"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
"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.
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.
Because its a press release and Boeing is a partner.
They didn't mention the Atlas V is built using RD-180[1] (aka Russian engines) even though much of the discussion is about not begin dependent on the Russians for access to space. Or that the expected cost per launch is not cost competitive. But the good news is that doesn't matter, what matters is how well both companies execute against the objective of a reliable manned launch capability.
The sentence does mention it was a test flight. Maybe "experimental" would have been more accurate a word than "test", but that's just arguing over details.
This sentence was not misleading and was basically stating facts.
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.
I bet given the relative efficiencies of both companies development process that SpaceX's 2.6 billion will give them a lot more runway (pun intended) than Boeing's $4.2 billion.
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.
> I find it interesting that Boeing is constantly trying to get into every story that they made all their milestones on time.
The companies pretty much wrote their own milestones. Most of Boeing's milestones in the last part of the program were paperwork milestones vs SpaceX's milestones which involved actual testing.
The main ones SpaceX haven't completed yet, that they had as milestones for the last part of the program were pad abort test and in-flight abort test. Boeing are no where near doing those on the CST-100, SpaceX have them scheduled for November and January, respectively.
Just because they completed their milestones, doesn't mean they are ahead of SpaceX in total development. They are in fact far behind.
>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.
I'd guess that the obvious disparity between the two was an intentional move by NASA.
SpaceX is the cool, fast-moving, forward-thinking—but potentially more risky—alternative. Boeing is the boring, slow-moving, business-as-usual, military-industrial-complex alternative.
I suspect that privately they hope SpaceX succeeds, but they also want a backup plan that's more conventional, if less good in some sense.
[As to why Boeing's getting more money than SpaceX, I suppose because Boeing probably uses money much less efficiently... they need more to reach a similar point... >< ]
The SpaceX design is probably the less risky one. They are already flying a version of Dragon which is very similar, and will have many more flights of it by the time of the first crewed flights. The differences between the crew and cargo versions are important, but the CST-100, as a basically clean-sheet design, will have far less relevant flight heritage than Dragon.
That's a perfectly reasonable sort of thing to promote. It might equally be that they don't want people to think of production delays that affected the launch of the 787 or F-35 (the latter being nothing to do with Boeing, but aerospace and space are strongly linked in the public's mind and the F-35 project is famous for not meeting deadlines).
Definitely SpaceX has the better machine, but at least the CST-100 is reusable and can make ground landings (via pillows). There is a 10-use limit for each, due to the thermal shields; the Dragon2 requires a refit and from what I can tell the CST-100 is just replaced with a new one.
I think having both systems in parallel development is really critical though. One conservative, one leading edge and riskier. Putting everything into one program just doesn't seem to pan out in the long run and you end up with capability gaps, or relying on untrusty secondary supply sources.
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.
you say that, but minecraft is worth actual money because it sells a product that lots of people want to buy and has a lot of potential for further attached products (servers, DLC, etc). A more apt comparison would be whatsapp/instagram/whatever ridiculous social app facebook is buying this week for $X billion, without any revenue or business model to speak of.
Minecraft seems like a more innovative and clever use of technology than sending more primates into low earth orbit. It certainly benefits more people.
"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?
I would have to imagine that all four bidders presented plans with varying risk and cost which meet the requirements. Since NASA had a mandate to pick multiple winners there were probably two winning strategies, be low cost or be low risk.
I's speculate that Boeing presented the low risk route--nobody doubts they can meet the requirement if they get paid enough. I'd imagine that SpaceX presented the lost cost bid, probably viewing their bid as more of a subsidy for work and risks they are undertaking regardless.
SpaceX could have massively underbid Boeing in their proposal. I'm no rocket scientist so I honestly don't know how reasonable that conjecture is until either company says more.
EDIT: Listening to the follow up questions on NASA HQ UStream Feed the following questions and answers were asked (both questions and answers are paraphrased by me, I can't type as quickly as they can speak):
Q: Why did Boeing receive more than SpaceX?
A: Both companies proposed costs for their proposals to acquire capabilities to fulfill the RFP, and the government accepted both.
It's pretty straight forward. SpaceX can do the same work with less money for a variety of reasons. And SpaceX has a capsule that has already flown in space and successfully docked with the ISS several times to deliver cargo. They are 'just' upgrading it to carry people. Boeing has not flow their capsule yet, they're playing catchup.
I rather suspect that it's simply because SpaceX needs less money to finalise their space flight capability. That's typically how government contracts work - suppliers make bids and the government chooses the winner based on price and other criteria. Presumably SpaceX's bid was lower than Boeing's.
Off topic: it's "making do", not "making due". Non American English speakers pronounce the two quite differently, so this is a really startling error for us...
Boeing is an old and slow shop that outsources a lot of its work (even the engines, they're from Russia). SpaceX is essentially a startup and does almost everything in house (even the engines, they're from California). SpaceX also charges much less than Boeing for satellite launches.
It's possible the two contracts don't meet the requirements in the same way or at the same level. There may be optional requirements which one company has promised to meet and the other hasn't, or requirements that require "at least X" where one company is promising 10% over X and the other is promising 30% over X.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
[+] [-] teleclimber|11 years ago|reply
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 "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|11 years ago|reply
http://www.businessweek.com/authors/2763-julie-johnsson
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|11 years ago|reply
They didn't mention the Atlas V is built using RD-180[1] (aka Russian engines) even though much of the discussion is about not begin dependent on the Russians for access to space. Or that the expected cost per launch is not cost competitive. But the good news is that doesn't matter, what matters is how well both companies execute against the objective of a reliable manned launch capability.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tristanb|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chaostheory|11 years ago|reply
http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
[+] [-] grondilu|11 years ago|reply
This sentence was not misleading and was basically stating facts.
[+] [-] Vanayad|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smackfu|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] geuis|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Flenser|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FranOntanaya|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] tcheard|11 years ago|reply
The companies pretty much wrote their own milestones. Most of Boeing's milestones in the last part of the program were paperwork milestones vs SpaceX's milestones which involved actual testing.
The main ones SpaceX haven't completed yet, that they had as milestones for the last part of the program were pad abort test and in-flight abort test. Boeing are no where near doing those on the CST-100, SpaceX have them scheduled for November and January, respectively.
Just because they completed their milestones, doesn't mean they are ahead of SpaceX in total development. They are in fact far behind.
[+] [-] drzaiusapelord|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] snogglethorpe|11 years ago|reply
SpaceX is the cool, fast-moving, forward-thinking—but potentially more risky—alternative. Boeing is the boring, slow-moving, business-as-usual, military-industrial-complex alternative.
I suspect that privately they hope SpaceX succeeds, but they also want a backup plan that's more conventional, if less good in some sense.
[As to why Boeing's getting more money than SpaceX, I suppose because Boeing probably uses money much less efficiently... they need more to reach a similar point... >< ]
[+] [-] Ankaios|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anigbrowl|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] legohead|11 years ago|reply
It will be an interesting competition :)
[+] [-] bane|11 years ago|reply
I'm very happy with this announcement.
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] zyb09|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alexjeffrey|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lutorm|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] idlewords|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stefan_kendall3|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sho_hn|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] terravion|11 years ago|reply
I's speculate that Boeing presented the low risk route--nobody doubts they can meet the requirement if they get paid enough. I'd imagine that SpaceX presented the lost cost bid, probably viewing their bid as more of a subsidy for work and risks they are undertaking regardless.
[+] [-] cjslep|11 years ago|reply
EDIT: Listening to the follow up questions on NASA HQ UStream Feed the following questions and answers were asked (both questions and answers are paraphrased by me, I can't type as quickly as they can speak):
Q: Why did Boeing receive more than SpaceX?
A: Both companies proposed costs for their proposals to acquire capabilities to fulfill the RFP, and the government accepted both.
Q: Why two rewards instead of one?
A: It was in the government's best interest.
[+] [-] gedmark|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dragonwriter|11 years ago|reply
Boeing's advantage in years of experience extracting the most possible money from the government?
[+] [-] demallien|11 years ago|reply
Off topic: it's "making do", not "making due". Non American English speakers pronounce the two quite differently, so this is a really startling error for us...
[+] [-] jonknee|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Joeri|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] damoncali|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lotharbot|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] worklogin|11 years ago|reply
Any more details on why SNC got passed up?
[+] [-] tcheard|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] whoisthemachine|11 years ago|reply
[1] http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/us-house-pares-nasas-...
[+] [-] marktangotango|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] idlewords|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ck2|11 years ago|reply
Sigh, our priorities suck.
[+] [-] transfire|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tomelders|11 years ago|reply
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|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] lifehug|11 years ago|reply
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|11 years ago|reply
I'm not sure if "lobbying is effective" counts as a conspiracy.
[+] [-] transfire|11 years ago|reply
Loser: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/16/nasa-dream-chaser...
Winner: http://ronvanderende.nl/?p=513
Oops I'm sorry I meant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CST-100#mediaviewer/File:CST-1...