<i>> Ofcourse they do. That was the reason they awarded the contract to the two most incompetent bidders. </i><br /><br />That is an unfair characterization of both companies. SpaceX started from a well-funded "zero" and has made startling progress including two unsuccessful but off-the-pad Falcon launches. RpK inherited their hangar-queen of an orbital system and has shown little inclination to finish it, though some work seems to be happening. They had mostly focused on suborbital until COTS. To call any of the COTS competitors incompetent is a disservice to them all. <br /><br />Take some of the other competitors, they all have weaknesses but that is the whole point of entrepreneurs - they need others to fill in the gaps. Andrews has never flown anything that I know of, payload or LV. SpaceDev has wide experience but no particular expertise in LEO crew capsules. SpaceHab is trying to remain relevant post-Shuttle. t/space has a cool seat, cool capsule design and interesting air-launch partner, but is otherwise showing little movement. These are all competent organizations in one way or another. The whole point of COTS was to try out new.space and their choices were as good as any combination. <br /><br />What would your 2 choices have been?<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>