The Wall Street Journal’s Andy Pasztor has a less than stellar record when it comes to reporting on SpaceX, as readers may recall from this confused mishmash of story conflating an upcoming announcement from Blue Origin with NASA’s entirely separate announcement of the results of its Commercial Crew awards which came out the next day.

Late yesterday, the WSJ came out with another story, which like those before it, shows a particular affinity for “Old Space,” in this case Boeing, and what appears to be a long standing pattern of downplaying the significance of SpaceX and the change it has brought to the aerospace industry.

Nevertheless, the basic elements of this story, which are based on a purported review of what is supposed to be NASA’s still embargoed Source Selection Statement from the Commercial Crew awards, may be much closer to factual than many have come to expect. It is the “spin” however, which counts. The title, “Why Boeing Beat SpaceX in NASA’s Space-Taxi Contest” is somewhat misleading. Both companies were winners, and based on the pricing submitted for identical services for which NASA retains the option of how much it will buy from whom, $4.2 versus $2.6 billion, it very possible that SpaceX will conduct the greater number of launches, an outcome which could benefit both the American taxpayer, as well as other NASA programs which are all competing for the same dollars. Given that they reside withing the same overall category, that winner could oddly enough be the Space Launch System, including of course, prime contractor Boeing.

According to the article “the 29-page (Source Selection) document, signed by NASA’s associate administrator William Gerstenmaier the day before the awards were announced, depicts more of a one-sided contest. Boeing ranked above SpaceX in every major category, from technical maturity to management competence to likelihood of sticking to a timetable.

Boeing’s submission was considered “excellent” for “mission suitability,” whereas SpaceX got a “very good” ranking. The numerical scores for that category, according to one person familiar with the details, were separated by more than 60 points out of a possible 1,000. The document shows Boeing also garnered the highest ranking of “excellent” for technical approach and program management, compared with “very good” rankings for SpaceX.

Based on Boeing’s performance on a preliminary contract, NASA concluded it had “very high confidence” in that company’s likelihood of delivering what it promised—the highest ranking possible.”

Given that Boeing’s entire proposal was premised on the highly ironic context of not including any “Moonshot (their words) technologies” and featured a system largely cobbled together from preexisting and “proven” components, it is not all surprising that the CST-100, and Boeing’s expertise in managing it, would rank very highly in categories which emphasize certainty of execution. One specific example cited in the article, the use of radiation hardened components, is illustrative. SpaceX, by design, tends to favor multiple redundant systems over individual hardened components for the reasons cited here. Both can, and do work, but the advantages derived from SpaceX’s approach show up in pricing (remember that $1.6 billion spread?) and flexibility (want to land it on Mars?) but are not going to fare as well when judged on other criteria.

The bottom line is that based on their two very different approaches, Boeing’s bid was almost certain to “beat” SpaceX’s on a number of points, particularly if NASA ruled narrowly by excluding future developments such as redundant landing capabilities, (parachute or powered) an unparalleled safety benefit, or precision landing at a designated site on terra firma, a scientific benefit.

We will know quite a bit more when the documents are released publicly rather than leaked privately, but in the end, barring political manipulation, the real winner, the company which conducts the most launches, will be determined by two factors, price and performance.

The former is fixed. The latter is for now, an open question.