SpaceX sues US government

[rhoenix]

SpaceX is in the business of shooting things into space, and the company feels it has been unfairly cheated out of an opportunity to shoot a great many things into space by the US Air Force. SpaceX’s response? A lawsuit that alleges the US military has given a big sweetheart deal to United Launch Alliance (ULA) for sending government payloads into space. As is his way, SpaceX founder Elon Musk has not been shy about making his feelings known.

The project at the center of this legal wrangling is called the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, or EELV if you’re short on time. It is intended to be an “expendable” launch platform, which means the rocket is expended during the launch process and its components are not recovered for later reuse. That might mean they are catapulted out into space, or drop harmlessly into the ocean. ULA’s solution to this is to use a combination of Atlas V and Delta IV rockets, which Musk points out have been flying for over a decade and use Russian-built RD-180 engines. The use of Russian engines may violate international sanctions put in place after the recent Ukrainian occupation.

At issue in the lawsuit is a so-called “block buy” of 36 launches from ULA, which was awarded without competition (at a cost of billions of dollars). ULA has stated it is the only company currently certified to launch national security payloads via EELV, thus the block buy makes sense. SpaceX calls into question the timing of the buy, which has been secretly negotiated for months (apparently SpaceX was only informed in March). The upstart space firm is in the process of getting its national security certification, which it says makes the whole block buy suspicious. The Air Force has reportedly required no changes to the design or operation of the Falcon 9 during this review process. SpaceX won a few smaller contracts from the Air Force back in 2012, which it hoped would help it compete against ULA.

SpaceX is framing this as an example of government waste and cronyism — the rockets used by ULA (a joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed Martin) cost roughly four times as much as SpaceX’s Falcon 9 v1.1. The Falcon 9 is the main SpaceX launch vehicle, which has been used to send the Dragon capsule into orbit on International Space Station resupply runs for NASA. Musk is careful to say the low cost and high reliability of the Falcon 9 should not guarantee SpaceX contracts to launch EELV missions for the government, but he wants to have a fair shot. The cost of SpaceX’s launches should only decrease as its efforts to land the Falcon 9 rocket back on land (rather than wastefully in the ocean) begin to pay off, too.

Even if SpaceX gets its security clearance in time, it may still be unable to win the contract over ULA. Both Boeing and Lockheed Martin are long-time government contractors with years of experience winning big deals. There are entire departments at these companies devoted to writing proposals designed to the exacting standards of government bureaucracy. SpaceX may actually have seen this coming years ago — it filed an antitrust lawsuit way back in 2005 (before it had even had a successful launch) to stop Boeing and Lockheed Martin from combining forces in the United Launch Alliance. That case was dismissed, but Musk is coming out swinging publicly this time.

Now, this is interesting. SpaceX, America's posterchild for private space exploration, is funning afoul of government cronyism.

Well, at the least, Elon Musk appears to have no problem picking fights, whether with SpaceX, or with electric cars.

[General Havoc]

No, what is interesting is that you assume that there is no reason whatsoever for SpaceX to have lost a contract bid except government cronyism. Did Boeing lose out on the F-35 bid because of government cronyism? Did I fail to get a job at city hall because of it? Are there no other explanations? Because I'm sure this lawsuit of theirs has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that SpaceX has been in a fight with competing low-cost private launch company Blue Origin for three years over a variety of projects, including leasing the Kennedy Space Center for downtime missions. It also plainly has nothing to do with the fact that Blue Origin announced that they were bringing ULA in as a partner in their bid less than a month ago. After all, it's not like the guy who founded Tesla Motors would spuriously sue people who stood in the way of his company's expansion.

Of course not. This is all a conspiracy against SpaceX. I know this because Extremetech.com said so.

[rhoenix]

No, what is interesting is that you assume that there is no reason whatsoever for SpaceX to have lost a contract bid except government cronyism. Did Boeing lose out on the F-35 bid because of government cronyism? Did I fail to get a job at city hall because of it? Are there no other explanations? Because I'm sure this lawsuit of theirs has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that SpaceX has been in a fight with competing low-cost private launch company Blue Origin for three years over a variety of projects, including leasing the Kennedy Space Center for downtime missions. It also plainly has nothing to do with the fact that Blue Origin announced that they were bringing ULA in as a partner in their bid less than a month ago. After all, it's not like the guy who founded Tesla Motors would spuriously sue people who stood in the way of his company's expansion.

Of course not. This is all a conspiracy against SpaceX. I know this because Extremetech.com said so.

So... you're angrily agreeing with my summary above, and then claiming that I'm taking their side?

[Hotfoot]

Dude, when you describe the article as "running afoul of government cronyism", you're using words the expressly indicated which side you're taking.

This is why in news reporting, they use words like "alleged" and "supposed". Because it's not yet been proven in a court of law, you don't use language that directly proposes one version of events over another, even when it's absolutely clear from video evidence that it is true.

"SpaceX Runs Afoul of Government Cronyism"

versus

"SpaceX Accuses US Government of Unfair Practices"

One assumes the Government is at fault, and could even lead to a libel lawsuit. The other one reports the facts of the situation without assigning guilt to either party.

[rhoenix]

Dude, when you describe the article as "running afoul of government cronyism", you're using words the expressly indicated which side you're taking.

This is why in news reporting, they use words like "alleged" and "supposed". Because it's not yet been proven in a court of law, you don't use language that directly proposes one version of events over another, even when it's absolutely clear from video evidence that it is true.

"SpaceX Runs Afoul of Government Cronyism"

versus

"SpaceX Accuses US Government of Unfair Practices"

One assumes the Government is at fault, and could even lead to a libel lawsuit. The other one reports the facts of the situation without assigning guilt to either party.

That's a fair criticism - I was being facetious in my article's summary, and this is not the first time that didn't come across well.

[General Havoc]

I'm not trying to hold Rhoenix to an unreasonable standard here, we're not journalists, but yes, I rather did assume that was the position he was taking, as calling it government cronyism rather assumes that the article is factually true in all its allegations. If this was intended as sarcasm, I'm afraid I missed it.

I find it somewhat unlikely that the situation is as simple as the article alleges is all. SpaceX's founder is notorious for suing anyone that gets in his way, and the background between SpaceX and ULA is highly complex, with many other competing contracts being negotiated with the government and third parties. This is all a legal dance, and it's highly unlikely it's as simple as cronyism, given all the facts. This allegation may well be true, or true in part, but this article does not provide proof beyond a self-serving claim.