I had a real-time revelation on The Space Show yesterday. What if, in violation of the Congress’s pork-driven demands, NASA decided to actually competitively bid a heavy-lift program? Who would put in a bid for the current monstrosity?
ULA could bid a growth version of Delta or Atlas (though how much development experience they have is a little questionable, given that the vehicles were originally designed by their parent companies), and obviously SpaceX would bid some sort of BFR. But who would bid a Shuttle derived? ATK? They’ve never built a launch system. Perhaps Boeing, which is currently the contractor for the second stage? They and Lockheed are the only companies (other than SpaceX and Orbital) with any recent vehicle development experience. One of the reasons that Ares was such a mess was that, unlike Shuttle, it had no prime contractor. It was managed by Marshall itself, which hasn’t developed a launch system since von Braun died. As will be the SLS, which is one of the reasons for pessimism as to program success.
[Update a while later]
Aerojet to the rescue of the taxpayer?
If NASA opts to pursue the heavy-lift launcher by modifying existing space shuttle and Ares contracts, and a bid protest is filed with GAO, Cooke said work on those contracts would cease until the protest is resolved.
And fortunately, if it takes months to resolve, it might be sufficient time for both changes in Congress, and for further demonstration of the lack of need for such a vehicle, for other than those who will get paid to build it. Time is not on the porkers’ side.
[Update a while later]
I guess that USA could put in a bid for it, but like ULA, they are operators, with no intrinsic vehicle development experience as a company.
Shows what can happen when you let crazy people call in and talk; you start having crazy thoughts… (grin)
MSFC as official prime contractor managing Ares wasn’t really anything new; NASA had been doing the overall systems integration for major space systems for a while, albeit unofficially. Bidding for major NASA systems has long been an exercise in trying to guess what NASA actually wants, then bidding it, then building it with NASA all over the process every step of the way.
As for who might bid Shuttle-Derived in a hypothetical near-term HLV competition, well, USA for one. Lockmart and Boeing possibly – likely? – as well. ATK would probably bid as a sub to all the shuttle-derived bid teams…
Bidding as close as you can to exactly what NASA secretly wants has been the way to tap into tax-dollar cashflow for a long time. Just because a few self-appointed activists are getting noisy about it doesn’t mean the gravy train is derailed yet. The top executives at the established majors would have to consider bidding something else, but I’d guess they’d end up playing the safe old bet.
The real issue here is something I mentioned on the air yesterday: NASA is no longer competent to do the systems engineering on a major new launch system. Look at the two times Shuttle was down post-accident for what we agreed were relatively minor system changes – it took the NASA Shuttle organizations two-three years and many billions to implement those minor changes.
No way in hell they can handle the vastly larger systems integration engineering load involved in a new SDLV – the failure of Constellation was pretty centrally exactly that failure: The organizations in question at NASA faceplanted spectacularly when confronted with that “minor reconfiguration” of the basic elements of Shuttle.
The only new HLV that has any chance is one where NASA steps waaaay back from the process and allows the prime to do the actual systems integration. Conversely, any HLV where NASA insists on swarming all over the development process in their usual manner will be years late and billions over cost – even a SpaceX or ULA non-Shuttle-derived booster.
(ULA, by the way, seems to have drawn a lot of the more entrepreneurial talent with them when they were split off from Lockmart and Boeing. I wouldn’t count them out.)
Private companies can challenge a government contract award decision at the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Even modifications to existing contracts are fair game when it comes to bid protests, Cooke said, if the changes significantly alter the scope of the work being performed.
Contract award protests used to be relatively rare but now they’re a business strategy. If you lose, protest and stop the award. This gives you another chance to win during the recompete. You have zero chance if you don’t protest and at least some chance with a protest. The new Air Force tanker plane is the poster child of this approach. How many years did that abortion of an acquisition take and how much money did the contractors have to spend on proposal after proposal?
Rand,
Are you really advocating for the ‘Lawyers in Space’approach, provided you hope it will prevent somthing you do not want to happen? What will be your position in the future when such threats of suits try to prevent somthing you do want to happen? Still going to support them?
Serious question, buy the way.
Rand,
This could work two ways, for example ATK protesting the CCDev2 awards…
Tom, they can’t protest that.. it’s a Space Act Agreement.
Henry, what you described sounds like everyone who won CCDev2 contracts.. make sure you have the acronym soup of design reviews in your milestones or you won’t even get past the first phases (see, for example, t/Space who wanted to do what they do best – hardware – with the money).
Rand, when Scott Pace was on the show he said something similar. Of course, he was talking about Ares I and he thought it was a great success at getting Marshall back into the role of managing a hardware project instead of a prime contractor.
Are you really advocating for the ‘Lawyers in Space’approach, provided you hope it will prevent somthing you do not want to happen?
Are you saying that I should be opposed to any legal action having to do with the space industry? If the government violates its own laws and rules, I believe that those affected should have recourse to legally address it.
What will be your position in the future when such threats of suits try to prevent somthing you do want to happen? Still going to support them?
I will support things I support, and I will oppose things I oppose. There will be lawyers on the other side in both cases. This seems like a bizarre question.
This could work two ways, for example ATK protesting the CCDev2 awards…
If they want to waste their money. As Trent says, it’s apples and oranges. In one case it was a no-bid sole-source contract. In the other it was a full and open competition.
Rand Simberg Says:
“I will support things I support, and I will oppose things I oppose.”
Thanks, that does answer the question; to you the end justifies the means.
“This seems like a bizarre question”
Sadly, to you I guess it does.
Joe, are you suggesting there’s something wrong with the “means” of suing the government for violating the law?
Rand,
You mean like the EADS versus Boeing on the USAF tanker competition?
Thanks, that does answer the question; to you the end justifies the means.
I can’t imagine how any sane person could interpret that from what I wrote.
Joe, is this a post from Bizarro World? Are you really saying that the aggrieved should have no means of justice in a society based on the rule of law?
Would you prefer to live in a fascist society?
Rand Simberg Says: April 30th, 2011 at 8:04 pm
“Joe, is this a post from Bizarro World? Are you really saying that the aggrieved should have no means of justice in a society based on the rule of law?”
That was not the question I asked. I asked if you were going to support similar law suits when they were inevitably turned against a contract award of which you approved.
Hypothetical example. It is 2015, your fondest wishes have come true and any prospect of any HLV has been eliminated. An all-encompassing NASA launch services contract has been awarded to Space-X, but ULA contests the award. Do you then support ULA’s right as the “aggrieved” to have “justice in a society based on the rule of law”? Or do you dismiss their claim as a nuisance suit? Remember, even if Space-X eventually wins the award of the contract may be held up for years.
You answered that question:” I will support things I support, and I will oppose things I oppose.” I know of no other way to interpret that statement than that you support the right of “the aggrieved” to” justice in a society based on the rule of law”. only when you approve of the “aggrieved” and their suit.
If you find that position “Bizarro”, so be it.
Companies did not design Atlas and Delta, people did/do and those people work for ULA. In fact they were not given the option to stay with the parent company.
Do you not understand the difference between supporting a suit, and supporting someone’s right to sue? If you don’t, I can’t help you.
Hypothetical example. It is 2015, your fondest wishes have come true and any prospect of any HLV has been eliminated. An all-encompassing NASA launch services contract has been awarded to Space-X, but ULA contests the award. Do you then support ULA’s right as the “aggrieved” to have “justice in a society based on the rule of law”? Or do you dismiss their claim as a nuisance suit? Remember, even if Space-X eventually wins the award of the contract may be held up for years.
Not speaking for anyone but myself, I’ve seen abuse in the protest lawsuit tactic. However, I’ve also seen abuse in the government contracting department. If the hypothetical award to SpaceX contained abuses, then I wouldn’t disagree with the other competitors protesting the award. If it didn’t contain abuses, I wouldn’t support the protest. You see, we have to judge the merits of the protest on the facts at hand, not whether we like or dislike protests in general.
You see, we have to judge the merits of the protest on the facts at hand, not whether we like or dislike protests in general.
Joe seems to be having trouble with that concept.
larry j Says: May 1st, 2011 at 7:25 am
“Not speaking for anyone but myself, I’ve seen abuse in the protest lawsuit tactic. However, I’ve also seen abuse in the government contracting department.”
Check so far. Anyone working in the business has seen both.
“If the hypothetical award to SpaceX contained abuses, then I wouldn’t disagree with the other competitors protesting the award. If it didn’t contain abuses, I wouldn’t support the protest. You see, we have to judge the merits of the protest on the facts at hand, not whether we like or dislike protests in general.”
But who decides where the abuses reside? That can only be done in the courts and that can result in years of delay. Additionally the result is often a compromise where the original loser gets taken on as a subcontractor (thus further complicating the contract execution – but giving them a piece of the pie). Call me cynical (and I am sure you will call me worse) but I suspect that is what Aerojet has in mind here. Years of delay but eventually get their ‘piece of the pie’. Rand chose to play the fascist card earlier (“Would you prefer to live in a fascist society?”) but there is a lot of room between being a fascist and wanting to curb law suit abuse.
Rand Simberg Says: May 1st, 2011 at 7:34 am
Joe seems to be having trouble with that concept.
No even a “fascist” like me has no trouble understanding the concept (never did). All I did was ask for a clarification of where you would stand in supporting the right of any party to sue when they do not get what they want and letting the courts (eventually) resolve the conflict. I got a sort of an answer from Larry J. If I take your response above correctly; you would editorially attack the suit, but in principle support the right to the suit. Is that correct?
But who decides where the abuses reside? That can only be done in the courts and that can result in years of delay.
That’s the courts’ job – to resolve disputes. Yes, they’re often slow but I’ve also seen protests get resolved without going to the courts and within a few months. In none of the cases that I’m aware of did the company filing the protest get brought on to the winning team.
Consider the godawful Air Force tanker competition that dragged on for years. There were legitimate abuses that caused at least two rounds of competition to be thrown out. The delays lasted years and cost everyone a lot of money. Ultimately, it was decided a couple months ago and so far, it looks like they managed a fairly clean process this time. The fault of the earlier failures was mostly the Air Force. Should Boeing not have had the option to protest (ultimately successfully) for what they saw as a breach of contracting procedure? Is EAS a sub now on Boeing’s tanker team? (No).
This is a sore point with me because I’m a defense contractor and I’m working on a proposal right now. We’ve lost some competitions because the government failed to follow the procurement rules. We just lost one about 10 days ago because the government decided that a company with no experience and no personnel knowledgable about what we do but with a slightly lower price can somehow do the job, so the low price trumps all.
By way of analogy, my wife and I need to have some work done on our hardwood floors. I could go find someone at random at Home Depot and hire him to do the job. He’d probably offer a lower bid than an experienced flooring company. I somehow doubt the results would be nearly the same and by the time the mess was straighted out, it’d almost certainly cost more.
If I take your response above correctly; you would editorially attack the suit, but in principle support the right to the suit. Is that correct?
Yes, just as I would support your right to free speech even if I disagreed with what you said.
Regarding ULA being an “operator, with no intrinsic vehicle development experience as a company” this is flat out wrong and should be “updated”. The technical expertise that developed the Atlas 2 3 and 5/EELV development is entirely with ULA. I fear that the US is going to lose this expertise due to the a combination of Congressional pork/apathy and the allure of colorful powerpoint charts and YouTube animations. By the way, next ULA launch of a real payload is May 6th.
The Business of Politics has clearly been a business of failure.
Yesterday I heard Don Trump expound on the need to drill for
all of our great Oil reserves and use Coal our great resource.
Sounds good, but the non thinking public did not hear of the
lowering taxes of the rich or incentives to drill such as no or low tax, means that is just to have a few investors gain in an
un-Godly amount of money, while we can still pay $4.00 to $6.00 dollars a gallon. I wish I had a few gallons to sell someone. I am a Veteran but for every $10 increase in a barell of oil the Dept. of Defense spends $600,000,000 more per year. So from $40 to $110 is about seven times or about
4 Billion MORE per year in fuel to fight a war on the other side
of this average sized planet. For that kind of money we could
go to the Moon or nearly fight another war for a month.
larry j Says: May 1st, 2011 at 8:43 am
“In none of the cases that I’m aware of did the company filing the protest get brought on to the winning team.”
As an example the Constellations Systems C-SAFE contract (essentially to produce the EVA System). The two primary competitors were ILC-Dover (the suppliers for all EVA compatible pressure suits to NASA going back to the Apollo A-6LB’s) and Oceaneering Space Systems (OSS – an organization which had made great inroads in building EVA Tools and Equipment). OSS had David Clarke (producers of the ACES suits used – among other places – as Shuttle Launch and Entry Suits). OSS won and ILC brought suit. The delay was something over six months and in the end ILC was brought in as a subcontractor on a level with David Clarke. So, it does happen. I know that CxP is held in very low repute around here, but this has nothing to do with all of that and is a prime example of what I am talking about.
“Should Boeing not have had the option to protest (ultimately successfully) for what they saw as a breach of contracting procedure? Is EAS a sub now on Boeing’s tanker team? (No).”
That gets into the area of Foreign Competition. It’s out of my area of expertise. However, sticking to something I know something about; I do not think ILC was out of bounds in protesting (they did have the most history of experience in the area in contention). The question is not their right to suit, but the wisdom of it. I do not to pretend to have a good answer as to where to draw the line. My original intent was simply to see where Rand (since he seemed to be rooting for Aerojet to file suit) would draw it. It’s a tough issue to decide the balance between the right of the “aggrieved” to suit and law suit abuse that can bring an entire process to a halt for years. It is also an emotional one (as witness “fascist” being thrown around when I merely asked a question).
“This is a sore point with me because I’m a defense contractor and I’m working on a proposal right now. We’ve lost some competitions because the government failed to follow the procurement rules. We just lost one about 10 days ago because the government decided that a company with no experience and no personnel knowledgable about what we do but with a slightly lower price can somehow do the job, so the low price trumps all.”
I sympathize; note my comments about the OSS/ILC dispute above. I have friends who work for ILC and they felt just as you do.
It is 2015, your fondest wishes have come true and any prospect of any HLV has been eliminated. An all-encompassing NASA launch services contract has been awarded to Space-X, but ULA contests the award.
If an all-encompassing launch services contract has been awarded to any individual company then Rand’s fondest wishes will not have come true – by definition. It may be hard for you to grasp, but not everybody is shilling for a specific launch services provider, some people mean it when they say they want a large and fiercely competitive propellant launch market.
but like ULA, they are operators, with no intrinsic vehicle development experience as a company.
Didn’t all the people involved with the development of Atlas V and Delta IV move to ULA when it was created? That seems like a major difference with USA.
@Xyz:
Do you work for ULA? If so I’d like to hear more about what things look like from your perspective.
larry j,
Just a note, but does anyone remember the SpaceX lawsuit against ULA a few years back? If I recall it was dismissed, but it took about a year to do it.
Seems to me I also recall SpaceX protesting a large NASA contract awarded to Kistler where SpaceX did win the protest. It ended any chance of Kistler being profitable which was basically how Rocketplane picked it up.
So the way I see it someone protesting a contract to SpaceX and delaying CCDev would simply be a case of what goes around comes around.
Yes. ULA has the people, as well as all intelectual property and facilities. Further, any newly created IP is owned only by ULA, i.e. NOT owned by either LM or Boeing. They have financial intrests which influence business and marketing direction, but no longer have the comprehensive and specific expertise in operating and more specifically DESIGNING new and evolved launch vehicles.
Thomas Matula Says: May 1st, 2011 at 1:46 pm
“Seems to me I also recall SpaceX protesting a large NASA contract awarded to Kistler where SpaceX did win the protest. It ended any chance of Kistler being profitable which was basically how Rocketplane picked it up.”
When I posted my hypothetical lawsuit scenario it was only intended to illustrate what I meant, since Rand had managed to misunderstand my original question. But when you kick over that coffee can in the back yard you never know what will crawl out.
So Space-X filed some kind of suit against Kistler that put them out of the COTS competition? I have to admit I did not pay that close attention to COTS during that period, but I did work with Kistler in an earlier iteration (called Visiting Vehicles). At that time they struck me as the only potential ‘commercial’ participants that seemed to know what they were doing. I was sorry when I heard they had been eliminated from COTS, especially since the word I got was that the problems were financial, not technical. I just assumed they were not able to raise the money to continue. This sounds like a selective lawsuit by Space-X may have contributed to their financial problems, thus removing a competitor.
Thanks Thomas, much to contemplate.
Joe,
It was pre-COTS, about 2004. If I recall it was under Alt Access, basically a $165 million contract to provide launch data to NASA.
Thomas Matula Says: May 1st, 2011 at 4:32 pm
“It was pre-COTS, about 2004. If I recall it was under Alt Access, basically a $165 million contract to provide launch data to NASA.”
Understood, the basic idea was called at least Visiting Vehicles, Alternate Access and COTS (more names than that for all I know). The point remains the same. I worked Space Station interfaces for the Visiting Vehicles program and Kistler was the only participant I encountered that seemed to have a good grip on what they were trying to do. If they were damaged by a strategically placed law suit, it adds a certain detail to the concept of lawsuit abuse. I had not been aware of this before and I appreciate the information.
Thomas,
I should have added, if you think of any more details I would really appreciate hearing them. Sorry for being disjointed, but I find this very interesting and am going to have to take a while to process it.
Joe,
When I go in the office tomorrow I will find a link for you on it.
Tom
Joe,
Here is the first link, to an old Kistler Press Release that discusses the contract. Its the 2nd question.
The contract was actually for $227 million and its wasn’t a lawsuit, but a protest to the GAO that killed it.
http://www.rocketplanekistler.com/newsinfo/pressreleases/060404SenateResponse.html
[[[ASA awarded our current contract to Kistler in May 2001 as part of an open competition known as the Space Launch Initiative. On the same day, NASA awarded a total of 22 contracts worth over $800 million to industry and university organizations. Under our existing contract, NASA is entitled to obtain and use pre and post flight data from 13 “embedded technologies,” which are technological innovations already built into the K-1 that are useful for future aerospace systems. In addition, NASA can exercise options to obtain data from one K-1 flight demonstrating its capability for Autonomous Rendezvous and Proximity Operations (ARPO). This data will demonstrate the ability of the K-1 and vehicles like it to navigate to and berth with the ISS, as well as have synergy with other commercial and military applications for on-orbit maneuvering.
In February 2004, NASA issued a synopsis announcing its intent to exercise existing options and modify our existing contract to add data from four additional ARPO flights – flights in which the K-1 will demonstrate that it can navigate progressively closer to the ISS. NASA’s decision came only after an extended process in which NASA evaluated the alternatives and concluded that only Kistler is in a position to meet NASA’s needs in the time frame required. NASA recently issued what is known as a “JOFOC”, or justification for other than full and open competition, describing this process. There is no doubt that NASA’s decision is good news for Kistler. The original contract value, as announced by NASA, was worth up to $135 million, and the modification brings the total contract to approximately $227 million (of which $8 million has already been paid for data deliverables).
Kistler’s contract with NASA is a good deal for the government. NASA pays neither to develop the K-1 vehicle nor for launch services. Rather, NASA pays only for data, and only upon performance. It has no obligation to pay until data are delivered and accepted. This allows the government to leverage private capital investment in the K-1 for broad government and industry benefit, without any upfront risk or expenditure. Further, NASA has made clear that any contracts for ISS resupply launch services will be subject to a separate procurement. Kistler has supported this position completely.
One of our competitors, a company called Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), has protested NASA’s decision with the General Accounting Office (GAO). Kistler believes that NASA acted properly, and indeed did more than was required to evaluate the alternatives. In the end, the GAO will decide the protest (expected by July 9, 2004), and we have every confidence that the outcome will sustain NASA’s award to Kistler.
SpaceX has also recently sought to make Kistler’s contract with NASA a political issue, presenting a blurred view of the facts, and even seeking to introduce testimony regarding the contract at the above-referenced Hearing of this Senate Subcommittee on another matter, which the committee declined to hear. We regret SpaceX’s approach, if for no other reason than it seeks to circumvent the GAO’s process and unnecessarily delays data that America’s space program really needs, and that Kistler is in the unique position to provide.]]]
Joe,
Here is a Space Today link on the outcome.
http://www.spacetoday.net/Summary/2429
NASA rescinds Kistler contract
Posted: Thu, Jun 24, 2004, 12:11 PM ET (1611 GMT)
[[[NASA has withdrawn a contract with Kistler Aerospace to purchase flight data from that company’s RLV under development because the agency was expected to lose a protest on that contract, Space News reported Wednesday.]]]
This ended any hope of finding money to continue the K-1.
In 2006 what was left of Kistler was bought by Rocket Plane as its entry into the COTS competition. As you know the outcome was the bankruptcy of RpK.
Joe,
BTW protesting contracts seems to be SOP for SpaceX
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/100224-gao-denies-spacex-protest-launch-contract.html
02/24/10 05:27 PM ET
GAO Denies SpaceX Contract Protest
[[[WASHINGTON — The U.S. government rebuffed a protest by rocket maker Space Exploration Technologies Corp. of a contract award to rival Orbital Sciences Corp. to launch a scientific satellite for NASA.]]]
Thomas Matula Says: May 2nd, 2011 at 9:12 am
Tom,
Thanks for all the information/links. Only had time to skim them so far, but it appears Space X has also gone after Orbital Sciences (their only remaining competition in the COTS program).
For all of the talk around here about a robust program with many commercial companies competing, it appears Musk adheres to the philosophy of the Highlander Movies – “In the end there can be only one”.