4 ms·

This is essentially about letting Space-X in on more military missions that today they can only pass through Boeing and co. Presumably Space-X wasn't willing t

by tw04 3y ago

This is essentially about letting Space-X in on more military missions that today they can only pass through Boeing and co. Presumably Space-X wasn't willing to take an entire chunk of staff and dedicate them to military-only missions and/or had staff that couldn't even pass the stringent security clearance requirements. The US government still wants to utilize them for missions, especially with starship and its payload capacity on the near horizon.

alephnerd 3y ago
It will also help Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and other military contractors as well. It's good to see the changes happening to help better support our R&D capacity. The old method of having a single contractor monopolize an entire SKU was slowing down innovation and procurement.
- dylan604 3y ago
  It'll only help Boeing if they can pull their head out of their backside. To me, this is DoD realizing the Boeing can't do what they claim they can and need a new vendor. It's just that new vendor needs to have the rules modified a bit so they can qualify.
  - alephnerd 3y ago
    Boeing Defense, Space & Security (BDS) is still fairly competitive. The issues with Boeing are occurring in Boeing Commercial Airplanes (BCA), which is basically just McDonnell Douglas. BDS and BCA are both essentially independent of each other.
    - dylan604 3y ago
      Well, you're not reassuring me since Starliner cannot get off the ground.
      - AlexAndScripts 3y ago
        Or keep its doors attached.
        dylan604 3y ago
        When has Starliner not kept its doors attached? Following the content of a thread is a pretty basic expectation. Derailing it onto other subjects is not helpful nor appreciated.
        nebula8804 3y ago
        Maybe it was one of the scripts talking instead of Alex
        AlexAndScripts 3y ago
        Haha :) I was referring to Starliner's window falling off during transport. I misremembered it as a door falling off. And yeah my name is pretty terrible, I've always been bad at picking pseudonyms.
        felixhandte 3y ago
        Probably referring to this: https://futurism.com/the-byte/piece-falls-off-boeing-starliner https://futurism.com/the-byte/piece-falls-off-boeing-starlin...
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    The DoD (or at least the US Air Force) has been very aware Boeing can't deliver for a long time, between the KC-46 tanker and its inability to refuel, the F-15EX Eagle II and its failing to deliver on marketing promises, the V-22 Osprey and its many crashes including the most recent in November that led to a grounding across the services, and more. If this is a move to give Boeing's competitors (eg: Lockheed Martin, SpaceX) more bidding power, I welcome it.
    - tomcam 3y ago
      How can these failures happen so routinely? Whenever I think about the billions of dollars to go into these programs I always imagine that they go through multiple iterative prototypes so that they have something working at all times. It seems to me that would be a way to improve the chances of success at a likely higher cost to start with. But the department of defense does not ever seem to care about cost anyway.
      - dylan604 3y ago
        There are plenty of examples of military leadership not wanting a program, but Congress shoves it down their throats. So it's not always as simple as it seems with an appearance of DoD not caring. It is a consequence of design by committee.
        tomcam 3y ago
        Crap, I did forget about that. Thanks
    - signatoremo 3y ago
      > KC-46 tanker and its inability to refuel Where do you get this? KC46 problem is not because it can’t refuel. > F-15EX Eagle II and its failing to deliver on marketing promises Which promises? It’s supposed to be a missile truck, working in conjunction with F35, and it works well in that role. > V-22 Osprey and its many crashes including the most recent in November that led to a grounding across the services It’s called Bell Boeing V22 for a reason. Bell is the lead vendor and Boeing is the secondary. It was a Bell’s design. Bell Valor 280 which is a new tilt rotor design won FLRAA contract last year. Boeing make Chinook helicopter, well known for its reliability.
TravisCooper 3y ago
Agreed. Glad to see the "opening up" of Aerospace/Military that SpaceX has enabled by simply being extremely competent. Anduril is also making great plays in the Military contractor space. They don't do "cost plus" projects, but design and build the entire POC themselves then offer it to US Armed Forces.
sandworm101 3y ago
I think this is above anything spacex would need to be told about. Spacex is the delivery driver. They need to know where the sat is going, how much it weighs, and a bit about its needs. They dont need to know what the sat is actually doing, let alone how that function ties into any larger programs.
- tintor 3y ago
  But they need to know if sat is hazardous and/or radioactive, or what risks it posses to their vehicle.
  - sandworm101 3y ago
    Sats are sats. They all have thrusters, antennas and solar panels. They have a center of mass, various g limits and have to fit inside the rocket. Everything else can be hidden from the launch provider.
  - bell-cot 3y ago
    No they don't. Pre-launch satellites do not normally leak toxic chemicals, nor emit noteworthy radiation, nor have dangerous voltages on exposed surfaces, nor ... And as a Plan B - any satellites filled with secret sauce could easily be babysat (while in SpaceX's hands) by trusty USSF TSgt Top-Secret, who's been trained in what to do if things go horribly wrong.
- dotancohen 3y ago
  > They need to know where the sat is going, how much it weighs Tell me that and I'll tell you what the bird is going to do. Specific orbits have very specific purposes, usually. And knowing the size and mass of a satellite gives a lot of information, especially if I can look at it or even just a blurry photograph of it.
  - scottyah 3y ago
    Nobody is launching anything into orbit in secret: once the launch goes every country that cares to track it will be able to. They can always add extra weight if they want to obscure things to the launcher.
sitzkrieg 3y ago
as if spacex is not capable (and does) poach cleared personnel. this is not uncommon
psunavy03 3y ago
No, this is not. This is an attempt to bring overclassification under control, which has been admitted in the open press to be an ongoing problem for DOD. No one ever got fired for being too careful with classified. You can lose your job and your career for not being careful enough. On balance this is a good thing, because information is generally classified for a damn good reason, and it's important to keep US adversaries from learning our capabilities and what our playbook would be in a given situation. But it also culturally leads to the default behavior being "don't share information." Which in turn leads to things being more highly classified than they really need to be, which in turn is a huge bureaucratic drag on getting things done beyond just what may involve SpaceX or Boeing. This reads to be as much or more an effort to make sure things are classified at a sane level, and that the right information is sharable to allies and partners who have the proper clearances. Foreign disclosure of classified and managing information sharing between allied governments is already a huge administrative PITA that gets worse the more closely held the information is. So this seems to be an effort to take a step back and say "OK, let's not go round the bend with secrecy, let's balance protecting our interests with sharing what our allies and partners need to know."
- alephnerd 3y ago
  > This is an attempt to bring overclassification under control, which has been admitted in the open press to be an ongoing problem for DOD Can attest to this. That and our messed up procurement process has caused too much info getting siloed, and slowing down development [0] [0] - https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/06/09/america-weapons-china-00100373 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/06/09/america-we...
- jauntywundrkind 3y ago
  As well as he very practical uses you've stated for combatting over-classification, there's one other big exciting reason: Government/governance runs on public trust, which is maintained by governments doing things. If the government won't talk about & share what it does, if everything is secret, people will not believe in that government. The government can generate belief in itself by talking about & sharing the cool stuff it does. I'm excited for that to happen more. It was so so cool & weirdly motivational seeing KH-9 Hexagon unveiled at Air and Space in 2011! I dropped everything last minute to go see it. So cool. Hexagon was 40 year old film-bssed satellite, but still so amazing to see, huge & wildly ambitious. I hope this kind of reveal can happen again, can increase in frequency, decrease in number of decades kept cloaked.
elteto 3y ago
It is most definitely not. SpaceX is certified to launch whatever they can given their launch vehicle capabilities. There is only a very small number of people at SpaceX that need secret clearances for DOD or AF missions, and it’s mostly mission managers, not even most engineers. There’s a point of contact regarding the payload adapter (how the satellite hooks and talks to the launch vehicle). But again, that is a very minor thing. There’s maybe engineers with secret clearances working on military projects, but those are isolated projects. And if you need secret clearances they government will happily screen your employees, or you poach people who have them. They are most definitely not a hindrance in the big scheme of things.
dotnet00 3y ago
Adding to the points made by others, military-only missions are such a hard fought and profitable portion of SpaceX's launch manifest, it's highly unlikely they'd be unwilling to do almost anything to meet the security clearance requirements.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
wolverine876 3y ago
Is there some evidence of that?

by tw04 3y ago

alephnerd 3y ago

It will also help Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and other military contractors as well. It's good to see the changes happening to help better support our R&D capacity. The old method of having a single contractor monopolize an entire SKU was slowing down innovation and procurement.

dylan604 3y ago
It'll only help Boeing if they can pull their head out of their backside. To me, this is DoD realizing the Boeing can't do what they claim they can and need a new vendor. It's just that new vendor needs to have the rules modified a bit so they can qualify.
- alephnerd 3y ago
  Boeing Defense, Space & Security (BDS) is still fairly competitive. The issues with Boeing are occurring in Boeing Commercial Airplanes (BCA), which is basically just McDonnell Douglas. BDS and BCA are both essentially independent of each other.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    Well, you're not reassuring me since Starliner cannot get off the ground.
    - AlexAndScripts 3y ago
      Or keep its doors attached.
      - dylan604 3y ago
        When has Starliner not kept its doors attached? Following the content of a thread is a pretty basic expectation. Derailing it onto other subjects is not helpful nor appreciated.
        nebula8804 3y ago
        Maybe it was one of the scripts talking instead of Alex
        AlexAndScripts 3y ago
        Haha :) I was referring to Starliner's window falling off during transport. I misremembered it as a door falling off. And yeah my name is pretty terrible, I've always been bad at picking pseudonyms.
        felixhandte 3y ago
        Probably referring to this: https://futurism.com/the-byte/piece-falls-off-boeing-starliner https://futurism.com/the-byte/piece-falls-off-boeing-starlin...
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  The DoD (or at least the US Air Force) has been very aware Boeing can't deliver for a long time, between the KC-46 tanker and its inability to refuel, the F-15EX Eagle II and its failing to deliver on marketing promises, the V-22 Osprey and its many crashes including the most recent in November that led to a grounding across the services, and more. If this is a move to give Boeing's competitors (eg: Lockheed Martin, SpaceX) more bidding power, I welcome it.
  - tomcam 3y ago
    How can these failures happen so routinely? Whenever I think about the billions of dollars to go into these programs I always imagine that they go through multiple iterative prototypes so that they have something working at all times. It seems to me that would be a way to improve the chances of success at a likely higher cost to start with. But the department of defense does not ever seem to care about cost anyway.
    - dylan604 3y ago
      There are plenty of examples of military leadership not wanting a program, but Congress shoves it down their throats. So it's not always as simple as it seems with an appearance of DoD not caring. It is a consequence of design by committee.
      - tomcam 3y ago
        Crap, I did forget about that. Thanks
  - signatoremo 3y ago
    > KC-46 tanker and its inability to refuel Where do you get this? KC46 problem is not because it can’t refuel. > F-15EX Eagle II and its failing to deliver on marketing promises Which promises? It’s supposed to be a missile truck, working in conjunction with F35, and it works well in that role. > V-22 Osprey and its many crashes including the most recent in November that led to a grounding across the services It’s called Bell Boeing V22 for a reason. Bell is the lead vendor and Boeing is the secondary. It was a Bell’s design. Bell Valor 280 which is a new tilt rotor design won FLRAA contract last year. Boeing make Chinook helicopter, well known for its reliability.

TravisCooper 3y ago

Agreed. Glad to see the "opening up" of Aerospace/Military that SpaceX has enabled by simply being extremely competent. Anduril is also making great plays in the Military contractor space. They don't do "cost plus" projects, but design and build the entire POC themselves then offer it to US Armed Forces.

sandworm101 3y ago

I think this is above anything spacex would need to be told about. Spacex is the delivery driver. They need to know where the sat is going, how much it weighs, and a bit about its needs. They dont need to know what the sat is actually doing, let alone how that function ties into any larger programs.

tintor 3y ago
But they need to know if sat is hazardous and/or radioactive, or what risks it posses to their vehicle.
- sandworm101 3y ago
  Sats are sats. They all have thrusters, antennas and solar panels. They have a center of mass, various g limits and have to fit inside the rocket. Everything else can be hidden from the launch provider.
- bell-cot 3y ago
  No they don't. Pre-launch satellites do not normally leak toxic chemicals, nor emit noteworthy radiation, nor have dangerous voltages on exposed surfaces, nor ... And as a Plan B - any satellites filled with secret sauce could easily be babysat (while in SpaceX's hands) by trusty USSF TSgt Top-Secret, who's been trained in what to do if things go horribly wrong.
dotancohen 3y ago
> They need to know where the sat is going, how much it weighs Tell me that and I'll tell you what the bird is going to do. Specific orbits have very specific purposes, usually. And knowing the size and mass of a satellite gives a lot of information, especially if I can look at it or even just a blurry photograph of it.
- scottyah 3y ago
  Nobody is launching anything into orbit in secret: once the launch goes every country that cares to track it will be able to. They can always add extra weight if they want to obscure things to the launcher.

sitzkrieg 3y ago

as if spacex is not capable (and does) poach cleared personnel. this is not uncommon

psunavy03 3y ago

No, this is not. This is an attempt to bring overclassification under control, which has been admitted in the open press to be an ongoing problem for DOD. No one ever got fired for being too careful with classified. You can lose your job and your career for not being careful enough. On balance this is a good thing, because information is generally classified for a damn good reason, and it's important to keep US adversaries from learning our capabilities and what our playbook would be in a given situation. But it also culturally leads to the default behavior being "don't share information." Which in turn leads to things being more highly classified than they really need to be, which in turn is a huge bureaucratic drag on getting things done beyond just what may involve SpaceX or Boeing. This reads to be as much or more an effort to make sure things are classified at a sane level, and that the right information is sharable to allies and partners who have the proper clearances. Foreign disclosure of classified and managing information sharing between allied governments is already a huge administrative PITA that gets worse the more closely held the information is. So this seems to be an effort to take a step back and say "OK, let's not go round the bend with secrecy, let's balance protecting our interests with sharing what our allies and partners need to know."

alephnerd 3y ago
> This is an attempt to bring overclassification under control, which has been admitted in the open press to be an ongoing problem for DOD Can attest to this. That and our messed up procurement process has caused too much info getting siloed, and slowing down development [0] [0] - https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/06/09/america-weapons-china-00100373 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/06/09/america-we...
jauntywundrkind 3y ago
As well as he very practical uses you've stated for combatting over-classification, there's one other big exciting reason: Government/governance runs on public trust, which is maintained by governments doing things. If the government won't talk about & share what it does, if everything is secret, people will not believe in that government. The government can generate belief in itself by talking about & sharing the cool stuff it does. I'm excited for that to happen more. It was so so cool & weirdly motivational seeing KH-9 Hexagon unveiled at Air and Space in 2011! I dropped everything last minute to go see it. So cool. Hexagon was 40 year old film-bssed satellite, but still so amazing to see, huge & wildly ambitious. I hope this kind of reveal can happen again, can increase in frequency, decrease in number of decades kept cloaked.

elteto 3y ago

It is most definitely not. SpaceX is certified to launch whatever they can given their launch vehicle capabilities. There is only a very small number of people at SpaceX that need secret clearances for DOD or AF missions, and it’s mostly mission managers, not even most engineers. There’s a point of contact regarding the payload adapter (how the satellite hooks and talks to the launch vehicle). But again, that is a very minor thing. There’s maybe engineers with secret clearances working on military projects, but those are isolated projects. And if you need secret clearances they government will happily screen your employees, or you poach people who have them. They are most definitely not a hindrance in the big scheme of things.

dotnet00 3y ago

Adding to the points made by others, military-only missions are such a hard fought and profitable portion of SpaceX's launch manifest, it's highly unlikely they'd be unwilling to do almost anything to meet the security clearance requirements.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

wolverine876 3y ago

Is there some evidence of that?