USAF Gives SpaceX Certification
USAF Space and Missiles System Center Certifies SpaceX for National Security Space Missions
“Lieutenant General Samuel Greaves, Commander of the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) and Air Force Program Executive Officer for Space, has announced the certification of Space Exploration Technologies Corporation’s (SpaceX) Falcon 9 Launch System for national security space missions. SpaceX is now eligible for award of qualified national security space launch missions as one of two currently certified launch providers. The first upcoming opportunity for SpaceX to compete to provide launch services is projected to be in June when the Air Force releases a Request for Proposal (RFP) for GPS III launch services.”
I wonder how much profits from military launches will go into building SpaceX’s Mars Colonial Transporter??
Hopefully as much as any other launch, or do you think the earnings from military lauches will be ear-marked in any way?
Congrats SpaceX!
I think SpX is looking for its fleet of satellites to be its real cash cow. High profit and continuous income.
A lot of players in that game?
Requiescat in pace, Unita Volans Societatem
Cute, but I think this is misplaced. ULA did fine under the old set of rules and I expect they will adapt and continue under the new set. There is too much combined history of successful military contracting at ULA. The military will be loath to put all of its eggs into one basket again by moving exclusively to SpaceX. ULA is already preparing for the reality that the USAF will demand lower prices from them. We have a long way to go before a new equilibrium point is reached.
The old set of rules were mostly written by Boeing and Lockheed Martin through congressional lobbying efforts.
The Iron Triangle – the industry, the congressional committee, and the executive agency or department, all locked in a mutually supportive love-lock – with payola as the grease.
The nuclear power industry, fossil fuel industry, and a zillion others thrive in this taxpayer fertilized ménage à trois.
Payola? How do you suppose this manifested?
Campaign contributions. Really, is that a surprise?
Click on image to enlarge.
http://upload.wikimedia.org…
I’m not sure but I think it is a mangled Latin version of ‘United Launch Alliance’.
Yeah.
Latin is not my usual language.
I am actually a native speaker of Gibberish, which is far from a dead language. I do find that a lot of Gibberish leaks into my adopted tongue of Americanese.
It will be interesting to see just how many military/intelligence payloads it is practical for Falcon-9 to launch. I also wonder how well SpaceX can adapt to classified NRO and military payloads’ particular processing needs.
Doesn’t SpaceX have to integrate payloads vertically requiring a tall integration building, or is the the air force going to change its ways for SpaceX?
SpaceX already have a vertical integration tower planned for SLC-4E, their west coast launch site. They were just waiting for USAF to confirm certification before starting construction; at a guess, it will probably start to go up after Jason-3 launches in July.
I imagine a similar structure is planned for SLC-40 and the FSS at LC-39A will be sufficient for the same process for Falcon Heavy.
I always wondered why the military has that vertical requirement.
Tradition. Some legacy payloads require VI because they cannot be turned on their side, or at least aren’t sure whether they can be, so each new LV has been required to accept VI. DOD could require new payloads to be capable of either HI or VI, but it would take a long time to pay off and they have shown little inclination to change.
It great that SpaceX Certified by US Air Force for National Security Launches. Bloomberg business.com site Scott Pace said SpaceX Falcon 9 won’t win launch contact soon and has limited lift capacity not true. Soon have Falcon 9 1.2 upgrade in July SES 8 launch 20% increase lift capacity like 6 Metric ton Satellites and US Air Force release Request for Proposal for GPS III launch Services in June.
It was the best alternative I could come up with for Rest in Peace – United Launch Alliance. It back translates as united flight society. Any suggestions for a better latin ULA would be appreciated!
Air Force Space Command chief Gen John Hyten said at a congressional hearing in April that Falcon 9 is powerful enough to put the lighter one-third of planned US military satellites on orbit.
But yes, we’re well on the way to “Rust in Place” ULA.:)
Think it’ll be about 60% of them when the latest F9 version comes on line later this year and then FH nails the rest.
Cheers
Rust to rust, atlas to atlas…
The standard F9 is equivalent to the atlas v x01 class. The enhanced F9 with 30% more capability rolls out in July. SpaceX says it will be just an incremental upgrade to their certification. It should be equivalent to the atlas v x11 class.
the Falcon Heavy which covers all weight classes rolls out at the end of the year or early next. it should certify within a few years.
I don’t recall learning much about Roman launches during my days studying Latin…
http://mobi-wall.brothersof…
The Romans knew a thing or two about alliance, though.
One of their great tools of empire was to be called in to help by a nation which was under a 3rd party threat, and then never leave.
Way back when I earned a degree in Classics so I’m probably as much an expert as anyone. And while the word order is anglicized the cases seem OK. You done good, as they say.
Here’s a (slightly) different version:
Ηνωμένες συμμαχία έναρξη
Have fun.
“Ηνωμένες συμμαχία έναρξη”
Hey, that’s Greek to me…
A Classics Major joke:
Julius Caesar walks into a bar and asks for a martinus.
“You mean a martini?” the bartender asks.
Caesar retorts, “if I wanted a double, I would have asked for it!”
I am laughing out loud! Good one!
Estne volumen in toga, an solum tibi libet me videre
Late to the party but
concordantia contorqueorum copulatum (partes) or CCCP for short 🙂
Very cod latin!
Seriously though http://en.wiktionary.org/wi…
is the better bet for alliance as there are two in the relationship and that relationship is closer to a marriage than two allies signing a treaty.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wi… is a bit of a verbal stretch… iactus “throw” is a better translation of “launch” but I like the twisting inference in terms of the fuels mixing and being thrown out.
It great that SpaceX Certified by US Air Force for National Security Launches. Bloomberg business.com
site Scott Pace said SpaceX Falcon 9 won’t win launch contact soon and
has limited lift capacity not true. Soon have Falcon 9 1.2 upgrade in
July SES 8 launch 20% increase lift capacity like 6 Metric ton
Satellites and US Air Force release Request for Proposal for GPS III
launch Services in June.
Everyone cheering the death of ULA is silly. ULA cannot be bound to what mommy and daddy want. ULA could have fixed this problem years ago. Boeing and Lockheed so no reason to change. The boards of both companies did not view SpaceX as a threat.
Whoops.
ULA arguably has the best fuel depot knowledge and is ahead of anything NASA is doing. Again, was ULA allowed to innovate? No. Why? Mommy and daddy didn’t want to threaten their taxpayer cash cows of SLS and Orion.
If anything – I wish the lazy Republicans would look into anti-trust issues with ULA, Boeing, and Lockheed. I would really like to see the talent at ULA unleashed.
Its got to frigging suck working there knowing you could do so much more but can’t… oh wait… I do know.
Sometime a massive shock of icewater shakes one out of complacency, other times it just drowns. Lets see what LM/Boeing do.
Well, they brought in Tory Bruno, designed a new rocket, partnered with a new engine supplier, and dramatically changed the way they interact with the public.
It seems the reaction is already well underway.
I think they are hanging Bruno out to dry. He is pushing the Vulcan, but LM/Boeing seem to be far from buying in.
I get that impression, too…though I certainly hope it’s not the case.
Blue and Lockheed are each hiring 300 people for new facilities. It looks to me like they are serious.
Ok good to know!
But, LM/B are only funding quarter to quarter, which is no way to run a railroad.
I agree as far people cheering the downfall of ULA–if there even is a downfall–go. The last thing that is needed is the situation we were previously in, i.e. having only one launch provider.
With that said, if ULA/LM/Boeing wanted to use fuel depots as part of new system, they should have pushed/should push for it. They share blame for that and the previous stasis. I hope their able to alter their course and become the companies that are able to compete and innovate in the new market. The people they employ are every bit as capable and creative as those at SpaceX
I don’t cheer their downfall. I just acknowledge that they have missed the chance over and over again to reform themselves. The leadership of Russia’s space agencies, Arianespace’s executives, LM/Boeing leadership all cannot and will not accept another version of reality.
We’ll see. The time for corporate change is not over.
Really it doesn’t make much difference if they survive or get replaced by younger more aggressive companies. People will just move and get new jobs.
I’m just glad someone is finally disrupting what has been a stagnant situation and it is very exciting to watch.
Actually it does matter. Again, the country is not well served having only one launch provider. As it stands there is no other launch provider to replace ULA/LM/Boeing so that there is more than, again, one launch provider. Perhaps I should repeat it again.
Aerojet has asked Boeing\LM if they could buy the soon to be obsolete atlas and use their new engine which is apparently plug and play. LM/B said NFW. So another company could be there, but ULA brooks no competition and won’t help.The atlas V The Next Generation would be a powerful competitor. But no….
If you’re going to bring up that as proof of something, then you should also talk about the equipment that SpaceX isn’t selling and won’t sell to other companies.
They wont sell because every bit of production goes to in-house needs. spacex has a massive product shortfall causing delays. Being super successful can carry a burden. Whether they will ever sell their products, I dont know, but the ula is a different case. Aerojet wants to buy the hardware and rights to an obsolete rocket (built under contract with huge amounts of taxpayer cash.)
Not sure that’s correct. Aren’t they currently waiting on payloads hence their next launch end of June?
Cheers
They have engines, stages etc, for the next X launches. However, they are booked for years ahead. They are short on production to meet coming launches.
Which is one reason reusing first stages would help. It’s not just about reducing costs, it’s about lowering the number of stages that have to be built from scratch for each flight.
Yeah. With no reusability –
With an FH using 28 engines and 3 cores and a second stage, flying 10 launches a year is a huge production load. Plus add a couple dozen F9 flights per year!
Here is a recent article:
http://www.reuters.com/arti…
Well that article doesn’t provide any substance to the assumption that they’re currently short on capability to meet their current or future manifest. Gwynne just says they’re increasing said capability and on track to meet their targets. FH isn’t flying operationally until next year and then only maybe 3 or 4 so another 8 cores and associated integration so no problem there for this year and say 16 x F9 + 4 x FH = 28 next year. I don’t see a production issue for them nor pads. Perhaps human resources but payloads seem the more likely hold-up IMO.
Cheers
I see where the problem lies. It is my fault. In my post i left out: “has (HAD) a massive product shortfall causing delays” (comes from writing on a blackberry on a train). They had a manufacturing problem with the thrust chambers of the Merlins. It was eventually resolved, but it and a severe core shortage delayed the FH and required using F9s pushed into their reserve capacity to substitute.
The more relevant part of my comment was “They wont sell because every bit of production goes to in-house needs.”
Their production is still very tight (which was my point about selling engines even if they wanted to), particularly with the long lead times. The Falcons are manufactured, assembled and shipped to Texas for testing and acceptance, and then reshipped.
SpaceX is working to create production capacity in 2016 to allow 400 engines per yesr in 2017.
As per Shotwell;
merlin production
2015 – at least 180 engines
2016 – 240 engines
2017 – 400 engines
(and not all will be QAed successfully)
In 2014 they were producing only 4 engines per week.
In 2015 their engine requirements are roughly 160 engines versus product of ~180. That is real close, allowing little slippage. But remember, the engines in the first part of a year were made the year before.
Now using your numbers for 2016
160 – F9 Merlins
112 – FH Merlins
—-
272 Merlins total required versus 240 projected produced. (And again, many of those engines must come from 2015 production)
IF reusabilty pans out, it will go into major production in 2017. But the fleet of F9s and FHs will need to be built out with engines and spares, So the system may not stabilize until 2018 at the earliest, and if SpaceX’s projections of growth hold true, may never stabilize.
I was speaking long term obviously.In the short term government will give somebody life support to complete with SpaceX. Assured access and all that. But in the long term if ULAs, model can’t compete, best for the market to decide just as Mr. Bruno said.
The country will find a way to get its important payloads into space one way or the other.
What’s more important it that rockets are about to become more affordable shortly.
Not totally true Sir – Many engineers and techs with the ULA stink do not make muster at SpaceX. There is a cultural component to SpaceX which industry has specifically complained about.
IE 23 year old engineers working insane hours for minimal pay. That same 23 year old would be making six figures at ULA but the 23 year old would never get hired into that position and the 23 year old wants to build frigging rockets – not powerpoint.
It is known industry wide that if you actually want to build “stuff” you go newspace. If you want a job you go oldspace. Take your pick…
I have heard the Spacex higher level employees work 16hr/days
None for me, thanks,
This is true and this is why so many traditional aerospace employees won’t/can’t work for SpaceX. This is how you have revolutions in industry.
We need evolution – its coming.
In general at least in my profession a 23 year old has little to offer other than time.
“The people they employ are every bit as capable and creative as those at SpaceX”.
And your evidence for this remarkable statement is precisely where?
We’d love to know of any ULA innovations and sales you might think have gone hitherto unnoticed.
I also know some good people who worked for ULA. But every organization responds to incentives, and when a monopoly was created those incentives became perverse. Maybe things will change.
Same could be said no doubt about NASA- lottos of good people, poor management by managers and by congress.
You’re confusing poor corporate strategy with a lack of good people. The people at SpaceX are coming out of the same schools, same types of education as the other people at other aerospace companies. The difference is in the different corporate strategies and how those companies motivate their employees.
Despite what you and DTARS think, there is no reason to believe that the people that work at other companies are any less capable than those at SpaceX.
Having worked at LM and at NASA I can tell you that there are very capable people at those two places. Whether the environment at those places is such that those talented people can thrive is another matter.
Agree with most of your comment about corporate strategies and how companies motivate their employees is most important.
However is it not a fact that the standard to work for SpaceX is higher than other companies?
From what I have read SpaceX only hires the very “Smartest” people?
http://www.csudhnews.com/20…
So what? That standard in no way says anything about people working at other companies. Moreover, it’s a subjective standard, meaning that SpaceX only hire the very “smartest” people in their view. There is no agreed upon objective measurement of who is or isn’t the smartest. Additionally little facts get in the way of SpaceX’s subjective measure, namely that not all of the “smartest” people want to work for the long hours and comparatively low wage that SpaceX offers.
People find it all too easy to say things like SpaceX has the most talented people and that people at NASA, ULA, LM, Arianespace, Orbital Sciences, or wherever aren’t as talented or as smart as the people at SpaceX. Alas, such statements don’t hold up to objective scrutiny and are only the result of fanboyism run amok. Such statements display no critical thinking.
“…there is no reason to believe that the people that work at other companies are any less capable than those at SpaceX.”
You were asked for evidence to substantiate your claim that the two work forces were as good as each other.
Yet the evidence you put up to is your knowledge of one work force.
This is an insufficient number of premises, therefore your conclusion is currently still out of reach.
The real world evidence is that one team has the expertise to build rocket engines in-house, the other team has enough expertise to buy RD-180s off-the-self.
So, please forgive the wide spread, deep seated confusion until there is real world evidence to the contrary.
Your evidence doesn’t exist. You are unable to distinguish the difference between the quality of the people and the influence of the culture they work in. Feel free to keep beating your fanboy drum.
What are the biding rules on these up coming contracts. Is DoD required to take the lowest bid? Or are we going to see SpaceX flying similar missions at half the price of ULA like we have seen with the NASA commercial crew contracts?
These DoD contracts to be bid in June, are they within range of 1.1 or not? And will SpaceX be able to bid on the 20% heavier falcon 1.2 weight class given that they could be certified between bid and launch date?
DoD is not required to take the lowest bid. As with NASA at the Commercial Crew contracts, lowest price does not equate with best. Price is certainly an important factor, for a host of reasons.
Here are the specs on the GPS III birds, courtesy of LockMart. I’ll let you calculate whether F9 can place it where it needs to be. 🙂
Orbit: Six orbit planes at 55° inclination
Altitude: 10,898 nautical miles
Design life: 15 years; 13-year MMD
Launch weight: 8,553 lb
On-orbit weight: 5,003 lb
Size: 97 in wide, 70 in deep, 134 in high
Position accuracy: Under one meter, with daily updates from the control segment
Let me get with my people and I’ll get back to you lol
Short answer, yes. I’ll let you do your own research to arrive at the same answer.
Cheers
Typically all governmental procurement focuses initially on performance and then negotiates prices. It makes a lot of sense on the one hand but it does favor previous players.
Monitor SpX’s cost-to-launch >after< their production facility is crawling with DCMA auditors like ULA’s has been all these years.
They are fix-cost contracts. Due to the lower cost of the basic hardware, SpX’s costs with the red-tape overhead should always be lower than rockets with the same red-tape but pricier hardware..
There are basically only two types of contracts, “fixed price” and “cost reimbursement”. On a small scale I have had the chance to work with both. Under a cost reimbursement contract, mountains of paperwork must be written and read to prove that every cost is “allowable”, and of course the contractor generally has an incentive to encourage mission creep. All the money _must_ be spent on schedule.
Firm fixed price contracts are so much more efficient that it isn’t even funny. A mountain of worthless paperwork is avoided and that isn’t even including the flexibility the contractor has in spending the money efficiently instead of according to an arbitrary schedule. You will get twice as much accomplished with firm fixed price and have a lot less heartburn. So why don’t we use more of them? Good question!
Does anyone here have a memory? LM & Boeing invested BILLION$ to create Atlas 5 & Delta IV for EELV & commercial satellites and then the launch market crashed with the late 90’s telecom bust. After the late 90’s failures, the USAF was loathe to go down to one supplier yet the market was too small for two suppliers so one of them – probably Boeing – was going to exit. To meet DoD’s needs back when Musk was dropping Falcon I’s in the Kwajelin lagoon, ULA was proposed by the companies and endorsed by DoD. Boeing & LM aren’t greedy or evil; it should not be a surprise that two having 2 rocket families for half a dozen missions a year is expensive. The market changed with NASA and COTS and now commercial crew – so much so that Falcon 9 became viable and internationally competitive. But that doesn’t mean the USAF should let ULA die and just fly SpaceX – they still want assured access in the event of a launch vehicle failure and Musk is neither infallible nor totally altruistic. Besides that, just as Falcon is leading ULA to develop Vulcan, keeping the US government market competitive will keep SpaceX innovating and reducing prices.
The TAXPAYER invested huge funds in the Atlas and Delta. As to the DoD pushing the merge, other parts of the government were pushing the other way, loath to create a monopoly.
Nonsense; each EELV company got $500M from the USAF; Boeing is on record as having put in at least $3B, LM about $1.5B. The EELV development contract made commercial crew & COTS look like government development programs.
The EELV development program did place significant risk on the contractor due to the fixed funding and competitive bids for launches. Boeing in particular seriously underestimated its development and operational costs, and was forced to accept a junior position in the merger. But for all practical purposes following the merger the program became a typical sole-source government contract, burdened by the additional cost of maintaining duplicate launch systems. With the prospect of competition ULA has pivoted sharply toward cutting costs by abandoning the higher-cost Delta and flying a single vehicle.
“TAXPAYER invested huge funds in the Atlas and Delta”
Damn right it is!
In 2015 dollars-
Boeing – $2.73 billion for the Delta IV = $736 million for development plus guaranteed contract of $2 billion for 19 launches),
Lockheed Martin = $1.7 billion for the Atlas V ($736 million for development plus $943 million for 9 launches).
Boeing spent 2.5 billion more on the Delta 4 but then wrote off (=TAX DEDUCTION) $2billion.
Then add to it monopoly cost-plus to the taxpayer and $1BILLION per year ELC add-on junk fee whether they launch zero or 10 rockets.
Did ULA bid for COTS? Obviously Orbital did and won even though their prices were significantly higher than Spx. One would think that ULA would have been a better choice than Orbital on price and reliability. (and better than Spx especially at that time)
Welcome to the “free market”
where companies price according to expected returns; good luck with launching US rockets if Mars Colonial transports don’t come to pass…
I don’t follow what you are saying. Could you amplify?
Musk has said he started SpaceX and is keeping it privately held since he wants us to go to Mars. If he dies early or there’s some reason we can’t go to Mars, who knows if SpaceX will stay in the business? A publicly held firm – or a JV owned by public firms will still pursue business if the government pays enough.