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.
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.
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."
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!
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.
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.
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