SpaceX and Boeing Battle For US Manned Spaceflight Contracts 123
An anonymous reader writes: $3 billion in funding is on the line as private space companies duke it out for contracts to end U.S. reliance on Russian rockets for manned spaceflight. The two biggest contenders are SpaceX and Boeing, described as "the exciting choice" and "the safe choice," respectively. "NASA is charting a new direction 45 years after sending humans to the Moon, looking to private industry for missions near Earth, such as commuting to and from the space station. Commercial operators would develop space tourism while the space agency focuses on distant trips to Mars or asteroids." It's possible the contracts would be split, giving some tasks to each company. It's also possible that the much smaller Sierra Nevada Corp. could grab a bit of government funding as well for launches using its unique winged-shuttle design.
Prime and sub contractor (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"What type of laundry detergent is best used as a replacement for jet fuel in a 1972 Colecovision gaming console?" [reddit.com]
Is contributor Loren Thompson trustworthy? (Score:2)
From the article:
“Boeing is the safe choice, SpaceX is the exciting choice and Sierra Nevada the interesting choice,” Loren Thompson, an analyst with Lexington Institute, an Arlington, Virginia-based research group, said in a phone interview.
Loren Thompson, as the COO of the Lexington group has a notorious history of "advocacy" for big air force contractors according to this article [blogspot.ca] from Harpers Magazine. The title of the article is "Mad Men: Introducing the defense industry's pay-to-play ad agency". Here is a quote from the article:
Lexington claims to "shape the public debate" on a wide array of policies (including "the unnecessary intrusion of the federal government into the commerce and culture of the nation"), but its priority is clearly defense. "By promoting America's ability to project power around the globe", reads its mission statement, "we not only defend the homeland of democracy, but also sustain the international stability in which other free-market democracies can thrive", Lexington does not publicly disclose its donors, but much of its funding - about $2.5 million in 2008 - comes from defense giants, including at least three whose prospects are evaluated in this brief. Lexington's free-market pabulum, then, is underwritten by an industry that is beholden to government planning, direction, and money, and that operates entirely outside the constraints of supply and demand.
Loren Thompson, Lexington's chief operating officer and the author of this report, played a supporting role in a 2003 scandal involving Boeing's attempt to secure a lease-to-buy agreement with the Air Force for one hundred aerial-refueling tankers. The contract - which at $24 billion would have cost the Air Force significantly more than simply buying a new fleet outright - was canceled when Senator John McCain discovered that an Air Force procurement official had fixed the deal for Boeing while negotiating a job for herself with the company. McCain also unearthed emails showing that the Air Force had used Thompson to help sell the deal to the press. As a senior aide to Air Force Secretary James Roche put it in one of the messages: "We've got Loren doing the Lord's work again. '3rd Party' support at its best."
Re: (Score:2)
If they both get a slice of the pie, does that mean they'll have to cut the astronauts in half before the dual launches?
Re:Prime and sub contractor (Score:4, Funny)
Astronauts, while edible, are not pies.
Re: (Score:1)
No, they work together on a joint submission, because [they will say] the project is too big and complicated unless we work together, but what they really mean is "we get more money if we don't compete with each other".
Decisions, Decisions... (Score:2, Interesting)
As an astronaut, I wonder which would appeal to me more? The "Exciting Choice" or the "Safe Choice?" On one hand, I'll be strapped to it as it launches it (and me) into space. On the other hand...I'm an astronaut! My choice of car is probably NOT a fucking Volvo.
Re:Decisions, Decisions... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
If I'm already scheduled, that doesn't impact me unless it puts me on the schedule more often. If it only means OTHER astronauts get to go up too, well, screw them! :-)
Re: (Score:3)
All the $ savings in the world won't help you when every news organization in the country is frantically sticking a mic in your face asking you what you should have done differently to prevent the death of several astronauts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends what you do in it. It doesn't have to be a fucking Volvo.
Re:Decisions, Decisions... (Score:4, Funny)
Since when does Volvo cars starts fucking?
Swedish. You know. Like the Norskies, but looser in the morals department.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To say that all Volvo's are sedate would be untrue... [volvocars.com]
Actually, as someone who just bought an Audi, I disagree. The Volvo was by far the most sedate brand in its class. BMW/MB/Audi all had it beat. Even the Hyundai blew it into the river for fun factor. (The new Genesis by Hyundai...especially with the BIG motor...is a beast.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know that Volvos have largely been displaced by the Prius in the, "Oh, God, I'm stuck behind X," department - but I'll never be able to shake the years of conditioning from getting stuck behind some boxy 7xx series floating along at or under the speed limit.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know any astronauts, more's the pity. But since SpaceX costs something like a quarter of Boeing, I wouldn't be surprised if they'd support the cheaper option in the hopes that it would mean four times as many launches and hence four times the chances to actually make it into space. These guys tend to be repurposed test pilots, after all.
Re:Decisions, Decisions... (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, SpaceX is trying to commercialise their systems. Boeing has no interest in anything except the NASA contract. That means that, if Bigelow achieves their goal, SpaceX will not only be flying to ISS, but also to private Bigelow stations. That's a secondary career for astronauts, and an alternative career path for NASA's astronaut-candidates who didn't make the cut.
And for that reason, there's nothing "safe" about choosing Boeing's capsule. That's just spin from Boeing's own PR pukes lobbying for funding. Boeing is the furthest behind of the three main participants. It is the most expensive. It will have the least flight time. It will have no upgrade path, and every development will need to be funded entirely by NASA, at increasing costs as it mutates back into a cost-plus program. Boeing has put it none of its own funding into the project, unlike every other participant, and has been lobbying behind the scenes to remove the current Commercial Crew NASA team and replace them with a traditional NASA cost-plus management structure.
Boeing is poison for Commercial Crew, a cuckoo in the nest. The sooner they are excluded from the program, the better.
Re:Decisions, Decisions... (Score:5, Funny)
As an astronaut, I wonder which would appeal to me more? The "Exciting Choice" or the "Safe Choice?"
Depends... is your surname "Kerman" ?
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:3)
In the case of the "Exciting Choice", Astronauts will be riding in the same basic design as what Commercial Passengers will use, which means more flights and (theoretically) higher reliability due to a continuously refined manufacturing process, plus the loss of commercial passenger dollars. Going with the "Safe Choice" means you're riding in one of perhaps only four or five of a series that will ever be produced. The loss of commercial dollars is a big deal to SpaceX as it represents a much larger market t
Re: (Score:2)
Well, this may help:
The "exciting choice" will be available as early as 2016.
The "safe choice" is unlikely to be available this side of 2020, given Boeing's previous performance.
Note, of course, that availability of Boeing's product is entirely predicated on the Feds continuing to shower money on them - they don't do "speculative". On the other hand, SpaceX will man-rate Dragon whether whichever choice is made....
Re: (Score:2)
How would SpaceX man-rate Dragon if they aren't selected by NASA given that man-rating space vehicles has always been done by NASA?
Re:Decisions, Decisions... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
SpaceX is already in the process of man-rating Dragon. NASA is, apparently, perfectly willing to let SpaceX run through the man-rating checklists as long as NASA doesn't have to pay for it.
This is true, you can lose funding but continue to participate in meeting various milestones. I believe that Blue Origin already falls into this category.
But NASAs "manned rating" only applies to flying NASA missions. NASA has no control over non-NASA missions - think Bigelow private funded space stations, MarsOne, etc...
Re: (Score:2)
How would SpaceX man-rate Dragon if they aren't selected by NASA given that man-rating space vehicles has always been done by NASA?
It's been done by NASA because NASA was the only body in the US flying humans into space.
Private spaceflight will be regulated by the FAA.
[Looking at FAA's rules for sub-orbital flights, it looks like they are going hands-off initially. Once there are enough commercial HSF accidents to find patterns, they'll start to add rules to eliminate some of the worst cowboy practices. (Same as happened for commercial air travel.)]
Re: (Score:2)
Private space flights will ultimately need the approval of the government and all the various security agencies who constantly monitor and manage orbital traffic. The FAA might be involved somewhere in the approval process but they will hardly be the deciding agency. The government has paid out billions of dollars developing space related technologies for the last 60 years and today the private companies can benefit and take advantage of that accumulated knowledge base to move forward. The break out point i
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying "It should be", or "I expect", I'm saying it's already been decided: unless the law gets changed, the FAA will be the regulator of private manned spaceflight.
Re: (Score:2)
"Safe" and "Exciting" have a different meaning in this context. Realize that Falcon 9 has already flown several times, and though plagued with the delays that plague pretty much all launches, has a good track record which will presumably continue through its use in a manned launch. The "Exciting" choice sounds about as "Safe" as it gets in rocketry, to me.
The Boeing design is new, though presumably using tried and true components from a tried and true design. There will no doubt be unmanned test launches
Re: (Score:2)
the first men on top will still be sitting on a rocket with far less launch history than the Falcon 9
I think you've got the history of the Atlas V wrong if you think it has less track record than the Falcon 9.
The CST-100 is sized to use the Atlas V, Delta IV or Falcon 9 as its launcher.
Re: (Score:2)
I must have skimmed TFA too fast. So this appears to be for the capsule, not the launcher? I thought there was a launcher competition going too, and that was going to be bigger than Atlas 5 or Delta IV.
Re:Decisions, Decisions... (Score:4, Interesting)
Nope. NASA are building The Precious, sorry, SLS, and no-one else will ever have the money to use it. Heck, NASA probably won't ever have the money to use it, since there are no funded missions that need it.
As I understand it, the Dragon will continue to fly on Falcon 9, and Boeing's Powerpoint Spaceship can theoretically fly on Atlas, Delta or Falcon... if it's ever built.
Re: (Score:2)
Since you sound familiar with this stuff, I'm wondering about Falcon Heavy. I've seen that it's moving to methane/oxygen propellents. My understanding has been that kerosene/oxygen were generally best for a first stage, and hydrogen/oxygen is best for an upper stage where specific impulse is more important than tank size.
With methan/oxygen it seems obvious that they'd like to run the engine on mars-native fuel. But I also get the impression that kerosene/oxygen might not be the best thing for reusability
Re:Decisions, Decisions... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's what SpaceX are currently calling the BFR will switch to Methane instead of Kerosene. The Falcon Heavy is effectively three Falcon 9 stages in parallel, similar to the existing Delta IV Heavy but with added fuel cross-feed. With cross-feed the core stage will still be fully fueled when the boosters detach.
Methane has the advantage it doesn't need the tank to be pressurised with Helium, a bit of excess heat can be diverted back into the tank to boil off enough to keep the pressure up. The current Helium pressurisation has been giving problems and accounted for a few launch delays because of leaks. The tank needs to be bigger, but overall complexity drops.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought I also read something about kerosene leaving some sort of residue in the plumbing, turbopumps, etc. For a disposable it just doesn't matter, but for a reusable it means extra maintenance. The other thing was Zubrin suggesting that methane/oxygen was relatively easy to generate on Mars, for a return flight. Since Musk probably isn't planning on returning, that would be for a Mars space program.
Re: (Score:2)
As an astronaut, I wonder which would appeal to me more? The "Exciting Choice" or the "Safe Choice?"
More importantly, which one is which? Why would Boeing's design be inherently safer than SpaceX? Or by "safe" are they saying that boeing has almost 100 years experience funneling government money into executive bonuses so they are a safe bet to win the contract?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if resent history would not be so harsh, I had suggested a Saab anyway!
Re:Decisions, Decisions... (Score:5, Interesting)
As an astronaut, I wonder which would appeal to me more? The "Exciting Choice" or the "Safe Choice?" On one hand, I'll be strapped to it as it launches it (and me) into space. On the other hand...I'm an astronaut! My choice of car is probably NOT a fucking Volvo.
How about the tested choice. Space X has a built capsule [wikipedia.org], whose first version [wikipedia.org] has returned from the space station several times. They are quite close to flying...they just need to test the launch abort system and the capsule will be almost ready to fly. From what I understand, Boeing hasn't built a capsule [wikipedia.org] yet. They only have a paper/electronic design and a few "mock ups". Given the capsules are supposed to fly in 2016, I think the capsule that has actually been tested is the "safe choice". The article seems to me to be Boeing propaganda.
Re: (Score:3)
Wouldn't the safe choice be... Soyuz?
Lobbying? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Almost but not quite.
What SpaceX has is a superior business that can provide what NASA needs at a lower cost, but not without sacrificing safety or reliability. So while you may have corporate shills in Congress crying afoul that their precious ULA is unfairly being dethroned and Boeing has plenty of grease to spread around, it still comes down to the fact that with a smaller budget, NASA is going to pick the inexpensive but just as good if not better option.
That's what happened with the shuttle program to
Re: (Score:2)
Gov't contract award..... bah (Score:2)
While commercial corporations interested in launching their product into space may go with the best price/performance ratio, the chances of a USG contract even being written in a vendor-agnostic manner are slim. It's all about whose district or state the potential money will go.
Re:Gov't contract award..... bah (Score:4, Informative)
While commercial corporations interested in launching their product into space may go with the best price/performance ratio, the chances of a USG contract even being written in a vendor-agnostic manner are slim. It's all about whose district or state the potential money will go.
Actually the commercial cargo and commercial crew contracts were written specifically to avoid those sorts of shenanigans. Congress has no say in who wins. Of course Senators and Congressmen are still trying to play games for their constituents (like the latest accusations that SpaceX has had unreasonable flight anomalies from senators in competitors states.) They are also trying to starve the entire program of money specifically because it is a threat to ULA. But all in all, the commercial contract approach is a huge improvement and it looks likely that SpaceX or SNC will win the bid (possibly both, if Congress will fund that. It makes sense to have two launch providers so an "incident" doesn't completely halt flights - like the shuttle disasters did.) Funny that the article doesn't even mention SNA (Dream Chaser.)
One of the reasons that SpaceX and/or SNC will likely win is that they both are dedicated to developing their spacecraft regardless of the outcome of the bidding process. Losing the contract would slow development, but not stop it. Where as Boeing, with all their money and resources, has publicly stated that they will mothball development if they don't win. (This is a strange attitude given the fact Boeing and Bigelow are partners in the commercial crew competition.) One of the criteria for winning is the commercial viability of the spacecraft. NASA does not want to be in the position of being financially black mailed with threats like "we need more money or we can't survive". The fact that SpaceX and SNC are pursuing non-NASA missions is seen as a major advantage according to insiders.
Depends on Company Funding (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At some point, we'll need to get off this rock or expire as a species. Getting people in space helps us understand how to do that better.
Re: (Score:2)
That's actually a silly argument. We don't have to get off this rock. We could learn how to play nice with this very comfortable spaceship that just popped up out of nowhere. Even if we want to get off this rock, we don't have to do it just now. We could use the money for more important things or just spend less.
No, the real reason to go into space (and the ocean, don't forget the ocean) is because it's cool. The rest is just filler for a grant proposal.
Re: (Score:3)
We could learn how to play nice with this very comfortable spaceship that just popped up out of nowhere.
Says some hippy who has no clue about the real world.
Yeah, maybe we could all go and live in little hippy communes after 99% of the population magically vanish, but, in the real world, we have to get off this rock before some wacko starts spreading the new geneticlaly-engineered super-plague they knocked together in their garage. We'll be lucky if we have decades, let alone centuries.
Re: (Score:1)
Wow, and you think you have a clue? With your juvenile sci-fi drama????
Re: (Score:2)
We need to get off this rock. Smarter people than I (Hawking, Musk) have been saying this for years.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I'll state my position on the species, since you asked, albeit not very politely.
Currently, we know of exactly one place that houses sentient life. That's the dirtball we're all on right now. While the odds are there's another dirtball similar to this one that has some sort of sentient life, we haven't found it yet (weather we want to or not is a question that is outside this context). It's not like we haven't been trying either.
With this in mind, I would consider it a travesty if we got wiped ou
Re:Can someone explain to me (Score:5, Insightful)
"There is no purpose to manned spaceflight. The scientific return comes from unmanned spaceflight."
You are currently modded +4 Insightful for having claimed, essentially, that the HST repair and upgrade missions could have all been done by unmanned systems. I have points, I could have modded you as you deserve. I could just ask for a citation - you're making an extraordinary claim there and you really do deserve to have to back it up or retract it. Instead, I'm taking a couple of months vacation from Slashdot - there's too many like you around - the signal to noise ratio keeps dropping towards an absolute zero, and I join all the 3 digit old farts in saying "This site just ain't what it used to be!" .
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Can someone explain to me (Score:4, Informative)
You are currently modded +4 Insightful for having claimed, essentially, that the HST repair and upgrade missions could have all been done by unmanned systems. I could have modded you as you deserve. I could just ask for a citation - you're making an extraordinary claim there and you really do deserve to have to back it up or retract it. Instead, I'm taking a couple of months vacation from Slashdot
Good, because you're putting words in his mouth. I could do math with pen and paper, without computers and calculators and my answers would at least theoretically be just as correct but it wouldn't be cost-efficient at all. It's an apples and oranges comparison but Hubble cost:
From its original total cost estimate of about US$400 million, the telescope had by now cost over $2.5 billion to construct. Hubble's cumulative costs up to this day are estimated to be several times higher still, roughly US$10 billion as of 2010.
Space Shuttle program cost:
The total cost of the actual 30-year service life of the shuttle program through 2011, adjusted for inflation, was $196 billion. The exact breakdown into non-recurring and recurring costs is not available, but, according to NASA, the average cost to launch a Space Shuttle as of 2011 was about $450 million per mission.
The numbers we'd really like to know though is that out of those $2.5 billion to design and construct, how much would it cost to just make a new Hubble and launch it. Just the five servicing missions (confusingly named 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4) alone at $450 million each - that's aggregate, not marginal cost though - would be $2.25 billion. It is certainly possible to argue that science would have progressed further without the Shuttle program, all things considered.
Re:Can someone explain to me (Score:4, Insightful)
OTOH, the cost of JWST has blown out even further than Hubble (approx $9b, from an initial budget below $2b) precisely because there's no human servicing, which means everything in the overly-complex design must deploy perfectly or the entire mission is a bust. Eliminating the added cost of making the spacecraft serviceable is more than made up for by making the need to ensure the spacecraft can't fail.
So "the science guys" aren't a guarantee of savings, once a robotic mission becomes the flagship program and everyone tries to latch on to the teat to fund their idiotic ideas.
The problem with HSF at NASA is the legacy of Apollo, the hundred thousand employees and contractors, the scattered NASA centres and even more scattered contractor networks, which all make HSF unaffordable. (For example, the annual cost of the Shuttle program was the same regardless of how many missions they flew that year, 6, 4, 2 or none. The annual budget for operating the completed ISS is, by amazing coincidence, exactly the same as the annual budget during the construction, which was by yet another amazing coincidence, exactly the same as the annual budget during the last four years of development.)
By developing private human space-flight, we can reduce the cost of doing on-orbit repairs until it's cheaper to send humans to fix something than to write off the spacecraft and send up a new one.
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, the cost of JWST has blown out even further than Hubble (approx $9b, from an initial budget below $2b) precisely because there's no human servicing
No, it's because it's a one-off mission with no incentive to cut costs beyond what money is available to consume. Even without human spaceflight, you could make this spacecraft cheaper per unit and more reliable, just by making more than one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
NASA hasn't incrementally developed spacecraft for decades. Their obsession with one-off throw-away designs is a major annoyance of mine.
So the topic was human vs robotic. And it's clear that removing the human element has done nothing to reduce the cost of programs like JWST. On the contrary, it's blown the cost out by over 300%.
Step-wise, incremental development would lower costs no matter what program you are talking about, manned or unmanned.
Re: (Score:2)
And it's clear that removing the human element has done nothing to reduce the cost of programs like JWST. On the contrary, it's blown the cost out by over 300%.
300% of what? You're making the unwarranted assumption that the telescope would have cost less. I don't see that happening. I think it would have cost about the same amount either way. That's because that's how much money was available to be snagged.
Re: (Score:3)
The "upgrade" to Hubble could have been accomplished more cheaply by launching another Hubble.
Re: Can someone explain to me (Score:3)
I think for the cost of the shuttle program, you could treat the HST as disposable, and just keep building and launching them until you get it right.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no purpose to manned spaceflight.
There's always purpose to investigating the unknown. If we didn't, we'd still be living in trees.
You need both. The Science figures out what is interesting enough to investigate in detail. Manned missions then do that detailed investigation. The Moon landings weren't for science - they were a political statement. The science was just a bonus of that statement. But learning how to mine asteroids? Efficiently get between the surface and LEO and points farther? Will infinitely improve the human cond
Re: (Score:3)
While I'll concede some truth to what you say about NASA, with SpaceX (and competitors) we will soon have bootstrapped the manned spaceflight industry enough such that no one will care anymore whether people like you make blanket statements about the value of manned spaceflight.
The only people's opinions that will matter will be the paying customers. Presumably, those willing (and waiting) to pay for a manned launch think there is a purpose and value to it.
If even a short trip off this tiny rock of a planet
Re: (Score:2)
There is no purpose to manned spaceflight.
If we want to settle Mars and generally expand into space, you need manned spaceflight. I know not everyone thinks that is important. But some people, myself included, do believe that is a worthwhile endeavor.
The scientific return comes from unmanned spaceflight. Manned spaceflights are stunts to keep the pork flowing to Congressionally powerful districts. There is nothing done by manned spaceflight that could not be done unmanned for one tenth or one hundredth the cost as an unmanned mission.
This is true, if the only reason for spaceflight is pure science. I am a huge fan of pure science, but I don't think that is the only purpose of spaceflight.
The problem is that NASA is run by ex-flyboys and astronauts. There is an internal battle between the manned spaceflight directorate and the science directorate (NASA/JPL). The former do maned pork and are always trying to steal funds away from the science guys. The manned fighter-jocks tried to kill planetary science many times, the last time was earlier this year. At one point they allocated more for a Space Toilet (30 mil) than they did for a Europa mission (15 mi). NASA needs a shakeup and the science guys need equal control at the top.
I think the bigger problem is that NASA funding (and therefore mission selection) is completely hostage to election cycles of Congressmen, Senat
Re: (Score:2)
First, I doubt that you've never heard of some peoples' desire to colonize space. So your "no purpose" is merely a purpose that you choose not to back. It remains that manned spaceflight is a necessary precursor to colonization. You can't do colonization for a tenth or hundredth of the price using unmanned missions. And if you want to do such colonization sooner rather than later, then manned spaceflight needs to be sooner
Battle? (Score:1)
Can Americans use terms unrelated to war and violence?
But oh, watch out! A nipple!
Re: (Score:2)
created by Satan
I thought it was the Communists who were trying to steal our precious bodily fluids [youtube.com]/
Thanks, (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
SpaceX is doing something right (Score:4, Informative)
SpaceX closed 9 deals, w/possible 2-3 heavies. Four more in the next few weeks, incl one non-GEO, then maybe 4 more before end of the year.
Source: https://twitter.com/AvWeekPari... [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Continuous competition = best (Score:2)
I'd like to see both awarded a minimum number of flights (say 1/4 or 1/3 of total planned) at a fixed maximum price, and the price of all additional flights negotiated down from that maximum price, relatively close to the date when the hardware has to be built - say a year before flight. This would also leave an opening for other competitors to come in later. It would probably be beneficial to allocate in lots of, say, three or four up to 10 at a time. I would also require all vendors / vehicles to use t
Subcontractors (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So what's good for the prime contractor (Boeing or SpaceX) is bad for the customer (NASA). That doesn't make sense.
Unless of course all the 'creativity' and 'innovation' really came from the subcontractors in the first place. And the primes (Boeing, I'm thinking of you) serve only to 'take a piece of da action' out of the funding stream.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to see both awarded a minimum number of flights (say 1/4 or 1/3 of total planned) at a fixed maximum price
In an ideal world, sure. But in the real world neither the government nor either company could afford that. NASA has to pick one and fund it.
Re: (Score:3)
neither the government nor either company could afford that. NASA has to pick one and fund it.
Can you explain the logic behind that?
If the launches are fixed price, it costs NASA a fixed price per-launch whether they have one vendor or ten. If one vendor (say, Boeing) can't compete, they'll drop out and their launches will go to other vendors who can.
Dropping back to a single vendor on a cost-plus contract is the most expensive option.
The future of space travel could be decided here. (Score:1)
If Boeing gets a full contract we'll probably get to watch US manned spaceflight end in my generation. Boeing won't do anything worthwhile, they'll burn taxpayer money at an unsustainable rate to launch a handful of astronauts a year, claim every few years they need more and eventually the program will fold under its own weight the same way SLS will once they launch a few of them and claim victory. If SpaceX gets it we may have a few incidents (launch aborts, failure to reach orbit, maybe some fatalities)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey Bozo: Check out this Boeing Bad Boy [wikipedia.org].
It's everything the Shuttle should have been (second time's a charm). They know how to build things.
So does SpaceX. Unfortunately, the winner will likely be the one with the most political clout (YoYoDyne), but engineering wise, they both are good designs and both companies can execute.
The best we can hope for is that SpaceX gets enough tossed at them to keep going.
Re: (Score:2)
It's everything the Shuttle should have been (second time's a charm).
Completely unable to perform a launch escape, you mean? The shuttle did that, already.
Re: (Score:3)
Uh, yeah.
So, now:
1. You need to redesign it to not need a fairing to protect it during launch.
2. Provide an abort motor which can launch it at several gs away from the exploding booster.
3. Build wings strong enough that they won't be torn off when you're boosting away from an exploding booster at Max Q, said booster probably no longer pointing 'into the wind'.
4. Design your launch trajectory so you can now turn around and return to a runway somewhere.
Which will be simple, right?
Hint: you might want to look
Safe choice? (Score:3)
Yeah, people's lives are on the line here. You've got to go with the company who's got a proven track record in safely launching a modern human-capable spacecraft.
http://www.spacex.com/dragon [spacex.com]
Wait, which is the exciting choice then?
Re: (Score:1)
"Space x has an abysmal safety record."
How so? The Falcon 9 program hasn't had a single complete failure. Other government sponsored programs spending ten times the money SpaceX is have multiple failures and are still considered quite successful. The only failures they have had was the Falcon 1 program (arguably an early prototype phase) and a single F9R due to a faulty sensor on a highly experimental craft. They need more successful flights on their books to be sure, but the Falcon 9 rocket family is s
Re:Safe choice? (Score:4, Informative)
Dragon is human capable. SpaceX could have thrown a human into any of its Dragon capsules and he or she would have been fine (if a bit bruised from lack of comfy chairs).
It's just not human *rated* yet. Which is an important distinction, but it's paperwork, not engineering.
As for safety record, their failures have all been for early prototypes testing risky new ideas. You're *supposed* to have accidents at that stage. Every rocket designer worth his salt has blown up a rocket or two in the early days: what matters is that you don't make mistakes when paying customers are on board.
Re:Safe choice? (Score:4, Informative)
Dragon actually is man-rated and has actually had people inside it, while in orbit and attached to the ISS, without killing anyone. It's just not a man-rated *launcher*, which would require a launch escape system, various additions to support people, etc. The requirements for man-rating Dragon 2 and the Falcon 9 are more extensive but not overwhelmingly different. They've already had people bouncing around inside the Dragon while in orbit, there's no reason to think they won't get this done.
And 12 launches without a single loss of vehicle or failed primary mission, and one partial failure of a secondary mission due to ISS safety rules is hardly "an abysmal safety record". It's arguably a better start than either the Atlas V or Delta IV had...the first 12 launches of both of which included a partial failure that left the *primary* payload in the wrong orbit.
Re: (Score:2)
You're just arguing with some obnoxious troll. I think by now we can all tell the troll, and we all know what the truth is...
Safe choice? The CST-100 has never flown (Score:5, Interesting)
It's peculiar that TFA labels the Boeing design the 'safe choice' when it hasn't flown yet, despite $0.5B of investment from NASA [wikipedia.org]. And the Atlas V launch vehicle may have flown a lot of missions, but it isn't man-rated yet.
The SpaceX Dragon has flown several times, and has spent months in orbit docked to the ISS. Now I realize the manned Dragon has many new systems, but it seems to me SpaceX is a lot closer to a man-rated capsule than Boeing.
Re: (Score:2)
It's peculiar that TFA labels the Boeing design the 'safe choice'
As long as it doesn't involve batteries.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't saying Boeing's design is the safe choice. It says Boeing the company is the safe choice. Publicly, that means they have been around a long time, are reliable, and we can have confidence that they'll succeed (@see Lockheed Martin with the F-35). Privately, that means they can be relied on to give campaign contributions, kickbacks, and/or highly paid consulting jobs after retirement the right people.
Re:Safe choice? The CST-100 has never flown (Score:5, Insightful)
Boeing's safe because you know where your money is going and you'll probably see it again come next campaign donation season.
SpaceX is exciting because you only think you know where it's going, when it fact it might actually go back to spaceflight R&D.
Why must it be one or the other? (Score:2)
I realize there are a finite number of contracts that NASA can award, but why not have multiple companies with man-rated rocket capabilities? Perhaps that would lead to opening up the manned spaceflight market outside of the public sector, much like how several companies make commercial aircraft.
Maybe Congress will wise up and support the endeavor instead of trying to thwart it. We can dream I guess.
Boeing PR machine at work (Score:1)
Given that each vendor negotiated its own unique benchmarks with NASA, and Boeing's benchmarks were so simple they required no actual hardware to be built, it's a no-brainer that they finished their becnhmarks before the other vendors who acyually had to build and fly stuff... It's funny when multiple "news" sites put out essentially the same stuff on the same day promoting a company who has cleared all their hurdles at just the moment in time when this highly manipulated talking point is briefly valid. (th
Sierra Nevada, Orbital Science, Blue Orgin (Score:1)