NASA picks Boeing, 2 other firms to develop space taxis
WASHINGTON - NASA has picked three aerospace companies, including the Boeing Co., to build small rocketships to take astronauts to the International Space Station. The decision was announced Friday.
This is the third phase of NASA's efforts to get private space companies to take over the job of the now-retired space shuttle. The companies will share more than $1.1 billion. Two of the ships are capsules like in the Apollo era and the third is closer in design to the space shuttle.
Once the spaceships are built, NASA plans to hire the private companies to taxi astronauts into space within five years. Until they are ready, NASA is paying Russia about $63 million per astronaut to do the job.
In a statement, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said the move "will help keep us on track to tend the outsourcing of human spaceflight."
NASA hopes that by having private firms ferry astronauts into low Earth orbit, it can focus on larger long-term goals, like sending crews to a nearby asteroid and eventually Mars. The private companies can also make money in tourism and other non-NASA business.
The three companies are the Boeing Co. of Houston, Space Exploration Technologies, called SpaceX, of Hawthorne, Calif., and Sierra Nevada Corp. of Louisville, Colo.
They are quite different companies. Boeing is one of the oldest and largest space companies with a long history of building and launching rockets and working for NASA, going back to the Mercury days. SpaceX is a relatively new company started by Elon Musk, who helped create PayPal and runs the electric car company Tesla Motors. Sierra Nevada has been in the space business for 25 years but mostly on a much smaller scale than Boeing.
NASA's commercial crew development program started with seven companies. The other companies that were not chosen can still build private rocketships and NASA still has the option to hire them to ferry astronauts at a later date, NASA spokesman Trent Perrotto said.
Boeing is slated to get the most money, $460 million for its seven-person CST-100 capsule. It would launch on an Atlas rocket, with the first test flight 2016. The company won't say how much it would charge NASA per seat, but it will be "significantly lower" than the Russian price, said John Mulholland, Boeing vice president. He said Boeing's long experience in working with NASA on human flight gives it a "leg up" on its competitors.
SpaceX is already in the lead in the private space race. The company earlier this year used their Falcon rocket to launch their Dragon capsule into orbit. It docked with the space station and successfully delivered cargo. NASA plans to give the company $440 million. The capsule holds seven people and will have its first test launch with people in 2015, said spokeswoman Kirstin Brost Grantham. The company will charge NASA about $20 million per seat, she said.
Sierra Nevada's mini-shuttle crew vehicle called Dream Chaser carries seven people and could be flown without a pilot. NASA would give them $212.5 million. The ship is based on an old NASA test ship design but hasn't flown as much as SpaceX's Dragon. "It may appear as though we are behind but in many ways we are more mature," said Sierra Nevada space chief Mark Sirangelo. Like Boeing's Mulholland, he said his firm will charge NASA less than the Russians, but won't give a specific price.
This is the third phase of NASA's efforts to get private space companies to take over the job of the now-retired space shuttle. The companies will share more than $1.1 billion. Two of the ships are capsules like in the Apollo era and the third is closer in design to the space shuttle.
Once the spaceships are built, NASA plans to hire the private companies to taxi astronauts into space within five years. Until they are ready, NASA is paying Russia about $63 million per astronaut to do the job.
In a statement, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said the move "will help keep us on track to tend the outsourcing of human spaceflight."
NASA hopes that by having private firms ferry astronauts into low Earth orbit, it can focus on larger long-term goals, like sending crews to a nearby asteroid and eventually Mars. The private companies can also make money in tourism and other non-NASA business.
The three companies are the Boeing Co. of Houston, Space Exploration Technologies, called SpaceX, of Hawthorne, Calif., and Sierra Nevada Corp. of Louisville, Colo.
They are quite different companies. Boeing is one of the oldest and largest space companies with a long history of building and launching rockets and working for NASA, going back to the Mercury days. SpaceX is a relatively new company started by Elon Musk, who helped create PayPal and runs the electric car company Tesla Motors. Sierra Nevada has been in the space business for 25 years but mostly on a much smaller scale than Boeing.
NASA's commercial crew development program started with seven companies. The other companies that were not chosen can still build private rocketships and NASA still has the option to hire them to ferry astronauts at a later date, NASA spokesman Trent Perrotto said.
Boeing is slated to get the most money, $460 million for its seven-person CST-100 capsule. It would launch on an Atlas rocket, with the first test flight 2016. The company won't say how much it would charge NASA per seat, but it will be "significantly lower" than the Russian price, said John Mulholland, Boeing vice president. He said Boeing's long experience in working with NASA on human flight gives it a "leg up" on its competitors.
SpaceX is already in the lead in the private space race. The company earlier this year used their Falcon rocket to launch their Dragon capsule into orbit. It docked with the space station and successfully delivered cargo. NASA plans to give the company $440 million. The capsule holds seven people and will have its first test launch with people in 2015, said spokeswoman Kirstin Brost Grantham. The company will charge NASA about $20 million per seat, she said.
Sierra Nevada's mini-shuttle crew vehicle called Dream Chaser carries seven people and could be flown without a pilot. NASA would give them $212.5 million. The ship is based on an old NASA test ship design but hasn't flown as much as SpaceX's Dragon. "It may appear as though we are behind but in many ways we are more mature," said Sierra Nevada space chief Mark Sirangelo. Like Boeing's Mulholland, he said his firm will charge NASA less than the Russians, but won't give a specific price.
Good for Boeing!
Good day for Boeing!
I'm all for space exploration, but boy, $1.1 billion. I'd sure like to see the business case for this, i.e., what is benefit that we're getting for this kind of cost. I would much rather see NASA money spent on true exploration.  I'm open to be convinced on this.
 @Anselm âOver the last 12 years 204 people have been on the ISS.  Over the next 12 years if another 200 people go, (which is likely a low number since the crew size increased upon compleation) and if half of them are americans then 63 million x 100 would put future astronaut transport costs using the Soviets and Soyuz at 6.3 billion dollars.  1.1 billion start up cost and 20 million per astronaut for the same 100 equals 3.1 billion total transport costs using the new âtaxisâ leaving 3.2 billion dollars for your âtrue explorationâ.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/main/onthestation/facts_and_figures.html
 @My_Thoughts Thanks for the reply and the link My_Thoughts. I'll check it out!
@Anselm
You're welcome.
Have a GREAT day, week, month, year, decade, ...
Â
Going to need a credit card with a bigger limit than mine to run through the new eight digit taxi meter.
And, unless they go back to printing one hundred thousand dollar bills cash is NOT an option.
 @My_Thoughts Thank you for the laugh. That was good lol
Congratulations to Boeing!
Why do we even go to space? There is nothing there worth spending billions on that's for sure. Seems like a huge waste to me. Been there. Done that. Got the T-shirt.
 @JeffyJoeBob Just think if the Europeans or America had the same thoughts before sending Columbus or Lewis and Clark on their expeditions? But I can understand your thinking. Both the Europeans and America had commercial for profit reasons of sending these expeditions. The huge issue here concerning space exploration, with the help of the American government and other countries the exploitation of space for commercial reasons has been severely limited to only profiting the sponsoring nations in the veil of world good, but it is mostly centered on very antiquated national security reasons. If the private companies were free to enter space for commercial purposes we as a world would already have space faring generations and would not need to be limited to this earth which does have an expiration data no matter what people think.
 @JeffyJoeBob Because, if humanity does not become a two planet species, we WILL be wiped out. Either by a huge CME, an asteroid, a comet, a gamma ray burst, a wandering stellar mass black hole, a wandering planetoid, or any of the other space 'things' that have, in the past, and will again, in the future, wipe out life on earth. It's insurance for the continued survival of our species!We can spend every last dime the world makes on improving life here on earth, but if we don't reach for the stars it will ultimately be for nothing.
 @Timothy Simon I Totally agree!. Humans need to Expand further to help insure our survival.
"NASA hopes that by having private firms ferry astronauts into low Earth orbit, it can focus on larger long-term goals, like sending crews to a nearby asteroid and eventually Mars." The only thing NASA cares about is limiting space exploration. NASA is a dinosaur and needed to die a long time ago. They have spent trillions and trillions of dollars and all they have to show for it is footsteps on the moon, a few space telescopes and a few landers on Mars along with the hugely expensive space station. NASA is using funding to control private company directions. The money NASA gives comes with a price of NASA having a large amount of control over these projects. We have had the technology to put full scale space stations in orbit that can be used for commercial manufacturing and communication hubs and stop off points for longer range missions but with the US government controlling access to space from our private companies nothing ever gets done. We need as a race to be in the stars but we will never get there by allowing government to control everything we do. Allow the commercial access to space for companies to start mining the moon for profit and the outlying asteroids/comets. Lifting anything from the surface of the earth is hugely expensive but the moon is only about 1/6 gravity of earth. With the polar ice found on the moon a commercial mining station for metal can easily be setup and lift huge amounts of payload into space much cheaper then from earth. But our government sits behind the stupid notation that space is not for commercial exploitation.
NASA once again is behind the ball on this one, they should have been looking into the future of these projects 5-7 years ago like such companies as SpaceX and Sierra Nevada when NASA had the money to fund these projects for less money than they are paying the Russians.
Â
This is why privatization of these companies is great, they think ahead, are progressive, and know its their money and not the taxpayers footing the bill.
Â
The government can't pay its own bills let alone put future space crafts and astronauts in space.
While I applaud using private enterprise in the space program, I have to ask what has become of us when we are paying the Russians to get us into space?
 @Magic 8 Ball Other then the U.S, Russia has the most experience. Also NASA is not ending It's space program. It's concentrating on Bigger Objectives.
@Magic 8 Ball The Russians previously were the only country with the know how to do this until now with the privatization of American space companies NASA can now get it done cheaper and made in America, NASA blew it and that is why they have basically put themselves in bankruptcy, if it wasn't for companies like SpaceX and Sierra Nevada NASA (taxpayers) would be paying Russia and god only know what other countries to put us into space. It's a complete joke, but companies like SpaceX and Sierra Nevada are the future, its very exciting.