U.S. Government Wants To Squash SpaceX Lawsuit
Air Force asks court to dismiss SpaceX lawsuit, Defense Systems
“The Air Force is asking the court to dismiss any challenges to the contract that allowed for the purchasing of the cores, arguing that SpaceX failed to object or respond to a public request for proposal issued in March 2012 for that purchase. Because SpaceX was not an actual or prospective bidder on the contract, the company should not be allowed to challenge the contract, the Air Force contends.”
Government argues for dismissal of SpaceX rocket contract complaint, CBS
“SpaceX’s complaint is amorphous,” the motion claims. “Rather than challenge a single procurement action, SpaceX broadly protests any sole-source purchase of single-core evolved expendable launch vehicles (EELV) and associated launch services. This challenge appears to implicate the United States Air Force’s entire EELV program — including past and future purchases under various contracts.”
We always believe in capitalism – unless it applies to us.
I believe capitalism is also based on laws and following those laws or rules. Using the court system to verify both sides are following the rules I would think would be part of capitalism. Allowing one company to break the rules and gain an unfair advantage would be counter to normal capitalism (although I think the term “crony capitalism might apply).
In this case, the Air Force is saying that their intent to award a contract was widely known and SpaceX wasn’t qualified when the contract needed to be awarded. I suspect that the Air Force felt they could not wait any longer and had to award the contract to get the reliability they needed, the costs lower by purchasing multiple vehicles and the time to allow the spacecraft to be designed for the vehicle’s characteristics.
Some may question various Air Force officials being fair, but that’s what the court system is for. If SpaceX has evidence to support their claim and it is filed appropriately, then they would win. We shall see.
And presumably SpaceX will argue that the unusual bulk-purchase was specifically intended to exclude SpaceX from being able to bid on launches once they were qualified. For example, the “savings” argument could be disproved by showing SpaceX likely bid prices. The “reliability” argument, by pointing out the Russian engines on Atlas and the inherent inability to guarantee supply. And the “spacecraft characteristics” argument, by showing the number of payloads that don’t exist yet and wouldn’t reach that point in their design until after SpaceX qualified.
Likely bid prices wouldn’t be acceptable unless there was an official bid and was thoroughly evaluated and a contract signed. You can say anything, but if it’s not legally binding, it doesn’t mean much. Having a good track record would help but SpaceX is just starting their record.
However, the “savings” argument is premised on the “likely future bid price” from ULA. Ie, you can’t assess “savings” in the signed bulk-buy contract unless you are comparing to the price the USAF would have had to pay without the bulk-buy. Thus to use the “savings” argument, you are asking the court to accept speculation about future prices.
ULA would argue that you can use their previous contracts as comparison. SpaceX would argue that a) the previous ULA contracts were in the absence of competition, and b) SpaceX’s commercial and govt (both NASA and DoD) prices are on the record. Either the judge rules in such “speculation” about prices or rules it out. If the judge rules it in, the USAF intentionally chose the more expensive option to cut out SpaceX from future bidding. If the judge rules it out, the “savings” argument is also gone, and there’s one less justification for suddenly switching to the unusual bulk-buy.
“SpaceX knew about the agency’s intent to award a sole-source contract to ULS, and received a copy of the RFP [request for proposals] less than a month after it was issued,” the motion says. “Yet SpaceX failed to object — or to indicate that it too could compete for the eventual contract.”
That about says it all.
“The Air Force plan entails buying the 36 rocket cores from ULA on a sole-source basis. An additional 14 missions will be awarded competitively, giving upstarts like Space Exploration Technologies Corp. of Hawthorne, Calif., a crack at the market”
http://www.spacenews.com/ar…
BS … in Jan there was supposed to be 14 launches SpaceX could bid on .. by march they were talking about only 7 launches and now members of congress have said there wouldn’t be any additional launches.
If my attorney didn’t file a motion to dismiss a lawsuit against me, I would say that that person wasn’t doing his or her job. The fact of such a motion is no surprise.
The argument at its core is rather hilarious – you didn’t object to our secret hidden action in time, therefore you can’t object now. It rather reminds me of the Soviet Union, where people were tried for breaking laws that were kept secret.
“you didn’t object to our secret hidden action in time”
What “hidden” action are you talking about? The Air Force was completely transparent regarding the block buy and nearly two years went by before the contract was awarded.
Granted I believe the AF made this block buy because they knew the was an emerging player up and coming but that is beside the point.
Regardless of the outcome there will always be a minimum of two suppliers and the AF will have to prop up BOTH suppliers in the future just like they did for Boeing/Lockheed when they created ULA. It is the DoD’s job to make sure it has multiple options and cost isn’t much considered–It’s called assured access to space.
Just like NASA/DoD will keep the solid rocket motor companies alive.
He might be referring to the “extra” launches in that time period that SpaceX and others were told would be up for bid, but now appear to be dead, leaving ULA with everything and the other players with nothing.
It’s my understanding that, while the block buy was in discussion for some time and that was known, the fact that the contract was concluded and signed was not made public knowledge until some time after the fact.
Why sole-source anything? If there are capable suppliers for a product and you want to obtain the best prices possible for the benefit of the U.S. taxpayer, the sole-source is the last way you would want to go.
The real question that I have is why a block buy contract of 36 cores over 5 years when:
1. There was likely to be at least one more supplier come on board well before then;
2. There was no demonstrable savings in the block buy. Yes I know they made noises about how much savings was going to apply but no one ever did an independant analysis of those.
3. The DoD hierachy had decreed that the AF should be pursuing agressively competitive tendering and methodologies;
4. Strategically, the Atlas is compromised as it relies on a Russian supplier for it’s main powerplant.
There are other reasons but that’s enough for the moment.
It’ll be interesting to see what the court decides. Either way, SpaceX will continue on their way. Certainly they have the backing of the commercial satellite community. Can’t say the same for the future of ULA.
Cheers.
Point 4 is particularly interesting point as it seems to highlight a lack of forethought on the government’s part. Recent events only highlight that lack of forethought.
A lack of forethought? By the Air Force? That’s the part that doesn’t make sense. Say what you want about the US military- forethought is what they do and they do it well.
It’s the politics of detente at work here, the policy of economic engagement that Arthur Clarke thought would deny future war. He might have been right about war. He wasn’t so right about irrational actions by Mr. Putin, nor was he right about the screams for retaliation from Americans over his westward land incursion and the very real limitation on appropriate action by Mr. Obama.
The entire issue will be a blip in history. I hope.
Actually, for small contracts, sole source is often the best way to go. The competitive bidding process is fairly heavily regulated. As a result, just putting out the RFP, reviewing the proposals and making the selection is expensive (for the government and the companies bidding, who naturally pass on the cost as part of their overhead) and time-consuming (I don’t think going from a decision to do something to awarding the contract could possibly take under six months.) So the US taxpayers don’t save much unless the cost of the contract is quite high. Of course, we are talking about a _very_ high cost, sole-source contract…
It’s a case of: do as we say SpaceX, not as we do for ULA.
look for those of you who aren’t getting a paycheck from Elon Musk here’s the deal: he needs an eelv contract to continue the pipe dream of a trip to Mars. come on seriously how many guys out there really involved in rocketry think saving the first stage is the key enabling technology for Mars travel… ? i’m waiting… ? uh like NOBODY??????? yeah that’s what i thought….
so simple deal, Musk needs EELV work to continue operations. When he has to answer to AF and Aerospace to release a rocket he will not have such cheap costs… end of discussion….
Twelve years ago starting a launch services company from scratch was a
“pipe dream” too. Now that particular dream has yielded a “pipe” big
enough to smoke the competition. Check back with me in 12 more years
and we’ll see how “dreamish” that Mars thing looks.
As to
reusability being a key enabling technology, yeah, it is. It’s key
because it’s the only way costs are ever going to come down to where
they need to be in order to support not just Elon’s Mars project but a
lot of other things other people want to do in space and
will do once launch services are cheap enough.
As
for what other people involved in rocketry think about SpaceX’s
reusability initiatives, the unimaginative bureaucrats who run ILS,
Arianespace and ULA will all be happy to speak with you just as soon as
they change into fresh underwear and trousers. At the moment they’re
all a little busy in the loo.
SpaceX doesn’t
need EELV work to continue operations, but it’s a
launch services company. It wants EELV work as part
of its book of business and – absent shady dealings by corrupt
government functionaries and an uncompetitive incumbent supplier – it
would likely already have some. The SpaceX legal challenge to the ULA
block buy may or may not succeed, but Vladimir Putin’s czarist ambitions
have already done much more to torpedo ULA’s carefully crafted block
buy competition fend-off than any writ could do.
As for SpaceX’s costs for doing government launches, their NASA CRS missions are already over double their posted prices for commercial launches. The main reason for this is that NASA is buying a spacecraft as well as a launch vehicle for each mission and wants a new one every time. SpaceX has long since said that they can offer EELV services – complete with all required government hoop-jumping and paperwork by the pallet-load for roughly 50% more than their commercial rates. That still makes SpaceX way cheaper than ULA.
Finally, no, Elon doesn’t pay me. I wish he did. I could use the dough. All contributions cheerfully accepted.
As long as we’re on the subject, who pays you?
Amen brother- well said.
Lots of satellites are orbited each year compared to the EELV manifest. I have no inside information but wonder if Mr. Musk’s motivation is much less than capturing a market than in something a bit more…gleeful?
Hard to make a case that the occasional AF business is critical.
As to recovering the first stage, the point is that Mr. Musk is making an effort to move the ball forward, passing reliability and onto something really new.
rocko—you can view Spacex’s launch manifest online.
http://www.spacex.com/missions
– whence you will find that thru the end of 2017 , there are 39 launches scheduled for a Falcon 9.1 or Heavy . Only two of those are military ( both USAF ) and no NRO payloads.
I think your argument is hollow. The Pentagon needs SpaceX a lot more than Elon needs the brass’ and spooks’ business
Many other SpaceX fans look at their huge backlog as a sign of success. Indeed, it is, a sign of great sales. But what about execution? How many of those 39 missions will occur by the end of 2017?
Look at 2014. How many of the 14 missions for it will occure in 2014? They now have to launch two a month.
SpaceX needs the EELV and the Commercial Crew and the Commercial resupply contracts – as much of these without certified pricing as possible. With the government contracts they get the majority of their payments before they launch anything. They need the cash flow to pay the bills for their growing “standing army” because they are not getting paid the final payments for their commercial launches.
Given that SpaceX removed the vertical assembly tower from the first pad they acquired at Canaveral, they obviously had no designs on military satellite launches ( which require vertical loading). which brings the obvious question, have they modified the pad they leased for their rockets?
These launches aren’t for another two years or so, right? Plenty of time to add a gantry for vertical loading to Pad 40, or do so at 39A. Why should SpaceX have spent money a year or two ago for a single customer when they weren’t sure that customer would buy their services?
I’d like to know more about that vertical requirement but don’t see it around. I wonder what’s unique about these payloads or if there’s a different reason.
They’re just built to require vertical stacking, that’s all. This could be changed but it would doubtless cost $$$ and generate its’ very own client bureaucracy worth of paperwork. So, I sort of understand why DoD might be a bit reluctant to do it.
Most, maybe even all, milsats are engineered to be assembled, transported, mated to their booster and launched in a vertical orientation. This is because the only launchers employed by the U.S. for such birds, up until now, have been assembled vertically at their launch sites or moved vertically from their assembly points to their pads.
Commercial comsats, in contrast, are engineered to be orientation agnostic for similar historical reasons; the two main legacy boosters for such birds, the Ariane 5 and ILS Proton, employ vertical and horizontal integration, respectively. To preserve competition in launch services pricing, the comsat makers have long taken care to be able to use either approach.
Falcon 9’s default payload integration process is horizontal assembly followed by erection to the vertical only after the full stack reaches the pad. SpaceX can certainly accommodate vertical payload integration as a variation on their current practices. The only question is what approach they will take to do so.
If the question was put to me, I’d probably go with horizontally integrating the 1st and 2nd stages, as per current practice, with some kind of cap over the top of the second stage. This stack could be transported and erected onto the pads by SpaceX’s existing transporter-erector-launcher vehicles.
To set the payload atop the booster stack, I’d just build a moderately taller version of the existing TEL with a gimbaled clean room containing the payload on its upper end. This would be driven up to the pad from the opposite side of the pad from the TEL that transports the booster stack. The clean room would then be lowered onto the top of the second stage and payload integration would proceed.
Of course SpaceX could go with a traditional clean-room-atop-horizontally-retractable-tower arrangement too. The existing pads at Canaveral and Kennedy might be better able to accommodate such an approach, I don’t know. But there is no intrinsic reason why gearing up for vertical payload integration has to be either terribly complex or expensive relative to the lay-flat way SpaceX does things now.
Thanks.
Aren’t the current military/test launches for SpaceX at Vandenberg, anyhow?
SpaceX had planned on launching the Falcon Heavy from Vandenberg, but have moved it to the Cape. Military launches at the Cape are more varied than Vandenberg and SpaceX would have a better chance at getting a Cape military launch.
SpaceX still intends to launch Falcon Heavies from Vandenberg. Their pad and other facilities there were built and/or revamped to accommodate both the F9 and FH.
For some reason – most likely because delays in FH’s initial launch schedule matched up with the scheduled completion of refit work on LC-39A at Kennedy Space Center – the first flight of FH has been shifted to Kennedy. There might be a non-trivial amount of PR consideration driving this decision too. LC-39A is a particularly historic piece of space-related real estate. Apollo 11 and STS-1 both departed from there. Elon would like the inaugural mission of FH added to that list.
The launch point for a milsat is determined by what type of orbit a particular bird needs. Equatorial and low-inclination orbit missions go from Canaveral because one can launch to the east, taking advantage of the Earth’s rotational velocity, and be over open water the entire ascent profile in case something goes wrong. Military comsats, some GPS birds and certain types of intelligence-gathering birds use such orbits.
Polar or high-inclination orbit missions go from Vandenberg for similar reasons. These launch to the south so they fall in the Pacific if things get pear-shaped. Most types of intelligence-gathering birds, missile warning birds and some GPS birds use such orbits. So do civilian imaging birds.
When SpaceX starts booking national security payload business it will be launching these birds from either Canaveral or V’berg based on the same orbital criteria. These missions will slot into the rest of SpaceX’s launch manifest wherever they need to fit, contractually.
The increased number of players in commercial imaging will likely mean a considerable increase in civilian payloads departing from V’berg. launched by SpaceX and probably other firms as well before long. It’s easy to foresee both Orbital-ATK and even newcomers like Firefly having integration and launch facilities at V’berg. in the next few years.
At the moment ULA holds a monopoly when it comes to US military launches. No doubt they would like to continue to hold their monopoly. The combining of companies to form ULA was supposed to save money in addition to providing assured access. As is typical in such a monopoly, it did neither, since the company cut their costs by going with foreign parts (motors) that are in the critical path and costs are higher than ever.
Shouldn’t the word in the headline be “Quash” not “Squash”?
Government lawyers love to use less “offensive” sounding words like “Quash”, so maybe that would better suit them.
However, given some advertisements I’ve already heard from ULA, perhaps the use of the word “Squash” (along with “Crush”, “Grind”, “Stomp”, “Smear”, and “Scrape from bottom of boot”) would fit those guys best.
Seems to me that SpaceX is trying to go the demand side capitalism route, i.e. If they need it I will develop it. However, the rest of the world, especially the military, does not work on that theory. They learned few lessons and follow If I build it someone will buy it. Besides, SpaceX doesn’t have anything that would satisfy the requirements, its all on paper, no real flying hardware.
What doesn’t satisfy the requirements? 24 of the 28 launchers required fit within the maximum, non-reusable Falcon 9v1.1s, already. The 4 remaining are Falcon Heavy campatible, but since it hasn’t flown yet, those can be ignored. So Spacex can sell 24 of 36 cores, or 24 of 28 launchers
one contract, not two, four payloads are above current capability which means that the rest do not matter.
SpaceX has the Falcon 9 which is able to loft some military payloads. Not all military payloads require a heavy lift rocket. Look at military launches of the past and the associated launch vehicles and that point will be obvious.
Note that Falcon 9 isn’t “on paper”.
obviously, four of those payloads do require heavy lift vehicle, and since SpaceX does not have a flying vehicle with that lift ability, they are disqualified by default.
What about SpaceX and others arguing that this shouldn’t have been a sole source contract do you not understand? It could easily have had two contractors, one of which offered heavy lift. The sole source aspect is even more questionable when launch dates and payloads haven’t been assigned to many of those cores.
Your rabid dislike of SpaceX is apparent, as is your lack of objectivity on the matter.
But they weren’t two contracts, it was one single contract. SpaceX didn’t have the means to fulfill the contract so they couldn’t compete.
No, I do not like SpaceX because they make aerospace engineering and all the work that goes into design of engines and all the other hardware sound like its kids game. They distort the truth, take dangerous life threatening shortcuts and make every effort to make NASA look like bunch of incompetent idiots.
Life threatening short cuts???
Spacex is taking extra time to design Dragon 2 which will be the safest ride to Leo in the history of Space flight.
Falcons engine out capiablity makes it the safest booster ever built.
Musk and Spacex ARE trying to make man a multi planet species by building the infrastructure for a highway to mars. They are executing a plan. If that makes NASA/public space, dont forget to include congress 🙂 look like a bunch of incompetent idiots. Well?
Got any constructive suggestions?
Make every effort to make NASA look bad? I haven’t seen anything from SpaceX bashing NASA. Are you saying getting results makes NASA look bad? Your comments reek of jealousy. This isn’t some childish us verses them game, we are all working together for the future of space flight.
It would be nice if that were true Mike. But as the increasingly vicious and deranged “commentary” about SpaceX on these threads amply demonstrates, it isn’t. Too many sacred cows being rendered for hamburger. Too many iron rice bowls being kicked over. Too many people at NASA and legacy contractors with a “there’s always work at the Post Office” attitude.
I rather doubt you have any factual support for any of your claims about SpaceX. The fact is they are embarrassing NASA, Boeing, Lockheed, ULA, and others in the space industry by doing things at a much lower cost. They are embarrassing NASA et al by doing things that others haven’t done before, like achieving the soft landing of a first stage in the ocean. If NASA et al are embarrassed, then perhaps it’s time they revisit what they’ve been doing and how they’ve doing it. Space exploration must be in a pretty sad state if the players of old are so easily embarrassed.
As for making “aerospace engineering and all that work that goes into design of engines and all the other hardware sound like its kids game”, you’re kidding right? Is this a grown up discussion or a fifth grade temper tantrum? I think SpaceX is doing an excellent job of communicating what they’ve done and what they’re doing. Perhaps it’s time NASA at al pay attention to how SpaceX is communicating their message because SpaceX has drummed up a lot of popular support for space exploration, something which is desperately needed if we ever hope to see NASA get the funding it needs and if we ever hope to see anyone from the US do more than what is currently being done by NASA et al in terms of human space exploration.
As for the contract not being two contracts, that’s part of the problem with that sole source mistake. It absolutely does not reduce the cost of launches. Further there was no need whatsoever for the contract–i..e the block buy, not a single good reason. Note that insuring income for the “winners” of the sole source contract does not count as a good reason.
I think it’s time to grow up a bit and look at things as an adult, i.e. with less emotion and more critical thinking.
What about the contract is it you people do not understand? Would you go to a car dealer and buy a car that hasn’t even been designed? No, so why do you keep insisting that the government does that?
What people are objecting to is the “block buy”. When you buy a car, do you go to the car dealer and make a deal that you are going to buy your next 30 cars from them also? No? then why do you insist the government does that?
Bingo!
Because in case of SpaceX, the 27th, 28th, 29th, and 30th cars haven’t been fully designed, reviewed, built and tested.
So by your reasoning, I should have pre-purchased a 1994 model year car in 1994, for me to get this year, because the 2014 model hadn’t been designed and tested yet. Brilliant.
And yet your answer does not explain why there is need at this time to purchase the 27th, 28th, 29th, and 30th cars. It’s certainly not to save money. It’s certainly not to ensure access to space. There is no objective reason why the last block buy was needed at all.
So future
Even though it is obvious that the block buy was a corrupt deal to block out Spacex’s competitive threat, and we the taxpayer will foot the bill. Spacex will lose this to a timing technicality. But Musk has had some great advertisement. Washington now knows who Spacex is.
And Who is Elon Musk again?
He’s the Guy that’s dedicated his life to changing the world for the better. Perhaps protecting all man kind. A good guy!
Crooks, better be careful. IRON MAN is here and he will come after you!
Sorry Mr. Squared
Couldn’t help myself
🙂
So what? If cars were built to your philosophy, we’d all still be driving hand-cranked Model T’s. That is what you’re advocating, right? As soon as a design is “good enough” it should be frozen in amber and produced exactly the same way forever more? That isn’t engineering, its fetishism.
All SpaceX is doing is applying the manufacturing philosophy that vaulted the Japanese past we Americans in so many areas starting in the 80’s – continuous product improvement.
Your argument is nonsensical even on its own terms. People like yourself make much of the EELV “certification” process. Certification is essentially an ex post facto process by which a lot of paper-pushing bureaucrats, and maybe a few actual engineers, claim to be able to tell whether someone designed a launch vehicle “correctly” even after it has flown repeatedly and delivered its payloads to the right places. Gee thanks.
So if these certifiers are smart enough to sprinkle holy water on a launch vehicle design they have the entire history of, why can’t they, or even just the customer – the Air Force in this case – do a mini, incremental certification of any change they think is possibly significant? If they don’t like the change, they can always buy the model built to the previous standard. If they don’t even want to do this, SpaceX has offered the Air Force a frozen F9 design if that’s what they need to be happy. But the Air Force, for some reason, was reluctant even to take “Yes” for an answer.
This “SpaceX keeps changing things and that’s dangerous” meme is simply crap. NASA operated the Shuttle without changing much of anything over long intervals. They lost two orbiters and killed 14 people. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of “business as usual” as being the last word in safety practices I’d say.