Author Topic: Falcon 1 - Post Failure thread (Read 134919 times)

braddock · « **Reply #400 on:** 08/14/2006 03:12 pm »

SpaceX is going for a NASA Launch Services contract:

From Flight International: http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/08/08/Navigation/177/208341/Spacex+eyes+US+government+work+.html

NLS released its request for proposals (RFP) on 31 July and Spacex confirms it "will be bidding". Bidders have until 31 August to submit proposals for what would be indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) task order contracts. The original NLS RFP was issued in 1999 and remains open for 10 years.

Jim · « **Reply #401 on:** 08/18/2006 01:17 pm »

DARPA is funding the US Gov Falcon 9.

braddock · « **Reply #402 on:** 08/18/2006 04:40 pm »

DARPA for Falcon 9 - interesting. Why all the undisclosed "US Gov't Customer" mystery then, which just screams NRO?

Is it just so SpaceX doesn't look like a DARPA research project? Or is there more to it?

aero313 · « **Reply #403 on:** 08/18/2006 04:58 pm »

Quote

Jim - 18/8/2006 9:04 AM

DARPA is funding the US Gov Falcon 9.

Jim,

Do you have proof of this? There are some people who will ask the question of how DARPA can fund this without running a competition or issuing a sole source justification.

jimvela · « **Reply #404 on:** 08/18/2006 05:16 pm »

Quote

aero313 - 18/8/2006 10:45 AM

Quote
Jim - 18/8/2006 9:04 AM

DARPA is funding the US Gov Falcon 9.

Jim,

Do you have proof of this? There are some people who will ask the question of how DARPA can fund this without running a competition or issuing a sole source justification.

Different Jim, but straight from the horse' mouth:

http://www.spacex.com/index.html?section=media&content=http%3A//www.spacex.com/press15.php

http://www.spacex.com/index.html?section=media&content=http%3A//www.spacex.com/press24.php

Note that there are DARPA launches manifested. That seems to be a pretty definative indication that DARPA is funding the program.

Jim · « **Reply #405 on:** 08/18/2006 05:30 pm »

The same way as the falcon 1. It depends on the requirement.

Jim · « **Reply #406 on:** 08/18/2006 05:35 pm »

Quote

jimvela - 18/8/2006 1:03 PM

Quote
aero313 - 18/8/2006 10:45 AM

Quote
Jim - 18/8/2006 9:04 AM

DARPA is funding the US Gov Falcon 9.

Jim,

Do you have proof of this? There are some people who will ask the question of how DARPA can fund this without running a competition or issuing a sole source justification.

Different Jim, but straight from the horse' mouth:

http://www.spacex.com/index.html?section=media&content=http%3A//www.spacex.com/press15.php

That is not for the falcon 9. Only the falcon 1. And the two missions listed are the first 2 falcon 1's

jimvela · « **Reply #407 on:** 08/18/2006 07:03 pm »

Quote

Jim - 18/8/2006 9:04 AM
>> That is not for the falcon 9. Only the falcon 1. And the two missions listed are the first 2 falcon 1's

You are correct- even in my edited post above (which added the SpaceX' published launch manifest- the 2nd URL),
they only list the F9 customer as "US Government":

US Government     Q1 2008     Falcon 9     Kwajalein

I don't find any indication that DARPA is funding that F9 or any other F9 launch- did you have a source of that information?

The full published manifest looks like this:
Customer     Launch Date     Vehicle     Departure Point
US Defense Dept (DARPA)    Q1 2006    Falcon 1    Kwajalein
US Defense Dept (DARPA)    Q4 2006    Falcon 1    Kwajalein
US Defense Dept (OSD/NRL)    Q4 2006    Falcon 1    Kwajalein
Malaysia (ATSB)    Q3 2007    Falcon 1    Kwajalein
US Government    Q1 2008    Falcon 9    Kwajalein
SpaceDev    Q2 2008    Falcon 1    Vandenberg
MDA Corp.    Q2 2008    Falcon 9    Kwajalein
MDA Corp.    Q3 2008    Falcon 1    Vandenberg
Bigelow Aerospace    Q4 2008    Falcon 9    Kwajalein
Swedish Space Corp.    Q4 2009    Falcon 1    Vandenberg
US Air Force    $100 million contract thru 2010    Falcon 1    TBD

Sorry about the formatting, I don't know how to drop the table in as HTML...

Jim · « **Reply #408 on:** 08/18/2006 07:10 pm »

can't divulge it, but it is reliable

aero313 · « **Reply #409 on:** 08/18/2006 08:23 pm »

Quote

jimvela - 18/8/2006 1:03 PM

Note that there are DARPA launches manifested. That seems to be a pretty definative indication that DARPA is funding the program.

That's not how launch service contracts work. DARPA did not fund the development of the program, they bought a launch service. This is also how the Pegasus and Taurus programs were run - Orbital paid for the development and DARPA only paid for the costs of their missions. As with the first SpaceX missions, the Orbital contracts were firm fixed price (on which Orbital lost their shorts...)

More to my point, however, there are laws called the FARs (Federal Acquisition Regs) that gov't agencies must follow when awarding contracts. There's also a device called an OTA (Other Transaction Authority) that does not require compliance with the FARs but is very restricted as to where it can be used. The FARs require procurement opportunities and awards to be publicly posted and to be full and open competitions (excepting things like small business set asides) unless sole source justifications are also provided. Of course, the gov't can also do pretty much anything it wants if it's "in the government's best interests", which is how I think the first contract was awarded.

To recap, the first award was from the Air Force and covered the TacSat 1 mission that was supposed to fly from VAFB and for which the gov't paid $3.4M, so I guess that was in the best interests of the gov't. The second gov't launch contract - which paid for what became the first launch attempt if you're keeping score - was the DARPA/FALCON program. That was an $8M contract and was actually an OTA. Of course, the statement of work for that contract (as noted by SpaceX on September 20, 2004) required: "The demonstration will take place next summer with the objective of cutting on pad processing time by a factor of two from the standard commercial Falcon I launcher". I don't think they satisfied that requirement but still got fully paid. After the failure, DARPA awared them another Falcon I launch for $7M, but the contract vehicle for this award was not made public. It would be entirely approriate (and legal) for this second launch to have been awarded as a priced option under the original OTA if such options were in the original document - otherwise there would have to have been some sort of legal finegaling of the type that Elon has denounced when it comes to BoLockMart. Darn those glass houses...

The $100M IDIQ contract awarded to SpaceX under the Air Force's Responsive Small Spacelift procurement was fully a full and open competition - Orbital was also awarded a contract under that procurement. The Falcon 9 award mechanism has not been made public, however. Again, there are legal ways this could have been done, such as through a BAA (Broad Agency Announcement), but it clearly would be useful to know how this happened. It does smack of the same favoratism that Elon has complained about when he doesn't get the contract. Ultimately, any gov't contract must be made available through a FOIA request.