Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why exactly is Boeing and Lockheed Martin an "unholy alliance"?
The ULA is a monopoly entirely designed for the purpose of not having to compete for the public dollar.
You're unaware of the history of the ULA? It used to be we had competition on the launch market - Boeing and Lockheed would operate their respective platforms and bid on DoD contracts. Of course they spied on each other like nobody's business, were in court permanently and generally behaved like 5-year-olds in front of a bowl of candy. Then they got the bright idea of merging their operations into the ULA. Now the government could buy launch capacity in exactly one shop, and guess who got to set the price? Oh, and if mean ol' government wouldn't let them form their monopoly, one of them would probably just stop building rockets.
The DoD and the FTC hated the idea, said up front that it would be costlier for the taxpayer, but couldn't tolerate a situation with only one launch platform - technical issues could ground everything. So they had to accept ULA being formed, and of course the taxpayer got stuck with a humongous bill.
And what exactly is the difference between them and SpaceX? Other than a few decades of experience and proven accomplishments anyway. SpaceX does some amazing work. But they are every bit as much a "business" as Boeing and Lockheed.
Having SpaceX enter the scene has already led to ULA lowering their costs and restructuring their workforce. ULA had grown fat and lazy and complacent. As for the difference between SpaceX and Lockheed Martin, one difference is that Space X designs and builds their rocket engines, Lockheed imports their heavy engine (RD-180) from - Russia. We paid them one billion for them to study how to make copies. And they're still not doing it, because engineering is harder than lobbying.
Another difference is that SpaceX doesn't do the traditional cost-plus crap. COTS/CRS is fixed price, and if you can't deliver, you don't get paid.
Quote:
I find Scaled Composites much more interesting actually.
Interesting, but they're not in this league at all. Suborbital spaceplanes are nifty and all - I saw the maiden flight - but it's magnitudes easier.
Last edited by Dane_in_LA; 06-02-2015 at 10:19 AM..
No it isn't. Congress is less likely to do it if people demand it stopped.
Any interest in doing that or are you going to continue to support taxpayers funding millionaires to become billionaires?
Actually people are demanding that Congress fund these efforts. You're "barking up the wrong tree." You're allowed to bid on the procurements too. It's not restricted to the rich.
Actually people are demanding that Congress fund these efforts. You're "barking up the wrong tree." You're allowed to bid on the procurements too. It's not restricted to the rich.
I doubt you'll find support for taxpayer money going to million/billionaires.
I doubt you'll find support for taxpayer money going to million/billionaires.
Congress voted in most of these programs in 2005 when Bush was in office. Bush liked the law and endorsed it. You seem to want to restrict competitive awards by government agencies to failing businesses. That doesn't make much sense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
