If SNC prevails with their law suit, what would that mean for Space X? (Assuming Boeing is untouchable in all this)
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/09/dream-chaser-fight-snc-protest-cctcap-decision/First version. SNC say more is coming on this shortly.
I would say SpaceX is fine no matter what happens. They have the lowest bid along with an extremely viable DV2 program. (not that the other 2 programs are not viable, they just don't have the lowest bid as well.)
Quote from: rcoppola on 09/26/2014 11:37 pmI would say SpaceX is fine no matter what happens. They have the lowest bid along with an extremely viable DV2 program. (not that the other 2 programs are not viable, they just don't have the lowest bid as well.)"fine" in that they may survive to eventually be one of the providers as they were in the initial pick, but the money is still withheld until the protest is resolved.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 09/26/2014 10:06 pmQuote from: mkent on 09/26/2014 10:01 pmThere goes 2017. We'll be lucky to hit 2018 now.QuoteIt was almost universally expected that NASA would select Dream Chaser alongside SpaceX’s Dragon V2...Universally expected? No. Not even close. It was expected only by casual observers. Aerospace professionals expected Boeing and SpaceX (in that order) with Sierra Nevada a very distant third.I wouldn't call the large amount of people I know as "casual observers" so you're inaccurate to make such a representation.I'm trying to be polite while differentiating between aerospace engineers and the general public. It's at least as accurate as "...almost universally expected..."Talking to other aerospace engineers throughout the industry, one phrase regarding SpaceX and Sierra Nevada kept coming up regarding Commercial Crew, "They don't know what they don't know." SpaceX earned the second spot with cargo Dragon. Sierra Nevada has flown nothing remotely comparable.
Quote from: mkent on 09/26/2014 10:01 pmThere goes 2017. We'll be lucky to hit 2018 now.QuoteIt was almost universally expected that NASA would select Dream Chaser alongside SpaceX’s Dragon V2...Universally expected? No. Not even close. It was expected only by casual observers. Aerospace professionals expected Boeing and SpaceX (in that order) with Sierra Nevada a very distant third.I wouldn't call the large amount of people I know as "casual observers" so you're inaccurate to make such a representation.
There goes 2017. We'll be lucky to hit 2018 now.QuoteIt was almost universally expected that NASA would select Dream Chaser alongside SpaceX’s Dragon V2...Universally expected? No. Not even close. It was expected only by casual observers. Aerospace professionals expected Boeing and SpaceX (in that order) with Sierra Nevada a very distant third.
It was almost universally expected that NASA would select Dream Chaser alongside SpaceX’s Dragon V2...
the official NASA solicitation for the CCtCap contract prioritized price as the primary evaluation criteria for the proposals, setting it equal to the combined value of the other two primary evaluation criteria: mission suitability and past performance. 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.
If all three are believed they could meet the 2017 first crew flight and offer crew service to ISS after that then they all should have been given further funding.
Thanks! I have to say, I was very happy to see this happen. "Dissimilar redundancy".
NASA can't just give the CCtCap entrants some funding and expect them to produce certified vehicles by 2017. They need to fully fund them, not only for development but for some crew flights, because the value of those crew missions are costed in to the price to help pay for development. If they cut Boeing and and SpaceX by 33% each to pay for SNC, that guarantees nothing flies. Even if they came up with an additional 3B for DC, then they have to divide the crew flights 3 ways instead of 2, making those seats cost a whole lot more than Soyuz.
Quote from: Lee Jay on 09/27/2014 12:48 amQuote from: Chris Bergin on 09/26/2014 10:01 pmThanks! I have to say, I was very happy to see this happen. "Dissimilar redundancy".You know, this is so blatantly obvious to me that I'm wondering if I just don't get it because I'm an outsider.If you decide to go and buy two cars, would you get a Toyota Corolla and a Honda Civic? They're more-or-less the same in capabilities, so just pick one or the other, and get something different for the second car. Maybe you need to take your two kids, and their four friends to soccer practice so you get a minivan. Maybe you need to tow a boat or haul lumber so you get a truck. But why get two of essentially the same thing?Because if the Toyota ends up in the shop because of a recall notice, you can still drive the Honda to work. And vice-versa.You buy different vehicles if you have different missions (that's why I have a minivan. I don't pick up drywall in the Prius...) But if the defined mission is "get up to a 4-person carpool to and from work", I might drive a Honda, and Jim might have a Toyota, and we both can execute the mission - and can both cover for each other if needed.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 09/26/2014 10:01 pmThanks! I have to say, I was very happy to see this happen. "Dissimilar redundancy".You know, this is so blatantly obvious to me that I'm wondering if I just don't get it because I'm an outsider.If you decide to go and buy two cars, would you get a Toyota Corolla and a Honda Civic? They're more-or-less the same in capabilities, so just pick one or the other, and get something different for the second car. Maybe you need to take your two kids, and their four friends to soccer practice so you get a minivan. Maybe you need to tow a boat or haul lumber so you get a truck. But why get two of essentially the same thing?