Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ULA Concedes GPS Launch Competition To SpaceX (spacenews.com)

Posted by Soulskill on from the location-location-location dept.

schwit1 writes: ULA has decided against bidding on a military GPS launch contract, leaving the field clear for SpaceX. "ULA, which for the past decade has launched nearly every U.S. national security satellite, said Nov. 16 it did not submit a bid to launch a GPS 3 satellite for the Air Force in 2018 in part because it does not expect to have an Atlas 5 rocket available for the mission. ULA has been pushing for relief from legislation Congress passed roughly a year ago requiring the Air Force to phase out its use of the Russian-made RD-180 engine that powers ULA's workhorse Atlas 5 rocket."

This decision might be a lobbying effort by ULA to force Congress to give them additional waivers on using the Atlas 5 engine. Or they could be realizing they wouldn't be able to match SpaceX's price, and decided it was pointless wasting time and money putting together a bid. Either way, the decision suggests ULA is definitely challenged in its competition with SpaceX, and until it gets a new, lower cost rocket that is not dependent on Russian engines, its ability to compete in the launch market will be seriously hampered.

15 of 55 comments (clear)

  1. They could have bid with their Delta by sasparillascott · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ULA also has the Delta 4 rocket which uses U.S. designed / made rocket engines. Previously they were letting the 3 core Delta 4 handle the big launches and the single core Atlas 5 handle the smaller launches, but there is no reason they couldn't have bid with a single core Delta 4 if they wanted. Something smells politically fishy with this.

    1. Re:They could have bid with their Delta by rmdingler · · Score: 2

      ULA, the monopoly provider of such launches since its creation in 2006, said it was unable to submit a compliant bid because of the way the competition was structured.

      Basically, Lockheed and Boeing collaborated on every launch (under the United Launch Alliance), removing any competition from the equation, and undoubtedly, all cost controls.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    2. Re:They could have bid with their Delta by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They could have, but their bid would have been in no way competitive with SpaceX since the Delta 4 is a lot more expensive, and doesn't make economic sense to use on a small launch.

      Another interesting point is that ULA has the full production rights, schematics, etc for the RD-180 engine, as that was part of the original deal. However, it would cost a lot of money to set up production, and on top of that, their production costs would be more expensive than just buying the engines from the Russians. Thus, ULA doesn't want to do that if they can avoid it, and would rather try to convince Congress to let them resume buying from Russia, at least until the newer engines they've made deals with Blue Origin to build are available.

    3. Re:They could have bid with their Delta by kaiser423 · · Score: 2

      They have the drawings, but that doesn't mean that they have all of the processes -- these are complex items operating at the edges of materials science. The Russians are still more advanced than the US in many metallurgical sciences. There are some alloys and specific metal grain configurations used in the RD-180 that simply no one else knows how to do but the Russian shops that build the RD-180 engine, which are under this embargo.

      Cue the talk about when we were looking to resurrect some Saturn V engines, there were numerous compounds and other items that we didn't know how to produce either -- the proprietary process died with the one-man shop that knew the secret sauce and had the dialed in equipment.

  2. GPS needs an upgrade by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Japan has started launching QZSS satellites that improve GPS accuracy to centimetre level, the first one being Michibiki. They have demonstrated navigation systems that can tell what lane you are driving in and when you are drifting out of it, or keep a snow plough on track at the side of a road with extreme precision.

    I wish some of the competing GNSS would support that kind of accuracy. There are lots of interesting applications.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    1. Re:GPS needs an upgrade by the_other_chewey · · Score: 2
      QNSS is an augmetation system that relies on the existing Navstar/GPS infrastructure.

      I wish some of the competing GNSS would support that kind of accuracy. There are lots of interesting applications.

      None do - or all do. There are multiple regional SBAS systems in operation already:

      WAAS, North America
      EGNOS, Europe
      StarFire (special end-point processing + SBAS data), worldwide

      More are under construction or proposed, but still all depend on a GNSS
      (or something close to it, India's IRNSS e.g. isn't global, but will do) for
      their baseline position.

  3. Wait, wait, wait. WHAT DID YOU SAY? by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Atlas, you know, THE Atlas, the rocket that carries the name of the rocket that got the first US satellites into orbit and that got the first US astronaut into orbit, that very rocket that bears a rather ... let's say symbolic name, that damn rocket is in its current iteration powered by RUSSIAN engines?

    Are you fucking kidding me?

    Please don't tell me that's true for the ICBMs too. Depending on the international diplomatic situation it MIGHT get a wee bit tricky to get spare parts should the US actually feel the urge to use them...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Wait, wait, wait. WHAT DID YOU SAY? by gmack · · Score: 2

      Worse than that.. the northern arctic radar system designed to warn us of incoming ICBMs uses vacuum tubes (or at least it did 10 years ago when my uncle worked there) sourced from Russia.

    2. Re:Wait, wait, wait. WHAT DID YOU SAY? by Immerman · · Score: 2

      Only if the Russian war infrastructure is similarly dependent on American-made components. Otherwise you have a situation where one side has a distinct strategic advantage, which can make war *more* likely.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    3. Re:Wait, wait, wait. WHAT DID YOU SAY? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      They were before the sanctions.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  4. Bravo SpaceX by ramriot · · Score: 2

    Interesting that,especially when you realise it was SpaceX's lobbying that got the existing ban enforced in the first place.

    1. Re:Bravo SpaceX by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's hard to blame SpaceX for lobbying on that, as ULA was lobbying to keep them out of the process. Unfortunately, if you want to play the game in DC, at least at any significant level, you need to be involved in lobbying, even if only to counter the people who are lobbying against you.

    2. Re:Bravo SpaceX by khallow · · Score: 3, Informative

      US aerospace is notorious for using regulation and bureaucracy to obstruct space activities. I have heard, for example, that one of the last Atlas II (operated by Lockheed Martin (LM)) launches in 2004 had been delayed for a few days by a bogus concern about battery issues. Apparently, the same company then proceeded to interfere with two Atlas III launches by expressing recycled concerns about the RD-180 rocket engines used on that rocket.

      SpaceX has also had some of their earliest launches delayed due to games played by LM (story discusses a SpaceX Vandenberg launch first getting delayed in turn by a delay in a Titan IV launch operated by LM and then being kicked out of their launch facilities because LM was occupying a nearby launch facility).

  5. Re:Ever seen a ruskie car? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

    The Russians were ahead right until the Gemini program - Ed White's spacewalk may have been second, but it was almost twice as long, and due to far better pressure suits and maneuvering equipment, he was able to actually do something besides float there. Also, he didn't have to depressurize his suit just to get back through the hatch like Leonev did because his suit didn't balloon on him in the vacuum of space.

    After that moment, NASA pulled ahead in rendezvous, docking, and of course actually sending people to the moon, landing on it, bringing them back, etc.

    Russia's boosters have always been first rate, and that's what gave them the early lead. NASA recognized that if they got into a lifting capacity contest, they were going to lose for another decade. Kennedy moved the goalposts with a public declaration to land on the moon, and made other technologies more important.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  6. Re:Ever seen a ruskie car? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

    Russia's boosters have always been first rate, and that's what gave them the early lead.

    What gave the Russians an early lead was a willingness to use modified ICBMs as boosters.

    In the very earliest days of NASA, since NASA was a civilian agency, NASA had a policy of using "civilian" rockets. Which meant that they had to develop their rockets from scratch rather than using modified ICBMs.

    And then Russia put Sputnik up. And Gagarin. And NASA found itself forced to use ICBMs to play catchup. Which they did, as you noted.

    But the problem was never the superiority of Russian rockets, but the self-imposed blinders NASA operated under....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"