3 ms·

The way I read it there are two separate issues. One is the fact that the launch contract wasn't competed. The other is that the US decided to put sanctions o

by pmorici 13y ago

The way I read it there are two separate issues. One is the fact that the launch contract wasn't competed. The other is that the US decided to put sanctions on Russia over Ukraine and those sanctions cover entities that have an interest in the Russian company these engine components are being bought from by the American companies. The court is basically saying that by buying that engine part from the Russian company that might violate the economic sanctions. Sounds like the injunction is only preliminary. Then you've got some congress people who realize this is a PR nightmare so they proposed a new spending program to develop a new rocket engine that doesn't depend on Russia. I'm guessing Boeing and Lockheed would be the recipients of that largess.

TheBiv 13y ago
That is interesting, if that is the case. Bc to me, if so, then really the headline is misleading bc SpaceX didn't really 'win' anything bc the purchase would never have gone through anyways, injunction or not. Out of my own curiosity, was there a bit in this article that led you to that conclusion or had you been reading about this subject?
- tcheard 13y ago
  The suit that SpaceX filed with the courts was not asking for the contract to be awarded to them, it was asking for the contract to be competed on, as originally required by Congress. They have repeatedly said that they just want an even competition. Now if there is a fair competition and they lose and it goes to ULA, that is fine, as long as there is fair competition. The other part of the filing was that they were asking for an injunction on the grounds that they believed that the ULA rocket shouldn't be allowed due to it using Russian parts that are under sanction due to executive orders. Under this part they did 'win' the injunction as this is one of the things they asked for. Therefore the headline is not misleading.

by pmorici 13y ago

TheBiv 13y ago

That is interesting, if that is the case. Bc to me, if so, then really the headline is misleading bc SpaceX didn't really 'win' anything bc the purchase would never have gone through anyways, injunction or not. Out of my own curiosity, was there a bit in this article that led you to that conclusion or had you been reading about this subject?

tcheard 13y ago
The suit that SpaceX filed with the courts was not asking for the contract to be awarded to them, it was asking for the contract to be competed on, as originally required by Congress. They have repeatedly said that they just want an even competition. Now if there is a fair competition and they lose and it goes to ULA, that is fine, as long as there is fair competition. The other part of the filing was that they were asking for an injunction on the grounds that they believed that the ULA rocket shouldn't be allowed due to it using Russian parts that are under sanction due to executive orders. Under this part they did 'win' the injunction as this is one of the things they asked for. Therefore the headline is not misleading.