NASA Asks Boeing, SpaceX To Stop Work On Next-Gen Space Taxi

BarbaraHudson writes Due to a challenge by Sierra Nevada, NASA has asked the winners for the next earth-to-orbit launch vehicles to halt work, at least temporarily. "After rewarding Boeing and SpaceX with the contracts to build the spacecrafts NASA is now asking the companies to stop their work on the project. The move comes after aerospace company Sierra Nevada filed a protest of the decision after losing out on the bid. Sierra Nevada was competing against Boeing and SpaceX for a share of the $6.8 billion CCP contracts. The contracts will cover all phases of development as well as testing and operational flights. Each contract will cover a minimum of two flights and a maximum of four, with each agency required to have one test flight with a NASA representative on board.... According to NASA's Public Affairs Office, this legal protest stops all work currently being done under these contracts. However, officials have not commented on whether-or-not the companies can continue working if they are using private funds."

Comments

Maybe affects Boeing, not SpaceX

[ustolemyname]

I really doubt SpaceX is going to stop work on a vehicle they were developing before they were awarded the contract.

Boeing, on the other hand...

Re:Maybe affects Boeing, not SpaceX

[BarbaraHudson]

It's too bad that they aren't allowed to say "Look, we'll continue the work. If we lose, we eat the money we've spent. If we don't, then pay us under the terms of the original contract." That would allow work to continue without adding costly delays, and save the money having to pay for those delays if SpaceX prevails.

Re: Maybe affects Boeing, not SpaceX

[kellymcdonald78]

SpaceX has been profitable since 2010, not sure where you're getting your information from.

Re: Maybe affects Boeing, not SpaceX

[bill_mcgonigle]

well that really gets at the heart of the matter doesn't it? SpaceX is going to Mars, with or without NASA. Boeing is doing whatever somebody pays it to do.

Re: Maybe affects Boeing, not SpaceX

[tibit]

The ULA trolls are easy to spot: they constantly repeat the tired and old "without the safety stuff" mantra. The only safety that's gonna be lost is your employment.

Business as usual

[tomhath]

Filing a protest after someone else gets the contract is pretty much automatic.

Re:Business as usual

[kevmeister]

It's not automatic, but it's not rare. I worked on several telecom contracts worth many millions of USD for a federal agancy. Of the four times this basic contract was bid, for OC-3, OC12, and 10GE and most recently, 100GE including IRUs on the fiber, the award was only challenged once. A different bidder won on each re-bid.

The challenge no doubt cost the taxpayers a great deal of money and delayed deployment for almost a year. I am extremely thankful that it never happened again!

Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but nobody wants your miniature space shuttle, Sierra Nevada. Probably should have thought a little harder before copying one of the most expensive and unreliable space systems used in recent times. Heat-shield > Everything. Now SpaceX/Boeing have to bite the bullet and stop work? Something very wrong with this way of doing things.

Re:Ridiculous

[BarbaraHudson]

My thoughts exactly, which is why I had added "Sierra Nevada's orbiter resembles a mini space shuttle. That alone (remember the problems with the tiles) should have been enough to disqualify them." It got dropped in the final version, but that's okay.

The necessary design compromises can't be overcome at this time, and you end up with a "space plane" that flies like a brick. If you really want wings, buy a box of Kotex.

Re:Ridiculous

[khallow]

Probably should have thought a little harder before copying one of the most expensive and unreliable space systems used in recent times.

They aren't copying the Shuttle. Just because you only know of one other reusable space vehicle, doesn't mean all other reusable vehicles share the same characteristics. If you see a dog spray painted pink, do you automatically assume all dogs are spray painted pink?

Now SpaceX/Boeing have to bite the bullet and stop work?

It's government. Figure it out.

And I think Sierra Nevada has a case here. Boeing is the weak, over-priced link here. They only got in because they have political connections. And SpaceX only got in because it would have given the game away, if the best contender had been dropped this round. This is an attempt to remove competition to the Space Launch System (SLS) and perhaps Soyuz as well (I bet the Russians know how to bribe congresscritters).

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

A space plane isn't inherently unreliable. Placing said space plane below the level of cryogenic fuel tank insulation, with ice subject to crashing into it at hundreds of miles an hour is, in retrospect, pretty silly. Dream Chaser (DC) sits at the top of the rocket stack - it's smaller than the space shuttle, so this is feasible.

Building a craft with waaay more requirements than you are actually going to use, because the Air Force says so, is bad plan. Building to spec can be far more effective.

Each of the three finalists had a craft with at least one unique attribute.

Boeing's CST-100 is the only one with the built-in ability to re-boost the ISS. It has airbags to supplement the parachutes, and a lever-arm on the parachute rig to angle the capsule on the descent (not sure why, I guess for a better landing).

The Dream Chaser is the only one with an airlock - important for any potential in-flight repair missions (self or other objects). The lifting body design means it can land anywhere with a long enough runway, and in theory can land with lower force than the other two. Also potentially launcher agnostic.

Spacex's Dragon v2 doesn't rely on the RD-180 engine, is the furthest along with hardware development, and while NASA isn't using it for this contract, potentially reusable like the DC. It will land under parachutes with a propulsive tap at the end to soften the landing in addition to landing legs, with the potential for propulsive landings in the future - with accuracy similar to a helicopter. It's also by far the cheapest contract bid.

Also, for the record, Sierra Nevada has pretty reasonable grounds for a complaint. They don't contest contracts often, and this one seemed to change at the last minute (remember the announcement that we'd have a winner just before or after Labor Day weekend?). The full scoring should be able to justify the final decision. If it doesn't there's a problem. This probably won't take very long to resolve.

For the record, as a huge fan of Spacex, I don't think the DC needs to be trashed on - it was a good (not great) proposal stuck between the big PR darling and the politically best-connected contractor in the business.

Re:Ridiculous

[Firethorn]

They aren't copying the Shuttle. Just because you only know of one other reusable space vehicle, doesn't mean all other reusable vehicles share the same characteristics. If you see a dog spray painted pink, do you automatically assume all dogs are spray painted pink?

Just to be clear, their Dream Chaser looks a lot like the space shuttle. Though the internals can and probably are completely different.

Heck, even using space shuttle technology we would have had a far cheaper and more reliable craft if it wasn't for a number of compromises.

1. Ability to bring a largish satellite back(never used), resulted in the space shuttle being too big, necessitating the complex booster arrangement.
2. Larger size led to concerns about the availability of titanium, which far more of the shuttle would have been made of if it had been smaller. Due to it's higher melting/softening points, it would have saved at least one shuttle(probably).

Re:Ridiculous

[DerekLyons]

A space plane isn't inherently unreliable. Placing said space plane below the level of cryogenic fuel tank insulation, with ice subject to crashing into it at hundreds of miles an hour is, in retrospect, pretty silly. Dream Chaser (DC) sits at the top of the rocket stack - it's smaller than the space shuttle, so this is feasible.

Putting the space plane on top of the stack isn't without it's own problems though... mainly in the form of huge aerodynamic issues because the wings are now where they can exert the greatest leverage. (Read among other things: in the exact right spot to cause the most control problems and to tear the stack to shreds if there's only a small problem with the angle of attack.) That's why the Dyansoar's Titan booster had suchhuge fins, simply gimbaling the engines did not provide sufficient control authority to offset the resistance of the wings.

For the record, as a huge fan of Spacex, I don't think the DC needs to be trashed on - it was a good (not great) proposal stuck between the big PR darling and the politically best-connected contractor in the business.

You forgot: "and was the most technically difficult proposal and submitted by the contractor with the least experience of any kind". Sierra Nevada has no substantial grounds for complaint, their solution may have been competitive on price, but contrary to popular belief these types of contracts are NOT awarded solely on the basis of costs. Technical factors also play a huge role. Which also explains the award to Boeing, it wasn't political connections, it was because SpaceX has a damm poor track record when it comes to delivering on time.

Re:Ridiculous

[FireFury03]

My thoughts exactly, which is why I had added "Sierra Nevada's orbiter resembles a mini space shuttle. That alone (remember the problems with the tiles) should have been enough to disqualify them."

Sorry, but what's wrong with how it looks? Yes, it's a space plane, but its mode of operation is pretty different to the shuttle - for one thing it sits on top of the launch vehicle, which makes it a hell of a lot safer!

Re:Ridiculous

[Richard_at_work]

The Shuttles bring back capability was actually used on more than one occasion.

Re:Ridiculous

[butalearner]

You forgot: "and was the most technically difficult proposal and submitted by the contractor with the least experience of any kind". Sierra Nevada has no substantial grounds for complaint, their solution may have been competitive on price, but contrary to popular belief these types of contracts are NOT awarded solely on the basis of costs. Technical factors also play a huge role.

I agree that it's not as obviously gamed as everyone says. Sierra Nevada might not have much experience as a prime on big contracts like this, but their Dream Chaser proposal had Lockheed Martin and Aerojet and other heavy hitters as subs, and I guarantee you they put their own political connections to as much use as Boeing did. I'm as cynical as the next guy when it comes to politics, but there is certainly more to it here.

Re:Ridiculous

[werepants]

Boeing's system is the least developed, and has possibly show-stopping problems in the wind tunnel tests with their capsule so far. In no way are they technically superior to Sierra Nevada, who has already done flight tests of a real, live test article and has a launch in the near future.

Re:Ridiculous

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

I interpreted Firethorn's first point to be that the shuttle was designed to retrieve and bring back to Earth a large object, but none of the objects it actually did return to Earth were that large. In that case, if the shuttle's payload bay had been smaller in the original design the orbiter itself would have been smaller and lighter and so would not have required quite so complicated a booster system (or a booster system at all.)

I'm not sure why that capability was included in the original design; if it was included in case a bad but still reasonably possible scenario happened then retroactively removing it from the design seems like a bit of 20/20 hindsight. On the other hand, if it was included just in case the worst-case scenario happened, which was very unlikely, then _maybe_ it could have been smaller.

Re:Ridiculous

[ncc74656]

Most who remember the TV show 6 million dollar man, that was footage of a DynaSoar's unsuccessful landing

Nope...that footage was of two experimental lifting-body aircraft from Northrop, the HL-10 and M2-F2. The crash footage was of the M2-F2. Earlier in the credits, the HL-10 is shown being dropped from a B-52.

Re:Ridiculous

[TangoMargarine]

Hmm...apparently Gus Grissom was the guy on Liberty Bell 7. After the capsule started sinking and he bailed out, his suit then started filling with water as well.

He was also one of the 3 astronauts who died in the Apollo 1 ground fire. Guy sounds cursed.

Lose a Challenge, Pay Up

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm so tired of the near automatic protests of gov't contracts. If the challenge is rejected, the loser should pay for the delays/cost overruns instead of taxpayers.

Eeven if this causes a small delay

[rmdingler]

It pales to the damage caused by the paring of NASA's budget over the years...

I'm nearly certain

[argStyopa]

...that in 100 years, historians will postulate that the US space program really vanished into the bureaucratic morass, and that politics and special interests combined to torpedo any hope that the private sector would ever make it into space.

Attention ploy by Sierra Nevada

[tlambert]

Attention ploy by Sierra Nevada.

They've never flown a spacecraft, so they will not be awarded any contract monies under any circumstances, given that one of the contract criteria was that they meet the prequalification deadlines, which they have not.

I expect they're hoping getting their names out there would get them additional investors.

Welcome my friends

[Ol Olsoc]

To the always ethical, always honest, always better in all ways private and free market.

While those half communist Government suckling pigs were frittering away your precious tax dollars, we are on our way to the promised land with private industries superior and more efficient offerings.

So now, we'll bring entire programs to their knees with good old fashioned American core values.

The invisible hand of the free market is jacking us off.

With 40 grit sandpaper.

Bzzzzt! Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

The USAF X-20 DynaSoar was a one-man winged space glider with metallic TPS; it had WINGS (like the shuttle)

The DreamChaser is an HL-20 derivative lifting body (no wings) which was loosely-derived from the unmanned Soviet BOR lifting body which the Soviets had loosely-derived from thier study of three families of earlier American lifting bodies: the HL-10, the M2 series, the X-24(A and B) and the USAF "PRIME"

There are so many differences between the Shuttle and the DreamChaser that anybody attacking the DC based on their ignorant pet theories about the shuttle program is simply an idiot; just a tiny subset of differences:

1. Shuttle was winged space plane, DC is lifing body

2. Shuttle rode on side of stack and was part of launch vehicle, DC rides on top of stack and is launch vehicle agnostic.

3. Shuttle had complex hydraulic controls, thus requiring hydrazine-fueled APUs during launch and entry phases, DC has none of this

4. Shuttle was the size of a small airliner, with huge cargo bay for heavy payloads, making it too heavy to have an abort system, DC has an abort system

5. Shuttle was so big and landed so fast that in required very large runways to safely land, DC can land at most airports

6. Shuttle was very fragile having been built at the cutting edge of 1970s tech, DC is rugged carbon composite and suffered little damage when it rolled on landing when the test vehicle's landing gear (old and borrowed from a fighter jet for that test flight) failed - a crew and cargo would have survived.

7. Shuttle ran on hydrogen-oxygen fuel cells (Apollo derived tech) thus limiting its on-orbit time to a few days, DC could stay on-orbit (unmanned or at ISS) for half a year

8. Shuttle was not suffiently automated to fly unmanned, DC is full-automated and can be operated manned, or unmanned depending on mission

9. Shuttle used highly-toxic fuels like hydrazine, DC does not.

10. Shuttle used very fragile 1970's era thermal tiles, DC (like Dragon) uses much newer and better materials (not the SAME materials as Dragon, but newer just as Dragon uses newer)

I could add more and the guys from Sierra could probably add another hundred differences, but I believe I have shown enough to illustrate how ignorant it is to say shuttle was bad and therefore DreamChaser is bad

Re:oh common

[bledri]

Sierra Nevada's design was a riff on the Space Shuttle, which is just a terrible way to get to space and back. Yes, you have a reusable orbiter, but you add a crapload of launch weight. That means you can carry less. The goal of these current projects is to act as a space-taxi for passengers, not multi-week flights like the Shuttle. No one wants your design, people.

Calling it a riff on the Space Shuttle is a gross oversimplification. The Dream Chaser is a much smaller and simpler design than the Space Shuttle. The Space Shuttle was a delta wing whereas the Dream Chaser is a lifting body. A lifting body is a much simpler design and and more "robust" than the more semi-traditional aircraft design of the Space Shuttle.

Wings are extra mass. But so are parachutes and fuel to land. There is no free lunch with reusability. I'm more a fan of SpaceX's Dragon V2 more due to SpaceX's aspirations (and propulsive landing is cool.) But Dream Catcher is a viable design and I'd like to see competing approaches tried in the real world. That's how we learn. I do think that the "stop work" is bullshit.