Author Topic: RD-180 ban part 2: McCain, McCarthy to introduce bill to reinstate RD-180 ban  (Read 121212 times)

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12095
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18197
  • Likes Given: 12158
http://spacenews.com/mccain-mccarthy-to-introduce-bill-to-reinstate-rd-180-ban/

Quote from: Jeff Foust
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) will introduce a bill that repeals a provision in the 2016 omnibus spending bill allowing continued purchases of RD-180 engines for national security missions.
« Last Edit: 01/27/2016 02:44 pm by woods170 »

Offline ZachS09

  • Space Savant
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8406
  • Roanoke, TX
  • Liked: 2344
  • Likes Given: 2060
Liftoff for St. Jude's! Go Dragon, Go Falcon, Godspeed Inspiration4!

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
It was expected. While backstabbing is a time-honored tradition on politics, vengeance also is. McCain took the backroom modification to the omnibus bill as treason and thus this might have became personal. I don't know how the rest of Congress will take this. In any case, ULA will already have ordered more RD-180 and have them in stock. Thus, he might be able to negotiate a hard date for no RD-180 use, like forbidden for any mission planned for NET 2020 launch.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12095
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18197
  • Likes Given: 12158
It was expected. While backstabbing is a time-honored tradition on politics, vengeance also is. McCain took the backroom modification to the omnibus bill as treason and thus this might have became personal. I don't know how the rest of Congress will take this. In any case, ULA will already have ordered more RD-180 and have them in stock. Thus, he might be able to negotiate a hard date for no RD-180 use, like forbidden for any mission planned for NET 2020 launch.

IMO in the next round of appropriations any new (or re-instated) ban on RD-180 will again be nullified. Just like happened last time.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
I understand what you think. But I look at it from a political view. Being overuled like that means a serious loss of power. And if politicians are obsessed about something, it is power. I the very issue he took as a personal flag can be so manipulated, then his influence plummets and he becomes irrelevant. I think he might even vote against an omnibus "must-pass" bill if they do this again. Politics are very cut-throat.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4046
  • Likes Given: 2089
IMO in the next round of appropriations any new (or re-instated) ban on RD-180 will again be nullified. Just like happened last time.
The proverbial moment of truth for this legislation may happen before 2017 appropriations, which aren't likely to be passed until we have a President-elect...it will be interesting to see how it plays out and I would not be surprised to see parliamentary maneuvering involved.  The first "thing" is to see what the "vehicle" for the language is, whether it's more or less a standalone bill or it's attached to something larger, broader, and/or unrelated.  I'm not sure if that was noted either in today's hearing or in any of the press releases.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
I understand what you think. But I look at it from a political view. Being overuled like that means a serious loss of power. And if politicians are obsessed about something, it is power. I the very issue he took as a personal flag can be so manipulated, then his influence plummets and he becomes irrelevant. I think he might even vote against an omnibus "must-pass" bill if they do this again. Politics are very cut-throat.
This man endured a "stay" at the "Hanoi-Hilton"... He's not some "pushover-loser" no matter what Mr. Trump might think of him... He has fight in him...
« Last Edit: 01/27/2016 09:14 pm by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Port

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 111
  • Germany
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 8
i think is whole story is so funny :D

on the one side you have senators with monetary incentives to let ULA buy whatever they want,
on the other you have cold-war veterans that don't want to be dependant on russia under no circumstance

i'm only on mcCain's side because at least he has principles, although on alot of other subjects he's a total nutjob...
it's always a good thing when a politician shows that cooperations can't buy every politicians opinion :)
« Last Edit: 01/27/2016 09:43 pm by Port »

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
i think is whole story is so funny :D

on the one side you have senators with monetary incentives to let ULA buy whatever they want,
on the other you have cold-war veterans that don't want to be dependant on russia under no circumstance

i'm only on mcCain's side because at least he has principles, although on alot of other subjects he's a total nutjob...
it's always a good thing when a politician shows that cooperations can't buy every politicians opinion :)
It's also election season... ;)
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
When it rains it pours.

ULA has bought itself more trouble besides just the RD-180 possible ban reinstatement.

http://spacenews.com/u-s-air-force-looks-at-ending-ulas-launch-capability-payment/

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12095
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18197
  • Likes Given: 12158
When it rains it pours.

ULA has bought itself more trouble besides just the RD-180 possible ban reinstatement.

http://spacenews.com/u-s-air-force-looks-at-ending-ulas-launch-capability-payment/
No, I don't think so. IMO USAF will eventually report that terminating ELC early is a breach of contract and therefore early termination will not happen.
I did however like the way how McCain stated that ULA receives $800 million "to do nothing". That is not going to sit very well with folks like Bruno and Collins.

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1553
  • Liked: 501
  • Likes Given: 759
When it rains it pours.

ULA has bought itself more trouble besides just the RD-180 possible ban reinstatement.

http://spacenews.com/u-s-air-force-looks-at-ending-ulas-launch-capability-payment/
No, I don't think so. IMO USAF will eventually report that terminating ELC early is a breach of contract and therefore early termination will not happen.
I did however like the way how McCain stated that ULA receives $800 million "to do nothing". That is not going to sit very well with folks like Bruno and Collins.

If USAF wants to pay for its epic schedule slips and unique demands at the hourly billable rate I'm sure that can be arranged.

Offline montyrmanley

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 112
  • Liked: 83
  • Likes Given: 9
No, I don't think so. IMO USAF will eventually report that terminating ELC early is a breach of contract and therefore early termination will not happen.
...snip...

ULA may have shot itself in the foot with the GPS mission no-bid, then. The AF could argue that by no-bidding the mission, ULA itself terminated the contract.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
So ULA declined to bid the mission, because they knew they couldn't beat SpaceX's price. That move has apparently brought down the Air Force's ire because they pay them to always be prepared to fly (translated: at least bid on it). What ULA should have done is bid the Delta-IV, which would have been legal. They still would have lost the bid to SpaceX (same result - nothing changes), but they wouldn't be having to deal with the anger of their only customer and bringing down the wrath of Senator McCain and his allies. Sometimes I wonder just what the hell the people at the top of ULA are thinking, or even if they actually are. :(
« Last Edit: 01/28/2016 12:28 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline montyrmanley

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 112
  • Liked: 83
  • Likes Given: 9
So ULA declined to bid the mission, because they knew they couldn't beat SpaceX's price. That move has apparently brought down the Air Force's ire because they pay them to always be prepared to fly (translated: at least bid on it). What ULA should have done is bid the Delta-IV, which would have been legal. They still would have lost the bid to SpaceX (same result - nothing changes), but they wouldn't be having to deal with the anger of their only customer and bringing down the wrath of Senator McCain and his allies. Sometimes I wonder just what the hell the people at the top of ULA are thinking, or even if they actually are. :(

This is speculation on my part (obviously) but the no-bid feels like a ULA gambit to force the RD180 issue. ULA obviously anticipated an ally in the Air Force, but they may have miscalculated there. The Air Force is under fire for problems with performance and cost containment on a lot of projects (F35, I'm looking at you); they're not going to want to try Congress's patience by insisting on Russian engines when perfectly good American-sourced alternatives are available (ULA with the Delta series, SpaceX with the Falcon 9). Sen. McCain made this point himself: ULA *could* offer the Delta vehicle as an alternative; they *choose* not to.

Sen. McCain has his dander up now, and I think even Sen. Shelby will stay out of his way on this one. In terms of the big picture the RD180 issue is small beans, and neither the AF nor Sen. Shelby are going to want to burn their bridges to defend a decision to buy stuff from a Russian government that is already under US sanction.

But that leaves ULA in the same bind they were in before: a limited stock of engines (some of which they want to use for commercial launches) and no prospect of getting the Vulcan platform operational until the early 2020's. (And that's assuming they start bending metal right now.)
« Last Edit: 01/28/2016 12:40 pm by montyrmanley »

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 3429
  • Likes Given: 741
ULA may have shot itself in the foot with the GPS mission no-bid, then. The AF could argue that by no-bidding the mission, ULA itself terminated the contract.

Do we imagine that somehow ULA failed to run this by their legal department and thereby inadvertently jeopardized an $800M/yr contract? No way. If there had been any doubt, they would have thrown a few million $ at a losing bid just to cover their behinds and protect ELC.

The Air Force is throwing Congress the predictable bone, "we're looking at it," meaning their procurement office is re-reading the fine print, and will come to the same conclusion ULA's lawyers did, ie there's no basis for termination. IMHO.
« Last Edit: 01/28/2016 01:15 pm by Kabloona »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12095
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18197
  • Likes Given: 12158
ULA may have shot itself in the foot with the GPS mission no-bid, then. The AF could argue that by no-bidding the mission, ULA itself terminated the contract.

Do we imagine that somehow ULA failed to run this by their legal department and thereby inadvertently jeopardized an $800M contract? No way. If there had been any doubt, they would have thrown a few million $ at a losing bid just to cover their behinds and protect ELC.

The Air Force is throwing Congress the predictable bone, "we're looking at it," meaning their procurement office is re-reading the fine print, and will come to the same conclusion ULA's lawyers did, ie there's no basis for temination. IMHO.
Exactly. IMO, the thing is that they have already covered their proverbial behinds. ULA was very carefull to give TWO reasons for not bidding on the GPS launch:
- We don't have an engine available courtesy of the Congressionally mandated RD-180 ban.
- We don't have the right accounting system in place courtesy of USAF changing the accounting rules.

When the stab at Congress fails they will still get away with the second argument IMO.

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
ULA may have shot itself in the foot with the GPS mission no-bid, then. The AF could argue that by no-bidding the mission, ULA itself terminated the contract.

Do we imagine that somehow ULA failed to run this by their legal department and thereby inadvertently jeopardized an $800M contract? No way. If there had been any doubt, they would have thrown a few million $ at a losing bid just to cover their behinds and protect ELC.

The Air Force is throwing Congress the predictable bone, "we're looking at it," meaning their procurement office is re-reading the fine print, and will come to the same conclusion ULA's lawyers did, ie there's no basis for temination. IMHO.
Exactly. IMO, the thing is that they have already covered their proverbial behinds. ULA was very carefull to give TWO reasons for not bidding on the GPS launch:
- We don't have an engine available courtesy of the Congressionally mandated RD-180 ban.
- We don't have the right accounting system in place courtesy of USAF changing the accounting rules.

When the stab at Congress fails they will still get away with the second argument IMO.
Actually the second one if used as a reasoning will bite them. It was due to ULA receiving the ELC contract to do things that would lower the bid price. What they meant was that the did not track the charges and activities on this contract by launch so they were unable to disengage these charges sufficiently to then create a accurate bid.

Another item is a little clause in every goverment contract that says that the contract can be terminated at any time by the government. And since this is a services contract and not hardware delivery the termination costs are only the severance packages for the employees as reported lay off. At most if they lay off everyone that works on the contract the termination costs would be no more than 25% of 1 year of funding or <$200M. if only 20% of the workforce is lay off (if they lay off more they won't be able to launch anything and ULA will be in default of all their other contracts) the termination costs are <$40M. So termination costs are likely to be only 5% of one year. Remember this is a cost plus contract so termination costs are simple and also very low.

The problems are with the other contracts and if they reference having a ELC active as a requirement for contract fulfilment in the form of government provider services (even if it is ULA providing those swervices to ULA it is still being purchased by the AF and being then provided back to ULA). This last is the truly AF problem in early termination not anything else such as termination costs.

The ELC is the sand upon which all the other AF contracts with ULA is built. Remove the sand and all of those other existing contracts will have to be renegotiated including the block buy. This is why they will likely not pull the plug this year or the next but they could still back the last year of the ELC up by one year for its end to be in 2018 vs in 2019 meaning opening up more flights to competition and renegotiation of the block buy reducing the total cores ordered count.

Offline Rummy

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 126
  • CA
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 20
ULA may have shot itself in the foot with the GPS mission no-bid, then. The AF could argue that by no-bidding the mission, ULA itself terminated the contract.

Do we imagine that somehow ULA failed to run this by their legal department and thereby inadvertently jeopardized an $800M contract? No way. If there had been any doubt, they would have thrown a few million $ at a losing bid just to cover their behinds and protect ELC.

The Air Force is throwing Congress the predictable bone, "we're looking at it," meaning their procurement office is re-reading the fine print, and will come to the same conclusion ULA's lawyers did, ie there's no basis for temination. IMHO.
Exactly. IMO, the thing is that they have already covered their proverbial behinds. ULA was very carefull to give TWO reasons for not bidding on the GPS launch:
- We don't have an engine available courtesy of the Congressionally mandated RD-180 ban.
- We don't have the right accounting system in place courtesy of USAF changing the accounting rules.

When the stab at Congress fails they will still get away with the second argument IMO.
Actually the second one if used as a reasoning will bite them. It was due to ULA receiving the ELC contract to do things that would lower the bid price. What they meant was that the did not track the charges and activities on this contract by launch so they were unable to disengage these charges sufficiently to then create a accurate bid.

Another item is a little clause in every goverment contract that says that the contract can be terminated at any time by the government. And since this is a services contract and not hardware delivery the termination costs are only the severance packages for the employees as reported lay off. At most if they lay off everyone that works on the contract the termination costs would be no more than 25% of 1 year of funding or <$200M. if only 20% of the workforce is lay off (if they lay off more they won't be able to launch anything and ULA will be in default of all their other contracts) the termination costs are <$40M. So termination costs are likely to be only 5% of one year. Remember this is a cost plus contract so termination costs are simple and also very low.

The problems are with the other contracts and if they reference having a ELC active as a requirement for contract fulfilment in the form of government provider services (even if it is ULA providing those swervices to ULA it is still being purchased by the AF and being then provided back to ULA). This last is the truly AF problem in early termination not anything else such as termination costs.

The ELC is the sand upon which all the other AF contracts with ULA is built. Remove the sand and all of those other existing contracts will have to be renegotiated including the block buy. This is why they will likely not pull the plug this year or the next but they could still back the last year of the ELC up by one year for its end to be in 2018 vs in 2019 meaning opening up more flights to competition and renegotiation of the block buy reducing the total cores ordered count.

You make a lot of good points.  IMO, even if nothing comes from this early termination speculation, it harms ULA in the future.  If SpaceX continues its string of accomplishments, then everyone else will be competing for second place... and the Air Force is already hedging its bets for the second place slot with Orbital ATK.  By taking actions that to sell more Atlases to fund Vulcan, ULA may have soured its relationship with its main Vulcan potential customer.

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
The final item is that the AF policy of two LVs is just that a policy and not a requirement. If there is not two qualified LVs but only one the AF does not have a problem. If ULA keeps going they may eliminate themselves as being a qualified provider. It is been set that it is in the interest of AF to have a second LV, but only if it is within reason (basically within budget).

As in all things any AF contract is subject to the whims of congress and clauses in every contract so stipulate that there are no real guarantees for a contract and that no termination costs will occur if the contract is not picked up in the new FY. The current FY includes the funds for termination at the end of every FY. This is the normal way all services contracts are created. ELC is a yearly service contract and can be terminated at the end of the FY without additional costs. The problem as I said is those other multi year hardware/services mixed contracts are dependent on the existence of ELC. 

At the same time of reinstating the ban congress can also deallocate the funds for ELC leaving the AF scrambling to pick up the pieces. This current evaluation is also the AF determining what their options and course of actions are if congress kills the funding for ELC.

Tags:
 

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