The US military is still paying a SpaceX competitor for rocket upgrades
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Upvote
91
(99
/
-8)
Yeah, the corrupt good ol boys system is still the good old boys system - whether Space X is breaking into it or not. Just saying...
Upvote
71
(75
/
-4)
No they couldn't have, since SpaceX launches cost far more than that.
That misses the main issue, since the military has a vested interest in multiple launch vehicles. (Not to mention the Atlas rocket at least for now is far more reliable of a launcher, which may matter for some payloads.) Clearly the main issue is they awarded a contract for something the ULA already did, and obviously was going to do without this contract.
Upvote
96
(101
/
-5)
Since the US government now owns this item (paid for it), does that mean ULA has to pay a fee back to the government for any non government use of this technology/feature?
edit: Normally this would be no, but since we are paying for something that already exists, clearly it's to have exclusive access to it.
edit: Normally this would be no, but since we are paying for something that already exists, clearly it's to have exclusive access to it.
Upvote
12
(16
/
-4)
As someone who has worked on "Not To Exceed" contracts, they are a VERY different animal than "Cost-Plus."
I'm not saying that this isn't shady or underhandedly helping out the "ol' boys," but "not-to-exceed" isn't the cashflow tap of cost-plus. In cost-plus, you get a get your profit plus expenditures and are encouraged to dilly-dally as much as you think you can get away with, as those expenditures all paid for, right?
In not to exceed, there is a hard cap on how much they're willing to fork over, and you only get that if you work the time. If you finish early, and you don't get the full value of the contract. On paper, this still means the government only pays for what gets used. In reality, of course, this still encourages contractors to waste time. The difference comes down to there is a hard cap on how much you're getting, and everyone knows that from day 1.
On the one hand, this type of contract still promotes dragging of feet, but the line in the sand is clearly drawn how much you can drag your feet. On the other hand, this being a not-to-exceed contract is a clear signal that times are changing. There still getting helped out, but only so much is going to be tolerated before new space woos the money, and ULA knows it.
I'm not saying that this isn't shady or underhandedly helping out the "ol' boys," but "not-to-exceed" isn't the cashflow tap of cost-plus. In cost-plus, you get a get your profit plus expenditures and are encouraged to dilly-dally as much as you think you can get away with, as those expenditures all paid for, right?
In not to exceed, there is a hard cap on how much they're willing to fork over, and you only get that if you work the time. If you finish early, and you don't get the full value of the contract. On paper, this still means the government only pays for what gets used. In reality, of course, this still encourages contractors to waste time. The difference comes down to there is a hard cap on how much you're getting, and everyone knows that from day 1.
On the one hand, this type of contract still promotes dragging of feet, but the line in the sand is clearly drawn how much you can drag your feet. On the other hand, this being a not-to-exceed contract is a clear signal that times are changing. There still getting helped out, but only so much is going to be tolerated before new space woos the money, and ULA knows it.
Upvote
92
(96
/
-4)
"... at the company's facilities in Decatur, Alabama." Let's see, who do we know in congress who represents Decatur Alabama?
From his website: "Mo Brooks, vice chairman of the House Space Subcommittee, joined President Trump at the White House for the signing into law of the NASA Authorization Act of 2017."
Does "Mo" stand for "Mo money"?
From his website: "Mo Brooks, vice chairman of the House Space Subcommittee, joined President Trump at the White House for the signing into law of the NASA Authorization Act of 2017."
Does "Mo" stand for "Mo money"?
Upvote
69
(72
/
-3)
Depends on the contract terms. Typically technical data (aka "the design") is a separately priced line item. Generally the government doesn't buy the technical data in order to keep costs down. Contractors typically price technical data very expensively because they know the government could then provide it to someone else to build thereby bypassing the original contractor. Of course there are all kinds of variations and limited use data rights which can be used as well.
In this case, it's a NTE mod to an existing contract. While the full value is up to $27.4M at this time only $8.5M has actually been placed on the contract. The contractor can only charge up to that amount. Placing any additional funding on the contract is at the government's discretion and may or may not occur. All they've done is negotiated terms and pricing which would allow them to add the additional money without going through the whole contracting process again but the contract does not require the government to.
Upvote
23
(23
/
0)
illegallydead
Seniorius Lurkius
No. ULA provides a launch service (takes your satellite to space based on these parameters); it does not sell the actual vehicle nor the designs to the government.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
The ULA Article":du03b761 said:
If I'm reading the linked ULA article correctly, as of last year they had the new electronics integrated into the Atlas 5 and possibly the Delta IV Medium; but the Delta IV Heavy was still TBD. A reasonable assumption would be that this contract is to finish upgrading the Delta IV family to use the new electronics. (And yes, as a former DoD contractor I'm well aware of the danger in assuming reasonability in these circumstances.)
EDIT: Delta IV Medium still using the old electronics was confirmed down thread by illegallydead.
Upvote
38
(38
/
0)
normally butters
Ars Praefectus
The DoD has a legitimate interest in multiple launch vehicles. In the past this was Atlas and Delta, currently it's becoming Atlas and Falcon, and in the future it's going to be Falcon and something powered by the Blue Origin BE-4, whether it's ULA Vulcan or Blue's own New Glenn. Atlas isn't going to continue in service indefinitely, especially not in its current form with the Russian RD-180 engine.
SpaceX has had some problems with the upper stage cryo helium system after introducing sub-cooled LOX, and they've blown up many helium bottles on a specially-designed test rig in Texas to get to the bottom of the issue. F9 Block 4 has an upgraded helium system which does not have that failure mode. They've returned to a more aggressive propellant loading process without issue, and it seems that the issue is behind them now. Meanwhile, SpaceX is still growing and adding headcount.
ULA has a phenomenal reliability record, and they've been able to maintain that in recent years as ULA begins to shrink and shed several hundreds of jobs. But recently they've had several uncharacteristic issues which were discovered at the last minute and caused delays. For example, they didn't notice that a faulty ground hydraulic system had ruptured a hydraulic line on the rocket and flooded the engine compartment with hydraulic fluid until they were testing the replacement ground hydraulic system.
ULA employees have spoken out about close calls and brain drain. ULA had to return money allocated by the parent companies (Lockheed and Boeing) for Vulcan development because they didn't have enough man-power to match the funding level. A lot of the distinguished graybeards have moved on, and their remaining senior engineering staff is stretched thin.
I hope ULA can hang on and continue pitching a perfect game, but it's getting harder and harder for them to maintain their lofty reputation with each round of layoffs and amid a natural attrition rate in excess of 10% annually. Competition is forcing ULA to cut costs substantially, and it remains to be seen whether they can shed another 1000 employees this year and still deliver quality-assured launch vehicles to the pad on time.
Upvote
71
(71
/
0)
I know that recently, SpaceX changed the way their rockets work to have an Autonomous FTS (flight termination system) that allowed them to launch rockets without having to have the USAF change our their range equipment for that one vendor (SpaceX). http://www.parabolicarc.com/2017/02/26/ ... ty-system/
This wouldn't be a similar contract on the ULA side, would it?
This wouldn't be a similar contract on the ULA side, would it?
Upvote
-9
(2
/
-11)
Space launchers seem to be one of those national security situations where having multiple options is better than the cheapest, fastest.
We have two shipyards for subs, for instance, even though economically speaking we clearly could save money by having just one. The Soviets found out the hard way that sometimes having one big huge factory is putting all your eggs in one basket. So it really does behoove the government to keep ULA alive in case Elon Musk gets hit by a bus or something.
We have two shipyards for subs, for instance, even though economically speaking we clearly could save money by having just one. The Soviets found out the hard way that sometimes having one big huge factory is putting all your eggs in one basket. So it really does behoove the government to keep ULA alive in case Elon Musk gets hit by a bus or something.
Upvote
22
(25
/
-3)
so, why does the government have to pay them to upgrade their equipment to modern standards? If its just a service, the costs should be built into the per-launch costs, no>
Upvote
33
(33
/
0)
ah don't focus so much on the first destination for the ball of cash. Any self respecting hypothetical money launderer would then send that money on a long journey multiple times around the world before it wound up in its ultimate destination.
Whatever it actually is, if it's a lump of money for work that is already done then it stinks to high heaven.
Upvote
9
(17
/
-8)
normally butters
Ars Praefectus
ULA has been working on AFTS (which they call AFSS) perhaps for even longer than SpaceX, although it has yet to fly on a ULA rocket. My understanding is that they don't have plans to add AFSS to Atlas or Delta and that they plan on using it on Vulcan. Those plans may change, of course, depending on the progress of Vulcan development.
This contract refers to the avionics package aboard the upper stage of the Atlas and Delta rockets. This includes flight computers, communications, telemetry, and control electronics. Because Atlas was designed by Lockheed and Delta was designed by Boeing, they use different avionics hardware and flight software systems. The motivation for this contract is for Atlas and Delta to both use an avionics package derived from the Delta solution.
Meanwhile, the Delta production line is already shutting down after stockpiling some booster cores for a few remaining Delta IV Heavy launches, and ULA plans to only operate one launch vehicle family (Vulcan) in the future.
Upvote
20
(20
/
0)
That's not surprising to hear. The old guard perishes if they can't keep up with modern upstarts. Can see the same thing happen in any healthy market, going back millenia. The ULA employees that add solid value should be able to find a home in the rest of the NewSpace (or whatever the buzzword is now) industry. This is also a positive -- other then sentimental ones, there's no reason to keep an inefficient company around when others are doing things faster, better and cheaper. Even if SpaceX never achieves, for cargo launches, ULA's success rate, it won't matter when clients still save such vast sums of money over the course of a number of launches even despite the occasional failure.
And one day, someone will disrupt SpaceX if they aren't careful.
Upvote
2
(11
/
-9)
My original comment (that started this thread) was more of a snark. I understand us paying to have a feature developed with the hope that the technology will eventually become cheaper as it's used for many purposes (commercial launches). Based on only reading the article and not the attached links, it appears that ULA was being paid for something that was already completed and in use, in which case, what is the money really for? Exclusive ownership was just snark.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Upvote
11
(12
/
-1)
You do a great disservice to the great state of Mississippi. It should surely be in the top 2, if not #1.
Upvote
19
(20
/
-1)
Good point. You can add all of the states in the SE and you'd be 100% right. Georgia is almost as bad as Alabama and Florida has a lot as well. And don't even get me started about Texas.
Upvote
2
(6
/
-4)
Really, ULA's issues exemplify what I call the "long tail of failure" in industries where there's a high barrier to entry.
Very short version is that these industries "lean" very heavily on experienced and knowledgeable staff to compensate for a many-years-long string of very poor series of management decisions. The old-timers know how to work around it, have connections across the industry that can help route around external issues this creates, and so on.
But then these guys and gals start retiring, or just get burnt out and get out of the industry. And now management is suddenly faced with the horrifying task of trying to fix a generation's-worth of stupid and short-sighted decisions in a very short amount of time, but without any of the institutional knowledge that would tell them how to fix it.
I work in the hospital industry, and you see hospital systems regularly go through these cycles as well, where there is enormous resistance to positive change until a sudden crash that's almost always heralded by the exiting of some key staff that were basically the only thing holding the house of cards together, and then a set of massive and painful culling cycles that eliminate all the dead wood that's accumulated and prevented progress.
(See also: Microsoft)
This is especially poor timing for ULA as they now have serious competition rising just as they're reaching the peak of this failure cycle, which is often how incumbents are completely replaced in industries like this.
Upvote
44
(45
/
-1)
The criticism that SpaceX and other newer companies are "not really "commercial," nor particularly different from traditional aerospace firms, because the new companies often receive large contracts for government work such as launches" has been incoherent at best, and deaf to any attempt to clarify as well. The critics just don't care. SpaceX disrupted a good ol-boys club and the good ol'boys are excellent at griping!
First of all, the term "commercial" was around way before SpaceX. Even before SpaceHab. Whenever the government ordered a pencil that was a "commercial" purchase. The government purchased a well defined item that anyone else could buy too. The government paying for the pencil didn't make Ticonderoga just like Lockheed-Martin.
Without being too pedantic, the development phase where the government invests to create a capability they may or may not use, with fixed milestone payments, is a "partnership", an "investment", using "other transaction authority" and certain "agreements" in the public interest. This is a results oriented contract. Later, if the government decides to use the partner to provide a "service", in recent programs two partners, those "firm fixed price" contracts are "commercial" acquisitions, also "firm fixed price" for services.
The costs in these commercial partnerships have been significantly lower than anyone would predict from the history in a bidding process for cost-plus approaches. Multiples lower.
How critics have the gall to come along and say investment partnerships and "commercial" are just like other "cost-plus" contracts says a lot about the delusion, denial, ignorance and outright stupidity of the critics. Perhaps as Sinclair said - it's hard to get someone to understand something when their salary depends on them not understanding it!
First of all, the term "commercial" was around way before SpaceX. Even before SpaceHab. Whenever the government ordered a pencil that was a "commercial" purchase. The government purchased a well defined item that anyone else could buy too. The government paying for the pencil didn't make Ticonderoga just like Lockheed-Martin.
Without being too pedantic, the development phase where the government invests to create a capability they may or may not use, with fixed milestone payments, is a "partnership", an "investment", using "other transaction authority" and certain "agreements" in the public interest. This is a results oriented contract. Later, if the government decides to use the partner to provide a "service", in recent programs two partners, those "firm fixed price" contracts are "commercial" acquisitions, also "firm fixed price" for services.
The costs in these commercial partnerships have been significantly lower than anyone would predict from the history in a bidding process for cost-plus approaches. Multiples lower.
How critics have the gall to come along and say investment partnerships and "commercial" are just like other "cost-plus" contracts says a lot about the delusion, denial, ignorance and outright stupidity of the critics. Perhaps as Sinclair said - it's hard to get someone to understand something when their salary depends on them not understanding it!
Upvote
27
(28
/
-1)
Don't write Orbital ATK off yet either, the Antares returned to flight last fall so they're back in business too.
Upvote
3
(5
/
-2)
illegallydead
Seniorius Lurkius
Full disclosure: I work for ULA (however, can't publicly comment on the specifics of this contract).
Couple of general points:
>Delta IV Medium is currently still Heritage Avionics (source: no announcement of Delta Common Avionics launch).
>By 2019, Delta IV Medium should be Common Avionics.
>GPSIII has been delayed quite a few times (was originally going to launch in 2017, now 2019 as noted in the linked article) due to spacecraft and ground system issues.
As anyone who has worked in aerospace and/or government contracting knows, having to move to hit a moving target is no fun (just my opinion)
(edited to note last sentence is opinion...)
Upvote
34
(34
/
0)
Eric - may also look up "regulatory capture". I saw it in Shuttle with USA, the syndrome of people too long in the foxhole together forgetting who's responsibilities were who's. Especially the government employees forgetting their broader job objectives in favor of their buddy buddy contractor relationships.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
Also might look up how Boeing has tried to stiff arm the government to get paid for their private investment in EELV, AFTER the fact. Some people there in the Air Force had no problem with this - they had been captured!
http://spacenews.com/boeing-ula-suing-a ... 5-million/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
Also might look up how Boeing has tried to stiff arm the government to get paid for their private investment in EELV, AFTER the fact. Some people there in the Air Force had no problem with this - they had been captured!
http://spacenews.com/boeing-ula-suing-a ... 5-million/
Upvote
2
(6
/
-4)
No apparently ULA doesn't plan to field a similar system until Vulcan comes online. To me that seems like a mistake as they are trying to reduce costs and range costs are certainly a factor, plus it allows for a faster launch cadence. According to the 45th Space Wing, AFTS should allow SpaceX to launch two vehicles in less than 36 hours I believe, it might be less than that, can't quite remember.
Common Avionics was one of the cost reducing goals ULA had promised for Atlas and Delta for years, kind of like ACES. It makes a greater use of the Atlas avionics on both rockets as they were more advanced than Delta's from what I recall.
The real pinch for ULA is when the ELC contract ends, as it currently pays for a good chunk of their fixed overhead costs. They have to get those costs under control if they stand any chance of being competitive in the future. When you factor in those costs it inflates a ULA list price over 50%, and they only refund a fixed amount of the money back for non DOD launches, an amount less than what they actually receive so for commercial launches its a subsidy.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Statistical
Ars Legatus Legionis
Saying similar contract implies there was a SpaceX contract. SpaceX just updated their FTS to improve their product and did so on thier own dime.
That is the strange thing about the oldspace model. They have the govt fund the development, and the maintenance, and the ongoing operation and then charge the govt to use "their" rocket.
Upvote
24
(24
/
0)
I'm wondering if this is a misunderstanding. First off, the completion date, July 2019. This award is being made via a modification of the Block Buy contract awarded a few years ago. You usually see this when they actually purchase a launch vehicle, for instance, out of the planned number of vehicles they'd need over the span of the contract. It could be a date related to the end of that contract as opposed to the date they actually expected to complete the work. Weird, but maybe it's an accounting thing.
Next, the money that was awarded was from FY16 funds. That roughly corresponds to the time when the avionics package first flew, per the paper you linked to. Why would they publish an award for something done almost two years ago? Again, weird, but maybe not as malicious as it would seem.
Lastly, I agree that one of the big differences between Old and New Space was the motivation and funding. SpaceX upgrades its vehicles because they're investing in making their product better. It's in their interest to do so. ULA asking the DOD to pay for an avionics upgrade is counter to that. But SpaceX also happily accepts money from the government, be it $30-$60M to help Raptor development, or tax incentives to locate their facilities in certain places. The market is changing and ULA is slowly changing as well. Be it from privately funding BE-4 development with Blue Origin to privately funding (so far at least) development of Vulcan*. Time will tell if they started the change too late.
*ULA received a similar, larger, contract to fund integration of BE-4 into Vulcan. But by and large the development has been private.
EDIT:
Tory Bruno has responded to a discussion about this on twitter. Regarding the contract he said :
When someone asked about Delta being retired soon, his response was
This raises some questions in my mind... Like, a big point of the Block Buy was that ULA would know years ago that they'd need parts for X number of Deltas. Part of the reasoning behind it was so that they could bulk order long-lead parts with confidence in their being used. So why now are they talking about not being able to get these parts. Maybe the problem goes further back, maybe the additional, recent orders for Delta IV Heavy made it worth it. At least we know they're not being paid "twice" or being paid for work they did years ago.
Next, the money that was awarded was from FY16 funds. That roughly corresponds to the time when the avionics package first flew, per the paper you linked to. Why would they publish an award for something done almost two years ago? Again, weird, but maybe not as malicious as it would seem.
Lastly, I agree that one of the big differences between Old and New Space was the motivation and funding. SpaceX upgrades its vehicles because they're investing in making their product better. It's in their interest to do so. ULA asking the DOD to pay for an avionics upgrade is counter to that. But SpaceX also happily accepts money from the government, be it $30-$60M to help Raptor development, or tax incentives to locate their facilities in certain places. The market is changing and ULA is slowly changing as well. Be it from privately funding BE-4 development with Blue Origin to privately funding (so far at least) development of Vulcan*. Time will tell if they started the change too late.
*ULA received a similar, larger, contract to fund integration of BE-4 into Vulcan. But by and large the development has been private.
EDIT:
Tory Bruno has responded to a discussion about this on twitter. Regarding the contract he said :
When someone asked about Delta being retired soon, his response was
This raises some questions in my mind... Like, a big point of the Block Buy was that ULA would know years ago that they'd need parts for X number of Deltas. Part of the reasoning behind it was so that they could bulk order long-lead parts with confidence in their being used. So why now are they talking about not being able to get these parts. Maybe the problem goes further back, maybe the additional, recent orders for Delta IV Heavy made it worth it. At least we know they're not being paid "twice" or being paid for work they did years ago.
Upvote
8
(9
/
-1)
I work in the area that processes/awards these contracts at SMC and I can tell you unofficially (i'm not authorized to speak officially obviously) tell you that this is simply the Air Force's and Air Force Space Command's attempts to continue to guarantee that we have assured access to space via multiple fronts and multiple launch service providers for the purposes of NSS mission requirements. Tying it to a second gen GPS launch may not be ideal but the contracting world and how it relates to the budget in the launch enterprise is complex and this was one way to make it work. Also relating to what one poster said, we don't own the launch vehicle we contract the launch's as a service not a procurement.
In the end it is in the government and the nation's best interest to have a competetive launch environment and trust me, SpaceX get's PLENTY of love from the inside, too.
In the end it is in the government and the nation's best interest to have a competetive launch environment and trust me, SpaceX get's PLENTY of love from the inside, too.
Upvote
22
(23
/
-1)
Only as long as there isn't yet at least third reliable launch provider. Once another player enters the fold (Blue Origin and/or Orbital ATK, for example), proves capable, shows and establishes reliability of getting payloads where they need to go, when they need to go, then I hope needlessly propping up a bloated, lagging relic of a launch provider stops.
Upvote
16
(17
/
-1)
There is a technical economic term for this behavior. It is called crony capitalism. Under this system, contacts in government are more important than economic merit in securing business. All those Air Force contracting officers have to be lining up a job after they've put in their twenty and out.
It is a problem in many sectors of the American economy these days, not just DOD contracting.
It is a problem in many sectors of the American economy these days, not just DOD contracting.
Upvote
-4
(7
/
-11)
The EELV program is very much the DoD's baby and in that sense it's quite different from private launch vehicles like Falcon 9.
Part of the reason why Delta IV is so expensive and even exists in the first place is because of requirements set out by the military to provide assured access to space and ensure a certain flight rate could be sustained. As it turned out, the government launch rate was much lower than predicted so the oversized factory was too expensive, thus ending any chance Delta had of competing in the commercial market and benefiting from economies of scale.
If ULA was a fully commercial venture then they would have killed off Delta and handed its launches over to Atlas to reduce its costs even further. Of course that wasn't an option while the Air Force needed two similar rockets, and the NRO needed the unique capability of the Delta IV Heavy. The side effect of this level of control coming from the military and government in general is that ULA's funding arrangements are inevitably a bit strange and could be seen as anti-competitive but if you had a client that regularly came out with all sorts of onerous demands then you'd charge them for the trouble as well.
EDIT - it's worth bearing in mind that most if not all the new space contractors rely very heavily on support via government contracts (Blue Origin is probably a rare exception so far) that may have little commercial justification. ISS resupply contracts are a great business to be in but if the space station had to pay its way and offer a viable business case then that sort of work wouldn't exist. Governments around the world have often used public sector procurement to support or even prop up companies they view as important, especially in the aerospace and defence sectors.
Upvote
9
(11
/
-2)
It depends how much retrofitting it would cost. As is always the case when maintaining a legacy system while working on a new one, not all potential enhancements to the former will pay for themselves before end of life.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
It wouldn't make a lot of sense to bother with Delta, but Atlas will still be flying for several more years as both CST-100 and Dreamliner cargo make use of it, plus its current manifest of flights. Vulcan will make use of Centaur, and even the new SRB's being built for Atlas so investments made to Atlas should benefit Vulcan.
It could also be due to a lack of staff available to work on it.
Hard to tell with ULA what the reasons are. Corp parents may not want to bother with it either.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
The words "heritage avionics" are harsh. Ouch. It's like a contract to stop being stupid. They don't even say they are going to "advanced avionics", just "common" technology. Separately, $27 million is chump change compared to the $800 million/year the government pays the ULA just to exist.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
- Status