Injunction Barring Russian Engine Payments Lifted
Court Lifts NPO Energomash Injunction, SpaceX Back at Square One, SpaceRef Business
“Commenting to SpaceRef on the ruling a SpaceX spokesperson said: The U.S. Court of Federal Claims has taken steps toward understanding whether United Launch Alliance’s current sole-source contract violates U.S. sanctions by sending taxpayer money to Russia for the RD-180 engine. That question, combined with the others specifically raised in the SpaceX Complaint, relating to the risks posed by dependence on Russian-made engines and the need to open competition for the Air Force space launch program – are timely and appropriate.”
Court lifts injunction barring payments for Russian engine
“A federal judge Thursday lifted an injunction barring United Launch Alliance from buying Russian engines for the company’s Atlas 5 rocket, concluding such transactions do not violate U.S. sanctions imposed in the wake of Russia’s actions in Ukraine. A temporary injunction was granted April 30, two days after a complaint by ULA rival Space Explorations Technologies — SpaceX — that challenged the legitimacy of a sole-source “block buy” Air Force contract that was awarded to United Launch Alliance last December for 27 Atlas 5 and Delta 4 rockets.”
Preliminary Injunction Lifted – ULA Purchase of RD-180 Engines Complies with Sanctions
“Sadly, SpaceX’s frivolous lawsuit caused unnecessary distraction of the executive and judicial branch and increased tensions with Russia during a sensitive national security crisis. “SpaceX’s actions are self-serving, irresponsible and have threatened the U.S.’s involvement with the International Space Station and other companies and projects working with Russian State entities.”
– Russian Engine Drama Continues, earlier post
– SpaceX Gets Injunction Against Russian Rocket Engines, earlier post
I understand Elon’s position on this, but in this case while it does not “feel” right ULA has a contract with the DoD and they should not be impeded from doing what they need to do. It would have been better to ask for an injunction regarding future mission awards, that would require the DoD to explain why SpaceX is not a suitable vendor for those missions.
The injunction, as I understand it, was an indirect spin-off from SpaceX’s action; SpaceX’s suit dragged, for good or ill, the RD-180 purchases out into the political spotlight.
I suspect Elon wondered, when the injunction came out, “WTF? I didn’t want to cut their legs off, I just wanted a shot at the business!” (you can likely figure out where commingled profanities belong in the above exclamation)
The RD-180s are now politically visible and can now draw fire they likely did not want to get.
Absolutely!!! Sunlight is the Best Disinfectant!!! And ULA is showing their true Colors! If anything what all of this has shown is that ULA provides anything BUT Assured Access to Space!!! Clearly a Two Years Stockpile of RD 180 Russian Atlas engines for a five year contract is anything but Assured! And without the Atlas V $380,000,000 per launch even if they could ramp up the Delta IV would costs how much??? But I’m sure ULA would lie through their teeth again and spew that they are saving the taxpayers money…
SpaceX just needs to keep pushing the bounties and all will fall into place!!! The 36 Core Block Buy was nothing but the extended slow death of a Monopoly… By, By ULA.. and maybe just Buy Bonds 😉
you’re wrong about Musk’s motivation. he wants desperately to KILL Atlas V. notice he hasn’t bothered to go after Delta IV. in fact he’s even said it should be Falcon vs Delta for the future. it has nothing to do with his desperate desire to save tax payers money. it has everything to do with the fact that he can’t compete on any level with Atlas V on performance or reliability. and he also probably suspects what ULA knows, if there were to be a critical payload that absolutely had to go on a short schedule the government would absolutely without question pick Atlas. and on another note his only potential competition for commercial human flight has already selected Atlas V. if he can kill it he wins everywhere. but he knows that he definitely can compete with and destroy on cost Delta IV in the below 10K payload range right now.
he may have made a mistake by the way in that there’s now a much better than even chance that there will be a US kerosene engine to replace RD180, and Musk won’t be a player in that. there might be a charade fair competition proposal effort but no way will he be able to match AJR on staged combustion either on technical, track record or likelihood of success.
rockofritters
Mate, I mean no disrespect…but you sound like you have gone off the deep end.
First of all, the Falcon 9 v1.1 beats the Atlas V unassisted (no solids, i.e. 401 and 501 configurations) in payload to LEO and GTO. The Falcon 9 Melin 1D-based first stage beats the Atlas V CCB’s RD-180 in thrust, and is basically at parity in specific impulse. The Falcon 9’s 2nd-stage (Merlin 1D Vacuum) blows the SEC Centaur out of the water, and still beats the upcoming DEC Centaur.
As I have already pointed out, the MAJORITY of Atlas V EELV launches, to date, could have been performed by the Falcon 9. It is entirely conceivable that a significant number of the 36 sole-source block buy EELV cores will be tasked with missions that could be performed by the Falcon 9.
There is NO MERIT in your specious argument that SpaceX / Elon Musk is “afraid” of the Atlas V.
A) There is absolutely no point in bringing the more powerful Atlas V configurations (requiring strap-on solids), into this debate. Musk is OBVIOUSLY not looking to compete on contracts for which the Falcon 9 cannot perform the mission. This is just common sense. Space X is (currently) competing against the Atlas V 401 and 501.
To wit, I ask you to explain how in the heck SpaceX would be worried about competing against these vehicles (Atlas V 401 and 501) in a fair competitive bid…given the fact that the Falcon 9’s customer launch cost is approx. one half cost of the equivalent ULA Atlas V??
B) SpaceX’s argument is that it makes logical sense to phase out the Atlas V family, once the Falcon Heavy has come online (maiden launch next year). Again, this is a reasonable argument, especially from the American Taxpayer point of view. With the Falcon Heavy, the USA will maintain two independent launch systems to ensure access to space and redundancy for critical NSS launch requirements…i.e the Delta IV family and the Falcon family (9 and Heavy). At this point, why should the Federal Govt. keep alive a launch system that costs twice as much (as Space X), and uses costly Russian RD-180 engines, the supply of which could be cut off at any point.
C) You say SpaceX is afraid of the Atlas V…when in fact, it is ULA who is terrified of the Falcon Heavy. Soon, their NSS launch monopoly, due to the Delta IV, will be broken. And oh yeah, the Falcon Heavy will not only be significantly less expensive than the equivalent Delta IV (at least based upon current ULA price gouging), but will outperform it by a significant margin.
P.S. — I have absolutely nothing against the Atlas V or the Delta IV. They are fantastic, reliable vehicles. I certainly do not begrudge ULA for making a FAIR and reasonable profit for their product and services. What I do take offense to is ULA’s arrogant, monopolistic practices, which are evident in the exponential increase in their launch costs over the past 8 years. There is no question in my mind that the American taxpayer is paying ULA 2 to 3 times the fair and reasonable cost for their launch services.
TL;DR — we are being hosed by ULA.
rockofritters You say “fact” a lot but I haven’t seen any facts.
That locks SpaceX and anyone else out for 5 years and it’s a sole source contract. Anyone should be able to ask why that was awarded just before another company could compete.
In addition the AF was essentially directed to compete their contracts where possible. No this is simply an attempt to protect ULAs business model and in the end, continue to screw U.S. taxpayers.
Whether or not it was politically or legally smart in the short term I believe it is good that Spacex is getting their attention.
How’s the old saying go??
Now that I have your attention __________.
Um, whoawaitaminute.. wasn’t it said here in earlier threads that SpaceX did NOT ask for the injunction? And that lifting said injunction does not stop the complaint, the lawsuit, or what Senator McCain is looking into?
In other words, “back at square one” my fanny!
Agree. I so want to see Senate hearings and McCain going for the jugular.
ULA wins again, and I fear things will only go downhill for SpaceX in light of Musk’s litigation. L-M has the Orion contract so don’t be surprised if Boeing gets the commercial crew contract and the Air Force reach out to SpaceX rivals Orbital ATK or Blue Origin.
I think the opposite is more likely. The incumbents have been wasting billions of tax dollars with no regrets. Only SpaceX is doing both commercial cargo and crew. The Orion currently has no mission. SpaceX has virtually all the commercial (non-US-government) launch business because of its more competitive pricing. Of course it could be that only political connections count and that cost and performance mean nothing to the government. We’ll have to see.
Unfortunately only waiting will tell us what happens, and I think that waiting will include waiting up to and after SpaceX’s planned manned tests. Perhaps if Orion is sufficiently behind when those manned SpaceX tests start, embarrassment will force congresspeople to shift their influence toward SpaceX. Hopefully SpaceX will keep their schedule for manned tests because I don’t see Orion or anything related to SLS staying on schedule.
Sadly, I’m not optimistic that the above will influence any key congressional minds to change.
I agree that politics owes little to logic. However there’s an unmanned test coming up that could be just as important. When the first Falcon Heavy is launched (hopefully early 2015 from Cape Canaveral) the contrast between FH and SLS will be hard to ignore. How will NASA react?
That said, there are a lot of good people outside SpaceX and I hope Boeing, Sierra, Lockheed, Xcor, etc. will demonstrate that they can also compete by providing innovation at a competitive cost.
you know the space X cheer team would have a lot more credibility if you didn’t use sweeping straw man arguments that “the incumbents have been wasting billions of tax dollars with no regrets.” uh, no the incumbents have costs associated with responding to government defined requirements. and they have plenty of AF and Aerospace corp oversight on their compliance with said requirements. saying you’re reliable is one thing, proving it technically then demonstrating it over and over again is not cheap. there is no enormous slush fund of tax payer dollars in the go ahead a waste category at ULA or its suppliers. but then you already knew that because space x has yet to demonstrate the ability to hit a set launch date reliably. they want in on EELV because they likely need cash flow without going public.
“they want in on EELV because they likely need cash flow without going public.”
Do you have a source to back up your allegation, or are you just guessing?
It is by far not pre-determined that Falcon-Dragon is the winner. Boeing has decades of experience winning contracts and crossing the ‘t’s and dotting the ‘i’s of polished competitive work to win DOD or NASA contracts. SpaceX has no laurels to rest on. Boeing could win and all of us that want to see new innovators will be left with only a choice 4-letter word to blurt out, that’s it.
There’s nothing like a little competition to reveal where the bodies are buried. One really can’t fault ULA; they are just maximizing their profits, although I think SpaceX is acting more in the national interest. But the idea that DOD is getting a higher level of mission assurance by going essentially sole source for a period of more than 10 years strains the bounds of credibility.
Large American corporations have very little interest in “national interests”; only, as you state, when profits can be maximized. They are international, more so every day. Individuals of these corporations that step out to express the corporation’s sense of patriotism, do so on a singular personal level in support of their corporation but this is no factor in corporate decision making. If institutionalized corruption continues and grows in federal and state governments, then regulations, infrastructure and tax dollars, as the case with ULA and the DOD, will continue to be controlled by large corporations. Its an endless struggle between capitalism (corporate) and government to maintain balance. In part due to computer technology, corporate has stacked and maintained the deck in their favor. Without new competitors like SpaceX competing on every playing field, including the courts, we don’t stand a chance.
Totally agree
Would ULA or any corporation, if given the choice, take a somewhat less patriotic route on the surface and lose the ability to claim the “US interests moral high ground” if there was more money and better business to be had another way? Yep. Ask the shareholders. So their national security and defense of US Government sounding claims ring pretty hollow to me.
Did you catch the food fight comment from ULA, blaming SpaceX? We’re not acting cynical. Its a realistic to recognize how the corporate entities function. ULA leveraged the Russian statements to their advantage.
Hope getting the attorneys involved isn’t going to trigger a repeat of history. Anybody remember the promise, rise, fall and bitter end of SpaceX predecessor Beal Aerospace? Its take 14 years for a worthy successor to arrive.
http://spaceflightnow.com/n…
well, Beal was founded in 1997 and died in 2000, SpaceX was founded in 2002 and actually made it to a successful launch in 2008. also there are many differences between Beal’s approach and SpaceX’s approach.
Beal – focus on 3-stage Heavy-Lift rocket to GEO
SpaceX – initial focus on a 2-stage Small-Lift rocket to LEO. later, focus on 2-stage Medium-Lift rocket to LEO, but with a 2nd stage capable of GEO insertion
Beal – no major customers, thanks in part to tightened ITAR controls on satellite and launch technology killing the launch market for US launch providers in 1999
SpaceX – lots of customers, thanks in part to very low prices
I could go on. but don’t worry, SpaceX won’t die because of this. it’s got a good launch record and a lot of customers.
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…
its clear all the commenters are missing the obvious. Musk is dealing from a position of weakness. his hail Mary was getting Atlas V killed because he knows what observers don’t. he can’t compete with it in any way shape matter or form. that’s why he only wants to compete with the hydrogen pig delta IV. but its still true that the majority of payloads for EELV can ONLY be launched on an Atlas V in various forms or Delta IV (usually heavy). and can’t get beyond earth on a Falcon 9 in any configuration. that’s just a fact. and even IF Musk gets some sort of political certification he’s only inviting the nightmare of Aerospace Corp oversight. that combined with a need to be able to launch within a couple of days of the target date will drive his cost through the rough. but no one will know what those costs are until he goes public. bottom line, he’s making a stink because he’s spending money like a congressional appropriations committee and he desperately needs EELV business to bridge to his mission to Mars. and look i didn’t even have to take potshots at the comical idea of saving first stages to completely refurbish. sure, try selling one of those to Aerospace/AF. not happening cheerleaders, no way no how….
Wow, now we know the arguments made in the dinners at the Space Symposium….
@Rockofritters,
With all respect, I am confused with the arguments you have put forth, as well as your critique of Elon Musk’s motivations. If you are taking the USAF/ULA side, here, you are effectively saying you are okay with sole-source contracts and acquisitions, at the expense of American free enterprise and fair competition. You might as well state you are against baseball, hot dogs and apple pie, as well.
A) The preliminary injunction (now lifted), was something initiated by the US Court of Federal Claims in order to determine if the purchase violated any statues or regulations that are involved “with any stage of the federal contracting acquisition process.” Specifically, the temporary injunction gave the Court time to ascertain if the USAF / United Launch Services, LLC (ULA) contract violated Executive Order Executive Order 13,661, issued by President Obama in March 2014. It is very likely that SpaceX lawyers were involved in raising this specific concern to the C.F.C, however, don’t think for a second that ULA wouldn’t have pulled the same tactic were the roles reversed. In any event, the Court has been given broad discretion, by Congress, to act on such matters.
This is quoted directly from the C.F.C preliminary injunction action:
————————————-
Congress has authorized the United States Court of Federal Claims:
to render judgment on an action by an interested party objecting to a solicitation by a Federal agency for bids or proposals for a proposed contract or to a proposed award or the award of a contract or any alleged violation of statute or regulation in connection with a procurement or a proposed procurement — 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1) .
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that the phrase “in connection with,” as used in Section 1491(b)(1), is “very sweeping in scope” and “involves a connection with any stage of the federal contracting acquisition process.”
—————————————
The C.F.C did their due diligence, and in response to appeals and information provided by the Dept. of State, Treasury and Commerce (who passed the buck), the Court determined that the purchase of the RD-180 engines was not a breach of the Executive Order. The preliminary injunction was thus lifted.
A couple of salient points; 1) The injunction could be reinstated if it is determined that any monies from ULA/USAF purchase find their way into the pockets of Dmitry Rogozin. But let’s be honest, the US Govt. isn’t going to follow through on such an investigation, and we all know that much of the money is damn well going to find it’s way to Rogozin. The Dept. of State and Treasury caved, in no small part due to having allowed such a ridiculous state of affairs to exist in the first place — i.e., a major component of our National Security (Atas V launch vehicles) is completely dependent on Russian built engines. Putin is laughing his ass off right now. 2) The injunction, and it’s subsequent lifting has absolutely no bearing, whatsoever, on the progress of SpaceX’s formal lawsuit…which is based upon the USAF’s sole-source EELV core block buy, and the fact that SpaceX was excluded the opportunity of competing for the contract.
B) You state “…but its still true that the majority of payloads for EELV can ONLY be launched on an Atlas V in various forms or Delta IV (usually heavy).” Please provide data to support this claim. The USAF has NOT identified the launch manifest for the 36 cores, and as such, what portion of the 36 cores/launches are reserved for “heavy launch” requirements, as necessary, for many National Security Space assets.
However, why don’t we take a look at the Atlas V launch history. Of a total of 45 Atlas V launches, 21 were of the 401 configuration and 5 were of the 501 configuration. That makes (21 + 5) = 26 launches of vehicles that have performance specs (payload mass to either LEO or GTO) equal or less than that of the Falcon 9 v1.1. So, the MAJORITY of Atlas V launches, to date, fall within the capabilities of the Falcon 9.
Yes, the Delta IV is the workhorse for National Security Space heavy launch requirements (e.g. NRO assets)…but there have only been 25 launches in the past 12 years, and three of those fell within the capabilities of the Falcon 9.
In any case, this is all a moot point, in the sense that SpaceX is only asking to be able to compete on the portion of the 36 EELV cores / launches that fall within capabilities of their Falcon 9. It is entirely conceivable that a significant number of these 36 cores (and possibly a majority) will be launching payloads that could be handled by the Falcon 9.
What this all boils down to, is the very questionable decision by the USAF to award (in Dec. 2013) a sole-source “requirements-like” contract for 36 EELV cores with ULA, while cutting the future competitive bid portion of the EELV cores in half (from 14 to 7). Furthermore, the USAF contract stipulates: “if overall launch demand decreased, the difference would be satisfied by drawing from cores/launches originally designated for competition.” Well isn’t that damn convenient for ULA. Especially, given the fact (as Sen. McCain’s letter’s attest) that the USAF was well aware that “launch demand had decreased” in July 2013, five months before the contract award. In fact reduction in launch demand was foreseen as far back as 2010, due to longer than expected longevity of GPS satellites.
So, the reduction in launch demand is borne solely by the “competitive bid” portion…while the initial 36 cores are safely guaranteed to ULA —> DESPITE the very good possibility that only a small number of these cores will actually be designated for “heavy launch” NRO/national security assets (e.g. requiring a Delta IV Heavy). That is what is known as throwing salt on a wound.
Why do you bother posting this crap? Are you seriously under the impression anybody buys any of it? Given that Falcon 9 has more first stage thrust than either Atlas V or Delta IV it is unsurprising that – contra you – it can put more payload in LEO than either of its competitors in unassisted (no solid strap-on boosters) form. Falcon 9 matches Atlas V in mass deliverable to GTO too. Looking at Atlas V launch history it seems that 60 percent of its missions thus far have been either in the 401 or 501 configurations – no boosters. Falcon 9 could have handled any of these missions at a quarter the cost if it had been around 10 years ago. In its current form, it can handle about the same proportion of upcoming missions that the disputed block buy was supposed to cover. That’s what the lawsuit is about. The RD-180 injunction is a sideshow. International politics, not some judge, will determine whether ULA gets to keep buying RD-180’s or not. Personally, I’d be quite nervous right now if my job depended on the future good behavior of Vladimir Putin.
Wow.
“he can’t compete with it (Atlas V) in any way shape matter or form”
Why not?
“but its still true that the majority of payloads for EELV can ONLY be launched on an Atlas V in various forms or Delta IV (usually heavy). and can’t get beyond earth on a Falcon 9 in any configuration. that’s just a fact.”
Are you kidding? Forgive me if I don’t take your statements as gospel… even though you said “that’s just a fact” – really that part almost convinced me. Did you know that payloads are often tailored to the launcher for mass and volume concerns? You said majority, so you are implicitly saying that some payloads would work fine on Falcon 9. And not only that but they are making a new launcher. You said ONLY Atlas V or Delta IV… well what about Ariane 5 or some other launchers? How about Falcon Heavy? For further nailing in the coffin, I defer to the comments already posted by others – that most of the past Atlas V payloads could have been lifted by Falcon 9. I’d also like to point out that there have only been 7 Delta IV launches.
“and he desperately needs EELV business to bridge to his mission to Mars”
Ok sure Musk wants to go to Mars as soon as he can, but he doesn’t need to tomorrow. He’ll be around for a while yet and it’s obvious SpaceX is building sustainably toward its goals.
ULA’s argument: we have a long track record, plus we maintain rockets ready to launch on very short notice (critical, they say, for DOD and intelligence).
I take it that nobody here is buying these arguments?
I missed (or didn’t pay attention to) the part about launching on very short notice. How short notice are we talking about? I can’t see ULA doing same-day (or, for that matter, same-month) launches. If there is a critical national security need for this sort of thing, I don’t think it involves two versus six months. I’m also not sure what SpaceX could do along these lines.
It actually came down to only one thing: Clout , a 4-letter word.
Saw in an article that Spacex may have had to bring this legal action with in 90 days of the signing of the ULA contract. Seems like a very short time to me? If this is so Spacex’s lawyers should be shot!
I hate lawyers!!!
And don’t start telling me how some lawyers are very fine people Mr. Squared 🙂