Connect with us

News

SpaceX nears big US govt. missions as ULA handwaves about risks of competition

Falcon 9 B1045 rolls out to Pad 40 ahead of its first launch in April 2018. (NASA/SpaceX)

Published

on

Speaking at the 2018 Von Braun Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama, ULA COO John Elbon expressed worries that the US National Security Space (NSS) apparatus could be put at significant risk if it comes to rely too heavily on the commercial launch industry to assure access to space.

Given that the US military’s launch capabilities rest solely on SpaceX and ULA and will remain that way for at least three more years, Elbon’s comment was effectively an odd barb tossed in the direction of SpaceX and – to a lesser extent – Blue Origin, two disruptive and commercially-oriented launch providers.

Reading between the lines

For the most part, Elbon’s brief presentation centered around a reasonable discussion of ULA’s track record and future vehicle development, emphasizing the respectable reliability of its current Atlas V and Delta IV rockets and the ‘heritage’ they share with ULA’s next-generation Vulcan vehicle. However, the COO twice brought up an intriguing concern that the US military launch apparatus could suffer if it ends up relying too heavily on ‘commercially-sustained’ launch vehicles like Falcon 9/Heavy or New Glenn.

To provide historical context and evidence favorable to his position, Elbon brought up a now-obscure event in the history of the launch industry, where – 20 years ago – companies Lockheed Martin and Boeing reportedly “set out to develop … Atlas V and Delta IV” primarily to support the launch of several large satellite constellations. The reality and causes of the US launch industry’s instability in the late ’90s and early ’00s is almost indistinguishable from this narrative, however.

Despite the many veils of aerospace and military secrecy surrounding the events that occurred afterward, the facts show that – in 1999 – Boeing (per acquisition of McDonnell Douglas) and Lockheed Martin (LM) both received awards of $500M to develop the Delta IV and Atlas V rockets, and the military further committed to buying a full 28 launches for $2B between 2002 and 2006. Combined, the US military effectively placed $3B ($4.5B in 2018 dollars) on the table for its Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program with the goal of ensuring uninterrupted access to space for national security purposes.

Advertisement

Rocketing into corporate espionage

“The robust commercial market forecast led the Air Force to reconsider its acquisition strategy.  The EELV acquisition strategy changed from a planned down-select to a single contractor and a standard Air Force development program [where the USAF funds vehicle development in its entirety] to a dual commercialized approach that leveraged commercial market share and contractor investment.” – USAF EELV Fact Sheet, March 2017

The above quote demonstrates that there is at least an inkling of truth in Elbon’s spin. However, perhaps the single biggest reason that the EELV program and its two awardees stumbled was gross, inexcusable conduct on the part of Boeing. In essence, the company’s space executives conspired to use corporate espionage to gain an upper-hand over Lockheed Martin, knowledge which ultimately allowed Boeing to severely low-ball the prices of its Delta IV rocket, securing 19 of 28 available USAF launch contracts.

Ultimately, Lockheed Martin caught wind of Boeing’s suspect behavior and filed a lawsuit that began several years of USAF investigations and highly unpleasant revelations, while Boeing also had at least 10 future launch contracts withdrawn to the tune of ~$1B (1999). USAF investigations discovered that Boeing had lied extensively to the Air Force for more than four years – the actual volume of information stolen would balloon wildly from Boeing’s initial reports of “seven pages of harmless data” to 10+ boxes containing more than 42,000 pages of extremely detailed technical and proprietary information about Lockheed Martin’s Atlas V rocket proposal.

“If you rewind the clock 20 years, there were folks on a panel like this having dialogue about commercial launch, and there were envisioned several constellations that were going to require significant commercial launch. Lockheed Martin and Boeing set out to develop launch vehicles that were focused on that very robust commercial market – in the case of McDonald Douglas at the time, which later became Boeing, the factory in Decatur was…sized to crank out 40 [rocket boosters] a year, a couple of ships were bought to transport those…significant infrastructure put in place to address that envisioned launch market.” – John Elbon, COO, United Launch Alliance (ULA)

 

Advertisement

In reality, Boeing was so desperate to secure USAF launches – despite the fact that it knew full well that Delta IV was too expensive to be sustainably competitive – that dozens of employees were eventually roped into a systematic, years-long, highly-illegal program of corporate espionage specifically designed to beat out government launch competitor Lockheed Martin. Humorously, Delta IV was not even Boeing’s design – rather, Boeing acquired designer McDonnell Douglas in late 1996, five days before the USAF announced the decision to reject Boeing and another company’s EELV proposals, narrowing down to two finalists (McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed Martin).

Seven years after the original lawsuit snowballed, Boeing settled with Lockheed Martin for a payment of more than $600M in 2006, accepting responsibility for its employees’ actions but admitting no corporate wrongdoing. Five years after that settlement, John Elbon became Vice President of Boeing’s Space Exploration division. This is by no means to suggest that Elbon is in any way complicit, having spent much of his 30+ years at Boeing managing the company’s involvement in the International Space Station, but more serves as an example of how recent these events are and why their consequences almost certainly continue to reverberate loudly within the US space industry.

SpaceX forces change

Worsened significantly by the consequences of Boeing’s lies about the actual operational costs of its Delta IV rocket (it had planned to secretly write off a loss on each rocket in order to steal USAF market share from LockMart), the commercial market for the extremely expensive rocket was and still is functionally nonexistent. 35 out of the family’s 36 launches have been contracted by the US military (30), NOAA (3), or NASA (2); the rocket’s first launch, likely sold at a major discount to Eutelsat, remains its one and only commercial mission.

ULA’s Delta Heavy seen during the August 2018 launch of NASA’s Parker Solar Probe. (Tom Cross)

Atlas V, typically priced around 30% less than comparable Delta IV variants, has had a far more productive career, albeit with very few commercial launches since the Dec. 2006 formation of the United Launch Alliance. Since 2007, just 5 of Atlas V’s 70 launches have been for commercial customers. Frankly, although Atlas V was appreciably more affordable than Delta IV, neither rocket was ever able to sustainably compete with Europe’s Ariane 5 workhorse – Ariane 5 cost more per launch, but superior payload performance often let Arianespace manifest two large satellites on a single launch, approximately halving the cost for each customer. Russia’s affordable (but only moderately reliable) Proton rockets also played an important role in the commercial launch industry prior to SpaceX’s arrival.

After fighting tooth and nail for years to break ULA’s US governmental launch monopoly, SpaceX’s first dedicated National Security Space launch finally occurred less than a year and a half ago, in May 2017. SpaceX has since placed a USAF spaceplane and a classified NSS-related satellite into orbit and been awarded launch contracts for critical USAF payloads, most notably winning five of five competed GPS III satellite launches, to begin as early as mid-December. Falcon 9 will cost the USAF roughly 30% less than a comparable Atlas 5 contract, $97M to ULA’s ~$135M.

 

Advertisement

A bit more than two decades after Boeing bought McDonnell Douglas and began a calculated effort to steal trade secrets from Lockheed Martin, Elbon – now COO of the Boeing/Lockheed Martin-cooperative ULA – seems to fervently believe that the most critical mistake made in the late 1990s and early 2000s was the USAF’s decision to partially support the development of two separate rockets. Elbon concluded his remarks on the topic with one impressively unambiguous summary of ULA’s position:

“We have to make sure that we don’t get too much supply and not enough demand so that the [launch] providers can’t survive in a robust business environment, and then we lose the capability as a country to do the launches we need to do … [That’s] the perspective we have at ULA and it’s based on the experience that we’ve been through in the past.”

In his sole Delta IV vs. Atlas V case-study, what ULA now seems to think might have been “too much supply” under the USAF’s EELV program appears to literally be the fundamental minimum conditions needed for competition to exist at all – two companies offering two competing products. Short of directly stating as much, it’s difficult to imagine a more concise method of revealing the apparent belief that competition – at all – is intrinsically undesirable or risky.

A recording of the Von Braun Symposium’s Commercial Space panel can be viewed here at timestamp 01:11:40.

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

Tesla plans to adjust heavily scrutinized car part with simple engineering

“We’ll have a really good solution for that. I’m not worried about it.”

Published

on

Tesla Model S self-presenting door handle
Tesla Model S self-presenting door handle (Credit: TesBros)

Tesla is going to adjust one heavily scrutinized part of its vehicles after recent government agencies have launched probes into an issue stemming from complaints from owners.

Over the past few days, we have reported on the issues with Tesla’s door handle systems from both the Chinese and American governments.

In China, it dealt with the Model S, while the United States’ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported nine complaints from owners experiencing issues with 2021 Model Ys, as some said they had trouble entering their car after the 12V battery was low on power.

Bloomberg, in an interview with Tesla Chief Designer Franz von Holzhausen, asked whether the company planned to adjust the door handle design to alleviate any concerns that regulatory agencies might have.

Regarding the interior latch concerns in the United States:

Advertisement
  • Von Holzhausen said that, while a mechanical door release resolves this problem, Tesla plans to “combine the two” to help reduce stress in what he called “panic situations.”
  • He also added that “it’s in the cars now…The idea of combining the electronic and the manual one together in one button, I think, makes a lot of sense.” Franz said the muscle memory of reaching for the same button will be advantageous for children and anyone who is in an emergency.

Regarding the exterior door handle concerns in China:

  • Von Holzhausen said Tesla is reviewing the details of the regulation and confirmed, “We’ll have a really good solution for that. I’m not worried about it.”

The new Model Y already has emergency mechanical door release latches in the back, but combining them in future vehicles seems to be an ideal solution for other vehicles in Tesla’s lineup.

It will likely help Tesla avoid complaints from owners about not having an out in the event of a power outage or accident. It is a small engineering change that could be extremely valuable for future instances.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Elon Musk calls out viral claim of 10,000 Tesla Optimus deal: “Fake”

For now at least, Tesla seems determined to focus on the development of Optimus V3.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla Optimus/X

Elon Musk has provided some clarification to recent reports suggesting that PharmAGRI, a US pharmaceutical and agricultural infrastructure company, is looking to deploy 10,000 Optimus robots for its operations.

Musk posted his clarification on social media platform X.

Alleged Optimus purchase

Recently, reports emerged stating that PharmAGRI Capital Partners will be tapping into Tesla’s humanoid robots for its operations. The firm claimed that it had executed a Letter of Intent with Tesla to deploy up to 10,000 Optimus Gen 3+ humanoid robots across its SuperPharm and CEA facilities. This should allow the company to automate its labor and ensure diversion control.

A comment from Lynn Stockwell, Chairwoman & CEO, suggested that the company really was partnering with Tesla. “With Tesla robotics powering our facilities and DEA-licensed infrastructure in place, we can scale with precision, meet federal sourcing mandates, and deliver therapies that are compliant, secure, and American-made,” she said. 

Elon Musk clariies

News of PharmAGRI’s Optimus claims quickly spread on social media, though some Tesla watchers argued that it seemed unlikely that the EV maker will commit two legions of Optimus robots to a rather unknown company this early. Some pointed out that Tesla typically commits to high-profile customers to test its early products, such as PepsiCo with the Tesla Semi. 

Advertisement

Photos from PharmAGRI’s website depicting Tesla Optimus bots, as well as the rather basic look of the website itself, also brought more reservations to the company’s claims. Ultimately, Elon Musk weighed in on the matter, responding to a post about PharmAGRI’s Optimus-filled webpage. Musk was quick and direct, simply stating, “Fake.”

Elon Musk’s comments were quite unsurprising considering that Optimus is still very much in active development, and thus, it is quite unlikely that the company is already taking orders or even Letters of Intent from potential customers at this time. For now at least, Tesla seems determined to focus on the development of Optimus V3, which Musk has noted will be “sublime.”

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Elon Musk: Self-sustaining city on Mars is plausible in 25-30 years

Musk noted that true self-sufficiency requires Mars to develop “all the ingredients of civilization.”

Published

on

Credit: Elon Musk/X

Elon Musk has stated that a self-sustaining human settlement on Mars could be established in 25-30 years, provided launch capacity increases dramatically in the coming decades. 

Speaking at the All-In Summit, the SpaceX CEO said building a self-sufficient colony depends on exponential growth in “tonnage to Mars” with each launch window, highlighting Starship’s role as the company’s pathway to interplanetary initiatives.

Mars settlement goals

Musk noted that true self-sufficiency requires Mars to develop “all the ingredients of civilization,” from food production to microchip manufacturing. Starship Version 3 is expected to support the first uncrewed Mars test flights, while future iterations could reach 466 feet in height and deliver larger payloads critical for settlement. Ultimately, Musk stated that an aggressive timeline for a city on Mars could be as short as 30 years, as noted in a Space.com report.

“I think it can be done in 30 years, provided there’s an exponential increase in the tonnage to Mars with each successive Mars transfer window, which is every two years. Every two years, the planets align and you can transfer to Mars. 

“I think in roughly 15, but maybe as few as 10, but 10-15-ish Mars transfer windows. If you’re seeing exponential increases in the tonnage to Mars with each Mars transfer window, then it should be possible to make Mars self-sustaining in about call it roughly 25 years,” Musk said. 

Advertisement

Starship’s role

Starship has flown in a fully stacked configuration ten times, most recently in August when it completed its first payload deployment in orbit. The next flight will close out the Version 2 program before transitioning to Starship Version 3, featuring Raptor 3 engines and a redesigned structure capable of lifting over 100 tons to orbit.

While SpaceX has demonstrated Super Heavy booster reuse, Ship reusability remains in development. Musk noted that the heat shield is still the biggest technical hurdle, as no orbital vehicle has yet achieved rapid, full reuse.

“For full reusability of the Ship, there’s still a lot of work that remains on the heat shield. No one’s ever made a fully reusable orbital heat shield. The shuttle heat shield had to go through nine months of repair after every flight,” he said. 

Continue Reading

Trending