Boeing Takes Lead to Build Space Taxi

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
NASA officials said Tuesday that Boeing will get most of the funds for its CST-100 capsule, $4.2 billion, but SpaceX wasn't left out in the cold: Its crew-capable Dragon capsule also won $2.6 billion from the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability program, known as CCtCap for short.

Just saw the above in an article. Being that they were only founded in June 2002, and they are already to this point, is anyone going to bet against SpaceX ultimately winning this race?
 
Boeing $4 billion, SpaceX $2.2 billion... (if I heard right... tried to rewind my DVR but it's acting up... go figure).

Later! OL JR :)
 
$4.2bn for Boeing, $2.6bn for SpaceX

Given their efficiencies, I'd say that SpaceX realistically got a bigger piece of the pie.
 
No big surprise there...

Won't be long before the pressure in Congress mounts to "down-select" to a single source (Boeing) and give them the SpaceX money to speed up their CST-100 development, since it's "obviously better"...

Later! OL JR :)
 
gee, didn't the US have a man-rated booster back in the late '60's...name started with an S...:). read somewhere that the Saturn v could send a 10 ten payload to Alpha Centauri(course it would be a long trip).
Rex
 
At the rate things get done in Congress Elon Musk might take that call on Mars.

No big surprise there...

Won't be long before the pressure in Congress mounts to "down-select" to a single source (Boeing) and give them the SpaceX money to speed up their CST-100 development, since it's "obviously better"...

Later! OL JR :)
 
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....
That's what just happened:

NASA awards space contracts to Boeing and SpaceX

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...a-awards-space-contract-to-boeing-and-spacex/

"Boeing’s contract is worth up to $4.2 billion; SpaceX’s is valued at $2.6 billion."

I'll buy that. Much better than what I expected.
 
gee, didn't the US have a man-rated booster back in the late '60's...name started with an S...:). read somewhere that the Saturn v could send a 10 ten payload to Alpha Centauri(course it would be a long trip).
Rex

That was then, this is now... We had TWO manrated boosters in the 60's that started with "S"... one was kinda small in capabilities, but was DIRT cheap compared to ANYTHING that came after it... The other was incredibly capable, as you mentioned... but both were scrapped to get a shuttle approved.

Interestingly enough, the RAC-2 study within NASA that looked at various options versus a "shuttle derived" solution for a new HLV found that, in terms of operational costs and efficiency, the BEST solution was a large series-staged all-liquid launch vehicle, utilizing a kerosene/oxygen powered first stage, and a large liquid hydrogen powered second stage, capable of launching an in-space propulsion stage (liquid hydrogen powered) and a sizeable payload. SOUND FAMILIAR??

The ONLY thing that this vehicle wasn't surpassing the shuttle derived solutions on was "cost of development" and "technical risk". The "shuttle derived" solutions *supposedly* have great advantage by using *already existing* components and systems (but they seem to always miss the fact that using them in entirely new vehicles and entirely new ways and combinations seems to create HUGE technical issues during development-- as we saw with the "DIRECT" proposal's argument that the simplest vehicle possible was to take an EXISTING Shuttle ET, graft on a new thrust structure housing 3-4 SSME's, and retool the ogive LO2 tank into a cylindrical one, and slap a pair of existing shuttle 4 segment boosters on it-- instant 70 tonne HLV... of course now that we're building pretty much exactly that (SLS) only using the five segment boosters basically developed under the Ares I program before its demise, we find that, in NASA's hands (and its contractors) anyway, it's a nearly $40 BILLION dollar development program that will take over a decade to first manned flight... IF the schedule holds!) Sounds like a lot of development expense and technical risk to me... Hard to see HOW a modern clone of Saturn V could be any harder...

And now that we're going to have to build an Americanized clone of the RD-180 anyway, that would basically eliminate the extra work of the large kerosene engine development program anyway... (or barring equipping such a Saturn V re-do with US clones of Russian engines, we could have always just given Dynetics a full-fledged contract to deliver updated clones of F-1's (F-1B) for use on the first stage... We already have/had J-2X from the Ares I program for the second stage (which given J-2X's redesign parameters to uprate it for use on Ares I, it is now a better ascent engine for a second stage (which was its intended purpose on Ares I) than an in-space propulsion engine-- it's ISP is lower than what you'd ideally want for an in-space propulsion stage (where ISP is king and total thrust is far less important-- on an ascent stage, these priorities are reversed) plus its dry weight is excessive compared to more efficient designs-- and every extra pound of dry weight on the engine is a pound of payload capability lost.

Interesting how that all works out...

And, guess what... 50 years later, Von Braun is STILL right... :)

Later! OL JR :)
 
At the rate things get done in Congress Elon Musk might take that call on Mars.

Maybe... we'll see...

Don't underestimate the self-serving instincts of politicians or their greed... they can move AMAZINGLY fast when it serves their own purposes...

Later! OL JR :)
 
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?
The new engines are rumored to be developed by Blue Origin in cooperation with ULA. The highly secretive Blue Origin has been funded with $500 million of the Amazon.com's founder's money plus NASA money, but it's a company that hasn't done much of anything I can find on-line. They have successfully fired a H2/O2 100k lb thrust engine and launched a small, grasshopper-like vertical lander. I'd bet the chances are about zero of a 2017 man-rated Atlas V with US origin engines from Blue Origin.
 
That's what just happened:

NASA awards space contracts to Boeing and SpaceX

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...a-awards-space-contract-to-boeing-and-spacex/

"Boeing’s contract is worth up to $4.2 billion; SpaceX’s is valued at $2.6 billion."

I'll buy that. Much better than what I expected.

Yes, this is true... Congress has been making noise for a few years now to "downselect" to a single provider for Commercial Crew. I guess someone at NASA has maybe, just MAYBE, learned something from "single point failures" like relying on the shuttle for EVERYTHING, and relying on the Russians for all manned space transport, even if Congress has not...

I'm sure their noisemaking was a big part of the 'call for investigation' into SpaceX's delivery on promises that some Congressvermin were calling for recently... helping pave the way for their favorite boys over at Boeing.

I suppose we're lucky SpaceX got anything at all... now it will remain to be seen how they actually FUND the program... I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibilities that Congress manaeges to cough up the money needed for Boeing's contract but only funds part (or none) of the SpaceX contract (or only enough to make it SEEM they're still funding it).

Nothing surprises me that comes out of DC anymore...

Later! OL JR :)
 
The new engines are rumored to be developed by Blue Origin in cooperation with ULA. The highly secretive Blue Origin has been funded with $500 million of the Amazon.com's founder's money plus NASA money, but it's a company that hasn't done much of anything I can find on-line. They have successfully fired a H2/O2 100k lb thrust engine and launched a small, grasshopper-like vertical lander. I'd bet the chances are about zero of a 2017 man-rated Atlas V with US origin engines from Blue Origin.

Interesting...

Blue Origin is NOTORIOUSLY secretive... nothing new there. I wasn't aware they were developing engines, but then again, I don't follow them particularly closely... when a group is THAT secretive, usually most of what you DO hear is completely wrong anyway, so why bother...

LH2 engines are pretty lousy for first stages anyway. Just look at the relative sizes, complexity, and cost between the Delta IV and Atlas V, and you can see that firsthand.

WHY team up with Blue Origin on a new KEROSENE engine for Atlas V, when PWR (Pratt & Whitney/Rocketdyne) is already charged with procuring the RD-180's from Russia and preparing them for integration with the Atlas V vehicles anyway... part of the original contract terms for the EELV's (which remember were developed PRIMARILY for US military space asset launches (spysats, etc) was that if they used Russian engines, the manufacturer had to 1) maintain a surplus of stored engines sufficient to allow continued uninterrupted launch of US national security payloads until a US-built equivalent engine could be produced and delivered, and 2) maintain the capability to develop such a US-built version of the engine should the Russian supply chain be cut. PWR would be the contractor already charged with doing BOTH of those things-- it would make little sense to farm that out to some other contractor NOW, ESPECIALLY a "nu-space" one with little/no engine development experience.

I don't get it... :)

Later! OL JR :)
 
The "shuttle derived" solutions *supposedly* have great advantage by using *already existing* components and systems (but they seem to always miss the fact that using them in entirely new vehicles and entirely new ways and combinations seems to create HUGE technical issues during development
Plus, there have been HUGE advances in materials, manufacturing, and computer design methods since those engines were designed and built. SSMEs are 1970s antiques. An example of the advantages of post-SSME engine tech from 12 years ago:

https://www.spaceflightnow.com/delta/d320/061102rs68.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-68

"We've taken a lot of the good parts of the SSME," Collins said. "Then we've learned some of the lessons of operating that engine over the past two-and-a-half decades and really sat down with a clean sheet of paper and said 'if you were looking to take all of that experience and build something today, how would you go do it?' And that's what we came up with."

Driving the design of the RS-68 is cost. Keeping the expenses of producing the engine as low as possible will reduce the overall ticket to fly a satellite atop the Delta 4.

"The RS-68 is the first rocket engine designed specifically for low cost (to provide) affordable space-lift and worldwide commercial competitiveness," said Bryon Wood, the vice president and general manager of Rocketdyne.

Compared to the SSME, development time for the RS-68 was cut in half, the number of parts was reduced by 80 percent, the hand-touched labor reduced by 92 percent and non-recurring costs were cut by a factor of five
.

-----------

Any "shuttle derived" solution is nothing more than a Shuttle era jobs continuation program at the expense of the taxpayer, yet another reason to dislike the money-sucking SLS "rocket to nowhere" boondoggle.
 
also read a 'tongue in cheek' idea for fueling a booster with butter to get a certain WI politician to back the program...:)
Rex
 
Considering how much progress the two companies have made on their versions of the project, and where they stand right now in terms of the 2017 deadline, I'd say SapceX is actually the leading contender, and Boeing is the "backup." And as someone already pointed out, having a backup is not a bad idea. Typically you'd think of established Boeing as the number one choice and upstart Space'X as the backup, and the distribution of the funding reflects that idea, but if you look at the timelines, that's not really the case.

One thing I'd like to note is that I like Boeing. I don't mean to bash them. My only gripe is the way some of this has played out with the appearance of a cozy relationship with the government and a unlevel playing field.
 
One thing I'd like to note is that I like Boeing. I don't mean to bash them. My only gripe is the way some of this has played out with the appearance of a cozy relationship with the government and a unlevel playing field.

Unfortunately this is the world that SpaceX lives in right now. Government contracts are not awarded on superior technologies, efficiencies or supportable logic. Instead greed and favoritism rule. The sooner Elon recognizes this and quits fighting the system the sooner he will begin to dominate space exploration as he desires. The right strategy here is to develop a relationship with Boeing and help them reach their committed goals. Stay independent, but become an arms dealer sharing key pieces of technology bidding as a subcontractor to Boeing. It's called entanglement and the Federal supplier ecosystem thrives on it. All major contractors are equally friends and enemies. The real looser is only the isolationist. Elon is a smart guy, I just hope he gets it before he falls on his sword--99% of martyrs aren't remembered.

Tim, who has helped a couple of small company clients drive nearly $100M in Federal revenue over the last 4 years.
 
Last edited:
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 :)

Point taken OL JR. I humbly stand corrected and let my political leanings and lack of reading up on the subject cloud my opinion. I should have researched it more fully before posting. Public ridicule deserved! Now that I know the history it is clear that our politicians of all persuasions will continue to waste enormous sums of treasure on folly. Thanks for providing a very thorough examination!


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.
 
Last edited:
No big surprise there...

Won't be long before the pressure in Congress mounts to "down-select" to a single source (Boeing) and give them the SpaceX money to speed up their CST-100 development, since it's "obviously better"...

Later! OL JR :)


That is exactly what will happen Space X will get a few million as a good will gesture and then be cut out of it all together and the remainder handed to Boeing only to be de-funded right as the program is nearly finished five years over due and ten times over budget.

My brother used to work for Boeing as a systems programmer he routinely was reprimanded because his programs were to small and compact and it need to be bulked up because they were paid by the line of code.

This just boils down to who is scratching who's back. Boeing has bigger pockets and more politicians as Facebook friends.



TA
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately this is the world that SpaceX lives in right now. Government contracts are not awarded on superior technologies, efficiencies or supportable logic. Instead greed and favoritism rule. The sooner Elon recognizes this and quits fighting the system the sooner he will begin to dominate space exploration as he desires. The right strategy here is to develop a relationship with Boeing and help them reach their committed goals. Stay independent, but become an arms dealer sharing key pieces of technology bidding as a subcontractor to Boeing. It's called entanglement and the Federal supplier ecosystem thrives on it. All major contractors are equally friends and enemies. The real looser is only the isolationist. Elon is a smart guy, I just hope he gets it before he falls on his sword--99% of martyrs aren't remembered.

The surest way to get Elon to do something is to tell him it's impossible. He'll take that fight to his deathbed before admitting that sometimes you just can't fix stupid.
 
That is exactly what will happen Space X will get a few million as a good will gesture and then be cut out of it all together and the remainder handed to Boeing only to be de-funded right as the program is nearly finished five years over due and ten times over budget.

My brother used to work for Boeing as a systems programmer he routinely was reprimanded because his programs were to small and compact and it need to be bulked up because they were paid by the line of code.

This just boils down to who is scratching who's back. Boeing has bigger pockets and more politicians as Facebook friends.



TA

Seriously?

I read a great analogy once. Paying programmers by line of code is like paying an airplane maker by the kilogram.
 
Seriously?

I read a great analogy once. Paying programmers by line of code is like paying an airplane maker by the kilogram.

Government managers are on fact sent to classes to learn this stuff. Really. I have met a few, thankfully, who can be convinced of the folly of it. Most cannot.


Sent from my iPhone using Rocketry Forum
 
Anyone have a link to an archive copy of yesterday's (16 Sep 2014) audio-only NASA announcement and press conference on this? Their sites about this seem to be an interlinking mess and none I can find link to it.
 
Point taken OL JR. I humbly stand corrected and let my political leanings and lack of reading up on the subject cloud my opinion. I should have researched it more fully before posting. Public ridicule deserved! Now that I know the history it is clear that our politicians of all persuasions will continue to waste enormous sums of treasure on folly. Thanks for providing a very thorough examination!


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.

No public ridicule intended.... Just informing you of the history I've watched since 2003...
Later! OL JR
 
The Blue Origin RD-180 replacement (BE-4) for the Atlas V will apparently use LNG/LOX instead of the RP-1/LOX of the RD-180 meaning that they'll need a tank redesign on the Atlas V to use it! I'd say forget about a 2017 man-rated Atlas V. The LNG/LOX route has a very slightly higher Isp, so with that and perhaps a lighter weight design maybe making up for an open-cycle instead of an RD-180 closed-cycle design, assuming the BE-4 is the usual open-cycle design.

Comparative Study of Kerosene and Methane Propellant Engines
for Reusable Liquid Booster Stages

https://www.dlr.de/Portaldata/55/Resources/dokumente/sart/0095-0212prop.pdf

Atlas V
Engines 1 RD-180 (2 nozzles)
Thrust 4,152 kN (933,406 lbf)

From the Blue Origin web page:

"The ULA/Blue Origin agreement allows for a four-year development process with full-scale testing in 2016 and first flight in 2019. The BE-4 will be available for use by ULA and Blue Origin for both companies’ next generation launch systems.

The BE-4 is a liquid oxygen, liquefied natural gas (LNG) rocket engine that delivers 550,000-lbf of thrust at sea level. Two BE-4s will power each ULA booster, providing 1,100,000-lbf thrust at liftoff. ULA is investing in the engineering and development of the BE-4 to enable availability for national security, civil, human and commercial missions. Development of the BE-4 engine has been underway for three years and testing of BE-4 components is ongoing at Blue Origin’s test facilities in West Texas. Blue Origin recently commissioned a new large test facility for the BE-4 to support full engine testing."


The close thrust match for the RD-180 makes me think they might have been anticipating a return of the cold war and the need to replace it. Frankly, who didn't expect a return to a cold war? It's too profitable and the boogie men in caves thing was starting to wear off.
 
The Blue Origin RD-180 replacement (BE-4) for the Atlas V will apparently use LNG/LOX instead of the RP-1/LOX of the RD-180 meaning that they'll need a tank redesign on the Atlas V to use it! I'd say forget about a 2017 man-rated Atlas V.

I don't think Atlas V is the end goal here... https://twitter.com/ulalaunch/status/512294258389577728

The LNG/LOX route has a very slightly higher Isp, so with that and perhaps a lighter weight design maybe making up for an open-cycle instead of an RD-180 closed-cycle design, assuming the BE-4 is the usual open-cycle design.

BE-4 is ORSC (oxygen-rich staged combustion) just like the RD-180, so it is a closed-cycle engine. https://d1ljm9hc65qhyd.cloudfront.net/press-releases/2014-09-17/BE-4-Fact-Sheet.pdf
 
Back
Top