
Boeing-SpaceX Team Split Space Taxi Award - rbc
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-16/boeing-spacex-team-split-space-taxi-award-lawmaker-says.html
======
teleclimber
"A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, which would power the Dragon V2 capsule, exploded
during an Aug. 22 test flight. Musk said afterward in a Twitter post: “Rockets
are tricky.”"

Am I the only one who finds this a bit misleading? That was a highly
experimental version of the 9 that failed. And it failed while trying to do
something no rocket this size has ever done. It seems that would be worth
mentioning.

Next paragraph: "The Atlas V boosters chosen by Boeing have a flawless record
launching high-priced military payloads."

...yet the google finds me this:
[http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1222](http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1222)
"Two top secret National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) ocean surveillance
spacecraft were fired into the wrong orbit June 15 when the 200-foot-tall
Atlas V rocket they were riding on stopped firing too early in space following
launch from Cape Canaveral, Fla."

I guess I'm not surprised the media is uninformed (or biased) but it still
ticks me off enough that I feel the need to point it out.

~~~
hop
I wondered that too. She's written 8 articles for Bloomberg and 7 of them are
about Boeing - all in a positive light. Imagine she has the ear of Boeing PR.

[http://www.businessweek.com/authors/2763-julie-
johnsson](http://www.businessweek.com/authors/2763-julie-johnsson)

~~~
teleclimber
Good catch. She's in Chicago too, which is where Boeing is headquartered.

~~~
mercury888
hmm shes probably on payroll.

Bloomberg is sort of a catch22 with musk. They try to highlight him as much as
possible, even so far as to over praise him with really stupid matters. Then
one little mistake or negativity, it is blown up and seriously investigated
and written about.

------
geuis
I listened to the post-briefing audio feed where reporters called in and asked
additional questions.

A very common question people have is about why the money is broken up between
Boeing and SpaceX as it is. Why does SpaceX get a smaller amount?

The awards were based specifically on the estimates that each company
submitted in their proposals. In other words, Boeing said they need $4.2
billion and SpaceX said they need $2.6 billion.

This is very telling because the proposals are for the same NASA requirements.
SpaceX is saying they can do it 1.65 times cheaper than Boeing.

NASA is not currently commenting on their decision process for choosing to
award these two companies.

My personal supposition is that its a best-of strategy. NASA has a high
priority to get human launch capability back under our control. They also have
competing requirements. Do it as inexpensively as possible. Use multiple
partners to fulfill the commercial spaceflight mission. They also need the
assurance that the companies they work with can actually complete the
contracts.

Boeing is an old dog and partner to NASA. They have decades of experience
behind them. SpaceX is relatively new and while increasingly successful with
delivering launch vehicles, they've not yet built human launch craft. It makes
sense, when you think of it as a way of hedging NASA's bets, to choose these
two companies even though their award amounts are vastly different.

~~~
FranOntanaya
Did SpaceX even need 2.6 billion, or did NASA have to buff their number so as
Boeing's funding didn't look too out of proportion?

~~~
geuis
Like I said, the award amounts were based on what each company asked for in
their proposals.

------
ChuckMcM
I find it interesting that Boeing is constantly trying to get into every story
that they made all their milestones on time. I think perhaps they are dealing
with the fact that the CST-100 system looks like something from the 70's when
compared to the Dragon V2.

Its clear to me that SpaceX is taking the bigger risk here, they have way more
things that are untried but I am so hoping they make it to the finish. Boeing
would develop a slightly better capability than Soyuz (7 astronauts vs 3) but
SpaceX would deliver capability far in excess of that, 7 people landed where
you want them on land or on sea.

~~~
drzaiusapelord
>I think perhaps they are dealing with the fact that the CST-100 system looks
like something from the 70's when compared to the Dragon V2.

They both look pretty plain to me. I mean, Musk can lay on some shiny metal
here and there, but they're both soulless capsules. I really like the Dream
Chaser; a 1/4th size STS that can be mounted on the tip of existing rockets is
very tempting.

I think Boeing's marketing wants people to know that it won't have the Musk-
like cult of personality, but it can deliver the goods, thus the talking
points about hitting milestones.

I wish both of them the best of luck. This isn't a competition, its delivering
LEO for NASA. I think people who see it as some kind of "my guy vs yours" are
missing the point.

~~~
rbanffy
> I really like the Dream Chaser; a 1/4th size STS that can be mounted on the
> tip of existing rockets is very tempting.

It's much heavier than a Dragon v2, meaning it carries less payload for the
same launch cost, for more or less the same land-where-you-want capability.
It's pretty, but pretty does not solve the problem.

~~~
JulianMorrison
IIRC it does have the advantage of simplicity in use (if not in construction)
over the Dragon: it lands without fuel and without needing refuelling. Re-use
could amount to wiping it down and kicking the tires, then winching it up onto
a new booster.

------
zyb09
Hilarious how SpaceX gets $2.6 billion to develop human space flight, while
Microsoft pays almost the same amount to buy Minecraft. Talk about ridiculous
evaluations in the tech industry.

~~~
stefan_kendall3
Yeah, you're right. People are actually willing to _pay_ for minecraft instead
of have it coerced out of them by government.

~~~
sillysaurus3
As far as government coercions go, it's hard to understand how someone could
have a problem with forcing people to give up money in order to develop the
most important technology in the history of technology. Would you mind
explaining your point of view in a little more detail?

There won't be a market for space travel until it's a reality, so this would
seem to be one of the only ways forward.

~~~
vonmoltke
> it's hard to understand how someone could have a problem with forcing people
> to give up money in order to develop the most important technology in the
> history of technology

I'm not trying to defend stefan_kendall3's position, but you made a pretty
large personal value judgement in that statement. _You_ think this is "the
most important technology in the history of technology"; many people don't.[1]
In fact, many people think that human spaceflight, including some of the Earth
orbit missions we already run, are a waste of valuable resources that should
be diverted elsewhere.

[1] For the record, I think human spaceflight is pretty important in the long
term, but disagree that it is _most_ important area of technology. I think
certain areas of medicine should be placed ahead of it, for example.

~~~
sillysaurus3
Good point! Thanks for the point of view.

I was genuinely hoping someone would provide a defense of stefan's position,
but it's looking less like it'll happen. That's too bad, because it was a
chance to learn something.

------
sho_hn
"It's two contracts to the same requirements" (press conference), but Boeing
needs $4.2 billion and SpaceX makes due with $2.6 billion. What am I missing?

~~~
Joeri
If they're cost-plus contracts, then it just means SpaceX can build capsules
at nearly half the cost of Boeing.

~~~
sho_hn
I'm basically curious what incentivizes NASA to put that much money into the
Boeing option. Is SpaceX' design too radical and unproven, making a backup
option a good idea even if the backup is more expensive? Are there political
implications in play, like keeping Boeing's workforce employed?

What's the big picture?

~~~
Afforess
The big picture is that NASA has created competition in the commercial space
market. If either of the parties fail to live up to their obligations, NASA
has a backup. If both succeed, all the better for NASA. Competition is good.

~~~
sho_hn
That's true; looking at it terms of supporting industry-wide infrastructure it
does seem more sensible than throwing everything behind one vendor.

Edit: Comment 8326972 by terravion also suggests picking a single winner
wasn't an option, which I wasn't aware of, aside from the issue of the
relative award magnitudes.

------
worklogin
This is as good a turnout as one could hope for, really. It assuages the
entrenched interests, keeps the companies in more fierce competition, and
gives even more political legitimacy to SpaceX.

Any more details on why SNC got passed up?

~~~
tcheard
> Any more details on why SNC got passed up?

Because they had enough money for one or two, but not all three. And they want
two so that they can spread the risk.

SpaceX are almost finished and are so far ahead in development that it would
be an outrage for them not to get part of the contract.

And Boeing because there would have been a lot of political backlash if they
didn't get the nod, due to their political influence.

Although this may not be the _official_ reason, I am pretty sure that this is
the real reason.

~~~
lotu
Boeing is also the safe bet. There is zero chance that in three years Boeing
will be bankrupt and have no way of completing the capsule. Realistically I
could see this happening to both SpaceX (1 in 500) and SNC (no clue about the
ods maybe 1 in 50).

------
whoisthemachine
I'm actually quite surprised by this. I thought once the congressmen started
complaining that it needed to be single contract[1] that NASA would go all
Boeing. Good on them, I think they've struck the best balance they can do
politically, financially, and technologically.

[1] [http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/us-house-pares-
nasas-...](http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/us-house-pares-
nasas-2013-spending-back-to-1959-levels-potentially-forces-nasa-to-explore-
europa/)

------
marktangotango
Charlie Bolden is one of the best, if not the best NASA administrator ever.
You can't say enough good things about him. It's a great time for human space
flight, it really seems like the dawn of a new era.

~~~
idlewords
Seems like we've looped back to 1959 to me.

~~~
HCIdivision17
Could you go into more detail? As in, I'm not sure if you're replying about
administration, contract awards, or tech; all of which would be interesting to
read more on.

~~~
idlewords
I mean that we're about three years out from having the means to launch
astronauts into low earth orbit, a capability we had in 1962.

~~~
marktangotango
.But the circumstances are entirely different, in 1959 it a national effort to
save face after sputnik, to solely fly men in space and land on the moon, full
stop. Thats jt dismantle the program, today Bolden was talking commercial
enterprises n.nnabout flying people destinations in low earth orbit other than
the international space station (ie Bigelow hotels). Thats the difference imo.

------
ck2
They are being awarded about what it costs for a couple months for the wars in
Iraq.

Sigh, our priorities suck.

~~~
transfire
It even worse than that b/c a new administration will come in and turn
everything on its head again. "Sorry SpaceX, we changed our mind. Oh, you
can't afford for us to change our mind? Terribly sorry to drive you out of
business. But you can't blame us. It was the other parties fault."

~~~
ck2
Actually, Russia being aholes helps guarantee their funding.

If Russia did a 180 and suddenly behaved itself and left Ukraine, maybe your
scenario could happen but what is the likelyhood of that.

~~~
cal5k
Human spaceflight has really only ever been well-funded in response to a
Russian (or Soviet) threat. So bring on the new cold war!

------
tomelders
every time this space-x stuff comes up, I always take a moment to remind
people of Reaction Engines and - Skylon
[[http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/space_skylon.html](http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/space_skylon.html)]

I realise there's practical differences in terms of the current rate of
progress between Space-X and Reaction Engines, but in the long term (and
making the huge assumption that they'll get Skylon built), I think Reaction
Engines has the better plan.

------
joshfinnie
I am excited to see where this goes. I really like that NASA is getting out of
the way of things that drag down its scientific ventures.

~~~
idlewords
Human space flight has essentially no scientific value. The only thing we
learn from it is how to keep people healthy in space, which is a wonderfully
circular rationale.

~~~
whoisthemachine
I disagree. The closer humans (preferably scientists themselves) are to
scientific instruments, the more quickly observations can be made and new
(even spontaneous) experiments be performed.

------
lifehug
I have underestimated the Musk-Fandom. I'm also behind the guy but am lolzing
at all the knowledgeable armchair astronauts and their expert conspiracies.

If only they would have relied on the opinions of web developers rather than
experts in the aerospace industry.

I'm happy with the outcome but I don't hate Boeing so I'm obviously biased.
That being said, I hope Elon demonstrates his ability, and will cheer him on.

~~~
seanflyon
> conspiracies

I'm not sure if "lobbying is effective" counts as a conspiracy.

~~~
Elv13
In many countries it actually does, by law

------
transfire
Great. 1 step forward and 2 steps back.

Loser: [http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/16/nasa-dream-
chaser...](http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/16/nasa-dream-chaser-space-
shuttle-tests_n_3284292.html)

Winner: [http://ronvanderende.nl/?p=513](http://ronvanderende.nl/?p=513)

Oops I'm sorry I meant:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CST-100#mediaviewer/File:CST-1...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CST-100#mediaviewer/File:CST-100_at_Delamar,_2012.jpg)

