10 ms·

SpaceX granted injunction in rocket launch suit against Lockheed-Boeing

114 points by cryptoz 13y ago

eps 13y ago
> In reaction to the sanctions, Rogozin tweeted: “After analyzing the sanctions against our space industry, I suggest the U.S. delivers its astronauts to the ISS with a trampoline.” In Russian there's an expression - to scare a hedgehog with a naked ass - which is exactly the case here, except it's really a shame that it's the space exploration that ends up suffering because of some bullshit political games.
- noisy_boy 13y ago
  Space exploration always had political motivation driving it or inhibiting it. The great progress done during last 40-50 years wouldn't have as much without cold war and its associated factors. In this case, even if you exclude the Russian factor, the point that ULA was awarded such a huge contract without any competition, most probably didn't happen without political (and/or financial) influence.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - nraynaud 13y ago
    The history behind the engines we are talking about is just crazy. Basically they were incredibly superior to the american ones but politicians lost interest in them (because the race to the moon was lost), and they scrapped the program and asked the engines to be destroyed. They were hidden in the middle of nowhere in Siberia. After the cold war, some Russians in the know wanted to sell them to US companies, the specs were so incredible (particularly the inner pressure) that the prospective buyers thought there was a translation problem or that it was false. They had created a new alloy, they had used an incredibly dangerous technology in them etc. I don't know very well history, but I think this complexity and technological ambition might be a factor in the USSR losing of the race to the moon. edit: nice story, but it's the wrong engine, see below.
    - chippy1337 13y ago
      >[Citation Needed]
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - rst 13y ago
      Different Russian engines. The engines that ULA is banned from buying are RD-180s; they are being newly built to, effectively, American specifications, though most components are derived from the RD-170 which was originally built for Energiya. You're describing this history of the NK-33 engines, which were originally built for the Soviet lunar program, and then (as you say) hidden in a warehouse after that program was terminated. Some of those were later bought by Aerojet, which then sold them to Orbital for use in their ISS cargo delivery program; neither company is party to the suit, and the injunction doesn't cover them. (Nor could it; Aerojet's stock of NK-33s was bought and paid for quite some time ago now.)
      - nraynaud 13y ago
        Oops, sorry
- ceejayoz 13y ago
  Long-term I'd say this may well strengthen space exploration.
  - nraynaud 13y ago
    I think that leaves only China (maybe India ? I don't remember where they are space-wise) with a capacity to send people into space. I don't think Ariane can be fitted for people.
    - arjie 13y ago
      India has not had a successful manned launch yet. I believe China has.
      - noir_lord 13y ago
        They've had about half a dozen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_astronauts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_astronauts
    - arethuza 13y ago
      Ariane 5 was originally supposed to be "man rated" to launch the Hermes mini-shuttle - but that project was cancelled. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermes_%28spacecraft%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermes_%28spacecraft%29
    - rst 13y ago
      And Russia, of course; American astronauts have been going up on Soyuz since the end of the Shuttle program. If you're suggesting that the US could go to China for replacement transportation services: not likely. NASA is currently barred by Congress from any cooperation with the Chinese at all on space exploration. At least one of the US commercial crew competitors are likely to have working hardware long before that attitude changes.
      - nraynaud 13y ago
        yes, that what the "leave" meant :)
- JackFr 13y ago
  This is not space exploration, its a jobs program for missile scientists -- you know keep them off the streets, keep them from joining gangs, kind of like Boys Clubs or something. http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2013/09/14/the-skies-the-limits/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2013/09/14/the-ski... "The collapse of the Soviet Union created the final incentive to go forward. U.S. officials worried that Russian rocket scientists would go to work for rogue nations, spreading missile technology. In 1993, the United States and its allies brought the Russians into the fold for what would now be called the international space station. The international agreements ensured that the funds would keep flowing to the project despite changes in administrations and turnover in Congress." In retrospect seems like as good an idea as arming the mujahideen in the 80's or putting Lenin on the train from Zurich.
  - rst 13y ago
    This is mixing up multiple things: the injunction concerns engines for launches of American defense satellites (GPS, spy sats, communications satellites), etc., which don't go to the space station and don't have much to do with it. (ISS is a NASA program, not military.)
    - chaostheory 13y ago
      > is a NASA program, not military Nowadays with all the budget cuts NASA has been facing, in terms of projects the lines are blurring between the two organizations
  - huhtenberg 13y ago
    And that's of course the US version of the story. Very cute, but I can tell you from lots of anecdotal evidence that all that ISS work was a drop in the ocean as far as Soviet space program was concerned. Rocket scientists didn't go to work for rogue nations. You have to understand that Soviet space industry was (and still is) veiled in secrecy. Think of it as SkunkWorks but on a massive scale and with 100x of security officers. You couldn't just hand in your resignation and go work for Iran. It just didn't work this way (it still doesn't by the way). For example, people with a security clearance were required to keep their travel passports with HR and they were not generally allowed to leave the country unsupervised. That's if they could get passports issued to begin with. Perestroika or not, all this security scaffolding was still in place and you bet it was functioning. The state was still guarding its secrets and know-hows. Granted, it neglected people behind them, but it wasn't going to let others access its technology.
- listic 13y ago
  I'm not quite following: exactly which sanctions prompted Rogozin's snide response?
  - coldcode 13y ago
    He's one of the Russians targeted by US and EU for the activities of Russia in the Ukraine. Basically you can't do business with him or send him money.
    - listic 13y ago
      > targeted by US and EU for the activities of Russia in the Ukraine Ah, I didn't know exactly what those sanctions were. So, does it mean that, as a government official, he's threatening sanctions for a country, because of sanctions that were applied to him personally?
- nkoren 13y ago
  Elon's response to that tweet was more than a little bit epic: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/461279062837968897 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/461279062837968897 followed by: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/461283368693669888 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/461283368693669888 Not sure what Rogozin thought about them apples, but this sure isn't boring!
  - danielweber 13y ago
    It takes a lot of discipline to keep something like that under wraps until the exact right time to bring it out.
    - colechristensen 13y ago
      Of course, we all knew it was coming. Human spaceflight inside Dragon has always being a goal. The unmanned resupply missions are steeping stones to certifying the rocket and capsule for human flight (though unmanned resupply missions and other launches will continue of course).
  - monochr 13y ago
    "Not sure what Rogozin thought about them apples, but this sure isn't boring!" Probably nothing. The Soyuz rockets they use are so old they are literally still named after the Soviet Union. This might seem like a bad thing but in rocketry old means reliable and new means "Your payload will probably explode in one of the first 5 missions. Hope it wasn't important!" In short, it won't be sometime before 2018 before the Dragon Mk 2 rockets become safe enough for Astronauts to use regularly to get to the space station.
    - Gravityloss 13y ago
      They can fly Falcon 9 with cargo Dragons as well as unmanned Dragon 2 capsules many times before 2018. Demonstrated safety is hard to argue with. There have been relatively recent failures with Soyuz launchers as well (though none with Soyuz FG). Russians have also been developing new things, both as upgrades to the Soyuz launcher and Soyuz spacecraft but also new developments. (Soyuz-2-1v and PTK)
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- SnakeDoc 13y ago
  I could not agree more. Our President decides to pick a political bone so our space industry suffers. (Oh ya, it's the same President that decimated the NASA budget! -- In the name of science!)
coreymgilmore 13y ago
Given the circumstances, why would the USAF not bid out the launches? My thought is that they see Lockheed and Boeing as American companies and don't really care where the parts come from. In the end, SpaceX has shown a competive price and should have a chance to bid these launches. On another hand, the US/Russian space programs and teamwork with the ISS is largely separated from the political issues in Ukraine. There is too much to lose on either side.
- fixermark 13y ago
  The USAF has a history of relying solely upon firms that they have bid out to in the past. There's some logic to this (military technology should be reliable and sourced to trusted parties, so companies that have already proven reliability and have a pre-existing trust relationship have a massive advantage). But if you look at that scenario and smell the possibility for corruption, you're probably not wrong. ;)
- beedogs 13y ago
  > Given the circumstances, why would the USAF not bid out the launches? Maybe the bidding process was so corrupt and/or pointless that they just did away with it entirely.
- InclinedPlane 13y ago
  Are you kidding? The USAF has a very cozy relationship with the ULA. It was obvious to any non-naive observer at the time that the block buy was designed to lock in billions of dollars in government spending to the ULA before SpaceX would come along and smash the existing pricing structure, offering launches that ULA couldn't hope to compete with. Even if SpaceX's prices go up with EELV launches, and even if they would never incorporate reusability into EELV launches, they would still be able to offer launches for every possible EELV payload at prices far below ULA's. Anything ULA could launch on any of their vehicles SpaceX could launch on the Falcon Heavy, and many launches (like GPS birds) could happen on the even cheaper Falcon 9. With reusability, which SpaceX seems to have a good handle on, those costs get slashed, especially the cost of the Falcon Heavy. Any EELV payload could be launched on a reusable Falcon Heavy, even if it meant forgoing crossfeed. Even if the first stages could only be reused twice (a paltry amount) that would lower the cost of a reusable Falcon Heavy to around the cost of a Falcon 9, around $50 million. Keep in mind that every ULA launcher uses an RL-10 in the upper stage, and that's a $40 million engine. Even at discounted prices simply having an engine that expensive (to say nothing of the rest of the vehicle) on every launch makes it impossible to offer launches as cheap as SpaceX could.
127001brewer 13y ago
From the article: "...from proceeding with plans to buy Russian-made rocket engines." How many manufacturers of rocket engines are there? Edited: Grammar correction.
- jacquesm 13y ago
  Launch vehicles would probably be the more interesting one here, 'rocket engines' is not really what they're buying, the article talks about 36 rockets, not just engines. Parties realistically capable of supplying those are few: - Oribital Sciences - SpaceX - Sea Launch - Starsem - United Launch Alliance - EADS/Arianespace - ILS - ISC Possibly others. edit: combined EADS/Arianespace tx nraynaud
  - rst 13y ago
    Rocket engines is what they're buying in this instance (or rather, what ULA has been prevented from buying by the injunction): specifically, RD-180 engines, built by the Russian firm NPO Energomash for use on the first stage of United Launch Alliance's (otherwise) American Atlas V. (BTW, quite a few of the rocket makers you named buy their engines from others. ULA also buys engines from Pratt and Whitney, and Orbital has several suppliers for its various launchers.) The larger suit does concern a block purchase of whole rockets from ULA, but the injunction does not interfere with the block buy, just payments to the Russian subcontractor.
    - jacquesm 13y ago
      Interesting, ok so what special requirements could there be attached to Russian engines that US built engines could not supply? I can see how if they are dimensioned in such a way that they will fit only a launch vehicle by a single party how that might be usable as a trick to lock out competitors (first order launch vehicles without engines, then order engines without launch vehicles). Both of those would be harder to compete with than ordering whole rockets!
      - rst 13y ago
jacquesm 13y ago
"In a statement issued this week, ULA said it is “the only government certified launch provider that meets all of the unique . . . requirements that are critical to supporting our troops and keeping our country safe.”" Wow. Unique requirements that were no doubt co-written by the only party that can provide them. If the requirements are unique that is still no reason to go no-bid, after all it might be possible for another party to re-tool and/or adapt to those requirement and still beat the only party currently able to supply. Elon Musk makes a good point when he says that he's willing to lose but he wants the right to bid.
- robogrowth 13y ago
  as a former department of homeland security employee this is business as usual. you think it was an accident that these were no-bid or that some random canadian company got the healthcare website contract when there are thousands of americans who could have done it better? just scratching the backs of their donors. nothing to see here.
  - JackFr 13y ago
    Agree completely, with the minor nitpick that its not donors to politicians here so much as the revolving door between military/bureaucracy of the government and the industrial complex.
  - happyscrappy 13y ago
    >some random canadian company got the healthcare website contract Whose backs were being scratched in that case?
    - worklogin 13y ago
      CGI Federal had some interesting ties to the Obamas. http://www.factcheck.org/2013/12/michelle-obama-and-cgi-federal/ http://www.factcheck.org/2013/12/michelle-obama-and-cgi-fede...
      - 13y ago
Gravityloss 13y ago
This is very ironic. IIRC when the EELV rockets were bidding for first launch batches, Boeing used some insider price information to win the majority for Delta IV. There was a big lawsuit about that and Lockheed Martin's Atlas V ended up getting more launches. http://www.staynehoff.net/boeing-eelv-punished.htm http://www.staynehoff.net/boeing-eelv-punished.htm
- dfc 13y ago
  Where is the irony?
  - Gravityloss 13y ago
    The US Government attempted to create competition and a "market" with two competing launch providers. Boeing didn't play fair, and it was a big scandal. Finally when everything was put in proper order,the EELV providers couldn't compete with foreign launchers on the commercial market (commercial use was envisioned to lower costs for government launches as well). So the two competitors merged their rocket operations to form ULA. So despite the best efforts of the government, they just couldn't get the independent providers and free market thing to work. But now SpaceX comes along. It's offering just what the government has been trying to create for decades. Yet SpaceX has to sue the government, to get to play on a level field. So the government had trouble with the companies trying to tilt the field. Now a new company has a problem with the government. What an odd reversal of things.
    - dfc 13y ago
      Yes, the market for rocket technology is not static--circumstances change. An "odd reversal of things" is not irony.
rayiner 13y ago
Note it's a preliminary injunction (http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/business/spacex/968 http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/business/spacex/9...), which is basically a device that keeps the status quo from changing irreversibly while the parties figure out the merits of the suit. This doesn't mean that SpaceX has "won" but it does mean that they have demonstrated at least a "substantial likelihood for success on the merits" of the case.
- smackfu 13y ago
  It also only applies "until the court receives the opinion of the United States Department of the Treasury, and the United States Department of Commerce and United States Department of State, that any such purchases or payments will not directly or indirectly contravene Executive Order 13,661."
- dfc 13y ago
  After reading the injunction it seems that the court believes that the test is "a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits" not "a substantial likelihood for success."
dfc 13y ago
Does anyone have a copy of the complaint?
josefresco 13y ago
For those interested in this topic, I found the following Senate hearing to be quite entertaining: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_azyt1JhI0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_azyt1JhI0 Elon basically going head-to-head with Michael Gass from the ULA and holding his own quite well.
- dfc 13y ago
  How do two people, neither of which is a senator on the relevant committee, go head-to-head in a Senate hearing?
  - thasmin 13y ago
    Senators are not experts on every topic that they govern over, so they solicit advice from experts.
    - josefresco 13y ago
      ...and In this case 2/3 of the experts called were/are competing for the government's business. Edit: Strike that ... 1/3 of the experts is asking to compete for the government's business. 1/3 already have a monopoly for this work. I'd say that's pretty "head to head".
      - dfc 13y ago
        As long as "head to head" includes interaction mediated by the Senator currently recognized and the chairman of the committee. In my opinion this mediation eviscerates any "direct conflict" between two people who are not senators.
    - dfc 13y ago
      Agreed. However the "experts" are not allowed to address each other individually. Senators ask a question to an expert and the expert addresses his or her answer to the Senator.
- mkohlmyr 13y ago
NamTaf 13y ago
Related: US House now submits a draft bill that would require the Pentagon to build a replacement, US-made engine. [1] Alternatively, they could take a leaf from NASA's book and embrace the COTS approach that seems to be working for NASA already, so much of the development time is already resolved? [1]: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1405/01engine/#.U2MpMig6lTw http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1405/01engine/#.U2MpMig6lTw

114 points by cryptoz 13y ago

eps 13y ago

> In reaction to the sanctions, Rogozin tweeted: “After analyzing the sanctions against our space industry, I suggest the U.S. delivers its astronauts to the ISS with a trampoline.” In Russian there's an expression - to scare a hedgehog with a naked ass - which is exactly the case here, except it's really a shame that it's the space exploration that ends up suffering because of some bullshit political games.

noisy_boy 13y ago
Space exploration always had political motivation driving it or inhibiting it. The great progress done during last 40-50 years wouldn't have as much without cold war and its associated factors. In this case, even if you exclude the Russian factor, the point that ULA was awarded such a huge contract without any competition, most probably didn't happen without political (and/or financial) influence.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- nraynaud 13y ago
  The history behind the engines we are talking about is just crazy. Basically they were incredibly superior to the american ones but politicians lost interest in them (because the race to the moon was lost), and they scrapped the program and asked the engines to be destroyed. They were hidden in the middle of nowhere in Siberia. After the cold war, some Russians in the know wanted to sell them to US companies, the specs were so incredible (particularly the inner pressure) that the prospective buyers thought there was a translation problem or that it was false. They had created a new alloy, they had used an incredibly dangerous technology in them etc. I don't know very well history, but I think this complexity and technological ambition might be a factor in the USSR losing of the race to the moon. edit: nice story, but it's the wrong engine, see below.
  - chippy1337 13y ago
    >[Citation Needed]
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - rst 13y ago
    Different Russian engines. The engines that ULA is banned from buying are RD-180s; they are being newly built to, effectively, American specifications, though most components are derived from the RD-170 which was originally built for Energiya. You're describing this history of the NK-33 engines, which were originally built for the Soviet lunar program, and then (as you say) hidden in a warehouse after that program was terminated. Some of those were later bought by Aerojet, which then sold them to Orbital for use in their ISS cargo delivery program; neither company is party to the suit, and the injunction doesn't cover them. (Nor could it; Aerojet's stock of NK-33s was bought and paid for quite some time ago now.)
    - nraynaud 13y ago
      Oops, sorry
ceejayoz 13y ago
Long-term I'd say this may well strengthen space exploration.
- nraynaud 13y ago
  I think that leaves only China (maybe India ? I don't remember where they are space-wise) with a capacity to send people into space. I don't think Ariane can be fitted for people.
  - arjie 13y ago
    India has not had a successful manned launch yet. I believe China has.
    - noir_lord 13y ago
      They've had about half a dozen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_astronauts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_astronauts
  - arethuza 13y ago
    Ariane 5 was originally supposed to be "man rated" to launch the Hermes mini-shuttle - but that project was cancelled. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermes_%28spacecraft%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermes_%28spacecraft%29
  - rst 13y ago
    And Russia, of course; American astronauts have been going up on Soyuz since the end of the Shuttle program. If you're suggesting that the US could go to China for replacement transportation services: not likely. NASA is currently barred by Congress from any cooperation with the Chinese at all on space exploration. At least one of the US commercial crew competitors are likely to have working hardware long before that attitude changes.
    - nraynaud 13y ago
      yes, that what the "leave" meant :)
JackFr 13y ago
This is not space exploration, its a jobs program for missile scientists -- you know keep them off the streets, keep them from joining gangs, kind of like Boys Clubs or something. http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2013/09/14/the-skies-the-limits/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2013/09/14/the-ski... "The collapse of the Soviet Union created the final incentive to go forward. U.S. officials worried that Russian rocket scientists would go to work for rogue nations, spreading missile technology. In 1993, the United States and its allies brought the Russians into the fold for what would now be called the international space station. The international agreements ensured that the funds would keep flowing to the project despite changes in administrations and turnover in Congress." In retrospect seems like as good an idea as arming the mujahideen in the 80's or putting Lenin on the train from Zurich.
- rst 13y ago
  This is mixing up multiple things: the injunction concerns engines for launches of American defense satellites (GPS, spy sats, communications satellites), etc., which don't go to the space station and don't have much to do with it. (ISS is a NASA program, not military.)
  - chaostheory 13y ago
    > is a NASA program, not military Nowadays with all the budget cuts NASA has been facing, in terms of projects the lines are blurring between the two organizations
- huhtenberg 13y ago
  And that's of course the US version of the story. Very cute, but I can tell you from lots of anecdotal evidence that all that ISS work was a drop in the ocean as far as Soviet space program was concerned. Rocket scientists didn't go to work for rogue nations. You have to understand that Soviet space industry was (and still is) veiled in secrecy. Think of it as SkunkWorks but on a massive scale and with 100x of security officers. You couldn't just hand in your resignation and go work for Iran. It just didn't work this way (it still doesn't by the way). For example, people with a security clearance were required to keep their travel passports with HR and they were not generally allowed to leave the country unsupervised. That's if they could get passports issued to begin with. Perestroika or not, all this security scaffolding was still in place and you bet it was functioning. The state was still guarding its secrets and know-hows. Granted, it neglected people behind them, but it wasn't going to let others access its technology.
listic 13y ago
I'm not quite following: exactly which sanctions prompted Rogozin's snide response?
- coldcode 13y ago
  He's one of the Russians targeted by US and EU for the activities of Russia in the Ukraine. Basically you can't do business with him or send him money.
  - listic 13y ago
    > targeted by US and EU for the activities of Russia in the Ukraine Ah, I didn't know exactly what those sanctions were. So, does it mean that, as a government official, he's threatening sanctions for a country, because of sanctions that were applied to him personally?
nkoren 13y ago
Elon's response to that tweet was more than a little bit epic: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/461279062837968897 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/461279062837968897 followed by: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/461283368693669888 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/461283368693669888 Not sure what Rogozin thought about them apples, but this sure isn't boring!
- danielweber 13y ago
  It takes a lot of discipline to keep something like that under wraps until the exact right time to bring it out.
  - colechristensen 13y ago
    Of course, we all knew it was coming. Human spaceflight inside Dragon has always being a goal. The unmanned resupply missions are steeping stones to certifying the rocket and capsule for human flight (though unmanned resupply missions and other launches will continue of course).
- monochr 13y ago
  "Not sure what Rogozin thought about them apples, but this sure isn't boring!" Probably nothing. The Soyuz rockets they use are so old they are literally still named after the Soviet Union. This might seem like a bad thing but in rocketry old means reliable and new means "Your payload will probably explode in one of the first 5 missions. Hope it wasn't important!" In short, it won't be sometime before 2018 before the Dragon Mk 2 rockets become safe enough for Astronauts to use regularly to get to the space station.
  - Gravityloss 13y ago
    They can fly Falcon 9 with cargo Dragons as well as unmanned Dragon 2 capsules many times before 2018. Demonstrated safety is hard to argue with. There have been relatively recent failures with Soyuz launchers as well (though none with Soyuz FG). Russians have also been developing new things, both as upgrades to the Soyuz launcher and Soyuz spacecraft but also new developments. (Soyuz-2-1v and PTK)
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
SnakeDoc 13y ago
I could not agree more. Our President decides to pick a political bone so our space industry suffers. (Oh ya, it's the same President that decimated the NASA budget! -- In the name of science!)

coreymgilmore 13y ago

Given the circumstances, why would the USAF not bid out the launches? My thought is that they see Lockheed and Boeing as American companies and don't really care where the parts come from. In the end, SpaceX has shown a competive price and should have a chance to bid these launches. On another hand, the US/Russian space programs and teamwork with the ISS is largely separated from the political issues in Ukraine. There is too much to lose on either side.

fixermark 13y ago
The USAF has a history of relying solely upon firms that they have bid out to in the past. There's some logic to this (military technology should be reliable and sourced to trusted parties, so companies that have already proven reliability and have a pre-existing trust relationship have a massive advantage). But if you look at that scenario and smell the possibility for corruption, you're probably not wrong. ;)
beedogs 13y ago
> Given the circumstances, why would the USAF not bid out the launches? Maybe the bidding process was so corrupt and/or pointless that they just did away with it entirely.
InclinedPlane 13y ago
Are you kidding? The USAF has a very cozy relationship with the ULA. It was obvious to any non-naive observer at the time that the block buy was designed to lock in billions of dollars in government spending to the ULA before SpaceX would come along and smash the existing pricing structure, offering launches that ULA couldn't hope to compete with. Even if SpaceX's prices go up with EELV launches, and even if they would never incorporate reusability into EELV launches, they would still be able to offer launches for every possible EELV payload at prices far below ULA's. Anything ULA could launch on any of their vehicles SpaceX could launch on the Falcon Heavy, and many launches (like GPS birds) could happen on the even cheaper Falcon 9. With reusability, which SpaceX seems to have a good handle on, those costs get slashed, especially the cost of the Falcon Heavy. Any EELV payload could be launched on a reusable Falcon Heavy, even if it meant forgoing crossfeed. Even if the first stages could only be reused twice (a paltry amount) that would lower the cost of a reusable Falcon Heavy to around the cost of a Falcon 9, around $50 million. Keep in mind that every ULA launcher uses an RL-10 in the upper stage, and that's a $40 million engine. Even at discounted prices simply having an engine that expensive (to say nothing of the rest of the vehicle) on every launch makes it impossible to offer launches as cheap as SpaceX could.

127001brewer 13y ago

From the article: "...from proceeding with plans to buy Russian-made rocket engines." How many manufacturers of rocket engines are there? Edited: Grammar correction.

jacquesm 13y ago
Launch vehicles would probably be the more interesting one here, 'rocket engines' is not really what they're buying, the article talks about 36 rockets, not just engines. Parties realistically capable of supplying those are few: - Oribital Sciences - SpaceX - Sea Launch - Starsem - United Launch Alliance - EADS/Arianespace - ILS - ISC Possibly others. edit: combined EADS/Arianespace tx nraynaud
- rst 13y ago
  Rocket engines is what they're buying in this instance (or rather, what ULA has been prevented from buying by the injunction): specifically, RD-180 engines, built by the Russian firm NPO Energomash for use on the first stage of United Launch Alliance's (otherwise) American Atlas V. (BTW, quite a few of the rocket makers you named buy their engines from others. ULA also buys engines from Pratt and Whitney, and Orbital has several suppliers for its various launchers.) The larger suit does concern a block purchase of whole rockets from ULA, but the injunction does not interfere with the block buy, just payments to the Russian subcontractor.
  - jacquesm 13y ago
    Interesting, ok so what special requirements could there be attached to Russian engines that US built engines could not supply? I can see how if they are dimensioned in such a way that they will fit only a launch vehicle by a single party how that might be usable as a trick to lock out competitors (first order launch vehicles without engines, then order engines without launch vehicles). Both of those would be harder to compete with than ordering whole rockets!
    - rst 13y ago

jacquesm 13y ago

"In a statement issued this week, ULA said it is “the only government certified launch provider that meets all of the unique . . . requirements that are critical to supporting our troops and keeping our country safe.”" Wow. Unique requirements that were no doubt co-written by the only party that can provide them. If the requirements are unique that is still no reason to go no-bid, after all it might be possible for another party to re-tool and/or adapt to those requirement and still beat the only party currently able to supply. Elon Musk makes a good point when he says that he's willing to lose but he wants the right to bid.

robogrowth 13y ago
as a former department of homeland security employee this is business as usual. you think it was an accident that these were no-bid or that some random canadian company got the healthcare website contract when there are thousands of americans who could have done it better? just scratching the backs of their donors. nothing to see here.
- JackFr 13y ago
  Agree completely, with the minor nitpick that its not donors to politicians here so much as the revolving door between military/bureaucracy of the government and the industrial complex.
- happyscrappy 13y ago
  >some random canadian company got the healthcare website contract Whose backs were being scratched in that case?
  - worklogin 13y ago
    CGI Federal had some interesting ties to the Obamas. http://www.factcheck.org/2013/12/michelle-obama-and-cgi-federal/ http://www.factcheck.org/2013/12/michelle-obama-and-cgi-fede...
    - 13y ago

Gravityloss 13y ago

This is very ironic. IIRC when the EELV rockets were bidding for first launch batches, Boeing used some insider price information to win the majority for Delta IV. There was a big lawsuit about that and Lockheed Martin's Atlas V ended up getting more launches. http://www.staynehoff.net/boeing-eelv-punished.htm http://www.staynehoff.net/boeing-eelv-punished.htm

dfc 13y ago
Where is the irony?
- Gravityloss 13y ago
  The US Government attempted to create competition and a "market" with two competing launch providers. Boeing didn't play fair, and it was a big scandal. Finally when everything was put in proper order,the EELV providers couldn't compete with foreign launchers on the commercial market (commercial use was envisioned to lower costs for government launches as well). So the two competitors merged their rocket operations to form ULA. So despite the best efforts of the government, they just couldn't get the independent providers and free market thing to work. But now SpaceX comes along. It's offering just what the government has been trying to create for decades. Yet SpaceX has to sue the government, to get to play on a level field. So the government had trouble with the companies trying to tilt the field. Now a new company has a problem with the government. What an odd reversal of things.
  - dfc 13y ago
    Yes, the market for rocket technology is not static--circumstances change. An "odd reversal of things" is not irony.

rayiner 13y ago

Note it's a preliminary injunction (http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/business/spacex/968 http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/business/spacex/9...), which is basically a device that keeps the status quo from changing irreversibly while the parties figure out the merits of the suit. This doesn't mean that SpaceX has "won" but it does mean that they have demonstrated at least a "substantial likelihood for success on the merits" of the case.

smackfu 13y ago
It also only applies "until the court receives the opinion of the United States Department of the Treasury, and the United States Department of Commerce and United States Department of State, that any such purchases or payments will not directly or indirectly contravene Executive Order 13,661."
dfc 13y ago
After reading the injunction it seems that the court believes that the test is "a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits" not "a substantial likelihood for success."

dfc 13y ago

Does anyone have a copy of the complaint?

josefresco 13y ago

For those interested in this topic, I found the following Senate hearing to be quite entertaining: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_azyt1JhI0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_azyt1JhI0 Elon basically going head-to-head with Michael Gass from the ULA and holding his own quite well.

dfc 13y ago
How do two people, neither of which is a senator on the relevant committee, go head-to-head in a Senate hearing?
- thasmin 13y ago
  Senators are not experts on every topic that they govern over, so they solicit advice from experts.
  - josefresco 13y ago
    ...and In this case 2/3 of the experts called were/are competing for the government's business. Edit: Strike that ... 1/3 of the experts is asking to compete for the government's business. 1/3 already have a monopoly for this work. I'd say that's pretty "head to head".
    - dfc 13y ago
      As long as "head to head" includes interaction mediated by the Senator currently recognized and the chairman of the committee. In my opinion this mediation eviscerates any "direct conflict" between two people who are not senators.
  - dfc 13y ago
    Agreed. However the "experts" are not allowed to address each other individually. Senators ask a question to an expert and the expert addresses his or her answer to the Senator.
mkohlmyr 13y ago

NamTaf 13y ago

Related: US House now submits a draft bill that would require the Pentagon to build a replacement, US-made engine. [1] Alternatively, they could take a leaf from NASA's book and embrace the COTS approach that seems to be working for NASA already, so much of the development time is already resolved? [1]: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1405/01engine/#.U2MpMig6lTw http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1405/01engine/#.U2MpMig6lTw