-
SpaceX Actions are Irresponsible
by
georgesowers
on 10 May, 2014 02:12
-
SpaceX, through their judicial filings and their congressional supporters, is now attempting to instruct the executive branch in how to impose and monitor sanctions against Russia.
In their most recent filing with the court, SpaceX chastises the Department of the Treasury for improperly interpreting the sanctions Treasury itself is chartered to interpret and enforce.
In spite of the fact that four separate cabinet level departments — Justice, State, Commerce and Treasury—formally declared that “payments to NPO Energomash would not directly or indirectly contravene [sanctions],” SpaceX continues to irresponsibly push the issue.
The SpaceX argument, if followed, would lead to a dangerous expansion of sanctions far beyond the intent of those currently in place. The SpaceX logic would potentially apply to any U.S. entity engaged in any activity with any Russian entity, far beyond the intent of current foreign policy.
By meddling in foreign policy, SpaceX risks destabilizing a delicate international situation, and distracts administration officials at a critical time, ultimately harming the interests and security of the nation.
SpaceX purports to be taking this stand on principle, in a patriotic effort to ensure the laws of the land are upheld. But SpaceX’s patriotic zeal is limited to an injunction against NPO Energomash, who just happens to be the engine supplier for SpaceX’s most serious competition, the Atlas V.
If motivated by ideology, SpaceX should be just as concerned about many other activities involving U.S and Russian space cooperation. SpaceX attempts to link NPO Energomash to Deputy Prime Minister Dmitri Rogozin through ROSCOSMOS, the Russian equivalent of NASA. Under SpaceX’s logic, for example, all the payments by NASA to ROSCOSMOS for Soyuz launches and other support to the International Space Station (ISS) should also be sanctioned, eliminating U.S. access to the station. Additionally, SeaLaunch should be sanctioned since it uses an engine sold by NPO Energomash. This would harm Ukraine, the makers of the first stage for SeaLaunch.
In fact, based on its overriding moral concern over cooperation with Russia, SpaceX should forgo its ISS cargo supply contracts which directly benefit Russia as a participant in the ISS program.
But SpaceX is not advocating other injunctions nor offering to give up its own missions that benefit Russia. Their patriotism on this issue is merely a façade to hide an overt strategy to eliminate their most serious competitor and avoid the prudent and rigorous process established by the Air Force to legitimately become certified and compete for critical national security launches.
George Sowers, Ph.D.
VP, Strategic Architecture
United Launch Alliance
-
#1
by
Chris Bergin
on 10 May, 2014 02:19
-
I'd just like to note that I've allowed for this op-ed from Dr. Sowers to be posted here.
All news sites (and their associated forums) should strive for balance and objectivity. This above op-ed from Dr. Sowers - in his official capacity - aids that goal, not least when there's been so much siding with SpaceX on this forum.
I strongly insist everyone who responds to this does so in a civil and interesting manner. Posts that are not will be removed per site rules.
-
#2
by
Rob in KC
on 10 May, 2014 02:35
-
Thank you for an interesting piece, Dr. Sowers.
However, while I find SpaceX's use of the Russian/Putin angle to be terribly misguided, doesn't their price tag/value to the taxpayer prove to be the biggest threat to ULA as their goal to "eliminate their most serious competitor".
Would you welcome a straight fight with SpaceX on costs, knowing you're so far apart from each other on that?
-
#3
by
JBF
on 10 May, 2014 02:37
-
Dr Sowers, based on my readings of exhibits A-D your interpretation is wrong.
1. Treasury stated
As of today, no such determination has been made...
They did not reply in the negative, only that they haven't looked into it.
2. Commerce stated that
The Commerce department defers to the Departments of Treasury and State regarding the listing..
That implies they make no separate evaluation.
3 State stated
As of the date of this letter, NPO Energomash has not been affirmatively designated under E.O. 13661.
Once again I will point out this is not positive or a negative judgement.
*Fixed quote in #1
-
#4
by
Lee Jay
on 10 May, 2014 02:43
-
Thank you for an interesting piece, Dr. Sowers.
However, while I find SpaceX's use of the Russian/Putin angle to be terribly misguided, doesn't their price tag/value to the taxpayer prove to be the biggest threat to ULA as their goal to "eliminate their most serious competitor".
Would you welcome a straight fight with SpaceX on costs, knowing you're so far apart from each other on that?
Launch costs are far from a singular measure of value. SpaceX doesn't have a launch success record or a proven ability to meet even their own schedules that comes close to ULA's proven track record.
At this point, I'd only choose SpaceX if I had relatively low value cargo and I didn't care when it got launched.
-
#5
by
Andy DC
on 10 May, 2014 02:47
-
While I agree the Russian angle is a mistake by SpaceX, they appear to win the key battleground of cost.
If I was a customer wanting to move something from A to B and looked in the Yellow Pages and saw Company A had a rich history of successfully moving items from A to B, but cost a small fortune to do so, and then saw Company B, new on the scene, but at a greatly reduced cost for the same service, most people would want to buy services from Company B.
But what's this? I can't even buy the services from Company B, because Company A have politically arranged for the sole right to be the only option for years to come via a non-competed block buy?
Is a slightly longer and slightly more reliable launch history really worth billions in extra cost? If your costs were closer and not miles apart, sure you'd win the argument, no question, but we're talking billions and billions in extra cost when compared to SpaceX.
-
#6
by
edkyle99
on 10 May, 2014 02:51
-
By meddling in foreign policy, SpaceX risks destabilizing a delicate international situation, and distracts administration officials at a critical time, ultimately harming the interests and security of the nation.
....
George Sowers, Ph.D.
VP, Strategic Architecture
United Launch Alliance
The end of the RD-180 injunction thankfully renders most of this discussion moot, but it should be apparent that the "delicate international situation" that Mr. Sowers describes is DoD dependance on a Russian rocket engine. That situation was created by ULA co-owner Lockheed Martin nearly a full decade before SpaceX existed. Mr. Sowers is pointing the finger of blame in the wrong direction.
- Ed Kyle
-
#7
by
georgesowers
on 10 May, 2014 03:13
-
While I'm at it, let me correct a few things for the record:
1. The block buy contract was signed on June 26, 2013. See the attached link. There was a contract
modification executed in December.
http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=5073This was months before the first launch of the F91.1. SpaceX has known since at least 2012 about the AF intentions on the block buy.
2. SpaceX claims of ULA prices are grossly overstated. By factors. The USG has complete transparancy into all ULA costs. No one has any insight into SpaceX costs, not even SpaceX.
3. SpaceX rocket is not capable from a performance or orbit perspective of doing most of the missions in the block buy.
4. ULA does not recieve a subsidy. The launch capability contract has a specific statement of work and requirements. Best way to understand it is the airplace analogy. The capability contract operates the airport, the services contract buys airplanes. This construct provides the USG with maximum flexibility.
-
#8
by
Borklund
on 10 May, 2014 03:16
-
SpaceX does not "instruct" the executive branch any more than any other plaintiff "instructs" the executive branch when they file a suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. A judge rules over cases brought to the court, the plaintiff does not impose its will at, err, will. That is the purview of the judicial branch. Besides, SpaceX and everybody else have the legal right to file a suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
The judge presiding over the case would not be able to institute new foreign policy or widen sanctions to SpaceX's or anyone else's will or logic in this case. The case before the court concerns the latest uncompeted block buy. You also appear to be suggesting that by filing a suit in the US Court of Federal Claims, SpaceX is meddling in foreign policy and "distracting" administration officials from (not) doing anything substantial about the Ukraine crisis, which is a ridiculous claim for a number of reasons.
Furthermore, to claim that SpaceX is trying to avoid the "prudent and rigorous process established by the Air Force to legitimately become certified and compete for critical national security launches" is turning the facts upside down. They are asking for a real chance to compete for those critical national security launches.
Your op-ed seems to me to cast aspersions on a competitor with whom you would appear to stand a slim chance of competing fairly with on merit AND cost, even with a billion dollar a year subsidy in your favour. Why is that, I wonder?
-
#9
by
Jim
on 10 May, 2014 03:20
-
1. The block buy contract was signed on June 26, 2013. See the attached link. There was a contract modification executed in December.
http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=5073
This was months before the first launch of the F91.1. SpaceX has known since at least 2012 about the AF intentions on the block buy.
That is a chink in Spacex's case
-
#10
by
Coastal Ron
on 10 May, 2014 03:25
-
This was a very interesting move by United Launch Alliance (ULA). I guess I haven't been keeping score on the other forums discussing the various aspects of this, but I'll take the word of our host Chris Bergin that "
there's been so much siding with SpaceX on this forum."
Of course in the past I would venture to say that there would have been just the opposite, more siding with ULA versus the upstart SpaceX, but I guess now that SpaceX is becoming more mature and is showing lots of innovation things have changed.
To what Dr. Sowers wrote:
SpaceX, through their judicial filings and their congressional supporters, is now attempting to instruct the executive branch in how to impose and monitor sanctions against Russia.
Being that ULA is co-owned by two of the largest government contractors, using the courts and politicians to pursue business objectives should not be a foreign concept to ULA. Not that I'm saying that's what SpaceX is doing, but if they are then at most they are displaying the same abilities Boeing and Lockheed Martin have shown in the past.
In their most recent filing with the court, SpaceX chastises the Department of the Treasury for improperly interpreting the sanctions Treasury itself is chartered to interpret and enforce.
In spite of the fact that four separate cabinet level departments — Justice, State, Commerce and Treasury—formally declared that “payments to NPO Energomash would not directly or indirectly contravene [sanctions],” SpaceX continues to irresponsibly push the issue.
Freedom of speech. Yes, it hurts sometimes.
The SpaceX argument, if followed, would lead to a dangerous expansion of sanctions far beyond the intent of those currently in place. The SpaceX logic would potentially apply to any U.S. entity engaged in any activity with any Russian entity, far beyond the intent of current foreign policy.
If that's what our politicians have put into law, and the courts find that the law has not been followed, then SpaceX is hardly to blame. Blame the politicians.
By meddling in foreign policy, SpaceX risks destabilizing a delicate international situation...
Again, this situation was created by political action, and it can be solved by political action. Blaming the messenger may make people feel good, but it's avoiding the real situation, which in this case is ULA's use of Russian engines. They are great engines, but this situation cannot be a surprise for ULA.
Their patriotism on this issue is merely a façade to hide an overt strategy to eliminate their most serious competitor and avoid the prudent and rigorous process established by the Air Force to legitimately become certified and compete for critical national security launches.
Questioning the patriotism of a company that could save taxpayers significant amounts of money in the future does not put ULA in a good light.
ULA may not have created the problems we're having with Russia, but neither did SpaceX.
-
#11
by
Jim
on 10 May, 2014 03:29
-
This was a very interesting move by United Launch Alliance (ULA). I guess I haven't been keeping score on the other forums discussing the various aspects of this, but I'll take the word of our host Chris Bergin that "there's been so much siding with SpaceX on this forum."
Of course in the past I would venture to say that there would have been just the opposite, more siding with ULA versus the upstart SpaceX, but I guess now that SpaceX is becoming more mature and is showing lots of innovation things have changed.
Not true. Before Spacex, it was Shuttle, Direct and Constellation. ULA (and OSC) has always taken a back seat to others (through no fault of Chris's) or was an afterthought.
-
#12
by
georgesowers
on 10 May, 2014 03:32
-
By meddling in foreign policy, SpaceX risks destabilizing a delicate international situation, and distracts administration officials at a critical time, ultimately harming the interests and security of the nation.
....
George Sowers, Ph.D.
VP, Strategic Architecture
United Launch Alliance
The end of the RD-180 injunction thankfully renders most of this discussion moot, but it should be apparent that the "delicate international situation" that Mr. Sowers describes is DoD dependance on a Russian rocket engine. That situation was created by ULA co-owner Lockheed Martin nearly a full decade before SpaceX existed. Mr. Sowers is pointing the finger of blame in the wrong direction.
- Ed Kyle
It was actually started by General Dynamics in the early 1990's, which became Martin Marietta, then LM. The context was the aftermath of the dissolution of the Soviet Union when the US had a grave concern about the fate and activities of the suddenly idle Military industrial complex. Nunn-Lugar and the ISS partnership and the RD-180 partnership were born of a broad USG policy to engage Russian industry and provide constructive pursuits versus going to work for third world dictatorships. Furthermore, the US obtained access to technology that simply did not exist in the US at the time. Were there risks? Sure, but the benefits of the US-Russian partnership in space have been tremendous for both sides.
-
#13
by
georgesowers
on 10 May, 2014 03:42
-
Thank you for an interesting piece, Dr. Sowers.
However, while I find SpaceX's use of the Russian/Putin angle to be terribly misguided, doesn't their price tag/value to the taxpayer prove to be the biggest threat to ULA as their goal to "eliminate their most serious competitor".
Would you welcome a straight fight with SpaceX on costs, knowing you're so far apart from each other on that?
Most buyers of launch services don't choose solely on cost, but overall best value. That being said, our costs are much closer to SpaceX prices than they would want you to believe. In direct head to head competition, ULA has won three for three of the latest NASA launch services bids. Those are Far Part 12 (commercial) contracts. Main reason is capability. F9 has very poor capability to orbits other than LEO.
-
#14
by
Coastal Ron
on 10 May, 2014 03:45
-
While I'm at it, let me correct a few things for the record:
4. ULA does not recieve a subsidy. The launch capability contract has a specific statement of work and requirements. Best way to understand it is the airplace analogy. The capability contract operates the airport, the services contract buys airplanes. This construct provides the USG with maximum flexibility.
Regarding the term "subsidy", if one looks at the definition of the word, it's hard to define the Launch Capability contract as anything but a subsidy. No need to debate it, just saying that's how it's viewed in many quarters.
As to the description of what the Launch Capability contract is, it's an interesting analogy. However in the example you provided isn't ULA the only operator at that "airport"? You control the whole facility, so why wouldn't those costs be rolled up into the overall launch costs?
Plus, if/when SpaceX is awarded EELV launch contracts, wouldn't it make sense for them to also receive launch capability contracts?
-
#15
by
SaxtonHale
on 10 May, 2014 03:47
-
I don't want to pick out every verb and adjective in the original post, but it seems hard to discuss words like "irresponsible" and "meddle" when any devil's advocate would call those opinions, and the beginning of a long legal argument as opposed to the end of one.
-
#16
by
Borklund
on 10 May, 2014 04:05
-
This was a very interesting move by United Launch Alliance (ULA). I guess I haven't been keeping score on the other forums discussing the various aspects of this, but I'll take the word of our host Chris Bergin that "there's been so much siding with SpaceX on this forum."
Of course in the past I would venture to say that there would have been just the opposite, more siding with ULA versus the upstart SpaceX, but I guess now that SpaceX is becoming more mature and is showing lots of innovation things have changed.
Not true. Before Spacex, it was Shuttle, Direct and Constellation. ULA (and OSC) has always taken a back seat to others (through no fault of Chris's) or was an afterthought.
I think it's unreasonable to expect the same level as excitement for ULA compared to the Space Shuttle or Constellation/SLS or SpaceX. It's just not as exciting as Elon Musk's talk (and now actual effort) of revolutionising space transportation and going to Mars to stay and all the rest. The CEO of ULA is not out there making similarly grandiose comments, and he doesn't have to either.
What ULA does is fantastic and worthy of plaudits. I cheer loudly whenever ULA enables an important NASA mission to succeed. I am wholeheartedly in favour of ULA, just not at the arbitrary expense of others.
-
#17
by
TrueBlueWitt
on 10 May, 2014 04:08
-
By meddling in foreign policy, SpaceX risks destabilizing a delicate international situation, and distracts administration officials at a critical time, ultimately harming the interests and security of the nation.
....
George Sowers, Ph.D.
VP, Strategic Architecture
United Launch Alliance
The end of the RD-180 injunction thankfully renders most of this discussion moot, but it should be apparent that the "delicate international situation" that Mr. Sowers describes is DoD dependance on a Russian rocket engine. That situation was created by ULA co-owner Lockheed Martin nearly a full decade before SpaceX existed. Mr. Sowers is pointing the finger of blame in the wrong direction.
- Ed Kyle
It was actually started by General Dynamics in the early 1990's, which became Martin Marietta, then LM. The context was the aftermath of the dissolution of the Soviet Union when the US had a grave concern about the fate and activities of the suddenly idle Military industrial complex. Nunn-Lugar and the ISS partnership and the RD-180 partnership were born of a broad USG policy to engage Russian industry and provide constructive pursuits versus going to work for third world dictatorships. Furthermore, the US obtained access to technology that simply did not exist in the US at the time. Were there risks? Sure, but the benefits of the US-Russian partnership in space have been tremendous for both sides.
This was obviously a gambit that paid dividends at the time..
That said.. we no longer live in the same world.. things in Russia are FAR FAR different than they were when this arrangement was constructed. The question here is... does it this arrangement, and dependence on Russian made engines for National security launches still make sense today?
Would it not make sense to take time to review the current ramifications in the context of the current geopolitical landscape? This alliance may still make sense, it may not, but isn't it time to step back and figure that out?
-
#18
by
deltaV
on 10 May, 2014 04:54
-
While I'm at it, let me correct a few things for the record:
1. The block buy contract was signed on June 26, 2013. See the attached link. There was a contract modification executed in December.
http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=5073
This was months before the first launch of the F91.1. SpaceX has known since at least 2012 about the AF intentions on the block buy.
That linked page says (bold added):
United Launch Services LLC, Littleton, Colo., has been awarded a $1,088,000,000 not-to-exceed letter contract for Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) production services in support of the following Air Force and National Reconnaissance Organization (NRO) launch vehicle configurations: AF Atlas V 401, AF Atlas V 501, AF Delta IV 4,2, AF Delta IV 5,4 NRO Atlas 401, NRO Atlas 541, and a NRO Delta IV 5,2. Work will be performed at Centennial, Colo., and is expected to be complete by 2015. This award is the result of a sole source acquisition. Fiscal 2013 Missile Procurement funds in the amount of $525,000,000 will be obligated on this award. Launch Systems Directorate, Space and Missile Systems Center, Los Angeles AFB, Calif., is the contracting activity (FA8811-13-C-0003).
That contract was for at most a billion dollars (and change) and for work expected to be complete by 2015. The block buy is for many billions and runs well past 2015. It sounds like this modification dramatically expanded the scope of the contract. SpaceX's complaint is about the later years of the block buy, which evidently were not in this original contract.
2. SpaceX claims of ULA prices are grossly overstated. By factors. The USG has complete transparancy into all ULA costs. No one has any insight into SpaceX costs, not even SpaceX.
Can you state what the correct cost calculation is? I'm not asking for proprietary info, just a statement of how much total money you receive from the DOD (including launch capability contract) divided by the number of launches.
3. SpaceX rocket is not capable from a performance or orbit perspective of doing most of the missions in the block buy.
Indeed. According to SpaceX's legal complaint they are protesting all of the launches because they are unable to determine which of the launches they are able to do from available information.
-
#19
by
deltaV
on 10 May, 2014 05:15
-
By meddling in foreign policy, SpaceX risks destabilizing a delicate international situation, and distracts administration officials at a critical time, ultimately harming the interests and security of the nation.
Obama can make this whole sanctions issue go away instantly by signing an executive order explicitly exempting the DOD's EELV program and/or NASA from the sanctions. The fact that he has not done so suggests that SpaceX's foreign policy agenda is not seriously harming the nation.