Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SpaceX and Boeing Battle For US Manned Spaceflight Contracts

Posted by Soulskill on from the fly-me-to-the-moon dept.

An anonymous reader writes: $3 billion in funding is on the line as private space companies duke it out for contracts to end U.S. reliance on Russian rockets for manned spaceflight. The two biggest contenders are SpaceX and Boeing, described as "the exciting choice" and "the safe choice," respectively. "NASA is charting a new direction 45 years after sending humans to the Moon, looking to private industry for missions near Earth, such as commuting to and from the space station. Commercial operators would develop space tourism while the space agency focuses on distant trips to Mars or asteroids." It's possible the contracts would be split, giving some tasks to each company. It's also possible that the much smaller Sierra Nevada Corp. could grab a bit of government funding as well for launches using its unique winged-shuttle design.

7 of 123 comments (clear)

  1. Decisions, Decisions... by Shoten · · Score: 1, Interesting

    As an astronaut, I wonder which would appeal to me more? The "Exciting Choice" or the "Safe Choice?" On one hand, I'll be strapped to it as it launches it (and me) into space. On the other hand...I'm an astronaut! My choice of car is probably NOT a fucking Volvo.

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    1. Re:Decisions, Decisions... by wagnerrp · · Score: 4, Interesting

      More accurately, the "exciting" choice is the inexpensive choice, and inexpensive means more launches, or more money available for other programs.

    2. Re:Decisions, Decisions... by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Nope. NASA are building The Precious, sorry, SLS, and no-one else will ever have the money to use it. Heck, NASA probably won't ever have the money to use it, since there are no funded missions that need it.

      As I understand it, the Dragon will continue to fly on Falcon 9, and Boeing's Powerpoint Spaceship can theoretically fly on Atlas, Delta or Falcon... if it's ever built.

    3. Re:Decisions, Decisions... by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Also, SpaceX is trying to commercialise their systems. Boeing has no interest in anything except the NASA contract. That means that, if Bigelow achieves their goal, SpaceX will not only be flying to ISS, but also to private Bigelow stations. That's a secondary career for astronauts, and an alternative career path for NASA's astronaut-candidates who didn't make the cut.

      And for that reason, there's nothing "safe" about choosing Boeing's capsule. That's just spin from Boeing's own PR pukes lobbying for funding. Boeing is the furthest behind of the three main participants. It is the most expensive. It will have the least flight time. It will have no upgrade path, and every development will need to be funded entirely by NASA, at increasing costs as it mutates back into a cost-plus program. Boeing has put it none of its own funding into the project, unlike every other participant, and has been lobbying behind the scenes to remove the current Commercial Crew NASA team and replace them with a traditional NASA cost-plus management structure.

      Boeing is poison for Commercial Crew, a cuckoo in the nest. The sooner they are excluded from the program, the better.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    4. Re:Decisions, Decisions... by Vulch · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's what SpaceX are currently calling the BFR will switch to Methane instead of Kerosene. The Falcon Heavy is effectively three Falcon 9 stages in parallel, similar to the existing Delta IV Heavy but with added fuel cross-feed. With cross-feed the core stage will still be fully fueled when the boosters detach.

      Methane has the advantage it doesn't need the tank to be pressurised with Helium, a bit of excess heat can be diverted back into the tank to boil off enough to keep the pressure up. The current Helium pressurisation has been giving problems and accounted for a few launch delays because of leaks. The tank needs to be bigger, but overall complexity drops.

    5. Re:Decisions, Decisions... by catchblue22 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As an astronaut, I wonder which would appeal to me more? The "Exciting Choice" or the "Safe Choice?" On one hand, I'll be strapped to it as it launches it (and me) into space. On the other hand...I'm an astronaut! My choice of car is probably NOT a fucking Volvo.

      How about the tested choice. Space X has a built capsule, whose first version has returned from the space station several times. They are quite close to flying...they just need to test the launch abort system and the capsule will be almost ready to fly. From what I understand, Boeing hasn't built a capsule yet. They only have a paper/electronic design and a few "mock ups". Given the capsules are supposed to fly in 2016, I think the capsule that has actually been tested is the "safe choice". The article seems to me to be Boeing propaganda.

      --
      This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
  2. Safe choice? The CST-100 has never flown by hackertourist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's peculiar that TFA labels the Boeing design the 'safe choice' when it hasn't flown yet, despite $0.5B of investment from NASA. And the Atlas V launch vehicle may have flown a lot of missions, but it isn't man-rated yet.
    The SpaceX Dragon has flown several times, and has spent months in orbit docked to the ISS. Now I realize the manned Dragon has many new systems, but it seems to me SpaceX is a lot closer to a man-rated capsule than Boeing.