US AeroSpace: Policy & Politics [updates]

38,255 · November 6, 2015

I've been meaning to start a thread like this for a long time, but never did. Time to fix that, because it impacts every US aerospace issue we discuss here.

Rather than turn this into the usual Democrats v Republivans v Tea Party rant-fest, let's keep this on the aerospace policy positions of individuals and agencies. There are members of both partys, and the Teas, who support or are influenced by oldspace, newspace, or just don't care.

We also need to discuss NASA policy, which is mostly set (or allowed to languish) by the White Houee, whoever is there.

I'll kick this off with news about Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Alabama) getting a major primary callenge in the March 1 primary electon. Shelby is definitely an oldspace supporter, and he strongly protects the NASA facilities in Alabama, seeing Commercial Space (especially Commercial Crew) as a threat to them.

Whoever wins the Republican primary usually wins the Alabama Senate election.

Profile of Sen. Shelby's challenger here....

http://atr.rollcall.com/alabamas-richard-shelby-gets-primary-challenge/

Alabama’s Richard Shelby Gets a Primary Challenge

Alabama Sen. Richard C. Shelby may finally have some use for the $19 million in his campaign account.

Filing just before the deadline, Iraq War veteran Jonathan McConnell announced on Friday that he would challenge the five-term Republican senator in a primary.

>

McConnell founded Meridian.us, a global maritime security company, which according to McConnell’s campaign, “combats the Somali Piracy threat against merchant vessels.”

>

>

2,232 · November 12, 2015

Senate Passes U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act

Legislation encourages development of the commercial space sector in Texas and across the country

November 12, 2015

202-228-7561

WASHINGTON, D.C. – On Tuesday, the Senate unanimously passed the U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act (H.R. 2262), a bicameral, bipartisan bill that recognizes the need for development of the commercial space industry and the major role space exploration plays in Texas. Sen. Cruz (R-Texas) led the effort in the Senate to consolidate Rep. Kevin McCarthy’s (R-Calif.) SPACE Act passed in the House with the Cruz-Nelson-Peters U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act (S. 1297) to produce this legislation aimed at strengthening and enhancing President Reagan’s vision of what commercial space could become. The bill is now headed to the House for consideration.

Sens. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) joined Sen. Cruz as sponsors of the U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act. The measure extends the prohibition of federal regulations on the commercial space industry for seven and a half years, the longest such extension in history, establishes property rights beyond Earth and throughout the cosmos, which will help a burgeoning industry in which a single asteroid could net trillions of dollars in platinum, and defines the term “government astronaut” in statute to protect government astronauts under the licensing structure for launch vehicles.

Additionally, this bill extends the operation and utilization of the International Space Station (ISS) to 2024, which will provide mission certainty for Houston’s Johnson Space Center.

“This legislation makes a commitment to supporting the continued development of a strong commercial space sector and recognizes the major stake Texas has in space exploration,” Sen. Cruz said. “It also provides NASA and the International Space Station with nearly a decade of mission certainty by extending the operation and utilization of the International Space Station until 2024. Most importantly, it solidifies and builds upon President Reagan’s efforts to establish America’s leading role in the commercial space sector.”

Full text of the bill can be found here.

Seen this on Ted Cruz's Senate website, haven't taken the time to look for other sources incase this reads a little biased to some.

http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2513

38,255 · November 12, 2015

Yup, they passed a good bipartisan bill.

38,255 · December 10, 2015

McCain is mad about ULA's gaming the GPS-3 bid.

http://spacenews.com/mccain-will-consider-wider-russian-engine-ban/#sthash.ZFSfJstT.dpuf

Quote

McCain Will Consider Wider Russian Engine Ban

WASHINGTON U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said he would consider an unrestricted prohibition on the Russian rocket engine that powers United Launch Alliances Atlas 5 rocket following the companys decision not to bid on the Defense Departments first competitive launch contract in a decade.

In a Dec. 8 letter to U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, McCain, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, also requested an audit of ULAs accounting systems and a report on whether the company tried to subvert Congress by assigning non-military missions to its controversial Atlas 5 rocket, which is powered by the Russian-built RD-180 engine.

Both requests relate to ULAs explanation of why it did not bid to launch a GPS-3 satellite in 2018, effectively ceding the contract to rival SpaceX of Hawthorne, California. McCain said he was troubled by ULAs explanation, which cited the congressionally imposed ban on future use of Russian engines for military launches and issues related to the structure of the procurement.

Specifically, ULA said it did not have an engine available for the mission in question, nor did it have the accounting systems to certify that its existing Air Force business would not benefit its bid, as the procurement required. In addition, ULA said the Air Forces selection criteria gave little weight to past performance and reliablity, two of the companys strengths.

These tactics are inappropriate and intended to support an effort in the Congress to subvert the authorization process, McCain said. The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, drafted in part by McCains committee, exempted four engines from the ban for future competitions, but ULA is seeking much broader relief.

Jessica Rye, a spokeswoman for Denver-based ULA, declined to comment.

In the letter, McCain said he found ULAs claim that it did not have an engine available for the competition especially dubious.
>

6,181 · December 10, 2015

This is one instance that I am glad that ULA raised his blood pressure. In my opinion, McCain is calling it like it is....and calling them out. The only thing that concerns me, is the question of ....Why is the AF appearing to back up ULA for more engines, and now make an issue of a monopoly, when no one heard a word during ULA's monopoly.....actions speak louder than words.....

4,806 · December 10, 2015

I can answer this, DD. (experienced).

It's not the "Air Force" as a whole asking for it. It's the Air Force Liaison Officer (likely a Captain, possibly a Major or a Lt. Col) assigned to ULA, Lockheed-Martin, and/or Boeing (and that AFLOs' Staff, of course -- Officers never type their own letters, you know) asking the Procurement Office in D.C., who then runs it up the CoC to The Pentagon itself -- and it'll be handled through that Office but the request still originates from ULA's AFLO. That's what Sen. McCain is steamed about -- that ULA is even asking, through the AFLO (think "Airflow") in the first place.

Congress hates it when anyone challenges their directives, no matter how arbitrary, so there you have it. Both parties pi**ing in the wind.

1,140 · December 10, 2015

So the Government pays ULA >$800m a year to maintain flight capabilities.

The Government brings in a law which reduces ULA's ability to maintain flight capabilities.

The above seams silly.

The whole problem comes down to Delta, if FH was flying the government could cancel or move the flight capabilities payment to SpaceX, and be done with ULA.

However as FH is not flying, they need to continue to pay ULA to maintain Delta, so they are trying to get their moneys worth by getting them to fly Atlas, just for them.

6,181 · December 10, 2015

And McCain is questioning the use of engines on civilian launches, when there should have been enough engines to launch government projects...ULA created this artificial shortage by intentional bad management.....ULA should be liable for the launches now, with the use of the Atlas 5 or Delta to get commitments settled.

4,806 · December 10, 2015

Completely agree, and that's why Sen. McCain is upset. ULA and Lockheed-Martin have purposely created a shortage, and suddenly ULA wants the ban lifted or some special exceptions made just for them ... nope. Not gonna happen. They can hang themselves by their own rope, he'll say.

6,181 · December 10, 2015

FH needs to be on the pad ASAP......this makes decisions a lot easier for others, if ULA continues to play games....

38,255 · December 11, 2015

The last bits of 39A will start getting worked on soon, and shortly after that the FH cores should start arriving.

6,181 · December 11, 2015

Op-ed | Stay the Course on Launch Competition

Quote

As the former undersecretary of defense for acquisition, I think it is unfair to DoD and ULA shareholders for the company to refuse to compete, and ULA’s entire rationale is unfounded.

John Young, a former U.S. undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, is an adviser to SpaceX.

Quote

United Launch Alliance, the longstanding monopoly provider of U.S. military space launches, has announced that it will not bid for the Department of Defense’s first competitive launch in a decade because it wants more Russian RD-180 engines. Further, ULA claimed to dislike the terms of the competitive solicitation, stating it could not provide a “compliant” bid because it lacked the accounting structures to track its billion-dollar annual contract payments from the federal government.

As the former undersecretary of defense for acquisition, I think it is unfair to DoD and ULA shareholders for the company to refuse to compete, and ULA’s entire rationale is unfounded.

As far back as 2007, I authored an Acquisition Decision Memorandum noting that I was “deeply troubled” by DoD reliance on Russian RD-180 rocket engines. I directed the Air Force to establish a new domestic engine development program or an RD-180 domestic co-production program, or both, as soon as possible.

The use of Russian rocket engines has contributed to the decline of the U.S. rocket engine industrial base and the subsidization of Russia’s. Our nation’s critical space-based capabilities are reliant on the whims, and prices, of Russia and its political leaders. The gradual phase-out of American reliance on Russian rocket engines several years from today is long overdue.

After creating a monopoly provider and paying the world’s highest launch costs by far for over a decade, the Pentagon has taken the critically important step of introducing all-American competition back into its launch enterprise. This effort, which has taken much work by dedicated Air Force professionals, should be applauded. Equally as important, the Air Force has been very deliberate and thoughtful about constructing a competitive procurement environment that strives to be fair and to ensure the best value for the American taxpayer.

With respect to ULA’s need for more Russian RD-180 engines, two consecutive defense authorization bills passed by large bipartisan majorities clearly permit ULA to buy enough Russian engines for its existing Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle block buy contract, awarded without competition and valued at over $11 billion. Legislation also allows ULA to use up to nine additional RD-180 engines from Russia, with a value of over $210 million. Thus, Congress has also allowed ULA to buy nine extra Russian RD-180 engines for yet-to-be-awarded, competitive DoD missions — covering all of the competitive missions DoD plans to award through at least 2017 and likely well beyond.

The current competition is for a single launcher to carry a GPS 3 satellite. It is not possible that ULA does not have a single RD-180 (of nine) to allocate to this competition, especially since Congress in November authorized the purchase of four additional RD-180s for DoD competitive missions. Further, ULA is free to buy additional RD-180s from Russia for any commercial or non-DoD missions that ULA is given. On this point, there should be no confusion. There is no “need” to spend more limited taxpayer defense dollars on Russian engines.

With respect to the accounting issues, ULA objected to a requirement that bidders certify that they are not billing other government contracts for competitive missions. Notably, this provision applied to all offerers with “other government contracts,” not just ULA. Disturbingly, ULA asserted that it lacked the “accounting structures” to submit a compliant bid and to account for billions of dollars in cost-plus government payments.

ULA also characterized the GPS 3 launch competition as being “lowest price, technically acceptable.” The competition is explicitly a “best value” competition. The request for proposals includes technical evaluation of a number of factors and subfactors defining performance, launch operations, schedule and price. Thus, there is no basis for ULA’s concerns or its unsubstantiated refusal to compete.

Congress and the Air Force have called for competition in the EELV program, largely because the price of space launch had become “unsustainable.” Today, competition is possible by three certified launch vehicle families in the Air Force’s EELV program: the Russian-powered Atlas 5, the American-powered Delta 4 and the American-made Falcon 9. The three systems offer comparable capability for all of the proposed missions that the Air Force has opened to competitive bidding for the next several years. Indeed, taxpayer funds were spent to integrate GPS payloads on the Delta 4 launch vehicle. ULA clearly has the option of bidding a Delta 4 launcher.

ULA said it would not offer the Delta 4 for any mission open to competition, even though it will continue to offer this system under an existing sole-source $11.5 billion block buy for missions through the end of the decade. ULA’s posturing on the RD-180 engine also means its leadership is denying shareholders the potential revenue and DoD the benefits of competition. ULA’s refusal to bid DoD-funded Delta launchers and the retirement of the Delta medium family seems to be a calculated gambit to extend America’s reliance on Russian rockets. DoD should not support this false, orchestrated dilemma.

ULA has a reasonable idea of the pricing necessary to compete with SpaceX because SpaceX prices are listed on the Internet and well known because of the company’s successful competitive bids in the global commercial marketplace. The reality is that any successful ULA bid price would be well below the EELV block buy price — raising extremely serious questions about the prices DoD agreed to pay under the EELV block buy.

Alternately, SpaceX offers DoD the chance to achieve the very goals that are currently being advocated by DoD leadership. SpaceX is a nontraditional supplier offering an American-made commercial product at prices driven by the global, commercial marketplace. DoD will always have insight to, and benefit from, the competitive, commercial sales of Falcon 9 launches. Thus, SpaceX could never be a monopoly supplier with ever-increasing prices.

The government’s job is to create a competitive environment and let the best provider meet national security needs. ULA is seeking to distort the competitive marketplace and to extend America’s dependence on Russia. ULA is advancing false choices for policymakers and DoD officials, all to the benefit of its Russian engine supplier, and its own bottom line. Congress and DoD should stay the course to competition and to ending our addiction to Russian engines.

http://spacenews.com/op-ed-stay-the-course-on-launch-competition/

Here we have John Young stating the very same thing as John McCain.....what does ULA not understand with the truth and thinking they can pull the wool over everyone's eyes....?

4,806 · December 11, 2015

Ooooh man that's a scolding if I've ever read one! :yes: (Y)

SPOT-ON, too! Who the blue blazes do they think they are, intentionally fabricating a "shortage" story when they've got authorization to buy NINE more engines already?

Wow ... just ... hehe!

6,181 · December 12, 2015

Doc posted the article about John McCain and the letter that he sent to Ash Carter, several posts above. From that article, a we all know now...he is not a happy camper. I was searching through space publications and came across the letter. After re reading it, it jogs your memory and gives you the feeling that, "that letter could peel the paint off a fire hydrant".

If curious, here is the text of the letter...

http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2015/12/sasc-chairman-mccain-sends-letter-on-russian-rocket-engines-and-u-s-national-security-space-launch-program

The actual signed letter....

http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/167f340c-66b9-43e1-b5e3-757ff6d29fb7/12-8-15-mccain-ltr-to-secdef-on-ula.pdf

just a rehash post....but ouch! ULA is going to need a "force field" on this one.

4,806 · December 12, 2015

If they keep messing around like this, McCain WILL order the accounting audit -- and ULA will be DONE.

It'll be even MORE likely that Tory Bruno and the other higher-ups at ULA will be charged with Perjury and Obstruction, as well as Fraud, if they can't account for every single dollar they were given.

All because ULA tried to be slick. That qualifies as a "smdh" if there ever was one.

That's a train you don't wanna ride, fellas. Might be too late, because it looks like you've already bought the tickets.

38,255 · December 12, 2015

And McCain is like an old pit bull with a fresh leg bone; don't mess with the SOB.

6,181 · December 14, 2015

DoD to reply to McCain's letter on Russian rocket engines

The RD-180 rocket engine

Quote

The US Department of Defense will reply to the letter of US Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain regarding the using of Russian RD-180 rocket engines, Department spokesperson Maureen Schumann told Sputnik.

On Wednesday, McCain sent a letter to Defense Secretary Ashton Carter in which he said the Armed Services Committee will assess a possibility to completely prohibit the use of teh RD-180 engines.

"The [Defense] Department has received the letter from Senator McCain and will respond promptly and directly to him," Schumann stated on Thursday.

In 2014, Congress passed a law requiring the United States to develop a domestically produced next-generation rocket propulsion system by 2019 in order to eliminate reliance on the Russian RD-180 rocket engines.

Developing an alternative rocket will take the United States five to seven years because of technological challenges, resulting in a two to five year gap in the ability to launch payloads, according to the US Air Force.

Earlier in November, US Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James stated that the Air Force is working with Congress to ease restrictions on using the Russian rocket engine.

When reached by Sputnik for comment on McCain's letter, United Launch Alliance (ULA), a joint Boeing-Lockheed Martin venture providing rocket launch services to the US government, said they did not have a comment.

In January, Russian rocket producer Energia signed a $1 billion contract with US Orbital Sciences Corporation for the delivery of 60 RD-181 engines.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/DoD_to_reply_to_McCains_letter_on_Russian_rocket_engines_999.html

-----------

The financial outlook for newspace is of major interest to "banksters"

The New Space Race Is On: Goldman Sachs

Quote

As technology continues to advance and the costs of almost everything space-related have dropped by orders of magnitude, a 21st-Century space race is shaping up.

According to a recent report from Goldman Sachs Equity Research, space is the next frontier, and there will be plenty of money to be made by both aerospace and defense firms as this long-gestating and still nascent industry finally enters its mature phase.

As GS analyst Noah Poponak points out, “Space is becoming smaller, closer, and cheaper, reinventing an industry that has stagnated for decades and making room for new applications, technologies, and competitors.”

Lots of data in this article, and of note...

Quote

The general trend toward the privatization of space creates commercial opportunities and allows NASA to concentrate on deep space missions. This means up and comers such as OA and SpaceX are taking over transport and services to low earth orbit. A follow-on contract for NASA’s commercial resupply services program is to be awarded by January 30, 2016, and is anticipated to come to around $5 billion over six years.

http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/12/new-space-race/

4,806 · December 14, 2015

22 minutes ago, Draggendrop said:

In January, Russian rocket producer Energia signed a $1 billion contract with US Orbital Sciences Corporation for the delivery of 60 RD-181 engines.

The hell?? I thought there was a ban on all Russian-made gear? Who said they could order 60 RD-181's? McCain's gonna lose his s**t when he finds out about that.

And then someone's gonna be in deep horse-puckey.

6,181 · December 14, 2015

That may be for civilian launch capabilities....

6,181 · December 14, 2015

I wonder if the RD-181's are for the new Antares, they'll get 30 launches from them.....?

38,255 · December 14, 2015

RD-181, which is similar to the Angara's RD-191, is for Antares 200 which flies next year..

The engine ban only covers DoD launches because those are what Russia threatened to embago.

1,140 · December 15, 2015

22 hours ago, Draggendrop said:

http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/12/new-space-race/

In this article it states that the SLS will be more cost affective than the falcon 9. I know it can throw a lot more per launch but i dont think the number add up.

38,255 · December 15, 2015

That article quotes the launch cost as $500m, which is a number they've touted since 2011-2012. Apparently inflation and the usual procurement excesses don't exist.

Another cost factor is launch rate, more makes it cheaper per launch as it spreads the fixed costs over more flights. I see only the Orion flights between now and about 2023+. Call back when someone manifests something else, but don't hold your breath because no payloads are in the works that are that large except for SpaceX's BFS and it has a ride.

No one believes it, and even the GAO can't even figure out the real number.

Edited December 15, 2015 by DocM

6,181 · December 16, 2015

NASA Receives $19.3 Billion in Final 2016 Spending Bill

Quote

Planetary science, commercial crew among the long-awaited bill's big winners.

WASHINGTON — The final version of a fiscal year 2016 spending bill will provide NASA with nearly $19.3 billion, funding most agency programs at or above the administration’s original request.

The omnibus spending bill, released by House and Senate appropriators early Dec. 16 after extended negotiations, allocates $19.285 billion to NASA for fiscal year 2016. That total is $756 million above the administration’s requested budget and the total provided the agency in a House spending bill passed in August. It is nearly $1 billion above a Senate bill that appropriators approved in June but was never passed by the full Senate.

That increased spending, enabled by a budget bill passed in October that raised overall spending caps for discretionary programs, allowed appropriators to avoid long-standing debates about agency spending priorities by funding most programs at, or in some cases well above, the administration’s request.

Sign In

US AeroSpace: Policy & Politics [updates]

Recommended Posts

DocM

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bguy_1986

Legislation encourages development of the commercial space sector in Texas and across the country

November 12, 2015

202-228-7561

Link to comment

Share on other sites

DocM

Link to comment

Share on other sites

DocM

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Draggendrop Veteran

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Unobscured Vision

Link to comment

Share on other sites

IsItPluggedIn

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Draggendrop Veteran

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Unobscured Vision

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Draggendrop Veteran

Link to comment

Share on other sites

DocM

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Draggendrop Veteran

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Unobscured Vision

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Draggendrop Veteran

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Unobscured Vision

Link to comment

Share on other sites

DocM

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Draggendrop Veteran

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Unobscured Vision

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Draggendrop Veteran

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Draggendrop Veteran

Link to comment

Share on other sites

DocM

Link to comment

Share on other sites

IsItPluggedIn

Link to comment

Share on other sites

DocM

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Draggendrop Veteran

Link to comment

Share on other sites

DocM

Link to comment