Slashdot Mirror


The Military Chooses Which Rockets It Wants Built For the Next Decade (arstechnica.com)

The U.S. Air Force on Wednesday awarded funds to three rocket companies to help them complete development of their boosters. The three winners include:

United Launch Services: $967,000,000 for the development of the Vulcan Centaur launch system.
Northrop Grumman: $791,601,015 for development of the Omega launch system
Blue Origin: $500,000,000 for the development of the New Glenn launch system

The obvious company missing from the list is SpaceX, which did not win an award. Aerojet Rocketdyne also failed to win an award since it "does not appear to have a customer for its AR1 rocket engine, which the military initially supported," Ars Technica reports. From the report: These are hugely consequential awards for the rocket companies. Essentially the U.S. Air Force, which launches more complex, heavy payloads than any other entity in the world, believes these boosters will have a significant role to play in those missions during the next decade. And when the military has confidence in your vehicle, commercial satellite contracts are more likely to follow as well. After speaking with a couple of aerospace sources, Ars has a few theories as to why SpaceX didn't win an award: For one, SpaceX has already built and flown a rocket that can reach all of the Air Force's reference orbits -- the Falcon Heavy. Moreover, the Falcon Heavy is already certified for the Air Force and has won contracts. Air Force officials may also feel that, through NASA contracts for commercial cargo and crew, the government already facilitated development of the Falcon Heavy -- which uses three Falcon 9 rocket cores. It also depends upon what SpaceX bid for. The government would have been more inclined to fund development of an advanced upper stage for the Falcon Heavy or vertical integration facilities. But it seems like the military would not have been as interested in the Big Falcon Rocket, which is more booster than it deems necessary at this time. So if SpaceX bid the BFR, that is one possible explanation for no award.

3 of 107 comments (clear)

  1. Too Much Rocket, What? by mentil · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's expected to cost a couple $billion more to finish developing the BFR, although once it's done it's also expected to be cheaper to launch than a Falcon Heavy. It being more powerful seems like a poor excuse when it's also cheaper.
    The BE-4 engine is planned to power both the New Glenn and Vulcan rockets, maybe they figure 2 new rockets is better than 1 new rocket?
    Omega uses an upper stage made by Rocketdyne so they're indirectly getting funded. It also uses boosters based on Shuttle tech which our govt. loves to push for pork-barrel reasons. They haven't even started development so it's probably going to be finished last, aka cancelled, especially since the SLS makes it redundant.

    Anyways, Vulcan, New Glenn, SLS, and BFR should all be ready around the same time, so the 2020/2021 timeframe should be exciting for rocketry (assuming no delays, ha!).

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  2. Not do crazy there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Musk as smart enough to hire very capable people for Space X. Contrary to the Elon folklore among his fans, he did not design the rockets and he is not as hands on in the management of Space X as he is for Tesla.

    He had an idea for a private space flight company, hired great people and said, "Make it so." and became the rain maker for the business: he gets the business and his people do the rest. Gwynne Shotwell has more to do with Space X' success than Musk does. Just guess who is the Ari Force's go to person for Space X? Hint: It's not Elon.

  3. Re:ULA is on life support. by chainsaw1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    (Disclaimer, I work in DoD)

    It will take longer than 10 years because the USAF / NASA cannot depend on a single contractor if multiple viable companies exist. US Govt is required to encourage competition with DoD having the most scrutiny due to having the biggest single chunk of the budget.

    ULA had a monopoly prior to SpaceX because there weren't any other viable launch companies (also probably why DoD contractors created ULA as opposed to Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop / Raytheon competing), with Roscosmos "not counting" for security reasons. Once SpaceX came along with a viable platform that business plan went tits up and both Space X and the USAF (political appointees excluded) have been smiling uncontrollably since*.

    I am not surprised that funding has been allocated to keep competition up, however it is (personally) concerning that the funding has been allocated so unequally to the various parties.

    *-(based on limited personal discussions I have had with USAF personnel on this and the "Space Service")

    --
    - Sig