Author Topic: March 5, 2014 Hearing on National Security Space Launch Programs (Musk and Gass)  (Read 148113 times)

Online TrevorMonty

Reliability and cost make up 2 criteria for DOD contacts but there are others. Launching on time is also very important and so far Spacex has had a poor record in this regards. Having a dedicated launch pad for DOD missions will help address this.

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1101
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
Reliability and cost make up 2 criteria for DOD contacts but there are others. Launching on time is also very important and so far Spacex has had a poor record in this regards. Having a dedicated launch pad for DOD missions will help address this.
The problem from my perspective is not that SpaceX ignores schedule, it's that DOD ignores cost. The current DOD budget isn't sustainable, and DOD has funded some studies that start with that very premise.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 722
  • Likes Given: 729
Reliability and cost make up 2 criteria for DOD contacts but there are others. Launching on time is also very important and so far Spacex has had a poor record in this regards. Having a dedicated launch pad for DOD missions will help address this.
The problem from my perspective is not that SpaceX ignores schedule, it's that DOD ignores cost. The current DOD budget isn't sustainable, and DOD has funded some studies that start with that very premise.

The problem from my perspective is making "political theatre" out of a commercial contract :(
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1101
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
Reliability and cost make up 2 criteria for DOD contacts but there are others. Launching on time is also very important and so far Spacex has had a poor record in this regards. Having a dedicated launch pad for DOD missions will help address this.
The problem from my perspective is not that SpaceX ignores schedule, it's that DOD ignores cost. The current DOD budget isn't sustainable, and DOD has funded some studies that start with that very premise.

The problem from my perspective is making "political theatre" out of a commercial contract :(
Theater, yes, but getting everything out in the open is the only way I know to (possibly) get a decision made that has some rationale, rather than just the usual process of whoever can pay the largest bribe (sorry, legal campaign contribution), or offer the cushiest job to the government decisionmakers when they retire, getting their way. In this case it will be harder to exclude SpaceX from the next round, which will not only help SpaceX but will actually be good for ULA, because it can tell its owners that it needs to actually control costs, which it is perfectly capable of doing if it had any real incentive.
« Last Edit: 03/17/2014 07:51 pm by vulture4 »

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 722
  • Likes Given: 729
Reliability and cost make up 2 criteria for DOD contacts but there are others. Launching on time is also very important and so far Spacex has had a poor record in this regards. Having a dedicated launch pad for DOD missions will help address this.
The problem from my perspective is not that SpaceX ignores schedule, it's that DOD ignores cost. The current DOD budget isn't sustainable, and DOD has funded some studies that start with that very premise.

The problem from my perspective is making "political theatre" out of a commercial contract :(
Theater, yes, but getting everything out in the open is the only way I know to (possibly) get a decision made that has some rationale, rather than just the usual process of whoever can pay the largest bribe (sorry, legal campaign contribution), or offer the cushiest job to the government decisionmakers when they retire, getting their way.

Yeah, I'd like to see how much in campaign contributions the Chairman from Ill. received from aerospace if at all  ::)
 
« Last Edit: 03/19/2014 01:15 am by Prober »
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37957
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22247
  • Likes Given: 432
whoever can pay the largest bribe (sorry, legal campaign contribution), or offer the cushiest job to the government decisionmakers when they retire, getting their way.

Not applicable to ULA and there are no former law makers working for ULA

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 722
  • Likes Given: 729
ULA is ready and able to compete with SpaceX - Gass.


In hindsight this is decent comment by Gass.

Just found this statement in http://tinyurl.com/koxe7gb

If ULA wants they could super mass produce the RD-180 and have a Falcon Heavy killer!

"The RD-180 engine has been test-certified not only for the current Atlas V launch vehicle, but also for the tri-booster Atlas V heavy launch vehicle (HLV)"
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37957
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22247
  • Likes Given: 432

If ULA wants they could super mass produce the RD-180 and have a Falcon Heavy killer!

"The RD-180 engine has been test-certified not only for the current Atlas V launch vehicle, but also for the tri-booster Atlas V heavy launch vehicle (HLV)"


No, ULA is going to build the Atlas V HLV since it has the Delta IV heavy.  And also, it would still have less performance than the Falcon Heavy.

And ULA does not produce the RD-180, Aerojet would

Offline beancounter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1249
  • Perth, Western Australia
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 172

If ULA wants they could super mass produce the RD-180 and have a Falcon Heavy killer!

"The RD-180 engine has been test-certified not only for the current Atlas V launch vehicle, but also for the tri-booster Atlas V heavy launch vehicle (HLV)"


No, ULA is going to build the Atlas V HLV since it has the Delta IV heavy.  And also, it would still have less performance than the Falcon Heavy.

And ULA does not produce the RD-180, Aerojet would

When is this going to happen?  I must have missed the news.
Beancounter from DownUnder

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5361
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2242
  • Likes Given: 3883
I think Jim means ULA is not going to build the Atlas V-H, because they have Delta IV-H - he may have left the word 'not' out due to a typo. And the only way Atlas V could beat the cross-feed Falcon Heavy would be if ULA built a 5x core stage configuration.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7324
  • Liked: 2812
  • Likes Given: 1477
Yeah, I'd like to see how much in campaign contributions the Chairman from Ill. received from aerospace if at all  ::)

The relevant page on opensecrets.org lists Lockheed Martin and Boeing as his two largest donors in 2009-14.  He received quite a bit more moola from law firms as a whole than he did from aerospace firms, however.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 722
  • Likes Given: 729
Yeah, I'd like to see how much in campaign contributions the Chairman from Ill. received from aerospace if at all  ::)

The relevant page on opensecrets.org lists Lockheed Martin and Boeing as his two largest donors in 2009-14.  He received quite a bit more moola from law firms as a whole than he did from aerospace firms, however.

To be fair to both parties, did he receive any donations from Solar City, Tesla Motors, SpaceX etc?
 
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 722
  • Likes Given: 729

If ULA wants they could super mass produce the RD-180 and have a Falcon Heavy killer!

"The RD-180 engine has been test-certified not only for the current Atlas V launch vehicle, but also for the tri-booster Atlas V heavy launch vehicle (HLV)"


No, ULA is going to build the Atlas V HLV since it has the Delta IV heavy.  And also, it would still have less performance than the Falcon Heavy.

And ULA does not produce the RD-180, Aerojet would

Right Jim, wrote ULA when I should have written AeroJet company.

My thinking was more toward the idea that it might be better to keep the RD-180 production under a new company with Some AeroJet ownership.   That might help with any "possible" conflicts with the AJ26 engine program.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7324
  • Liked: 2812
  • Likes Given: 1477
Yeah, I'd like to see how much in campaign contributions the Chairman from Ill. received from aerospace if at all  ::)

The relevant page on opensecrets.org lists Lockheed Martin and Boeing as his two largest donors in 2009-14.  He received quite a bit more moola from law firms as a whole than he did from aerospace firms, however.

To be fair to both parties, did he receive any donations from Solar City, Tesla Motors, SpaceX etc?

You can check, but if he did, they would have been much smaller.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37957
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22247
  • Likes Given: 432

My thinking was more toward the idea that it might be better to keep the RD-180 production under a new company with Some AeroJet ownership.   That might help with any "possible" conflicts with the AJ26 engine program.


why?  And there are no other equivalent companies to handle it.  And RD-180 is just as much Aerojet's as is AJ-26.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 722
  • Likes Given: 729

My thinking was more toward the idea that it might be better to keep the RD-180 production under a new company with Some AeroJet ownership.   That might help with any "possible" conflicts with the AJ26 engine program.


why?  And there are no other equivalent companies to handle it.  And RD-180 is just as much Aerojet's as is AJ-26.

Why?  thinking ahead now.....the Orbital lawsuit regarding the RD-180
                                           The Russian issue of manufacture RD-180 & AJ-26

I could go on...but you get the idea
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37957
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22247
  • Likes Given: 432


Why?  thinking ahead now.....the Orbital lawsuit regarding the RD-180
                                           The Russian issue of manufacture RD-180 & AJ-26

I could go on...but you get the idea

Those have no bearing on Aerojet as the only manufacturer of the RD-180.  There is nobody else in the US who can.

Online PahTo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1714
  • Port Angeles
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 1254

Just thought I'd toss this in per Chris's article on the European Solar Orbiter mission on Atlas V 411 in 2017:

"Tuesday’s announcement of a contract award for a launch three years away at least shows NASA LSP confidence in Atlas V’s medium term future."

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 722
  • Likes Given: 729

Just thought I'd toss this in per Chris's article on the European Solar Orbiter mission on Atlas V 411 in 2017:

"Tuesday’s announcement of a contract award for a launch three years away at least shows NASA LSP confidence in Atlas V’s medium term future."

Yep, well done  ;)

Just goes to show NASA wants more than "cheap"
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline sublimemarsupial

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 386
  • Liked: 261
  • Likes Given: 3

Just thought I'd toss this in per Chris's article on the European Solar Orbiter mission on Atlas V 411 in 2017:

"Tuesday’s announcement of a contract award for a launch three years away at least shows NASA LSP confidence in Atlas V’s medium term future."

Yep, well done  ;)

Just goes to show NASA wants more than "cheap"

Or that maybe SpaceX decided to not bid? Jeff Foust tweeted that NASA's Jim Green was asked why it was riding on an Atlas as opposed to the cheaper F9, and the answer was "Its about competition and who proposes"

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/445701165779812352

Anyways, getting a bit OT here
« Last Edit: 03/19/2014 08:25 pm by sublimemarsupial »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0