It's ironic that of the 4 different rockets under question (Falcon 9/FHeavy, Vulcan, New Glenn, OmegA), only the Falcons are flight proven and the others are 2 years from flight and could easily have more delays. The idea that the USAF wouldn't throw SpaceX a bone for vertical integration but would spend tons of money paying for the development of these unproven rockets DOES seem to give SpaceX standing, here, IMHO...
Just a side note, but I kind of agree with Blue Origin about the questionability of deciding now who to award all (or a huge chunk) of the USAF flights starting in 2021.And I think SpaceX is right to protest the LSA, which is basically giving Blue Origin a vertical integration capability and a huge leg up, even though they haven't launched didley squat to orbit and are years behind in qualifying the BE-4 for launch. It's also questionable to award LSA to two companies which are both effectively relying on the same first engine, an engine which has not yet been flight qualified and could further be delayed.I think the USAF should at least consider awarding to 3 companies this time.
I think the USAF should at least consider awarding to 3 companies this time.
Elon himself said that his company's proposal missed the mark.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 05/22/2019 03:04 pmElon himself said that his company's proposal missed the mark. This is quoted so frequently. But what does it mean? What did Elon want to express there?I doubt that he means SpaceX has bungled its proposal. IMO they proposed exactly what they wanted to propose, knowing full well that they did not propose exactly what the Airforce had in mind. They hoped for some flexibility in the Airforce evaluation and were probably not surprised that this flexibility was not there.
BREAKING: Federal court unseals redacted SpaceX bid complaint, which challenges the Air Force awarding $2.3 billion to Blue Origin, ULA and Northrop Grumman.Read the full complaint:
The full SpaceX complaint alleges that the Air Force “wrongly awarded” the funds “to a portfolio of three unproven rockets based on unstated metrics.”
5. By contrast, SpaceX bid its existing, operational Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy vehicles for all missions set to occur before late 2025 and a newer, even more capable and cost effective system, the Big Falcon Rocket (now Starship), for a tiny fraction of NSS missions tolaunch no earlier than late 2025. The Agency's Source Selection Authority ("SSA") nonethelessdetermined that SpaceX's one developmental launch vehicle rendered the entire SpaceX portfoliothe "highest risk" and chose the portfolio that best served the needs of ULA, the long-standingincumbent. (Award Decision at 9, Ex. I.) This appraisal of risk is counter to the stated evaluation criteria and, by any objective measure, unreasonable. As a consequence, the Agency madesignificant awards to ULA and the two offerors that are currently developing major componentsfor ULA's new rocket-in effect, the Agency made awards to ULA and two subcontractors for itsnew, proposed launch vehicle system.6. By selecting for its LSA portfolio three unbuilt, unflown systems-all of whichshare major common systems relative to the ULA vehicle-the Agency has tilted the playing fieldsteeply in favor of unproven rockets that clearly will not be certified for any NSS launches on thetimeframes dictated in the LSA Solicitation, risking assured access to space and defeating the veryobjectives of the LSA SoliciItnataidodni.tion, the LSA awardees have not demonstratedcommercial viability, which ostensibly was a requirement for award. In fact, two of the awardees(ULA and Northrop Grumman) have recently and repeatedly acknowledged that their LSAvehicles are "purpose-built" for NSS launches and are unlikely to be commercially viable.4 Thisin turn risks perpetuating the same critical problems that have plagued the EELV program fordecades: uncontrolled costs and a lack of competition based on commercial viability.
Everyone knew the rules. Elon himself said that his company's proposal missed the mark.
EELV was a mess because the Pentagon went with two providers at the last minute instead of the originally-planned single provider. Two is already too many, IMO. Three - combined with a delay - would be yet another high-cost fiasco.
From pages 4 and 5:Quote5. By contrast, SpaceX bid its existing, operational Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy vehicles for all missions set to occur before late 2025 and a newer, even more capable and cost effective system, the Big Falcon Rocket (now Starship), for a tiny fraction of NSS missions tolaunch no earlier than late 2025. The Agency's Source Selection Authority ("SSA") nonethelessdetermined that SpaceX's one developmental launch vehicle rendered the entire SpaceX portfoliothe "highest risk" and chose the portfolio that best served the needs of ULA, the long-standingincumbent. (Award Decision at 9, Ex. I.) This appraisal of risk is counter to the stated evaluation criteria and, by any objective measure, unreasonable. As a consequence, the Agency madesignificant awards to ULA and the two offerors that are currently developing major componentsfor ULA's new rocket-in effect, the Agency made awards to ULA and two subcontractors for itsnew, proposed launch vehicle system.6. By selecting for its LSA portfolio three unbuilt, unflown systems-all of whichshare major common systems relative to the ULA vehicle-the Agency has tilted the playing fieldsteeply in favor of unproven rockets that clearly will not be certified for any NSS launches on thetimeframes dictated in the LSA Solicitation, risking assured access to space and defeating the veryobjectives of the LSA SoliciItnataidodni.tion, the LSA awardees have not demonstratedcommercial viability, which ostensibly was a requirement for award. In fact, two of the awardees(ULA and Northrop Grumman) have recently and repeatedly acknowledged that their LSAvehicles are "purpose-built" for NSS launches and are unlikely to be commercially viable.4 Thisin turn risks perpetuating the same critical problems that have plagued the EELV program fordecades: uncontrolled costs and a lack of competition based on commercial viability.Edit to add: a lot more details in the 79 page submission. Not pulling any punches ...
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1131256730820718594QuoteBREAKING: Federal court unseals redacted SpaceX bid complaint, which challenges the Air Force awarding $2.3 billion to Blue Origin, ULA and Northrop Grumman.Read the full complaint:https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/22/spacex-lawsuit-challenges-air-force-rocket-awards-to-competitors-including-jeff-bezos-blue-origin.htmlQuoteThe full SpaceX complaint alleges that the Air Force “wrongly awarded” the funds “to a portfolio of three unproven rockets based on unstated metrics.”Edit to add: complaint attached
Spacex is punish having system F9 and FH9 ready.And having in development new system that could change future launch services more then reusable F9 did it.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 05/22/2019 01:23 pmJust a side note, but I kind of agree with Blue Origin about the questionability of deciding now who to award all (or a huge chunk) of the USAF flights starting in 2021.And I think SpaceX is right to protest the LSA, which is basically giving Blue Origin a vertical integration capability and a huge leg up, even though they haven't launched didley squat to orbit and are years behind in qualifying the BE-4 for launch. It's also questionable to award LSA to two companies which are both effectively relying on the same first engine, an engine which has not yet been flight qualified and could further be delayed.I think the USAF should at least consider awarding to 3 companies this time.Everyone knew the rules. Elon himself said that his company's proposal missed the mark. As for Blue, they've had years and years to get ready. If they are not ready, if their engine is not ready, then neither should win as I see things.EELV was a mess because the Pentagon went with two providers at the last minute instead of the originally-planned single provider. Two is already too many, IMO. Three - combined with a delay - would be yet another high-cost fiasco. - Ed Kyle
So according to the filing, SpaceX did bid F9 and FH for the entire LSA, except for Class C launches starting in Sept. 2025 for which they bid Starship. They did bid VI at both Canaveral and Vandy.
