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.
well (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess Boeing is to big to fail...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:well (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
How about the one that delivers "best" wins - date of delivery is just one aspect to evaluate.
Re:well (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought the Dragon vessel was well on its way to being man-rated, or, certified. I haven't heard/seen anything from Boeing at all.
Perhaps Politics plays a bigger role than innovation and even costs?
Re: (Score:3)
MS delivered the tablet first. Should they have won?
Of course not, because there was no "contract" for a single provider of all tablets. There should not be a "contract" for delivery of space cargo either. NASA is doing it wrong! Instead of "picking a winner" they should be building a competitive market. Each delivery should go to the low bidder for that delivery on that date.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get it. (Score:4, Funny)
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)
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.
They really landed on the other moon (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean Cruithne?
(As seen on QI [youtube.com])
Translation... (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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? (Score:2)
Re:Translation... (Score:4, Interesting)
Fine, allege whatever you want. But if you want people to believe you, you're going to have to submit some kind of evidence of your claims.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, while the first link impugns the character of Boeing, for quite reasonable reasons, it doesn't actually endorse the specific claim the AC(I assume to be you) made.
Re:Translation... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Simple solution to the Space Taxi business ... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Government Acquisition Experience (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The RFP has to state what the contract award will be based on. It can't say "We require this, but if you toss in other stuff we didn't think of we'll give you extra points".
They can reject a bid when they think the bidder didn't understand what they were proposing ("A rocket to the Moon? Sure we can have that to you next week").
They'll also assume the incumbent is lower risk, especially if the other bidder is a newcomer with no track record ("Better with the Devil you know than the Devil you don't know").
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Translation... (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re:Imagine That... (Score:5, Interesting)
"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: (Score:2)
Yes, working systems (eventually) get delivered. Show me one that came in close to budget.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
See, that's why he said "let's not even talk about the F-22."
Re: (Score:2)
The KC-135 from the 1950s and still in service?
The F-22 is from Lockheed Martin btw not Boeing and while it did go over budget it did not under deliever as far as anyone can tell.
Re:Imagine That... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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]
Successful troll is successful (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"Also, there are rumors at KSC..."
Whoa whoa, I'm not sure you guys want the Kerbals to be building rockets for you...
Re: (Score:2)
Still, it would be awesome if both SpaceX and SNC got fully funded.
Watching the press conference now. Looks like they are in fact awarding the contract to both Boeing and SpaceX.
Obama administration (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Obama administration (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
clever move by NASA (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Larger bribery infrastructure (Score:3)
Not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Hmmm .... (Score:3)
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)
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....
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
It's something that actually exists and is actually being worked on.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot and other popular sites tends to disproportionately worship SpaceX.
And you're puzzled by that? It runs Linux! ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
That made me actually laugh out loud. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most Apollo flights were to low earth orbit
Narrowly, IF you count the unpiloted test flights. Otherwise it's 6 LEO flights vs. 9 BEO flights, unless I'm missed some. And NASA used Apollo for LEO flights because the last Moon flights got canceled and they had to use up the stuff they had for something else (including the desi
Re: (Score:2)
The future is bright still (Score:2)
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.
If true, it's probably a good thing for Space X (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:If true, it's probably a good thing for Space X (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Read Airframe by Michael Crichton (Score:3)
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em (Score:4, Funny)
Re:If you can't beat 'em, join 'em (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:If you can't beat 'em, join 'em (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Flying Wing, XF-11, etc. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
In the past, losers haven't suffered too badly (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Gah... (Score:2)
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
Real results announced here (Score:3)
Link: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.c... [nasaspaceflight.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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]
Bingo. OTH (and to add more fuel to the speculation pyre), WP is reporting that the news will announce contracts will be awarded to both Boeing and SpaceX. http://www.washingtonpost.com/... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
SpaceX got a nice chunk of the award :)
Re: (Score:2)
And according to Kathy Lueders at the press conference, both companies bid on the same process, so SpaceX believes they can do it for nearly half the price of Boeing.
Re: (Score:2)
And just like that... (Score:2)
Demand for privately-built spacecraft drops by what, 33%? Ouch.
why not both... (Score:2)
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...
In related news... (Score:2)
Boeing announced that it will do this under a new company named "Uber Lyft".
Good thing for SpaceX (Score:2)
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.
Boeing... really? (Score:2)
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.
Besoz's Blue Origin In Bed With Boeing on Taxi (Score:2)
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
BREAKING (Score:3)
*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.
Re:Corruption Alive and Well in the US (Score:5, Informative)
Lowest bidder??
Last time I looked, Boeing was the highest bidder of the various bidders.
Also the one farthest behind in the design process, since Boeing doesn't do development work until they have a contract signed, while SpaceX has been working on Dragon on its own dime.
Re:Corruption Alive and Well in the US (Score:5, Interesting)
We just had a big article about some key congressmen trying to block and sabotage SpaceX's development process. SpaceX is a young and aggressive company with clear drive and motivation to succeed. While they might have been a risky bet because they were new, they would have backed their development record.
Remember this:
http://science.slashdot.org/st... [slashdot.org]
These three tools of Boeing are using congress to hold back our space exploration. We need competition between these companies and giving SpaceX a chance to shine will make Boeing stop screwing over the U.S.
Anyone in Colorado and Alabama care to remove these idiots from office?
Got proof? (Score:4, Interesting)
SpaceX is a young and aggressive company with clear drive and motivation to succeed.
Dive and motivation are necessary but not sufficient. Having those attributes doesn't mean they have a good product or the product with the best price/performance ratio. I have no idea of the relative merits of either company regarding this project but just because SpaceX is the new hotness doesn't mean anything. While I have no affiliation I've actually done some work at Boeing (many years ago) so I have at least a basic understanding of how that company works and what their culture is like. (FYI the part of Boeing I dealt with has a combative work culture I didn't enjoy at all) I'm confident they could offer a technologically competitive product. (economically competitive is less certain) Boeing has been sending up rockets for a long time so they are hardly new to the game.
While they might have been a risky bet because they were new, they would have backed their development record.
Boeing has a much much longer development record. Of course that might also work against Boeing but SpaceX does not have a long track record to go on. I'm as impressed with SpaceX as many others here but if they want to play with the big boys it isn't going to be easy and yes they are high(er) risk in certain ways. This means they need to be clearly better (economically and/or technologically) or they stand a good chance of losing to the "safe bet".
We need competition between these companies and giving SpaceX a chance to shine will make Boeing stop screwing over the U.S.
Umm, this IS the competition between these companies. This one bidding competition isn't the end-all-be-all regardless of which firm wins this contract. Plus you haven't exactly proven the assertion that Boeing is actually engaging in corrupt practices here. While I certainly wouldn't be shocked to hear that they were, that isn't anything close to proof. Absent evidence saying that SpaceX should get the contract because you suspect Boeing (without proof) of corruption is not a strong argument in favor of SpaceX.
Re: (Score:3)
The CNET article says the contract is worth $3 billion.
Interestingly that's just half a billion less than Microsoft's planning to pay for Minecraft / Mojang.
It's great to know that AC's can't do math.
Re: nananananananana Elon! (Score:2)
without being a fainting Musk fanboi, if I had to choose between him and Obama to manage the country, it's Elon all the way.
Let's just assume that Obama was born in Vancouver, to level the playing field, so precedent isn't really am issue.