
SpaceX Vies With Boeing as NASA’s Taxi to Station - davelnewton
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-10/musk-s-spacex-vies-with-boeing-to-build-nasa-taxi-to-mars.html
======
jobu
The most interesting part to me is that congressional support has increased
for funding more than one venture in case one runs into technical difficulties
(now that the Soyuz option is ending).

 _“The Russians have done NASA a favor in terms of funding,” Caceres said._

~~~
drzaiusapelord
I think Putin's little war with the West is going to have massive gains for
the US spaceflight. Whatever doubts we had about doing business with his
regime have now been solidified. I don't think NASA will ever put itself in a
position where it requires another nation's permission to get into space. This
can only mean good things for the continued funding of the SLS.

Also, other boneheaded moves like ULA standardizing on a Russian made engine
will be strongly discouraged. Being self-sufficient is the only sane move as
petty autocrats like Putin will take their ball and run home if they feel
their ego isn't being stroked enough.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _I think Putin 's little war with the West is going to have massive gains
> for the US spacefligt_

Did I miss something or did everyone just forget that it's _the United States_
that started that 'little war', wrt. space flight?

~~~
seanflyon
Could you elaborate on how the 'little war' was started? I would say it
started when Crimea became a part of Russia, which was not an act of the
United States.

~~~
avar
Russia didn't invade Crimea out of the blue. From Russia's perspective the
start this whole thing is closer to when the US helped overthrow Ukraine's
government and was actually caught on tape micro-managing some of the
government transition[1].

Imagine what the US would do if, for instance, Russia were to help overthrow
Mexico's elected government and install parties friendly to its own interests
in their place.

1\. [http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-
articles/2014/...](http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-
articles/2014/february/06/fstarstark-the-eu-tape-reveals-us-runs-ukraine-
opposition.aspx)

------
FD3SA
Does anyone know how Musk plans to address the lack of Mars' magnetosphere?
[1]

As much as I am rooting for him, I don't see how a long term colony is
possible without addressing this problem. If we're going to live in
underground, shielded habitats, why not just build space colonies and/or Moon
colonies?

Furthermore, I don't think we're going to get very far in space manufacturing
without a high energy density power source (e.g. fusion).

As such, shouldn't Elon be advocating for increased research funding for
fusion?

1\. [http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-
nasa/2001/as...](http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-
nasa/2001/ast31jan_1/)

~~~
manicdee
We already have a gigantic fusion reactor at the centre of the Solar system.
All you need to do to power manufacturing in space is find ways of harnessing
that energy.

------
hendler
The companion piece is also on Netflix
[http://www.netflix.com/WiPlayer?movieid=80005608](http://www.netflix.com/WiPlayer?movieid=80005608)

~~~
amckenna
I watched it a few nights ago and it was pretty good. It was cool to see each
of the vehicles/capsules, their insides, and the facilities that are building
them. Definitely recommend watching.

------
JanSolo
If I were NASA, I'd pick SpaceX and Sierra Nevada and here's why:

Boeing CST100 is the most conventional of all the 3 designs. It's probably the
'safest' bet but also the most expensive to operate. This is because it still
requires an Atlas or Delta rocket to launch. Atlas is likely out because its
russian-sourced motors are currently out of fashion. That leaves Delta; which
is the most expensive of the currently available launchers. Also, CST100 uses
a traditional 'SplashDown' recovery that requires a flotilla of helicopter-
capable naval ships to be on standby for every mission. This is not cheap.
That said, I'm sure it will work as-designed and will be fairly reliable. But
all this comes at a cost; and IMO if NASA are smart, they can get more
functionality for less money from the other providers.

Lets see: SpaceX has the advantage of using their own launchers. These were
already much cheaper than Atlas and Delta, but soon we're promised that
they'll be reusable. This can slash the cost by a further factor of 10 again.
Such possibilities are hard to ignore. Furthermore, the Dragon2 capsule does
not require a naval recovery and can land on a simple slab of concrete
anywhere you'd like. There are other fringe benefits too... Dragon2 is re-
usable, you could potentially just refuel it, put it back on another rocket
and launch it again within a few days. Also, Dragon2 uses a novel pusher-type
launch-escape-system that's integrated into the capsule instead of being
jettissoned on each launch. These things add up to considerable savings. NASA
would be foolish not to choose SpaceX as one of their 2 choices... Price-wise,
SpaceX is probably the cheapest of the 3, however the risks are fairly high;
there's a lot of new tech that needs to be proven. But the potential rewards
are so high and SpaceX's track-record of acheiving their promises is so
stellar, that NASA surely must give them a shot.

That leaves SierraNevada. They're kinda the wildcard in this competition. They
have this wacky spaceplane that looks like it came from the 60s. If you ask
any astronauts which one they'd pick, I bet they'd all say SierraNevada. Why?
Astronauts are often test-pilots. Test pilots like to fly things. This is the
only one that can be 'piloted' in the traditional sense of the word (with
wings and surfaces). It has several advantages: Easy and fast recovery; just
land on any runway. Reusability; no need to build a new one each time. Pusher-
style LES. Also, it just looks plain cool. And it has one big disadvantage:
It's designed to launch on the currently-unfashionable AtlasV rocket. If
SierraNevada can convert this thing to launch on a Delta or a Falcon, I think
they'll have a good enough price advantage over CST100 to make them the 2nd-
choice after SpaceX.

Having said all this... space hardware gets built on the whims of politicians.
Even with the best planning, there's still a good chance that some politician
will point at the pork-barrel and fuck it all up.

~~~
cpwright
If I were NASA, I would actually pick Boeing for exactly the reasons you would
disqualify them. They have a fairly proven, safe solution that could get
astronauts into orbit and back. It would be expensive per launch, but since it
is all proven technology; it should be done on time and on schedule.

In addition to NASA, I would select SpaceX as they have promising technology
to reduce the cost. By funding them, it would basically be buying an option on
having a reduced cost solution to replace the Boeing solution if it actually
pans out.

SNC is probably a bit to far out to take as seriously as SpaceX or Boeing.

~~~
JanSolo
You're right... NASA probably would value stability and reliability over cost-
effectiveness every time.

But then again... I think they're hurting for money; SLS is proving much more
expensive than planned. And they have a lot of project managers who remember
the Shuttle Era when it cost upwards of 600million per mission to launch the
thing. These guys are super keen to avoid a repeat of this situation again if
at all possible. SLS is already going to cost around the same per mission due
to its reduced launch rate. The commercial-crew program was supposed to
provide 'cheap' access to LEO; If NASA is forced to buy Delta4 Heavies for
each CST100 mission, the cost is gonna be almost as much as shuttle/SLS!

So if NASA were smart and daring, they'd choose SpaceX and SierraNevada and
save mountains of cash... but NASA being NASA, they'll probably choose Boeing
and be forced into paying through the nose for launches for another 30 years.

~~~
cpwright
So stability and reliability do relate to cost-effectiveness. Every time a
shuttle or other vehicle fails catastrophically, the program is delayed and
costs increase.

Similarly, if SpaceX and SNC can't deliver, you end up with no capability.

A Falcon Heavy has as much lift as a Delta IV Heavy. I wonder how much the
cost would be to modify the CST system for a Falcon Heavy.

------
trhway
NASA need to pay to both - to Boeing to keep it happy and avoid its
destructive meddling with the real deal - SpaceX. Paying a racket fee to
Boeing will be very wise thing in the long run.

------
jacquesm
Where did the 'Mars' in the title come from? This is to get to the ISS and
back, not to Mars.

edit: thanks mods!

~~~
dethstar
I guess from Musk quotes, “The reason I haven’t taken SpaceX public is the
goals of SpaceX are very long-term, which is to establish a city on Mars,”
Musk, 43, told reporters at a Sept. 8 briefing in Tokyo.

~~~
patcon
Agree that this bit isn't relevant to the title, but MAN, I wish politicians
had this sort of longterm vision in mind. But I suppose Musk, being the CEO,
is politically like a benevolent dictator of SpaceX, so he can afford to plan
longterm :)

~~~
hga
This is perhaps _the_ major argument for monarchies, or republics that are
less attuned to "the mob", i.e. the masses. If you want long term thinking,
don't attach political power to a vote by "everyone" every 2-6 years.

~~~
jacquesm
Following that line of thought, it is actually a major argument for
dictatorships. After all, they can command a whole country to operate towards
some single unified goal.

If fewer voters is better than 0 voters is optimal!

A nice illustration is that most open source projects that are based on
democracy are always torn apart by inner power plays but those that have a
'benevolent dictator' seem to flourish.

~~~
hga
Of course, we shouldn't be surprised that the other extreme is also bad, if
not worse. Especially since "dictatorship" as it's used excludes monarchical
systems, in some cases fairly absolute, but that include formally passing on
the reign to one's heirs,

I'm quite uncertain how useful it is to observe systems like open source
projects where the stakes are so very low compared to governing a polity.

The extreme of dictatorship says nothing about the middle, such as a republic
with a limited franchise (e.g. own land or pay a hefty poll tax), or adding
other types of bodies to government. Such as the US Senate back when its
members were picked by state legislatures, or a power sharing arrangement
between a monarch and a legislative body or three, like the U.K. of long ago.

------
redmaverick
Offtopic: Conventional wisdom says he who chases two rabbits, captures none.

How is Elon Musk able to succeed on more than one Company?

Even Steve Jobs is famous for focus. He once said, "I'm as proud of what we
don't do as I am of what we do."

~~~
erikpukinskis
I can't tell if you're trolling. Steve Jobs was CEO of two companies at once:
Pixar and Apple.

~~~
redmaverick
Steve Jobs was not heavily involved with Pixar like Elon was with his other
companies.

Pixar Myth No. 5: Steve Jobs Ran Pixar

[http://alvyray.com/pixar/PixarMyth5.htm](http://alvyray.com/pixar/PixarMyth5.htm)

