Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX granted injunction in rocket launch suit against Lockheed-Boeing

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 83 posts

Re: SpaceX granted injunction in rocket launch suit against Lockheed-Boeing

#11

Post by robogrowth »

jacquesm wrote: post #6

"In a statement issued this week, ULA said it is “the only government certified launch provider that meets all of the unique . . . requirements that are critical to supporting our troops and keeping our country safe.”" Wow. Unique requirements that were no doubt co-written by the only party that can provide them. If the requirements are unique that is still no reason to go no-bid, after all it might be possible for a…

as a former department of homeland security employee this is business as usual. you think it was an accident that these were no-bid or that some random canadian company got the healthcare website contract when there are thousands of americans who could have done it better? just scratching the backs of their donors. nothing to see here.

Re: SpaceX granted injunction in rocket launch suit against Lockheed-Boeing

#12

Post by nraynaud »

noisy_boy wrote: post #3
eps wrote: post #2

> In reaction to the sanctions, Rogozin tweeted: “After analyzing the sanctions against our space industry, I suggest the U.S. delivers its astronauts to the ISS with a trampoline.” In Russian there's an expression - to scare a hedgehog with a naked ass - which is exactly the case here, except it's really a shame that it's the space exploration that ends up suffering because of some bullshit political games.

Space exploration always had political motivation driving it or inhibiting it. The great progress done during last 40-50 years wouldn't have as much without cold war and its associated factors. In this case, even if you exclude the Russian factor, the point that ULA was awarded such a huge contract without any competition, most probably didn't happen without political (and/or financial) influence.

The history behind the engines we are talking about is just crazy. Basically they were incredibly superior to the american ones but politicians lost interest in them (because the race to the moon was lost), and they scrapped the program and asked the engines to be destroyed. They were hidden in the middle of nowhere in Siberia. After the cold war, some Russians in the know wanted to sell them to US companies, the specs were so incredible (particularly the inner pressure) that the prospective buyers thought there was a translation problem or that it was false. They had created a new alloy, they had used an incredibly dangerous technology in them etc. I don't know very well history, but I think this complexity and technological ambition might be a factor in the USSR losing of the race to the moon.

edit: nice story, but it's the wrong engine, see below.

Re: SpaceX granted injunction in rocket launch suit against Lockheed-Boeing

#13

Post by jacquesm »

127001brewer wrote: post #5

From the article: "...from proceeding with plans to buy Russian-made rocket engines." How many manufacturers of rocket engines are there? Edited: Grammar correction.

Launch vehicles would probably be the more interesting one here, 'rocket engines' is not really what they're buying, the article talks about 36 rockets, not just engines.

Parties realistically capable of supplying those are few:

  - Oribital Sciences
  - SpaceX
  - Sea Launch
  - Starsem
  - United Launch Alliance
  - EADS/Arianespace
  - ILS
  - ISC
Possibly others.

edit: combined EADS/Arianespace tx nraynaud

Re: SpaceX granted injunction in rocket launch suit against Lockheed-Boeing

#14

Post by JackFr »

robogrowth wrote: post #11
jacquesm wrote: post #6

"In a statement issued this week, ULA said it is “the only government certified launch provider that meets all of the unique . . . requirements that are critical to supporting our troops and keeping our country safe.”" Wow. Unique requirements that were no doubt co-written by the only party that can provide them. If the requirements are unique that is still no reason to go no-bid, after all it might be possible for a…

as a former department of homeland security employee this is business as usual. you think it was an accident that these were no-bid or that some random canadian company got the healthcare website contract when there are thousands of americans who could have done it better? just scratching the backs of their donors. nothing to see here.

Agree completely, with the minor nitpick that its not donors to politicians here so much as the revolving door between military/bureaucracy of the government and the industrial complex.

Re: SpaceX granted injunction in rocket launch suit against Lockheed-Boeing

#15

Post by nraynaud »

127001brewer wrote: post #5

From the article: "...from proceeding with plans to buy Russian-made rocket engines." How many manufacturers of rocket engines are there? Edited: Grammar correction.

it depends on the power braket we are talking about, maybe 2-3 in the US, 2-3 in Europe (but only one big), 1-2 in Russia, plus maybe 5 in various nuclear/spatial states in the world (China, India, Pakistan ...)

Re: SpaceX granted injunction in rocket launch suit against Lockheed-Boeing

#16

Post by nraynaud »

jacquesm wrote: post #13
127001brewer wrote: post #5

From the article: "...from proceeding with plans to buy Russian-made rocket engines." How many manufacturers of rocket engines are there? Edited: Grammar correction.

Launch vehicles would probably be the more interesting one here, 'rocket engines' is not really what they're buying, the article talks about 36 rockets, not just engines. Parties realistically capable of supplying those are few: - Oribital Sciences - SpaceX - Sea Launch - Starsem - United Launch Alliance - EADS/Arianespace - ILS - ISC Possibly others. edit: combined EADS/Arianespace tx nraynaud

you can't count Arianespace and EADS separately, they both work for one rocket (doing different parts): Ariane.

Re: SpaceX granted injunction in rocket launch suit against Lockheed-Boeing

#17

Post by happyscrappy »

robogrowth wrote: post #11
jacquesm wrote: post #6

"In a statement issued this week, ULA said it is “the only government certified launch provider that meets all of the unique . . . requirements that are critical to supporting our troops and keeping our country safe.”" Wow. Unique requirements that were no doubt co-written by the only party that can provide them. If the requirements are unique that is still no reason to go no-bid, after all it might be possible for a…

as a former department of homeland security employee this is business as usual. you think it was an accident that these were no-bid or that some random canadian company got the healthcare website contract when there are thousands of americans who could have done it better? just scratching the backs of their donors. nothing to see here.

>some random canadian company got the healthcare website contract

Whose backs were being scratched in that case?

Re: SpaceX granted injunction in rocket launch suit against Lockheed-Boeing

#18

Post by fixermark »

coreymgilmore wrote: post #4

Given the circumstances, why would the USAF not bid out the launches? My thought is that they see Lockheed and Boeing as American companies and don't really care where the parts come from. In the end, SpaceX has shown a competive price and should have a chance to bid these launches. On another hand, the US/Russian space programs and teamwork with the ISS is largely separated from the political issues in Ukraine. Ther…

The USAF has a history of relying solely upon firms that they have bid out to in the past. There's some logic to this (military technology should be reliable and sourced to trusted parties, so companies that have already proven reliability and have a pre-existing trust relationship have a massive advantage).

But if you look at that scenario and smell the possibility for corruption, you're probably not wrong. ;)

Re: SpaceX granted injunction in rocket launch suit against Lockheed-Boeing

#19

Post by beedogs »

coreymgilmore wrote: post #4

Given the circumstances, why would the USAF not bid out the launches? My thought is that they see Lockheed and Boeing as American companies and don't really care where the parts come from. In the end, SpaceX has shown a competive price and should have a chance to bid these launches. On another hand, the US/Russian space programs and teamwork with the ISS is largely separated from the political issues in Ukraine. Ther…

> Given the circumstances, why would the USAF not bid out the launches?

Maybe the bidding process was so corrupt and/or pointless that they just did away with it entirely.

Re: SpaceX granted injunction in rocket launch suit against Lockheed-Boeing

#20

Post by JackFr »

eps wrote: post #2

> In reaction to the sanctions, Rogozin tweeted: “After analyzing the sanctions against our space industry, I suggest the U.S. delivers its astronauts to the ISS with a trampoline.” In Russian there's an expression - to scare a hedgehog with a naked ass - which is exactly the case here, except it's really a shame that it's the space exploration that ends up suffering because of some bullshit political games.

This is not space exploration, its a jobs program for missile scientists -- you know keep them off the streets, keep them from joining gangs, kind of like Boys Clubs or something.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2013/09/14/the-ski... "The collapse of the Soviet Union created the final incentive to go forward. U.S. officials worried that Russian rocket scientists would go to work for rogue nations, spreading missile technology. In 1993, the United States and its allies brought the Russians into the fold for what would now be called the international space station. The international agreements ensured that the funds would keep flowing to the project despite changes in administrations and turnover in Congress."

In retrospect seems like as good an idea as arming the mujahideen in the 80's or putting Lenin on the train from Zurich.

Post reply on HN