You are not logged in.
Offline
Here's the link to the 79 page SpaceX complaint with some redactions.
Offline
Claims of unfairness in bidding costs but when you add in the risk assessment then while space x is cheaper you can not always afford a loss....
Offline
Read the claim. There is far less risk in using the Falcon and Falcon Heavy rockets which would be used for all of the SpaceX Air Force launches until 2025.
Offline
The Falcon and Falcon Heavy series of rockets are the best launch vehicles America has on offer, no matter what the mission happens to be. SpaceX rockets lift heavier payloads to whatever orbits a customer finds most pleasing for far less money than any other launch system in the world. Falcon Heavy is also the only rocket in the world capable of sending a substantial payload to Mars or other interplanetary destinations. As if that wasn't enough, Falcon and Falcon Heavy are also the only rockets in the world with completely reusable boosters that require no substantial refurbishment prior to re-qualification for subsequent flights. The only valid reason I can think of for using a different launch vehicles is that that's all that's available at the exact time required.
SpaceX is flying so often now that it's starting to disrupt commercial air traffic in a significant way. The air space management problem is perplexing, but the ability to routinely practice the art of rocketry has made SpaceX a world leader in space launch services. The US Air Force is absurdly lucky to have such superlative and affordable launch systems at absolute bargain prices as compared to any of their competitors. Defense spending on space access is about achieving a military objective, with the best result possible per tax dollar spent. Blowing mad money on obsolescent single-use launch vehicles is not a military objective and it never has been. We should all applaud the extreme efforts of SpaceX to be good custodians of the tax payers' defense dollars. If we could get all of our other military industrial contractors to follow SpaceX's lead, having enough money for national defense would never be in question.
Offline
Commercial derived systems versus a military will always be the walmart of product to use as its cheap.
The military produced is held to a higher level of documentation, testing and standards for materials used which will make the end result cost more...not what works until it needs to be looked at once failures occur....
Offline
SpaceNut,
SpaceX rockets are Made in America by Americans, just like the products of their competitors. The cost of the "extra paper", is as much as the rocket and its payload. That said, the materials used are precisely the same as the government rockets. SpaceX was built on proven rocket technology with innovate adaptations of existing technology. SpaceX hasn't "invented" anything that didn't already exist, they just found a very cost effective way of mass manufacturing and reusing it. Their technology provides advantages that simply don't exist anywhere else.
Oddly enough, our own military, which sets military requirements, has dictated that future military satellite systems use as much COTS technology as is feasible, with the express assertion that smaller / lighter / cheaper satellites and launch vehicles that are far easier to replace is ultimately the right solution to dominate the battle space in this particular domain. If the same or better result can be achieved by using a lighter and cheaper system, then that is almost certainly the right solution, irrespective of who is paying for it or what the requirements happen to be. In this case, the American tax payer is footing the bill, and those of us who don't believe in excessive spending on anything rightly expect that our military solutions be practical and cost-effective.
Offline
The Space x rocket is considered a COTS rocket but the parts which make it are all proprietory unlike the rockets of ULA, Boeing, Lockheed which use parts from Aerojet, ATK now Northrup to make the rockets.
To be cots means you are using parts from anyone and everyone that makes them to sell not just making them to use for there own purpose. Having said that makes the military product more expensive due to the paper trail required of the manufacturer that supplies the part and in addition they also make the price for the parts higher in cost as they know they are selling it to the government which has deep pockets....
Offline
SpaceNut,
The parts that comprise the ULA rockets are every bit as proprietary as the parts in a SpaceX rocket. I can assure you of that, without qualification. SpaceX fabricates its own engines, propellant tanks, and vehicle and range control software. SpaceX also provides its own integration services, much like Lockheed-Martin or Boeing. The only parts that are actually "COTS" components are the microprocessors, circuit boards, and wiring. Those COTS components are made to the same standards imposed upon every other aerospace manufacturer, but at far lower cost to the customer since the customer isn't required to purchase brand new booster assemblies after every flight. Hopefully, they'll also perfect payload fairing capture as well. Reuse of the upper stage is mostly a lost cause. The cost of building a new upper stage in that size / weight / performance class is lower than the cost of reusing one.
The "military" product is more expensive for three reasons:
1. very low production volume
2. it's not reusable at all, so a brand new one must be purchased for each flight
3. it's made by a duopoly that receives substantial subsidies from the American tax payer, even if there are no launches in the works
Cost-plus contracts don't lower the cost of commodity hardware. Thanks to SpaceX, space flight hardware for <50t class payloads is now commodity hardware. ULA needs to figure out how to operate more cost-effectively, or they should be priced out of the national security launch services market. Once again, the military objective of assured access to space is to reliably put America's national security assets on station, not to spend as much money as the government is willing to dole out to whichever contractors have jobs in the Congressional districts of the politicians supporting this gross excess. SpaceX has repeatedly demonstrated the ability to do that at a lower price than their competitors. In the future, Blue Origin or ULA may figure out how to operate more cost-effectively than SpaceX, in which case those launch services providers should receive the launch services contracts from our government. This is about good stewardship of finite tax payer funding for our military and nothing more. If ULA starts doing a better job than SpaceX, then I'll advocate for using ULA rockets.
Offline