"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.”"<p>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.<p>Next paragraph:
"The Atlas V boosters chosen by Boeing have a flawless record launching high-priced military payloads."<p>...yet the google finds me this:
<a href="http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1222" rel="nofollow">http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1222</a>
"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."<p>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 listened to the post-briefing audio feed where reporters called in and asked additional questions.<p>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?<p>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.<p>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.<p>NASA is not currently commenting on their decision process for choosing to award these two companies.<p>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.<p>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 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.<p>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.
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.
"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?
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.<p>Any more details on why SNC got passed up?
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.<p>[1] <a href="http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/us-house-pares-nasas-2013-spending-back-to-1959-levels-potentially-forces-nasa-to-explore-europa/" rel="nofollow">http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/us-house-pares-nasas-...</a>
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.
every time this space-x stuff comes up, I always take a moment to remind people of Reaction Engines and - Skylon [<a href="http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/space_skylon.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/space_skylon.html</a>]<p>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.
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.<p>If only they would have relied on the opinions of web developers rather than experts in the aerospace industry.<p>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.