Taxpayer Subsidies To ULA To End

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.

Comments

I'd put a 'may' there

[Trepidity]

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.

Re:I'd put a 'may' there

[DanielRavenNest]

> 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.

Re:I'd put a 'may' there

[Sarten-X]

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.

Re:I'd put a 'may' there

[osu-neko]

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.

Re:I'd put a 'may' there

[Jane Q. Public]

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.

Say what you will about ULA...

[daveschroeder]

...but they get our shit to space.

Re:Say what you will about ULA...

[jonwil]

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.

Re:Say what you will about ULA...

[Ecuador]

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.

Re:Explains a lot.

[dotancohen]

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.

Re:Explains a lot.

[dotancohen]

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.

Re:Too good to be true?

[phayes]

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.

Actually ULA launches to become more expensive

[perpenso]

... 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.

Re:Explains a lot.

[dotancohen]

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...