Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Government ISS NASA Space Transportation United States

WSJ Reports Boeing To Beat SpaceX For Manned Taxi To ISS 200

PvtVoid writes The Wall Street Journal reports (paywalled) that NASA is poised to award a key contract for manned transport to the International Space Station to Boeing over rival SpaceX: "Recent signals from the Obama administration, according to the officials, indicate that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's leadership has concluded on a preliminary basis that Boeing's proposed capsule offers the least risky option, as well as the one most likely to be ready to transport U.S. crews to the international space station within three years. The officials cautioned that a last-minute shift by NASA chief Charles Bolden, who must vet the decision, could change the result of the closely watched competition." Here is a non-paywalled link to an article at CNET.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WSJ Reports Boeing To Beat SpaceX For Manned Taxi To ISS

Comments Filter:
  • well (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16, 2014 @08:37AM (#47916873)

    I guess Boeing is to big to fail...

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Or just the better alternative. It is hard to seriously argue that Boeing is so much behind Elon Musk, that anything space related should be given to the latter.
      • Re:well (Score:5, Informative)

        by jedidiah ( 1196 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2014 @09:34AM (#47917295) Homepage

        Why "give" anything? The first one that delivers should win. Competitors should not be prematurely removed from the race just because of rampant cronyism.

        It's pretty easy to argue that a bloated corporate behemoth could be lagging behind an upstart startup.

        That's not uncommon in tech.

        • Re:well (Score:4, Insightful)

          by N1AK ( 864906 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2014 @09:54AM (#47917459) Homepage

          The first one that delivers should win

          Which is fine as long as you're willing to pay the premium that all the companies put on their proposals to cover the risk of not winning. Sometimes leaving selecting a winner to the last minute can lead to higher costs than picking the most viable candidate at an earlier stage.

        • How about the one that delivers "best" wins - date of delivery is just one aspect to evaluate.

      • Or just the better alternative. It is hard to seriously argue that Boeing is so much behind Elon Musk, that anything space related should be given to the latter.

        Given that Boeing will already be 3 years late to the party, when SpaceX has manned capability up and running this coming January? We're supposed to wait another couple of years for manned launch capability, when the Russians have already said they wouldn't be hailing our asses into orbit any more? I don't think "Time To Market" is a difficult argument.

        • Given that Boeing will already be 3 years late to the party, when SpaceX has manned capability up and running this coming January?

          The mixed tense of the latter half of the sentence aside... The January test is that of a flight abort, not a qualification or validation flight. (And thus does not represent "manned capability".) The first full-up unmanned flight test isn't manifested until 2016 and no manned flight is currently manifested.

          We're supposed to wait another couple of years for manned lau

      • Because Boeing has launched how many capsules to LEO? As far as i know, Boeing hasn't launched squat.
  • by i kan reed ( 749298 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2014 @08:37AM (#47916875) Homepage Journal

    Why don't they just have the space station sound stage on earth, like the moon one, why do they need to fake being in space in orbit?

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Nothing was faked about the moon landing, they really did land on the actual moon.
      It was the take off that was staged on a moon-based sound stage; they never really got that rocket all the way from the earth to the moon. It was launched from the dark side and only flew halfway around the moon before dropping the moon capsule.

    • The Apollo missions actually landed on the other moon. There is a big international conspiracy to hide the fact that Earth has two moons.
  • Translation... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tekrat ( 242117 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2014 @08:41AM (#47916911) Homepage Journal

    Boeing paid off the right people.

    SpaceX aside, Sierra Nevada's Dreamchaser was a better design all around. Essentially the X-20 DynaSoar, it's cheaper, re-usable, and fits the mission. The only advantages for the Capsule design of Boeing and SpaceX is that the mission can be expanded with the same hardware for Moon/Mars missions, and that said, I think SpaceX had the better design -- this contract going to Boeing is a mistake all-around.

    • Re:Translation... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by i kan reed ( 749298 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2014 @08:46AM (#47916969) Homepage Journal

      Please, while out-and-out corruption is a theoretically plausible explanation, the GAO does audit the finances of major (unelected) decision makers sometimes. If there's a legal alternative, it's more plausible, on the simple grounds that it's easier to fly under the radar.

      Think more along the lines of "specifically targeting various regulatory requirements NASA has for contractors" or "having lots of ex-Boeing employees working in low engineering review roles" if you're going the route of believing there's manipulation. It's cheaper for them and its legal.

      • It's also worth realizing that Space-X will get a lot of money out of this deal as well, even though they won't get the primary contract. It seems like a case of "choose the company with a long history, but don't remove the competition."
        • by Teancum ( 67324 )

          Slow down there..... you don't know who has received what, if there is even a "prime contractor", or what is going to happen. Assuming that Mr. Pasztor is 100% accurate (his previous record of accuracy in reporting about the space industry suggests strongly otherwise), it would still be pretty good for SpaceX. Although I would say it is just at the beginning of the fireworks as whatever deal actually comes from this announcement today (4 PM EDT according to NASA) is going to be reviewed by congressional c

      • Corruption? Probably not. Hide-bound thinking bordering on Good-Ole-Boy-ism by NASA? Absolutely.
    • Re:Translation... (Score:5, Informative)

      by LWATCDR ( 28044 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2014 @08:57AM (#47917027) Homepage Journal

      The new powered landing Dragon is a "high risk" design. The Dreamchaser is also a "high risk" design plus you have all the "Shuttle was flawed" group that wants nothing to do with wings in space.
      Boeing vs SpaceX? without doing all the number crunching it is hard to make an educated judgment.
      As to the Politics SpaceX is in Ca, Tx, and FL. Boeing in in Ca, Tx, Fl, Washington, and Ks but the killer is that there headquarters is in... Chicago.

      • Just wait a while - Uber will offer a cheaper space taxi. Of course, the boosters might be held together by duct tape, there's no regulations whatsoever, but if it blows up the passengers won't be posting negative reviews, so it's all good, right?
      • Boeing vs SpaceX? without doing all the number crunching it is hard to make an educated judgment.

        This is Slashdot. This isn't about educated judgements, number crunching, or reasoned discussion. This is all about geek fanboyism and that all contracts are awarded solely on the amount slipped under the table being an article of faith.

        Other than that, you're absolutely correct - Dragon and (especially) Dreamchaser represent fairly risky designs. Boeing presents a largely conventional alternative. This matt

        • by LWATCDR ( 28044 )

          Not Bribes but jobs. The simple truth is that a government program like this is often driven by requirements and job creation. If you have two systems and one is going to make more jobs in the area that you happen to represent than the other a senator will support the one from his area. That is just common sense.
          I do believe that the Boeing proposal had two advantages over the SpaceX and DreamChaser.
          Lower risk and more political clout. Not bribes but congress people that will support it for job creation in

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by kalidasa ( 577403 )
      It is far more likely that this is the aerospace analog to "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM."
      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16, 2014 @09:37AM (#47917317)

        Nope, none of those make sense. What is most likely is that Boeing read the RFP in detail (they have a team that is very good at that) and created a proposal that is tailored exactly to meet the RFP word for word, detail for detail, nothing else, at all. That's very different than Sierra Nevada's approach, which is to continue their dreamrider,or Musk's PR-centric approach to everything. Therefore, when NASA followed federal law, the Boeing proposal won because it was the only one that most closely complied with the RFP. If the NASA administrator than dismisses the conclusion of the review team (which is legal), Boeing will have a legal basis to contest and drag this out until the funding expires.

        But the RFP was rigged for Boeing, you'll say ... and you'll be wrong. The RFP process is very hard to covertly rig for big projects. Had the RFP said "powered landing" or "lifting body" then it would have been blatantly rigged. However, this is a requirements driven RFP --- tons to orbit, man-rated, etc. That allowed the conservative capsule design to compete with the advanced designs. Boeing also has the business practices in place (as does SNC, but not SpaceX) to comply with the government's exquisitely complex acquisition law. That gives them an advantage in the program management part of the competition ... we demand that they use our flawed program management process.

        As for the argument that Boeing's project will be over-budget ... absolutely. The contract will be a small modification of the Boeing proposal, which flows directly from the RFP. Then, the good people at NASA will realize that they fucked up this and that in the RFP, because Boeing is delivering what the contract states, instead of what NASA wants. So, they'll go to amend the contract, and in those negotiations, the price will go up. Boeing's rate will already be set in the base contract, it's just that the additional scope, plus the cost of rolling back work to re-accomplish it will be significant, since all design changes drive a significant review. Then we'll blame Boeing for the overrun even though they're doing exactly what we asked them to do.

        Lose-lose. Fix (not patch) the acquisition law, or we'll keep losing the same way.

    • SpaceX has the better design because Boeing doesn't even *have* a design. The last time I checked, they didn't even have a first stage engine! How come these people are supposed to be "beating" anyone?
      • Fascism - aren't you paying attention? Since when is SpaceX selling weaponry - their brand of non-violent commercialism is harmful to the health of the State.

        If I were Musk, I'd put up my own space station, if this goes to Boeing. I bet one with rotatational gravity and a zero-G hub is now feasible and commercially desireable. The hub can be arbitrarily long as long as the habitat area is decent for humans, lots of work can get done at the best cost and the zero-G area can be expanded modularly.

        • If I were Musk, I'd put up my own space station...

          I believe SpaceX has partnered with Bigelow Aerospace, which already has two space stations in orbit.

    • Re:Translation... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Teancum ( 67324 ) <robert_horning@@@netzero...net> on Tuesday September 16, 2014 @10:25AM (#47917733) Homepage Journal

      Boeing paid off Andy Pasztor to write this hit piece. Basically it is being done, I would guess, to push up stock prices so somebody else can make a bunch of money shorting the stock afterward or something silly like that. This "reporter" has rarely been right and deserves to be embarrassed if everything he says fails to happen.

      BTW, I agree with you in regards to Dreamchaser. It is a good enough vehicle that the ESA is even looking at using it, and Sierra Nevada is already on record saying they will continue the development of this vehicle even without additional development money from NASA. Indeed the only company that has said they will stop any further development if their vehicle isn't selected is Boeing.

      • BTW, I agree with you in regards to Dreamchaser. It is a good enough vehicle that the ESA is even looking at using it, and Sierra Nevada is already on record saying they will continue the development of this vehicle even without additional development money from NASA.

        The ESA "looks at" all kinds of things (they even "looked at" the one time darling of the space fanbois - Kliper), and such is about as meaningful as a celebrity endorsement. And going on record as intending to do something you don't have the

    • The Government Bidding process for services is corrupt by design.
      You can make bid for service.
      Then you have stipulations which weigh it in a companies favor, not because they are required for the job, but to write the contract for the company.

      I have seen State Bids for services for a Web Site. Which has odd requirements, such as 20+ years in COBOL, 10+ Years in RPG, 3 Years of HTML, 2 Years of ASP.NET
      When you see these contracts you know they are for a particular person they want to keep on board.

    • by tibit ( 1762298 )

      Just look inside of Dragon 2 and tell me, with straight face, that we'll be seeing anything remotely contemporary from Boeing within the next decade or two (by which time they'd be 2 decades behind times). I don't see that happening. I'm fairly happy to see that at least one aerospace company out there recognizes the value of industrial design, and of using modern UIs in the aerospace context. Their interior design is at least something to look forward to spending the trip in. Maybe to everyone here it's ju

  • Imagine That... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by superdan2k ( 135614 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2014 @08:42AM (#47916923) Homepage Journal
    Long-time government contractor with a history of blowing budgets and under-delivering gets new, lucrative NASA contract. Newsflash: SpaceX was never going to get that contract.
    • Re:Imagine That... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by LWATCDR ( 28044 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2014 @08:58AM (#47917043) Homepage Journal

      "Long-time government contractor with a history of blowing budgets and under-delivering gets new"
      ???
      Long-time government contractor with a history of delivering working system.
      B-B2, E-3, KC,RC,C-135, P-8, and on and on.

    • Re:Imagine That... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Savage-Rabbit ( 308260 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2014 @09:02AM (#47917071)

      Long-time government contractor with a history of blowing budgets and under-delivering gets new, lucrative NASA contract. Newsflash: SpaceX was never going to get that contract.

      You mean like Boeing bid for the KC-X deal, lost to EADS/Northrop-Grumman, then successfully lobbied for a restart of the bidding process and submitted a bid that secured them the contract leading to EADS deciding not to pursue the deal any further because they thought Boeing's winning bid was so low that Boeing would probably lose money on it? But fret not, I'm sure Uncle Sam will see to it that any losses suffered by Boeing will be made good through some form of kickback and I'm sure that John and Jane Q, Taxpayer will be only too happy to foot the bill. What is interesting about this story is that even US companies are now suffering the same fate as EADS did and falling victim to the Boeing lobby. I sincerely hope that Space X humiliates Boeing and their Washington cronies by somehow outdoing them in cost effectiveness with their private ventures. If there is any single player in the US Aerospace industry that seriously needs to be taught a lesson it's Boeing.

    • by reanjr ( 588767 )

      Except they did, and this entire story is full of shit (or based on some early rumors)

      http://money.cnn.com/2014/09/1... [cnn.com]

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16, 2014 @08:49AM (#47916987)

    This WSJ article is full of speculation and opinion. Let's talk when there is something substantive. Also, there are rumors at KSC that some posters have arrived showing SpaceX/SNC as the winners. That information is about as reliable as the article, so basically we won't know anything until the 4:00 PM press conference.

    • by qeveren ( 318805 )

      "Also, there are rumors at KSC..."

      Whoa whoa, I'm not sure you guys want the Kerbals to be building rockets for you...

  • Boeing has more union employees. Democrats are always in the pocket of BigLabor. Boeing is going to get favorable treatment from a administration led by a Democrat.
    • by Albanach ( 527650 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2014 @10:40AM (#47917893) Homepage

      Boeing makes things for fighting wars. Republicans are always starting conflicts. Boeing is going to get favorable treatment from a administration led by a Republican.

      • Interesting...

        Note that the President that got us into WW1 was a Democrat (Wilson).

        As was the one that got us into WW2 (Roosevelt).

        Then there's the Korean War (Truman).

        And the Vietnam War (Kennedy/Johnson).

        Carter was the only Democrat President of the 20th Century who didn't get us involved in a war.

        And, as of last week, there are no Democrat Presidents this century that haven't gotten us involved in a war (or does anyone really think that this ISIS affair is really going to be a quick bombing campaig

    • Boeing has more union employees. Democrats are always in the pocket of BigLabor. Boeing is going to get favorable treatment from a administration led by a Democrat.

      Seems like you could have put in more effort, but I'll give an extra point for the nice use of capital casing on "BigLabor".

      6/10

  • by wes33 ( 698200 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2014 @08:51AM (#47917001)

    this is smart, at least with respect to space-X. Musk will man rate
    his rocket with or without NASA money, so it's a win-win for
    NASA

    • I think that's spot on.
    • Furthermore, the way the contracts are designed, Space-X will get money from the government, but a smaller contract.
    • Knowing that Musk is going ahead anyway, you'd have to imagine there's a pullout/cancel clause in the Boeing contract.

      When Boeing completely goes overbudget and out of time frame NASA will jump ship to SpaceX.

      OR...

      NASA will chose SpaceX since they've already got a good partnership going with them. SpaceX people are already down in FL modifying the ground systems for Falcon rockets, etc.
  • by Squidlips ( 1206004 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2014 @08:52AM (#47917003)
    Boeing has a larger, bribe infrastructure that can better able deliver the cash in a timely manner.
  • Not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jade_Wayfarer ( 1741180 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2014 @08:55AM (#47917017)
    Well, on one hand they have some small company praised by unorganized groups of geeks, and on the other hand - really big player with thousands of employees and way more people directly or indirectly depending on them - Military-Industrial Complex is not a child's toy. So if you are making a political decision (even not considering "campaign contributions"), it's a no-brainer - supporting Boeing gives you much more political bonus points than supporting some small hipster company. Questions of efficiency, final costs, terms and other "technicalities" are absolutely not important in this case. So, of course, it is sad, but highly logical.
    • by jeti ( 105266 )
      SpaceX is no longer a small company. In October 2013, they had 3800 employees. AFAIK they now employ over 5000 people.
  • by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2014 @09:06AM (#47917097) Homepage

    So, does Boeing's offering exist now? Has Boeing been working on a launch vehicle.

    I've seen lots of stuff about what SpaceX is doing, but not a lot about Boeing on the space front these days.

    So, is this something which actually exists and is being tested? Or is this vapor ware?

    I half expect to hear that SpaceX has people up waving out the windows before Boeing gets something there.

    • Re:Hmmm .... (Score:5, Informative)

      by CrimsonAvenger ( 580665 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2014 @09:29AM (#47917255)

      So, is this something which actually exists and is being tested? Or is this vapor ware?

      A little of both.

      Boeing doesn't do development work without a contract. So, when they got a contract to start development of their capsule, they started.

      And then they stopped working on it as soon as the contract ran out. They're waiting on a new contract to resume work.

      The only way their thing is going to be flying within a year is if you define flying as "unmanned test launch" (note that Dragon has been doing "unmanned test launches to the ISS for a while now in the form of its CRS flights. Another of which is due this week, as I recall.).

      It's quite possible they'll have a usable capsule in three years. It's not the way to bet, but it's possible....

      • Boeing doesn't do development work without a contract. So, when they got a contract to start development of their capsule, they started.

        And then they stopped working on it as soon as the contract ran out. They're waiting on a new contract to resume work.

        And this is a part of why aerospace/defense contractors are so expensive for the government to employ, and I say that having worked at some of them. Stringing together multiple contract awards to try to get to a larger goal, and continually going through th

    • I've seen lots of stuff about what SpaceX is doing, but not a lot about Boeing on the space front these days.

      If that's true, then you badly need to re-think where you get your space news. (Slashdot and other popular sites tends to disproportionately worship SpaceX.) I only casually follow and *I* knew about Boeing.

      So, is this something which actually exists and is being tested? Or is this vapor ware?

      It's something that actually exists and is actually being worked on.

  • Commercial launch capabilities are still in motion from these competitors. It's only a matter of time and desire for some group to get together and build their own fort up in orbit and beyond thanks to them. It takes a government entity years to do anything but a private one gets it done faster and often under budget.

  • by Hussman32 ( 751772 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2014 @09:16AM (#47917145)
    When you get a government contract, you get government accountability requirements, especially with the high visibility contracts. I'm not kidding when I say the accountability requirements are often more than the technical requirements, and I wonder if SpaceX would be able to shift their business model to handling them. The second source contract may be perfect so they can use it as bridge money before they start doing private space flights.
  • by Squidlips ( 1206004 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2014 @09:36AM (#47917309)
    If you have any illusions about any honesty left in the aerospace industry...
  • by Crash McBang ( 551190 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2014 @09:44AM (#47917381)
    Any bets on SpaceX building their own space station so that they will have something to fly their spacecraft to?
    • by NoImNotNineVolt ( 832851 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2014 @10:14AM (#47917603) Homepage
      Actually, SpaceX already has a Bigelow Aerospace [bigelowaerospace.com] launch on their manifest [spacex.com] scheduled for 2015.

      Bigelow Aerospace makes inflatable space habitats. They have two small-scale prototypes in orbit already, and this next launch is likely to carry their first full-size station.

      Bigelow has already partnered with SpaceX (as well as Boeing) for launch services related to crew rotation and supply missions for this endeavor.
      • by Megane ( 129182 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2014 @10:53AM (#47918037) Homepage

        The next launch of a Bigelow module will be BEAM [wikipedia.org] on CRS-8 in late 2015, but it's only 4 meters across and will mostly be unused with its hatch shut, other than to check every now and then that it's still okay, then eventually jettisoned.

        The "real" one doesn't go up until 2016.

        • CRS-8 is 3 missions prior to a "Bigelow Aerospace" mission, according to the current SpaceX launch manifest [spacex.com]. This mission is scheduled for 2015, not 2016. Do you have any sources to cite for your conflicting information? I can't find any statements from Bigelow one way or the other.
  • It will be interesting to see how all things line up after we know the details and backroom discussions. Earlier aerospace vehicles looked vastly superior but never went anywhere. While lots of conspiracy theories, it was later documented Howard Hughes with innovative and creative designs (and also a celebrity engineer) did not have industrial capacity to build aircraft in quantity. I'm certain B36 was chosen over the B49 flying wing because USAF needed range and payload the Flying Wing could not deliver. T
    • by Megane ( 129182 )

      does SpaceX have capacity to make spaceships in quantity?

      I'm pretty sure they've been ramping up production capacity this year. However, that's rocket production capacity (still important) with the current new F9 design, of which one of the goals was production capacity because of all the satellites they need to launch.

      So how much production capacity would manned launches to ISS need? They do four missions a year, four launches a year, hence four capsules a year. As NASA requires a brand new capsule for every mission, they have to actually build four of them a y

    • The B49 was ultimately not selected because it was an inferior bomber, all around, to the B36. It carried about 45% of the bomb load of the B36 (32,000 vs 72,000). When they got bumped from pistol engines to jets the range on it got cut in half which moved it from competing against the B36 to competing against the B47. The B49 couldn't compete against the B47 in either performance or height ceiling and it had a barely larger bomb payload compared to the B47 (32,000 vs 28,000).

      The B49 was certainly a marvel

  • So much work was done on both sides. They both have a talent pool. I've heard that "losers" often end up getting subcontracts from the "winners" for various subsystems, consulting, etc. Not sure if this will work with Boeing and SpaceX, but that's how it can work with the big MIC companies that were competing on a contract.

    • by Megane ( 129182 )
      SpaceX is still going to be lifting people to Bigelow's inflatable stations. They're basically already committed to manned spaceflight, NASA or not. But flying NASA to ISS would certainly help with their cash flow.
  • First of all, the rumor has been that there will be multiple awards, and the 3 big players are Boeing, SpaceX, and Sierra Nevada. So there are some inaccuracies here.

    If Boeing DOES end up being the sole award recipient, though, it will destroy what little faith I still have in NASA's ability as a technical organization - it will be the final sign that they are just another hose funneling cash dollars to big aerospace. Here's why:

    SpaceX is offering a more capable system, that is more developed, has mor
  • by werepants ( 1912634 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2014 @10:54AM (#47918055)
    The official news (not WSJ speculation) will be revealed on a live feed today at 4PM EDT. Lots of info in the link below.

    Link: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.c... [nasaspaceflight.com]
  • Demand for privately-built spacecraft drops by what, 33%? Ouch.

  • Why these all or nothing contracts? Give some of the contracts to one and some to the other. Do it on a launch by launch basis. Just pay for what they actually do...

  • Boeing announced that it will do this under a new company named "Uber Lyft".

  • The sooner SpaceX gets away from reliance on government-as-customer the better. They are within a hairs-breadth of a dramatic drop in launch cost and if the effect of this is what I expect it to be, there will be an explosion of business in space as new regimes of space activity open up with SpaceX the primary transport.

  • So I guess they've forgotten how well the Lockheed Martin F-35 JSF project is going. That's not to say SpaceX might not disappoint in the same way, but to assume the bigger corporate entity will just naturally be better prepared to meet expectations is a bit naive.

    This smacks of cronyism... again.

    Boeing == Big corporate entity with plenty of lobbyists and political influence. So can you say "Program cost increases and delays." I'll bet you can.

    So much for opportunity in America.

  • Bezos's Blue Origin Part of Boeing Team Bidding for Taxi to ISS

    http://slashdot.org/submission... [slashdot.org]

    Submitted by Baldrson on Tuesday September 16, 2014 @10:58AM
    Baldrson (78598) writes
    "The WSJ reports that: "The long-secretive space ambitions of Jeff Bezos, founder and chief executive of Amazon.com Inc., suddenly are about to get a lot more public. Blue Origin LLC, the space-exploration startup Mr. Bezos has been quietly toiling over for years, is part of a team led by Boeing Co. that is expected to soon garner

  • by tekrat ( 242117 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2014 @03:35PM (#47921269) Homepage Journal

    *BOTH* Boeing and SpaceX have won contracts. Only SNC is out of the race... Apparently NASA doesn't like the Dreamchaser, but they are ready to rock and roll with both capsule designs.

Prototype designs always work. -- Don Vonada

Working...