How Quickly We Forget Who Pays For The Rockets
HASC Chairman Smith Earmarks $500M Giveaway For SpaceX, Potentially Aborting Air Force Space Plans, Loren Thompson, Forbes
Keith’s note: First Thompson goes on a rant against SpaceX:
“Smith’s proposed language is Washington politics at its worst. According to the Air Force, if it becomes law U.S. access to critical national security orbits will be endangered, the military will need to rely longer on Russian rocket engines, and the cost of all national-security space missions will increase. As if that were not enough, the Air Force says Smith’s proposal would reward an uncompetitive offeror while punishing successful competitors who have been sharing the cost of developing launch vehicles with the government.”
Then after he’s unloaded on SpaceX, Thompson tosses this little caveat out:
“I should note that the one “traditional” supplier that won an agreement is co-owned by two companies that contribute to my think tank, but that is really beside the point here”.
Oh – so his salary at Lexington Institute is paid in part by companies that compete with SpaceX – but he’s not biased since this is all “really beside the point”. Got it. Funny how Thompson neglects to mention the de facto duopoly between Lockheed Martin and Boeing for EELVs that persisted for a very long time wherein the companies were paid to develop and then maintain their rockets so as to be ready to fly them for DoD. But, again, that is “really beside the point”. Just sayin’
If Spacex had been selected for the launch services agreement and 500 million was instead being paid out to Boeing or ULA, my guess is that you would have written this article yourself. Favoritism has negative consequences regardless of which side of the argument you’re on.
Although we might not want to admit it, there’s some tribalism in the space industry, and not just on one side. Humanity will benefit more from a competitive and DIVERSE space industry than one where we play favorites.
The language is more reasonable than you might think. ULA and the others funded in the first (development) phase already got money to cover the special requirements for national security launches. Without modification, SpaceX would have to pay for that out of their own pocket to bid on the second (operational) phase. The revised language, and the $500 million, would give someone selected in round two but not in round one the funding their competitors have already received. But your point about bias is correct, and everyone is biased. I admit I’m not a fan of business as usual, and that colors my opinions about ULA.
What is interesting is that Representative Smith is from Washington State, where Boeing used to own the Congressional Delegation. Maybe this is also a bit of pay back for Boeing moving it’s HQ to Chicago and B787 production to South Carolina. The only SpaceX facilities there are building Starlink satellites, so there is no direct pork connection to point to as the article implies.?
With StarLink potentially bringing in tens of $billions the congress-critters are thinking about elections in the 2020’s.
Oddly, Representative Smith is from the 9th district and that contains the headquarters of Blue Origin. It isn’t obvious to me how or if his earmark benefits his district. On the other hand, the move to drop that new wording comes from two representatives from Colorado, representing the 5th and 6th districts. Those cover the southern part of the urban corridor, from roughly Colorado Springs to the southern and eastern suburbs of Denver. Guess who employs a bunch of people in those districts? The next time someone puts together a map with all the places a given NASA project is spending money, it might make life easier if they put the congressional districts on it…
I’m not sure I understand your point here, Dr. C? Are you objecting to “spreading the wealth” in order to get support? If so, what’s your objection?
There are many reasons to support NASA’s habitual “spreading” -efficiency and cost not being among them, of course.
Old Space is not going to go let go of it’s gravy train without a fight. Good thing SpaceX has good lawyers?
I think there is some truth in the old saying, “We have the best politicians money can buy!” Does the honorable representative prefer to pay the Russians for RD180’s and Soyuz launches for our astronauts? A true statesman wouldn’t care if launch services were provided by SpaceX, ULA, Blue Origin, or Wiley E. Coyote’s Acme rocket ship!
Well, the Acme corporation does have some well known reliability and safety issues. But, just to make it fun, it looks like ULA has also dragged in a union. According to one report I read, the union representing machinists at ULA are also pushing back against this. It just happens that Blue Origin and SpaceX aren’t union shops.
Interesting how times have changed. Back in 1961, I was a college student working as a summer-hire for the Navy on the Polaris Project at Cape Canaveral. Lockheed was the prime contractor. The union contract was up for renewal, but there was a bit of a deadlock in negotiations. I asked one of the union members what would happen if they couldn’t reach an agreement with Lockheed before the contract ran out; would they strike? “Oh, no!” he replied, “this is too important to America’s security! We’ll just keep on working.” Wonder what the union members would say today?
Well, maybe things will resolve themselves between when ULA runs out of RD180’s and they get Vulcan up and running… Hope springs eternal!
Yea. I have really mixed feelings about modern, American trade unions. On the one hand, I’m politically so far to the left (or off center) that the old syndicate anarchists are one of the few philosophies I’m comfortable with. So of course I’m pro union. And I do credit the American union movement with preventing an effective, communist movement in the US (a good thing I think, since we know how dismally that went in Russia…) But the modern unions have gotten a bit out of hand and, I think, the unions’ management has turned into their own hierarchy (which inherently means distant from the people at the bottom of the org chart.) All of that strikes me as contrary to the original goals and entire point of trade unions.
Yes, most unions seemed to have been around so long that the management has forgotten its there to serve the members and now expect the members to serve the management.
You laugh, but the logo for Launch Control Systems at KSC featured Wiley E. Coyote lighting the fuse of a rocket to which he was strapped. Whoever designed the logo was not familiar with Wiley’s history with Acme rockets. Someone eventually realized that was a BAD idea and changed Wiley to an alligator.
So after demonizing the author and boarding the SpaceX Fanboy train, can any of you actually comment on the congressional earmark? Do you believe that the LSA was an unfair competition? Why?
Is it impossible to consider that maybe SX didn’t submit a LSA proposal that met all AF requirements?
I’m simply looking for some intelligent, fact-based reasoning from any of you that addresses deficiencies in the AF LSA acquisition and award, and how those deficiencies require congressional action.
Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
You can read SpaceX’s lawsuit against AF and judge the fairness for yourself. Just google “spacex lsa lawsuit”, the cnbc article has the link to the redacted complaint.
The congressional action is not dependent on whether LSA was unfair or not. It has 4 paragraphs:
1) That the Air Force allow other competitors to challenge the two winners of Phase 2 after the first 29 launches are completed.
2) That the Air Force create a $500 million “certification and infrastructure fund” to be made available to SpaceX if it wins a Phase 2 contract.
3) That the secretary of defense ensure all competitors have equal access to materials and suppliers.
4) That launch providers’ pricing bids account for all government investments made in their rockets.
Only #2 is directly linked to SpaceX, and this should be done even if LSA is fair, since the infrastructure in question will be for AF use only, so why shouldn’t AF be required to pay for it?
Worth pointing out that a compromise was reached a day ago where #3 and #4 are removed, and guess what, ULA and NG didn’t object to #2 much. What worried them most is #4, which seems very fair to me and should be done regardless. The only questionable paragraph to me is #3, which of course was also removed after the compromise.
Bueller’s off driving a vintage sports car he stole from his father, so I’ll answer.
You know, it’s possible to dislike the traditional defense contractors, and all the money the government has poured into those rat holes, without actually being a SpaceX “Fanboy”. And that piece was definitely an axe job. It’s full of assertions with no supporting evidence or references. (Sorry, I’m a scientist and a Wikipedia editor, so the whole “citation needed” thing matters to me.) For example, when and how did the Air Force say all the things he’s attributing to them? It’s also full of deliberately misleading statements. For example, that SpaceX might not provide all the things the Air Force wants, since the Falcon 9 can not satisfy some of the higher end missions. Actually, the Falcon Heavy can, and the Air Force is very interested in that capability, so the author seems to be making things up to mislead people.
But in terms of the LSA contract selections, no, I don’t think there is a reason to criticize the Air Force selections. SpaceX, in the form of Mr. Musk, has admitted their proposal wasn’t as good as it could have been. I’ve never been involved in reviews of anything that big, but I’ve been on a number of smaller ones for research grants. One think the reviewers are absolutely not supposed to do is read between the lines or mentally rewrite a bad proposal. If someone writes a bad proposal, it’s their own fault, and a reviewer can’t say, “well, they didn’t say it, but I know they could have said…” So SpaceX lost that one and it’s their own fault.
On the other hand, it does put the government in an awkward position. None of the three selections, Blue Origins, ULA and Northrup Grumman actually have a flying launch vehicle to bid. I think it’s safe to say Vulcan will fly, OmegA may or may not (and I think the idea of putting a high energy upper stage on top of a modified Shuttle solid rocket booster is a bit dubious), and New Glenn is a very novel development by an untraditional company.
It isn’t clear how much of its own money SpaceX would invest in satisfying all of the Air Force’s custom requirements and services, and they are the only potential NSSL phase 2 bidder with a rocket which has actually flown. They do have quite a backload of orders for Falcon flights, and they plan to get rid of it and transition to the “Spaceship”, when and if that works. So the whole Air Force contract, with all the special requirements on their own dime, might not be a financially sensible idea for SpaceX.
The Air Force has been adamant about selecting two, and only two, companies for NSSL phase 2, and selecting them to handle all launches through 2027. That means the government doesn’t have a whole lot of good options. Two traditional (and therefore very expensive) companies, neither with an rocket that has been build, let alone flown. And getting locked into those high prices for almost a decade? One traditional company and Blue Origin, which not only hasn’t flown, but is a bit of a risk for people who like conventional practices? One traditional company and SpaceX? When SpaceX might put in a bid that only pays lip service to satisfying special Air Force requirements?
None of those sound like good options to me. Allowing an extra $500 million for the SpaceX bid, if and only if they are selected, may not be an ideal choice. But it also doesn’t strike me as a nonsensical one.
The key point is that the USAF is basically locking itself in to buying rides on biplanes when a paradigm smasher in about to emerge from the wings. It seems this leaves the door open to it.
BTW I finally got a chance to swing by Boca Chica this week and it was surreal, like a science fiction novel come to life, watching them actually build a spaceship from a public road only a 100 ft away. And it is actually starting to look like a spaceship from those stories from the old Golden Age science finish magazines. You could easily imagine it being on the cover of Astounding with “Galactic Patrol” painted on it. ?
It will be amazing to see when it starts its flight testing.
My frustration with Old Space pricing and static innovation arch predates SpaceX, and even Elon Musk and PayPal, by at least a decade. I am a fanboy of SpaceX because I see them as the rope to rescue the U.S. space flight industry before it sinks away forever in quicksand put there by the existence of ULA.
Don’t complain about SpaceX fanboys until you first complain about why SpaceX even exists in the first place…and then ask Old Space what they’ve done to solve those problems.
One word which acutely illustrates Keith’s perfectly articulated point:
ИДИОТ.
That’s a latin borrowing. I think I’d prefer the old Slavonic Дурак.