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.
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"
The new powered landing Dragon is a "high risk" design. The Dreamchaser is also a "high risk" design plus you have all the "Shuttle was flawed" group that wants nothing to do with wings in space.
Boeing vs SpaceX? without doing all the number crunching it is hard to make an educated judgment.
As to the Politics SpaceX is in Ca, Tx, and FL. Boeing in in Ca, Tx, Fl, Washington, and Ks but the killer is that there headquarters is in... Chicago.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
A little of both.
Boeing doesn't do development work without a contract. So, when they got a contract to start development of their capsule, they started.
And then they stopped working on it as soon as the contract ran out. They're waiting on a new contract to resume work.
The only way their thing is going to be flying within a year is if you define flying as "unmanned test launch" (note that Dragon has been doing "unmanned test launches to the ISS for a while now in the form of its CRS flights. Another of which is due this week, as I recall.).
It's quite possible they'll have a usable capsule in three years. It's not the way to bet, but it's possible....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Why "give" anything? The first one that delivers should win. Competitors should not be prematurely removed from the race just because of rampant cronyism.
It's pretty easy to argue that a bloated corporate behemoth could be lagging behind an upstart startup.
That's not uncommon in tech.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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.
Actually, SpaceX already has a Bigelow Aerospace launch on their manifest scheduled for 2015.
Bigelow Aerospace makes inflatable space habitats. They have two small-scale prototypes in orbit already, and this next launch is likely to carry their first full-size station.
Bigelow has already partnered with SpaceX (as well as Boeing) for launch services related to crew rotation and supply missions for this endeavor.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
SpaceX already has several government contracts; notably delivering supplies to the ISS.
The next launch of a Bigelow module will be BEAM on CRS-8 in late 2015, but it's only 4 meters across and will mostly be unused with its hatch shut, other than to check every now and then that it's still okay, then eventually jettisoned.
The "real" one doesn't go up until 2016.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }