Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Taxpayer Subsidies To ULA To End

Posted by timothy on from the but-don't-they-know-about-the-multiplier? dept.

schwit1 writes Because it has concluded that they make it impossible to have a fair competition for contracts, the Air Force has decided to phase out taxpayer subsidies to the United Launch Alliance (ULA). The specific amounts of these subsidies have been effectively buried by the Air Force in many different contracts, so we the taxpayers really don't know how much the are. Nonetheless, this decision, combined with the military report released yesterday that criticized the Air Force's over-bearing and restrictive certification process with SpaceX indicates that the political pressure is now pushing them hard to open up bidding to multiple companies, which in turn will help lower cost and save the taxpayer money.

32 of 42 comments (clear)

  1. I'd put a 'may' there by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    political pressure is now pushing them hard to open up bidding to multiple companies, which in turn will help lower cost and save the taxpayer money

    That's certainly a possible outcome, and hopefully the one we will see, but I think it's a bit optimistic to say that it will do this. It may do that, but a new contract process may also be a total clusterfuck, depending on how it's structured and overseen. The Air Force might get twice as good things for half the price, or it might get something that doesn't work for half the price, or four things that sort of work for twice the price.

    --
    10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    1. Re:I'd put a 'may' there by DamonHD · · Score: 1

      Hi,

      I'm certainly NOT in the "government is always worse that private corporations" camp, but it is indeed perfectly possible to create replacements worse than the original, and governments of all colours and countries remind us of this from time to time, even when all their intentions are good.

      Rgds

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    2. Re:I'd put a 'may' there by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Considering how quickly SpaceX is leapfrogging the ULA, I'm inclined to suspect that a more open bidding process will end up saving the government a fair amount of money in the long run. It does seem that the ULA has been mostly sitting on their laurels sucking at the government teat for a long while now. Why should they improve efficiency when it will only reduce profits?
      My own objection is that saving the government money is a *very* different thing than saving the taxpayer money. What's your bet, will we all get a 0.01% reduction in taxes, or will the government just find some other pork-barrel project to spend it on? Not that that's necessarily a bad thing - I'd much rather get more for my tax dollars than less, but lets not pretend it's going to actually save taxpayers money.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    3. Re:I'd put a 'may' there by plopez · · Score: 1

      I agree. I fully expect the "conservative" US Congress to find creative ways to turn into yet another pork barrel project.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    4. Re:I'd put a 'may' there by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      I don't know if SpaceX is leapfrogging ULA. The Alliance (why does that just sound wrong?) is responsible for a number of different booster programs spread out over time and territory. It never really was supposed to be efficient - except perhaps in the mind of a bunch of MBAs. SpaceX has narrower, more clearly defined goals.

      That said, some pressure on the behemoths to tighten up their act might be helpful - but remember although the ULA is presumably private, it is very much beholden to the Military Industrial Complex which means it is very much beholden to the Congress which means different booster programs spread out over time and territory as much time and territory as is possible.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:I'd put a 'may' there by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 2

      > It does seem that the ULA has been mostly sitting on their laurels sucking at the government teat for a long while now.

      Let me explain how this works. At the start of the Sea Launch program, which Boeing was a partner of, and I was working on, our program manager was an ex-Air Force officer who was a launch director from Vandenberg (where the Air Force launches polar satellites). He was a smart and competent guy, but the main reason Boeing hired him is *he knew all the right players on the Air Force side*. Another manager of mine was a former Marines officer who had done helicopter procurement.

      When the people who make the buying decisions already know you, because they used to work with you, you have a much better chance than someone they never met before and have no idea how good they are, if they will get along, etc. This "revolving door" works in the other direction too, where someone in industry then goes to work in government, in the same field. The problem is you often can't find anyone else who is qualified to oversee such contracts.

    6. Re:I'd put a 'may' there by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      From my own time working on government contracts, I have a similar experience, but a substantially different perspective.

      Often, the most valuable people on the team are the ones who know what to do. Every process is the result of bureaucrats getting their say, so having a manager who knows what the bureaucrats want is a good way to know what to expect. It may be just knowing that eventually you'll need this report, or as intimate as knowing that reviewer will want that level of detail, but knowing the expectations from the other side of the phone call makes every part of the project run more smoothly.

      Yes, this is reflected in the buying process as well. If they have a rapport with the contractors, the buyers know that they'll get what they want the first time, rather than waste their own time and money going through several rounds of revisions.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    7. Re:I'd put a 'may' there by phayes · · Score: 1

      Snort. Because the democrats who dominated congress up to now have done sooo well at eliminating graft & pork. Hell, we can barely remember what those are thanks to the wonderful dems taking care of all that is wrong in the world and sprinkling fairy dust in our morning cereal...

      Find a new axe to grind, your old one is worn out.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    8. Re:I'd put a 'may' there by osu-neko · · Score: 2

      Snort. Because the democrats who dominated congress up to now have done sooo well at eliminating graft & pork. Hell, we can barely remember what those are thanks to the wonderful dems taking care of all that is wrong in the world and sprinkling fairy dust in our morning cereal...

      Find a new axe to grind, your old one is worn out.

      Pot, meet kettle.

      The difference here, of course, is that neither side refrains from indulging in fatty pork products, but only one of them is claiming government spending is bad while doing so.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    9. Re:I'd put a 'may' there by tsotha · · Score: 1

      I have believed for some time now SpaceX is going to lose its big commercial advantage over time. Congress views these kinds of contracts as political plums to be parceled out on a district-by-district basis - the company is not going to be able to continue manufacturing everything in Hawthorne without losing government contracts.

    10. Re:I'd put a 'may' there by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I don't know if SpaceX is leapfrogging ULA. The Alliance (why does that just sound wrong?) is responsible for a number of different booster programs spread out over time and territory.

      Yeah, and was so "successful" at it that when there were problems getting Russian engines, they were temporarily grounded.

      That said, some pressure on the behemoths to tighten up their act might be helpful - but remember although the ULA is presumably private, it is very much beholden to the Military Industrial Complex which means it is very much beholden to the Congress which means different booster programs spread out over time and territory as much time and territory as is possible.

      Then where are they?

      Granted, they are starting to produce some decent stuff again, but only really started doing so when SpaceX and a couple of other upstarts threatened their warm fuzzy government cocoon.

      NASA has become too big and bureaucratic to get much done in any kind of hurry. Yes, that is partly, or perhaps even mostly, Congress' fault with its budget shenanigans. But it has gotten so bad that when the Space Shuttle was grounded, they didn't even have a replacement. Shoddy, short-term thinking. It's not possible to run a decent manned space program that way.

      NASA was ordered by the President to clean up its crony-bureaucratic act after the Challenger disaster, clear back in '86. It never did. It was ordered to do so again after the Columbia disaster. It still hasn't.

      If it finds itself unable to do so, inevitably it will be replaced.

    11. Re:I'd put a 'may' there by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      I have also had business experience with government contracts. One of the problems there (though it was in a somewhat different field, so doesn't apply as much here) is that those who couldn't properly make it in the engineering business ended up going to work for the government... and became the regulators. Rather the opposite of the "corporate capture" idea, but still a kind of revolving door.

      As a result, the bureaucrats and regulators were not respected by the industry they were regulating, and were widely (and appropriately) vilified for interfering in efforts to just get the job done properly.

    12. Re:I'd put a 'may' there by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      Yeah I think that's likely: if they become a large company with multiple large contracts, they'll end up spread over the US.

      Heck they're already doing a little bit of spreading out. They have a significant test facility in Texas along with some engineering offices, and are building a new facility in Seattle to build satellites. I don't know if this is strategic/political or just happenstance at this point though. For example I believe a big motivation for the Texas site was that they were able to buy facilities off the defunct Beal Aerospace cheaply.

      --
      10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    13. Re:I'd put a 'may' there by phayes · · Score: 1

      The difference here being that I wasn't the one making stupid biased public comments. As for more and more and more and more government spending being "good", well let's just say that living in France under socialists has given me another perspective, one where private enterprise goes down the tubes until unemployment goes through the roof. Your nirvana, I'm sure...

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
  2. Say what you will about ULA... by daveschroeder · · Score: 2

    ...but they get our shit to space.

    1. Re:Say what you will about ULA... by jonwil · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Considering how many successful launches SpaceX has had to date (including launches where the launch was successful but the land-and-reuse part of the mission failed) I recon SpaceX will be just as good at launching stuff into space as ULA is. And they (per the figures I have seen quoted) are cheaper than ULA too.

    2. Re:Say what you will about ULA... by Ecuador · · Score: 2

      Well, it is not THAT hard if you get cost + contracts... I mean it is not exactly unfeasible to get something to space 60 years after people started accomplishing it. Getting something safely to space for LESS is what is hard right now.

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    3. Re:Say what you will about ULA... by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

      SpaceX is a young, hip company eager to show that it does things the public likes, including the OSS-loving public of nerds. They're different from existing spaceflight options, and they want the public support to help make those differences look like good things, especially if their business ever falls on the mercy of Congress.

      ULA is a partnership of old companies who really don't care what the public thinks of them because they're operating under the status quo. They already have the political clout to be sure that any changes won't be disastrous to their business model, so drumming up public support is a waste of money.

      I'd expect that an audit would find comparable uses of OSS, from Linux servers and BSD embedded devices to innumerable copies of PuTTY scattered across workstations.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    4. Re:Say what you will about ULA... by phayes · · Score: 1

      No. See yesterday's story linked in the summary. The AF is finally waking up and discovering that they do not need to try and turn Space-X into a clone of ULA to certify them. That Space-X would be automatically certified after 14 successful flights (2 more to go) has absolutely nothing to do with anyone realizing that the requested changes were as necessary as some (like you) pretend.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
  3. Undead Liberation Army by stevegee58 · · Score: 1

    Good! They should be supporting the Human Volunteer Force anyway.

  4. Too good to be true? by Dereck1701 · · Score: 1

    I always get a little concerned when too many bits of good news come out of a sector of government that has been entrenched in a particular activity (waste, abuse, corruption, etc) for decades and suddenly they decide to "change". I hope it is true and this just a confluence of a realization that they're public servants, more transparency/competition will help not diminish their goals as public servants and a little bit of political pressure. But there is also a nasty tendency in government to notice a shift in opinion and to make it "look" like you're bowing to that opinion while actually doing nothing or in fact using it as a vessel to get your particular activity even further intrenched into government. Cautious optimism isn't unreasonable, but close scrutiny of the "changes" they are suggesting is also prudent.

    1. Re:Too good to be true? by khallow · · Score: 1

      I agree, but there is a reason for it to happen. Namely, such corruption and inefficiency can get in the way of other powerful interests. My view is that there are some parties that need the Air Force to have better space capabilities and the ULA just wasn't delivering on that.

    2. Re:Too good to be true? by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      It sounds like a negotiating tactic. They annouce they are eliminating (unspecified) subsidies, then negotiate with the companies on a new project (then restore the subsidies).

    3. Re:Too good to be true? by phayes · · Score: 2

      It's simpler than that. After 14 successful launches (just 2 more) Space-X is automatically certified. The forces attempting to turn Space-x into a ULA clone were betting on a launch failure or two to slow Space-X down and justify that their way was the only path to space. Space-X's pushback on the changes mean that they are extremely likely to become certified without the burocracy. These changes are just the retrograde elements changing sides before that happens In an attempt to stay relevent.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
  5. Re:in otherwords by khallow · · Score: 1

    Because the military industrial complex wants less subsidies.

  6. Re:Stark disconnect by khallow · · Score: 1

    Somebody stepped back and realized that it might be good that X does some things differently.

    Let's not get hasty here. There's a reason I'm a fan of SpaceX, but not of the ULA. Sure, you might be right. But it also might be a way for the ULA getting to compromise SpaceX's competitiveness, at least in Air Force contracts.

  7. Explains a lot. by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    No wonder ULA's buddies in the Air Force have been trying to sabotage SpaceX.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    1. Re:Explains a lot. by dotancohen · · Score: 2

      If you are referring to the recent delay which caused SpaceX to launch almost a week late and scrap a landing attempt due to an Air Force radar station idiot being trigger happy on the "no go" call, then I agree completely.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    2. Re:Explains a lot. by dotancohen · · Score: 2

      It was the February 8 attempt here:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

      More details here:
      http://www.waaytv.com/space_al...

      Diagnosis: Air Force tracking radar went down 2m30s before launch.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    3. Re:Explains a lot. by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Actually I was referring to the order to implement bureaucracy article from a few days ago, but this is a good point as well. I was watching that launch live when they shut it down at the last moment. I wonder how much an abort like that costs SpaceX and NASA?

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    4. Re:Explains a lot. by dotancohen · · Score: 2

      My daughter and I were watching it live as well. I have no idea how much it costs, but I believe that they have to drain the LOx tank if the vehicle sits off countdown timer on the pad. That seems pretty expensive to me! I'm not even sure that they can reuse the cryogenics, it might be vented to atmosphere.

      I just asked here, if you are interested:
      http://space.stackexchange.com...

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  8. Actually ULA launches to become more expensive by perpenso · · Score: 2

    ... SpaceX will become very, very expensive when required to comply with govt contracting law ...

    Actually ULA will become much more expensive as they will have to include fixed costs (infrastructure, etc) into their launch pricing. Currently they do not. They seem to have a separate contract purely for infrastructure and other related fixed costs, this contract is separate from launch contracts. Short story: ULA launch contracts don't have to include such costs since they are paid for elsewhere, SpaceX launch contracts includes all such costs and they are still far less expensive.

    The USAF got caught cheating to hop on the Musk bandwagon, and the consequences will be very, very expensive.

    I think recent news stories demonstrated the opposite, the USAF overstepped its bounds and began dictating design changes and corporate reorganizations.