Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

WSJ Reports Boeing To Beat SpaceX For Manned Taxi To ISS

Posted by timothy on from the competition-continues dept.

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.

7 of 200 comments (clear)

  1. well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I guess Boeing is to big to fail...

    1. Re:well by sycodon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I thought the Dragon vessel was well on its way to being man-rated, or, certified. I haven't heard/seen anything from Boeing at all.

      Perhaps Politics plays a bigger role than innovation and even costs?

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  2. Translation... by tekrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Translation... by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Please, while out-and-out corruption is a theoretically plausible explanation, the GAO does audit the finances of major (unelected) decision makers sometimes. If there's a legal alternative, it's more plausible, on the simple grounds that it's easier to fly under the radar.

      Think more along the lines of "specifically targeting various regulatory requirements NASA has for contractors" or "having lots of ex-Boeing employees working in low engineering review roles" if you're going the route of believing there's manipulation. It's cheaper for them and its legal.

  3. Imagine That... by superdan2k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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 |
  4. clever move by NASA by wes33 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  5. Not surprising by Jade_Wayfarer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.