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

[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.

Business as usual

[tomhath]

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

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

[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

[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.

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.

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