
How Elon Musk exposed billions in questionable Pentagon spending - abhi3
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/elon-musk-rocket-defense-223161?href
======
schiffern
>When ULA was formed, Boeing and Lockheed were not only battling each other
for launch contracts, they were also locked in a legal battle over rocket
technology. For the Pentagon, the joint-venture was a way to settle the bad
blood between its top contractors and make sure that both could remain in the
space launch business. ...

> In his remarks, Tobey referred to that payment — about $800 million per year
> — as a carrot to “sweeten the deal” for the “shotgun wedding” the Pentagon
> forced on Boeing and Lockheed. ...

> Shelby continues to defend the original concept of ULA, noting that Boeing
> and Lockheed were battling each other in court over rocket technology before
> the merger.

>“There was a lot of trouble at one time between Boeing and Lockheed,” Shelby
noted in a brief interview.

Strange that the article never comes out and says it: Boeing committed
industrial espionage and bribed Air Force procurement officials.

[http://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-probe-
intensifie...](http://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-probe-intensifies-
over-secret-lockheed-papers/)

[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9802E2D9103BF...](http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9802E2D9103BF937A35751C0A9639C8B63)

[https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2006/June/06_civ_412....](https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2006/June/06_civ_412.html)

------
ianai
Wasn't one of the primary motivations for privatising the space industry to
cut costs? So player A wound up having significantly higher costs than later
player B. Oh, but mind you, player B (spacex) has had some very serious
accidents along the way. I don't remember hearing about such with ULA. I don't
necessarily read this as a story of corruption and waste, full stop. Unless I
missed something...

~~~
gaius
ULA's track record is 100%

~~~
thomasahle
Also if you look at the individual companies since their foundation?

~~~
gaius
That's besides the point. What the govt is paying for with ULA is risk
reduction. If you absolutely _have_ to get that satellite up in response to a
geopolitical situation, for example. Musk has done great work and SpaceX is
definitely cost-competitive but can it deliver that level of certainty? No-one
knows.

~~~
thomasahle
My point is that a 100% track record is easy to achieve, if you are allowed to
reset the counter just by renaming your company or forming an alliance.

~~~
gaius
They haven't done that. 106 launches.

~~~
gunshigh
You're missing the point. Lockheed and Boeing had initial failures when each
company was started. It's not like Boeing put up rockets on day one without a
problem.

Then, when each company approaches stability with their launches, they form a
new alliance. That new alliance has "zero failures", but that's only because
you ignore each company's original problem s.

~~~
clintonb
I see your point, but it's not exactly relevant. As a purchaser in need of
putting a multi-million dollar satellite in space, I could not care less that
your company had failures in its infancy. I want to see your most-recent
results as evidence of your ability to put my satellite in space. Comparing
SpaceX, and whatever its success rate is, to ULA, and it's 100% in 106
launches, is easy.

The string of 106 successful launches is what I'm looking at. Just because
you're new to the market doesn't necessarily mean you get a pass on
quality/success. This is especially true when we're talking about putting
expensive objects, that took years to build, in space.

~~~
soared
> I could not care less that your company had failures in its infancy

> Just because you're new to the market doesn't necessarily mean you get a
> pass on quality/success

Contradiction?

~~~
dogma1138
No it's not. When SpaceX gets to 100 launches with no failures you could
effectively reset their counter if you want.

ULA has currently 100% in orbit mission success rate which cannot be
overlooked.

Now for some it might not be an issue considering SpaceX is considerably
cheaper, but if you are putting a new spy satellite into orbit your risk
metrics might be different.

~~~
soared
What I meant was if you're willing to allow failure in a company's infancy,
doesn't that mean they /do/ get a pass on quality/success?

~~~
mockery
The key point is that you're evaluating both companies TODAY, and they're at
different points in their evolution. The fact that ULA/etc. had failures in
their infancy is fairly irrelevant because that's the distant past - the fact
that SpaceX had failures in its infancy is highly relevant because they're
still IN their infancy.

The "pass" on quality/success is for things that happened in the distant past
because they're less relevant to current performance, not some strange pass
for anything that happens "during infancy" regardless of when that was.

~~~
thomasahle
Probably we can all agree, if we just say "30 launch strike" instead of "100%
track record". The former is still impressive, whereas the second is a bit
deceiving.

~~~
dogma1138
But it's not misleading, ULA has a stable launch system with a 100% success
rate, SpaceX currently does not.

ULA can also currently life heavier cargo than SpaceX and the most important
part is that they do not still tweak the system to "improve".

When SpaceX comes with Dragon9Next and it has 100% success rate you can in
effect reset the track record for that platform, you can ignore the company
but you cannot ignore the platform. If Dragon Heavy turns out to be 100%
reliable after a 100 launches they could be able to play in the same league as
ULA but currently they cannot. Launching supplies to the ISS is fine and all,
same goes for commercial satellites but some activities especially when it
comes to government agencies and manned space flight play by a different rule
book of risk metrics and calculations.

The NSA doesn't care about insurance money if it's satellite explodes it cares
that it now cannot intercept SIGINT over the south china sea and so the US
which could affect US national security, the NRO doesn't care about insurance
money it cares about being able to track Russian nuclear silos to make sure
that the men who are guarding them are not stealing the warheads to buy
potatoes. And when we are talking about manned flight well then considering
the enormous costs of training an astronaut, as well the cost of loss of life
and the reputation damage that any accident will incur even a 10 times
decrease in KG to Orbit costs might not be enough to go with the cheaper but
the "less reliable" option.

------
kiba
The senators in the story are transparently corrupt, but also doing their job.

Their job is to represent the interests of their state or their constituency.

Otherwise, their constituency would vote them out.

These senators are working at cross-purpose with our broader national
interests.

~~~
1123581321
They are acting in self-interest, not doing their job.

The job of a US senator is best expressed by the oath of office they take: _“I
do solemnly affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the
United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true
faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without
any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and
faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So
help me God.”_

The actual day-to-day duties of a Senator are: _" Senators, along with members
of the House of Representatives, propose, author, and vote on federal
legislation that touches upon all aspects of U.S. domestic and foreign policy.
Senators provide advice and consent on executive nominations and treaties and
conduct oversight of all branches of the federal government."_

I realize that few if any senators take their oath seriously, but it's still
wrong to say that they are doing their jobs when they do the wrong thing.

[http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/F...](http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/Feature_Homepage_TheOathWeTake.htm)
[http://www.senate.gov/index.htm](http://www.senate.gov/index.htm)

~~~
nickff
Senators are there to represent their state's interests, not those of the
nation; this is very clear from the fact that it was originally the government
of the state that selected the senator, rather than the populace. You are
forgetting the "States" part of the "United States of America".

~~~
1123581321
It's expected that the Constitution doesn't contradict a state's longer-term
interests (senators serve longer terms than those in congress) and if it does,
it will be amended.

Note that's quite different from saying senators should serve the interests of
a national government.

------
philtar
I'm glad Elon Musk found enough time to expose the Pentagon's spending after
personally launching and navigating a space shuttle.

Glad we have reporters checking whether Elon Musk is getting enough vacation
time. We wouldn't want Elon Musk to burn Elon Musk out.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2015/09/2...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2015/09/29/elon-
musk-needs-a-vacation/)

------
tdkl
When a state is printing trillions, what is a "measely" billion anyway ?

~~~
superobserver
While this is technically true, the issue is that the result of the print is
sent to a favored few, which is fundamentally at the expense of those who do
not receive an apportioned amount. Hence, with the kind of structured
inflation that is designed to "aid" the economy, you will always find losers -
usually the average tax-paying citizen who constantly struggles to save up for
(rental, car, mortgage, school, etc.) debt payment.

~~~
numair
Medicare and Social Security are the largest components of the budget. Most of
the government's people and money are dedicated to services for the average
person.

~~~
superobserver
In a way, you're correct, but in another, you're stretching it by a
significant margin. Those expenses come out of payroll and is categorized as
mandatory spending, in any case. The discretionary spending, to which I
implicitly referred, is the principal thing under discussion here, I believe,
and is remarkable in its primary output.

Ref.: [https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-
bud...](https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-
budget-101/spending/)

