Boeing Takes Lead to Build Space Taxi

Just rumors, but I wouldn't doubt it. With commentary. The best (worst) government money can buy.:

Boeing Takes Lead to Build Space Taxi
Aerospace Giant Poised to Beat SpaceX for U.S. Contract to Ferry Astronauts

https://online.wsj.com/articles/boeing-takes-lead-to-build-space-taxi-1410820865

Boeing Co. appears positioned to beat out two smaller rivals for the bulk of a multibillion-dollar NASA contract to ferry astronauts to and from orbit, according to government and aerospace-industry officials.

An award to Boeing would represent a victory over the newer Space Exploration Technologies Corp., or SpaceX, which had been considered a favorite in many quarters because of its lower costs and nimbler approach.

Recent signals from the Obama administration, according to the officials, indicate that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's leadership has concluded on a preliminary basis that Boeing's proposed capsule offers the least risky option, as well as the one most likely to be ready to transport U.S. crews to the international space station within three years. The officials cautioned that a last-minute shift by NASA chief Charles Bolden, who must vet the decision, could change the result of the closely watched competition.

Boeing's role in NASA projects stretches back nearly four decades and includes serving as the prime contractor on the [$150 billion white elephant] space station. The company also has a primary role developing a deep-space ["Senate Launch System"] rocket [to nowhere] for NASA. "They know the customer and what the customer wants to hear," said a former NASA official keeping tabs on the program [name and current employer?].

Many of the agency's engineers and scientists favor Boeing [says who?], which intends to use [massively overpriced] 1990s-vintage Atlas V rockets to blast crews into orbit. Boeing officials have repeatedly said they won't continue to develop the CST-100 manned capsule, which has been in development for three years, without further government support.

As of midday Monday, congressional leaders hadn't been briefed on any impending announcement. Boeing and its backers in Congress have been pushing for a single award, arguing that NASA can't afford to support two contractors. [Right, that's the reason...]

See also:

Crony capitalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism

Crony capitalism is a term describing an economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, or other forms of state interventionism. Crony capitalism is believed to arise when business cronyism and related self-serving behavior by businesses or businesspeople spills over into politics and government, or when self-serving friendships and family ties between businessmen and the government influence the economy and society to the extent that it corrupts public-serving economic and political ideals.

Figures the government, no matter who is in power, goes with a huge corporation who bloats the cost, over a startup who has a relatively decent track record of supporting the unmanned flights to the ISS. granted, SpaceX has it shares of problems, but I remember when the contractor for the shuttle promised NASA a flight every two weeks! Space was going to be affordable.... Not with Boeing at the helm of this venture!

We will never be a space leader again with thinking like this! SpaceX is innovative, which may be why they won't get the contract...


Launching rockets (or missiles in my case) is so easy a chimp could do it. Read a step, do a step, eat a banana.

Sent from my iPad Air using Rocketry Forum.

And only yesterday, NASA was reminding everyone that two, or even three awards were possible...

Okay ...

https://www.cnet.com/news/boeing-said-to-win-nasa-space-taxi-contract/

So a +3 billion USD contract for a "space taxi", slated to be flying as early as 2017 to ... where? Currently the ISS is scheduled to be decommissioned in 2020. So an active service life of perhaps 3 years. That's a pricey taxi.

This is where we are with contracts and a national space policy that is adrift. It seems like we are back with the Eisenhower Administration and going with Vanguard when Redstone was ready. But the positive back at that time is that NASA was still a nascent organization and was forged in large part due to mission objectives. That was the NASA of the late '50s and '60s. Now it is a different animal.

Greg

GregGleason said:

Okay ...

https://www.cnet.com/news/boeing-said-to-win-nasa-space-taxi-contract/

So a +3 billion USD contract for a "space taxi", slated to be flying as early as 2017 to ... where? Currently the ISS is scheduled to be decommissioned in 2020. So an active service life of perhaps 3 years. That's a pricey taxi.

This is where we are with contracts and a national space policy that is adrift. It seems like we are back with the Eisenhower Administration and going with Vanguard when Redstone was ready. But the positive back at that time is that NASA was still a nascent organization and was forged in large part due to mission objectives. That was the NASA of the late '50s and '60s. Now it is a different animal.

Greg

Click to expand...

And during the "space race," there was a clear goal, beat the Soviets in every way possible. Now, there is no clear goal other than satisfying the deepest pockets that pay for your reelection.

Space isn't "cool " anymore to the general populace. They are more worried about the iPhone 6, getting a new car, or moving up. There is no fascination with space exploration any longer for most Americans. With no guidance from the government even less so.

For example, lIttle news reported about the USAF X-37 being in orbit over 600 days. Boeing made that, wonder if their design incorporates some of that in the space taxi. As an aside, We had some cool military space stuff when I was on a USAF space support team in the late 90s, stuff no one knows about. X-37 was the tip of the iceberg.

We've squandered our advantage in space. China and Russia will become the new, pre-eminent space powers of the 21st century I am afraid.

Rudderless guidance at the top, ever since NASA's budget was gutted by Obama. NASA is more concerned with "earth sensing" and melting ice caps than exploring the cosmos and putting humans back into space ON OUR OWN VEHICLES! Ares and Constellation are history now.

Hope my political rant doesn't get me booted....sorry if I offended anyone! I am rather passionate about space exploration, America's leadership in that arena, and the important role it plays in making life better for all.

Mike


Launching rockets (or missiles in my case) is so easy a chimp could do it. Read a step, do a step, eat a banana.

Sent from my iPad Air using Rocketry Forum.

Winston said:

...intends to use [massively overpriced] 1990s-vintage Atlas V rockets...

Click to expand...

The Atlas V is using Russian built motors, which still leaves us being dependent on Russia's good will in order to launch crew to the ISS.

I guess we will find out at 4 today. spacex is rumored to get a smaller award.

evvo said:

The Atlas V is using Russian built motors, which still leaves us being dependent on Russia's good will in order to launch crew to the ISS.

Click to expand...

Oh, golly, no.

From various on-line articles - "The Atlas V rocket to be used by Boeing includes a Russian-built engine, and the Obama administration has made it clear it wants to secure a domestic alternative to ensure that NASA and military satellites will continue to have unfettered access to space." "Developing a new rocket main engine could cost more than $1 billion and take anywhere from five to eight years. U.S. lawmakers told Shelton earlier this year that it is their job to find the money."

So, add THAT to the total cost of NOT going with SpaceX.

By the way:

https://www.space.com/17933-nasa-television-webcasts-live-space-tv.html

NASA will make a major announcement on the future of U.S. human spaceflight today (Sept. 16), and you can watch it live online.

Space agency officials will hold a press conference at 4 p.m. EDT (2000 GMT), and could unveil the selection of one or more private space taxis by aerospace companies to move forward on the path toward providing astronaut transportation services to International Space Station for NASA.

You can watch NASA's commercial crew announcement live on Space.com, courtesy of NASA TV.

"Pork"- the other white suppository. Made of ground up Senators and the floor sweepings of back room deals.

USAFmissileer said:

For example, lIttle news reported about the USAF X-37 being in orbit over 600 days. Boeing made that, wonder if their design incorporates some of that in the space taxi. As an aside, We had some cool military space stuff when I was on a USAF space support team in the late 90s, stuff no one knows about. X-37 was the tip of the iceberg.

Click to expand...

They claim it's a test bed for various military space technologies, so my guess would be that it can provide telepresence capability for:

1. Foreign satellite inspection and possible surreptitious or wartime attachment of destruct devices to be activated at some chosen time.
2. Remote repair of any high value satellites like the billion dollar photo-recon types which might be designed for such repair now or in the future, something that Hubble could have been intentionally designed for if it weren't for the incentive to use the spam in a can human spaceflight capabilities of the Shuttle.
3. Replenishing the maneuvering fuel of those same spysats giving them much more orbital change leeway for inspection/monitoring of new targets of interest.

A reusable vehicle might make economic sense for those missions or ones I haven't thought of. Or, perhaps I'm giving them to much credit by allowing that they'd do something that makes economic sense.

Derek said:

I guess we will find out at 4 today. spacex is rumored to get a smaller award.

Click to expand...

That's all THEY would need.

Winston said:

They claim it's a test bed for various military space technologies, so my guess would be that it can provide telepresence capability for:

1. Foreign satellite inspection and possible surreptitious or wartime attachment of destruct devices to be activated at some chosen time.
2. Remote repair of any high value satellites like the billion dollar photo-recon types which might be designed for such repair now or in the future, something that Hubble could have been intentionally designed for if it weren't for the incentive to use the spam in a can human spaceflight capabilities of the Shuttle.
3. Replenishing the maneuvering fuel of those same spysats giving them much more orbital change leeway for inspection/monitoring of new targets of interest.

A reusable vehicle might make economic sense for those missions or ones I haven't thought of. Or, perhaps I'm giving them to much credit by allowing that they'd do something that makes economic sense.

Click to expand...

There are those aspects as well as some others. One thing that the USAF does try to do is keep their presence in space alive and well. There are many capabilities we possess that allow us to deter, deny, degrade, and destroy an aggressor nation's space capability. As I said previously, there are some cool things in the think tank in Colorado Springs. Some are very expensive, some make use of existing capabilities, and some are able to be done "on the cheap" relatively speaking of course.


Launching rockets (or missiles in my case) is so easy a chimp could do it. Read a step, do a step, eat a banana.

Sent from my iPad Air using Rocketry Forum.

Boeing is the safe, boring choice unfortunately. It's disappointing that the mantra of crewed spaceflight has changed from pushing boundaries to lowering risk at all cost. Space might not be 'cool' anymore, but SpaceX definitely had more people (at least around me) talking about space and spaceflight than anyone else in recent memory. I'm sure Boeing will do a good job, but they don't have any vision past being a 'space taxi' to the ISS which is only around until 2020. Whereas Musk has said over and over that his eventual goal is a colony on Mars. Thats the kind of vision and forward thinking that we really should be funding, but the people making the choices only care to see the highest number in the success rate column without taking any kinds of innovative or new tech into account. Hopefully SpaceX gets at least some kind of funding out of it though.

How long will it take to get the Atlas V, man-rated, and then certify the new replacement engines they seem to be talking about? Can all that be done and still make the 2017 launch window?

SpaceX should just press on with development, and I am sure they will.

If they do, and they start selling trips to orbit and beyond for billions less than NASA pays Boeing to do the same thing, then the truth will out. What if our European ISS partners decide they would rather pay to ride a Dagon capsule to the ISS than pay NASA for overinflated Boeing services? What if other countries with no space program decide they can afford to go to space by buying off-the-shelf services from SpaceX, and do it for far cheaper than the NASA/Boeing solution?

SpaceX should just move ahead and do it for less money and on a faster schedule. There will be a market, even if NASA takes time to come around.

Winston said:

Many of the agency's engineers and scientists favor Boeing [says who?], which intends to use [massively overpriced] 1990s-vintage Atlas V rockets to blast crews into orbit. Boeing officials have repeatedly said they won't continue to develop the CST-100 manned capsule, which has been in development for three years, without further government support.

Click to expand...

Says anybody inside the establishment defense industry.

Winston said:

That's all THEY would need.

Click to expand...

SpaceX would do it even without any award. They already have most of the hardware and have Dragon v2 on the launch manifest.

Peartree said:

How long will it take to get the Atlas V, man-rated, and then certify the new replacement engines they seem to be talking about? Can all that be done and still make the 2017 launch window?

Click to expand...

Haha. No.

It would be incredibly ironic if they could retrofit the Atlas V to be a methane breather and use the Raptor engines.
I know it's not feasible, but it would be incredibly ironic.

jmattingly13 said:

Haha. No.

Click to expand...

I didn't think so.

SpaceX launch manifest anticipates them completing the process within the targeted 2016/2017 window, but they are already half done with the man-rating process with much of the rocket designed from the beginning with the intention of man-rating it. On top of that, they will be using the same engines they've been using all along.

Certifying new engines is likely to set Boeing by several years, I would think.

I think that even if SpaceX gets only a dollop of funding, they'll cross the finish line first.

As a long-term Boeing employee (but on more mundane single-aisle airliners mostly) what I'd love to see is both SpaceX and Boeing getting the "go" signal. I am fascinated by and more than a little envious of what SpaceX has done and will continue to do. I want to see them succeed. But I certainly don't begrudge some of my colleagues the opportunity to build and actually fly some hardware, too.

I guess in a little over half an hour we'll find out....

You would think with the escalating tension between Russia and the US and our other ISS partners, and the fact we rely on this unreliable partner for our only access to the ISS, that the prize would go to whatever company could safely deliver the service the fastest and get us out of this situation.

I'm hoping NASA will have learned a tiny lesson about having a single supplier and award contracts to both Boeing and SpaceX. That way if one gets temporarily grounded for any reason there's still an alternative available.

USAFmissileer said:

Space isn't "cool " anymore to the general populace. They are more worried about the iPhone 6, getting a new car, or moving up. There is no fascination with space exploration any longer for most Americans. With no guidance from the government even less so.

For example, lIttle news reported about the USAF X-37 being in orbit over 600 days. Boeing made that, wonder if their design incorporates some of that in the space taxi. As an aside, We had some cool military space stuff when I was on a USAF space support team in the late 90s, stuff no one knows about. X-37 was the tip of the iceberg.

We've squandered our advantage in space. China and Russia will become the new, pre-eminent space powers of the 21st century I am afraid.

Rudderless guidance at the top, ever since NASA's budget was gutted by Obama. NASA is more concerned with "earth sensing" and melting ice caps than exploring the cosmos and putting humans back into space ON OUR OWN VEHICLES! Ares and Constellation are history now.

Hope my political rant doesn't get me booted....sorry if I offended anyone! I am rather passionate about space exploration, America's leadership in that arena, and the important role it plays in making life better for all.

Mike


Launching rockets (or missiles in my case) is so easy a chimp could do it. Read a step, do a step, eat a banana.

Sent from my iPad Air using Rocketry Forum.

Click to expand...

At the risk of treading into political water, in all fairness, Obama didn't "gut NASA's funding". This is a common misconception. I'm ABSOLUTELY NO fan of the current Administration, but I believe in being intellectually honest.

Constellation (Ares I and Ares V and Orion) were in DEEP, DEEP trouble LONG before the current Administration ever came to power. Ares I had severe developmental problems that have been spelled out repeatedly here and elsewhere for a long time, which fundamentally were crippling the entire system, including Orion and Ares V. They had spent $9 billion dollars and squandered 6 years of development time ahead of the impending shuttle retirement chasing their tails with Ares I, which was touted as "safe, simple, soon" but was NONE of those things. Remember the ORIGINAL plan was to replace the shuttle capabilities to ferry crews to ISS using Ares I and Orion, starting in 2014. The problems in the Constellation program were well known both inside and outside NASA to anyone wanting to know or paying attention (which leaves out 99.4% of the population, including most of Congress and in government). Obama sent Lori Garver to "look under the hood" at NASA and report back between his election and taking office, and then-NASA Administrator Mike Griffin was NOT pleased at the prospect. Evidently she saw enough that Obama called the Augustine Commission to review the program and the direction of the US space program, and surprise, surprise, they found NO way forward with Constellation but to increase NASA's funding by $3 billion a year, or shut down the program and try something else. Obama canceled Constellation (rightly so, given the status and prospects of the program) and Orion with it, which of course terrified the Congressional "space state" politicians and their big gubmint contractor constituencies. Remember these same political hacks and their contractor buddies succeeded in getting O'Keefe and Steidle replaced with Mike Griffin, eliminating the "spiral development" implementation of the VSE in favor of the "Shuttle-derived" approach (one which guaranteed the development and operations of the vehicle(s) would be incredibly expensive and time consuming, and suck all the air out of the room for other programs, but which of course would by definition keep the government pork flowing from Congress through NASA to the big aerospace contractors that had been making a fortune on shuttle for decades.) IF we had stuck with "spiral development", we would be flying a NASA-operated block I Orion on a modified EELV *right now* to transport our own astronauts to the nearly $200 billion dollar space station we put up there along with our "international partners" instead of being held hostage to the Russians to do it for us. In short, SHUTTLE DERIVED did more to kill the US space program than Obama did.

Obama suggested funding the Commercial Crew program in place of Constellation, at $800 million per year. Congress, not wanting to give money to the "upstarts" like SpaceX, but rather committed to keeping that money flowing to the big aerospace contractors like Boeing, Lockheed, etc. as it always had (and of course seeing a portion of that money flow back to themselves via the huge lobbying efforts of the big aerospace contractors) REFUSED to fun Commercial Crew at anything like the recommendations made in the budget proposals from the White House, but instead funded it at a pittance (like $300 million a year, less than HALF what Obama had requested for the program) and instead passed the "Senate Launch System" authorization directing NASA to build SLS and revive Orion.

Of course, Boeing wasn't going to be left out of the competition-- NO WAY they'd pass up the possibility of getting free money laying on the table, so they came up with a scheme to make a 'cheap, commercial' version of the Orion capsule, called "CST-100". By the time that Constellation was cancelled, basically it was generally admitted that Orion would NEVER transport crews to ISS-- it was going to be FAR too expensive to ever use in that role, and it had been continually "de-scoped" virtually from the beginning of development to make it light enough for the anemic Ares I to loft into orbit... the final iteration did away with the "6 crew to ISS" capability completely, and Orion can now only carry four astronauts, as was the plan for the deep space only version. Boeing simply copied Orion with the plan of making a cheap, LEO version strictly for the "commercial crew" option. They got development money for CST-100 and have been making slow progress since (slow since basically ALL the commercial crew alternatives are completely underfunded, BECAUSE CONGRESS HAS REPEATEDLY AND STEADFASTLY *REFUSED* TO FUND THEM PROPERLY, which is in their purview to do since they approve the final budgets!) Now Boeing is trying to "strong arm" the process by whining that "we're gonna stop working on CST-100 unless we get a bunch of gubmint money", attempting to FORCE a downselect to a single contractor. Of course they have a good chance of making it work-- they have the lobbying power behind them and enough "insiders" who constantly move through the revolving door between industry and gubmint (Congress, NASA) that they have the "inside track" on greasing enough wheels to get what they want. Heck even ATK tried to get in on this action, using their "clone" of the Ares I, the so-called "Liberty" launch vehicle (which would have paired the ATK made five-segment SRB first stage of Ares I with an Ariane V hydrogen-fueled core stage as an upper stage for the Liberty vehicle) with their own "clone" of the Orion, in their case, using copies of a pathfinder all-composite Orion hull they'd been paid to develop under a NASA development contract during Orion development, into which they planned to graft pretty much "off the shelf" systems to make an operational "commercial crew" spacecraft to ferry astronauts atop their Liberty vehicle to ISS. The whole thing pretty much died AFAIK; haven't heard anything about it in years... (probably because NASA owns all the remaining shuttle SRB casings, upon which the Liberty vehicle is entirely dependent for its first stages, unless/until ATK develops a disposable composite casing, which they intend to get a billion dollar plus contract from NASA to do under the 'advanced booster competition' for SLS Block 2. Developing them now on their own dime would be the height of stupidity-- sit and wait for that big fat decade-long development cost-plus contract from gubmint to come through-- let others play with the commercial crew 'small potatoes'.)

Of course, when and if they DO, you can expect to see delays requiring "more money" to fix, and you can expect to see their costs for their "commercial spacecraft" to go through the roof compared to the competition. Meanwhile, SpaceX and the other commercial crew competitors will be frozen out. Unless they can finish their efforts on their own dime, and establish a customer base on their own (private spaceflight, science, research, space tourism, whatever) then they'll slowly sputter out. Personally I don't think the odds of them succeeding without the Commercial Crew program are very good... I think, from what I see, that the realm of private manned spaceflight demand is perhaps a mile wide, but ONLY AN INCH DEEP. I don't think there's enough money or demand to build a viable commercial-only endeavor upon. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so... I haven't been wrong so far about how all this has unfolded. I figured Constellation would get the ax back in about 2007 or so, and I'm not convinced that SLS will ever do anything more than a handful of test flights and maybe some cock-a-mamey "stunt" type "mission", if that, if it's not cancelled first.

At any rate, this is the sort of thing I've come to expect from NASA and gubmint and industry, which is in fact, due to the revolving door between them, basically the same old "government-industrial complex" that Eisenhower warned about 60 years ago...

As long as the space program is held hostage by the same self-serving group of politicians/industrialists, you can forget having a REAL space program of any interest or importance. It's all devolved to the point of "the RIGHT people getting the money", NOT about actual space capabilities or achievements.

Later! OL JR

evvo said:

The Atlas V is using Russian built motors, which still leaves us being dependent on Russia's good will in order to launch crew to the ISS.

Click to expand...

Exactly...

Of course that doesn't matter when all you're worried about is voting or making the recommendation that your favorite big government contractor gets the big fat development check for commercial crew rather than the upstarts at SpaceX or anywhere else... it's so important that they keep paying all those lobbyists contributing to your reelection campaign and wining and dining folks in gubmint making these decisions...

That's why I've basically given up on the US space program. It's become a bad joke that only exists to serve political purposes...

Later! OL JR

Peartree said:

How long will it take to get the Atlas V, man-rated, and then certify the new replacement engines they seem to be talking about? Can all that be done and still make the 2017 launch window?

Click to expand...

Absolutely not...

The Russian RD-180 engine used on Atlas V is based on a Russian human rating standard... what that means as far as US human rating standards-- probably not a lot. Also, one of the BIG (read "insurmountable" according to the shuttle-derived crowd) reasons for going with a shuttle-derived rocket instead of "spiral development" of EELV's (including Atlas V) is the fact that the EELV's were optimized around a lower standard of safety than those required for a NASA-certified man-rated rocket... the so-called "1.4 factor of safety" (meaning that all design requirements are that structurally the vehicle has to handle loads at least 140% of the anticipated design load expected to be experienced in flight). Re-engineering the EELV's to this "1.4 level of safety" required for NASA manrating of the vehicles was deemed "too expensive" (was touted by the shuttle-derived bunch as basically requiring the EELV's be "completely redesigned" in order to be manrated.) Hence, it was "so much cheaper" to develop an "all new" rocket using ALREADY man-rated shuttle components (and we ALL know how well THAT one has worked out!)

The Americanized version of the RD-180 will take most of a decade and at LEAST a billion dollars to develop from the word "go". They're still just "talking about it", as nothing has been actually contracted yet. NO WAY that we can build and certify such an engine in only 3 years.

Depending on how close of a copy it is of the Russian engine, integration into the launch vehicle could also require some time, and certification of the combination as a manrated launch vehicle.

It's questionable if the manrating of Atlas V, using Russian engines as it always has, can be done by 2017. Of course, since it's a flying space vehicle, if NASA so chooses, it can simply "waiver" any requirements that cannot be met, just as it did with shuttle, repeatedly, throughout the shuttle program history. I fully expect any developmental or certification "hiccups" to be handled similarly.

Later! OL JR

evvo said:

It would be incredibly ironic if they could retrofit the Atlas V to be a methane breather and use the Raptor engines.
I know it's not feasible, but it would be incredibly ironic.

Click to expand...

WHY would they do anything remotely like that??

The whole idea is to make sure that the "old space" big fixed price-plus historical government contractors like Boeing, Lockheed, ATK, PWR, etc. get that money... NOT "nu-space upstarts" like SpaceX, etc... Using their Raptor engine would mean BUYING those engines from SPACEX... WHY do that when you can issue a BILLION DOLLAR CONTRACT to PWR (Pratt & Whitney/Rocketdyne) to develop an "all-new" American copy of the Russian RD-180 engine for the Atlas V.

No, they won't be buying any SpaceX engines for other companies' launch vehicles... nor is SpaceX looking to sell engines to other competitors.

Watching the BS flow on NASA TV as I type... typical yick-yack talk a lot and say nothing BS so far...

Later! OL JR

ThirstyBarbarian said:

You would think with the escalating tension between Russia and the US and our other ISS partners, and the fact we rely on this unreliable partner for our only access to the ISS, that the prize would go to whatever company could safely deliver the service the fastest and get us out of this situation.

Click to expand...

You would think... but that's not REALLY the overriding requirement...

Politics trumps all...

Later! OL JR

evvo said:

I'm hoping NASA will have learned a tiny lesson about having a single supplier and award contracts to both Boeing and SpaceX. That way if one gets temporarily grounded for any reason there's still an alternative available.

Click to expand...

From what they're saying so far, yes there will be two contracts... Boeing and SpaceX... the woman head of the CCdev program is reviewing the five milestone requirements they'll have to meet, including flight tests...

OL JR

Listening to the announcement now..... it does look like a split decision - both Boeing and SpaceX.

From Boingboing:

Robert D. Cabana, astronaut and director of NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida, opened the announcement by saying, "We’re transforming America’s premier launch site into a spaceport like no other."

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, praising and quoting the support of President Obama: "The greatest nation on earth should not be dependent on any other nation to get to space." We will end our reliance on Russia by 2017, and embark on a mission to send humans to Mars.

1:07pm: Bolden reveals that NASA will contract with Boeing and SpaceX, in a deal involving $6.8 billion.

Click to expand...

No word yet (that I have seen) on just how that money is going to get divided...