SpaceX Takes Legal Action Against US Air Force

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
Fresh from their triumphant third mission to resupply the ISS, SpaceX has filed suit against the US Air Force to open bids to competition for government contracts.

SpaceX must complete three successful launches, as well as present an overview review of technical details of its technologies, if it hopes to join the competition for military contracts, according to the Air Force.
Click to expand...
 
Continuing to pump millions if not billions in Moscow's direction is certainly not a good thing. You would think the air force would be eager to open up bidding.
 
GotNoRice said:
Continuing to pump millions if not billions in Moscow's direction is certainly not a good thing. You would think the air force would be eager to open up bidding.
Click to expand...

If you noticed this administration doesn't seem to be the smartest. I rather have my tax dollars go to an American company that overseas. But with the scum lobbyist that are in Washington that might not happen.
 
GotNoRice said:
Continuing to pump millions if not billions in Moscow's direction is certainly not a good thing. You would think the air force would be eager to open up bidding.
Click to expand...

Nokia said:
If you noticed this administration doesn't seem to be the smartest. I rather have my tax dollars go to an American company that overseas. But with the scum lobbyist that are in Washington that might not happen.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is that...

Put it this way. Every rocket can carry a payload in the 10s-100s of millions of USD in value, nvm the cost of the vehicle itself. If you were a business man and wanted to put satellites in orbit that may cost as much as the CBO estimate for single-payer healthcare for the entire USA in one rocket (to minimize lift costs to your investors)....would *you* trust a new startup company with a whopping 3 successful launches under its belt for your business?

Lets say for giggles that SpaceX gets fast tracked to lift payloads for the USAF....and that by this time next year they have 1-3 launches fail to reach orbit destroying their payloads wasting $500-$1bn USD of taxpayer money. Would you be making hay and pointing the finger at the administration calling it a scandal? Sorry that last one was rhetorical, of course the answer is "hell yes".
 
The handling of our space programs is disgraceful and spits in the faces of the American astronauts who helped create it.
 
Skripka said:
Lets say for giggles that SpaceX gets fast tracked to lift payloads for the USAF....and that by this time next year they have 1-3 launches fail to reach orbit destroying their payloads wasting $500-$1bn USD of taxpayer money. Would you be making hay and pointing the finger at the administration calling it a scandal? Sorry that last one was rhetorical, of course the answer is "hell yes".
Click to expand...

Scandal would imply that there were multiple options and the wrong option was chosen. I don't personally feel like continuing to gift money to Russia is even a viable option anymore. That really just leaves one option left...

And let's not forget that launching stuff into space is dangerous. Not even the Space Shuttle made it into orbit every time.
 
Grahamkracka said:
This more about the rocket cores (though I presume SpaceX will want actual launch contracts as well). ULA does NOT manufacture their rockets...a Russian company does. The USAF awarded a 36 rocket NO-BID contract to ULA. So in essence, we are paying the enemy be able launch our own sensitive hardware.

If SpaceX can make their reusable rocket technology reliable, then that will drive costs way down....and it's a win win for the U.S. taxpayer.
Click to expand...

It *might* drive down costs to the taxpayer. That is what everyone who wants to make $$$$$$$ sells in the stump speech. And if SpaceX gets into the DOD contracts you can bet for sure they'll shortchange their profits only so long as they must. Boeing/Lockheed do the modern capitalist thing. They outsource. Guess what? Once SpaceX's white collars aren't seeing enough cheddar in their over-seas tax-free Swiss bank accounts they are going to outsource manufacture as well. Hell they already buy hardware for the Falcon from overseas, like the pump and impeller as they lack the machining to make them in house.


Further, thus far the reason SpaceX has been cheaper thus far is that as a "commercial" company and not a contractor....they aren't bound by oversight rules in manufacture etc. How long do you think that will last?

I ain't a fan of no-bids...but Boeing et al have had almost 100 perfect DOD launches under their belt with Atlas vehicles. And SpaceX is whooping about having 3. Talk about minimizing risk to your equipment.
 
Skripka said:
I ain't a fan of no-bids...but Boeing et al have had almost 100 perfect DOD launches under their belt with Atlas vehicles. And SpaceX is whooping about having 3. Talk about minimizing risk to your equipment.
Click to expand...

I understand that point completely, and also understand it's within a companies rights to issue a no-bid contract as long as it meets the requirements given in the regs.

However, if you use that as your only criteria to hiring a company, no other company will ever get a chance since Boeing and Lockheed have racked up launch numbers by being the sole provider for all these years. It's like trying to get a job out of college but being told experience is required. How can you get can experience if no one is willing to hire you? That guy who's worked in the field longer than you've been on the earth will always have the advantage over you.
 
Skripka said:
I ain't a fan of no-bids...but Boeing et al have had almost 100 perfect DOD launches under their belt with Atlas vehicles. And SpaceX is whooping about having 3. Talk about minimizing risk to your equipment.
Click to expand...
And that is when the decision to whom to go with should occur not when the lobbyist for Boeing has a meeting with a senator on the arms committee then leaves it less one briefcase
 
sfsuphysics said:
And that is when the decision to whom to go with should occur not when the lobbyist for Boeing has a meeting with a senator on the arms committee then leaves it less one briefcase
Click to expand...

That isn't corruption, that is free speech just ask Mr. Roberts
 
Grahamkracka said:
This more about the rocket cores (though I presume SpaceX will want actual launch contracts as well). ULA does NOT manufacture their rockets...a Russian company does. The USAF awarded a 36 rocket NO-BID contract to ULA. So in essence, we are paying the enemy be able launch our own sensitive hardware.

If SpaceX can make their reusable rocket technology reliable, then that will drive costs way down....and it's a win win for the U.S. taxpayer.
Click to expand...

Rocket != Space Capsule. Satellites are still put in orbit with US manufactured Rockets. The only HW we get from the Russians is the manned capsules for the ISS.
 
Nokia said:
If you noticed this administration doesn't seem to be the smartest. I rather have my tax dollars go to an American company that overseas. But with the scum politicians, taking the lobbyist bribes, that are in Washington that might not happen.
Click to expand...

fixed that for you. :D
 
gamerk2 said:
Rocket != Space Capsule. Satellites are still put in orbit with US manufactured Rockets. The only HW we get from the Russians is the manned capsules for the ISS.
Click to expand...

ULA supplies the completed rockets to launch the payloads and they use Russian engines. I've toured the local facility, pretty impressive.
 
gamerk2 said:
Rocket != Space Capsule. Satellites are still put in orbit with US manufactured Rockets. The only HW we get from the Russians is the manned capsules for the ISS.
Click to expand...

The award for most uninformed post goes to you. RUSSIA MANUFACTURES ROCKETS SUPPLIED TO THE ULA. The ULA does final assembly.
 
The handling of our space programs is disgraceful and spits in the faces of the American astronauts who helped create it.
Click to expand...

Wow, strong statement. Why do you think so?
 
I haven't looked hard at this but I do think it's a very simplistic and incorrect idea that buying a product from some equates to "gifting" them money. Your buying a product not making a donation. If consolidating rocket purchases from a single manufacturer means they can keep their actual costs down because the supplier can keep their volume up and cut costs then maybe it's not that dumb. If having a money deal going with the Russians means we have leverage in the form of sanctions that we can apply against them then maybe that isn't so bad. That's the problem when you cut all ties, you also cut your leverage and limit your options. Telling someone your not going to do business with them doesn't mean much when you're already not doing business wit h them. I just wanted to point these things out because some here seem to have some myopic views and need their eyes opened a little to reality.
 
lcpiper said:
I haven't looked hard at this but I do think it's a very simplistic and incorrect idea that buying a product from some equates to "gifting" them money. Your buying a product not making a donation. If consolidating rocket purchases from a single manufacturer means they can keep their actual costs down because the supplier can keep their volume up and cut costs then maybe it's not that dumb. If having a money deal going with the Russians means we have leverage in the form of sanctions that we can apply against them then maybe that isn't so bad. That's the problem when you cut all ties, you also cut your leverage and limit your options. Telling someone your not going to do business with them doesn't mean much when you're already not doing business wit h them. I just wanted to point these things out because some here seem to have some myopic views and need their eyes opened a little to reality.
Click to expand...
We had more control of Russia toward the end of the cold war when we had trade completely blocked than we do now. Largely because no enemies within we making money off them, yet. Now we are in bed deep with China. Say they invaded Taiwan. Dare threaten any trade based reaction and the enemies within here will scream bloody murder.
 
However, if you use that as your only criteria to hiring a company, no other company will ever get a chance since Boeing and Lockheed have racked up launch numbers by being the sole provider for all these years. It's like trying to get a job out of college but being told experience is required. How can you get can experience if no one is willing to hire you? That guy who's worked in the field longer than you've been on the earth will always have the advantage over you.
Click to expand...


It's actually very easy and the Fed does it all the time. They simply require that the Prime Contractor use subs as part of their team allowing the subs to gain experience and grow to a point of competitiveness where if they have what it takes they can strike out on their own.
 
We had more control of Russia toward the end of the cold war when we had trade completely blocked than we do now. Largely because no enemies within we making money off them, yet. Now we are in bed deep with China. Say they invaded Taiwan. Dare threaten any trade based reaction and the enemies within here will scream bloody murder.
Click to expand...

So they scream, that doesn't mean you still can't use that stick. And we had NO control of Russia at the end of the Cold War other then getting into a fight with them and at that time that was a very risky thing cause they were in such a vulnerable position. If we had actually known they were so vulnerable things could have gone very badly. What if we had pushed them and they had done something rash, like use a Nuc in Afghanistan or something. The world could have been very different. We didn't know the USSR was so weak and spiritless and that's why the collapse of the USSR was such a surprise. We didn't know, we didn't push them, and they just fell apart from within. It worked out pretty good. But it could have gone differently.
 
GotNoRice said:
Continuing to pump millions if not billions in Moscow's direction is certainly not a good thing. You would think the air force would be eager to open up bidding.
Click to expand...

Moscow has bigger ships.
 
lcpiper said:
I haven't looked hard at this but I do think it's a very simplistic and incorrect idea that buying a product from some equates to "gifting" them money. Your buying a product not making a donation. If consolidating rocket purchases from a single manufacturer means they can keep their actual costs down because the supplier can keep their volume up and cut costs then maybe it's not that dumb. If having a money deal going with the Russians means we have leverage in the form of sanctions that we can apply against them then maybe that isn't so bad. That's the problem when you cut all ties, you also cut your leverage and limit your options. Telling someone your not going to do business with them doesn't mean much when you're already not doing business wit h them. I just wanted to point these things out because some here seem to have some myopic views and need their eyes opened a little to reality.
Click to expand...

Perhaps we should also begin doing business with Iran and North Korea? I guess I just don't have my eyes opened yet. :rolleyes:

I don't really have a problem with private businesses contracting with Russians, but when the military is doing it to the point where we almost can't even launch a spy satellite ourselves without using Russian components - yeah that's a problem. Does it matter how much control we have over them when we voluntarily allow them to place their boot on our nuts like this?

Azhar said:
Moscow has bigger ships.
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about?
 
lcpiper said:
So they scream, that doesn't mean you still can't use that stick. And we had NO control of Russia at the end of the Cold War other then getting into a fight with them and at that time that was a very risky thing cause they were in such a vulnerable position. If we had actually known they were so vulnerable things could have gone very badly. What if we had pushed them and they had done something rash, like use a Nuc in Afghanistan or something. The world could have been very different. We didn't know the USSR was so weak and spiritless and that's why the collapse of the USSR was such a surprise. We didn't know, we didn't push them, and they just fell apart from within. It worked out pretty good. But it could have gone differently.
Click to expand...
It was only a surprise is you were in pathetic denial about what a shithole Soviet Communism created. And Gorby was coming to Reagan hat in hand towards the end.
 
Well, he did it. The courts granted an injunction to stop the contract being awarded. Granted, it has more to do with the fact that the U.S. is taking any opportunity to stick it to the Russians given what's happening in Ukraine, but it's still impressive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top