Sierra Nevada suing NASA over taxi

[dragon]

(Reuters) - Sierra Nevada Corp (SNC) said it had filed a legal challenge to NASA's award of contracts totaling $6.8 billion to Boeing and SpaceX to build commercially owned and operated "space taxis" to fly astronauts to the International Space Station.

NASA had considered a bid by privately owned Sierra Nevada, but U.S. officials said on Tuesday the U.S. space agency had opted to award long-time aerospace contractor Boeing and SpaceX with contracts to develop, certify and fly their seven-person capsules.

SNC said its bid could have saved up to $900 million and that NASA's statements "indicate that there are serious questions and inconsistencies in the source selection process."

"SNC, therefore, feels that there is no alternative but to institute a legal challenge," it added in a statement on Friday.

Boeing was awarded $4.2 billion and SpaceX $2.6 billion. SpaceX is run by technology entrepreneur Elon Musk, also chief executive of electric car manufacturer Tesla Motors Inc.

"With the current awards, the U.S. government would spend up to $900 million more at the publicly announced contracted level for a space program equivalent to the program that SNC proposed," Sierra Nevada said.

It said a "thorough review must be conducted of the award decision."

The space taxis would end U.S. dependence on Russia for rides to the space station. The contract has taken on new urgency given rising tensions over Russia's annexation of the Crimea region of Ukraine and support for rebels in eastern Ukraine.

link

[Borgholio]

Their bid might have been cheaper but it might also have been a piece of shit design. NASA would be wise to award a more expensive contract if the end product is far superior and more useful. Sounds like SNC are being sore losers to me.

[Broomstick]

Yes, space travel is not an area where going for the rock bottom lowest bidder is the best strategy.

[Zaune]

Yes, space travel is not an area where going for the rock bottom lowest bidder is the best strategy.

I'm hard-pressed to think of any area in which that's the best strategy.

[Alyeska]

SNC's design is not a piece of shit. Its actually one of the most studied lifting bodies in space flight. Its based on both Soviet and NASA research.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Chaser

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/09/ ... -in-space/

The ESA is looking as the Dream Chaser right now.

[Borgholio]

I'm curious to hear then why the Space-X and Boeing designs were selected.

[HMS Sophia]

I'm curious to hear then why the Space-X and Boeing designs were selected.

While talking completely out of my ass, I'd ponder if it's because the Space-X and Boeing are pushing high capacity traditional re-entry vehicles, while SNC are looking at a mini-shuttle based off the X-20 dyno-soar. NASA got bit hard in the ass by the space shuttle in terms of having design efforts pushed in various directions by external agencies (USAF for instance). Perhaps they're wary of another shuttle like design.

Plus, while it might be a very nice design, it might simply not suit what NASA wants. Even if they are cheaper.

EDIT: Do they generally release decision reasons for competitions like this?

[Alyeska]

Dream Chaser would make a perfectly fine space taxi and low earth orbit platform. And thats it. Weight spent making something shuttle like is weight that is lost. Traditional modules like the Dragon or the old Apollos command module are completely basic. And yet this makes them usable for other missions. With so little wasted space they can be used well beyond low earth orbit.

The Dream Chaser is a perfectly capable design. And I think it should be used as part of the space program and used with the ISS. But the Boeing and Space X designs are ideal launch pads for Lunar exploration, and beyond.

[Sea Skimmer]

Problems with the company's engine have been the number one delay in Spaceship Two. NASA didn't like them because they had the most complex entry from the least proven company. Estimates of long term cost savings form such a company are not trustworthy.

Protests like this take place all the damn time in the DoD and NASA thanks to the retarded way all US government contracts are now absurdly bureaucratized. All it will do is cost a huge amount of time and non trivial money, almost certainly enough to negate any possible cost saving Dream Chaser might ever have generated. Maybe one in four times are such protests successful, and even when they are they simply lead to new competitions with the complainant then looses again more often then not, because the original decision was usually overturned on some technicality rather then anything really profound.

At the end of the day making decisions in a timely manner is worth something, often worth more then taking the most optimal decision over a much longer period of time for paper savings. The DoD has long been crippled by this, NASA has long been hamstrung, expect a year and a half of expensive bullshit and another nail in the coffin of NASA as a relevant institution.