Although this may be the correct order, SpaceX put less emphasis on schedule for its Falcon Heavy and kept an emphasis on cost. I think that there is an argument for either order, but both factors are important to the company.

Col Beausabre “there’s a big debate within [Silicon] Valley if it is actually dead, but I think we can learn from looking at history.”

The history of the valley is one of adaptation. Originally it was a supply and maintenance station for the Spanish presidios as San Francisco and Monterey. When the Spanish abandoned California, the valley adapted and became a major agricultural center, with orchards throughout the valley. Its nickname at that time became “The Valley of the Heart’s Delight.” Later, Stanford university emphasized industrial production, and its students made that happen with aerospace companies as well as electrical and electronic technology.

These days, very few orchards or farms remain, but The Silicon Valley is harboring not only venture capitalists but many space-related startups. Reports of the valley’s demise may be premature.

Interestingly, SpaceX and Boeing seem to be in a race with each other only in the press. Neither of them have made much in the way of statements that they want to be the first to take man to the ISS or to become operational. In that way, I am with Mike Borgelt. The end service seems to be the main concern for each, not the prestige of being the first to fly commercially. But this makes sense. How many people can name the first commercial airline or the company to first fly paying passengers? Far fewer than can name the first man on the Moon.

Col Beausabre: SpaceX did its unmanned demo flight to ISS back in March. Use the search box on BtB to get the details. :)

Won’t SpaceX still have to do an unmanned demo flight to ISS? So If all goes as planned, by New Year’s Eve Boeing will be in the lead?

Chris – I’m putting my bet on Boeing, they have almost 90
years of dealing with the Feds (since they got the Monomail certified in 1930 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Monomail). By now, doing the paperwork should be a smooth drill they can do in their sleep. Plus they’ll know all the tricks and short cuts and, most importantly, have contacts within the bureaucracy to smooth their way.

Also, SpaceX has the Silicon Valley culture of “move fast and break things” going against it. I get the impression that Musk & Co and their fanboys view compliance and paperwork as bothersome details, only fit for lesser mortals, not obviously superior beings such as they. But, this ain’t the Silicon Valley version of the Wild West. (there’s a big debate within the Valley if it is actually dead, but I think we can learn from looking at history. If it’s not dead, it’s dying. Deadwood, Tombstone and Dodge City aren’t what they used to be).

Anyway…So you’re going to break the system that you want to gain approval from? You think that you can force the bureaucracy to move at your pace? Without ticking off the very people who need to agree you’ve checked all the boxes properly? You can’t steamroll over the Government, guyz.

I’m not saying I approve of this, but you have to realistic and learn to play by the rules or you won’t be allowed to play at all.

SpaceX gets things done with an emphasis on schedule and then cost (I think that order is correct from an outside view). Lower on the list is wading in the bureaucracy that is NASA

Boeing is an old hand in the federal bureaucracy with closing schedule a competency that could be dull at this point.

Seeing the task is to successfully complete the tests AND the paperwork it may be hard to see who wins first.

What the inability to deliver our own astronauts to our own space station absent the extortionate help of our once and again enemy is, though, is a national embarrassment and a national disgrace. That’s plenty bad enough.