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.

Comments

And the speculation was completely off

[bruce_the_loon]

Not Boeing alone, and not SpaceX alone. This is the best possible outcome for NASA, not reliant on a single supplier like before.

The fact that to deliver the same development and certification process costs $1.6 billion less for SpaceX over Boeing is also interesting. Some are already saying that it is a bigger win for Boeing and that SpaceX is a backup plan, but since the amounts are what the two companies bid on the project, it shows how economical SpaceX believes they can be.

And that there are two companies still competing should reduce the risk of deliberate cost-overruns and delays. If one can get to full certification a year or more ahead of the other, it will be a huge blow to the second-place finisher's chances to win the final operational contract.

Wow, I am impressed

[Ecuador]

I did not think SpaceX even with its excellent track record would have convinced the bureaucrats to give them a solid chance instead of just give everything to Boeing as usual. And actually $2.6b is to SpaceX probably more than what $4.2b is to Boeing. And it might actually force Boeing to actually develop their solution efficiently for once, since I doubt they can count on huge cost overruns if the competing contract is on time & on budget.

Re:Wow, I am impressed

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignoring for a moment your use of the word to describe, I assume, your opinion of everybody who works in any capacity for the government, which is a bunch of crap, I have to ask one question concerning your assessment of SpaceX: They have an excellent track record of what exactly? Manned space flight? Uh....no. Not even close. There's a little bit of a difference between taking chances on unmanned launches where the risk is some equipment and maybe some reputation--unless you're on Slashdot where everybody worships Elon Musk of course.

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? I really hope you conduct a better bid process than that if you ever remodel a bathroom or something. They made a wise decision, and you deride the people who made it.

NASA used multiple contractors back when this country was worth a damn. Take a look at the Saturn V. Three stages. Three different main contractors (including Boeing). One vehicle. They actually had to work together. I know the very though horrifies everybody in this competition-for-its-own-sake society we live in now, but it got done and it met the objective. Keep in mind that in that particular instance, cost wasn't the objective--time was. It was expensive. They had to invent machines that made machines that made parts. They had to invent materials and they had to invent control systems with only primitive successful examples to work from.

SpaceX has had to do none of this because it was all done for them. Then you all run around like they're innovative and such when, while they're good at what they do, what they're great at is PR, like most of Musk's endeavors.

It really hurts to have to defend Boeing on just about anything because I can't stand their management any more than SpaceX's, but they do have a record of being able to deliver in the manned spaceflight arena. They also have a history of trying to make too much money being the sole supplier of stuff, so I will agree with your last point and echo what I said earlier: they did the smart thing splitting this contract up. SpaceX will get a chance to prove themselves, and maybe learn something in the process, and whatever else they do, Boeing will deliver something that works. If both solutions work, great--now there's a choice. If not, well, I'm sure it'll be some big conspiracy against small, young, hip, ultra cool companies or something.

All this from the minds of "bureaucrats". Now how did that happen? I'm sure in your closed mind it'll be anything except people actually trying to do a good job.

Re:Six Missoins Each

[Guspaz]

Speaking as a fellow non-American, I'm thrilled. The better SpaceX does, the lower their costs will be, and the more likely that the CSA (Canadian Space Agency) will be able to afford their services.

The CSA's annual budget is only around half a billion dollars per year, around 25% per-capita what the US spends on NASA. That wouldn't have even been enough to afford a shuttle flight. But with SpaceX's pricing, Canada can afford to launch our own stuff via private industry. We've already used SpaceX to launch a satellite (CASSIOPE) much cheaper than the alternatives, and if SpaceX hits their manned spaceflight target of $20 million a seat, Canada could actually afford to do its own manned launch with SpaceX. As in, a flight with only Canadian astronauts would actually be something that our meagre budget could afford. And we can always use more Chris Hadfields :)

Basically, the better SpaceX does, the more Canada can do with its limited space budget. Exciting times!

Re:Six Missoins Each

[budgenator]

On the one hand, it sucks for SpaceX that they get less money to do the same thing

It wouldn't suck if they made more profit on less revenue.

Commercial Crew Press Conference

[JamesPLynch]

After watching the Commercial Crew presser this afternoon, I was surprised at how lame the NASA people came off.

NASA director Charlie Bolden simply read verbatim from an email he sent earlier to NASA employees. He spent most of his time aggrandizing the Orion space capsule (Apollo-derived) and its launch vehicle SLS (space shuttle-derived) without devoting much time at all to the commercial crew effort.

Commercial Crew manager Kathy Leuders came off like an old Bob-and-Ray skit where she was armed with only three bits of information and that was all you're going to get out of her. Somebody asked her about the Boeing reliance on Russian rocket engines and her answer was not exactly convincing.

There was an astronaut there who waxed poetic about seeing the Milky Way from the space station. One other NASA guy had nothing significant to add.

Bottom line? Each company (Boeing and SpaceX) bid what they thought the job was worth; NASA awarded them what they asked for. Boeing got nearly twice the funding for a conservative, unimaginative Apollo capsule with a Russian-based launch vehicle. Most of the newsmen asking questions were suspicious about this, as am I.

Re:My Guess

[DerekLyons]

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.

There's another factor that everyone is ignoring - SpaceX is proposing a craft that's a modification of an existing vehicle and which is also expected to be subsidized by commercial use. Boeing on the other hand is proposing a craft that's clean-sheet new and has no other customers.