-
#40
by
Prober
on 01 May, 2014 13:36
-
We only learnt about the big sole-source award in March. It may have been signed in December but it only came to light, interestingly, one day after the senate hearing on EELV launch costs, which seems remarkably coincidental to me. I don't think that's an accident. We've really just had about a month of awareness and we've been somewhat reeling from that news and trying to see, is this real? Is this actually what's going to be the case? When we basically made no progress with discussions with the air force, we thought we have basically no choice but to file the protest. - transcript
This reply from Musk is so strange than I actually went back and transcribed the question, something I typically don't do. I mean, we all heard about it back in January.
Maybe Mr. Musk needs to become a member of NSF?
Maybe he is?
-
#41
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 01 May, 2014 13:43
-
As I understand it, the injunction that has prohibited fresh purchase of RD-180s from Russia is associated with an Executive Order rather than the SpaceX lawsuit. If that's correct then it's going to be a lot harder to shift than any consequence of the lawsuit, irrespective of who wins.
-
#42
by
MP99
on 01 May, 2014 13:51
-
We only learnt about the big sole-source award in March. It may have been signed in December but it only came to light, interestingly, one day after the senate hearing on EELV launch costs, which seems remarkably coincidental to me. I don't think that's an accident. We've really just had about a month of awareness and we've been somewhat reeling from that news and trying to see, is this real? Is this actually what's going to be the case? When we basically made no progress with discussions with the air force, we thought we have basically no choice but to file the protest. - transcript
This reply from Musk is so strange than I actually went back and transcribed the question, something I typically don't do. I mean, we all heard about it back in January.
Maybe Mr. Musk needs to become a member of NSF?
Maybe he is?
Ahem:-
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=profile;u=4917(Looks like it's never been used.)
cheers, Martin
-
#43
by
Chris Bergin
on 01 May, 2014 14:10
-
Fighting talk from ULA!
ULA statement from Kevin G. MacCary, United Launch Alliance General Counsel, in response to Preliminary Injunction Related to National Security
“ULA is deeply concerned with this ruling and we will work closely with the Department of Justice to resolve the injunction expeditiously. In the meantime, ULA will continue to demonstrate our commitment to our National Security on the launch pad by assuring the safe delivery of the missions we are honored to support.
SpaceX’s attempt to disrupt a national security launch contract so long after the award ignores the potential implications to our National Security and our nation's ability to put Americans on board the International Space Station. Just like ULA, NASA and numerous other companies lawfully conduct business with the same Russian company, other Russia state-owned industries, and Russian Federation agencies. This opportunistic action by SpaceX appears to be an attempt to circumvent the requirements imposed on those who seek to meet the challenging launch needs of the nation and to avoid having to follow the rules, regulations and standards expected of a company entrusted to support our nation's most sensitive missions.”
-
#44
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 01 May, 2014 14:18
-
ULA have been accusing SpaceX at being better at talk than space flight for some time; this press release basically confirms that attitude.
-
#45
by
Kabloona
on 01 May, 2014 14:32
-
As I understand it, the injunction that has prohibited fresh purchase of RD-180s from Russia is associated with an Executive Order rather than the SpaceX lawsuit. If that's correct then it's going to be a lot harder to shift than any consequence of the lawsuit, irrespective of who wins.
That is correct. The temporary injunction now requires opinions from State, Commerce, and Treasury Departments as to whether the payments to Energomash contravene the executive order.
It's hard to see how State Department would give ULA and Rogozin a pass on this issue given the Administration's bluster over the Russian Crimea action. I expect State Department to give an opinion that the engine buy does contravene the executive order, thus temporarily blocking payments to Energomash.
The executive order is not permanent and will be rescinded down the road, at which time ULA will again be able to pay Energomash. Meanwhile, the Administration will look tough on Russia without having done any real damage, since ULA has a large stockpile of RD-180's.
-
#46
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 01 May, 2014 14:58
-
ULA has a large stockpile of RD-180's.
As I understand it, ULA's stockpile of RD-180s is about enough for two years of normal operations (about 20 or so units).
-
#47
by
Rocket Science
on 01 May, 2014 15:02
-
No worries, they have an "oragami clone" of the RD-180 ready to use...
-
#48
by
Lars_J
on 01 May, 2014 15:40
-
It's good to know that ULA's yearly $1B stipend for assured access actually was spent on assured access, and that RD-180 domestic production was nearing reality.
Oh... wait...
-
#49
by
Jim
on 01 May, 2014 17:15
-
As I understand it, the injunction that has prohibited fresh purchase of RD-180s from Russia is associated with an Executive Order rather than the SpaceX lawsuit. If that's correct then it's going to be a lot harder to shift than any consequence of the lawsuit, irrespective of who wins.
That is correct. The temporary injunction now requires opinions from State, Commerce, and Treasury Departments as to whether the payments to Energomash contravene the executive order.
It's hard to see how State Department would give ULA and Rogozin a pass on this issue given the Administration's bluster over the Russian Crimea action. I expect State Department to give an opinion that the engine buy does contravene the executive order, thus temporarily blocking payments to Energomash.
The executive order is not permanent and will be rescinded down the road, at which time ULA will again be able to pay Energomash. Meanwhile, the Administration will look tough on Russia without having done any real damage, since ULA has a large stockpile of RD-180's.
And NASA can still pay RSA, who then pays Energomash also ok?
-
#50
by
edkyle99
on 01 May, 2014 17:33
-
ULA calling SpaceX a traitor, essentially. Ugly.
Ed Kyle
-
#51
by
Antares
on 01 May, 2014 17:34
-
It's good to know that ULA's yearly $1B stipend for assured access actually was spent on assured access, and that RD-180 domestic production was nearing reality.
That is an unfair and inaccurate portrayal of the ELC. It's a bogus subsidy, but you misportray the purpose of ELC.
-
#52
by
Lars_J
on 01 May, 2014 17:42
-
It's good to know that ULA's yearly $1B stipend for assured access actually was spent on assured access, and that RD-180 domestic production was nearing reality.
That is an unfair and inaccurate portrayal of the ELC. It's a bogus subsidy, but you misportray the purpose of ELC.
Yes, I did overgeneralize it - But some of it should have been spent on being ready for an interruption in delivery of RD-180 engines. If someone can illuminate where exactly the $1 billion per year IS spent, I would love to see it.
-
#53
by
Kabloona
on 01 May, 2014 18:15
-
And NASA can still pay RSA, who then pays Energomash also ok?
Yes, it's inconsistent. But politics are often inconsistent. What's new?
-
#54
by
sdsds
on 01 May, 2014 19:37
-
ULA calling SpaceX a traitor, essentially. Ugly.
Not quite. Taking the second bit first:
This opportunistic action by SpaceX appears to be an attempt to circumvent the requirements imposed on those who seek to meet the challenging launch needs of the nation and to avoid having to follow the rules, regulations and standards expected of a company entrusted to support our nation's most sensitive missions.ULA is essentially saying,
"SpaceX [does not] meet the [...] standards expected of a company entrusted [with national security] missions."
The first bit is stronger, describing this as:
SpaceX's attempt to disrupt a national security launch contract.Disrupting a national security
launch would be treasonous. But ULA doesn't quite accuse SpaceX of that. Even so, for a conservative "Old Space" company this is about as strong a statement as they could possibly make!
-
#55
by
GalacticIntruder
on 01 May, 2014 19:57
-
ULA itself is a strange entity. What is stopping ULA from ending Atlas Production, and increasing D4 production? They have two years of engines to sort out their production of LV and RS68. Domestic RD180 production is going nowhere. Of course I sound like an Elon talking point, but having two LV's under one company, is too much overlap, now. IMO. ULA acts like D4 is a POS. Might cost more, but hey, "it's all about mission assurance."!
Only in Government contracts does it cost billions of dollars to kill a program, so there are no incentives to kill it.
-
#56
by
sdsds
on 01 May, 2014 20:06
-
For awhile, the facility used by Rocketdyne for RS-68 production was being shared with J-2X. Now that J-2X has been moth-balled (?) is there capacity in that facility to increase RS-68 production?
-
#57
by
butters
on 01 May, 2014 20:18
-
ULA is making it seem as if down-selecting to Delta IV would be a national security crisis of epic proportions. You'd think that losing Delta IV (Heavy) would be more disruptive. So this is really about costs and profit margins? Or are there volume limitations on Delta IV / RS-68 production?
-
#58
by
Kabloona
on 01 May, 2014 20:41
-
ULA calling SpaceX a traitor, essentially. Ugly.
Not quite. Taking the second bit first:
This opportunistic action by SpaceX appears to be an attempt to circumvent the requirements imposed on those who seek to meet the challenging launch needs of the nation and to avoid having to follow the rules, regulations and standards expected of a company entrusted to support our nation's most sensitive missions.
ULA is essentially saying,
"SpaceX [does not] meet the [...] standards expected of a company entrusted [with national security] missions."
The first bit is stronger, describing this as: SpaceX's attempt to disrupt a national security launch contract.
Disrupting a national security launch would be treasonous. But ULA doesn't quite accuse SpaceX of that. Even so, for a conservative "Old Space" company this is about as strong a statement as they could possibly make!
Of course ULA is taking this opportunity to bash SpaceX in public, just as they feel they have been bashed. But it's strictly theatrical, of course.
The people who will actually be making the judgment call on the RD-180 are the State, Treasury, and Commerce Departments. Oh, and the President himself, who can cancel the executive order sanctioning Rogozin any time he chooses.
So the implication that this RD-180 flap is all SpaceX's fault and is threatening national security is fairly absurd and will be taken at face value only by those people who know nothing about what is actually going on. The Administration that wrote the executive order holds all the cards and can play them however they choose.
-
#59
by
Lar
on 01 May, 2014 20:42
-
ULA is making it seem as if down-selecting to Delta IV would be a national security crisis of epic proportions. You'd think that losing Delta IV (Heavy) would be more disruptive. So this is really about costs and profit margins? Or are there volume limitations on Delta IV / RS-68 production?
They may need to get a bigger flag to wrap themselves in.