-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
anticitizen13.7
Not posting at TMC after 9/17/2018
I'm excited at today's announcement! It's great that SpaceX is going to be able to fly the Dragon 2 up to the ISS with astronauts on board.
I'm betting that SpaceX will be first to fly, and much less expensive than Boeing.
It's well known that working for either Tesla or SpaceX is a tough job. I remember Elon saying in an interview that people at Tesla routinely work at least 60 hours/week, and that this pace wasn't for everyone. Elon himself said he often works 100 hours/week.
I had a job years ago where I often worked 60-70 hours/week. Add in commute time and there's little chance for much of anything else. There were months when I didn't even know what day it was because the lack of weekends caused everything to become a blur. This was my life for several years.
I don't think I'd have the energy to do that anymore.
I'm betting that SpaceX will be first to fly, and much less expensive than Boeing.
It's well known that working for either Tesla or SpaceX is a tough job. I remember Elon saying in an interview that people at Tesla routinely work at least 60 hours/week, and that this pace wasn't for everyone. Elon himself said he often works 100 hours/week.
I had a job years ago where I often worked 60-70 hours/week. Add in commute time and there's little chance for much of anything else. There were months when I didn't even know what day it was because the lack of weekends caused everything to become a blur. This was my life for several years.
I don't think I'd have the energy to do that anymore.
So they're hired to do the exact same thing, but Boeing gets paid 62% more than SpaceX, because...they charge more to do the exact same thing. I'm glad that SpaceX gets the chance to compete head-to-head and this may have been the most politically expedient way to let them get their foot in the door, but a lot could have been done with that $1.6 billion.
chickensevil
Active Member
The mods sucked the posts out of the SpaceX thread because they probably felt it deserved its own topic, Not sure where the title got chosen from, but since your post was the one that started this discussion that would be why it credits it to you. The title seems fine to me for the subject at hand.
chickensevil
Active Member
It really depends on how the RFP was written, if it isn't a "lowest bid wins" type of contract then that would be why they were willing to give them the money. Look at it from NASA's perspective, there is no way they are just going to take lowest bidder, just because they are cheaper, and risk people's lives on that bet. Would you? I am glad that the contract wasn't written that way.
Normally as part of the submission for the RFP you include a cost of business in there. So in other words, SpaceX got only 2.6Bn because that was likely all they asked for. If NASA had only awarded one contract then you wouldn't have even known what the others offered. Heck, we don't even know what Sierra Nevada was saying they could do it for. For all we know they might have submitted a 1.9Bn price tag, but because they didn't meet the requirements or weren't as good of a choice, they didn't get the award.
- - - Updated - - -
To add one more thought, this was why I suggested up above about submitting a FOIA request on this RFP because it would give you all those details to see why they awarded what they did, and why they chose the two companies they did.
I have a friend who asked if SpaceX was unionized. I told him I didn't think so but wasn't sure. He suggested Boeing will have much higher labor costs and therefore the extra $1.6 Billion is justified. Of course I also suggested Boeing might have forgotten long ago, like the Big 3 automakers, what it means to be lean and mean, e.g., multiple layers with (possibly) way too many managers making tons of money but adding little if anything to the outcome. Needless to say, we decided neither of us had enough information to know where the extra 62% would actually be spent.
No, I would take the lowest bidder that also satisfied all the necessary requirements, which SpaceX did. Isn't that how most financial decisions are made?
Is there any evidence to suggest that the extra $1.6 billion is going to save lives? If so, the entire contract should have gone to Boeing. If not, $1.6B for a bloated corporate structure and legacy costs is a lot to pay for diversification.
Well having two contracts is really the way to do it.
First neither of these companies has a human space delivery/return system. They will be developing and validating them.
If you have two people doing it they are forced to stay close to their budget. They can't ask/extort money later on down the line saying it will cost more. With a 3-5 year process this becomes a big deal. Say SpaceX is awarded the only cotract. But 3 years from now they say 'We need another $2B to get this last little bit correct.' NASA is basically forced to pay, versus calling up Boeing/ULA and saying "Hey start up your 3-5 year process these SpaceX guys are crap."
So yes it is fair. And honestly as much as I like SpaceX, and as much as I think they make great rockets. They don't have near the history of the Atlas/Delta delivery system. And there is a benefit to a structured buracracy when it comes to eliminating failure. Sure it cripples other areas, but many eyes, and inflexible validated review procedures, do offer some feeling of safety.
Once both of these guys prove their systems, and real costs are realized NASA will start preferring one over the other.
My opinion is that NASA should be doing this in-house!
Fair points, but I would argue that agreeing to pay Boeing extra up-front to avoid the chance that they will have to pay SpaceX extra later comes out as a wash for NASA, at best.
I do understand the importance of the competition aspect that you are talking about, but it doesn't seem very competitive when the bids aren't even close.
They supposedly had more than two bids.
They picked two winners. Boeing said it would take ~$4B for them to fulfill their proposal. You can't really give them less and tell them to make it happen.
The other reason why you pay Boeing up front is if SpaceX can't make a safe delivery/recovery system. You don't get set back 3 years.
In a couple of decades and NASA has a Mars bid process, they probably won't go the two supplier method. It will be apparent that the people bidding will be capable of meeting their design requirements. Right now that isn't a given due to all the safety and redundancy requirements using human payload.
jeff_adams
Member
I think the question to be asked is how many people on the selection committee will end up working for Boeing in the future?
I think ultimately the selection was political, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's unwise.
Bolden spent the opening of the conference to talk up SLS which is also political and (IMO) a waste of money.
Bolden spent the opening of the conference to talk up SLS which is also political and (IMO) a waste of money.
What I don't understand about all of this, is that it has to make US manned spaceflight independent of Russia. The US from 2017 will no longer have to use the Soyuz to bring astronauts to the ISS, that I get, but if I understood correctly Boeing is using the same Atlas-rockets also used by ULA (with Lockheed) and those rockets are using Russian rocket engines. With all the politics, boycots and just two years' supply of rockets in reserve, that isn't very 'independent'. No engines, no launches. SpaceX uses Merlins, so no issue there. Or is Boeing or ULA going to switch to another engine supplier?
chickensevil
Active Member
Their current plan is to use the Blue Origin BE-4 engine when it is ready. They claim to be on a path to be ready by 2018 for launches with their engine, so while the initial launches of CST-100 would use the Atlas V with the Russian engines, they could switch them over later when they have been proven in flight.
Apparently he was launching rockets with Steve Jurvetson:
Steve Jurvetson on Twitter:
Steve Jurvetson via Twitter said:While launching rockets with @ElonMusk, @NASA picks @SpaceX to fly our astronauts!!! SpaceX, Boeing land NASA contracts to carry astronauts to space - LA Times
Last edited:
I think NASA/Congress do not want this project turning into another F-35 boondoggle. Better to give out 2 contracts to keep the companies competitive and ditch a company if they start to go over budget. Not putting all of your eggs in one basket for such an important national endeavor is something that the F-35 program could and should have taken into consideration. Hindsight is 20/20.
As for the price difference between to the two contracts, it is my understanding that the prices were what both companies placed secretly as a bid to do the work. Both companies got what they wanted, we all knew Boeing would have the more expensive bid so no harm done.
As for the price difference between to the two contracts, it is my understanding that the prices were what both companies placed secretly as a bid to do the work. Both companies got what they wanted, we all knew Boeing would have the more expensive bid so no harm done.
Thank you, found that information now: Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin Lands Rocket Engine Deal BA LMT - Investors.com
But there it says first flight in 2019, so that is still at least five years of dependence...
A missed opportunity indeed. It worked out so well with the F-16 vs. F-18 competition.
chickensevil
Active Member
Sorry, yes, the 2018 date is for launching in a Blue Origin rocket, the 2019 is for when they will supply the engine to other companies. Unless I missed something and the date got pushed back... In either case, yes, no hope of getting away from the Russians any time soon.
Similar threads
