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.
SpaceX will make $2.6 Billion do way cooler stuff than $4.2 Billion to Boeing. SpaceX is a young, hungry company that is on the forefront of multiple industries. Boeing, while still a great company, is older an no doubt bogged down in more levels of bureaucracy.
Boeing - Giant Company - $4.2B for a space vehicle that is still in design.
SpaceX - Space Startup - $2.6B for a space vehicle that works and has been flying missions for two years.
Spend your money more wisely.
Interesting.. have you considered the fact that civilization doesn't need to grind to a halt until your pet political projects are taken care of?
Did you wake up this morning and feed someone less fortunate? I bought a homeless guy a sandwich this weekend. Have you volunteered or done *anything* to help people in the third world?
No?
Oh, but you're mad that NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, is exploring space, as stated in their damned name.
They both got essentially the same contract, the dollar value represents what the companies bid for it, rather than establishing a first/second place.
Basically, the both won an equal contract. On the one hand, it sucks for SpaceX that they get less money to do the same thing, but on the other hand, it will put quite a feather in their cap to be able to demonstrate concretely that they can live up to their claims of doing it for less, which will give them a huge edge in the next round of contracts. Next time they can say "Look, we did everything just as well as Boeing, but we cost you a ton less. This time you should give us most of the flights."
Here's how the war on poverty is doing: http://dailycaller.com/2014/09...
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
I feel guilty driving a newer model Honda Civic knowing that if I bought something cheaper I could maybe feed someone less fortunate.
Oh bullshit, if you were going to feed somebody, you would just do it. The price of a Honda isn't going to keep you from send $5.00 to the soap-kitchen or UNICEF.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Here's how the war on poverty is doing: http://dailycaller.com/2014/09...
Thanks for the link, it has some numbers that show how relatively little NASA costs.
From the article:
The government has spent some $22 trillion on means-tested welfare programs since the War on Poverty began (in constant 2012 dollars).
This does not include Social Security, Medicare, nor unemployment insurance.
All of NASA's spending since 1958 totals 790 billion (inflation adjusted).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
This provides some data on the direct benefits of the space program:
http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/eco...
Keep in mind that without the space program, there would be no DirectTV and we would be dependent upon Comcast.
But that is not how the government wants us to be. So entitlements and division are the carrot and stick they use to keep us on the path.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
It's not the same development and certification process - as SpaceX will be flying a modification of an existing (certified) spacecraft, while Boeing's is a new and unflown design.
Wow - Java Computer game licensing ... 2.5 billion, the future of America's space dreams ... 2.6 billion.
However, a mission to Mars would require research into food preservation which is one of the largest problems to getting food into remote areas of the world and maintaining nutritional value for the people who need to consume it. For ever argument you can throw at NASA being a waste of money, I can counter that argument with a reason why NASA improves life.
Place something witty here
They have an excellent track record of what exactly?
Unmanned space flight of course. Given the money they have spent (hundreds of millions instead of billions), their results are amazing so far.
Do you think it's a wise decision to award a contract to a single supplier when that supplier has sort of a little bit of somewhat history doing something that's a little similar to what you're trying to accomplish?
Where do you get all that, the GP post implies 2 instead of one is a good idea. Especially to keep Boeing in check.
SpaceX has had to do none of this because it was all done for them.
It is obvious that if SpaceX had to do everything from scratch, they would not have bid just $2.6b for manned spaceflight. And would not require just 3 years. However how is this relevant to anything? Companies use existing technology/knowledge. Do you mean that because Boeing has existed for much longer and developed some early technologies they are somehow owed something? They were paid for that after all...
So why are people of the world still dying of starvation? Maybe instead of throwing money at the problem we can research what works.
Human history shows millennia of improved food production and distribution, and the result is a temporary boon followed by a population increase that consumes all the increased production. Want to fix things, break that cycle. Don't naively think more money or food will end hunger. You have to change and modernize the culture of the populations subject to famine.
That was my point, STOP spending on things like space until the problem is fixed, ...
We can do more than one thing at a time. Go off to Africa and be an emissary of cultural change, that won't cost much money. NASA can continue with impacting your efforts.
And with respect to the space program, it has paid for itself financially and in terms of the quality of life.
Plus space research and activities can potentially save billions of lives. Big rocks will fall from the sky. They will kill many depending on size and where they land. Look at the small impact that occurred at Meteor crater. That was a very small rock, 60 ft ?, and it killed everything for several miles, killed have of everything out to about 10 miles. OK, that was tens of thousands of years ago. Tunguska occurred about 100 years ago, fortunately that occurred in a wilderness area. It was equivalent to 1,000 Hiroshima bombs. Last year a meteor exploded over Chelyabinsk, Russia. Fortunately at high altitude. It was equivalent to about 20 Hiroshima bombs.
Is NASA researching how to get food past corrupt warlords and government officials now?