Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government Space The Military Transportation United States

SpaceX, US Air Force Settle Spy Sat Dispute 80

Posted by timothy from the show-elon-what-you're-wearing dept.
hypnosec writes The US Air Force and private space flight company SpaceX have settled their dispute involving the military's expendable rocket program, thereby paving the way for SpaceX to join the spy satellite launch program known as Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV). The settlement opens doors for SpaceX to compete with United Launch Alliance (ULA) for launch of spy satellites. ULA is a joint Boeing-Lockheed venture – the only private player to have received clearance for launching black ops satellites.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SpaceX, US Air Force Settle Spy Sat Dispute More

SpaceX, US Air Force Settle Spy Sat Dispute

Comments Filter:

  • Is someone looking for a job? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Frosty Piss ( 770223 ) * on Sunday January 25, 2015 @06:55PM (#48900861)

    Maybe someone high up in the USAF food chain is retireing soon and looking for a job... Boeing obviously didn't pay them off enough to keep exclusivity on their overpriced program.

    • There are only three US companies with LEO capabilities: ULA (Boeing/Lockheed), SpaceX, and Orbital.

      Of those three, Orbital's Antares is currently grounded after its spontaneous disassembly [youtube.com] a few months ago, and our darling SpaceX's Falcon 9 1.1 has only been in use since 2013. ULA's Delta and Atlas have longer and better track records and much higher payload capacity than the Antares or Falcon 9.

      On top of that, SpaceX and Orbital have never handled classified payloads before, so that's training and time an

      • Re:Is someone looking for a job? (Score:5, Informative)

        by cheesybagel ( 670288 ) on Sunday January 25, 2015 @09:11PM (#48901427)

        A lot of satellites launched by the USAF aren't that large to begin with and were launched on Delta II rockets until quite recently. One example is the GPS constellation satellites. As for the payload capacity problem you talk about once Falcon 9 Heavy is available, possibly this year, SpaceX will be able to launch bigger and heavier payloads than the largest EELV namely Delta IV Heavy.

        As for having a proven track record most of the claims spouted by ULA apologists are plain bullshit. The Delta family had a spotty track record regarding new rocket development. The Delta III program was a disaster and the initial Delta IV Heavy launch didn't go along that well either. Atlas V has a solid launch record and it is cheaper than the Delta IV but it uses Russian engines.

        Despite the first Delta IV Heavy launch failure the DoD still chanced it and used it to launch a really expensive earth reconnaissance satellite right on the next flight. But because SpaceX isn't Lockheed Martin or Boeing they can't get the same privilege.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dbIII ( 701233 )

          Despite the first Delta IV Heavy launch failure the DoD still chanced it

          Looks like space has become a commodity in the eyes of some people. I suggest you take a look at the history of spaceflight to get some understanding of why you don't give up entirely at the first glitch. Giving up too early results in a lack of progress.
          Also are you sure SpaceX needs a perfect flight every time to stay in the game?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Guspaz ( 556486 )

            That was his entire point.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by dbIII ( 701233 )
              You clearly missed the: "But because SpaceX isn't Lockheed Martin or Boeing they can't get the same privilege."

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by LWATCDR ( 28044 )

                Boeing and Lockheed have been in the launch business for decades and have a proven track record.
                SpaceX does not have a heavy launch system yet and a very short track record.
                The Military wanted one supplier for all launches to get bulk pricing and SpaceX can not offer that yet.
                As to the support they get... Yep if you have jobs in the district your Congress people will fight for you because it means votes party does not really matter.
                Frankly that is their job. To help the people that voted for them.

        • The Falcon 9 (1.0 and 1.1 combined) has had one partial failure and 12 successful launches, the Antares one complete failure out of five launches, the Delta II one failure (and one partial failure) out of 152, the Delta IV Medium 20 successful launches with no failures, the IV heavy 7 successes and 1 partial failure on a test flight, the Atlas V 51 successes and 1 partial failure. Yes, the Delta III was horrible, but it was only launched three times back in the 90s and abandoned.

          The DoD launch you're talkin

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Anonymous Coward

            And saying all that why exactly was it a good idea to grant a contract for 5 years at a cost of 460 mil a launch (inlcuding the 1bil ULA Subsidy right off the top) IF any of the launches were to be competed for in the future at all? If SpaceX was '1' year from competing make a 2 year contract but 5? Shenanigans.

          • Most people don't dispute that the original USAF EELV contest was done appropriately. It included more than one launch services provider and was an open competition. But since then Boeing and Lockheed Martin joined their launch operations under the ULA monopoly and stepped up their prices by a large margin. At the same time we have SpaceX as a viable launch operator now. The USAF needed to buy launches this last year and they decided to do a single-source block buy contract with ULA for the next several yea

      • That's a good point; it's not nearly as simple as opening up the bidding. The janitor and break room vending machine guy now have to have some level of background checks. I can't imagine the changes that have to occur in SpaceX's procedures and operations. What if they have a Russian in engineering management? The list goes on...

        So it's a big deal, and I'm not too shocked that my government had to be made to it. Still, the right thing to do would have been to get started the moment SpaceX was capable. and i

  • Superbe, more revenue to fund that trip to Mars
  • I had hoped that SpaceX might hold higher principles :(
    • I had hoped that SpaceX might hold higher principles :(

      Why would you say that?

      • Military launches are where the money is. It would not surprise me if SpaceX's long-term goal has always been do business into the US department of defence with the talk of manned missions being primarily a way of getting media attention. Even if Elon Musk really does want to send people to Mars military launches are a good way to raise the funds to do so.

      • Because so far Elon Musk and SpaceX has given us no reason to think they aren't honest. Show me an example of SpaceX getting a govt contract and failing to deliver, or getting a contract where SpaceX benefits from higher costs (Cost+ contracts).
        Those that can't see SpaceX ethical behavior has been good, really don't know anything about SpaceX.

    • And why are spy satellites inherently bad things? Spying is not inherently bad, and can do some very good things for everyone. It can certainly be abused, but all that means is that we need meaningful oversight and checks against abuse. Even Snowden argues that the NSA needs to refocus on its core mission, not that it needs to be abolished entirely.

      To give an example of Spy Satellites that are an unmitigated good, how about Nuclear Launch Early Warning Satellites? I think I'm pretty glad those are up there

      • Spying is not inherently bad

        Indeed, spying is generally good. When leaders are ignorant of their enemy's capability, they tend to overreact. A century ago, the world bumbled into a world war because of secret treaties, and severe misjudgements about the intentions and constraints on others. Better spying may have prevented that. The cold war was also a result of each side escalating out of precautions driven by ignorance. Looking back, the Soviet Union was never as strong as we feared, and was motivated more by paranoia than by a

        • That's mostly self-serving bollocks. If such observation is so good then it would be essential to let everyone know what is being observed and how. Secrecy works against such claims. Cold war espionage was a very different game. If observation had been so effective, the US would not have built so many nukes - or perhaps the secrecy of such observation allowed the US hawks to spin and get the level of overkill the US eventually achieved. Perhaps if you stopped treating the rest of the world as your enemy, we

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dbIII ( 701233 )

            or perhaps the secrecy of such observation allowed the US hawks to spin

            See the "missile gap" for the most ridiculous amount of "spin". Whoever did not take the lie as real was seen as being too soft, and there was no venue for the truth even if someone in intelligence had done a Snowden.

            • Part of the problem from that originated because of a lack of information. Some of it, too, was pure political spin - IIRC it was a Kennedy '60 campaign talking point. It was only with advances in imagery technology that U.S. intelligence realized the estimates were off. What was it that consituted those advances? Replacing/supplementing the U-2 with... spy satellites.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by dbIII ( 701233 )
                Only a public lack due to secrecy. US intelligence was actually run with some competence in the 1950s before the plum posts were used as rewards for cronies.

              • Part of the problem was that the Soviets were trying to keep secrets and project false information, and they were (and the Russians are) very, very good at that.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by dbIII ( 701233 )
                  Yet it didn't seem to fool the Brits at all, or the Americans in the military, or even the general public who were laughing at the "send the missile trucks around the block so it looks like more of them" tactics. They were no so "very, very good" at hiding large amounts of infrastructure as you seem to imagine. Also it's counterintuitive - if they were so good at hiding things then how can someone see so many extra things than actually existed? It's a moot point since the entire missile gap platform spra

            • Whoever did not take the lie as real was seen as being too soft, and there was no venue for the truth even if someone in intelligence had done a Kim Philby.

              FTFY

              • Comparing Edward Snowden to Kim Philby is absurd. Philby was a murderous traitor. Snowden is a patriot.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by dbIII ( 701233 )
                  Consider the above posters posting record. I think in his view both transgressed against their leaders so seen as equivalent - King before Country.
                  So with that viewpoint Benedict Arnold is the patriot and Washington the traitor. Funny how someone can grow up like that in the USA isn't it, but there you go, it takes all kinds.

                • Why then is he revealing information on what the NSA does outside of the USA?

                  • Oh look, the pro-Snowden moderation team is out in force....

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by LWATCDR ( 28044 )

              You mean what Kennedy (Dem) did?

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by dbIII ( 701233 )
                I was referring to this:

                or perhaps the secrecy of such observation allowed the US hawks to spin and get the level of overkill the US eventually achieved

                So yes, that's one accurate example. I didn't put a Kennedy's name on it so that I could delay the descent into cheerleading for one team or the other or a backlash for daring to say something bad about their "Saint".
                Some people will not allow a bad word to be said about Saint Kennedy or Saint Reagan, so I find in this place it's better to write about the a

          • Your point undercuts your conclusion. Imagery intelligence in the early cold war was limited and poor, and it led to a lot of mistaken analysis - see the "Missile Gap" that Kennedy made a point of his 1960 campaign. It was the use of spy satellites that finally disproved the notion.

            As for letting everyone know and how, you apparently don't realize that's exactly the last thing you want to do in Intelligence work. Why? Because when the target of the collection knows what, how, and when you can collect, they

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by LWATCDR ( 28044 )

        Spying is bad okay...
        You are correct but Slashdot is full of wackattacks that think everyone is spying on them.

  • Not a problem (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    SpaceX will sell the Air Farce the rockets. The AF launches their gear into orbit. SpaceX has nothing to do with it more than to get paid for the hardware and some support personnel who will have to have security clearances. This should help drive down prices for launching spy satellites as now there will be some competition. Lockheed/Boeing can't be happy about that! They had a nice monopoly for a long time.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Kjella ( 173770 )

      SpaceX will sell the Air Farce the rockets. The AF launches their gear into orbit. SpaceX has nothing to do with it more than to get paid for the hardware and some support personnel who will have to have security clearances.

      These aren't just slightly confidential, state of the art spy satellites is top secret business. They'll be worrying that a SpaceX employee can plant something to steal technology, reveal capabilities, damage or compromise the satellite once the payload is installed. I'm guessing you need just a microscopic amount of C4 if it can hook into the antenna and wait for a self-destruct signal so that when you need them the most they go boom and the screens go dark.

    • SpaceX will sell the Air Farce the rockets. The AF launches their gear into orbit. SpaceX has nothing to do with it more than to get paid for the hardware and some support personnel who will have to have security clearances.

      That's not really the way DoD rocket launches work. It's certainly not how Boeing and ULA work.

  • The post contains several errors. EELV was a program in the 1990s to develop modernized rockets to launching USAF payloads (not just 'spy' satellites). The program produced two new competing launch vehicle families: the Boeing Delta IV and the Lockheed-Martin Atlas V. Subsequently, these launch providers merged to form the United Launch Alliance (ULA) which has had a monopoly on USAF launches. ULA has racked up an impeccable reliability record, with something approaching 100 straight successes, but the

    • 'Impeccable' except for the first Delta IV Heavy launch which put the dummy payload in the wrong orbit. Still did not stop the DoD from launching a really expensive satellite on it right on the next flight. Of course if your name is SpaceX instead of Boeing then you need to conduct dozens of continuous successful launches before being accepted. Fact is Falcon 9 also has an 'impeccable' launch record.

      Also there are more companies working on the launch services market like Blue Origin which may eventually ent

      • Still did not stop the DoD from launching a really expensive satellite on it right on the next flight

        There was no other option at the time. It was either a Delta IV Heavy or it didn't get launched.

        Fact is Falcon 9 also has an 'impeccable' launch record.

        And a much shorter one [wikipedia.org]. Five of those were Falcon 1.0 and nine were Falcon 1.1. The Falcon 9 Heavy has not even launched yet. ULA has been launching for over 50 years; Space X less than 5.

        • ULA didn't even exist 50 years ago. Boeing bought their launchers division from Douglas. Atlas was originally built by Convair. People die and institutional knowledge dies with them. Then again Delta IV and Atlas V have little to do with the original rockets. For example they use isogrid manufacturing methods which weren't in common use at the time.

          Also you can get a pretty good ideas of the reliability of a rocket with ten launches. Even 3 launches can be good enough for most purposes. Most accidents with

          • ULA didn't even exist 50 years ago.

            But the components of ULA did. All they did was change the name.

            People die and institutional knowledge dies with them.

            But a significant amount of institutional knowledge live on.

            There are models for this. Given Falcon 9's past launch record it probably has a reliability rate of 90% or more.

            When you can chose between 90% and closer to 100% which would you chose when dealing with very expensive payloads.

            But it seems their launch manifest is quite full with orders so it seems the insurance companies disagree with your perspective.

            You must really be an insider to know the insurances charged for each Space X launch. You have nothing to back up those statements. For all you know these launches have no insurance. Again, it may be an issue of supply and demand. Companies need satellites launched to keep

            • For all you know these launches have no insurance.

              Outside of governments everyone gets launch insurance unless they are out of their mind. A failed launch can easily cause a commercial company to go bankrupt. A government can afford to chance it but not anyone else.

  • More competition can be good but pretending you are inventing a new industry - not so good.

    • Re:Reminder that private space WAS there before (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Fire_Wraith ( 1460385 ) on Sunday January 25, 2015 @09:48PM (#48901543)
      Yes and no.

      The pre-existing "private space industry" was only private in that it was private companies doing work for the government. We're talking about big defense aerospace contractors. You couldn't just go up to Boeing or Lockheed and pay them to launch a payload into orbit. They only sold their rockets to the military/NASA, and if you wanted a payload to go up, you had to get the government to do it. The difference now is that private companies such as SpaceX and Orbital are not just building the rockets, they're launching them too. While the government still has a certain regulatory/oversight involvement, that's hardly the same thing as before. No, the commercial rocket-building business isn't new, but the commercial rocket-launching business certainly is.

      To make an analogy, it would be as if the government previously had been the only purchaser and operator of airplanes in the U.S., even though they were made by Boeing; but now you could go to a private company and fly on an airplane run by them.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        It's relatively new -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] -- but private launch services have been around for a decade or so. Boeing and Lockheed created the United Launch Alliance in 2005/2006, which would buy rockets from Boeing/Lockheed and sell launch services to the government (and the few commercial satellites operators willing to shell out $$$$$$$$$$$$ to launch using ULA).

        SpaceX was around back then too; prior to the formation of the ULA they were complaining that it was looking a lot like a gove

      • They only sold their rockets to the military/NASA,

        There are at least two [wikipedia.org] instances [boeing.com] where commercial satellites went up in Atlas vehicles [wikipedia.org]. You also misses all the NOAA launches.

  • Umm... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Monday January 26, 2015 @01:05AM (#48902229) Journal
    Maybe I just don't understand the bold postmodern reality where you can change things just by changing what you call them; but isn't a 'united alliance' between the two effective players in a market what we used to call a 'cartel'?

    Is there some sort of argument in favor of it that gets trotted out with a straight face when someone asks if there was just too much 'ruinous competition' between Boeing and Lockheed, and some 'price stability' was badly needed, or is this purely a because we can sort of operation?

    • The FTC authorized the merger as long as some terms in a consent degree were followed by both parties. It's very possible that the FTC just said "yeah, whatever the Pentagon wants" and waved it through. But to be honest, I'm not sure if keeping the two companies separate would have been any more efficient. It's already a duopoly with a single, captive buyer, and there's no way that one provider is going to charge much less than the other guy. It's like the airlines. One company set its rates on Monday, and

  • ...is government cheese.

  • There WERE two significant players in the market for American launch vehicles: Lockheed (Atlas family) and Boeing (Delta family). They both priced their products very high based on a government customer who would pay any price, thereby pricing themselves right out of the commercial launch market (leaving both companies seriosously competing ONLY for the relatively few government launches).

    The two companies told the government there was not enough business to support two vendors, and the government (eager to

Slashdot Top Deals

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db

Close