SpaceX wins court injunction to block US Air Force buying Russian rockets SpaceX has won an injunction blocking the United Launch Alliance (ULA) from buying rocket equipment from Russia to service its contract with the US Air Force for orbital launches. Judge Susan Braden ruled on Wednesday that the ULA - a 50/50 joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Boeing that has an exclusive, non-compete …
It is good to see that "business as usual" is being challenged, especially by an American Company. What happens to security if the USA is dependent on a foreign corporation for a product that we should source from within? We are not talking about car parts here! After all, we used to be the Lead in Space exploration and everything to do with that.
Russia does not seem to be our friend in any way I can see.
There are no friends at that level, never were, never will be. There are fleeting momentary alliances between the non-enemies and long-term "enemy" relationships.
The truth here is that after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia stopped classing USA, UK and most of western europe as an "enemy by default". Some of Western Europe did so in return. As a result Russia runs some fairly reasonable trade and business relationships with Germany for example. USA and UK never did so and it only got worse over time (f.e. the current UK government is significantly more russophobic than the previous one). It has, is and continues to be classed as an arch-enemy with money being spent and invested accordingly.
Litvinenko wasn't a fat cat. He was a journalist. Although I'm not sure how successful. He'd also been involved in security for Boris Berezovsky as well as working for KGB/FSB before. But that murder did a lot of damage to relations.
There was also Hermitage Capital, where Putin's mates stole the assets of a London hedge fund. Sadly for them, the head office found out the night before and took all the money out. But they did torture and murder their accountant Sergei Magnitsky.
Then there was the seizure of the Sakhalin-2 gas field from Shell 8 years ago. And all the shennanigans with TNK-BP, where it was assumed that BP would be forced to sell at a loss. But in the end they got what looked like a reasonable price, but only as a stake in Rosneft. Which I ssuspect they can't sell to get the cash out of Russia, so it may turn out that they won't get paid on that either.
So there are many reasons for UK / Russian relations to be so cool.
Also, as to Russia having 'reasonable' relations with Germany, as Voland's Right Hand puts it, I'm not so sure. Germany seems to have sold its partners down the river to some extent. Perhaps we could have got better relations with Russia if we could have had a unified position? Rather than letting Russia use divide and conquer tactics.
The policy that I think Germany should be ashamed of is the Nordstream pipeline. After Russia cut off Ukraine's gas in the middle of Winter (2008?), obviously the pipeline goes through Ukraine, so Eastern Europe also suffered.
Germany's response wasn't to get together with its EU partners to try and arrange a system where Russia couldn't blackmail various states into submission. The Ukraine cut was heavily tied up with negotiations to renew the lease on the Sevastopol naval base. Which Russia so recently annexed...
Instead it was to build a Baltic pipeline that would bypass Ukraine and also Poland (who are supposed to be an ally), so Germany would get gas, even if everyone else was cut off. The Schroeder government pushed this, and in fact Gerhard is now on the board of Nordstream - and turned up in Moscow last week praising Putin, and saying that illegally annexing Crimea was just thee same as recognising Kosovo's independence. Which is damned well isn't. The German government were rather embarrassed by that.
"And all the shennanigans with TNK-BP, where it was assumed that BP would be forced to sell at a loss."
While your other examples are OK (maybe not Litvinenko - I am still not convinced it was an officially-sponsored job), the TNK-BP is not - there were no shenanigans, not as far as BP was concerned, certainly.
"The policy that I think Germany should be ashamed of is the Nordstream pipeline. After Russia cut off Ukraine's gas in the middle of Winter (2008?), obviously the pipeline goes through Ukraine, so Eastern Europe also suffered."
I think Europe has long been lazy/complacent with their energy policy. Maybe that's due, at least in part, to the "green" schizophrenia which afflicts the "Central Powers" of late?
However, to blame Russia for cutting off the gas is too primitive. What would any Western gas company do if their buyer would be stealing openly from them by selling the gas on while not paying their bills? Where is the line where the simple cash-flow requirements outweigh the desire for political gestures? And we are talking about billions at stake, not just some small change.
Vladimir Plouzhnikov,
There was a lot going on with TNK-BP. It's always hard to know what's government sponsored and what isn't. Certainly it's not safe to rely on equity in the Russian court system under Putin. And from what I read about the case BP (and probably the UK government) had to lobby Putin in order to fix the logjam and get some sort of resolution that avoided another UK/Russian joint venture getting hijacked. And Putin's inner circle aren't exactly unknown for seizing the assets of other peoples' companies.
I think the UK government regarded the Litvinenko murder as official. Even if it wasn't, the Russian government made it quite clear that they were glad he was dead, and that they weren't going to do anything about it. The particular poison used is also indicative that the operation was state-sponsored. You can't just pick Polonium up in your local chemists. And the fact that the killers don't seem to have understood how dangerous the stuff was, and contaminated a couple of planes a couple of restaurants and several hotels with it (as well as themselves) - also rather strongly suggests that they weren't the brains behind the operation. Which again suggests that it was a state-organised job. Finally, everyone involved, including Putin, seems to have been ex-KGB/FSB and all seem to have known each other quite well. Not that you'd call Litvinenko totally trustworthy. At one point he was working for the FSB and Berezovsky simultaneously, as well as working/consulting for MI6 and maybe MI5, plus being a journalist. There's not much trustworthiness in that CV...
"There was a lot going on with TNK-BP. It's always hard to know what's government sponsored and what isn't."
Well, in this particular case I do know
"Certainly it's not safe to rely on equity in the Russian court system under Putin."
Certainly, it isn't.
"And the fact that the killers don't seem to have understood how dangerous the stuff was ..... rather strongly suggests that they weren't the brains behind the operation. Which again suggests that it was a state-organised job."
That's exactly what makes me doubt it was state-organised.
"Finally, everyone involved, including Putin, seems to have been ex-KGB/FSB and all seem to have known each other quite well."
Yes, but half the country is ex-KGB, that doesn't mean that none of them has ever done some private jobs on the side...
As I said, I am doubtful, but I don't disregard anything at this stage.
I can't blame SpaceX for acting on an opportunity and playing the political and judicial system to gain a commercial advantage - they are a business trying to carve out a piece of the market dominated by big boys and must be aggressive to survive.
However, the system that can be played so blatantly and easily is a rubbish system.
"Are they trying to gain a commercial advantage, or are they trying to open the playing field to any interested bidder?"
The actual suite is to allow them to compete. It does not insist they win any of them, just allow them to be on the field.
However stopping RD180 use stops further Atlas V launches and ULA will probably save them for their USAF/NRO launches rather than NASA, which is relevant because 2 of the 3 CCiCAP entrants want to fly on that LV.
"Often these military contracts involve a local manufacture under licence part in order to minimise security concerns."
Indeed, as does this contract. Lockheed Martin have every right to manufacture RD-180s in the US. It was just turned out much cheaper to carry on buying the Russian-made ones. If SpaceX can beat the price of the RD-180 and still deliver the reliability and power of that engine they should do so.
"Indeed, as does this contract. Lockheed Martin have every right to manufacture RD-180s in the US. It was just turned out much cheaper to carry on buying the Russian-made ones. If SpaceX can beat the price of the RD-180 and still deliver the reliability and power of that engine they should do so."
No they don't.
The US engine "maker" is called RD-Amross and is a US/Russian joint venture, who ship the engines in from Russian.
They have copies of all the plans and materials specifications a dn claimthey could mfg the RD180's but it would cost them $1Bn to start and this being cost plus land (or rather cost++ with the usual rises) only if the US govt pays up front.
The 2 year US stockpile is meant to be long enough to enable this although the US govt has planned sat launches for 5 years ahead.
It's unbelievable how some company executives make so many ill advice and bad decisions. I often wonder how they can even stay at their job. We have all the technology and companies that are more than capable to handle any job our country need and these guys are trying to use Russian equipment? Russia has only old and antiquated equipment and technology. What they have we don't need.
3. Russian engines are better on an engine-to-engine basis than anyone other than SpaceX's latest. Only took 50 years to surpass them, looks like.
Personally, I'd love to see resources pooled and an oxygen-rich kerosene engine developed in the US that multiple companies can use. You'd get economies of scale, the latest tech advances, and can be nationalist to your heart's content.
"According to Musk, the Russian stuff is 4 times as expensive."
No he's saying the rocket it attaches to is 4x as expensive.
The RD-180 generates 860 K lb of Sea Level thrust and the Russians sell it for $10m.
The Spacex Merlin 1d generates about 140 Klb and I've seen reports Spacex will sell you one for $5m
IOW about 8x the thrust for 2x the cost. I'd say the RD-180 is a pretty good good cheap piece of hardware.
I guess that law I remember from the 70's about sourcing military parts from foreign countries is still in effect It just didn't make sense that something of strategic value was being launched using sole-sourced Russian parts.
It made much less sense to give the contract to the highest bidder... oh.. they also give perks to the brass? I guess it's ok then.
"I guess that law I remember from the 70's about sourcing military parts from foreign countries is still in effect It just didn't make sense that something of strategic value was being launched using sole-sourced Russian parts."
It's no different for 'British Made' with all the accompanying Union Flag stickers and similar guff.
Parts bough overseas at knock-down prices and assembled in the Homeland comply with 'Brtitish Made' (not made in England, Scotland, Wales or N.I.)
My IKEA bookcase is 'British Made' as I had to make a smalll adjustment to get it to fit.
He's got brains, big ideas and balls. He actually seems to want to improve our lot and is prepared to put his money and his name on the line in the pursuit of doing just that (and make a few quid for himself along the way of course).
I just hope to $deity that he doesn't decide that being an evil genius would be much more fun else I reckon we're all screwed!
He's pulling an Apple, pure and simple, throwing a tantrum and trying to use lawsuits and injunctions to get his way without any care for the collateral damage. Pulling the 'nationalism' card is a nice thing to be able to do when you're already in position for it.
Don't forget, most of the things we use today are made in places like China and India, and probably some in Russia too (can't think of any huge examples at the moment). How did this happen? They're able to produce them less expensively and in greater volumes. What can we expect to happen as a result of going insular? Oh yeah, prices will rise until folks find a way around it, or the pressure on the politicians to stop being stupid becomes greater than that of the Cold War mindshare.
Nope. He spent months trying to negotiate with ULA & Boeing/Lockheed and they basically told him GTFO, so he had to push the button.
ULA are dicks and deserve every bit of this.
ULA also told Orbital to FOAD for Antares engines, but now since Orbital was bought by ATK they're one of the big boys in the club and it no longer applies.
DryBones,
We have no way of knowing if Musk is throwing a tantrum. It looks from outside like he was trying to get in on the bidding on a project, and got muscled out by a cosy group of cronies who've been ripping the US taxpayer off for years. It may be that he's unable to fulfill certain parts of the contract and therefore has no hope of winning. However, the suspicion is that underhanded things have happened.
Personally I like his tactics. I've no problem with him throwing the odd sueball. Where you have $70 billion contracts you have lawyers. 'Tis unavoidable. If you don't manage to fulrill the contract, then many lawyers will descent upon you with great wrath, evacuate your bank accounts, pillage your villages, and leave you with nothing, in the smoking ruins of your dreams.
In this case, ULA may be in breach of sanctions on Russia. Oops. But they're also massively more expensive than Musk. I seem to recall they've had more NASA money for SLS (which isn't even out of design stage yet) than he's had for his launches to the ISS. In fact, They just love their government pork. Sooooo taaaaasty!
I also like his guerilla marketing approach. In his press conference last week where he complained that he's charing (and making profits!) a quarter what they are - he made some nice comments about how many fighter squadrons and battalions of marines this would pay for. So I supect he's trying to get a bit of a war going on amongst the top brass at the Pentagon. Smart tactics.
Meanwhile, at the same time as fighting for all this lovely government cash, he's also researching like a looney.
His is the first company in history to launch a rocket into space and land the first stage vertically. The 1st private company to achieve orbit. The first man to orbit a giant cheese... They've got a capsule and rocket well on the way to man-rating. So he's extremely likely to replace US manned capability before ULA manage to get their system off the ground.
And he's taken risks, rather than just replicating old tech. So by having his capsule have the rockets on board, he can manage landings on land instead of at sea. This also gives Dragon the capability to escape a launch fire, essential to get a man-rating. And further gives it the ability to land on Mars or the Moon. Plus a re-usable first stage coming real soon now.
How much more could NASA have done with its budget over the years if it had been partnered with companies like SpaceX, rather than getting ripped off by Boeing and Lockheed Martin?
It's not a "may be ", SpaceX do not have the facilities, do not follow the procedures, do the required auditing and reporting to meet government contacting standards, full stop. How many companies would you take seriously if they said " we don't meet your requirements, but here we're going to bid anyway :D"? That's what SpaceX is saying, if it was a contractor you'd look at them funny and walk the other way. It's a delaying tactic, pure and simple, as if it's sustained everything has to be thrown out and started from scratch, costing X amount of time and money. Oh, that's our (taxpayers) time and money.
ULA was explicitly excluded from CCDev, so of course they are not part of that, and there's no point in them designing and building their own capsule. The Atlas needed one additional box to meet man rating requirements, all the rest already met or exceeded where the safety and design reviews are pointing due to heritage and reliability requirements for DoD launches.
ULA has gotten funding to adapt the D4 second stage (proven design, meets specs) for SLS, and to throw the Orion capsule for a full functional test with reentry. That's a lot of pork? Your butcher must love you. Congress forcing NASA to use the RS-25/SSME for SLS instead of buying RS-68s that produce more thrust and are already in steady production seems more relevant to that. Love to see them change the engine control box for one with more emergency detection and call it the RS-69...
As for costs... Heh heh heh. Trust me, "government contract" is pronounced "bend over and spread your books". If someone says they do not have accurate cost figures they do not have access to them, or did not bother to read them. The government requires disclosure of costs and that they be kept up to date, they can recover costs that are not accurately stated / excessive, withhold funds, etc. Basically, they have a hand up the accounting department's backside.
SpaceX are an entirely private company that does not do any of the things that government contracts require them to do, including buying per Federal Acquisition Regulations for all that they do. So yes, SpaceX is cheaper. Expect the playing field to level as government requirements are added to SpaceX, and ULA sheds requirements that SpaceX is not held to as well.
"As for costs... Heh heh heh. Trust me, "government contract" is pronounced "bend over and spread your books". If someone says they do not have accurate cost figures they do not have access to them, or did not bother to read them. The government requires disclosure of costs and that they be kept up to date, they can recover costs that are not accurately stated / excessive, withhold funds, etc. Basically, they have a hand up the accounting department's backside."
Funny you should say that as the GAO reckons the government does not have the costing figures needed to decide if they are getting a fair price.
"SpaceX are an entirely private company that does not do any of the things that government contracts require them to do, including buying per Federal Acquisition Regulations for all that they do. So yes, SpaceX is cheaper. Expect the playing field to level as government requirements are added to SpaceX, "
I've heard that a lot, usually from ULA employees.
Firstly I expect Musk will split out government specific costs as government specific costs ( Senior management progress report delivered on ice dressed as clowns --> $29326. What's that? Doing it in a conference room in normal clothes is OK after all? Great).
Pricing change requests (and frankly bizarre customer requests) is a standard tactic to avoiding stupid amounts of design drift. Funny how much reasonable customers get when they are told up front that sort of crap is going to cost them.
And if Musk is wrong by a 100%?
Space launches will cost $200m/ea.
Or about 50% what ULA appear to be charging (although with the $1Bn "assured access" subsidy and a few other bits and pieces there's no real way to know)
I find government con-tractors are like farmers.
They are always broke.
The burden of regulation is always nearly intolerable.
And yet they can't seem to wean themselves off the government teat.
"I like him too, But let's also not forget that the Falcon Heavy has not even made a maiden launch yet. The Falcon 9 on which it is based seems to be working, but strapping additional stages to the sides of a vehicle does change things and can get quite interesting."
Not actually relevant as the suite targets "single core buys." Spacex know they cannot challenge the Delta IV Heavy yet.
Have you read the suite? It's not as legal heavy as you might imagine.
Don't forget, most of the things we use today are made in places like China and India, and probably some in Russia too (can't think of any huge examples at the moment). How did this happen? They're able to produce them less expensively and in greater volumes.
If you truly wish to equate the cheap doo-dads and geegaws you find at your neighborhood WalMart with manned spacecraft rocket engines, you're an ever bigger moron than your post would suggest.
@Someone:
Remarkably myopic comment. Seriously, 90% of EVERYTHING you see these days was not Made in the USA. Computers, watches, desks, cars. That building? Chinese steel. That battery? Lead from a Chinese factory.
Once overseas freight became almost free in the massive lots that are possible these days, it was a race to the bottom (line). Assembled in the USA to Comply With National Pride, is the uncomfortable truth. If you want to be nationalist, you need to look at it ALL.
Musk now clearly enters the house that one wants to indiscriminately see the pox on, and then confortably installs himself on the living room couch.
This action is all glued together by the thin logic that the Russian Minister in Charge of Rocketry is on the "you gonna get it in the arse" list that the US FedGov randomly drew up because it is so extremely butthurt over the factregrets that it cannot pull another "color revolution" and have Putin just roll over and play dead as his most valued assets in defense and defense industry start to orbit the EU/NATO attractosphere.
Enforcing Mercantilism by riding on the coattails of "the law" and "revolutions" emerging out american embassies? Distasteful in the extreme.
Russia broke a treaty with the US, UK and Ukraine guaranteeing its territorial integrity. It invaded and annexed part of a neighbour. For no good reason. And did so illegally, with no negotiation or attempt at diplomacy. It followed this up by attempting to forment civil war in what remains of the same neighbour.
If you don't see those as actions that are both worrying, and deserving of some response, then you're a fool.
Musk is viewed as the new kid on the playground, Boeing and its buddies don't like having to compete with a newby upstart and have tried to keep him out.
Fortunately for SpaceX Elon is having none of it, his product is as good or better than the other indigenous rocket motors and it seems priced competitvely (read; 'Not Shafting The American Taxpayer).
If they play badly with him why shouldn't he play the same?
The US Military/Industrial Complex Club is long established and getting membership is not easy but it looks like Elon could start his own club.
And flog them to ULA. That WOULD be funny. Even if SpaceX doesn't get the launch contract, at least he gets to make some money on engine supply.
ISTR there was some commentary a couple of years ago about them thinking about designing and building a really big engine. They should knock one up.
(Falcon 9 uses 9 smaller engines)
In other news, a new F9-R flight announced....very impressive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=ZwwS4YOTbbw&app=desktop
"And flog them to ULA. That WOULD be funny. Even if SpaceX doesn't get the launch contract, at least he gets to make some money on engine supply."
With FH coming up for 1st launch why sell them parts when he can take their whole business?
The behavior of the Secretary of the Air Force Ms Linda James, and her department, have been very suspicious throughout this affair.
cockup or conspiracy there needs to be some major air clearing.
"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"
Those requirements being to bung some politician a load of dosh and/or a lucrative directorship for when the political career goes titsup rather than actual launch capability.
Why else award the contract to your preferred bidder just before the competition meets your capability criteria?
I understand that This Lot have been compliant for some time and That Lot are only just becoming compliant but compliance is compliance regardless.
I don't pretend to understand the Military-Industrial workings apart from it looks more bent than a Moebius Strip and I really want to see SpaceX succeed so my cynicism may be misplaced.
If the Russian company is busy building rocket equipment for the US then their capacity to do it for someone else is severely limited.
It might not be written into the agreement, but I'd bet beer the engineering company has been made fully aware of who is on America's naughty list and how quickly the relationship will turn sour if they so much as nod in the wrong direction.
"SpaceX's attempt to disrupt a nationalsecuritycorporate welfare launch contract so long after the award ignores the potential implications to ourNational Securitybottom line and our nation's ability toput Americans on board the International Space Stationput American taxpayer dollars into my back pocket ... Thisopportunisticaction by SpaceX appears to be an attempt tocircumvent the requirements imposed on those who seek to meet the challenging launch needs of the nation and to avoidre-level the playing field after our insider move attempted to insure we didn't have any active competition; so new we, too, are having to follow the rules, regulations and standards expected of a company entrusted to support our nation's most sensitive missions."
There, fixed it for ya....
There ARE real issues with SpaceX going down a different road than others. Musk is NOT getting security clearances the same way that Lockheed and Boeing do. This lets him hire faster, but gets in the way of corporate-clearances issues.
I am a US taxpayer. I want the costs lowered. Since Atlas uses Russian-made rockets, they can continue with their current inventory and transition to US manufacturing IF they get $1Bn to build that manufacturing. Elon wants that 1 BN in his pocket, instead.
"I am a US taxpayer. I want the costs lowered. Since Atlas uses Russian-made rockets, they can continue with their current inventory and transition to US manufacturing IF they get $1Bn to build that manufacturing. Elon wants that 1 BN in his pocket, instead."
In a word "no,."
Musk has said Spacex could do a really big engine (1-2 million Lb) for the USG vor about $1Bn but I think that was an off the cuff remark. I suspect Space will do such an engine for a much bigger launcher, as they like the redundancy they get with 9 engines.
BTW that's also what RD-Amross say it would cost to set up US mfg of the RD180, which is what the suite is about.
What Musk wants is to be judged on a launch by launch basis on all the launches (IE the "Single Core Buys") that he thinks Spacex and F9 can compete with.
And BTW he's not asking for a $1Bn "Assured Access Payment" to keep Spacex offices and pads open even if they launch no government payloads that year, although interestingly since the USG is so keen on this "assured access" business Spacex would be within their rights to ask for one as well (or perhaps contest that ULA needs it?).
The Spy agencies need to support Russia.
Otherwise, why do we need Spy agencies?
Note that we also use Russian airplanes and crews to get Lockheed satellites from California to Florida launch pads...
Every government official knows they don't want to retire on a government paycheck if they can help it. If you help a company make $100 million they may give you a nice job for a few years so you can save up $500,000 and retire.
Libertarians always forget that, without careful effective government regulation, there is no effective difference between big business and organized crime.
The Spy agencies need to support Russia.
Otherwise, why do we need Spy agencies?
Note that we also use Russian airplanes and crews to get Lockheed satellites from California to Florida launch pads...
Every government official knows they don't want to retire on a government paycheck if they can help it. If you help a company make $100 million they may give you a nice job for a few years so you can save up $500,000 and retire.
Libertarians always forget that, without careful effective government regulation, there is no effective difference between big business and organized crime.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
