?


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.

Edit: GO Big Red !!!
« Last Edit: 10/19/2014 02:51 am by getitdoneinspace »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #466 on: 10/19/2014 02:47 am »
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 Review
M13C: Crew Vehicle Technical Interchange Meetings
M13D: Delta Crew Vehicle Critical Design Review

See also this link:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/07/12/spacex-commercial-crew-status-july-2014/

Offline WindyCity

Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #467 on: 10/19/2014 02:51 am »
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.

Yep. That would explain it! Thanks!
« Last Edit: 10/19/2014 02:53 am by WindyCity »

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #468 on: 10/21/2014 08:46 am »

Quote
Charles A. Lurio @TheLurioReport
Gov'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?
DM

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #469 on: 10/22/2014 12:48 am »
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.

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.
But the poor performance on SS2 may have been a seen as a negative for the hybrid rockets on DC.

Though DC doesn't need as much delta V as SS2 so difficulties with SS2's motor may not have been directly applicable.
In retrospect maybe they should have stuck with a more conventional hypergolic liquid abort engines as they would have been perceived as lower risk.

As for Boeing being able to be ready faster in theory yes since it is a much simpler vehicle but Boeing has a bad track record of making on time deliveries.
« Last Edit: 10/22/2014 12:50 am by Patchouli »

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #470 on: 10/22/2014 12:51 am »
I 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: Patchouli
DC 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.

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline cambrianera

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1438
  • Liked: 318
  • Likes Given: 261
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #471 on: 10/22/2014 12:36 pm »
New (old) troubles for Boeing:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-20/boeing-seeks-revised-schedule-for-u-s-aerial-tanker.html
After the McDonnel Douglas deal they have lost the engineering touch; really curious to see how this will evolve.
Oh to be young again. . .

Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3051
  • Liked: 3900
  • Likes Given: 5273
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #472 on: 10/22/2014 01:55 pm »
New (old) troubles for Boeing:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-20/boeing-seeks-revised-schedule-for-u-s-aerial-tanker.html
After the McDonnel Douglas deal they have lost the engineering touch; really curious to see how this will evolve.

From the article:

Quote
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.

I don't know how this contract compares with CCtCAP, but this is a good example of the contractor not being able to just up the price on the contract if it missed its estimates.

« Last Edit: 10/22/2014 01:55 pm by abaddon »

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2443
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #473 on: 10/22/2014 02:05 pm »
I 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: Patchouli
DC 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.

So that whole situation at Scaled Composites had nothing to do with SNC's decission to change from the Hybrids?  I was under the understanding that was primary reason that they changed to liquid fueled from the hybrids.
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #474 on: 10/22/2014 02:38 pm »
I 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: Patchouli
DC 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.

This is nonsense, the decision had nothing to do with NASA - it was an internal change.

Offline Nindalf

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 175
  • Canada
  • Liked: 79
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #475 on: 10/22/2014 03:27 pm »
SNC hasn't actually decided to change to liquid-fueled engines on Dream Chaser.  They just started studying the option.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #476 on: 10/22/2014 04:47 pm »
SNC 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/
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #477 on: 10/22/2014 05:16 pm »
SNC 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/

Yes but wasn't that AFTER everything was already submitted for consideration?

RAndy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline Nindalf

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 175
  • Canada
  • Liked: 79
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #478 on: 10/22/2014 07:38 pm »
SNC 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/
I don't have time to look it up right now, but an SNC representative claimed that wasn't true recently.  Maybe someone else can link it?  I'll dig it up later if nobody else does.

Offline SWGlassPit

  • I break space hardware
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 845
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 142
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #479 on: 10/22/2014 07:43 pm »
As I recall, their comment appeared very carefully couched: "We did not announce that."  Neither a confirmation nor a denial.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1