SpaceX is suing to be considered along with ULA, the Boeing/Lockheed venture, to launch "national security" satellites into space. SpaceX is claiming to be able to launch for $300 million less than the current contract which was written on a non-competitive basis.

This is the kinda thing I've been waiting for, though not sure how successful they're going to be since they're not even certified yet. Given the weight that the current contract owners have, success is unlikely in this first go around.

However, note that -

US National Security launches are now potentially at risk due to the ongoing crisis between Russian, Ukraine and Crimea because the RD-180 first stage engines powering the Atlas V are designed and manufactured in Russia by NPO Energomash, majority owned by the Russian Federation.

Perhaps there's some good to come of it.

https://io9.com/elon-musk-spacex-will-file-suit-against-the-u-s-gover-1568027055

the site SpaceX is using for publicity in the suit:

https://www.freedomtolaunch.com/

So...when the contract was awarded ULA was the only company that could meet the requirements for 70% of the launches so they won. The F9 has yet to be certified by the DoD for NRO launches and the Falcon Heavy isn't even scheduled to make its first test flight until early 2015. The Atlas V has had 44/45 successful launches and the Delta IV has had 24/25, while the F9R has had four.

I fail to see what all of the criticism is about.

So...when the contract was awarded ULA was the only company that could meet the requirements for 70% of the launches so they won. The F9 has yet to be certified by the DoD for NRO launches and the Falcon Heavy isn't even scheduled to make its first test flight until early 2015. The Atlas V has had 44/45 successful launches and the Delta IV has had 24/25, while the F9R has had four.

I fail to see what all of the criticism is about.

I disagree... Make the competition full & open, then throw out SpaceX on performance if they're not on the game. Don't just sole-source the whole thing from the start.

Don't just sole-source the whole thing from the start.

Those corporate VP, board of directors billets, and consulting jobs aren't gonna just create themselves.

Cynical? Moi?

Those corporate VP, board of directors billets, and consulting jobs aren't gonna just create themselves.

Cynical? Moi?

The rules have changed a bunch since the Druyan/tanker-lease fiasco... There used to be a 1-year cooling off period if you are a decision-maker on an effort this large. Now, it's a life-time ban.

I put this one squarely on the AF, who likely wanted an easy way to ULA win. Switch-overs and retraining the new contractor is always a pain in the ass. Writing a sole-source justification is easier than doing a source select, and the PM likely didn't see a valid other competitor.

The rules have changed a bunch since the Druyan/tanker-lease fiasco... There used to be a 1-year cooling off period if you are a decision-maker on an effort this large. Now, it's a life-time ban.

That's interesting. Is a former decision maker able to get any job with a company he has chosen in the past? How is this enforced?

That's interesting. Is a former decision maker able to get any job with a company he has chosen in the past? How is this enforced?

In theory, firms can get thrown out of competitions.

In practice, competing firms will tattle-tell and protest.

Seriously, the "getting the job at the company you awarded a large-scale contract to" trick just isn't done anymore.

The only law out there prevents the whole "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" scenario. See the current CEO of SAIC to see how far that rules does not reach.

In theory, firms can get thrown out of competitions.

In practice, competing firms will tattle-tell and protest.

Seriously, the "getting the job at the company you awarded a large-scale contract to" trick just isn't done anymore.

Sorry but this isn't true at all. You have a lifetime ban from make representations to the federal government. However you can work for the company and help prepare another individual to present to the government. There are 1 year and 2 year bans from receiving compensation from companies under various scenarios but there is no lifetime ban from working for a company. I was an acquisitions officer and left the AF just over a year ago.

Sorry but this isn't true at all. You have a lifetime ban from make representations to the federal government. However you can work for the company and help prepare another individual to present to the government. There are 1 year and 2 year bans from receiving compensation from companies under various scenarios but there is no lifetime ban from working for a company. I was an acquisitions officer and left the AF just over a year a

Did the lifetime ban come and go? I remember a lifetime ban similar to the current 1-year limit for programs > $10M, but that was a few years ago.

As usual, gov't sh*ts complicated:

OGE Laws

At least the Russians have offered us a potential solution: https://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/04/30/us-astronauts-should-use-trampolines-to-get-into-space-russian-official-says/?intcmp=latestnews

Elon is debuting crew ready Dragon Mk. 2 capsule on May 29th in response to Rooskie trampoline suggestion.

Latest -

Elon Musk’s SpaceX granted injunction in rocket launch suit against government

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/elon-musks-spacex-granted-injunction-in-rocket-launch-suit-against-lockheed-boeing/2014/04/30/4b028f7c-d0cd-11e3-937f-d3026234b51c_story.html

So now this is happening -

https://www.dallasnews.com/business/business-headlines/20140523-spacex-ceo-suggests-rivals-hire-has-conflict.ece

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk and a watchdog group are wondering whether a former senior Air Force contracting official acted inappropriately by taking an executive position with a private contractor just months after awarding a multibillion-dollar rocket-launch contract that greatly benefits his new employer.

While it's no tanker fiasco (what a wild ride that was) it's interesting.

So now this is happening -

https://www.dallasnews.com/business/business-headlines/20140523-spacex-ceo-suggests-rivals-hire-has-conflict.ece

While it's no tanker fiasco (what a wild ride that was) it's interesting.

It's a bunch of balderdash. Aerojet is never a prime... They're always just a sub.

...and to bring back the monopoly discussion... Aerojet is pretty much the only solid rocket motor maker in the US. Nobody ever mentions that (to include SpaceX).

It's a bunch of balderdash.

Whoa there with the strong language!

Does SpaceX use their rocket engines or do they use their own? I don't think the hiring was particularly bad, just interesting. Vandenberg AFB had a Wing CC that retired and got a job with the primary services/tech contractor on base right away. That whole place is.. awful.