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?
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 |
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.
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
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
It's great to know that AC's can't do math.
Be seeing you...
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.
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.
The Apollo missions actually landed on the other moon. There is a big international conspiracy to hide the fact that Earth has two moons.
*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.