This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Commercialization

NASA Commercial Crew Announcement: Boeing and SpaceX

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
September 16, 2014
Filed under , , ,

NASA to Make Major Announcement Today About Astronaut Transport to the International Space Station
“NASA will make a major announcement today at 4 p.m. EDT regarding the return of human spaceflight launches to the United States. The agency will make the announcement during a news conference from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The event will be broadcast live on NASA Television and the agency’s website.”
Keith’s note: Moments ago Sen. Bill Nelson was on CNN. When asked what the NASA decision to give commercial crew awards to “Boeing and SpaceX” means, he confirmed that awards were being given to “these two companies”.
Boeing-SpaceX Team Split Space Taxi Award, Lawmaker Says, Bloomberg
“Boeing Co. (BA) and Elon Musk’s Space Exploration Technologies Corp. will share a multibillion-dollar federal contract to help restart U.S. manned spaceflights and reduce reliance on Russian rockets, a congressional leader said. The two companies will split the award being unveiled by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration later today, said Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, the senior Democrat on the U.S. House Science Committee. NASA is planning an announcement on the program at 4 p.m. in Washington.”
Keith’s update: Rep. Johnson’s PR person says that she never actually said said this. Here is what her office is putting out as a quote: Science Committee Democrats Congratulate Boeing and SpaceX on NASA’s CCtCap Awards
Keith’s note: It is official: Boeing will get $4.2 billion, SpaceX $2.6 billion.
American Companies Selected to Return Astronaut Launches to American Soil, Charlie Bolden
“While Boeing and SpaceX handle the task of taking our astronauts to the space station, the scientists on Earth and astronauts on the orbiting ISS National Laboratory will continue the groundbreaking research that has been taking place there for almost 14 years now without interruption. They will be able to add to that portfolio with an expanded crew made possible by the arrival of these new spacecraft.”

Keith’s 15 Sep note: NASA sources tell us that there are plans for an announcement – of an impending announcement – that will be made tomorrow morning and that there will be media activities later in the day. The eventual media event will originate from NASA KSC. There is still a chance that they will punt on this, folks. It has been delayed more than once already.

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

136 responses to “NASA Commercial Crew Announcement: Boeing and SpaceX”

  1. Antilope7724 says:
    0
    0

    One of the choices has to be SpaceX. I can’t see NASA choosing two companies that would use the AtlasV with its non-assured supply of engines.

    • Vsmack says:
      0
      0

      Yeah NASA just loves rescheduling launches because the LV get’s pulled off the pad once or twice per launch.

      • Anonymous says:
        0
        0

        get’s (sic) ???

      • Antilope7724 says:
        0
        0

        Any payload on an AtlasV is launching with Vladimir Putin’s approval. How is that a change from buying seats on the Soyuz?

        What’s your solution for NASA HSF assured access to space.

        • thor_l33t says:
          0
          0

          Actually, as of May 13, 2014, Rogozin has only stated that Russia would not sell RD-180s to the US for military/spy launches only. This does not apply to the Atlas V payloads putting US Astronauts into Space. However, this does not mean that Rogozin (Deputy Prime Minister) and Putin won’t take action to ban all sales in the future. The Russian Government makes a good amount of easy money on the export of its RD-180 engines, so this is a trick up their sleeve that they used to gain advantages in preventing US involvement over Ukraine. This threat prompted US leaders to seriously consider future dependence on the Russian equipment (not sure why they are only considering this now, but politics is fickle). Now Blue Origin is working with ULA (a Boeing and Lockheed Martin owned partnership) to build a replacement to the RD-180. The Air Force is also taking proposals for development of a new booster from other suppliers as well. So, the Blue Origin/Boeing team will likely face Aerojet/Rocketdyne and some other players wanting to enter the market such as SNC who recently acquired ORBITEC. http://www.sncorp.com/press

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            As a percentage of total exports the few engine sales represent peanuts. About one day of natural gas/oil sales. It is a cheap bargining chip. The Russian gov could order a couple engines from the manufacturer just to keep the lights on.

      • Mader Levap says:
        0
        0

        SpaceX gets better lately with that. Of course, no one will know that from you.

    • Joe Denison says:
      0
      0

      I would hope so.

    • numbers_guy101 says:
      0
      0

      But what if Boeing does the Machiavellian thing and ditches Atlas for CST-100 in favor of a Falcon 9 ride?

  2. SouthwestExGOP says:
    0
    0

    I am gonna throw caution to the wind and predict SpaceX (an easy one) and Sierra Nevada DreamChaser. One capsule and one winged vehicle.

    • ed2291 says:
      0
      0

      That would make the most sense, be the most logical, and be the best for our country’s space mission. I fear, given its record, NASA won’t do that for precisely those reasons. I hope I am wrong.

    • numbers_guy101 says:
      0
      0

      So, indulging the Sierra scenario, with an $850M a year commercial crew office budget, IF wanting two US flights to the ISS per year, AND with Atlas perhaps ranging from $250M (as-is) to $375M a flight (a crew premium), how does this make the Sierra option viable? The remainder of funds left any year would be very little to prep the Dreamchasers. In either case, for all practical purposes a choice like this is a choice to pick a spool-piece called Dreamchaser that funnels most all of the commercial crew offices budget over to Atlas V launches.

    • SouthwestExGOP says:
      0
      0

      Darn!! Got that wrong.

  3. drboyd says:
    0
    0

    CNET is reporting Boeing is the likely winner. http://www.cnet.com/uk/news

    • Engineer_in_Houston says:
      0
      0

      This is echoing the WSJ article, which is awash in vagueness and caveats. It’s also reported elsewhere to be wrong. I’ve also seen reliable rumours over the past weeks that SpaceX and SNC have won. Lesson: We won’t know until NASA tells us.

    • Brian says:
      0
      0

      They’re citing The Wall Street Journal, and the writer has a history of being, um, shall we say less than accurate about the commercial space industry, having misquoted both Burt Rutan and Elon Musk in separate stories, misrepresenting their positions.

  4. John Gardi says:
    0
    0

    Folks:

    It’s obvious that Boeing is going to get the lion’s share of the NASA commercial crew contract.

    Less so for second place… if there is one.

    Sierra Nevada is the most likely to really lose here if they don’t get anything. SpaceX has said that they’ll continue regardless of the outcome, but at a slower pace.

    We’ll see. Hope I’m wrong about this.

    tinker

    • Brian says:
      0
      0

      I don’t see why it is obvious. Boeing has some good work to point to in X-37B, but CST-100 is still tied to Atlas 5, and would NASA really gamble its manned program on a rocket with an engine the Russians could discontinue selling to the US at any moment?

      • disqus_wjUQ81ZDum says:
        0
        0

        Even back in 2010 Boeing was touting that the CST-100 could be compatible with the Falcon 9 and there have been reports in the past that Boeing has approached SpaceX.

        • Brian says:
          0
          0

          But that would require quite a bit of design modification and contract negotiations with SpaceX, delaying the program. And why bother with paying Boeing to redesign CST-100 for Falcon 9 when SpaceX is already offering a spacecraft specifically built for Falcon 9?

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          You would still be tied to a single launch vehicle. The whole point is to have two seperate systems that are not tied together so if one company has a bad hair day NASA can still launch crews on the other one.

    • Todd Austin says:
      0
      0

      I have to agree. They are the safe choice and will not continue on without funding.

      A small secondary award to SNC will keep them moving forward, providing a option to CST-100 and a different type of craft, as well.

      SpX will, when they complete the current round of funded milestones, be very close to completion of their craft. They have stated that they will continue, regardless of this award. That gives NASA all three options while funding two.

      I don’t care for it, as it rewards the inefficient lumbering Boeing, but it does make sense.

  5. Christopher Miles says:
    0
    0

    Wall Street Journal has two separate articles on this tonight – the first 7:30pm ish report outlined Boeing’s likely win (the larger winner of two awardees). The second article – 9:30pm- outlined a Boeing link up with Blue Origin-possibly to leverage Bezos’ engine experience to replace the current Russian tech. A grand bargain was struck! And we missed it.
    Should have suspected something when Boeing did that press thing a while back mentioning just how many would be laid off should it not win Commercial Crew.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Blue Origin did not bid or co-bid.

    • Antilope7724 says:
      0
      0

      So Boeing and Blue Origin are going to develop a new AtlasV sized man-rated rocket to launch the Boeing Commercial Crew capsule? Good luck with that, there will be years of delay for Commercial Crew. SpaceX has a solution already flying.

    • disqus_wjUQ81ZDum says:
      0
      0

      The only engine I know of the Blue is working on is the BE-3, LH2 110,000lbf. Not a viable replacement for the Atlas’ RD-180.

    • numbers_guy101 says:
      0
      0

      Ummm…that makes no sense. So Commercial Crew now awaits an Atlas V engine mod that could take 10 years? A spacecraft program that wants to fly soon awaits a new launcher program? Blue is also about LOX/LH2, not LOX/RP.

  6. Spacetech says:
    0
    0

    I am thinking Boeing and SpaceX

  7. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    It sounds like the fix was in. Boeing’s threat to fire workers in Nelson and Posey’s district if it lost was just icing on the cake. Not to slight the CST, which is a solid design, but if anyone thought this was about technical excellence, forget it. The changes in Commercial Crew manager at this point did not help. However IMHO Dreamchaser, despite its sleek appearance, is not as practical as the capsules. I could be wrong but my guess is that SpaceX will get the second award.

    • Christopher Miles says:
      0
      0

      vulture4

      Agree, Perhaps Dream Chaser team can get additional support from JAXA (Sierra Nevada announced a partnership in late July)

      Kinda looks like Hyata’s Science Patrol rocket anyhow. (Dating myself on that one)

      Alas, I fear this partnership may come to… not much- and the last evidence of a Senior NASA person near Dream Chaser will have been that publicity photo with Lori Garver taken some years ago.

      At this point, it really would be worth examining just which milestones Boeing did achieve- which Space X missed- and whether either was a go/no go “show stopper” milestone.

      The WSJ Article(s) implied Boeing was timely, and we know already that Space X was granted extension(s) Wonder whether that was an apples to apples comparison- as CST100 and Dragon v2 are not quite the same.

      Was the Space X design too ambitious to win the bigger share?

      If true it’s a shame.

      • Jeff Havens says:
        0
        0

        Too bad you can’t add the booster ring to Dream Chaser to make it go BEO, like Hyata’s Science Patrol ship. 🙂

        • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
          0
          0

          The NDS docking port looks like a ring. Put a docking port on a Centaur and it can push the Dream Chaser to BEO.

          Related question, should NASA spend a large amount of money upgrading the SLS from 70 mT to 130 mT or use the money to design a space tug to push the 70 mT payload to BEO?

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            It’s about time. In 1980 the Space Tug was one of the three elements of the Space Transportation System (remember STS?). They were 1) Shuttle, 2) Station, and 3) Space Tug. Dating myself there.

            Why not reduce the payload to 56 mT and use two FHs to launch the payload and the tug? Then all we have to do is figure out what to do with the $4B in cost savings.

          • objose says:
            0
            0

            You all have to chose. You can criticize NASA for not thinking big OR you can criticize them for thinking too small. “we have done 70 MT ships and 56 mT ships”. My thought, in order to stay with the “think big” approach is that EVERY SLS after the first one should be 130mT. That will slow production (reduce cost), but provide 130 mT capability, never before seen, for the right project.

          • Anonymous says:
            0
            0

            That would provide 130 overpriced MT that will rarely fly. Better yet, there’s no justification as ye for that 130 MT, other than the pork it provides.

          • objose says:
            0
            0

            “That would provide 130 overpriced MT that will rarely fly.” Psi my dear fellow. I was at the dedication of the tool to build SLS core. There were too many people on the stage for this not to be built. “Mission Mars” is not the catch word and it will be used to continue the program. You are arguing against yourself. If the 130mT rocket is overpriced, what makes you think the that the 56mT would not be an overpriced rocket. The money is going to be spent. Rebuilding the Saturn V capabilities will serve no purpose. “If you build it someone will find something to put on it. AND if no one does, then there will be no flights but still the technology will be proven. No flights should make beancounter and you and most tax payers happy!

          • Anonymous says:
            0
            0

            I didn’t say the money wasn’t going to be spent. I am saying the money will be spent on an inflexible, overly expensive, poorly thought out system that will rarely fly. SLS is anything but a smart choice. SLS will set NASA and future programs back, just as JWST has set back future programs.

            I am also saying that in all likelihood, SpaceX will do at least as much as ULA does with SLS and will do so for less money, with a more flexible system, and very possibly will do it before SLS.

          • Paul451 says:
            0
            0

            If the 130mT rocket is overpriced, what makes you think the that the 56mT would not be an overpriced rocket.

            Psi² said reduce the payload to 56 tonnes and use two Falcon Heavies, ie, one for the payload, one for the TLI/TMI booster. (Plus a F9/Dragon to launch the crew, presumably.) In other words, NASA doesn’t develop a heavy-lift rocket at all. Thus saving $2.7 billion per year. With which they just fly missions.

            [I assume he meant 53 tonnes for FH. And realistically, you’d need to allow 3-5 tonnes for a larger payload shroud. So call it 48-50 tonnes. for the payload.]

            NASA is paying $1.4 billion for each of the first two cores for SLS, using recycled Shuttle engines. Add the cost of SRBs, the second stage, and all the integration and operations cost, and I’d be shocked if they can come in under $2 billion per launch.

            Remember, that doesn’t include the payload, such as the Orion capsule, just the launch vehicle. And it doesn’t include any development costs, just the launch cost.

            For that same $2 billion launch cost, you could buy four missions of two Falcon Heavies and a Falcon 9+Dragon-crew.

            So you can save all of the SLS/Orion development money between now and then (2018/2021), to develop actual mission hardware… to actually go somewhere and do something. About $19 billion by 2021. I bet you could build some real juicy habs and landers for $19 billion.

            That will slow production (reduce cost),

            Actually, slowing production just increases your unit cost.

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            Great post Paul, … AND if they only launch once per year that means the standing army’s labor costs for two years have to be added … I have read where it could be even as high as 6 billion a launch .. you add in development costs and the cost of the disposable Orion .. sheesh . 10 billion a launch to put 4 people into LEO .. MAYBE a lunar flyby ..
            insanity on a bun.

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            The only thing I critize NASA for it that a few of them refuse to fall on their swords and go public at a senate subcommittee meeting and tell them your pork is killing the agency.

          • objose says:
            0
            0

            Sometimes telling people what they already know helps, and sometimes it doesn’t. Fall on sword? For what? Pork is the Senate’s business.

        • Christopher Miles says:
          0
          0

          Jeff

          HAH! Man- my chest light was starting to blink waiting for someone to pick up on that.

          Anyhow- let’s hope all the Blue Origin stuff was just nonsense and it’s straight up the Boeing Bid that we know vs the Space X bid that we know.

          C’mon- PAD 39A needs Astronauts! Good luck Space X

      • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
        0
        0

        I did the due diligence of checking Boeing’s milestones timeline from back in 2012, and yes, they did nail their milestones, “on time” per the milestones’ projected timeline. both SpaceX and SNS slipped, but everyone knew from the beginning both were ambitious and likely to run into unexpected problems causing delays. it seems like Boeing figured in slips and delays to its expected milestones timeline, and did so very well.

        there is a problem with Boeing’s milestones all seeming to involve paper work – it seems like just design review after design review – while SpaceX and SNS seems like their milestones involved actually building and testing hardware.

  8. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    What is the expected cost per seat for the CST-100/Atlas V combination? I can’t find that info. Given the Boeing/ULA tag team with that system, I don’t expect the cost to be on the less expensive side.

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      And then commercial crew is not so cheap and SLS looks better and Spacex is slowed down a few years. Sounds good from public spaces point of view. Public money shouldn’t help us make space access cheaper. God forbid! We need to slow down Musks Mars program too, Our great mighty SLS Orion must pave the way!

      Where do I pick up my pay check?

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      Robert Bigelow said it would cost 3 million per month for room and board on a BA station.
      Bigelow Aerospace is currently advertising the costs for a launch to their station and two months R&B and a return home. SpaceX $26.25 million and Boeing is $36.75 million. that would put the actual launch prices as 20.25 mil a seat for SpaceX and 30.75 mil per seat for Boeing.

      http://bigelowaerospace.com/

  9. Tritium3H says:
    0
    0

    This NASA article give a nice, brief overview of TPS history, and how both ablative and reusable TPS have found their way onto the various Commercial Crew Vehicle solutions. It was particularly interesting to read the authors throw-away comment that the ablative TPS knowledge and technology base had been allowed to atrophy, during the STS program.

    I do find that statement a bit questionable, as I thought Textron/Avco would have still been involved with re-entry vehicle TPS design for the Minuteman III, MX Peacemaker and Trident D-5 during the STS development program. I presume Textron is still involved with maintenance and life-extension programs for the Minuteman III and Trident D-5 re-entry vehicles. Textron’s AVCOAT 5026-39 is being used on the Orion capsule.

    Also, the author may have forgotten about PICA and SIRCA, developed by Nasa ARC. Still, a good read all around:
    http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archiv

  10. Mader Levap says:
    0
    0

    I predict Boeing/SpaceX.

    SpaceX, because is most further along and is pretty much impossible to ignore.

    Boeing, because it is pretty good with brib… er, lobbying.

  11. John D. says:
    0
    0

    NASA has scheduled a 4:00pm EDT announcement at KSC regarding Commercial Crew. http://www.nasa.gov/press/2

  12. numbers_guy101 says:
    0
    0

    Given an $850M a year budget for the Commercial Crew office, with little prospects of going up, regardless of shifting from development to manufacturing and operations, a decision on spacecraft can not be made independent of the decision on a launcher.

    Hold to the goal of two (2) US crew flights a year, and the numbers say nothing with Atlas really adds-up. Take an Atlas “low” price to NASA of $250M/flight (historical), and a “high” price at 1.5X times this, or $375M/flight (a crew premium), and you end up with high and low amounts of funds left over for the two spacecraft that year, at $175M or $50M each unit. Cargo Dragons go for about $75M a unit now, in a manufacturing and launch operation deemed very efficient by any measure or comparison. So the Commercial Crew question, if an Atlas question, is weather Boeing or SN can make or turnaround two units a year on anywhere from $50M to $175M each unit. The closeness of the numbers to not-closing on the high end of Atlas costs should give pause.

    Assuming the desire for the numbers to add up is very strong at 2 flights a year, inevitably a commercial crew decision is a Falcon 9 decision, leaving more for the spacecraft. This time, assume a Falcon 9 lo of $57M a launch (historical), and a high at 1.5X times (again, as with Atlas) and you are left with a high and low amount of funds left over for the two spacecraft that year, at $368M or $340M each unit. Now that starts to sound better. Could even fit in a 3rd flight a year perhaps, dependent on spacecraft efficiencies.

    Of course, the inevitability of Falcon 9 – even with Boeing or Sierra craft aboard, assumes someone has run the math and really wants to fly that twice a year form the US-with margin to spare.

    • numbers_guy101 says:
      0
      0

      Oh frak…now I see the NUMBERS on these budgets…$4.2B Boeing and $2.6B SpaceX…that’s eight years worth of CommCrew budgets…someone just traded in the surety of two launches a year, and possibly a 3rd, for the surety of one a year and the possibility of a 2nd…in exchange for cover in the politics of the situation. (SpaceX got screwed).

      • Vladislaw says:
        0
        0

        They have to do 1 test flight and 2-6 additional flights.
        Guess who will have to do 2 flights and who will have to do 6….

      • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
        0
        0

        With price differences like that for the same service it is no wonder that NASA’s Administrator tried to hide the figures. It does feel like price goring on a gigantic scale.

  13. Saturn1300 says:
    0
    0

    NASA will make a major announcement today at 4 p.m. EDT regarding the return of human spaceflight launches to the United States. The agency will make the announcement during a news conference from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The event will be broadcast live on NASA Television and the agency’s website.
    From nasa.gov. Finally. Too bad they did not give more warning. Thanks for the heads up. I was checking, otherwise I would miss it.

  14. Jeff Havens says:
    0
    0

    Now the Washington Post (as of 11:21) is reporting Boeing and SpaceX. However, they also report no information as to what the split is.

    http://www.washingtonpost.c

  15. Emory Stagmer says:
    0
    0

    I’m actually highly encouraged that – at least reportedly – they aren’t going to pick just one. BEST for the country would be up the voltage and FULLY fund all four. I asked Charlie Bolden that at the LADEE launch NASA Social event and he even said that’s what he would prefer, but Congress wouldn’t pony up the $$.

  16. Vladislaw says:
    0
    0

    Boeing said they are taking their ball and going home if they don’t get picked. It would be my wish .. they start the meeting with NASA administrator Bolden tossing a volleyball to Boeing and then name SpaceX and Sierra Nevada.

  17. Vladislaw says:
    0
    0

    Anyone have the foresight to buy 10,000 stock options for Boeing before the Wallstreet journal articles about the Boeing win?

    • numbers_guy101 says:
      0
      0

      A Boeing CST-100 spacecraft and a SpaceX Dragon 2.0 spacecraft, with Boeing moving away from Atlas and to Falcon 9 as the plan for further development? So, both flying on Falcon 9’s and the spacecraft winner TBD for another phase? (See my other post for numbers)

      • Vladislaw says:
        0
        0

        Since the CST-100 is reusable I would imagine that Boeing would be more attuned to just selling them out right and let the buy launch on whatever vehicle they chose. Boeing announced an engine deal with Blue Origin, more than likely a rocket for this capsule.

      • Vladislaw says:
        0
        0

        Both NASA and Bigelow Aerospace stated they would want two providers. Two capsules on a single launch vehicle moves you right back to a single string fault system. The space shuttle had this problem so a bad hair day mean’t the Nation’s entire access was denied. America should have at least two providers so that we are never dependant again for access.

  18. Tom Sellick says:
    0
    0

    I can picture a CST-100 going uphill on a Falcon 9. My guess is Boeing and SpaceX.

  19. Michael Bradley says:
    0
    0

    CNN is saying that Boeing and SpaceX have won the contract. I can see some of NASA reasoning having two separate launch systems should one get grounded.

  20. Prickly Pear says:
    0
    0

    Charlie Bolden shouldn’t read his remarks. Doesn’t he know this stuff by heart?

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      He was handed a script to read that had him plug the SLS.Orion .. see Senator Shelby .. commercial crew is peanuts.

  21. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    Boeing and SpaceX … the contract is 6.8 billion … thought it was 4b.

    • Yale S says:
      0
      0

      Divide that by $70mill the Ruskies charge and you sure can’t say NASA is doing this to save costs per seat!

      Altho its worth it to stay off Putin’s hardware, this is not cost-effective just to feed Boeing.

      • Vladislaw says:
        0
        0

        Guess again … it is not about NASA it is about the creation of a space economy in LEO with the United States dominating the access. Read the prices that Bigelow is charging compared to Russia

        http://bigelowaerospace.com

        • Yale S says:
          0
          0

          Hey i am willing (and wanting) to give spacex the whole 7 big ones. They are creating the future. I was just pointing out that is astoundingly expensive way to taxi to the astoundingly expensive ISS.

      • mattmcc80 says:
        0
        0

        The contract isn’t just for flight services though, so you can’t derive an accurate price per seat. A significant chunk (the majority, possibly) of the award is for certification of the vehicles.

        • Yale S says:
          0
          0

          It doesn’t matter how you get to the seats. 7 billion will be spent plus the actual flight contracts and NASA will get X number of seats to space. NASA would need 100 seats to equal soyuz tickets. I’m willing to pay it to dump the Russians and to assist spacex, but it is serious change.

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            You REALLY have to look at this long term to understand the significance of this. To put this into persective, America will soon have all three legs of the stool. Commercial cargo, commercial crew, commercial space stations.
            The prices that Bigelow is posting is going to allow any 2nd or 3rd tier country have their own full up space program based in LEO. The Nation is going to dominate these sectors, this is just the opening. By 2020 all of this will start being routine.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            You misunderstand me. We are in agreement. See my old comments in the reining in branson tread.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            That’s my read as well. Looking down the road I see a constellation in LEO.

            W cannot become a space-faring race without space-centered manufacturing; I’ve wondered where the impetus would come from to develop the needed technology. A proliferation of space stations could be important.

            On the other hand, the same proliferation i will be fueled by low-cost launches, which in turn reduces the price of manufactured goods, making them more efficiently made down the well.

            It’s possible that shortage of critical raw materials needed for our tech toys will encourage prospecting amongst the asteroids, which would in turn require the development of a whole range of tech.

            It’s a great time to be alive.

  22. Antilope7724 says:
    0
    0

    So it’s Dragon and Dollarchaser.

    • Christopher Miles says:
      0
      0

      Dollarchaser for the win. Nice.

      Anytime I refer to/comment on the Boeing effort- that will be its moniker in my head.

  23. numbers_guy101 says:
    0
    0

    Ummm nice…split the money (fixed) and make them firm milestones. You get to keep the money of the non-performer in a budget hold, or eventually cancel that payment entirely if the information on progress indicates it will never close.

    Lets see who makes it with crew to orbit first…and if anyone else goes and says “I’m out”. (When they run the numbers…)

    • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
      0
      0

      The project is being run by the same part of NASA that ran COTS. I wonder if the cancelling of Rocketplane Kistier is a precedent.

  24. Spacetech says:
    0
    0

    I love how much time they spent talking about how these winners will open up space to the “rest of us” yeah–the “rich” rest of us certainly no common folk.

    • Ben Russell-Gough says:
      0
      0

      For years, commercial aviation was for the rich only. Given this precedent, we can expect the same from commercial space-flight.

      • Vladislaw says:
        0
        0

        From eye glasses to telescopes from automobiles and refridgerators… early consumers paid for the building of the factories that allowed economy of scale and pricing for the masses.

    • Anonymous says:
      0
      0

      The process has to start somewhere.

  25. ProfSWhiplash says:
    0
    0

    Awww, dadburnitt! I was hoping for a capsule & lifting body combo. I still hope NASA will at least throw them a space bone of a consolation prize (like a few $M for some other project). However, I believe SNC will still carry on, thanks to its partnerships with Europe and Japan for the Dreamchaser, as well as it’s own substantially deep pockets.

    I also strongly believe — and would bet money — that before the decade is out, we may see not only SNC successfully launching manned missions to orbit well before Boeing (not that I have anything against the CST-100 design), but once the CST does make it up there, as it approaches the ISS, the NASA crew might notice a DC vehicle already docked nearby — with ESA or JAXA markings!

    • Spacetech says:
      0
      0

      Sierra Nevada has said they will continue with their work on Dreamchaser even if they don’t win–but I highly doubt that will happen. They will most likely ramp down in the very near future.
      Current ITAR rules prohibit SNC from sharing any Dreamchaser technology with foreign partners.

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        ITAR! I should have guessed. The gift that keeps on giving. Wouldn’t want the Europeans to be stealing all the classified details of Dream Chaser that we will abandon.

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      You really believe the ESA or JAXA is ready to throw BILLIONS at Sierra Nevada? That would represent one hell of a chunk from their space budgets .. which are really low compared to NASA.

      • ProfSWhiplash says:
        0
        0

        Actually, it needn’t be $B’s by both. Don’t forget that’s for both development and for — as another poster guesses (and I thing rightly) — a given number of flights.
        The orbital DC will likely be the same design regardless of who flies in it (regardless of if it carries their orgn decals or SNC’s corp logo) — well maybe include some adapter for the Ariane or H-II. If both partners apply the Euro & Yen equivalent of say $100M, each, with SNC throwing in it’s own substantial cash, I bet they could finish development and even launch that bird for less — way cheaper w/o NASA acqusition micromanagement (of course, who knows what ESA and JAXA oversight will be like?) . If successful, additional funding would likely come for supporting actual missions.

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          I would imagine it would still have to do everything the NASA way if they planned on a flight to the ISS. NASA can block entry if they choose to. That would mean a pad abort test, an inflight abort test, and one crewed test flight … You are looking at way more than a couple million.

      • ProfSWhiplash says:
        0
        0

        Discus apparently ate my first reply. So… I’ll repeat: I expect neither ESA nor JAXA will need to dish out $B. Rather, I would see each dish out a few hundred $M at most, plus SNC apply its own share, to finish development and do a few orbital test flights. Any more funding would be for actual missions for those agencies.

  26. KptKaint says:
    0
    0

    why did Boeing get $1.6 billion more than SpaceX?

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      For the cargo contract SpaceX was awarded 1.6 billion for 12 flights, Orbital Sciences was awarded 1.9 billion for 8 flights.
      I believe it will be the same thing here.
      SpaceX will have to do 1 test flight and 6 additional flights
      Boeing will have to do 1 test flight and 2 additional flights.

      • Jeff2Space says:
        0
        0

        I didn’t like the answer to the question of how did NASA arrive at the monetary split between the two companies. Essentially the answer seemed to be that based on each proposal, it will cost Boeing more $$$ to meet the same goals.

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        So SpaceX will do more than twice the flights for a little over half the money? If they can do it, it will be an impressive comparison.

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          She said that each company would have to do 1 test flight and 2-6 additional flights. I can only guess who will have to do the 2 flights and who will do 6.

    • ProfSWhiplash says:
      0
      0

      My understanding is that it isn’t that Boeing is “better” than SpaceX, it’s that they have a lot more (a whole lot more) development ground to cover. In other words, I think NASA wants to BOTH get to orbit about the same time (and SpaceX has a better likelihood of doing so even with the lesser amount).

      On a separate note, some media has noted that “Sierra Nevada Corp., was shut out.” I guess that means SNC got diddly squat — not even a consolation mini-project to at least show a NASA banner. (Oh, well. I’m sure ESA & JAXA will have their own decals to apply to the DC … hey, this is business after all)

  27. Chris says:
    0
    0

    So the run down seems to be:

    SpaceX and Boeing get $4.2 billion, SpaceX $2.6 billion respectfully in NASA contracts. SpaceX ready to test later this year. Boeing TBD.

    Sierra Nevada Corporation will heading ESA possibly JAXA way.

    To survive Blue Origin and the ULA have reached a commercial agreement to develop a next gen engine to replace the Russian ones.

    The guessing game starts with/if SpaceX and Bigelow reach agreements with non NASA agencies to establish other non ISS infrastructure. Then Boeing gets backed into a corner.

  28. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    The announcements by Senate and House members only underlines the fact that the decision had nothing to do with technical capability or long-term potential. The decision was made on political grounds. Had NASA had to chose one it would have been Boeing because of its greater clout. Fortunately that did not occur. Nevertheless both the Dragon and CST should be able to do the job. Bigger question is how they both will compete with the even more political SLS/Orion.

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      I agree, When Bolden started talking about SLS I immediately thought which Senator said he had to pay lip service to the Senate Launch System and not let commercial steal the show.

    • Christopher Miles says:
      0
      0

      Administrator Bolden’s opening statement about context was more a congressional district locator/ lesson.

      How many times did he say Michoud? The “Context” here is that NASA has to still do this idiotic Kabuki thing – “We really want to be a jobs program, Congress… don’t mind this small commercial award today- keep it in context!”

      Only in America is a 6+ Billion dollar (commercial) effort small.

      What’s up with the lengthy statement(s) which then leave no time for questions? Was that the objective? “…Administrator Bolden has a plane to catch”

      btw- If someone in the all too brief briefing asked what Boeing/ULA is going to do about its Russian sourced engine- I missed it.

      Well, The administrator had a plane to catch, after all.

  29. Jeff2Space says:
    0
    0

    That was my impression as well.

  30. Vsmack says:
    0
    0

    Welcome back to the early 1970’s boys…..Hope they rescue those capsules in time

  31. Todd Austin says:
    0
    0

    Well, you tried, Keith. NASA can’t bring itself to say openly that Boeing is charging 62% more for the exact same service.

    NASA may be willing to pay that premium to get the options, but you can bet that others in the market for human flights to orbit will be looking at the bottom line a bit more closely.

  32. Vladislaw says:
    0
    0

    I have a feeling that the extra money for Boeing will get shoveled over to Blue Origin for the new engines.

    • Spacetech says:
      0
      0

      They can’t contracts don’t work that way money is for CST-100 and not its launcher–plus I am pretty sure that the Blue Origin/Boeing story was bogus.

  33. Prickly_Pear says:
    0
    0

    Keith is doing a great job Tweeting the presser. Keep their feet to the fire, man!

  34. Christopher Miles says:
    0
    0

    Blue Origin press conference tomorrow specific to working with ULA on new engines. (assume to eventually replace RD 180?)

    http://www.spacenews.com/ar

  35. Dallas Schwartz says:
    0
    0

    With awards being made I’m happy that we can now look forward to getting flight ready hardware built. My question has to do with the Atlas V vs. Delta IV Heavy: If the D4H is rated at a higher payload to orbit than the D5 why can’t we use the D4H along with the Falcon to launch both capsules?? By using the D4H we immediately remove the D5 engine issues. Also with the awards done will this help the USAF/NASA get funding for the new hydrocarbon engine that will be required to replace the Russian engine? Aerojet has said they feel confident they can deliver a new engine within 4 years ARO. That would put the first engines ready for missions in late 2018 early ’19. Since we can expect some (minor) slips in the schedule this would allow for inclusion of the new engine in any long lead time planning.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      The DIVH is not man-rated and would require significant mods, and ULA has shown little inclination to do so.

      • Jeff Havens says:
        0
        0

        Is Atlas V Man-rated yet? And if they change out the engine (Atlas VI??), won’t they have to re-rate it all over again? Time, cost, delay…

        • dogstar29 says:
          0
          0

          Fortunately man-rating is based primarily on defined design requirements, so the Atlas could be designed to meet man-rating requirements with a new engine. The DIV mods would be less extensive but the rocket is expensive o process and less profitable than the Atlas.

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      ULA and Blue Origin To Team Up for RD-180 Replacement
      http://www.spacenews.com/ar

  36. Vladislaw says:
    0
    0

    I was surprised Senators Shelby and Nelson were not on hand with Bolden giving them a wink and a nod after the SLS presentation.

  37. Jack Burton says:
    0
    0

    “From day one, the Obama Administration made clear that the greatest nation on Earth should not be dependent on other nations to get into space,” NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden said at the agency’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. “Thanks to the leadership of President Obama,”

    Leadership!???? LOL Bolden has ZERO credibility forever.

  38. Jafafa Hots says:
    0
    0

    Taking more money if you’re a massively wealthy individual or corporate person is great to the conservative WSJ and Forbes.

    Its only when small companies or individuals who actually NEED the cash get money from the government that they complain.

  39. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    This decision to make the major award to Boeing has set NASA human space flight back by at least five years, maybe ten. Hopefully, SpaceX will continue to crush BoMart, even with its more limited funds…

    It won’t happen immediately, but watch as it develops. Over the next year or two, the officials responsible for this corrupt decision will retire and quietly meander off to excessively well paid do-nothing jobs with Boeing or its prime contractors. Look for the AA’s, HEOMD Center Directors, and high level Mission Directorate officials to claim their “just due.”

    I can’t wait for these greedy little babyboomers to leave NASA. They never had any significant ideas. Get out of the way! Just leave, you idiots. You’re finished. Go! Now.

    • Vsmack says:
      0
      0

      I say NASA just put Space Flight back to the early 1970’s. Land a capsule??? HELLO We should land Space Planes?? What a waste of Shuttle Technology. Ask a Astronaut drop from the edge of earth or Fly from it??? So disappointed in the decision.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      It was Congress pulling the strings as usual.

      • Ben Russell-Gough says:
        0
        0

        Not directly but I think Administrator Bolden is smart enough to know an award that didn’t include Boeing would lead to CC being de-funded as ‘unexecutable due to a lack of credible providers’.

    • Joe Denison says:
      0
      0

      SpaceX got the money they asked for in their bid. It didn’t matter who else was chosen. If SpaceX got an award they were getting $2.6 Billion total.

      I think this award will set up a healthy competition between Boeing and SpaceX.

  40. RocketEconomist327 says:
    0
    0

    Boeing is sucking up all the dollars with their fleet of lobbyists. It happened in 2011 and its happening now. People who are complaining about SpaceX only getting $2.6 billion should remember that the culture is different at SpaceX and as long as Elon and Co. are happy we should be too.

    Once Dragon v2 is operational we all can buy one and people can do other things. Honestly I am shocked SpaceX got this much.

    NASA will continue to be the Boeing slush fund for stock prices:

    SLS Core Stage Contract
    SLS 2nd Stage Contract
    ISS Sustaining Engineering Contract

    tCap Contract

    Too tired to add that all up but its at least $2.2 billion a year.

  41. Joe Denison says:
    0
    0

    Even though my preferred combination didn’t win out (SpaceX #1 and SNC #2) I think all in all things worked out pretty well. For all those complaining that SpaceX didn’t get the biggest chunk of the award: The money they got was what SpaceX themselves bid. They didn’t ask for any more. SpaceX will be able to show on the pad whether their methods are cheaper than Boeing’s. Why are so many complaining and upset about these awards? SpaceX got an award people.

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      For me it is more about taxpayers. We should not have to be fleeced by artifically higher prices. Boeing has how many layers of premium wage managers that really do not contribute, other than they represent a high wage “job” in some congressional district who’s representive does not want that make work job lost, so Boeing gets a couple billion extra to keep it funded.

      • Joe Denison says:
        0
        0

        I do see your point Vladislaw. That said I think it was a good idea for NASA to hedge its bets. We also now have a direct competition between an Old Space company and a New Space company. We will get to see which is best and more reliable on the pad.

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          Agreed, I would have just like to seen it more like COTS where the competitors had to have increasing amounts of skin in the game. The reason Kister never made it was because they could not come up with their capital requirements.