
U.S. Air Force overstepped bounds in SpaceX certification: report - cryptoz
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/26/us-usa-military-space-idUSKBN0MM2QZ20150326
======
msandford
If SpaceX is providing fixed pricing to the Air Force rather than cost plus
pricing, their internal processes and methods are basically irrelevant. The
only time that matters is when doing cost plus where management efficiency
might have some kind of an impact on the price.

The Air Force took a pretty silly position on the whole thing IMO.

~~~
foobarqux
Certification isn't about cost, it's about safety, where internal processes
and methods are paramount.

~~~
bediger4000
You know, I wish I could believe that in the context of "aerospace" or
"Defense Department". After working in aerospace in the mid-80s, I came to
believe that certification was more about barrier-to-entry than anything else.
Ever notice how the seat-belt buckles on passenger transport planes look like
a 1948 design? They're certified, and it costs way too much to certify a new
design or process. Sorry to be cynical, but I just don't believe the public
justifications of "certified" any more.

~~~
rdtsc
> I came to believe that certification was more about barrier-to-entry than
> anything else

Still the case with most government procurement processes.

If you manage to jump through all the "certification" hoops, you can mark up
your product to an insane rate and then lobby for certification to be
expanded.

Then the government has a list of "approved" vendors who are basically in the
"certification" club and sometimes you can only find a product of a particular
type only by a particular company and when you ask them for the price, your
jaw drops (especially if there is a 20x cheaper COTS one on the market at the
same time).

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
You can add Medical to that list. Need a USB thumb drive for a Medical Device?
That'll be 10x the cost of the exact same one you can buy on Amazon. OK, so
_maybe_ the vendor guarantees traceability. So now you just paid 10x the price
to be safe in the knowledge that you and Amazon are buying from the same guy
in a basement in Shenzen.

------
tcskeptic
_" Welch faulted SpaceX for assuming its experience launching other Falcon 9
rockets would suffice to be certified, and not expecting to have to resolve
any issues at all."_

That sounds unbelievable to me, like one of those findings of issues that come
out of a review that is given to parties that have done very little actually
wrong --but _something_ is needed as a sop so the other guy doesn't feel
picked on. I cannot imagine that SpaceX went into a review expecting no issues
or feedback, I can easily imagine them hitting the roof when a list of 400
issues came back.

~~~
hga
Especially since SpaceX _knows_ these payloads need additional security,
including cleared employees it can only hire if it's got a contract
(clearances at this level are associated with a job, although it's of course a
lot easier to get a new clearance for someone who's been recently employed
with one).

------
panzagl
Sounds like the Administration/ Pentagon wants some sort of "SpaceX is good"
certification, which is pretty much counter to everything military procurement
is designed to do. The process is designed to be resistant to outside
political pressure. In this case it is bad, as SpaceX most likely has the
technological ability to compete with incumbents. But I think we could all
easily imagine opposite cases where caving to political pressure is bad.

Of course the system isn't perfect, and politics still plays a major in role
in program funding. But it could be worse.

~~~
tankenmate
But when you see, for example, huge arguments over the fact that SpaceX
doesn't do vertical integration and hence shouldn't be considered for
certification, it does make you wonder.

~~~
panzagl
Unfortunately vertical integration makes things hugely easier for the
organization doing the certifying, and avoids the issue of two contractors
blaming each other (and the gov't) when the integrated solution fails.

It's a difficult problem that only gets made more so as visibility and
pressure on the project increase.

~~~
seanflyon
I think that you are using a the more general meaning of vertical integration,
but in this context it means putting the payload on the rocket while the
rocket is standing upright and not on its side.

SpaceX is dramatically more vertically integrated as a company than the ULA
(their competitor for government launches).

------
borgia
>The Pentagon is eager to certify SpaceX as a second launch provider, given
mounting concerns in Congress about ULA's use of a Russian-built engine to
power its Atlas 5 rocket.

What's this about? Is there any substance to it? Or is it congress members
upset the engines weren't bought from one of their buddies?

~~~
TeMPOraL
I think it's because Russians have banned US from using their engines for
military launches.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-180#2014_availability_concer...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-180#2014_availability_concerns)

~~~
lutorm
Well, that _and_ the US congress have banned themselves from using their
engines at all, apart from ones already bought.

------
madaxe_again
Perhaps SpaceX should just work with other militaries and organisations around
the world who have more realistic ways of working - I mean, after all, this is
a capitalist society, right?

~~~
tsotha
No, it isn't. What would give you that idea?

It's illegal for SpaceX to work with foreign governments or companies without
State Department approval.

~~~
madaxe_again
I know.

Perhaps they should re-domicile in a nice equatorial country, say, Guyana.

~~~
ceejayoz
If they want to lose most of the contracts that pay their bills, sure... as
well as access to all of their manufacturing and launch facilities.

------
dba7dba
Established US defense/space industry does not want to make it easy for SpaceX
to enter the market. Simple as that.

Since many generals leaving AirForce join the major firms as basically
lobbyists, you can see where that's headed.

It's not REALLY the AirForce that's making it hard. It's the established space
launch firms, using their newly hired lobbyists.

------
baudtack
Sorry, I don't understand this article. What exactly did the Air Force do that
was wrong?

~~~
0x5f3759df-i
>dictating changes in SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket and even the company's
organizational structure.

Why should the Air Force have any say in a company's organizational structure?

The Falcon 9 is already good enough for NASA cargo missions.

The air force has been dragging their feet through this whole process and
their regulations seem to be created to be so narrow that only ULA (United
Launch Alliance) is able to achieve certification.

~~~
hga
Security can require that. Various SpaceX employees are going to have to have
or get clearances, and I'm sure there's rules about who can manage them and
how.

------
32faction
> He urged the Air Force's Space and Missiles Systems Center to "embrace
> SpaceX innovation and practices," while SpaceX needed to understand the Air
> Force's need to mitigate risks, and be more open to benefiting from the
> government's experience.

I found this to be the most important point in the entire article because I'm
sure the USAF is very "old guard" with a mentality of "if it isn't broken
don't fix it" while on the other hand, SpaceX is the new kid on the block with
the newest and coolest tech

------
cwyers
This video about the evolution of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle may shed some
light on why the Air Force ended up with a report with far more requested
changes than SpaceX had anticipated:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA)

------
ak1394
Funny funny funny, are we seeing Russian trolls on hacker news?

Yesterdays article
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9269760](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9269760)
got me thinking, there were several newly registered users voicing doubts in
American Democracy and showing support for Russsa (c_los, M8, ibi7) and now
borgia is chipping in for Russian rocket engines.

~~~
dang
Accusations of astroturfing aren't allowed here. See
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9180466](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9180466)
and the links there for why.

Astroturfing is a problem on the internet, but destroying civil discourse by
smearing users you disagree with is no way to address it.

~~~
ak1394
Fair enough, sorry.

------
centro
The Air Force grew a backbone and did not bend to political pressures, good on
them. Space X needs to compete on Cost AND Quality.

