A key lawmaker Tuesday vowed legislative action to ensure the Air Force adheres to a Defense Department directive to compete national security launches.
House Armed Services (HASC) tactical air and land forces subcommittee Ranking Member Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.) told Defense Daily that she can always initiate some sort of legislative effort, which she said is much more difficult than “just flipping a switch.”
“But if we have to, we will attempt it,” Sanchez said.
The Air Force is delaying and reducing a number of national security space launches, known as the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program, that were scheduled to be competed between fiscal years 2015 and 2017. The service has reduced the total from 14 to seven by pushing five Global Positioning System (GPS) III launch missions past FY ’17 and delaying two other missions. These five GPS III missions will still be competed, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Director of Space Programs, Maj. Gen. Robert McMurry, told reporters recently.
Of the other two non-GPS III missions, McMurry said, one was given back to EELV incumbent United Launch Alliance (ULA) and will not be competed. The other will still be competed, though McMurry didn’t specify when.
Sanchez said she believes this action is contrary to Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (AT&L) Frank Kendall’s November 2012 directive for the Air Force to compete as many as 14 launches between FYs ’15 and ’17.
“Certainly that decision (to delay five competitive launches) appears to be inconsistent with the Kendall acquisition directive and seems to me like they don’t want to compete those out,” Sanchez said.
The Air Force said it delayed the five GPS III launches due to slippage in the program. The Defense Department said in its FY ’15 budget request that it wanted to defer two GPS III satellites beyond FY ’19 because older GPS satellites are lasting longer than previously expected. DoD, overall, requested roughly $1 billion for GPS III in its budget request.
Sanchez said she doesn’t believe the Air Force is reducing the number of launches FY ’15 through ’17 launches because satellites are lasting longer, but because it simply doesn’t want to compete them to new entrants, namely Hawthorne, Calif.-based Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX).
“It would seem to me like they want SpaceX, or (an) other competitor who has been trying to get into that market, they’re sort of trying, I think, to wither them on the vine so they’ll go away,” Sanchez said.
Sanchez emphasized her point Friday during a HASC hearing on the Air Force’s FY ’15 budget request, saying “this takes quite a bit of money to be a new entrant, so when you close down those competitive pieces, those companies have a harder time to outlast what you are doing by deferring some of this.”
SpaceX has been working toward being certified to compete for EELV missions as part of a cooperative research and development agreement (CRADA) signed with the Air Force. SpaceX must meet rigorous certification requirements and perform at least three successful flights of a common launch vehicle configuration for the company to be considered for launching national security missions. The Air Force said in late February the company’s Sept. 29 launch of its Falcon 9v1.1 launch vehicle would count toward EELV certification. The service is still assessing Dec. 3 and Jan. 6 launches for certification.
Kendall’s directive is part of an effort to drive down the cost of national security space launches. Congressional supporters of ULA like how the joint venture of Lockheed Martin [LMT] and Boeing [BA] has proven it can successfully launch payloads into orbit with more than 60 successful launches, though at a tremendous cost that also includes a payment to ULA to assure access to space at DoD’s desire. Congressional supporters of new entrants like SpaceX see competition being the best way to drive down the costs of national security launches in an era of declining defense budgets. Detractors of new entrants cite how DoD can’t risk critical capabilities and billion-dollar satellites to unproven launch technology.
Sanchez cited claims from both European launch provider Arianespace and SpaceX that they can provide national security launches at a far lower cost than what ULA charges DoD. Sanchez said the sooner DoD has someone like SpaceX, or anyone else in the market, which can prove they can successfully launch the satellite into orbit at a lower cost, the better.
“The sooner we have someone like a SpaceX, or anyone else who is out in the market who can do this…(and) who can do it at a lower cost, that’s what we should be going with,” Sanchez said. “Especially since (SpaceX is) an American company.”
One critical piece of EELV launches is the Russian-made RD-180 rocket engine used in ULA’s Atlas V rocket. Though some have been skittish about the United States relying on Russian-made technology for such an important national security capability, the issue has risen to the forefront following the crisis between Ukraine and Russia. Air Force Under Secretary Eric Fanning said last week that the service was performing a “business case analysis” of how much it would cost to produce the RD-180 in the U.S. (Defense Daily, March 11). ULA also uses the Delta IV, which doesn’t have Russian components, in EELV launches. The RD-180 is developed by NPO Energomash and distributed in the United States by RD AMROSS, a joint venture of NPO Energomash and United Technologies Corp. [UTX]
Sanchez said she supported efforts to build the RD-180 domestically.
“This should be made here in the U.S.,” Sanchez said. “I think that it’s important for us to take a look at that.”
Marco Caceres, senior analyst and director of space studies for Teal Group, told Defense Daily Tuesday SpaceX would likely not support that idea because potentially building the RD-180 in the United States would be investing in a competitor. SpaceX was not able to return a request for comment by press time.
“From SpaceX’s view, I would imagine it’s not so much the fact that it’s a Russian engine, it’s the fact that without it, one of their main competitors in this major program is not really competitive, at least in the short term.” Caceres said. “So from a competitive standpoint, I think SpaceX would be happy if (ULA) didn’t have access to the RD-180.”
Sanchez said what matters most to her are three things: having assured access to space, having that assured access be cost effective and not having launches chained to Russia, which she said has the ability to flip on the United States in a quick manner.
“It would behoove us to try to figure out how to keep some of that in house,” Sanchez said.
The Air Force said March 6 it is committed to competition within the EELV program. Air Force spokesman Maj. Matthew Hasson said in an email the service will compete portions of the launch manifest each year in 2015, 2016 and 2017 if there is even one new entrant ready to compete.
“We are aggressively taking steps to support competition while ensuring our responsibility to deploy national security space payloads to their orbits safely and with acceptable risk,” Hasson said.
SpaceX spokeswoman Emily Shanklin asked, in a statement, why try to manufacture Russian engines, with massive costs, uncertain intellectual property rights, unknown licensing approvals from the Russian Federation and unknown timetables, when proven all-American rockets exist?
“As the only heavy lift rocket designed in the 21s century that uses modern manufacturing technology, Falcon 9 is capable of performing almost all the missions planned for Atlas V with greater design reliability and much lower cost,” Shanklin said. “THe few exceptions can be transitioned in the short term to Delta IV and, in the medium term, to Falcon Heavy, which has more than twice the lift capacity of the largest ULA rocket.”