Dream Chaser shows her fight - SNC protest CCtCap decision

[Scylla]

U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T OF F E D E R A L C L A I M S
SCHEDULED MATTERS
Friday, October 17, 2014

Judge HORN - COURTROOM 7, ROOM 508
**SEALED PROCEEDING**

10:00 a.m. Sierra Nevada Corporation,       P - Neil H. O’Donnell              REPORTER
No. 14-994 C                                            (202) 777-8950                   REQUESTED
                                                                 D - Daniel Herzfeld                HEARING
                                                                (202) 616-0344                    (Bid Protest)

Not being versed in legal speak, to whom does the term "REPORTER" refer to?

[enkarha]

U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T OF F E D E R A L C L A I M S
SCHEDULED MATTERS
Friday, October 17, 2014

Judge HORN - COURTROOM 7, ROOM 508
**SEALED PROCEEDING**

10:00 a.m. Sierra Nevada Corporation,       P - Neil H. O’Donnell              REPORTER
No. 14-994 C                                            (202) 777-8950                   REQUESTED
                                                                 D - Daniel Herzfeld                HEARING
                                                                (202) 616-0344                    (Bid Protest)

Not being versed in legal speak, to whom does the term "REPORTER" refer to?

A court reporter/ stenographer, I'd presume.

[Steam Chaser]

NASA wants crew services by 2017, or in about 3 years.  NASA struggles to get on the order of $800M/year for commercial crew.  We have bids of $4.2B, $3.3B, and $2.6B from Boeing, SNC, and SpaceX, respectively.  For the sake of discussion let's guess "special studies" is $200M for each competitor, leaving $4.0B, $3.1B, and $2.4B.  Also guess the up to 6 operational missions are $300M, $250M, and $200M per mission from Boeing, SNC, and SpaceX, respectively.  That leaves $2.2B, $1.6B, and $1.2B for development/test from the 3 competitors.

With these guesses, Boeing's value for development, which NASA wants done over the next 3 years, is about the full amount NASA has struggled mightily to get from Congress.  $2.2B is about $800M/year * 3.  Don't forget NASA itself needs money for oversight, etc.  Also, it's possible NASA would ask for some "special studies" during the development/test years.

Firstly, the contract amounts are for development AND SIX FLIGHTS EACH. At take up of both contract maximums, there are SIX YEARS of flights included in those figures.

It looks a bit different when the money is spread over nine years instead of three.

Cheers, Martin

I'm not talking about the full contract amounts and full term of the contracts.  I took the full contract amounts, and subtracted my guesses for the portion of the contracts that are for "special studies" and up to 6 operational missions.  That leaves my guess for what each company bid for the development/test phase.  For Boeing, my guess was 200M for "special studies", and $300M per operational mission.  So that leaves $4.2B - $0.2B - 6*$0.3B = $2.2B for development/test.  If my guesses are close, Boeing is asking for about $2.2B for the development/test phase.  NASA will be lucky to get about $800M/year, and it only has about 3 years to reach the goal by 2017.  How can NASA pay $2.2B over 3 years to Boeing as it meets its development/test milestones through 2017 on an $800M/year commercial crew budget, while also paying for significant NASA commercial crew oversight using FAR rules, possible special studies, and development/test for SpaceX, too?

Maybe NASA will get significantly more than $800M/year for commercial crew.  Maybe Boeing's $4.2B bid included operational missions that are even more than $300M/mission, and therefore Boeing is actually asking less than I guessed for development/test.  Maybe Boeing is asking for more than $200M in case NASA requests special studies, which also would mean Boeing is asking less than I guessed for development/test.  I don't think any of these are likely to be the case, but they could be.  If not, it seems to me that in the case of 2 full CCtCap winners, Boeing is asking for a lot more money than NASA can give for development/test, and therefore development/test will have an unavoidable massive schedule slip past 2017 due to Boeing's large bid.  The problem is also there with SNC's bid, but to a much lesser extent.

It seems to me that by selecting Boeing's bid, NASA is trying to fit 10 pounds in a 5 pound bag during the development/test phase.  Maybe my guesses are off, though.

[MP99]

Apologies, didn't see the exclusion of post-dev costs.

No, I don't see how the budget can stretch to this, unless Congress is willing to up the CC budget given that Boeing are in the mix.

Cheers, Martin

[llanitedave]

The US has the capability to fly astronauts to the station right now.. what it doesn't have is the stomach to accept the risks that it would entail without a few more mountains of paperwork.

Interesting. Just out of curiosity: what US spacecraft, currently flying, has seats in it?

Ohhh.. you're so right! Damn, that's gunna take another gigabuck and five years of development. Might as well just give up on the idea. Seats! Who makes seats these days? Have to call China and get 'em to lend ya some.. they've probably got some sort of payment plan. Of course, they'll need to send some inspectors to make sure you're not copying the technology. Seats!

Lots of snark but no substance as to actually answering the question I see The US does NOT in fact (as was stated in the original post) have the capability of flying astronauts to the ISS. We are dependant on the Russians for that. Dragon is not ready yet and while I'd personally rate DC as being more ready than CST-100 they ain't there yet either, so the question would remain....

Huh? NASA could put astronauts on the next Dragon launch, or landing. Assuming everything went nominal, they'd be fine. That's a capability, it's just not one that NASA is willing to use. There's a difference between something being risky and something being unavailable. Flying crew on Dragon v1 is a risky available option.

Your approach to risk for astronauts reminds me of the speech by Lord Farquaad on Shrek.

"Some of you may die, but that is a sacrifice *I* am willing to make."

[GClark]

If the astronauts in question are willing to take the risk, what does that do to your argument?

[Nindalf]

Your approach to risk for astronauts reminds me of the speech by Lord Farquaad on Shrek.

"Some of you may die, but that is a sacrifice *I* am willing to make."

Ask some astronauts whether they want to accept a moderate risk and fly for sure, or wait years and maybe fly in something that is hopefully (and yet unquantifiably) safer.  No one's going to be strapped in against their will.

People choose to take larger risks for smaller thrills and less glory every day.

Flying on Soyuz and hanging around in the ISS for months isn't exactly a 100% guaranteed survival operation, and riding a Dragon/Falcon isn't exactly a daredevil stunt (six out of six successful Dragon missions that crew would have survived, and thirteen out of thirteen successful Falcon 9 flights, including one that demonstrated that the engine-out capability works, and is not just PR blather making excuses for a high-engine-count design conventionally considered to present a reliability problem).

By the time the Commercial Crew vehicles are hoped to be ready, cargo Dragon should have demonstrated at least a dozen successful flights, while the CC vehicles are only getting one unmanned orbital test flight before they're putting crew onboard.

Features like launch abort aren't necessarily going to make a crew vehicle safer, and splashdowns are easier to survive than land landings if something goes wrong with the parachute (with some good shock absorption in the seat mounts, correct orientation, a warm water landing site, floatation devices, personal beacons, and rapid response search and rescue, a hard splashdown with collapsed or torn parachutes might be survived, which is very unlikely on land).

Commercial airliners are safer than figher jets with ejection seats, not because they have a lot of extreme capabilities for when things go wrong, but because a lot of attention is paid to ensuring that operations will remain routine.  Adding ejection seats to commercial airliners would make them less safe, since the probability of accidental activation or other failure causing fatalities would be higher than the probability that they would be needed and prevent fatalities.  At some point, this reasoning is going to apply to passenger launch and return vehicles.

Regardless of the analysis and ground-level testing planned, and the additional safety features added, I don't think it's reasonable to say that the CC vehicles will be clearly safer on their second flight than the cargo Dragon will be after a dozen flights, or is already after half a dozen.

If you really care that much about astronaut safety, you'll have an extensive unmanned flight test program for a vehicle before putting astronauts in it.  Or, you know, keep sending them in Soyuz.  The CC plan is a weird mix of high safety standards and unwillingness to test enough to show that those standards have been met, reminiscent of the contradictions of the shuttle program.

[Lars-J]

Your approach to risk for astronauts reminds me of the speech by Lord Farquaad on Shrek.

"Some of you may die, but that is a sacrifice *I* am willing to make."

Ask some astronauts whether they want to accept a moderate risk and fly for sure, or wait years and maybe fly in something that is hopefully (and yet unquantifiably) safer.  No one's going to be strapped in against their will.

People choose to take larger risks for smaller thrills and less glory every day.

And no one should have problem with such risk takers if they do it on their own dime. But... this is not the case for NASA. The astronauts may be willing, but they aren't paying for it. And if astronauts start dying with increasing frequency, the program may just get shut down.

So there is a sensible middle ground somewhere between "no risk!" and "if the astronauts want to go, who am I to stop them" kind of approaches.

[raketa]

Sierra Nevada seeks federal injunction to stop work on NASA space taxi

Sierra Nevada Corp.'s Louisville-based Space Systems is asking a federal court in Washington, D.C., to issue an injunction to once again force NASA to stop work on its crewed spacecraft program.
http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_26733987/sierra-nevada-seeks-federal-injunction-stop-work-nasa

I can't see what SNC hopes to gain by this step.

If they ultimately lose, all they have done is piss off potential customers and partners, SpaceX, Boeing, and NASA, for no gain.  This seems like bad business, since they may work with SpaceX for rides, with Boeing on defense contracts, and with NASA on further business.

And even if they win, they gain no money any sooner than they would have gotten anyway.  All this additional step does is annoy their customer, NASA, by directly opposing their wishes in court, forcing them to spend time and money on the case.  Irritating your largest customer for no gain seems like a bad business strategy, especially when, if you do get the contract, you need their close cooperation.

This seems to be product of an out-of-control legal team, or spiteful management.  Neither is a good sign.

I think it could be good for future. Boeing will stop develop their CST-100. Spacex will develop any way. NASA will be forced use it just Dargon 2. Orion will be cancel by congress because cost overrun and Dragon 2 will show ability to deliver more than Orion for fraction of cost. Future becoming clearer and company that deserve to survive and thrive will got money. 

[SWGlassPit]

I think it could be good for future. Boeing will stop develop their CST-100. Spacex will develop any way. NASA will be forced use it just Dargon 2. Orion will be cancel by congress because cost overrun and Dragon 2 will show ability to deliver more than Orion for fraction of cost. Future becoming clearer and company that deserve to survive and thrive will got money. 

It sounds like you are fitting the data to your judgements, rather than the other way around.

[QuantumG]

And no one should have problem with such risk takers if they do it on their own dime. But... this is not the case for NASA. The astronauts may be willing, but they aren't paying for it. And if astronauts start dying with increasing frequency, the program may just get shut down.

So there is a sensible middle ground somewhere between "no risk!" and "if the astronauts want to go, who am I to stop them" kind of approaches.

Yeah, it's called the "cowering in the dark hoping for a bigger candle" strategy.

This is exactly the reason why US astronauts are flying on Soyuz.. the next time crew are lost - and there will be a next time - the politicians know they can blame the Russians.

Imagine a space program that was bold and fearless. It wouldn't be run by politicians.

[Vultur]

Huh? NASA could put astronauts on the next Dragon launch, or landing. Assuming everything went nominal, they'd be fine. That's a capability, it's just not one that NASA is willing to use. There's a difference between something being risky and something being unavailable. Flying crew on Dragon v1 is a risky available option.

With what life support?

The fast track is shorter than some space walks. It's pretty obvious that there's hardware sitting on the shelf at NASA that could do the job.

Is the thermal environment of a cargo Dragon survivable for an astronaut in a spacesuit?

[Coastal Ron]

Huh? NASA could put astronauts on the next Dragon launch, or landing. Assuming everything went nominal, they'd be fine. That's a capability, it's just not one that NASA is willing to use. There's a difference between something being risky and something being unavailable. Flying crew on Dragon v1 is a risky available option.

With what life support?

The fast track is shorter than some space walks. It's pretty obvious that there's hardware sitting on the shelf at NASA that could do the job.

Is the thermal environment of a cargo Dragon survivable for an astronaut in a spacesuit?

They shipped live mice up on the current flight.

[Robotbeat]

It could be done. But it is a bad idea unless there's a very compelling reason that pops up suddenly, like Russia has stranded all the Americans in ISS with no Soyuz.

Does anyone think it's impossible?? Does anyone think we should do it right now? If the answer to both questions is "no," then I don't see why we're still talking about it.

[QuantumG]

Does anyone think we should do it right now?

I do, but I've dragged this thread offtopic enough.

Discuss it here instead: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35871.0

[Vultur]

Does anyone think it's impossible?? Does anyone think we should do it right now? If the answer to both questions is "no," then I don't see why we're still talking about it.

I actually had thought it might not be possible due to the thermal environment, but the mice are a good point.

EDIT:fixed quote

[llanitedave]

If the astronauts in question are willing to take the risk, what does that do to your argument?

Are they?  Or are they willing to take risks while being confident that the best engineering practices have gone into reducing those risks?  Would the Challenger astronauts have been willing to launch in cold temperatures had they known of the recommendations of Thiokol's engineers, or that the engineering analysis had been overridden by management hats?

Astronauts may be willing to take reasonable risks, but they're not crazy, and they're not going willingly to their deaths just for some manager's convenience.

[llanitedave]

Imagine a space program that was bold and fearless. It wouldn't be run by politicians.

And it wouldn't last long.

[enkarha]

In any case, the Astronaut Corps is just as conservative, if not more, as the rest of the program, at least in public. I do wonder what they believe behind closed doors; whether they think NASA made the right decision w.r.t. risk here, whether there's still a contingent which wants to fly back from space in a plane, and yes, whether they would be okay going up in the Dragon. But they work in a bureaucracy that needs them to toe its line, which prevents any answers to these questions on a large scale.

[Vultur]

Imagine a space program that was bold and fearless. It wouldn't be run by politicians.

And it wouldn't last long.

I'm not sure I agree on the specific point of cargo Dragon, but the broader point is valid, I think. But it's more than just NASA or politicians - our society in general is way too risk-averse, IMO (or possibly more accurately, bad at evaluating risks). E.g. nuclear power...

I don't see any inherent reason why "early Antarctic exploration" levels of risk shouldn't be acceptable for going to Mars or the Moon (though likely not for "LEO taxis").