"A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, which would power the Dragon V2 capsule, exploded during an Aug. 22 test flight. Musk said afterward in a Twitter post: “Rockets are tricky.”"
Am I the only one who finds this a bit misleading? That was a highly experimental version of the 9 that failed. And it failed while trying to do something no rocket this size has ever done. It seems that would be worth mentioning.
Next paragraph:
"The Atlas V boosters chosen by Boeing have a flawless record launching high-priced military payloads."
...yet the google finds me this:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1222
"Two top secret National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) ocean surveillance spacecraft were fired into the wrong orbit June 15 when the 200-foot-tall Atlas V rocket they were riding on stopped firing too early in space following launch from Cape Canaveral, Fla."
I guess I'm not surprised the media is uninformed (or biased) but it still ticks me off enough that I feel the need to point it out.
I wondered that too. She's written 8 articles for Bloomberg and 7 of them are about Boeing - all in a positive light. Imagine she has the ear of Boeing PR.
Bloomberg is sort of a catch22 with musk. They try to highlight him as much as possible, even so far as to over praise him with really stupid matters. Then one little mistake or negativity, it is blown up and seriously investigated and written about.
It's not too surprising to see businessweek displaying a slight preference for Boeing over SpaceX, considering the former is public while the latter is private.
Investors do prefer public companies for obvious reasons.
Because its a press release and Boeing is a partner.
They didn't mention the Atlas V is built using RD-180[1] (aka Russian engines) even though much of the discussion is about not begin dependent on the Russians for access to space. Or that the expected cost per launch is not cost competitive. But the good news is that doesn't matter, what matters is how well both companies execute against the objective of a reliable manned launch capability.
> The Atlas V boosters chosen by Boeing have a long history of launching high-priced military payloads. The challenge: The United Launch Alliance rockets rely on Russian-made RD-180 engines whose availability is threatened by tensions between the U.S. and Russia.
To be perfectly clear I am just assumed it was, my assumption is that Boeing issues a press release with some talking points, the reporter reads it and rephrases it in their own words and that goes out on the wire. What results are pretty much the same words and talking points in a number of stories. But looking at the 'official' release here : http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2014-09-16-Boeing-CST-100-Select... and NASA's release here: http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/september/nasa-chooses-americ... I could believe its just the reporter's take on the day's news
No, the Centaur upper stage is a standard part of an Atlas V. All Atlas V vehicles use Centaur second stages. Since the Centaur failed, part of the Atlas V system failed.
Yes you are correct. I noticed that after re-reading the article. However I feel my point still stands. If the reporter is going to draw a fine point on what an Atlas 5 is, they could do the same for a falcon 9.
Submarine PR is when a company manufactures news out of nothing and gets the press to cover it. This contract is actually news. If this story was shaped by Boeing PR, it's just straight ahead regular PR.
The sentence does mention it was a test flight. Maybe "experimental" would have been more accurate a word than "test", but that's just arguing over details.
This sentence was not misleading and was basically stating facts.
Not really, the dev vehicle had, for example, three not nine engines and critically had only one or a particular sensor where the real thing has three; the fault that exploded the test vehicle would have been outvoted by the other two redundant systems on a real F9. Calling them the same invites inaccurate feelings of splodeyness.
It's part of the US Intelligence community, so it depends on your definition of the military. In practical terms, the answer is yes. It's mostly staffed from the Air Force and CIA.
I listened to the post-briefing audio feed where reporters called in and asked additional questions.
A very common question people have is about why the money is broken up between Boeing and SpaceX as it is. Why does SpaceX get a smaller amount?
The awards were based specifically on the estimates that each company submitted in their proposals. In other words, Boeing said they need $4.2 billion and SpaceX said they need $2.6 billion.
This is very telling because the proposals are for the same NASA requirements. SpaceX is saying they can do it 1.65 times cheaper than Boeing.
NASA is not currently commenting on their decision process for choosing to award these two companies.
My personal supposition is that its a best-of strategy. NASA has a high priority to get human launch capability back under our control. They also have competing requirements. Do it as inexpensively as possible. Use multiple partners to fulfill the commercial spaceflight mission. They also need the assurance that the companies they work with can actually complete the contracts.
Boeing is an old dog and partner to NASA. They have decades of experience behind them. SpaceX is relatively new and while increasingly successful with delivering launch vehicles, they've not yet built human launch craft. It makes sense, when you think of it as a way of hedging NASA's bets, to choose these two companies even though their award amounts are vastly different.
I bet given the relative efficiencies of both companies development process that SpaceX's 2.6 billion will give them a lot more runway (pun intended) than Boeing's $4.2 billion.
I find it interesting that Boeing is constantly trying to get into every story that they made all their milestones on time. I think perhaps they are dealing with the fact that the CST-100 system looks like something from the 70's when compared to the Dragon V2.
Its clear to me that SpaceX is taking the bigger risk here, they have way more things that are untried but I am so hoping they make it to the finish. Boeing would develop a slightly better capability than Soyuz (7 astronauts vs 3) but SpaceX would deliver capability far in excess of that, 7 people landed where you want them on land or on sea.
> I find it interesting that Boeing is constantly trying to get into every story that they made all their milestones on time.
The companies pretty much wrote their own milestones. Most of Boeing's milestones in the last part of the program were paperwork milestones vs SpaceX's milestones which involved actual testing.
The main ones SpaceX haven't completed yet, that they had as milestones for the last part of the program were pad abort test and in-flight abort test. Boeing are no where near doing those on the CST-100, SpaceX have them scheduled for November and January, respectively.
Just because they completed their milestones, doesn't mean they are ahead of SpaceX in total development. They are in fact far behind.
>I think perhaps they are dealing with the fact that the CST-100 system looks like something from the 70's when compared to the Dragon V2.
They both look pretty plain to me. I mean, Musk can lay on some shiny metal here and there, but they're both soulless capsules. I really like the Dream Chaser; a 1/4th size STS that can be mounted on the tip of existing rockets is very tempting.
I think Boeing's marketing wants people to know that it won't have the Musk-like cult of personality, but it can deliver the goods, thus the talking points about hitting milestones.
I wish both of them the best of luck. This isn't a competition, its delivering LEO for NASA. I think people who see it as some kind of "my guy vs yours" are missing the point.
I don't think seeing them as soulless capsules is a very productive attitude. It's true that Dream Chaser's lifting body design looks sexy, but I don't think the goal of human spaceflight is to be sexy.
From a tech perspective, and keeping in mind that I can presume the goal of human spaceflight to be to push humanity further into the cosmos, I see one thing really exciting about Dragon 2 that CST-100 doesn't have--propulsive landing. A NASA Ames research team says that Dragon 2 thrown by Falcon Heavy could execute a fully propulsive EDL on Mars. This seems like interesting heritage to build, and shows that development of Dragon 2 could have implications on further spaceflight.
They both look pretty plain to me. I mean, Musk can lay on some shiny metal here and there, but they're both soulless capsules. I really like the Dream Chaser; a 1/4th size STS that can be mounted on the tip of existing rockets is very tempting.
Plain is good. Plain (in this context) is correlated with reliable.
Here's the thing with the STS. The lifting-body design spreads a critical system component (the reentry system) over a large area, necessarily on the outside of the craft.
A capsule with a more conventional ablative re-entry heat shield is more durable and reliable. It is also protected for most of the mission. It can be engineered with plenty of design margin (at minimal weight penalty), to deal with unexpected circumstances. That makes for a good design.
The TPS on the STS has partially failed several times [1], and once catastrophically.
> I really like the Dream Chaser; a 1/4th size STS that can be mounted on the tip of existing rockets is very tempting.
It's much heavier than a Dragon v2, meaning it carries less payload for the same launch cost, for more or less the same land-where-you-want capability. It's pretty, but pretty does not solve the problem.
IIRC it does have the advantage of simplicity in use (if not in construction) over the Dragon: it lands without fuel and without needing refuelling. Re-use could amount to wiping it down and kicking the tires, then winching it up onto a new booster.
Look at capabilities, not looks. Dragon V2, if it lives up to its promise along with F9R, means dramatically reduced costs for launching people into space through almost complete reusability of the launch vehicle and capsule. Turnaround times on the order of days, launch costs in the single-digit millions, it would be huge. It's basically all of the empty promises of the Space Shuttle, but (it appears for the moment, at least) with the hardware to back it up.
CST-100 makes similar promises if it can be matched with a reusable launcher (perhaps F9R). I'm not sure if they're looking at similarly short turnaround times (probably not). But they're much less far along and it's hard to judge if they can deliver.
Dream Chaser also makes similar promises, again if it can be matched with a reusable launcher. What's the advantage of it over the others? As far as I can see, the only real advantage is less gee loading during reentry. In exchange, you add a lot of complication and weight (wings and wheels). It doesn't seem worth it at all.
Spaceplanes look cool, but what's the point? The goal should be robustness and cheapness, with reusability a necessity for enabling the latter. Vertical powered landing with a capsule looks like an excellent way to achieve this.
Take a look at the insides. The CST-100 is extremely cramped for the astronauts. The Dragon 2 looks like luxury in comparison. If there are astronauts that get to ride in both modules, I'm pretty sure they are going to be pro Space-X far and above (assuming both perform normally).
The lifting body may look more inspiring, but despite what you say, the Dragon 2 has many key innovations that are aimed at what really matters: reducing the cost and increasing the safety of spaceflight. Shroudless launch, 3D printed main engines, integrated LES using the main engines, propulsive landing, full reusability. To draw an equivalence between it and other previous capsule designs that don't have those features is misleading.
Perhaps Dream Chaser was ready to do all those things. I wish it went forward as well. But the technologies in Dragon 2 will make a big difference.
I'd guess that the obvious disparity between the two was an intentional move by NASA.
SpaceX is the cool, fast-moving, forward-thinking—but potentially more risky—alternative. Boeing is the boring, slow-moving, business-as-usual, military-industrial-complex alternative.
I suspect that privately they hope SpaceX succeeds, but they also want a backup plan that's more conventional, if less good in some sense.
[As to why Boeing's getting more money than SpaceX, I suppose because Boeing probably uses money much less efficiently... they need more to reach a similar point... >< ]
Unfortunately Sierra Nevada ends up being the losers here. I'd have loved to have seen the Dream Chaser also win the competition, but my guess is NASA (or someone in Congress) felt that choosing SpaceX and SNC would have been too risky.
Yeah, and it sounds like they were under political pressure to choose just one winner, so even the choice they made was a bit of a push for them.
If they had chosen just one winner, I presume that, given the inherently risk-averse nature of NASA and the political realities of lobbying and pork-spreading, it would have been Boeing. The same factors almost certainly meant that Boeing would have to be one of the two winners under the current plan.
The SpaceX design is probably the less risky one. They are already flying a version of Dragon which is very similar, and will have many more flights of it by the time of the first crewed flights. The differences between the crew and cargo versions are important, but the CST-100, as a basically clean-sheet design, will have far less relevant flight heritage than Dragon.
SpaceX is severely behind schedule on actually delivering and launching Falcon 9s, however. This may well get sorted out, but given its performance to date I'm not surprised that NASA wants another option.
That's a perfectly reasonable sort of thing to promote. It might equally be that they don't want people to think of production delays that affected the launch of the 787 or F-35 (the latter being nothing to do with Boeing, but aerospace and space are strongly linked in the public's mind and the F-35 project is famous for not meeting deadlines).
I sometimes wonder if anyone regrets having awarded the JSF contract to Lockheed Martin instead of picking the X-32. I honestly think part of the decision with going with the X-35 was because it looked a hell of a lot cooler than the X-32.
I'm sure many people regret it, although I don't know enough to know what the 'right' decision was. For all the F-35's faults (notably its recurring failure to get off the ground...) at least it doesn't look like a giant frog: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-32#mediaviewer/File:Bo...
Definitely SpaceX has the better machine, but at least the CST-100 is reusable and can make ground landings (via pillows). There is a 10-use limit for each, due to the thermal shields; the Dragon2 requires a refit and from what I can tell the CST-100 is just replaced with a new one.
I think having both systems in parallel development is really critical though. One conservative, one leading edge and riskier. Putting everything into one program just doesn't seem to pan out in the long run and you end up with capability gaps, or relying on untrusty secondary supply sources.
Hilarious how SpaceX gets $2.6 billion to develop human space flight, while Microsoft pays almost the same amount to buy Minecraft. Talk about ridiculous evaluations in the tech industry.
you say that, but minecraft is worth actual money because it sells a product that lots of people want to buy and has a lot of potential for further attached products (servers, DLC, etc). A more apt comparison would be whatsapp/instagram/whatever ridiculous social app facebook is buying this week for $X billion, without any revenue or business model to speak of.
Minecraft seems like a more innovative and clever use of technology than sending more primates into low earth orbit. It certainly benefits more people.
If SpaceX can deliver on their long-term plans, they'll benefit more people in more ways than Minecraft ever could. Cheap access to space could be a computer-like revolution. Minecraft is ultimately just a toy, albeit a highly creative and potentially educational one.
Exactly. Minecraft is work $2.5bn now. SpaceX may well be worth a lot more in the future, but neither company is at the same stage of development in their respective fields.
Hmm.. By this logic, Kerbal Space Program should also be valued around this price. Its a highly creative and potentially educational toy ABOUT sending primates (or whatever kerbals are) into low earth orbit!
As far as government coercions go, it's hard to understand how someone could have a problem with forcing people to give up money in order to develop the most important technology in the history of technology. Would you mind explaining your point of view in a little more detail?
There won't be a market for space travel until it's a reality, so this would seem to be one of the only ways forward.
> it's hard to understand how someone could have a problem with forcing people to give up money in order to develop the most important technology in the history of technology
I'm not trying to defend stefan_kendall3's position, but you made a pretty large personal value judgement in that statement. You think this is "the most important technology in the history of technology"; many people don't.[1] In fact, many people think that human spaceflight, including some of the Earth orbit missions we already run, are a waste of valuable resources that should be diverted elsewhere.
[1] For the record, I think human spaceflight is pretty important in the long term, but disagree that it is most important area of technology. I think certain areas of medicine should be placed ahead of it, for example.
I was genuinely hoping someone would provide a defense of stefan's position, but it's looking less like it'll happen. That's too bad, because it was a chance to learn something.
The space program has been (and will continue to be) directly responsible for many important technologies that lift the tide for ALL of humanity. Yes, even those who live in poverty.
If you are interested in learning how, read this short letter:
"It's two contracts to the same requirements" (press conference), but Boeing needs $4.2 billion and SpaceX makes due with $2.6 billion. What am I missing?
I would have to imagine that all four bidders presented plans with varying risk and cost which meet the requirements. Since NASA had a mandate to pick multiple winners there were probably two winning strategies, be low cost or be low risk.
I's speculate that Boeing presented the low risk route--nobody doubts they can meet the requirement if they get paid enough. I'd imagine that SpaceX presented the lost cost bid, probably viewing their bid as more of a subsidy for work and risks they are undertaking regardless.
SpaceX could have massively underbid Boeing in their proposal. I'm no rocket scientist so I honestly don't know how reasonable that conjecture is until either company says more.
EDIT: Listening to the follow up questions on NASA HQ UStream Feed the following questions and answers were asked (both questions and answers are paraphrased by me, I can't type as quickly as they can speak):
Q: Why did Boeing receive more than SpaceX?
A: Both companies proposed costs for their proposals to acquire capabilities to fulfill the RFP, and the government accepted both.
It's pretty straight forward. SpaceX can do the same work with less money for a variety of reasons. And SpaceX has a capsule that has already flown in space and successfully docked with the ISS several times to deliver cargo. They are 'just' upgrading it to carry people. Boeing has not flow their capsule yet, they're playing catchup.
Boeing is an old and slow shop that outsources a lot of its work (even the engines, they're from Russia). SpaceX is essentially a startup and does almost everything in house (even the engines, they're from California). SpaceX also charges much less than Boeing for satellite launches.
I rather suspect that it's simply because SpaceX needs less money to finalise their space flight capability. That's typically how government contracts work - suppliers make bids and the government chooses the winner based on price and other criteria. Presumably SpaceX's bid was lower than Boeing's.
Off topic: it's "making do", not "making due". Non American English speakers pronounce the two quite differently, so this is a really startling error for us...
"Unlike previous phases of NASA’s commercial crew program, which used funded Space Act Agreements that provided greater flexibility, the CCtCap awards are fixed-price contracts."
I'm basically curious what incentivizes NASA to put that much money into the Boeing option. Is SpaceX' design too radical and unproven, making a backup option a good idea even if the backup is more expensive? Are there political implications in play, like keeping Boeing's workforce employed?
The big picture is that NASA has created competition in the commercial space market. If either of the parties fail to live up to their obligations, NASA has a backup. If both succeed, all the better for NASA. Competition is good.
That's true; looking at it terms of supporting industry-wide infrastructure it does seem more sensible than throwing everything behind one vendor.
Edit: Comment 8326972 by terravion also suggests picking a single winner wasn't an option, which I wasn't aware of, aside from the issue of the relative award magnitudes.
Its not the money you spend today, its the money you spend tomorrow: we need manned transport to LEO today. But depending who wins, it will determine what it costs tomorrow.
It's hard to find prices for Atlas, even more so for the so-far-unflown dual engine Centaur version which CST-100 uses, but it's clear that it's a lot more expensive than a Falcon 9.
It's possible the two contracts don't meet the requirements in the same way or at the same level. There may be optional requirements which one company has promised to meet and the other hasn't, or requirements that require "at least X" where one company is promising 10% over X and the other is promising 30% over X.
This is as good a turnout as one could hope for, really. It assuages the entrenched interests, keeps the companies in more fierce competition, and gives even more political legitimacy to SpaceX.
Boeing is also the safe bet. There is zero chance that in three years Boeing will be bankrupt and have no way of completing the capsule. Realistically I could see this happening to both SpaceX (1 in 500) and SNC (no clue about the ods maybe 1 in 50).
I'm actually quite surprised by this. I thought once the congressmen started complaining that it needed to be single contract[1] that NASA would go all Boeing. Good on them, I think they've struck the best balance they can do politically, financially, and technologically.
Charlie Bolden is one of the best, if not the best NASA administrator ever. You can't say enough good things about him. It's a great time for human space flight, it really seems like the dawn of a new era.
Could you go into more detail? As in, I'm not sure if you're replying about administration, contract awards, or tech; all of which would be interesting to read more on.
That's only because we want to put people into low earth orbit with some sort of purpose besides just testing basic feasibility and Beating The Russians.
If some magic scenario arose where the US had to put a person into low-earth orbit and bring him back alive or, say, the Earth would be destroyed, it could probably be done within a month. SpaceX can pretty much do it right now. Throwing together a quick "spam in a can" capsule could be done by other companies pretty quickly, and tossed atop an existing launcher.
What takes so long is building something that can actually deliver people and cargo to an existing destination, do so safely (without breaking the destination or the people), transport people who aren't military test pilots, and not cost a noticeable percentage of GDP while doing it all.
.But the circumstances are entirely different, in 1959 it a national effort to save face after sputnik, to solely fly men in space and land on the moon, full stop. Thats jt dismantle the program, today Bolden was talking commercial enterprises n.nnabout flying people destinations in low earth orbit other than the international space station (ie Bigelow hotels). Thats the difference imo.
It even worse than that b/c a new administration will come in and turn everything on its head again. "Sorry SpaceX, we changed our mind. Oh, you can't afford for us to change our mind? Terribly sorry to drive you out of business. But you can't blame us. It was the other parties fault."
I realise there's practical differences in terms of the current rate of progress between Space-X and Reaction Engines, but in the long term (and making the huge assumption that they'll get Skylon built), I think Reaction Engines has the better plan.
Human space flight has essentially no scientific value. The only thing we learn from it is how to keep people healthy in space, which is a wonderfully circular rationale.
I disagree. The closer humans (preferably scientists themselves) are to scientific instruments, the more quickly observations can be made and new (even spontaneous) experiments be performed.
I have underestimated the Musk-Fandom. I'm also behind the guy but am lolzing at all the knowledgeable armchair astronauts and their expert conspiracies.
If only they would have relied on the opinions of web developers rather than experts in the aerospace industry.
I'm happy with the outcome but I don't hate Boeing so I'm obviously biased. That being said, I hope Elon demonstrates his ability, and will cheer him on.
Am I the only one who finds this a bit misleading? That was a highly experimental version of the 9 that failed. And it failed while trying to do something no rocket this size has ever done. It seems that would be worth mentioning.
Next paragraph: "The Atlas V boosters chosen by Boeing have a flawless record launching high-priced military payloads."
...yet the google finds me this: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1222 "Two top secret National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) ocean surveillance spacecraft were fired into the wrong orbit June 15 when the 200-foot-tall Atlas V rocket they were riding on stopped firing too early in space following launch from Cape Canaveral, Fla."
I guess I'm not surprised the media is uninformed (or biased) but it still ticks me off enough that I feel the need to point it out.