GAO Says USAF Needs Reality Check on EELV Planning
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle: The Air Force Needs to Adopt an Incremental Approach to Future Acquisition Planning to Enable Incorporation of Lessons Learned, GAO
“The Air Force is at risk of making decisions about future EELV acquisitions without sufficient knowledge. The Air Force plans to develop an acquisition strategy for the next phase of competitive launches before it has any actionable data from the first competitive launches. In addition, the Air Force views competition as crucial to the success of its new acquisition strategy, yet the viability of a competitive launch industry is uncertain. The launch industry is undergoing changes, and the ability of the domestic industry to sustain two or more providers in the long-term, while desirable, is unclear. Additionally, only one company is currently certified to compete with ULA for national security launches, and there are no other potential competitors in the near future. To adequately plan for future competitions and ensure informed decision making before committing to a strategy, it will be important for the Air Force to obtain knowledge about its new acquisition approach and on the launch industry.”
Why do they say that? I guess it depends on what they mean by “near future”.
The sentence says that there is only one company to COMPETE WITH ULA. That one company is SpaceX. It did not say that there was only one company to compete for the contract.
It is true that Blue Origin or Orbital/ATK could decide to compete in the future but there is no sign of them attempting to do so.
“only one company is currently certified to compete with ULA for national security launches”
They are the only company…for now. Like I just said in another post elsewhere, successful advances in industrial processes are doomed to repetition. SpaceX is (quite rapidly) knocking down the trees, but others will follow behind along the trail and their progress will be all the swifter for it.
GAO bother to check recent US Air Force Certifies SpaceX for Military Launches May 26, 2015. They would know August 11,2015 statement is totally false misleading to American Public shame on them!
What?
GAO is talking about Lockmart and SpaceX. They are simply pointing out that a little experience would be beneficial. Makes sense to me.
Exactly! Old age and experience go hand-in-hand.
The new guys won’t always be new. They’ll take their more innovative approach and combine it with their own experience curve. But also, some of the old players will adopt the new methods and combine that with their far greater experience and market influence and wipe up the floor with the new guys.
They just need to start doing it. I hope it’s soon–I’m getting tired of listening to their whining.
Michael Spencer if you read SpaceRef no mention of Lockheed or SpaceX by name. Only list ULA 3 out of 4 paragraphs in the SpaceRef GAO article, so go read it now.
Michael Mahar I was referring to SpaceRef GAO Says USAF Needs Reality Check on EELV Planning article said increased competition and potential competitors and ULA those phrased words no SpaceX mention.
Here’s the thing…the words “uncertain” and “unclear” means something less than 100% certainty. That can be applied to anything. There are strongly held opinions among real experts about the future of space flight. Some might even claim that, in light of the cost differences, Russian engine availability, and shifting launch frequency by Old Space providers, the future of the old “acquisition approach” is currently “uncertain” and “unclear”.
Bill Housley GAO should have wrote SpaceX name in the report and we would not be in the this stupid argument in the first place. IT GAO fault too dammed lazy to list SpaceX name in the GAO Says USAF Needs Reality Check on EELV Planning.
GAO needs a reality check. Without competition launch services will become unaffordable.