SpaceX vs. Everyone - ULA, NG, Boeing, Lockheed, etc.

[chickensevil]

SpaceX tried prevent forming of ULA in 2005 but was dismissed for not be ready to compete in the EELV market. Now SpaceX have more merits to compete and it seem that ULA is pushing back more firmly.

From the first link: "The new Air Force procurement rules approved in March fundamentally changed the model of the EELV program from a series of competitive fixed-price launch contracts for specific satellites to a non-competitive cost-reimbursement capability contract. This model treats the EELV launch services more as an on-going US Government subsidized industry than a competitive marketplace for launch contracts."

I didn't realize that this USED to be an open and competitive scene and was only changed in 2005 after the high pressure of Boeing and Lockheed to say they would cancel their programs if they didn't agree to the changes... Well now that we have another player who has finally proven themselves... there is no reason to keep this closed off. Open it back up to open contracts with competition. Boeing and Lockheed had a good run, an almost 10 year run... free of outside interference... I think they should take their money and run at this point.

- - - Updated - - -

Although, SpaceX should have waited perhaps until they had finished their certification process before pushing forward with this. It is great that they are getting some traction this go around, I am just afraid that when it goes to the courts they will shoot it down on the same grounds as before, which was they they are not qualified to launch for the Air Force so they cannot claim they have been damaged by the joint venture, which caused the case to get thrown out before.

It is stupid that a monopoly is only considered wrong when you actually have someone that can prove damage. What about the people who are footing the bill because the only two viable companies at the time had conspired to raise the prices together?

The only instance of that actually panning out against companies successfully that I am aware of is the times when the computer memory companies have been proven to be price fixing...

 

[HVM]

ULA was formed when Boeing and LM were unable to compete with the Russian and European Launchers. (They lost all the commercial satellite business to Ariane and ILS etc.) Now Ariane is in trouble with SpaceX (even before reuse and Falcon Heavy…).

If Arine can’t compete with SpaceX in the open commercial field (With *multi-gov-pork-money ;P ) it’s pretty sure that ULA can’t do that either.

*(Arianes direct subsidy is 100 million euros per year (also R&D of rockets is paid and run by ESA) when ULA’s similar subsidy for operations is staggering 1 billion dollars per year!)

 

[Doug_G]

Although, SpaceX should have waited perhaps until they had finished their certification process before pushing forward with this.

No, ULA used political influence to get a sweet multi-year deal just before SpaceX's certification was completed. That would have locked SpaceX out for a long time. SpaceX is quite right to take this action because of the dirty tricks being used against them.

 

[Grendal]

No, ULA used political influence to get a sweet multi-year deal just before SpaceX's certification was completed. That would have locked SpaceX out for a long time. SpaceX is quite right to take this action because of the dirty tricks being used against them.

Amen, brother. ULA has had decades to gain political influence. The only argument that ULA has in their favor is that they are reliable and generally on time. That argument does not justify four times the cost and foreign made engines.

This will become an absurd contract when SpaceX is successful with reusability and the costs drop substantially. How will it look to the American taxpayer when the Air Force has signed a contract that forces us to pay for launch vehicles that are 10 to 20 times more expensive? I guarantee that someone will be going to jail over that one. Someone already went to jail over the last time this happened.

 

[chickensevil]

No, ULA used political influence to get a sweet multi-year deal just before SpaceX's certification was completed. That would have locked SpaceX out for a long time. SpaceX is quite right to take this action because of the dirty tricks being used against them.

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that SpaceX is in the right to take the action. I am just afraid that when it goes forward they will throw it out as a non-issue again, since SpaceX isn't technically "qualified" to compete for launches. You and I both know they are qualified they just need to get through the paperwork at this point. But depending on when the courts pick this up... we could have a repeat of 2005 all over again, and I don't want to see that happen.

Here is to hoping for cheaper launches for everyone!

 

[chickensevil]

ULA was formed when Boeing and LM were unable to compete with the Russian and European Launchers. (They lost all the commercial satellite business to Ariane and ILS etc.) Now Ariane is in trouble with SpaceX (even before reuse and Falcon Heavy…).

If Ariane can’t compete with SpaceX in the open commercial field (With multi-gov-pork-money ;P ) it’s pretty sure that ULA can’t do that either.

I went looking for this, and apparently they are pretty close in cost, but yeah, SpaceX has them beat by a pretty clean margin

60 million verses a hypothetical 96 million (once they get their Ariane 6 rocket off the ground).

Former Arianespace Chief Says SpaceX Has Advantage on Cost | SpaceNews.com

 

[Grendal]

This was posted as a comment on an article about SpaceX:

Lieutenant General Charles Davis is the guy who ran the F-35 program from 2002-2006, first as deputy, then as primary manager. Despite the fact that the F-35 program is the biggest procurement disaster ever and a huge problem for US national security, Davis was promoted from Brigadier General to Major General to Lieutenant General.

Lockheed-Martin is prime contractor for the ULA and for the F-35. General Davis knows where he will be working when he retires in August and he is not about to let Elon Musk sh*t on his nice little retirement arrangement.

For those that are not aware of the F-35, here is an article about the spending associated with it:

The Most Expensive Fighter Jet Ever Built, by the Numbers - ProPublica

Pretty obvious where this guys loyalties lie.

 

[jeff_adams]

This was posted as a comment on an article about SpaceX:



For those that are not aware of the F-35, here is an article about the spending associated with it:

The Most Expensive Fighter Jet Ever Built, by the Numbers - ProPublica

Pretty obvious where this guys loyalties lie.

How about Congress pass a law that any government official that goes to work AFTER RETIREMENT to a company that they awarded a contract to directly, loses their right to retirement pay? It's okay to go into private sector work, but NOT for someone you benefited at cost to taxpayers.

 

[Grendal]

How about Congress pass a law that any government official that goes to work AFTER RETIREMENT to a company that they awarded a contract to directly, loses their right to retirement pay? It's okay to go into private sector work, but NOT for someone you benefited at cost to taxpayers.

That works for me. In this case he could probably go to work for Boeing since ULA is a joint venture. It would be very difficult to prove and follow up on. What drives me nuts is everyone has fits over Solyndra and Tesla (just getting a loan) but is blissfully unaware of the billions being thrown away over something like this and the F-35. There is huge difference between millions and billions.

 

[doug]

F35 is pretty cool, though. Probably not worth the money, but on it's own, a pretty cool jet, if it works.

 

[Grendal]

F35 is pretty cool, though. Probably not worth the money, but on it's own, a pretty cool jet, if it works.

Fighter jets and the military industrial complex needs an Elon Musk to step in and start from scratch, build something amazing, while cutting costs with streamlining. Just think of the amazing fighter jet that Elon could make if he was handed as little as $20 billion.

Though I am very glad that Elon is on our side and not in the war machine business.

 

[rabar10]

U.S. Air Force says working hard to certify SpaceX rockets - Reuters

General William Shelton, who heads the Air Force Space Command, said SpaceX was likely to achieve certification in December or January, but the process could not be accelerated given the complex issues that still needed to be addressed.
...
He said the lawsuit surprised the Air Force, given that the military was dedicating $60 million and 100 people to the effort to certify SpaceX as a new competitor.

"Generally," he said, "the person you're going to do business with, you don't sue them."

...Except the USAF is not a business, it's a government entity. If it were a free market and SpaceX didn't like the terms, They could shop their launch offerings to other countries' militaries.

 

[chickensevil]

U.S. Air Force says working hard to certify SpaceX rockets - Reuters

...Except the USAF is not a business, it's a government entity. If it were a free market and SpaceX didn't like the terms, They could shop their launch offerings to other countries' militaries.

Haha! Yeah, except if they did that they would be branded a Terrorist organization or something... Could you imagine doing Chinese government launches? Oh man, the storm that would create...

 

[ZBB]

Fighter jets and the military industrial complex needs an Elon Musk to step in and start from scratch, build something amazing, while cutting costs with streamlining. Just think of the amazing fighter jet that Elon could make if he was handed as little as $20 billion.

There are people trying to do that -- see links below:

Textron AirLand Scorpion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cessna designs low-cost military jet - AOPA

 

[chickensevil]

http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/05/20/us-lockheed-martin-boeing-rockets-idINKBN0E00BF20140520

Interesting counter claim here by ULA on the cost of their rockets.

United Launch Alliance President Michael Gass told reporters at a space conference in Colorado that his company was providing rocket launches to the U.S. Air Force and other customers for an average cost of $225 million per launch, far less than the $460 million amount cited by SpaceX.

He said the price of each lighter-weight rocket launch was around $164 million in a 36-unit block buy that is being challenged by SpaceX. He also said ULA could provide additional lighter-weight launches for under $100 million, about the same price that SpaceX says its rocket launches will cost.

If this is true, then why doesn't anyone use ULA as a primary launch source in the private sector. The largest company by far, to my understanding, is Arianespace... which costs around 100-130 million. Something tells me someone is not telling the truth here, or they don't advertise their costs very well.

 

[Grendal]

He said the price of each lighter-weight rocket launch was around $164 million in a 36-unit block buy that is being challenged by SpaceX. He also said ULA could provide additional lighter-weight launches for under $100 million, about the same price that SpaceX says its rocket launches will cost.

Huh? Wasn't the contract for over $10 billion? $10 billion divided by 36 does not equal $164 million. I call BS big time.

 

[chickensevil]

If someone is good at searching RFP's that stuff should be public somewhere now. In it, it would outline the cost... in which case we could get the definitive answer. And if it wasn't posted as a fix-firm-price then that means they are more likely to blow over budget on this.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11641.pdf
This is the best thing I could find on any of the subject here, which is estimating that the current cost of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program is now up to 15 billion and each of the 40 rockets commissioned was going to cost around 420 million. This specific project overshot the original budgeting by over 50% which is actually what triggered this review.

I would not expect the ULA to be making cheap rockets, but I would love to find the specific RFP that SpaceX is complaining about in order to see what the cost is that was listed on paper in that RFP (even if they have gone over budget on that one, it would still give you a solid baseline for cost expectancy).

- - - Updated - - -

Ok, an article which specifically talks about the 36 cores in question:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/military-space/39020falcon-9-v11-appears-on-fast-track-to-qualify-for-air-force-missions

Key part of the article:

In 2012, the Air Force announced it was negotiating the purchase, on a sole-source basis, of up to 36 EELV rocket cores over five years from ULA.

So I believe the same GAO report I linked, is regarding the same proposal that is being mentioned here, not sure why the discrepancy of 36 vs 40 in the reporting... but that doesn't change the per rocket cost that much and actually means that the rockets cost more if they are using less at the same price.

In any case... I don't know how ULA can even stand up there and say that they are not costing 400 million per launch when the GAO is saying that they are spending too much money... It isn't SpaceX... it was the government...

 

[tigerade]

Elon just took the gloves off, and then the gloves under those gloves. No telling what the fallout from this will be.

 

[Bgarret]

Beat me to the punch and pun intended, was going to use the same gloves off phrase. I tweeted him back to thank him for being a finger down the throat to the powers that be.

 

[MikeC]

Love it. I hope this Correll guy ends up in jail.