Reuters reported Friday evening that the Defense Department has given its “conditional backing” to the formation of the United Launch Alliance. Neither the DOD nor the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), with whom DOD officials met with on Friday, are talking about these recommendations; the Reuters article is based on the insights of one analyst, Loren Thompson, who has connections with many Pentagon officials. Thompson said the Pentagon wants to “aggressively manage” the ULA, and make sure it has “a robust structure with adequate capital and expertise.” A DOD spokeswoman later told Reuters that Kenneth Krieg, the undersecretary for defense for acquisition who met with the FTC Friday, made “no ‘official’ recommendation.”
For shame!
the industrial/military complex lives!
Wow! BoLockMart should be running the War on Terror, it looks a lot like they just backed the Pentagon into a corner. At least the Pentagon can justifiably argue they weren’t really trying.
“The Pentagon wants to “aggressively manage” the joint venture”
With what? They pick their space leadership to be “supporting” not aggressive. In the unlikely event they pick a CINCSPACE with a space background or anyone else who might be able to duel with BoLockMart, they get swapped out every two years anyway.
If by “aggressive” they mean sending in armies of annoying bureaucrats, well, that’s BoLockMart’s main line of work, and gives ULA all the cover they need to make a killing as various shades of management and technical turmoil lead to “unfortunate and unforseeable” cost overruns.
If the Pentagon actually wanted their space program to have a chance of recovery they might start by reinstating SpaceX’s launch site at Vandenberg.
A bit off topic. but:
… All these happened before the launch date was moved to July [2006]. We have been pushed pretty hard by management to make the May date. A lot of people here have been working long hours for a long time. But the good news (according to our managers) has been that there is no schedule pressure.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
source: http://www.NASAsnitch.com
As I was saying some time ago herein, the remaining Shuttles are going to be launched on an approximately once per year, 4th of July summertime fireworks festival schedule.
source: NASAsnitch.com
Yes it is off-topic and the website doesn’t exist (or at least is not presently accessible). Please direct such comments elsewhere and any responses to this directly to me.
Turning again to the issue at hand, here’s what CAGW had to say on ULA late last year:
http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=9358
And here’s what they had to say in January:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/CAGW_Criticizes_Subsidies_For_ULA_Satellite_Launches.html
“”The contracts’ structure obscures the true cost to taxpayers and rewards scandalous behavior with lucrative long-term deals. To encourage innovation and keep down costs, the Air Force should revert to price-competitive acquisitions and widen the playing field to new competitors,” Schatz concluded.”
Please direct such comments elsewhere and any responses to this directly to me.
Yessir, as you say, sir, I’m so sorry sir.
Anything you say. I wil report to mo one but you. That’s the chain of command.
Doesn’t help that the rumors are that the next AFSPC CC will be a 3 Star, and not a 4 Star. That, and it has been said that AFSPC will be suborindate to ACC.
I can see it now, the 3 Star (rumored to be a pilot) complains to BoLockMart who in turn runs to the ACC 4 Star (pilot flying BoLockMart airplanes)…
I’m just waiting for the first EELV under ULA to blow up on the pad… If congress had a spine, they’d knock some heads about.
The Space “Cadre” is more like the red-headed step child of the Air Force all the time. Time for an independent Space Force, not suborindating space to the pilots (akin to recombining the Air Force and the Army). Space is fundamentally different from aircraft and ground-pounders. It’s next to impossible to scrub a launch after it’s lit and we can’t repair on-orbit spacecraft. The sooner the pilots and congress realize this, the better off we’ll be.
“Doesn’t help that the rumors are that the next AFSPC CC will be a 3 Star, and not a 4 Star.”
I’ve been convinced elsewhere that this is actually a good rationalization of the command structure. What I am not convinced about however is AF’s dedication to space. The Space Cadre, to the extent they exist, still have only of fraction of the experience that their correpsonding aircraft guys have in their respective fields. Why?
I agree with Brent, for shame. This is a bad deal in any meaningful sense. Combined with NASA’s decision not to use the EELVs, this decision is guaranteed to result in higher launch prices for everyone, not just the military. Let us hope that SpaceX succeeds this week, because, with affordable EELVs effectively out of the picture, we will need their vehicle.
— Donald
Kevin,
You mind explaining why the demotion to a 3 star in Space Command makes sense? I’m opposed to such an idea, but I’ll listen to a reasoned argument in case I missed something.
Brent, I have no reasoned argument I’m afraid. In the absence of information I rely on the opinions of people I respect.
I think the real worry here is just where this Space Cadre is headed. Take a look at this:
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj05/win05/staats.html
Figure 2 says it all.
Kevin,
Interesting that you chose LtCol Staats’ and Maj Abeyta’s paper. You by any chance read the article immediately after that?
I don’t see what Fig 2 proves. The drop in AFIT space grads seem to generally follow the personnel end strength trend of the USAF total. In any case, I have serious disagreements with the opinion that space leadership must have technical graduate degrees. More than math knowledge must an officer have, even a space officer.
As an early 2005 AFIT grad, I have first hand knowledge of process. AFSPC sent me to AFIT to get said space ops degree. Given that I had a very similar masters from UCCS, I opted for a physics degree. Word from AFSPC POC was that there were not enough qualified applicants for the program I was selected for. AFIT is a fire hose: easy for 2LTs, tough for senior Captains/Majors (10+ years removed from undegrad). There will be a ramp up in the number of space Masters degrees starting in 2005. The article you refer to is using 2004 data.
AFSPC does, however, need to do a better job of identifying which positions require an Advanced Academic Degree. My current position was supposed to be a directed energy AAD position. However, the day after I got here, they moved me to an orbital position (unrelated to DE for you conspiracy nuts) because I had perfect experience for the new position (nothing to do with the degree I had just earned).
What I’ve heard (no links to anything, and this is through many layers of rumor, and includes some of my own hypothesizing(sp?)) is that the whole rank structure of the Air Force is being changed, with only two commands “combat” and “support.” The commanders of each of those would be four-star generals and there would be few others. If true, this is a huge shift from the 11 four-star structure of today. Based on that structure, missiles would fall under combat while space would go under support.
I’d need to know more of the story before I made a call on the wisdom of the plan.
“You by any chance read the article immediately after that?”
No; interesting… It’s a debate for another day and I’ll have to give it some thought. And Alistair’s point is well taken too.
In the meantime, perhaps fig.2 was the wrong figure. Forget the best and brightest for now, I am more worried about _everyone’s_ lack of experience in space relative to their air counterparts, regardless of technical level. What does a comparative lack of experience on the space side lead to? Nothing?
Kevin,
Oh, you meant the experience of aircrew vs space people. Aha! I think that was figure 1. I couldn’t agree more. It is unfortunate that so many people in Space Command have so little space experience.