-
#120
by
edkyle99
on 12 Jun, 2014 01:41
-
I didn't liked the graph because they failed to pot the v1.0 on SpaceX side. But then they could have talked about then putting Delta I/II/III and Atlas (and may be even Titan).
United Launch Alliance was formed in December 2006, so it has only launched Atlas 5, Delta 4, and Delta 2. All of the other vehicles were retired by the time it was formed.
The chart is unfortunate, especially the crude attempt at a cost comparison, but the general point it was trying to make is correct - that ULA has performed many more launches than SpaceX. SpaceX is really still just getting started.
The good news is that both are flying with success.
- Ed Kyle
-
#121
by
Will
on 12 Jun, 2014 02:04
-
... a category dominated by ULA both past and future.
May I borrow your crystal ball? There's some stock I've been looking at.
The future is a big place; I was referring to the next few years.
ULA has missions in this category on contract, and additional contracts likely before FH flies.
And the Air Force and ULA have locked SpaceX out of several potential contracts for many years to come.
That's what started this whole thing.
According to SpaceX, who is not disinterested. As i read it, SpaceX will probably be certified to bid on the next round of launches in 2015, which is, by my math, less than several years away. Also, they claim that they have no idea how many of the single core launches in the previous block buy they could have launched if they had been certified, which they have not. It follows that the number may actually be zero, but this is, they claim, sufficient reason to negate all of them. This sounds like frivolous litigation to me.
-
#122
by
Sean Lynch
on 12 Jun, 2014 03:54
-
According to SpaceX, who is not disinterested. As i read it, SpaceX will probably be certified to bid on the next round of launches in 2015, which is, by my math, less than several years away. Also, they claim that they have no idea how many of the single core launches in the previous block buy they could have launched if they had been certified, which they have not. It follows that the number may actually be zero, but this is, they claim, sufficient reason to negate all of them. This sounds like frivolous litigation to me. {emphasis added}
Foremost it must be remembered that the protest filed with the Court is against USAF/USG, not ULA.
SpaceX is qualified to bid now having submitted data required for certification.
Initially I kind of had the same reaction Will, as on the surface it appeared that SpaceX was not a qualified bidder.
However as I read the J&A, Court documents and regarded the commentary in other threads by those versed in federal procurement rules and laws and read the timeline it became increasingly clear that I was mistaken in some of my assumptions. If the protest were frivolous it probably would have been dismissed by now.
The first response to the SpaceX Lawsuit was rather good (see first post in this topic).
ULA's subsequent public responses to the SpaceX lawsuit is possibly doing more harm than good for ULA. The best approach- a quiet calm assertive position of confidence based upon past performance...perhaps even offering helpful advice to the newcomer, as an elder brother would. The best response to the injunction...none at all, except perhaps we have the means to provide Atlas V and all EELV launches as required. Instead of full page patriotic appeals and "SpaceX is irresponsible for requesting injunctions"...now, worst of all is the "funny arithmetic." The SpaceX information as presented above calls into question the integrity of ULA, for all of the reasons stated by others above. Fiddling with numbers was a massive blunder.
The better course if anything were to be said at all is to say: "SpaceX is involved in a lot of experimental technology that may prove to be of benefit over time. ULA has found a conservative approach is the most reliable when launching billion dollar payloads and reliability is why the USAF awarded ULA the EELV contract for critical national security launches. We wish SpaceX luck with their experimental technology, perhaps someday risk taking will pay off and their new technology will prove to be as reliable as what ULA offers today."
Instead ULA demonstrates it knows how to cook the books which is not wise when questions of price gouging have been raised.
-
#123
by
Jakusb
on 12 Jun, 2014 07:00
-
According to SpaceX, who is not disinterested. As i read it, SpaceX will probably be certified to bid on the next round of launches in 2015, which is, by my math, less than several years away. Also, they claim that they have no idea how many of the single core launches in the previous block buy they could have launched if they had been certified, which they have not. It follows that the number may actually be zero, but this is, they claim, sufficient reason to negate all of them. This sounds like frivolous litigation to me. {emphasis added}
Foremost it must be remembered that the protest filed with the Court is against USAF/USG, not ULA.
SpaceX is qualified to bid now having submitted data required for certification.
Initially I kind of had the same reaction Will, as on the surface it appeared that SpaceX was not a qualified bidder.
However as I read the J&A, Court documents and regarded the commentary in other threads by those versed in federal procurement rules and laws and read the timeline it became increasingly clear that I was mistaken in some of my assumptions. If the protest were frivolous it probably would have been dismissed by now.
The first response to the SpaceX Lawsuit was rather good (see first post in this topic).
ULA's subsequent public responses to the SpaceX lawsuit is possibly doing more harm than good for ULA. The best approach- a quiet calm assertive position of confidence based upon past performance...perhaps even offering helpful advice to the newcomer, as an elder brother would. The best response to the injunction...none at all, except perhaps we have the means to provide Atlas V and all EELV launches as required. Instead of full page patriotic appeals and "SpaceX is irresponsible for requesting injunctions"...now, worst of all is the "funny arithmetic." The SpaceX information as presented above calls into question the integrity of ULA, for all of the reasons stated by others above. Fiddling with numbers was a massive blunder.
The better course if anything were to be said at all is to say: "SpaceX is involved in a lot of experimental technology that may prove to be of benefit over time. ULA has found a conservative approach is the most reliable when launching billion dollar payloads and reliability is why the USAF awarded ULA the EELV contract for critical national security launches. We wish SpaceX luck with their experimental technology, perhaps someday risk taking will pay off and their new technology will prove to be as reliable as what ULA offers today."
Instead ULA demonstrates it knows how to cook the books which is not wise when questions of price gouging have been raised.
One of the best posts on this topic till now!
Kudos!
-
#124
by
arachnitect
on 12 Jun, 2014 15:23
-
... a category dominated by ULA both past and future.
May I borrow your crystal ball? There's some stock I've been looking at.
The future is a big place; I was referring to the next few years.
ULA has missions in this category on contract, and additional contracts likely before FH flies.
And the Air Force and ULA have locked SpaceX out of several potential contracts for many years to come.
That's what started this whole thing.
I was talking about NASA contracts.
-
#125
by
TrueGrit
on 12 Jun, 2014 17:33
-
Just some perspective in how these government contract lawsuits go... Past lawsuits that were deemed frivolous in hindsight are hardly ever dismissed out of hand. They are all given their fair due and the plaintiff is always given an opportunity to present their case. One would expect this in a world governed by the rule of law, and the high bar that the government is legally bound to stay above. Additionally the speed of the proceedings are almost always driven by the judge, and how they conduct their court. As such I would caution any of you without direct knowledge of how this judge conducts buissness to “read the tea leaves”. Many Supreme Court decisions are completely missed by a litany of media because they “misread the tea leaves”. But to go on and violate my own cautionary stance… If I extrapolate the initial RD180 “knee jerk reaction” by this judge I gain a sense that she/he shades to the point of giving the plaintiff more than its fair shake at things. But it should be noted that the judge quickly agreed with the government position and lifted the ban as soon as they produced the required information. The government initial tack on this is that SpaceX has missed the statute of limitations to file the lawsuit and have it dismissed. By law one company only has 60 days or something like that to challenge a contract award… One can not come in 3 years into a 6 year contract with some new idea that didn’t exist when the original contract was entered into and get the original contract nullified. The government has said the block buy award dates back to 2012 with finalization of the contract in 2013. The judge did not dismiss this agreement out of hand, but simply asked the government to produce an evidence/timeline to backup their claim. Take that where you will, but I would caution you jumps to conclusions just because the judge is being meticulous.
-
#126
by
Sean Lynch
on 12 Jun, 2014 18:39
-
{trimmed quotes}
I was talking about NASA contracts.
NASA contracts brings up another factor that may be very bad for public perception of ULA;
Senator Shelby.
Shelby is fighting for Jobs in his state, and the House members from Alabama are fighting just as hard.
Frankly, that's a good thing. That's what you want your Senator and Congressmen to do if your job may be on the line as long as they're representing the highest ideals of personal integrity.
Whether deserved or not, the actions of Shelby gives the impression that ULA owns the politicians involved in hampering the most successful NASA SAA launch contracts to date.
If I were ULA management I would take immediate steps to distance myself from the language proposed by Shelby.
If I were a ULA employee and management remained silent I would find the actions of Shelby demoralizing because I would feel that my management lacked confidence and integrity to take the competition head on in a fair fight. I would hope that my ULA management would take the high road and denounce the anti competitive NASA commercial program language proposed by Sen. Shelby. Very few want to see the fruit of their labor and a bullet point on their resume having any appearance of benefiting corrupt individuals engaging in back alley politics and bid rigging that the lawsuit may imply.
In my personal work as a subcontractor at SMC, and with other DOD contracts/subcontracts the civil service individuals involved have always been of the highest personal integrity and caliber. It is my hope that the claims in the lawsuit are unjustified.
If I were ULA I would assure the safety of my sterling reputation was preserved untarnished.
-
#127
by
edkyle99
on 19 Jun, 2014 16:20
-
-
#128
by
Sean Lynch
on 19 Jun, 2014 22:24
-
-
#129
by
Prober
on 19 Jun, 2014 23:12
-
-
#130
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 20 Jun, 2014 00:45
-
Well, at least this promotion video got their strengths right without attacking others:
-
#131
by
rcoppola
on 20 Jun, 2014 01:41
-
If there is anyone from ULA's Media / PR Dept. on this site, please PM me. You're great at launching payloads, videos...not so much.
I understand the concept: Make an emotional connection between our products and services, the payloads you launch, to the impact they have on our daily lives in a very real and meaningful way. Got it. Good concept, poor execution.
1. How many "...and we have lift off of the..." calls do you need in one video?
2. How many similar rocket launches do you need to show?
3. Do you suppose throwing in some GPS-in-a-car stock footage pays off your concept? Or most of the other stock footage thrown in for good measure?
4. Don't do horizontal drifting type with imagery that has vertical motion like a rocket launch. You're eyes go crazy trying to read drifting type coming from the left and the right while the imagery is going from bottom to top of the screen. (Also, consistent font and type treatment)
5. What's the optimum length of a video for something like this? Hint...it's not 3+ minutes.
6. etc., etc.
You need a narrative. Showing GPS-in-a-car gets you nowhere. Who's in the car, where are they going? What are you solving for them? Maybe it's a husband and wife with little kids, lost in bad weather, but they make it safe and sound because...etc, you get the idea. So yes, it's about how what you launch, effects real people in real situations. If that's a direction you want to go, and I agree you should, then cut out the repetitive rocket launches, make four 30 second short stories, focus on real people in real situations. End with a ULA logo, Rocket launching in background and nice, friendly, meaningful tagline. I could go on, but...rather OT I admit.
Just trying to be helpful...
-
#132
by
Jim
on 20 Jun, 2014 01:46
-
"100-year combined history" doesn't convey a "state of the art, forward leaning, best practices" message to taxpayers
What says any company is doing "best practices"? Obviously many gov't customers don't (see lack of Spacex gov't contracts)
-
#133
by
okan170
on 20 Jun, 2014 02:18
-
If there is anyone from ULA's Media / PR Dept. on this site, please PM me. You're great at launching payloads, videos...not so much.
I understand the concept: Make an emotional connection between our products and services, the payloads you launch, to the impact they have on our daily lives in a very real and meaningful way. Got it. Good concept, poor execution.
You need a narrative....
Just trying to be helpful...
You could even just be fairly whimsical, and keep all the rocket launches, just find a way to show examples of things visually appearing that those missions enabled. So many ways to make this sort of thing look interesting, I mean it's launching rockets! It doesn't take much in the way of fancy camerawork to look awesome, but it still needs to be brought together in the end.
-
#134
by
Lar
on 20 Jun, 2014 02:45
-
What says any company is doing "best practices"? Obviously many gov't customers don't (see lack of Spacex gov't contracts)
I don't think that it logically follows that SpaceX lack of contracts is due to SpaceX unsuitability. After all, there is a legal action pending right now that makes far different allegations.
ULA is flailing. That WashPo interview won't score any points. They need better PR.
-
#135
by
Space Ghost 1962
on 20 Jun, 2014 03:55
-
What says any company is doing "best practices"? Obviously many gov't customers don't (see lack of Spacex gov't contracts)
I don't think that it logically follows that SpaceX lack of contracts is due to SpaceX unsuitability. After all, there is a legal action pending right now that makes far different allegations.
ULA is flailing. That WashPo interview won't score any points. They need better PR.
They've never been good at PR. They prefer to be quiet. Very proud and with good reason.
Agree about the tin ear in communicating their own virtues. And it bites. I think to the point of over speaking.
Don't dismiss Jim. SpaceX doesn't yet address many necessary needs. And not by accident.
But Jim's wary of SpaceX's attractions with good reason. Among other things it complicates life.
Its an example of how one develops a tin ear. Because to counter a position you must accept first its appeal, in order to be able to confront the position, deny its conclusion, and displace with your position.
If you don't listen and bother to accept its appeal, you can't effectively respond. Dialling the noise machine to 11 these days as an alternative doesn't cut it.
ULA would do better to confront SpaceX's position rather than evade/antagonize/flag wave/etc.
If they don't soon this will be a very one sided issue. Sure way to lose ground fast.
-
#136
by
Lar
on 20 Jun, 2014 04:18
-
Agreed.
And I'm not "dismissing Jim", just saying it's fallacious and circular to argue that SpaceX doesn't have contracts (because they haven't been allowed to have contracts) as proof of why they shouldn't. Which I'm sure Jim will argue wasn't what he said. It wasn't, not in so many words. But it's just as foolish for ULA to say "we're better because we are older" without further elaboration. And attacking SpaceX competence won't fly with everyone. We can see they are competent and gaining ground fast.
But I am not the PR market for ULA, they don't care about fan boys. This patriotic stuff might work with congressmen, which is their real constituency...
-
#137
by
savuporo
on 20 Jun, 2014 05:16
-
2. How many similar rocket launches do you need to show?
I've never felt this quote more fitting than now : "Quantity has a quality all its own"
-
#138
by
Sean Lynch
on 20 Jun, 2014 06:01
-
"100-year combined history" doesn't convey a "state of the art, forward leaning, best practices" message to taxpayers
What says any company is doing "best practices"? Obviously many gov't customers don't (see lack of Spacex gov't contracts)
"What says any company is doing "best practices"?"
I could go on and on about QA, QC, SPC, ERP, MRP, CM, RA, PM... but "results" should be sufficient.
Results in terms of cost, quality, and development time. With best practices you optimize for all three.
Without best practices you are forced to choose any two at the expense of the third without knowing the outcome before hand. The beauty of science lies not in discovery, but in the prediction of results.
"Obviously many gov't customers don't (see lack of Spacex gov't contracts)"
What Lar and Space Ghost 1962 said.
-
#139
by
Sean Lynch
on 20 Jun, 2014 06:12
-
2. How many similar rocket launches do you need to show?
I've never felt this quote more fitting than now : "Quantity has a quality all its own"
Love that because "Quality has a real quantity all its own."