If SpaceX is providing fixed pricing to the Air Force rather than cost plus pricing, their internal processes and methods are basically irrelevant. The only time that matters is when doing cost plus where management efficiency might have some kind of an impact on the price.
The Air Force took a pretty silly position on the whole thing IMO.
I would tend to think that the officers in charge took the safe route, as in followed the established bureaucracy in place so as not to appear to be rocking the boat. Leaving established protocol is always a risk not worth taking unless you have been instructed to do so.
Having been in the service I now see similar traits at my work and in the words of others as their place of work. For many the job is to get the task done and do so only through the established framework
The difference between a space launch and an intercontinental ballistic missile is basically intent. Internal processes and methods are definitely a factor here.
"Welch faulted SpaceX for assuming its experience launching other Falcon 9 rockets would suffice to be certified, and not expecting to have to resolve any issues at all."
That sounds unbelievable to me, like one of those findings of issues that come out of a review that is given to parties that have done very little actually wrong --but something is needed as a sop so the other guy doesn't feel picked on. I cannot imagine that SpaceX went into a review expecting no issues or feedback, I can easily imagine them hitting the roof when a list of 400 issues came back.
Especially since SpaceX knows these payloads need additional security, including cleared employees it can only hire if it's got a contract (clearances at this level are associated with a job, although it's of course a lot easier to get a new clearance for someone who's been recently employed with one).
Felt the same way, I think we've all been in meetings like this, or at least I have. The other team starts defending their turf, and you're given a list of 400 issues of things that they do a particular way, that you don't do a particular way.
Sounds like the Administration/ Pentagon wants some sort of "SpaceX is good" certification, which is pretty much counter to everything military procurement is designed to do. The process is designed to be resistant to outside political pressure. In this case it is bad, as SpaceX most likely has the technological ability to compete with incumbents. But I think we could all easily imagine opposite cases where caving to political pressure is bad.
Of course the system isn't perfect, and politics still plays a major in role in program funding. But it could be worse.
In EVERY instance of a company needing to get some sort of certification from the government for a job I've seen it's been so far from perfect that saying "system isn't perfect" isn't even a funny joke. It's HORRIBLY broken and results in incumbent companies getting contracts that they don't meet deadlines or budgets on yet continue to get new contracts because they are certified. Government procurement is total shit IMHO and needs to change badly. I don't even think "Well it take a long time (procurement processes) but it's safer/needed", from what I've seen it's not. It's a massive waste of time for everyone involved and does nothing to filter out the bad apples. It needs a massive overhaul so that we quit shoveling money into shit companies and start giving it to people who CAN do the job and do it well.
But when you see, for example, huge arguments over the fact that SpaceX doesn't do vertical integration and hence shouldn't be considered for certification, it does make you wonder.
>The Pentagon is eager to certify SpaceX as a second launch provider, given mounting concerns in Congress about ULA's use of a Russian-built engine to power its Atlas 5 rocket.
What's this about? Is there any substance to it? Or is it congress members upset the engines weren't bought from one of their buddies?
In any endeavor when you rely on a single supplier that supplier has power over you. In the case of a nation it can exert political pressure on another nation.
Perhaps SpaceX should just work with other militaries and organisations around the world who have more realistic ways of working - I mean, after all, this is a capitalist society, right?
While NASA used to be almost all of their business, SpaceX now has quite a few commercial customers. In fact, it's been a long time since any US launcher was cost-competitive in the global market.
>dictating changes in SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket and even the company's organizational structure.
Why should the Air Force have any say in a company's organizational structure?
The Falcon 9 is already good enough for NASA cargo missions.
The air force has been dragging their feet through this whole process and their regulations seem to be created to be so narrow that only ULA (United Launch Alliance) is able to achieve certification.
> He urged the Air Force's Space and Missiles Systems Center to "embrace SpaceX innovation and practices," while SpaceX needed to understand the Air Force's need to mitigate risks, and be more open to benefiting from the government's experience.
I found this to be the most important point in the entire article because I'm sure the USAF is very "old guard" with a mentality of "if it isn't broken don't fix it" while on the other hand, SpaceX is the new kid on the block with the newest and coolest tech
This video about the evolution of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle may shed some light on why the Air Force ended up with a report with far more requested changes than SpaceX had anticipated:
Funny funny funny, are we seeing Russian trolls on hacker news?
Yesterdays article https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9269760 got me thinking, there were several newly registered users voicing doubts in American Democracy and showing support for Russsa (c_los, M8, ibi7) and now borgia is chipping in for Russian rocket engines.
You're looking for Russian trolls now, instead of considering the obvious, that Russian rocket engines have been the main way to send stuff into space for decades.
borgia doesn't look like a troll to me. TeMPOraL replied to the thread that the Russia banned the US from using its engines in military applications. borgia thanked TeMPOraL for the additional information on the topic. Seems like a legit and civilized conversation to me.
There are propagandist on all corners of the internet. Many people on HN are blind and willfully ignorant that our community is infected to some degree.
[+] [-] msandford|11 years ago|reply
The Air Force took a pretty silly position on the whole thing IMO.
[+] [-] Shivetya|11 years ago|reply
Having been in the service I now see similar traits at my work and in the words of others as their place of work. For many the job is to get the task done and do so only through the established framework
[+] [-] foobarqux|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] panzagl|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tcskeptic|11 years ago|reply
That sounds unbelievable to me, like one of those findings of issues that come out of a review that is given to parties that have done very little actually wrong --but something is needed as a sop so the other guy doesn't feel picked on. I cannot imagine that SpaceX went into a review expecting no issues or feedback, I can easily imagine them hitting the roof when a list of 400 issues came back.
[+] [-] hga|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AndyNemmity|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] panzagl|11 years ago|reply
Of course the system isn't perfect, and politics still plays a major in role in program funding. But it could be worse.
[+] [-] joshstrange|11 years ago|reply
In EVERY instance of a company needing to get some sort of certification from the government for a job I've seen it's been so far from perfect that saying "system isn't perfect" isn't even a funny joke. It's HORRIBLY broken and results in incumbent companies getting contracts that they don't meet deadlines or budgets on yet continue to get new contracts because they are certified. Government procurement is total shit IMHO and needs to change badly. I don't even think "Well it take a long time (procurement processes) but it's safer/needed", from what I've seen it's not. It's a massive waste of time for everyone involved and does nothing to filter out the bad apples. It needs a massive overhaul so that we quit shoveling money into shit companies and start giving it to people who CAN do the job and do it well.
[+] [-] tankenmate|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] borgia|11 years ago|reply
What's this about? Is there any substance to it? Or is it congress members upset the engines weren't bought from one of their buddies?
[+] [-] TeMPOraL|11 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-180#2014_availability_concer...
[+] [-] josefresco|11 years ago|reply
The basic summary is that yes, Russia has been supplying these engines and this wasn't a 'problem' until recent events (Ukraine etc.)
[+] [-] ijk|11 years ago|reply
Plus, if the Pentagon's goal is independence from a Russian supply chain, buying parts from Russia kind of works against that.
[+] [-] foobarqux|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] benihana|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] madaxe_again|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] greglindahl|11 years ago|reply
While NASA used to be almost all of their business, SpaceX now has quite a few commercial customers. In fact, it's been a long time since any US launcher was cost-competitive in the global market.
[+] [-] tsotha|11 years ago|reply
It's illegal for SpaceX to work with foreign governments or companies without State Department approval.
[+] [-] simonh|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dba7dba|11 years ago|reply
Since many generals leaving AirForce join the major firms as basically lobbyists, you can see where that's headed.
It's not REALLY the AirForce that's making it hard. It's the established space launch firms, using their newly hired lobbyists.
[+] [-] baudtack|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 0x5f3759df-i|11 years ago|reply
Why should the Air Force have any say in a company's organizational structure?
The Falcon 9 is already good enough for NASA cargo missions.
The air force has been dragging their feet through this whole process and their regulations seem to be created to be so narrow that only ULA (United Launch Alliance) is able to achieve certification.
[+] [-] 32faction|11 years ago|reply
I found this to be the most important point in the entire article because I'm sure the USAF is very "old guard" with a mentality of "if it isn't broken don't fix it" while on the other hand, SpaceX is the new kid on the block with the newest and coolest tech
[+] [-] cwyers|11 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA
[+] [-] ak1394|11 years ago|reply
Yesterdays article https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9269760 got me thinking, there were several newly registered users voicing doubts in American Democracy and showing support for Russsa (c_los, M8, ibi7) and now borgia is chipping in for Russian rocket engines.
[+] [-] dang|11 years ago|reply
Astroturfing is a problem on the internet, but destroying civil discourse by smearing users you disagree with is no way to address it.
[+] [-] astazangasta|11 years ago|reply
You're looking for Russian trolls now, instead of considering the obvious, that Russian rocket engines have been the main way to send stuff into space for decades.
[+] [-] MichaelApproved|11 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9276819
[+] [-] zghst|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] centro|11 years ago|reply