This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Commercialization

And People Wonder Why Government Space Is So Expensive

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
May 20, 2014
Filed under , , ,

Air Force spending $60 million to certify Musk’s SpaceX, Stars and Stripes
“The Air Force is spending about $60 million and using as many as 100 people to certify billionaire Elon Musk’s Space Exploration Technologies Corp. for launching military and spy satellites, according to the service’s top uniformed acquisition official. “We’ve got folks busting their butt to get SpaceX certified despite what everything in the media seems to say,” Lt. Gen. Charles Davis said in an interview.”

Keith’s note: Gen. Shelton seems to be utterly oblivious to the fact that large aerospace contractors incessantly file protests, complaints, and lawsuits about DoD decisions. Its a normal part of doing business with the government. As for the $60 million for these 100 people, that’s $600,000 per person. Wow. That sure sounds efficient.
As for the cost of certifying SpaceX clearly the USAF has no concern about what things cost – either internally or via procurements. None whatsoever. And they will do what they want – when they want. Again cost is not a factor to them. NASA doesn’t seem to care either. And no one seems to be at all interested in coordinating things like this – the net result being duplication of costly efforts – again, at additional expense. Then, when its budget time, these agencies never seem to have enough money to pay for this circus.

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

36 responses to “And People Wonder Why Government Space Is So Expensive”

  1. John Adley says:
    0
    0

    That reminds me of what Richard Feynman used to say about these government panels.

  2. jivatmanx says:
    0
    0

    >Shelton on SpaceX suit: generally the person you’re going to do business with you don’t sue. #30spacesymposium

    Have Boeing or Lockheed never filed a bid protest against the USAF?

    • Beomoose says:
      0
      0

      It’s been at least a week since Boeing or LM sued the DoD, so obviously they are angels.

    • John Thomas says:
      0
      0

      A protest is different than a lawsuit.

      • Gonzo_Skeptic says:
        0
        0

        A protest is different than a lawsuit.

        I think they couldn’t file a protest because they were not allowed to submit a bid in the first place.

        • hikingmike says:
          0
          0

          Yep, I’d imagine that’s it. The bid process or competition allows for a protest. They weren’t included at all.

  3. savuporo says:
    0
    0

    Wonder why things cost so much?
    ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/…

    (as of 2010 ) The J-2X development engine program currently employs nearly 500 PWR engineers and technicians and more than 1,200 suppliers across the United States, as well as two other countries.

    • John Thomas says:
      0
      0

      Certifying a rocket for use is different than designing, building and testing a rocket engine. Interesting info though.

      • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
        0
        0

        Is Shelton completely clueless? NASA and commercial companies have already certified Falcon 9 v1.1. It’s already been used to launch commercial satellites as well as qualify and fly missions under NASA’s ISS CRS contract.

        • John Thomas says:
          0
          0

          As Shelton has stated, flying cargo and commercial satellites is not nearly critical as flying multi $billion and national security critical spacecraft or humans.

          Potentially SpaceX could fly GPS satellites but as you pointed out, only NASA and commercial satellite companies have certified SpaceX. Just because one entity has certified it doesn’t mean it’s good for everyone. Each has their own criteria to check.

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            Shuttle was certified by DOD. After Challanger they went to Titan IV, also certified, and had more lost missions. If there’s evidence that DOD certification improves or guarantees reliability I would like to see it.

          • John Thomas says:
            0
            0

            Shuttle had 2 failures (1 which failed to reach orbit) out of 135 launches. Titan IV had 4 failures (2 of which were upper stage failures) out of 39 launches. Sound like very reliable vehicles.

          • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
            0
            0

            Well I’m sure that the lost astronauts and their families would agree with you.
            The fact is that certifying a launch vehicle as ‘safe’ with no chance of recovery in a LOM event shows what a joke such certification was. NASA just decided it was too hard and issued a waiver.
            History shows us how well that turned out.
            Cheers.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            As far as I know certify does not mean guarantee.

            And that’s a pissy comment.

          • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
            0
            0

            Agreed, it wasn’t a guarantee but the waiver is a fact. The comment is serious and the result reflects why a NASA certification is not something to be relied upon.
            NASA has little vehicle engineering experience of worth left in the organisational ranks. They contract out all the real work so what makes anyone think that they know whether a vehicle is safe or not. Additionally there is nothing to say that there has been any culture change that lead to the 2 shuttle disasters as was highlighted in both accident investigations.
            As an example, just look at the mess being made of both the Orion and SLS programs and what happened with the JWST project.
            NASA lacks the ability to properly manage and control programs and projects, a point made in several GAO reports.
            Think about it.
            Cheers

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            IMHO DOD certification is no better. It’s all paperwork, meetings, analysis and presentations. All this money is wasted. At least the FAA requires real flight tests.

  4. John Thomas says:
    0
    0

    A protest is different than a lawsuit. I don’t recall any contractor in the past 10 years suing the military because they didn’t get a contract.

    The $60 million does seem high. For 100 people, that would be $600,000 each for 1 year. Granted there is probably equipment and travel costs, but it still seems excessive. It would be good to see where that $60 million is going.

    • OpenTrackRacer says:
      0
      0

      Really? Beechcraft sued the Air Force in 2013 over the LAS award. Boeing sued the Air Force in 2012 over Delta IV launch services. There are many, many more.

      • Tritium3H says:
        0
        0

        Hi OpenTrackRacer,

        LOL, the Boeing suit was the first link (example “A”) in my above post. You may have not seen it, as it looks like both our posts were uploaded around the same time. They may have “crossed in the mail”, as it were.

        Cheers,
        John

      • John Thomas says:
        0
        0

        Regarding the Boeing suit, it claimed that the service owes Boeing and ULA more than $385 million in costs incurred on the Delta 4 rocket
        program, not any contract not awarded.

        The Beechcraft suit is closer to this case although they first filed a protest over the award and then filed suit when the Air Force lifted the stay.

    • Tritium3H says:
      0
      0

      Hi John,

      SpaceX’s lawsuit is not based upon them losing a contract. It is based upon the fact that they were not allowed the opportunity to compete in a fair, open bid process —> the USAF sole-sourced the 36 block EELV cores to ULA. That is a completely different kettle of fish.

      Furthermore, SpaceX is in good company, as per one of my posts in an earlier article (copied below):

      ———————

      While I can understand people’s concerns with SpaceX getting “black-listed” by the DOD for filing suit against the USAF…it isn’t like it is without precedence. In fact, SpaceX is in (very) good company:

      A) http://www.spacenews.com/ar

      B) http://www.law360.com/artic

      C) General Dynamics Corp. v. United States (09-1298); Boeing Company v. United States (09-1302)

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/

      D) http://www.law360.com/artic

      • mattmcc80 says:
        0
        0

        And then the USAF official that sealed the no-bid block buy deal for ULA retired and got a job at Aerojet. Nice retirement gift. http://nlpc.org/stories/201

        • Jackalope3000 says:
          0
          0

          Good point. Until Shelton and people like him see SpaceX as part of their revolving door of retirement jobs, they will react with shock and amazement when SpaceX protests decisions like this.

      • John Thomas says:
        0
        0

        Thanks for the info but those seem to be more for breach of contract.

        And SpaceX is suing because they didn’t get the contract. They are siting the reason as it was a fair open process but if they had gotten the contract, they wouldn’t be suing.

    • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
      0
      0

      Er, it’s paperwork that SpaceX says they’ve submitted. There’s no hardware testing whatsoever. That’s done via the flights and again, all they look at is data.
      So $60 million is either a total exageration or it’s a total waste. Take your pick.
      Cheers.

      • John Thomas says:
        0
        0

        I never said there is any hardware testing required. Equipment costs could be computer systems to perform or validate wind tunnel testing or other testing that has been performed.

        If you know what is required for certification by the Air Force, perhaps you could post the official requirements and procedures. Most of us here don’t have they information and have been speculating.

        • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
          0
          0

          Well no I’m not going to do that since you could do it just as easily but I’ll provide some guidance:

          1. AF contract out the certification process to Aerospace Corporation.

          2. The sub-contract out various parts of their certification process to other companies. Here’s a link to a job placement from one such company:

          http://www.jobs.net/jobs/Ma

          3. Certification includes as an example:

          AF Standard Interface Specification (SIS) Document; ability to fly from Vandenberg and Cape Caverral; full vehicle engineering design and documentation;manufacturing process and flow documentation; vehicle launch and in-flight acoustic characteristics; data review of 3 certifying flights; etc, etc.

          If you’d like to understand some of the issues and concerns of potential providers early on in the process, check this GAO report issued Feb 2013: http://www.gao.gov/assets/6
          For additional information on this and most other space-related info’ I recomment you to http://www.NasaSpaceFlight.com and in particular the pay section know as L2.
          Cheers,

          Hope that helps.

    • duheagle says:
      0
      0

      100 people is probably more than the number of engineers SpaceX employed to develop F9v1.1 in the first place. Kinda reminds me of that old joke about a guy touring the Agriculture Dept. who saw a staffer at a desk crying inconsolably. Asking what was wrong, he was told, “His farmer died.” When checking paperwork takes more man-hours than designing the rocket, something’s badly wrong.

  5. Andrew_M_Swallow says:
    0
    0

    You will not get control over government paperwork costs until forms, reports and meetings are line items.

  6. Rich_Palermo says:
    0
    0

    Hardware engineering – the kind that puts rubber on the ramp or rockets on the pad – is almost extinct in the US. Most of the aerospace establishment, NASA, DoD, and the contractors are dominated by career managers, process trolls, and glorified supply clerks. System engineering used to mean one thing, now it means generating, managing, and enforcing documentation – most of which does nothing to ensure good design or quality hardware. It provides endless opportunities for going to meetings and quibbling for 40+ billable hours a week.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      Would one not expect this sort of shift as the industry matures? Perhaps it’s a matter of degree?

      Dunno. Were I a rocket engineer, which I decidedly am not, I’d possibly have a different view.

      • hikingmike says:
        0
        0

        True, but someone still has to build the stuff.

      • Rich_Palermo says:
        0
        0

        The current financial structure rewards companies that shred any manufacturing infrastructure. Anything that involves capital facilities, investment, and personnel is frowned on by Wall Street. Get rid of that and switch to managing paper associated with contracting – Wall Street smiles, execs smile even more. Hardware has to be built somewhere and for many USG customers, it has to be built in the US. Now we have problems. The few people left who can actually design and build have been overrun by managers and overseers who couldn’t inflate their own tires. The ones close to retirement grit their teeth and leave. Anyone younger finds other opportunities. Many low-tier suppliers won’t even sell into aerospace unless there is no other choice because of all the nonsense they have to put up with. If I ran a small, efficient company, why would I put up with the low-caliber professional kibbitzers the higher-tier contractors/USG want on my shop floor to “help” me?

  7. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    No. That’s the hell of it.

  8. james w barnard says:
    0
    0

    OK, so SpaceX filed a suit as opposed to a “protest”. The suit was NOT because Musk lost a contract, it was because neither SpaceX or any other company was allowed to COMPETE for the job. Depending on a foreign source for defense-critical components, even when the source is now “a friend” is the height of stupidity, regardless of how much money is allegedly saved in the short run. Whether Vlad actually cuts off the supply of RD-180’s or seats on Soyuz, or support for the ISS after 2020, the fact that we have put ourselves in the position where such threats could be carried out is certainly a tribute to our shortsightedness. Parochialism and false economy will do it every time. Even if SpaceX, et al are permitted to compete, it will take time for new programs to get up to speed, regardless of who and how. The three most useless things to a pilot are the altitude above you, the airspeed you had, and two seconds ago. Of these, TIME is the thing you cannot get back!

  9. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    In another thread when I asked why it should cost so much to certify Spacex, I said it looked like horse hockey to me. Well its starting to smells like horse hockey too!!

    http://qz.com/212876/elon-m

    How can we stop this kind of S$%t from going on in our government???

    I for one am thankful to Mr. Musk for having the courage to call attention to this legal corruption in our government!

    What are we going to do about it??