Slashdot Mirror
NASA's Manned Rocket Contract: $4.2 Billion To Boeing, $2.6 Billion To SpaceX
schwit1 writes NASA has chosen two companies to ferry astronauts to and from the International Space Station, and those companies are Boeing and SpaceX. This decision confirms that SpaceX is ready to go and gives the company the opportunity to finish the job, while also giving Boeing the chance to show that it can still compete. After NASA has certified that each company has successfully built its spacecraft, SpaceX and Boeing will each fly two to six missions. The certification process will be step-by-step, similar to the methods used in the cargo contracts, and will involve five milestones. The contracts will be paid incrementally as they meet these milestones. One milestone will be a manned flight to the ISS, with one NASA astronaut on board. Boeing will receive $4.2 billion, while SpaceX will get $2.6 billion. These awards were based on what the companies proposed and requested.
It was clarified later that both companies would fly six missions each (not counting the test mission).
I don't know if the director misspoke or was misunderstood, but she said later in the conference call they have the same requirements for the number of missions.
Perhaps. I suppose one reason is that SpaceX will be doing a very cutting edge design with little baggage to hold it back. Boeing will do a much more conservative design.
Then the two will be compared to each other to see how well they compare and to basically foster competition to make both designs better or lead to a Boeing-SpaceX collaboration to take the best parts of both.
Either way, it's a great decision to go both ways because SpaceX will do things Boeing will never think of, while Boeing will do things that SpaceX never even considered.
...but people are still dying of starvation and lack of water on THIS planet. =\
I know space exploration is very important, but shit, let's get real here. I feel guilty driving a newer model Honda Civic knowing that if I bought something cheaper I could maybe feed someone less fortunate.
That's a good point, and that's why we spent several trillions of dollars on welfare and foreign aid since the space program began.
The question you didn't ask, but should, is "What are our priorities in spending?"
You say welfare is more important than space exploration. It appears this is correct because we spend vastly more money on welfare.
Nasa takes about a half percent of the federal budget. What percent would you have it be?
Here's where all the money is really going. This kind of shows how relatively trivial is the amount we're spending on NASA.
http://mentalfloss.com/article...
"SpaceX is going to have to launch on the same *Lockheed* Atlas V initially as Boeing is"
Fat chance that will ever happen. Falcon 9 has triply-redundant avionics systems, and 2-engine out capability while still completing the mission. I'd be surprised if they have serious difficulty getting Falcon 9 man-rated. They had loss of an engine on a previous cargo flight and still made it to the space station.
The biggest problem getting food into remote areas and is making sure it reaches the people who need it. We could feed the whole world today, but there are people with vested interests in making sure that we don't.