
SpaceX granted injunction in rocket launch suit against Lockheed-Boeing - cryptoz
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/elon-musks-spacex-granted-injunction-in-rocket-launch-suit-against-lockheed-boeing/2014/04/30/4b028f7c-d0cd-11e3-937f-d3026234b51c_story.html
======
rayiner
Note it's a preliminary injunction
([http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/business/spacex/9...](http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/business/spacex/968)),
which is basically a device that keeps the status quo from changing
irreversibly while the parties figure out the merits of the suit. This doesn't
mean that SpaceX has "won" but it does mean that they have demonstrated at
least a "substantial likelihood for success on the merits" of the case.

~~~
smackfu
It also only applies "until the court receives the opinion of the United
States Department of the Treasury, and the United States Department of
Commerce and United States Department of State, that any such purchases or
payments will not directly or indirectly contravene Executive Order 13,661."

------
jacquesm
"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 another party to re-tool and/or adapt to those
requirement and still beat the only party currently able to supply.

Elon Musk makes a good point when he says that he's willing to lose but he
wants the right to bid.

~~~
robogrowth
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.

~~~
happyscrappy
>some random canadian company got the healthcare website contract

Whose backs were being scratched in that case?

~~~
worklogin
CGI Federal had some interesting ties to the Obamas.

[http://www.factcheck.org/2013/12/michelle-obama-and-cgi-
fede...](http://www.factcheck.org/2013/12/michelle-obama-and-cgi-federal/)

~~~
gandalfu
Actually the cited article conclusion reads:

    
    
      Conclusion
    
      There is no evidence that Townes-Whitley’s connection to the first lady, 
      or CGI’s campaign contributions, had anything to do with the contract being 
      awarded to CGI Federal as viral emails suggest.
    
      Company and government officials say the contract was awarded through a competitive 
      — yet limited — process, and that Townes-Whitley was not involved.

~~~
robogrowth
Just like when the same federal agency investigates their own employees and
finds no wrong doing. Or when a cop is investigated, etc..

I've seen the corruption first hand.. first in the navy and then as a
contractor. The joke about the $500 hammer isn't a joke at all.

------
eps
> 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.

~~~
nkoren
Elon's response to that tweet was more than a little bit epic:

[https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/461279062837968897](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/461279062837968897)

followed by:

[https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/461283368693669888](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/461283368693669888)

Not sure what Rogozin thought about _them_ apples, but this sure isn't boring!

~~~
danielweber
It takes a lot of discipline to keep something like that under wraps until the
exact right time to bring it out.

~~~
colechristensen
Of course, we all knew it was coming. Human spaceflight inside Dragon has
always being a goal. The unmanned resupply missions are steeping stones to
certifying the rocket and capsule for human flight (though unmanned resupply
missions and other launches will continue of course).

------
coreymgilmore
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. There is too much to
lose on either side.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Are you kidding? The USAF has a very cozy relationship with the ULA. It was
obvious to any non-naive observer at the time that the block buy was designed
to lock in billions of dollars in government spending to the ULA before SpaceX
would come along and smash the existing pricing structure, offering launches
that ULA couldn't hope to compete with.

Even if SpaceX's prices go up with EELV launches, and even if they would never
incorporate reusability into EELV launches, they would still be able to offer
launches for every possible EELV payload at prices far below ULA's. Anything
ULA could launch on any of their vehicles SpaceX could launch on the Falcon
Heavy, and many launches (like GPS birds) could happen on the even cheaper
Falcon 9.

With reusability, which SpaceX seems to have a good handle on, those costs get
slashed, especially the cost of the Falcon Heavy. Any EELV payload could be
launched on a reusable Falcon Heavy, even if it meant forgoing crossfeed. Even
if the first stages could only be reused twice (a paltry amount) that would
lower the cost of a reusable Falcon Heavy to around the cost of a Falcon 9,
around $50 million.

Keep in mind that every ULA launcher uses an RL-10 in the upper stage, and
that's a $40 million engine. Even at discounted prices simply having an engine
that expensive (to say nothing of the _rest_ of the vehicle) on every launch
makes it impossible to offer launches as cheap as SpaceX could.

~~~
mrfusion
What is crossfeed?

~~~
InclinedPlane
The Falcon Heavy uses 3 identical cores as the "first stage" of the vehicle.
If each of the stages burns at the same rate and burns out at the same time
then it's basically just one big stage and the Falcon Heavy would just be a
2-stage launcher. Adding more stages increases payload performance of
launchers because you're dumping dead weight. The plan for the Falcon Heavy is
to have cross feed between the engines so that effectively the center stage's
engines are run off the outer stages' fuel tanks until those tanks are dry.
Then the outer stages separate and the center stage fires alone (as a 2nd
stage) until it is depleted, then the upper stage fires (as a 3rd stage),
massively increasing overall payload.

The Delta IV Heavy throttles down the center core during launch and peels away
the outer cores first in a sort of "virtual crossfeed" scenario, though this
comes at the cost of liftoff thrust.

The only problem with crossfeed for the Falcon Heavy is that it leaves the
center core traveling a lot faster and a lot farther down range than the first
stage of a Falcon 9 normally would be, which might make it a lot harder to
return to the launch site for reusability. However, as a worst-case scenario
the Falcon Heavy could be operated without crossfeed with all lower stage
cores burning out at the same time, which would reduce payload significantly
but the cost savings would probably make it worthwhile even so.

~~~
mrfusion
You might need to dumb it down a bit more for me :-(

What's a core? Why would the stages burn at the same time? I thought the
second stage wouldn't turn on until the first stage is jettisoned?

~~~
InclinedPlane
Right. OK. So with a simple 2-stage rocket like the Falcon 9 you have the
first stage which has the 2nd stage stacked on top of it which has the payload
stacked on top of it. During a normal flight the first stage (which is the
biggest stage) lights, lifts the whole thing off the ground, and pushes the
rocket up into the air and starts getting it up to speed. Then the first stage
runs out of fuel, it separates and then the 2nd stage takes over, pushing the
payload the rest of the way to orbit.

The Falcon Heavy uses the same "2nd" stage but it uses 3 first stages instead
of just one, which are called "cores". Each core is just a Falcon 9 first
stage, for the most part. The idea of the Falcon Heavy (similar to the way the
Delta IV Heavy works) is that you have three times as many first stages
pushing, which leads to increased payload.

With the cross-feed option you end up with effectively a 3-stage launcher. The
outer two cores becomes like the first stage, and they are jettisoned when
empty, then you have the inner core which now becomes a 2nd stage, and the
previous 2nd stage is now a 3rd stage (or just "upper stage", to avoid
confusion).

But, as mentioned, when you fly this way the 2nd stage core ends up way faster
and way farther away when it's done thrusting, so in the prospect of having it
keep around some extra propellant so it can thrust back to the launch site and
land so it can be reused becomes much more difficult. But in a worst-case
scenario all of the "cores" can be run at the same time, so they burn out the
same distance away from land and can each return and be reused (saving a lot
of money). You end up with only a 2 stage vehicle (3 1st-stages all running at
the same time plus the upper stage) which would decrease performance, but
because you recover all of the first stage cores (instead of only 2/3 of them)
the cost benefit would probably be worth the payload reduction.

~~~
mrfusion
Wow thanks, between this and Gravityloss's comment, I'm really starting to get
a clear picture.

So on the Falcon heavy, is the plan for all three cores to return to the
launch pad independently? Just landing a few hundred feet away from each
other?

~~~
InclinedPlane
Pretty much.

Also, I missed a reusability scenario with Falcon Heavy. You use crossfeed,
you return the outer 2 first stage cores, and you dump everything else. This
is more expensive than reusing all 3 1st stage cores, of course, but it
provides a considerably amount of payload for the cost of essentially an
expendable F9 plus the use of the reusable boosters. So you'd get very heavy
lift capacity (I dunno, maybe 30+ tonnes to LEO) at well under $100 million,
which in the current launch market is a crazy price.

------
Gravityloss
This is very ironic. IIRC when the EELV rockets were bidding for first launch
batches, Boeing used some insider price information to win the majority for
Delta IV. There was a big lawsuit about that and Lockheed Martin's Atlas V
ended up getting more launches.

[http://www.staynehoff.net/boeing-eelv-
punished.htm](http://www.staynehoff.net/boeing-eelv-punished.htm)

~~~
dfc
Where is the irony?

~~~
Gravityloss
The US Government attempted to create competition and a "market" with two
competing launch providers. Boeing didn't play fair, and it was a big scandal.
Finally when everything was put in proper order,the EELV providers couldn't
compete with foreign launchers on the commercial market (commercial use was
envisioned to lower costs for government launches as well). So the two
competitors merged their rocket operations to form ULA. So despite the best
efforts of the government, they just couldn't get the independent providers
and free market thing to work.

But now SpaceX comes along. It's offering just what the government has been
trying to create for decades.

Yet SpaceX has to sue the government, to get to play on a level field.

So the government had trouble with the companies trying to tilt the field. Now
a new company has a problem with the government.

What an odd reversal of things.

~~~
dfc
Yes, the market for rocket technology is not static--circumstances change. An
"odd reversal of things" is not irony.

------
josefresco
For those interested in this topic, I found the following Senate hearing to be
quite entertaining:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_azyt1JhI0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_azyt1JhI0)

Elon basically going head-to-head with Michael Gass from the ULA and holding
his own quite well.

~~~
dfc
How do two people, neither of which is a senator on the relevant committee, go
head-to-head in a Senate hearing?

~~~
thasmin
Senators are not experts on every topic that they govern over, so they solicit
advice from experts.

~~~
josefresco
...and In this case 2/3 of the experts called were/are competing for the
government's business.

Edit: Strike that ... 1/3 of the experts is asking to compete for the
government's business. 1/3 already have a monopoly for this work.

I'd say that's pretty "head to head".

~~~
dfc
As long as "head to head" includes interaction mediated by the Senator
currently recognized and the chairman of the committee. In my opinion this
mediation eviscerates any "direct conflict" between two people who are not
senators.

------
127001brewer
From the article: "...from proceeding with plans to buy _Russian-made_ rocket
engines."

How many manufacturers of rocket engines are there?

 _Edited: Grammar correction._

~~~
jacquesm
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

~~~
rst
Rocket engines is what they're buying in this instance (or rather, what ULA
has been prevented from buying by the injunction): specifically, RD-180
engines, built by the Russian firm NPO Energomash for use on the first stage
of United Launch Alliance's (otherwise) American Atlas V.

(BTW, quite a few of the rocket makers you named buy their engines from
others. ULA also buys engines from Pratt and Whitney, and Orbital has several
suppliers for its various launchers.)

The larger suit does concern a block purchase of whole rockets from ULA, but
the injunction does not interfere with the block buy, just payments to the
Russian subcontractor.

~~~
jacquesm
Interesting, ok so what special requirements could there be attached to
Russian engines that US built engines could not supply?

I can see how if they are dimensioned in such a way that they will fit only a
launch vehicle by a single party how that might be usable as a trick to lock
out competitors (first order launch vehicles without engines, then order
engines without launch vehicles). Both of those would be harder to compete
with than ordering whole rockets!

~~~
rst
Among kerosene/oxygen rockets, the RD-180 gets an unusually high amount of
propulsive kinetic energy per unit of fuel (technically, high specfic
impulse), in part due to a more efficient combustion cycle (staged
combustion), and in part due to very advanced materials science the Russians
have, that the US hasn't matched. (And other engines with similar performance
are also Russian: the RD-170, which is signficantly larger than the RD-180;
the NK-33, which is quite a bit smaller...)

There is an American manufacturer that has licensed the RD-180 design, and
technically has the rights to build them here, but they haven't --- and since
that would involve duplicating Russian metallurgy, there's some skepticism
that they could. (At a recent Senate hearing, it was the head of ULA(!) who
said the Russian design did "things we found that our textbooks said were
impossible".)

If you're asking why ULA can't just buy something else from, say, Pratt and
Whitney, then the short answer is, "they don't sell anything that fits on an
Atlas V". Think about trying to use the engine from a VW bug (or a large
truck) to replace the engine in a pickup: even if the fuels are the same (and
you can't take that for granted!), the fittings and performance
characteristics are different enough that the combined thing just wouldn't
work.

~~~
tanzam75
The Chinese are developing an engine, the YF-100, based on the Russian RD-120.
It's a staged combustion engine with an oxygen-rich preburner -- very similar
technology to the RD-180.

The YF-100 has already gone through a full-length test firing on the ground,
and the CZ-7 rocket that it's mounted on is scheduled for a test flight later
this year.

If the Chinese have been able to make it, then I see no reason why we can't.

P.S. Does Pratt & Whitney still make rocket engines? I thought they sold
Rocketdyne to Aerojet?

~~~
rst
You appear to be right about P&W.

About the engines: heck, the Space Shuttle Main Engine was staged-combustion
Oxygen-Hydrogen. The question isn't whether the US could produce such an
engine. It's how soon, and how reliably. ULA has laid in what they say is a
two-year stock of engines as a hedge against ... hiccups in the supply chain,
but they'd need new engines after that. For a clean-sheet design, that would
be a crazy aggressive schedule. With RD-180 design docs in hand, well... we
may soon see.

~~~
Gravityloss
In a hydrogen engine, you can do fuel rich staged combustion.

With kerosene, you must go oxidizer-rich. Nobody has mastered that except
Russia. Nobody really knows how much it costs, or how they came up with it.

SpaceX uses the far simpler gas generator cycle.

In staged combustion, you pump some of the propellants to some absurd pressure
like 300 bars, burn them, put them through a turbine that extracts some power
that lowers pressure to 250 bars or so. Then the turbine exhaust is put into
the main combustion chamber, together with the other propellants that were
pumped up to 250 bars. All propellant contributes to thrust.

In a gas generator, you pump all propellants to perhaps 70 bars, divert some
small part to a gas generator that burns them, the exhaust is put to a turbine
that exhausts to ambient air. The turbine powers the pump. So that part of the
propellant flow does not contribute directly to thrust. If you go to higher
pressures with a gas generator engine, you waste a larger portion of the
propellant to run the pump and it's just not worth it. So gas generator
engines are limited to much lower pressures than staged combustion engines.

Lower pressure means bigger engines are needed for the same thrust. Also the
efficiency is worse. A large (tall) rocket can have problems with limited base
area per mass, hence for example the low pressure engined Saturn V had an
expanded base.

Space Shuttle's main engines ran with high pressure and could fit on the back
of the relatively small reusable orbiter vehicle.

------
NamTaf
Related: US House now submits a draft bill that would require the Pentagon to
build a replacement, US-made engine. [1]

Alternatively, they could take a leaf from NASA's book and embrace the COTS
approach that seems to be working for NASA already, so much of the development
time is already resolved?

[1]:
[http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1405/01engine/#.U2MpMig6lTw](http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1405/01engine/#.U2MpMig6lTw)

------
dfc
Does anyone have a copy of the complaint?

