Slashdot Mirror
WSJ Reports Boeing To Beat SpaceX For Manned Taxi To ISS
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.
I guess Boeing is to big to fail...
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?
I'm sure that if Charles Boden somehow feels empowered to choose SpaceX he'll be reminded that the NASA budget is already too large along with all of the Boeing employees that he'll be making redundant in various congress critter backyards... and subsequently choose Boeing.
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.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
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.
blog |
Get that money! Get it!
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.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
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.
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.
I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
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
Boeing has a larger, bribe infrastructure that can better able deliver the cash in a timely manner.
Well, on one hand they have some small company praised by unorganized groups of geeks, and on the other hand - really big player with thousands of employees and way more people directly or indirectly depending on them - Military-Industrial Complex is not a child's toy. So if you are making a political decision (even not considering "campaign contributions"), it's a no-brainer - supporting Boeing gives you much more political bonus points than supporting some small hipster company. Questions of efficiency, final costs, terms and other "technicalities" are absolutely not important in this case. So, of course, it is sad, but highly logical.
Absence of proof != proof of absence.
And the sticker price for the Boeing option only cost 10 times more than the SpaceX BEFORE project delays and cost overruns.
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...
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?
Place something witty here
If I were Boeing, I would underbid even at lost to make sure SpaceX can't succeed. Though I think they are playing the fear card too about SpaceX ability to deliver. Now I sure hope this doesn't happen as I'm for the vision of Elon to push the boundary of what possible.
Over the last decade, most of NASA’s Atlas V heavy rocket launches performed by the United Launch Alliance (a Boeing/Lockheed Martin joint venture) were carried out using Russian RD-180 dual-nozzle rocket engines. What engine boosters will Boeing be using for the Space Taxi? If Atlas V's, then there is a potential for a engine ban by Russia, which was threatened back in August, with no improvement between our two countries since, and only getting worse. Now we know why Zombies pass on Fed government decision makers when it comes to feeding time.
As much as I think space is a dead end and the ISS is a gigantic welfare program, I hate corporation bullshit even more.
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.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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.
When you get a government contract, you get government accountability requirements, especially with the high visibility contracts. I'm not kidding when I say the accountability requirements are often more than the technical requirements, and I wonder if SpaceX would be able to shift their business model to handling them. The second source contract may be perfect so they can use it as bridge money before they start doing private space flights.
"Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
Why don't they just take a balloon? Don't those go high enough? It worked for that Felix guy.
Obvious proof that we live in a fascist dystopia and John Galt has no recourse but to go on strike and create a L ibertaian utopia on Mars.
Elon is good,
Elon is great,
we surrender our will as of this date!
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.
If you have any illusions about any honesty left in the aerospace industry...
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.
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.
Compared to upstart space company headed by narcissistic billionaire who made his money from a company known for screwing over its customers and other unethical business practices?
Ad Hominems are fun!
The parent sounds like a plant from Space X, maybe even Elon's personal ass wiper!
Or more than likely, the parent is madly in love with Musk and can only worship him from afar and stick up for him when he can!
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.
Any bets on SpaceX building their own space station so that they will have something to fly their spacecraft to?
To put a witty saying into 120 characters, jst rmv ll th vwls.
It will be interesting to see how all things line up after we know the details and backroom discussions. Earlier aerospace vehicles looked vastly superior but never went anywhere. While lots of conspiracy theories, it was later documented Howard Hughes with innovative and creative designs (and also a celebrity engineer) did not have industrial capacity to build aircraft in quantity. I'm certain B36 was chosen over the B49 flying wing because USAF needed range and payload the Flying Wing could not deliver. Then there was the issue of having to pay taxes on used XB49s so all the Flying Wings were destroyed. Though unmanned Dragon has flown and manned Dragon seems just around the corner, does SpaceX have capacity to make spaceships in quantity? But maybe there really isn't a need for large quantities of manned spacecraft? Or maybe it's just backroom deals. Almost all of us don't really know as virtually all information is third hand or presentations by key people but they really don't give us all the juicy facts.
mfwright@batnet.com
And here I thought that the Obama administration thought NASA existed only to tell various cultures how important their contributions were.
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.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
After all, a corporate mono-culture is technically a type of culture, right?
Anyone have information on what programming languages they use and how they picked them?
First of all, the rumor has been that there will be multiple awards, and the 3 big players are Boeing, SpaceX, and Sierra Nevada. So there are some inaccuracies here.
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 more flight heritage thanks to Dragon, cheaper, and possibly safer (with both propulsive and parachute-based landing, there's an extra piece of redundancy). It also has a completely domestic, guaranteed launch vehicle to use.
Boeing is still married to ULA's expensive vehicles, one of which is about to be given a new engine. Once they abandon the RD180 and start using this new engine, Atlas V will essentially be a different, unproven launch vehicle. Of course, they can use the Delta IV, but that is more expensive still than the Atlas V, which already dwarfs the cost of a SpaceX launch. Now, that isn't necessarily a deal breaker, but to exclusively depend on Boeing, who isn't likely to pursue compatibility with SpaceX's launch vehicles, means marrying ourselves to a single launch provider, with all the problems that entails (think of the current RD180 fiasco, the shuttle fleet being grounded after various disasters, the cost problems with a de facto monopoly)
If this is solely awarded to Boeing, I think that tells us that science and exploration are officially secondary objectives at NASA. Their primary purpose will be keeping the coffers full for big aerospace, and anything of value that happens to be accomplished will be in spite of their culture, not because of it.
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...
Just wait a while - Uber will offer a cheaper space taxi. Of course, the boosters might be held together by duct tape, there's no regulations whatsoever, but if it blows up the passengers won't be posting negative reviews, so it's all good, right?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Demand for privately-built spacecraft drops by what, 33%? Ouch.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The Apollo missions actually landed on the other moon. There is a big international conspiracy to hide the fact that Earth has two moons.
And you are all out of funny.
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...
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
... the fix may already be in. Hard to believe that it's been ten years.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Corruption? Probably not. Hide-bound thinking bordering on Good-Ole-Boy-ism by NASA? Absolutely.
Boeing announced that it will do this under a new company named "Uber Lyft".
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
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.
Seastead this.
Somaloa.
'nuff said.
Big Corps make campaign contributions. Long-standing Big Corps also have embedded connections to people who can help push decisions in their favor. It doesn't matter if it's a D or an R.
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.
An effective "democracy" creates the illusion the people have a say in their government.
Bezos's Blue Origin Part of Boeing Team Bidding for Taxi to ISS
http://slashdot.org/submission...
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 a NASA contract to ferry astronauts to and from the international space station, according to people familiar with the matter.""
Seastead this.
*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.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
1.6 billion extra to Boeing? BILLION?! What the fuck is that shit? That money was stolen from SNC by Boeing lobbyists and their corrupt puppets. Boeing needs to die.
The Shuttle was NOT flawed - the parts from the rocket that fell ON the shuttle were the flaws....If foam/debris were to fall on the SpaceX capsules or Boeing capsule - I promise they'd have a nice sized crater in their capsule as well....
BTW - SpaceX isn't really hurting for $$$ since the CEO has it. Smart move for him to have a port down in TX (helped with political positioning). Wish I had land there to sell prior to his arrival ;).
Just found my way to this interesting page - doesn't make me a coward though - interesting way to label a 'Guest'....
I hope Sierra Nevada continues the development of the Dreamchaser as well. A few of us know that the "shuttle on a rocket design" was considered in the 70's (and probably should have been the winning design then). IF the company requires funding - there's always Kickstarter or other sites. With ongoing progress being demonstrated, I'd gladly donate to this design.
In the press conference that was held after the announcement, the NASA PR rep actually mentioned "other competitive crewed spaceflight operators" could be considered in the future. In other words, SNC is not completely out of the picture. Indeed they will still be funded for CCiCAP as they complete the final milestones under the current agreements... SNC just missed the big funding and actual spaceflight missions which SpaceX and Boeing are now being funded for with CCtCAP.
"His only "legend in his own mind" was that he claimed that "his" hosts file could completely secure a windows computer. " - by tomhudson (43916) on Saturday February 12, @11:19AM (#35186644) Homepage Journal FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... in the YEAR 2011 years ago no less
I never claimed a HOSTS file can secure you completely... show me where I have? I want a quote, big talker... you'll never get it, because I never, EVER said that: HOSTS files are, however, a valuable layer of defense for the concept of "layered security".
* You couldn't produce proof THEN, & you certainly can't now (vainly *trying* to put words in my mouth I NEVER ONCE SAID!)
APK
P.S.=> Still @ your LIES, you transsexual weirdo? Ok, asking it again now nearly 5 yrs. later now in response to your bullshit lies again here quoted:
"APK - not only an expert on how the HOSTS file is the best way to secure your computer" - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Wednesday September 17, 2014 @07:06PM (#47932519) Homepage
Under your NEW sockpuppet account too no less: SEE my challenge to you above - where've I ever said they completely secure you? I never have, liar...
Of course, YOU ARE welcome to disprove my points on them after you said this lately too:
"I tore apart your stupid hosts file crapola." - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @10:46AM (#47703255) Homepage
Oh, really?
Then why'd you run from disproving my points on them giving users added speed, security, reliability & more here too then -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... ?
... apk
One of the 1st times "Barb" libeled me stating "APK is a know-nothing that's never worked in the industry" -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... in 1 of her numerous sockpuppet fake accounts kept active @ the same time here she uses to upmod herself & downmod opponents she can't get the better of (everyone's onto your games, freak).
Funny part is I've DONE FAR BETTER than ole' "cyclops Frank N. Furter" ever has shown in that exchange too http://slashdot.org/comments.p... , lol!
---
Later, he/she kept a journal on me & libeled me even more but worse -> http://slashdot.org/journal/25...
(Typical b.s. to *try* to 'put down' computer "geeks/nerds" saying "I live in a basement with my mommy" etc. when *ANYTHING BUT THAT* is true, considering I am a taxpaying homeowner!).
---
* From the dates you can SEE she's kept this up unceasingly since early to mid 2010 no less, & that's only scratching the surface (there's far more).
(Even TELLING OTHERS TO HARASS ME BY ANONYMOUS COWARD POSTS, calling me a "pedo" -> http://news.slashdot.org/comme... )
He/She left in May 2012 after being exposed for ALL OF THAT, but came back with this NEW account of hers, & what started up again (I did *NOT* bother "shim" even once before that)?
You guessed it (more harassment) -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
Where I challenged her for her usual CRAP she always runs from (to validly disprove my points on hosts, which she clearly, cannot):
"I tore apart your stupid hosts file crapola." - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @10:46AM (#47703255) Homepage
Oh, really?
Then why'd you run from disproving my points on them giving users added speed, security, reliability & more here too then -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
APK
P.S.=> Barb/Tom (whatever, with multiple sockpuppets too http://slashdot.org/~BarbaraHu... = http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson... + http://slashdot.org/~Barbara%2... ) you've destroyed yourself yet again...
...apkb