Russia Loses Again, Space X Scores

So, does that make Space-X the "Aerospace Checker" for NASA?

"six astronauts to be ferried, over four years, at a cost of $70.7 million a head.
That's more than SpaceX charges to send up to 4.85 metric tons of cargo into space. It's a lot to pay to send up one 180-pound astronaut."

Yes, but the SpaceX vehicle is not man-rated.

"...it's entirely possible that some "tickets" to ISS could be even cheaper than the $58 million average."

This must have been written in Colorado as someone is smokin' hope.

Since when has a project like this come in within budget?

The good news is that we will at least have our own access to LEO again.

However, even the Space Shuttle could launch for $300 million and take a crew of up to 8. That works out to about $37.5 million a head, which must have been the reason it was retired. Why pay half when you can pay more from a buddy?

Don't get me wrong, the Shuttle should have been retired long ago, but it was foolish to burn your only bridge off the island before the replacement is ready.

If you ever read Richard Feynman's critique of the first shuttle disaster (the one he published separately), my memory was this was a "wing and prayer" safety analysis done by NASA. Memory was the main oxygen pumps developed cracks every 4 flights (he didn't just dwell on the solid boosters), and Feynman asked how this was safe, implying pure luck to not have a failure at any time during it's use. To me the shuttle was never man-rated with catastrophic accidents every 25 flights or so. It was a marvelous machine in it's day. And one that had too many military mission requirements. Maybe 3 different configurations should have been the path.

I agree, a replacement should have been released before mothballing the flight vehicles.

I thought hat program was great at advancing computing but the hardware was rushed and it cost lives. the schedule was pushed well beyond reason. the culture at the time just couldn't be patched.let NASA do space and let the AF use Vandenberg for all their spy missions

The culture had a role in the loss of life and missions, but the Shuttle was (and probably will be for a long time to come) the most complex piece of machinery ever know to humans.

Complexity is proportional to risk and the high complexity of the system created a lot of problems as well as significant cost overruns and underperformance.

First, the shuttle should never have been built, in my opinion.

We already had a tried and tested heavy booster called the Saturn 5.

What was needed was a crew transport to LEO with some form of reusability. A smaller personnel shuttle may have been one way to do that. However, there was no compelling need to do that in any hurry. We already had all the tools we needed to do the science NASA wanted. Building and operating the Shuttle mostly consumed resources and paid the contractors with the better lobbyists.

The cost of the Apollo development program was about $150 billion in today's dollars with a launch cost of about $500+ million. The Shuttle development was about $150 to $200 billion.

The cost to launch the Shuttle was cheaper, but for the price of the Shuttle development alone we could have launched almost 300 Saturn 5 rockets. That doesn't count the cost of each Shuttle launch, which adds another $100 to $500 million to each launch.

If SpaceX can do the mission for less, why is Boeing in the game? What do they bring, other than lobbyists? I like Boeing, but what's the deal?

Also, can we assume that the price excludes the development costs?

I think it is called competitive bidding.

don't forget Boeing absorbed McDonnell Douglas and its Delta Program

But, Elon looks russian.