Congress, Pentagon

Senate appropriators to hear from SpaceX and ULA on military space launch issues

The Senate Appropriations Committee’s defense subcommittee (SAC-D) has scheduled a hearing next week on “National Security Space Launch Programs” featuring the top executives of two key companies. The hearing, scheduled for 10 am Wednesday, March 5, will include as witnesses United Launch Alliance (ULA) CEO Michael Gass and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, along with Christina Chaplin of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and Scott Pace, director of George Washington University’s Space Policy Institute.

The hearing comes as there’s increased pressure on the DOD to reduce launch costs. The Air Force recently reached a deal with ULA on a “block buy” of 36 rocket cores for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehcle (EELV) program, which currently includes only ULA’s Atlas V and Delta IV rockets. The block buy promises to save billions of dollars, although some are skeptical of that accounting.

SpaceX, meanwhile, is seeking to win business from the EELV program with its Falcon 9 and upcoming Falcon Heavy rockets, which offer much lower prices than Atlas and Delta vehicles. Earlier this week, the Air Force announced that SpaceX’s inaugural Falcon 9 v1.1 launch last September will count towards its EELV certification, despite a problem with the relight of the rocket’s second stage after it released all its satellite payloads. The Air Force is still assessing the following two Falcon 9 v1.1 launches, which took place in December and January, but both of those appeared to take place without incident. Those launches, plus other reviews, will allow the Air Force to certify the Falcon 9 v1.1 for EELV-class launches.

25 comments to Senate appropriators to hear from SpaceX and ULA on military space launch issues

  • vulture4

    What is Scott Pace’s authority on this?

    • Dark Blue Nine

      Not much recently. He worked STS at Rockwell early in his career, and his late-80s PhD was on space launch options for the 1990s. But since then, his signature policy accomplishments have been in spectrum, GPS, and related issues — all good work. His tenure as head of NASA’s independent program analysis office during the Constellation debacle and goofy op-eds since leaving NASA about Ares I coming back speak for themselves.

    • josh

      none. he has proven to be totally incompetent with constellation. not only that but he is unable to own up to his mistakes. the guy is a bad joke.

  • amightywind

    From the link: SpaceX must meet rigorous certification requirements and perform at least three successful flights of a common launch vehicle configuration for the company to be considered for launching critical and high cost NSS payloads.

    I suppose the Air Force requirement is “three somewhat successful flights”. Anything for Mr. Musk in Obama’s compromised and hopelessly diseased DOD.

  • Fred Willett

    The list price for a paid in full Falcon 9 flight is $56.5M according to SpaceX site.
    http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities
    However if they do a flight for the government they add in a fee of $20M to cover the cost of NASA paperwork.
    The Senate committee could do worse than look at this add on costs a spaceflight incurs.
    Another issue is simply the cost of ULA flights.
    Under-secretary of Defence Frank Kendall said the
    “(EELV) rocket program over 150 missions has more than doubled since 2004, to nearly $70 billion.”
    That works out at $466.6M a flight.
    $466.6M for ULA vs. $80M for SpaceX.
    Hmmmmm.
    No wonder ULA wants to lock in a block buy.
    Talk about crony capitalism, eh windy?

    • RockyMtnSpace

      Fred whined – “The list price for a paid in full Falcon 9 flight is $56.5M according to SpaceX site. … Another issue is simply the cost of ULA flights. Under-secretary of Defence Frank Kendall said the
      “(EELV) rocket program over 150 missions has more than doubled since 2004, to nearly $70 billion.” That works out at $466.6M a flight.
      $466.6M for ULA vs. $80M for SpaceX.
      Hmmmmm.
      No wonder ULA wants to lock in a block buy.
      Talk about crony capitalism, …”

      Fred, quit being a SpaceX shill and dig a little deeper. The quoted “list price” is for the LV only. Want a coupled loads analysis? (It’s required) That will cost you extra. Want mission design support? (It’s required too) Yup, a little extra for that. Want P/L integration support? (You guessed it, it’s required). Tack on a little more to that “list price”. Want Launch telemetry? (a real nice to have by the way and usually a must have for the DoD) Just add that to the bottom line too. Get the picture Fred. Go talk to some real DoD LV users. I have. When it is all said and done, SpaceX comes in at about 85-90% of ULA launch services that are all rolled up into their launch costs. Oh, and by the way, that $56.5M only gets you a small F9. Doesn’t address the large majority of DoD/IC launches and can’t match the larger Atlas/Delta variants in terms of lift or P/L volume. Kinda an apples-oranges comparison there Fred.

      • Neil Shipley

        It’s pretty clear that SpaceX is going to be much cheaper for their DoD flights than ULA. If you want a comparison then you should review the commercial launch record of DoD over the last 10 years and then look at SpaceX again over the last 10 years.

        Notice the growth in the SpaceX manifest and the reductions in ULA manifests. Fact is that’s the real deal. ULA is gouging as much as it can out of the government. Why wouldn’t they anyway? They’ve had zero competitors in the market. Quibbling over ‘mission design support’ etc is just that, quibbling. Doesn’t change the picture at all.

      • Neil Shipley

        Oh and you can run the numbers on FH as well. Doesn’t change the results.

      • Coastal Ron

        RockyMtnSpace said:

        Oh, and by the way, that $56.5M only gets you a small F9. Doesn’t address the large majority of DoD/IC launches and can’t match the larger Atlas/Delta variants in terms of lift or P/L volume.

        For DoD payloads the DoD will order the Falcon Heavy, which can place double the amount of payload to GTO than what Atlas V and Delta IV Heavy can do, and it’s list price is only $135M. Since Delta IV Heavy currently goes for about $450M/launch, according to you all the add on services cost more than the rocket itself. You’re not convincing.

        As to P/L volume, the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy fairings are both the same, and both are in the same size range as what Atlas V and Delta IV offer – you can see the measurements on their respective websites.

        So far you have failed to refute or impress…

      • Fred Willett

        SpaceX comes in at about 85-90% of ULA launch services that are all rolled up into their launch costs.
        All these add ons cost $316M? Who woulda thunked it.
        Oh, and by the way, that $56.5M only gets you a small F9.
        Again Hmmmm.
        F9
        payload to LEO 13,150kg (28,991lb)
        payload to GTO 4,850kg (10,692lb)
        Atlas V 531
        payload to LEO 12,880kg (28,410lb)
        payload to GTO 7,450kg (16,420lb)
        You’re partially right in that F9 has very poor GTO performance, but in LEO applications it’s better than Atlas V 531 which puts it right in the middle of the EELV range, so not apple and oranges at all. Both are EELV class vehicles.
        By the way F9 blows the Delta IV away in performance to LEO, but again falls short in GTO performance.
        However F9 is not SpaceX’s GTO launcher (except for really small sats like SES 8 and Thaicom)
        For GTO flights SpaceX is going to rely on Falcon Heavy. Coming soon to a launch pad near you.
        FH
        payload to LEO 53,000kg (116,845lb)
        payload to GTO 21,200kg (46,738lb)
        Comparing that to Atlas or Delta really is apples and oranges.

        • Fred Willett

          Oh one more thing. SpaceX is developing a raptor methane engine. The SpaceX fanboys think this is for a giant mars rocket. Personally I can’t see it.
          Musk wouldn’t spend a fortune building a rocket for which there is no market yet.
          In the short term he wants 2nd stage reusability and a methane Raptor powered upper stage would
          1/ cure the problem of the under powered F9 upper stage.
          2/ Give him plenty of upper stage margin for reusability and
          3/ Position SpaceX for when they do decide to build their methane powered MTC. The 2nd stage will already be built!

        • Neil Shipley

          Fred. In case you weren’t aware of it, SpaceX just picked up an SES satellite weighing in at about 5,300kg to BEO so the published figures are conservative.

          F9v1.1 to leo is calculated at some 16mt so again published figures are conservative. This could be due to SpaceX reservations for reuse of the first stage. Elon recently stated that he was very happy with the vehicle and that they were flying at 85% thrust levels on the Merlin 1D so that also could be the reason.

          Either way, the vehicle is very capable and I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see it pick up payloads around the 5,500kg to BEO. In addition, it seems to be very reliable as well.

      • josh

        ridiculous and inept attempts to defend crony capitalism and corporate welfare. you’re pathetic.
        got to keep that 1 billion dollar a year subsidy going, eh?

  • Fred Willett

    More re launch costs of $466.6M a flight for ULA vs $80M a flight for SpaceX.
    A related issue is why ULA continues to get the subsidy of $1B a year for assured space access to space.
    SpaceX doesn’t get part of that.
    Orbital doesn’t get part of that.
    Isn’t it time the Senate removed what is just a market distorting subsidy?

  • MrEarl

    When the subsidies and ULA were created US launch capabilities were rather limited. Delta II and a dwideling number of Titian IIIs carried the vast majority of NASA and DoD payloads. Now we have proven capabilities from SpaceX and Orbital with other companies considering getting into the launch business.
    Considering the major funding cuts the military is considering and the evolved state of launch capabilities in the US, it’s time to end the subsidies and purchase DoD launch vehicals strictly on price and capabilities. It’s evolve or perish.

  • josh

    in an open and free market, undistorted by favors from bought and paid for politicians and corrupt dod officials ula would have long vanished from the scene. their prices are simply obscene. this is corporate welfare at its worst, i.e. ula enriching themselves at the cost of the taxpayer.
    old space can’t wither and die soon enough.

  • Gary Warburton

    Hurrah, It`s has been said at last, said at last. Now, how are these republican congressmen going to squirm their way out of this one, without looking silly?

    • Robert G Oler

      The GOP has something right now that helps with that…a fan base that more or less believes what they are told on Fox News. today black is green tomorrow it is white…no problem. RGO

  • DocM

    Re: SpaceX’s Raptor methane engine,

    Raptor was initially speced at ~660,000 klbf, but recently Tom Mueller (SpX’s VP of Propulsion) stated it will deliver 1 million lbf. Kinda big for an F9/FH upper stage don’t you think?

    He also explicitly said it’s for a 10 meter core, 9 Raptor lower stage, so it’s not just the fan boys opinion that it’s for a BFR.

    Component tests start at Stennis this year.

  • DocM

    Typo: initial Raptor ~660,000 lbf, not klbf.

  • Coastal Ron

    Heck of a hearing today – not your usual bland hearing. Musk (SpaceX) and Gass (ULA) were throwing punches back and forth, and the Senators were egging them on.

    I think Musk came out ahead, mainly because he was advocating for competition, lower prices, and buying 100% American. Hard to argue against that…

Leave a Reply to Neil Shipley Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>