This is a ridiculous article based on completely illogical assertions. It states that Boeing and Blue Origin are the "low-risk option", when the Boeing CST-100

This is a ridiculous article based on completely illogical assertions. It states that Boeing and Blue Origin are the "low-risk option", when the Boeing CST-100 and the Blue Origin BE-3 rocket have had precisely zero test flights, zero completed missions, and zero qualification tests. Conversely, the Falcon 9 and the Dragon have flown numerous successful missions for both NASA and commercial customers. This is just nonsense, and I doubt NASA would be stupid enough to give the contract to an undeveloped vehicle vs. a vehicle with a proven track record. Ironically, this is the same argument Boeing and ULA have used against SpaceX for years.