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.
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.
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.
I'm ashamed to have took so long to get it.
That's presumably why you're posting anonymously
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
No career military type is going to risk their future on an unstable madman.
Yet they currently have one as their commander in chief so there is some irony for you...
Seriously though, I doubt Elon Musk's (rather mild) eccentricities had much of anything to do with these contracts. The military already does lots of work with SpaceX. I suspect they are probably trying to ensure there is some competition in the market and SpaceX seems to not need a whole lot of help at this point. I would imagine the Air Force would rather not be limited to a single vendor because SpaceX drove the others out of business.
I presume this is so they are not putting all their eggs into one basket, especially as Musk is (dare I say it) a high risk investment.
The eggs in one basket thing I agree but I think you are hugely overstating the risk Musk as an individual brings to the table. Yeah he isn't the usual mold of CEO (not a bad thing IMO) and he obviously has an appetite for risk greater than most but it's kind of hard to argue that SpaceX isn't a very well run company. The military already does quite a lot of work with SpaceX which is prima facie evidence they aren't bothered much if at all by Musk.
I am surprised that none of the above seeks to advance booster technology significantly, such as (for example) trying to get a viable booster powered by an aerospike engine.
Why should that be surprising? Such advancements are (generally) hugely expensive and that isn't what the military is trying to accomplish here. While the military isn't the most price sensitive customer out there (obviously) they do have budgets and price still does matter plus as you rightly point out they don't want to just have a single supplier of boosters for a variety of fairly self evident reasons. I'm sure the military is investing in advanced propulsion systems somewhere - just not here.
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.
(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
You won't even be bringing your own underwear.
Sounds worse than Ryanair.
"This award is part of a portfolio of three agreements that leverage commercial launch solutions in order to have at least two domestic, commercial launch service providers that meet National Security Space requirements, including the launch of the heaviest and most complex payloads."
https://dod.defense.gov/News/C...
All of these companies are old school contractors who have handfuls of ex military generals working for them.
Blue Origin is not even remotely an "old school contractor".
I hope the pentagon chooses missiles for peace.
In this particular case, you get your wish: the discussion here is about vehicles to launch satellites, not weapons.
For a long time, the same basic boosters had been used for both applications: the orbital launch vehicles were adapted from missiles. But now, that is no longer the case; none of the current generation of orbital vehicles is adapted from a missile
http://www.geoffreylandis.com