<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Senators debate RD-180 replacement, EELV competition</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/07/20/senators-debate-rd-180-replacement-eelv-competition/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/07/20/senators-debate-rd-180-replacement-eelv-competition/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=senators-debate-rd-180-replacement-eelv-competition</link>
	<description>Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:35:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.38</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dick Eagleson</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/07/20/senators-debate-rd-180-replacement-eelv-competition/#comment-563381</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dick Eagleson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2014 01:23:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=7251#comment-563381</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I think I&#039;ll quit while I&#039;m ahead.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think I&#8217;ll quit while I&#8217;m ahead.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mader Levap</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/07/20/senators-debate-rd-180-replacement-eelv-competition/#comment-562462</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mader Levap]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jul 2014 19:23:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=7251#comment-562462</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why? Simple. As Listner succintly said, more money for parasi... er, lawyers on every side.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why? Simple. As Listner succintly said, more money for parasi&#8230; er, lawyers on every side.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael J. Listner</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/07/20/senators-debate-rd-180-replacement-eelv-competition/#comment-561087</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael J. Listner]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jul 2014 10:56:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=7251#comment-561087</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I would be happy to explain it...billed at my hourly rate.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would be happy to explain it&#8230;billed at my hourly rate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dick Eagleson</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/07/20/senators-debate-rd-180-replacement-eelv-competition/#comment-560345</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dick Eagleson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jul 2014 05:04:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=7251#comment-560345</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Not being a big deal space lawyer I sometimes get confused by all this legal stuff with the big Latin words and all.  So maybe you can help me out here.  Why would a judge who was in any way leaning toward granting USAF&#039;s request for dismissal due to alleged lack of standing also ask for the complete record of the transaction at issue as well as order compulsory mediation of the dispute?  If she was going to dismiss the complaint, wouldn&#039;t she just &lt;i&gt;do&lt;/i&gt; that and make an end of it?  How is mandated discovery and mandated mediation consistent with dismissal of the basic complaint?  How does it make sense to, in essence, say, &quot;You have no business bringing this complaint.  Buuuut, as long as you and these other two parties are here anyway, I&#039;m going to order you to sit down at the same table and try to work this thing out...  Oh yeah, and you other two guys, I&#039;m going to put periscopes up both your asses and see what there is to be seen.  Now all of you, get busy!&quot;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not being a big deal space lawyer I sometimes get confused by all this legal stuff with the big Latin words and all.  So maybe you can help me out here.  Why would a judge who was in any way leaning toward granting USAF&#8217;s request for dismissal due to alleged lack of standing also ask for the complete record of the transaction at issue as well as order compulsory mediation of the dispute?  If she was going to dismiss the complaint, wouldn&#8217;t she just <i>do</i> that and make an end of it?  How is mandated discovery and mandated mediation consistent with dismissal of the basic complaint?  How does it make sense to, in essence, say, &#8220;You have no business bringing this complaint.  Buuuut, as long as you and these other two parties are here anyway, I&#8217;m going to order you to sit down at the same table and try to work this thing out&#8230;  Oh yeah, and you other two guys, I&#8217;m going to put periscopes up both your asses and see what there is to be seen.  Now all of you, get busy!&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael J. Listner</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/07/20/senators-debate-rd-180-replacement-eelv-competition/#comment-558961</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael J. Listner]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jul 2014 21:35:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=7251#comment-558961</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[And actually, I didn&#039;t take a hit.  You&#039;re so busy looking at me that you don&#039;t see that linebacker charging you from the blind side.  Watch your own predictions. I can cover my backside just fine.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And actually, I didn&#8217;t take a hit.  You&#8217;re so busy looking at me that you don&#8217;t see that linebacker charging you from the blind side.  Watch your own predictions. I can cover my backside just fine.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael J. Listner</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/07/20/senators-debate-rd-180-replacement-eelv-competition/#comment-556752</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael J. Listner]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jul 2014 10:31:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=7251#comment-556752</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We&#039;ll see.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We&#8217;ll see.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dick Eagleson</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/07/20/senators-debate-rd-180-replacement-eelv-competition/#comment-555612</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dick Eagleson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jul 2014 04:25:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=7251#comment-555612</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You got tackled hard behind the line of scrimmage on this one, Lawyer Mike.  You might want to take a few seconds to shake off the hit and adjust your cup before you go predicting again.  There&#039;s obviously a strong enough stench coming from the block buy deal that the judge is in no mood to just stamp it Grade AAA Fancy Extra-Large and move on.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You got tackled hard behind the line of scrimmage on this one, Lawyer Mike.  You might want to take a few seconds to shake off the hit and adjust your cup before you go predicting again.  There&#8217;s obviously a strong enough stench coming from the block buy deal that the judge is in no mood to just stamp it Grade AAA Fancy Extra-Large and move on.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dick Eagleson</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/07/20/senators-debate-rd-180-replacement-eelv-competition/#comment-555579</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dick Eagleson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jul 2014 04:13:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=7251#comment-555579</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I read that Space News article too.  The judge failed to support the contention by ULA that SpaceX had no standing.  That would seem to suggest the comparable objection by USAF is also going to go down in flames.  That&#039;s also a point against Mr. Listner, Esq. who&#039;s been assuring us for weeks that SpaceX had no standing and their suit would be laughed out of court.  Who&#039;s laughing now, Lawyer Mike?  Oh yeah, that would be ME!

That business about producing the full record of the process implies the judge found the whole deal smelly enough to do a thorough colonoscopy on the thing.  I&#039;m guessing we may be hearing shortly about subpoenas for e-mails and all the kind of stuff that&#039;s been going on in the IRS investigations in DC.  And with a lot of the same ultimate results, I suspect.  The &lt;i&gt;full&lt;/i&gt; record of the block buy deal is probably going to see some people jailed before it&#039;s over.  Everyone involved in this execrable farce should spend the rest of their lives paying through the nose for lawyers, doing depositions, responding to writs, standing trial and serving time.  They need to be made examples of with extreme prejudice.

Okay, enough of waxing wroth.  Time for some more of my favorite things - predictions!

The mediation the judge has mandated is likely to go smoothly.  By the time mediation starts, it will be obvious even to ULA and USAF that there will be no more RD-180&#039;s and, hence, no more Atlas V&#039;s beyond the handful buildable with the rapidly dwindling supply of on-hand engines.  At that point the block buy will have to be declared dead for ULA&#039;s lack of ability to deliver on it as written.  The only question then will be what replaces it.

USAF has birds that need to fly.  I suspect a deal will be struck in which SpaceX makes its own block buy offer for all birds on the manifest whose mass and orbital elements are within the Falcon 9&#039;s lift envelope, with reusability margin or without.  USAF will entertain a counteroffer from ULA based on Delta IV.  SpaceX will win.

ULA will then offer a reduced block buy deal for missions with heavy birds based on a combination of Atlas V configurations they still have engines enough to build and upper-end Delta IV Mediums or Delta IV Heavies for the remainder.  SpaceX will agree to this deal provided the missions involved are to launch before Jan. 1, 2017, the latest date by which they expect to achieve EELV certification for Falcon Heavy.  ULA will object that Falcon Heavy could fail in either testing or certification reviews and miss this date.  SpaceX will agree that, in such a case, it will make no objection to ULA getting an additional year of sole-source awards for heavy bird launches.  SpaceX will also agree to a contingency version of ULA&#039;s block buy deal that will cover the extra year should ULA be able to offer more savings to the government in this way.  There will be a bit of pro forma wrangling about minor points and then all three parties will agree to the pair of agreements, plus the contingency agreement, and everyone will go back to work bending metal and launching satellites.

In the interim, USAF will find that it likes block buys but not multi-year ones.  By Jan. 1, 2017, it will have negotiated new ones for the coming year with both EELV certified suppliers.  As preserving alternatives was the original rationale of the EELV program, USAF, using a formula similar to that NASA uses to award CRS and CC contracts - the cheapest supplier gets the most work but all certified bidders get at least some - will award a certain amount of business to the Delta IV division of Boeing, ULA having disintegrated after the end of Atlas V production in early 2016.  Boeing will have incentives to get its costs and prices down by being awarded more business as it does so.


SpaceX will still get the lion&#039;s share of heavy satellite launch missions based on the low cost and generous boost margins of Falcon Heavy.  It will get even more of the small and medium payloads for Falcon 9.  The main price competition for future USAF annual block buys is going to be between SpaceX and Orbital Sciences-ATK for small and medium payloads.

Taking a page from SpaceX&#039;s book, Orbital will surprise everyone by making its Antares Mk2 launcher reusable in a way similar to SpaceX&#039;s Falcon 9, but different too.  The new Antares 1st stage will feature a cluster of seven ATK solid rocket engines, each putting out 250,000 lbs. of thrust.  The first stage will also have a half dozen small, steerable, pressure-fed, LOX-Methane liquid fueled engines producing 8,000 lbs. of thrust each around its periphery.

On ascent the liquid-fueled engines provide modest extra thrust plus steering control.  At MECO, all seven solid-fueled engine casings, now spent, are ejected rearward and discarded.  The remaining lightened 1st stage mass now flies a somewhat SpaceX-like return-to-launch-site trajectory using all six liquid-fueled engines during re-entry and three to land vertically with on fold-down, tripod legs.

ATK&#039;s expertise making ammunition, tactical rocket motors and large solid-fueled rocket engines are combined to make the Antares 1st-stage main engines cheap and disposable, but also of high quality.  The Orbital-ATK ammunition and tactical rocket motor engineers get to design the production line.

Orbital-ATK will only have a single test mission for the revamped Antares under its belt as of Jan. 1, 2017, but the coming year will see it launch three more CRS missions to ISS with this vehicle, plus a CC mission pushing a Dream Chaser per its recent agreement with Sierra Nevada Corp.  The vehicle, already in the preliminaries of EELV certification, will receive that imprimatur by Jan. 1, 2018.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I read that Space News article too.  The judge failed to support the contention by ULA that SpaceX had no standing.  That would seem to suggest the comparable objection by USAF is also going to go down in flames.  That&#8217;s also a point against Mr. Listner, Esq. who&#8217;s been assuring us for weeks that SpaceX had no standing and their suit would be laughed out of court.  Who&#8217;s laughing now, Lawyer Mike?  Oh yeah, that would be ME!</p>
<p>That business about producing the full record of the process implies the judge found the whole deal smelly enough to do a thorough colonoscopy on the thing.  I&#8217;m guessing we may be hearing shortly about subpoenas for e-mails and all the kind of stuff that&#8217;s been going on in the IRS investigations in DC.  And with a lot of the same ultimate results, I suspect.  The <i>full</i> record of the block buy deal is probably going to see some people jailed before it&#8217;s over.  Everyone involved in this execrable farce should spend the rest of their lives paying through the nose for lawyers, doing depositions, responding to writs, standing trial and serving time.  They need to be made examples of with extreme prejudice.</p>
<p>Okay, enough of waxing wroth.  Time for some more of my favorite things &#8211; predictions!</p>
<p>The mediation the judge has mandated is likely to go smoothly.  By the time mediation starts, it will be obvious even to ULA and USAF that there will be no more RD-180&#8217;s and, hence, no more Atlas V&#8217;s beyond the handful buildable with the rapidly dwindling supply of on-hand engines.  At that point the block buy will have to be declared dead for ULA&#8217;s lack of ability to deliver on it as written.  The only question then will be what replaces it.</p>
<p>USAF has birds that need to fly.  I suspect a deal will be struck in which SpaceX makes its own block buy offer for all birds on the manifest whose mass and orbital elements are within the Falcon 9&#8217;s lift envelope, with reusability margin or without.  USAF will entertain a counteroffer from ULA based on Delta IV.  SpaceX will win.</p>
<p>ULA will then offer a reduced block buy deal for missions with heavy birds based on a combination of Atlas V configurations they still have engines enough to build and upper-end Delta IV Mediums or Delta IV Heavies for the remainder.  SpaceX will agree to this deal provided the missions involved are to launch before Jan. 1, 2017, the latest date by which they expect to achieve EELV certification for Falcon Heavy.  ULA will object that Falcon Heavy could fail in either testing or certification reviews and miss this date.  SpaceX will agree that, in such a case, it will make no objection to ULA getting an additional year of sole-source awards for heavy bird launches.  SpaceX will also agree to a contingency version of ULA&#8217;s block buy deal that will cover the extra year should ULA be able to offer more savings to the government in this way.  There will be a bit of pro forma wrangling about minor points and then all three parties will agree to the pair of agreements, plus the contingency agreement, and everyone will go back to work bending metal and launching satellites.</p>
<p>In the interim, USAF will find that it likes block buys but not multi-year ones.  By Jan. 1, 2017, it will have negotiated new ones for the coming year with both EELV certified suppliers.  As preserving alternatives was the original rationale of the EELV program, USAF, using a formula similar to that NASA uses to award CRS and CC contracts &#8211; the cheapest supplier gets the most work but all certified bidders get at least some &#8211; will award a certain amount of business to the Delta IV division of Boeing, ULA having disintegrated after the end of Atlas V production in early 2016.  Boeing will have incentives to get its costs and prices down by being awarded more business as it does so.</p>
<p>SpaceX will still get the lion&#8217;s share of heavy satellite launch missions based on the low cost and generous boost margins of Falcon Heavy.  It will get even more of the small and medium payloads for Falcon 9.  The main price competition for future USAF annual block buys is going to be between SpaceX and Orbital Sciences-ATK for small and medium payloads.</p>
<p>Taking a page from SpaceX&#8217;s book, Orbital will surprise everyone by making its Antares Mk2 launcher reusable in a way similar to SpaceX&#8217;s Falcon 9, but different too.  The new Antares 1st stage will feature a cluster of seven ATK solid rocket engines, each putting out 250,000 lbs. of thrust.  The first stage will also have a half dozen small, steerable, pressure-fed, LOX-Methane liquid fueled engines producing 8,000 lbs. of thrust each around its periphery.</p>
<p>On ascent the liquid-fueled engines provide modest extra thrust plus steering control.  At MECO, all seven solid-fueled engine casings, now spent, are ejected rearward and discarded.  The remaining lightened 1st stage mass now flies a somewhat SpaceX-like return-to-launch-site trajectory using all six liquid-fueled engines during re-entry and three to land vertically with on fold-down, tripod legs.</p>
<p>ATK&#8217;s expertise making ammunition, tactical rocket motors and large solid-fueled rocket engines are combined to make the Antares 1st-stage main engines cheap and disposable, but also of high quality.  The Orbital-ATK ammunition and tactical rocket motor engineers get to design the production line.</p>
<p>Orbital-ATK will only have a single test mission for the revamped Antares under its belt as of Jan. 1, 2017, but the coming year will see it launch three more CRS missions to ISS with this vehicle, plus a CC mission pushing a Dream Chaser per its recent agreement with Sierra Nevada Corp.  The vehicle, already in the preliminaries of EELV certification, will receive that imprimatur by Jan. 1, 2018.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dark Blue Nine</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/07/20/senators-debate-rd-180-replacement-eelv-competition/#comment-555237</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dark Blue Nine]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jul 2014 02:15:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=7251#comment-555237</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Those same &#039;old tired lawyers&#039; know a thing or two about nasty&quot;

Old and tired or not, the &quot;nasty&quot; (or at least competent) lawyers do not appear to be working for ULA:

&quot;Braden denied a motion from ULA to dismiss the lawsuit... Braden said ULA &#039;has no basis to challenge&#039; SpaceXâ€™s standing&quot;

http://www.spacenews.com/article/military-space/41391judge-orders-mediation-for-spacex-us-air-force]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Those same &#8216;old tired lawyers&#8217; know a thing or two about nasty&#8221;</p>
<p>Old and tired or not, the &#8220;nasty&#8221; (or at least competent) lawyers do not appear to be working for ULA:</p>
<p>&#8220;Braden denied a motion from ULA to dismiss the lawsuit&#8230; Braden said ULA &#8216;has no basis to challenge&#8217; SpaceXâ€™s standing&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.spacenews.com/article/military-space/41391judge-orders-mediation-for-spacex-us-air-force" rel="nofollow">http://www.spacenews.com/article/military-space/41391judge-orders-mediation-for-spacex-us-air-force</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dark Blue Nine</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/07/20/senators-debate-rd-180-replacement-eelv-competition/#comment-555220</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dark Blue Nine]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jul 2014 02:10:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=7251#comment-555220</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;But it is hard currency and the cash-strapped Russian space program isnâ€™t going to bite the hand that feeds it&quot;

U.S. currency isn&#039;t the end-all, be-all consideration for the Russian leadership.  If Putin &amp; Co. need to strike back against U.S. sanctions or simply appear strong to challengers domestically, the RD-180 income stream may be traded away.

And with the new sanctions the White House imposed on certain Russian aerospace/defense design bureaus the day _before_ MH-17 was shot down, U.S. leadership may decide it&#039;s more important to cripple specific Russian manufacturers or send stronger messages to Russia&#039;s leadership than avoiding the costs of transferring Atlas payloads to other launchers.

The threats to RD-180 imports have multipled this month, not dwindled.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;But it is hard currency and the cash-strapped Russian space program isnâ€™t going to bite the hand that feeds it&#8221;</p>
<p>U.S. currency isn&#8217;t the end-all, be-all consideration for the Russian leadership.  If Putin &amp; Co. need to strike back against U.S. sanctions or simply appear strong to challengers domestically, the RD-180 income stream may be traded away.</p>
<p>And with the new sanctions the White House imposed on certain Russian aerospace/defense design bureaus the day _before_ MH-17 was shot down, U.S. leadership may decide it&#8217;s more important to cripple specific Russian manufacturers or send stronger messages to Russia&#8217;s leadership than avoiding the costs of transferring Atlas payloads to other launchers.</p>
<p>The threats to RD-180 imports have multipled this month, not dwindled.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
