Posted on 04/21/2018 9:13:50 AM PDT by Kaslin
For years now, the Pentagon has been in the market for new heavy-lift launch vehicles – rockets that can lift between 44,000 to 110,000 pounds. Currently, the only market options available are either too costly or too reliant on Russian-made parts.
To that end, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk announced that he will begin devoting most of his company’s efforts on developing the “BFR” – short for Big F-ing Rocket – which will allegedly be so huge and powerful that it will make the company’s previous rocket lines outdated in just a few short years. Musk stated at the South by Southwest conference that it is expected to be ready for short flights next year. This week, he announced that production will soon occur in Los Angeles.
Although already receiving over $70 million in government funding for the BFR, SpaceX announced it wants more appropriations to help it power through to the finish line. But given the company’s rocky history, as well as the steady influx of competition in the aerospace realm, perhaps the Pentagon should not extend Musk’s funding marker until the company demonstrates the ability to fix the security issues in its other rocket lines.
If Musk’s BFR’s script seems oddly familiar, that’s because it is. Previously, SpaceX said it would change the heavy-lift rocket game with its Falcon Heavy – a rocket that launched for the first time in February – but this Disney-esque storyline may not pan out as imagined. Not only did the Falcon Heavy’s core rocket booster crash into the ocean on its inaugural launch, but its for-show Tesla Roadster payload also overshot Mars’ orbit and could collide with something in space years down the road.
While these lift-off issues can be rectified for future missions, there may be more reliability concerns than meet the eye. Things seem far from stable. Both NASA and the Air Force reportedly declined Musk’s offer to put a payload on the launch. Even Musk himself seemed to believe a launch explosion was likely. The third booster and payload trajectory went off course this time, but there may very well be different, independent issues in subsequent launches. And yet, instead of devoting its time to fixing these errors – or the 33 major security issues associated with its other rocket line, for that matter – SpaceX has vowed to spend the bulk of its efforts on developing a new rocket that it wants more taxpayer money for.
Which begs the question: is a lack of faith in the Falcon Heavy’s ability the reason Musk plans to already make it “obsolete” in just a few short years with the ‘bigger and better’ BFR?
The steady stream of outside competition is likely adding to Musk’s uncertainty of the Falcon Heavy’s future and desire to build something new. For example, the Vulcan, a heavy-lift rocket in development by the United Launch Alliance (ULA), is expected to debut by mid-2020. Like SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy, it will also be reusable and very cost-competitive at “sub-$100 million.” Unlike the Falcon Heavy, it will use cryogenic oxygen and hydrogen to prevent it from freezing in space after a short period of time – a well-thought out touch that may give it an edge over its competitor.
At the same time, Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin is targeting a 2020 debut for its privately-funded New Glenn rocket system. Bezos’s creation will have an entirely reusable first stage and stand at 270-313 feet tall, hence towering over Musk’s heavy-lift rocket. Per DGIT Daily, Blue Origin will unquestionably outrank Musk’s company once the New Glenn takes the skies “unless SpaceX has something else up its sleeve.” Increased competition in the aerospace industry is also expected to soon come from companies like ArianeGroup, Paul Allen’s Stratolaunch Systems, and Orbital ATK, so NASA is under no circumstances beholden to SpaceX.
The problem here appears to be that Musk, who once said that it should be “game over” for all other heavy-lift rockets, may be paranoid about this competition and compelled to assert his dominance.
One of Musk’s most outlandish proclamations came when he stated that he’d “eat his hat with a side of mustard if [the Vulcan] flies a national security spacecraft before 2023.” This was an odd statement for the SpaceX CEO to make given that Falcon Heavy’s February test firing came only after the company promised a maiden lift-off by 2013-2014, Spring 2016, late 2016, and November 2017 – not to mention the numerous broken promises it has made with the Falcon 9, including a fourth straight flight deadline missed just last month due to nose cone problems. If reliability is truly a national spaceflight concern, it’s not due to the company with 125 straight successful launches – it’s because of issues spurred by Musk himself.
While cutthroat competition is a valid reason for any entrepreneur to desire building something more sustainable, it should be done on the company’s own dime. SpaceX has already received over $70 million from the government to develop its BFR rocket. Giving any more than this amount to a company that already has some unresolved security issues when its list of competitors is increasing by the day would be incredibly stupid.
Taxpayers are supposed to finance security assets, not corporate bandages. Washington withholding funding for the BFR until much-needed rectifications are made will increase, not decrease, SpaceX’s output quality. The government’s “do or die” ultimatum has produced favorable results when dealing with past government contractors, and I would suspect equally positive outcomes would occur in the case of SpaceX. The time is now to do what’s right for our national security by demanding accountability.
See today’s American thinker article on Musk. Sorry tootsie roll, but sucking down $5,000,000,000 taxpayer dollars ISN’T private funds in my book
He crashed last Sunday on “Billions.”
Like Chuck Rhoades' wife on "Billions."
“back then we would glue the fins right onto the engine....forget the costly rocket.”
How about it. Stuff a fuse in them and set those suckers off.
L
I think having the US being the dominant space launch country has enormous strategic advantages for us. One major advantage would be the military being able to quickly loft hardware in an emergency, by being able to bump priority over commercial launches.
I think Musk's talk about suborbital commuting is just him puffing up the potential of the BFR. The big thing about BFR would involve the ability to cheaply launch lots of communication satellites into low Earth orbit, to achieve global internet coverage cheaply.
Except that it works and is not fraud.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5K7HKFkZ8o
The article’s pathetic claim that the Falcon Heavy failed because the secondary objective of recovering the center core failed (and had never been attempted before - the core stage is not just a regular Falcon 9 stage) is stretching at best, and the claim that it missed its target with the payload is a flat out LIE. The second stage final burn was always going to be a burn to depletion, it was never intended to put the car in orbit around Mars or reach Mars at all. The objective was to demonstrate that it could reach the orbit of Mars around the sun, something it easily did and even surpassed slightly.
No, it doesn’t count, he won government contracts same as ULA. You do not get to raid his coffers just because you hate him and what he has achieved. SpaceX funded this rocket’s development with the profits of their previous missions, both commercial and government in nature. And unlike ULA, they are not considered “too big to fail” and are not funded just to keep the doors open.
It is funny how Musk is looked at by so many as some miracle to privatization of space when he is no different than a any other govt contractor except, as you point out, he was favored by the turd’s administration.
Tesla could go completely bankrupt and close its doors and it still wouldn’t change the fact that for the current development cost of $10 billion for the SLS rocket alone (not counting infrastructure or the Orion capsule, and that development cost is STILL climbing) you could have fully funded the development of the Falcon Heavy and had enough funds left over for 63 fully expendable flights of the rocket, capable of putting over 4 million kg into low earth orbit, or sending about 1 million kg to Mars. One Falcon Heavy launch, even if fully expended, is still significantly cheaper than one launch of the next most powerful rocket, the Delta IV Heavy. Just some food for thought.
Yes or no, does ULA receive government money regardless of whether they launch at all in a given year? I’ll give you a hint, the answer is not “no.” SpaceX is a threat to the ULA monopoly on the US orbital launch industry, and it is driving down launch costs significantly through innovation. So yes, it’s different from the pre-existing competition.
ULA is a govt contractor bound to the same competitive rules that all govt contractors must adhere. They don’t get to keep the doors open on taxpayer money if they are not on a contract and delivering a product or service to the govt. So I don’t know what you are implying. Its up to the govt to decide how and when it competes and awards contracts, and what is in the best interest of preserving particular industrial base capabilities that we don’t want to lose. In the case of space access, the govt has been looking to cut costs by finding lower priced alternatives, but that often comes with higher risk or less capability. And since govt admin/bureaucracy turnover is only a few years most of the time, the govt record for knowing how best to allocate the tax dollars is spotty.
“They don’t get to keep the doors open on taxpayer money if they are not on a contract and delivering a product or service to the govt. So I don’t know what you are implying. “
Bzzz, wrong. ULA received money for a “launch capability contract” where they get paid regardless of whether they launch or not.
http://spacenews.com/u-s-air-force-looks-at-ending-ulas-launch-capability-payment/
“From 2006 through 2013, the federal government had two different contracts with ULA. These included a “firm-fixed price” award for each individual launch and an annual “launch capability contract” known as the ELC payment, which covered booster assembly at the pad, range fees, and more. ULA received this award on an annual basis, regardless of the amount of rockets it launched, in order to maintain readiness.”
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/08/how-americas-two-greatest-rocket-companies-battled-from-the-beginning/
Perhaps you should educate yourself on the subject before drawing false equivalence between ULA and SpaceX. ULA is very keen to keep pushing this false narrative that SpaceX is pork while ULA is just an innocent regular government contractor. It’s backwards and disgusting.
Perhaps you should swallow the childish (Bzzz wrong) snark, especially when you post an affirmation to my statement. You said it yourself:
“From 2006 through 2013, the federal government had two different contracts with ULA. These included a “firm-fixed price” award for each individual launch and an annual “launch capability contract” known as the ELC payment, which covered booster assembly at the pad, range fees, and more. ULA received this award on an annual basis, regardless of the amount of rockets it launched, in order to maintain readiness.”
The contract was to maintain the infrastructure and expertise to launch on demand when requested by the DoD or Govt customers. That is what the govt customer wants. You cant keep facilities and people ready without cost.
Space access for national defense is like the Navy having ships and aircraft carriers. They stand READY to use in war time but most often they just stay ready.
This is not commercial contracting. Very different.
We have a different definition of the word "won" If by "won" you mean that he was given the money because he kicked back a load of it to the turd and to the democrat's coffers, then I suppose you could consider it "won." And BTW money is fungible
I mean he won. I mean he offers launches for far less money than the competition. That means he wins in the marketplace. That is why his rocket was the most-utilized rocket of any orbital rocket anywhere in the world last year. Your personal hatred is irrelevant to these facts. Even his relationship with Obama becomes irrelevant in the face of these facts. You sound like a pissed off soon-to-be-laid-off ULA employee.
Look up the definition of the word “fungible”. I just don’t like con men a description that fits both of your heroes: Saint musk and Saint Obama. Oh and read the American thinker article.
Excuse me? I know what the word “fungible” means, but I never said either man was a saint. SpaceX is not a con job and their method of putting payloads into space is REAL and CHEAPER than the old guard that you are so dedicated to defending. Suck on it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5K7HKFkZ8o
Thanks for admitting I won. If you report this post I’ll just start reporting you back to censor you too.
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.