Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

ULA sits out Air Force launch competition
SpaceFlightNow.com ^ | November 16, 2015 | Stephen Clark

Posted on 11/17/2015 11:34:03 AM PST by Rockitz

United Launch Alliance said Monday it did not submit a proposal in a competition to launch a U.S. Air Force GPS navigation satellite, apparently relinquishing the contract to rival SpaceX, the only other company certified to launch the mission.

The Air Force wanted both companies to bid on the launch, setting up the first competition for the launch of a national security mission since Boeing and Lockheed Martin merged their rocket programs in 2006 to form ULA.

ULA cited requirements in the request for proposals, which the Air Force released Sept. 30, and a congressionally mandated ban on RD-180 engines for the Atlas 5 rocket as the reasons the company decided not to bid for the launch.

Bids were due Monday, and ULA’s decision to sit out the competition leaves SpaceX all but certain to win the contract for launch of an unspecified GPS 3 navigation satellite in 2018.

“ULA wants nothing more than to compete, but unfortunately we were unable to submit a compliant bid for GPS 3-X launch services,” ULA spokesperson Jessica Rye said in a statement released to Spaceflight Now late Monday.

The statement said ULA is unable to certify that funds from other government contracts will not benefit the GPS 3 launch, a requirement spelled out in the Air Force’s request for proposals.

“ULA does not have the accounting system in place to make that certification, and therefore cannot submit a compliant proposal,” the statement said.

...

(Excerpt) Read more at spaceflightnow.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: falcon9; falseflagfreepers; gps; paultardation; paultards; putinsbuttboys; rockets; space; spacex; ula
Wow! This is huge if you're in the rocket biz. GPS III will apparently be the first Cat A payload on a SpaceX Falcon 9.
1 posted on 11/17/2015 11:34:03 AM PST by Rockitz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Rockitz
ULA cited requirements in the request for proposals, which the Air Force released Sept. 30, and a congressionally mandated ban on RD-180 engines for the Atlas 5 rocket as the reasons the company decided not to bid for the launch.

What's that about?

2 posted on 11/17/2015 11:37:05 AM PST by Carry_Okie (Dupes for Donald, Chumps for Trump)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

The RD-180 used on Atlas V is manufactured by the Russians.


3 posted on 11/17/2015 11:39:53 AM PST by Rockitz (This is NOT rocket science - Follow the money and you'll find the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-180


4 posted on 11/17/2015 11:41:02 AM PST by Rockitz (This is NOT rocket science - Follow the money and you'll find the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
What's that about?

Russian engines. Not only can the US not send men to the space station on its own, it apparently can't build rocket engines any more, so they have to buy from the Russians.

Congress banned the Russian rockets since Putin opposed Soros' takeover of Ukraine.

5 posted on 11/17/2015 11:41:49 AM PST by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Rockitz
Got it, thanks.

Let me guess why we "need" a Russian rocket engine: American environmentalists.

6 posted on 11/17/2015 11:43:39 AM PST by Carry_Okie (Dupes for Donald, Chumps for Trump)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

They’re cheap.


7 posted on 11/17/2015 11:44:18 AM PST by Rockitz (This is NOT rocket science - Follow the money and you'll find the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Rockitz

They probably won’t be able to award anything with only one bidder.

Air Force procurement is a disaster. I have one contract with the AF. Original bids were submitted in 2009 and it was awarded June 2015. No actual work from it yet.


8 posted on 11/17/2015 11:44:57 AM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

ULA was sole source on DoD launches for years so that’s what the Air Force is used to. It’s certainly not what they expected since certifying Falcon 9 earlier this year.


9 posted on 11/17/2015 11:47:44 AM PST by Rockitz (This is NOT rocket science - Follow the money and you'll find the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Rockitz
The statement said ULA is unable to certify that funds from other government contracts will not benefit the GPS 3 launch, a requirement spelled out in the Air Force's request for proposals.

That is very interesting. Why? As long as they are not using money from other contracts to execute the contract, why should there be a requirement that funds from other government contracts not to benefit the GPS 3 launch?

10 posted on 11/17/2015 11:48:54 AM PST by 17th Miss Regt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 17th Miss Regt

Probably so they could steer the contract to the politically connected SpaceX.


11 posted on 11/17/2015 11:54:38 AM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 17th Miss Regt
ULA has other existing launch contracts from the government since it's been sole source for DoD flights since the early 2000s. SpaceX almost certainly would have protested based on that provision had ULA bid and received the award. The accounting bill to prove that provision could easily bankrupt ULA. Personally, I think it was a savvy move by ULA. In rockets, you get what you pay for in terms of reliability. SpaceX is a long way from being a reliable provider of launch services as we recently observed on the F20 failure.
12 posted on 11/17/2015 11:56:56 AM PST by Rockitz (This is NOT rocket science - Follow the money and you'll find the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Rockitz
In rockets, you get what you pay for in terms of reliability. SpaceX is a long way from being a reliable provider of launch services as we recently observed on the F20 failure.

I was in MIL-STD-883 hybrid manufacturing, for both high-power and microwave modules. Those companies made MUCH more money on paperwork than we did on products so poorly conceived from a mechanical perspective I'm amazed that anything flies, including the missiles for which they were built. As far as I am concerned, military electronics procurement is a total disaster that benefits only the paper-pushers.

13 posted on 11/17/2015 12:04:53 PM PST by Carry_Okie (Dupes for Donald, Chumps for Trump)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Therein lies the rub- government procurement.


14 posted on 11/17/2015 12:22:00 PM PST by Rockitz (This is NOT rocket science - Follow the money and you'll find the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Rockitz
Therein lies the rub- government procurement.

Hardware designed by lawyers.

15 posted on 11/17/2015 1:02:05 PM PST by Carry_Okie (Dupes for Donald, Chumps for Trump)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson