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.
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.
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.
Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
This is a reasonable move, I'm not sure that Boeing deserves more cash than SpaceX though. I'm also bummed for Sierra Nevada, the Dreamchaser is awesome. To be fair, there have been rumors of troubles with their hybrid engine recently. Hopefully the ESA will pick them up for some flights.
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.
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.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
...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...
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.
Because it's Boeing:
https://www.opensecrets.org/lo...
vs.
0
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
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.
Wow - Java Computer game licensing ... 2.5 billion, the future of America's space dreams ... 2.6 billion.
It's white guilt man. I'm not sure what we do about it, but I think the first step is recognizing what it is.
All that shit really ain't your fault. You want to pay for your existence? Give something to charity.
After that, try to have it all. Mostly love. But Civics are nice too. And rockets. :)
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
Boeing hasn't built anything.
I've done even less. I'm kicking myself just thinking about how much I could have asked for.
Have gnu, will travel.
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.
If we are to continue consuming in the way we do, then i think the space program is vital to the continuance of human. The mining of space rock will reduce planetary pollution which ought significantly help our circumstance. As will the moving of heavy industry into near space.
Is NASA researching how to get food past corrupt warlords and government officials now?
I would like to point out this story: How the Critics of the Apollo Program Were Proven Wrong Of course this is limited to the economic impact in the US, but the I subscribe to the general gist.
Currently starvation and access to drinking water is almost exclusively an economic problem. Although I am not basically opposed to welfare and foreign aid programs, it turns out that getting people to work and letting them pay for their needs more effective in the long run.
So yes, we should build more rockets!
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.
It's for all those foul-mouthed homeless people that curse at you when you walk by...
Firstly, where do you plan to evacuate a significant percentage of the world's population to ? Secondly, how are you going to decide who is worthy of evacuation and who has just put his gun down and is hiding with the locals to make sure he can carry on the abuse and oppression in their new location ? Finally, how are you going to get this food to them ?
Food nutrition or availability isn't the problem - the problem is identifying valid recipients and then getting it past every government agent, checkpoint thug and warlord into the region.
I've worked in strange places in Africa and I've seen a lot of this first hand. The only fix is for people to organise and setup governments that are fair and have their people's interests at heart. That won't happen without massive amounts of education and people believing they can change things, and vested external interests stepping aside so that this can happen. I doubt very much that this will happen in my lifetime, short of a massively powerful nation deciding it is in their best interests.
Watching China's march into Africa is very interesting to me for these reasons.