Keith’s note: SpaceX has field an amendment to their initial complaint about ULA. The amended complaint includes new information from a 20 June letter from Sen. John McCain to Under Secretary of Defense Frank Kendall. McCain’s letter questions the lack of transparency around the cost of the Russian RD-180 engines that ULA currently uses for EELV launches.
– Text of SpaceX complaint amendment
– Text of McCain’s letter
Elon Musk Is Opening A New Front In His Lawsuit Against The Air Force, Business Insider
“So neither the market nor the U.S. government gave RD Amross any reason to alter its business model. “ULA didn’t get a gun to their head to make this deal,” Keith Cowing, a former NASA astrobiologist and blogger at NASA Watch told Business Insider of ULA’s use of a Russian-American joint venture as a rocket engine broker. “They do it willingly and openly, and the United States government sanctioned it. They’re the sole supplier, they get to set the price, and we walk into this.” But they’re not really the sole supplier anymore. Whether McCain’s accusations are true or not, SpaceX’s entrance into competition for government launches would make RD Amross — and business models based on an uninterrupted pipeline from foreign engine-builders to buyers in the U.S. government — seem utterly outmoded.”

Biologist, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA Space Biologist and Payload integrator, Editor of NASAWatch.com and Astrobiology.com, Lapsed climber, Explorer, Synaesthete, Former Challenger Center board member...

42 replies on “SpaceX Vs ULA Spat Heats Up”

  1. Interesting what one finds using Corporate Wiki…perhaps the Senators Staff should try it sometime. 🙂

      1. Ok but, ULA=100% Reliability that they will have to ground the Atlas V if they don’t solve the RD-180 supply issue, contender much less LOL 🙂

      2. The fourth launch of the Delta IV (Heavy config) in 2004 was a mission failure, when cavitation in the CBC oxidiser lines led to both boosters and the first stage cutting off prematurely. This malfunction prevented it’s payloads (Demosat and 3CS sats) from achieving proper orbits. Or, are you going to say that doesn’t count because technically LM and Boeing didn’t form ULA until the following year?

        However, if it is all about reliability ==>

        SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1: 4 out of 4 = 100%

        Delta IV: 25 out of 26 = 96%
        Yes, Atlas V is batting a thousand…however, the RD-180 situation may have placed it on the disabled list.

        Yes, I am being a bit cheeky…but, you were being disingenuous (perhaps unintentionally) when you stated “contender much much less”.
        (A) SpaceX was never given the opportunity, by the DOD, to be a “contender”.
        (B) SpaceX’s Falcon 9 v1.1 has a perfect launch/mission success record.
        (C) The only criteria you cited was reliability, with no mention or weight given to total number of launches.

        …just sayin’. 🙂

        1. SpaceX has yet to launch a single vehicle on schedule. By their initial schedule, they are suppose to be on Dragon6 carrying people to and fro the ISS.

          3. Ahem. You were saying?

            http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/new…

            For launchers using only liquid engines full hot rehearsals are feasible, including testing the suppression system.

            Let’s check back in three years concerning reliability.

          4. not a problem with vehicle, problem with someone forgetting to unsafe the water suppression system

      3. That argument would pretty much kill off any new rocket. Sounds like something an old, fat company would say. 🙂 And SpaceX has already flown 90 Merlin engines on the Falcon9 — more than the RD180s on the 50 AtlasVs — with only one failure. And since they have single engine-out capability on the first stage, their chance of a launch failure is arguably less than Atlas V already, and should ultimately be much less.

        1. Why would it kill off a new rocket? They could get commercial launches and prove their reliability. For a new rocket wanting to immediately start launching high priority and expensive payloads is rather foolish.

          SpaceX is saying that by the time the rocket is reliable enough, it will be time to launch. The problem is, what if they’re wrong? Currently it is expensive to change launch vehicles so then the Air Force would be stuck either waiting for SpaceX to fix their problems or redesign the payload to launch on another rocket.

          The latter is smarter, but unless rockets have similar vibration characteristics and acceleration, it can be expensive.

          1. Hi John,
            It is a question about the DOD/USAF being unfair…or, at a minimum, changing the rules after the fact. The “proof of reliability” evidently was not a concern to the DOD/USAF for the Delta IV. Unlike the questionable excuse that the Atlas V had (much of the Atlas V, including engine, had legacy history), the Delta IV was a brand new, “clean sheet of paper” vehicle. The DOD/USAF awarded a portion of original EELV contract to Boeing (in 1998) before Boeing had even flown the Delta IV. Then, Boeing had a single demonstration flight. On the SECOND Delta IV flight, the DOD put a DSCS satellite on it.

            Yet, now, all of a sudden, the rules are different for SpaceX? Is it any wonder why Elon Musk is protesting the new DOD/USAF 36 EELV core block buy, sole-sourced to ULA. To add insult to injury, the contract allowed a future 14 EELV cores to be awarded basis “competitive bid”. HOWEVER, should there be a reduction in launch demand (a situation the USAF was well aware of BEFORE awarding the contract), the balance would come out of the 14 EELV competitive bid portion. Well, guess what, the DOD/USAF announced a reduction in launch demand, and cut the competitive bid EELV portion in half. Of course, this doesn’t affect ULA, which is still guaranteed their 36 cores.

          2. @ John Thomas (wwheateon)

            What’s the measure of expense (of changing config to accommodate for Falcon9 1.1 w/Merlin).

            I’m not being at all snarky or argumentative.

            For the purpose adding some useful background to this post, (and many other similar threads)- it would be great if someone in the know (some USAF background) could provide a write up on config changes (and associated costs…fairings/inter stage(s)/prep/security etc) from going from either one launch system to two or completely changing from one launch to another.

          3. SpaceX has made commercial launches and proven their reliability.

            Atlas V took five years to launch eight commercial missions before it was first used for a milsat launch. That was an NRO bird. The Atlas V delivered it to orbit, but not the orbit intended – a partial failure.

            It will probably be year’s end 2014 before SpaceX gets through the bureaucratic paper chase that is EELV certification even though the third of the three successful launches they needed to make took place in January. By that time, SpaceX will almost certainly have completed more commercial missions on the Falcon 9v1.1 than LockMart/ULA had on the Atlas V before they took their first swing – a blooper ball – at launching a national security payload. So by year’s end, the F9 should be at least as qualified, on paper and by actual flight history, to fly DoD/NRO/USAF missions as Atlas V was seven years ago. And they will have done this in 15 months where ULA took 58.

            ULA knows all this. That’s why they cooked up the block buy – to fend off SpaceX and continue to unreasonably soak the U.S. taxpayer for an additional 5+ years. We can “thank” the Russians for tossing a wrench into the scheme by cutting off RD-180’s. With no ability to deliver sufficient Atlas V’s, the block buy will be a dead letter pretty soon and we can get on with a rational, non-corrupt acquisition process for national security payloads.

            As to the unrelated matter of acceleration and vibration characteristics, Falcon 9, which uses exclusively liquid-fueled engines, certainly supplies a smoother ride to orbit than does any Delta IV or Atlas V configuration employing strap-on solid boosters. Acceleration off the pad is probably lower as well. The Falcon 9 also has no sudden notches in its ascent acceleration profile due to burnout and jettison of strap-ons. Given that Falcon 9 can launch anything that an Atlas V can carry with up to two solid strap-ons, it seems as though milsat payloads would get gentler rides to orbit, on average, than would be the case of sticking with ULA exclusively.

          1. So SpaceX have made that every time then. Every one of their F9 vehicles has launched successfully every time it’s left the pad.
            Cheers.

          2. Actually, they haven’t. How many scrubs on the pad as a proportion of launch attempts? Those classifies as failures of reliability in my book.

          3. Scrubs aren’t loss of mission and not all the scrubs have been related to launch vehicle issues. I’m sure if you asked customers which one they’d rather have, then a reliable as in one that doesn’t result in lom is their preference.
            Besides which, the vehicle could be still regarded as new and the launch rate is currently on par with Atlas and Delta vehicles. New vehicles through up issues regardless of the testing and certification regime as do older vehicles. IIRC either Delta or Atlas had an engine issue that kept it grounded for several months last year.
            Cheers.

          4. Seems like your reliability argument isn’t cutting it with the commercial satellite industry. Check out: http://www.satellitetoday.c… for a vehicle that hasn’t even flown a test flight yet.
            Seems like even with the delays, commercial are really really behind SpaceX. Why might that be?
            BTW, where’s the funded missions for SLS?
            Cheers.

      5. ULA had a partial failure on the first milsat it ever launched on Atlas V. It put an NRO bird into a lower than intended orbit. That was in 2007. So not 100%.

  2. Check out the nice beach resort where RD Amross lives, at 1600 N Atlantic Ave, Cocoa Beach, FL 3293 – the address on their website, created in 2009. Nice to know what their priorities are.

    1. RD Amross is not a real, physical company, it just exists to create favorable trade and financial transactions between NPO Energomash and ULA. So it only needs an office. Why does it even exist? As nearly as I can tell, it provides half the profits from sales of the RD-180 to its US partner, now the Aerojet Rocketdyne division of GenCorp. But why? Any attorneys wish to comment? One possibility is that it acts as an extremely strong disincentive to Aerojet to actually compete with itself by manufacturing a US version. Unless, of course, the taxpayers foot the bill. But another motivation might be the fact that ULA can use the price it pays Amross as a supplier to justify increasing the more-or-less “cost plus” cost of its services to the government. Perhaps Amross also provides the Russian technicians who monitor the Atlas during DOD launches with green cards so they can get onto Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. OTOH the engineering of the engine is second to none, and I just don’t believe the Russians would cut off a major customer.

      1. You need to do a little more research on your facts… RD Amross is owned by UTC and not GenCorp. There was a legal entanglement that resulted in RD Amross not being part of the sale of Rocketdyne to GenCorp. This does free up Aerojet to fully compete for the business without that type of conflict existing.

  4. The link for the SpaceX complaint doesn’t work, but finding a copy on the web it appears that the SpaceX compaint may have at least one error. I’m not a lawyer, but it seems this might cause them to refile another amendment.

    The SpaceX amendment claims that Senator McCain states that the engines are being purchased at highly inflated prices. However, McCain’s letter is inquiring about the possibility that this is occurring and is asking the Air Force if this is true. Big difference. SpaceX has turned a question into a fact.

  5. More rockets, less lawsuit amendments.

    Lawyers don’t leak helium and never scrub a filing attempt, do they ?

  6. If SpaceX wants transparency behind RD180, how about they reciprocate and open up their books on their stuff

    1. They already have for NASA and would do so for DoD if required however since they haven’t entered into any contracts or even been permitted to bid, why would they do that?
      And again, they’re a private company and not required to disclose any financial information unless they wish to do so.
      You also probably forgot that when they first developed their F9, NASA did an in-depth analysis of their costs in order to find out why they were so cheap.
      Cheers

      1. not even close, they had to open up the documentation on the parts they use so the system can be safety certified, that’s how NASA found out they were using commercial hardware store grade valves on some of their equipment, but they never disclosed the cost of any of their development or final product, which is what SpaceX wants from ULA on their RD180’s, they want to know how much is ULA paying for those engines.

        1. I already mentioned their willingness to open up for DoD and NASA. They don’t have to for anyone else to the same extent.

          But commercial payloads such as SES haven’t required the same oversight so why NASA and DoD. Oh yeah, they’re expensive, security etc, etc, but if they lose them which has happened before, then they replace them. So why the extra expensive certification process?
          Oh and SpaceX have never hidden they dislike of overpriced and so-called space-rated hardware.

          TTBOMK I don’t know of any situation where NASA or anyone else has required SpaceX to change components. But willing to be corrected with evidence sourced.
          Cheers.

          1. So ULA has to tell SpaceX how much they are paying for the RD180’s but SpaceX doesn’t have to tell ULA what the real cost of the Dragon engines is? Hypocrite!

        2. And yet those allegedly “commercial hardware store grade valves” have gotten every primary payload F9 has ever flown successfully into orbit. Maybe ULA, whose record isn’t quite so good, ought to be asking SpaceX where that magic hardware store is.

          1. No they didn’t, because when NASA saw what they did they made them replace every piece of hardware on the pad and the vehicle.

          2. I would be fascinated to know how idiotic stories like the one you’re peddling here get started. The anti-SpaceX troll community is nothing if not brazen and inventive in its fabulations. According to another of your cohorts, a helium pressure vessel that SpaceX supposedly sourced from a firefighting equipment company blew up inside the booster stage last month. I can hardly wait to see what baseless B.S. you guys come up with next.

          3. those stories are not idiotic, they are factual, one visit to SLC 40 and you would be amazed at the crap they try to getaway with; and yes, the He bottle that ‘blew’ up was made by a company that makes pressure bottles for firefighting equipment, it was never meant to be used in cryogenic conditions;

Comments are closed.