Blue Origin and BE4 get $1 billion Air Force boost

The Air Force’s recent funding should see close to $1 billion go towards Blue Origin and its BE4 engine. The BE4 engine is used in Blue Origin rocket and the ULA Vulcan rocket.

$500 million in OTA funds will go directly to Blue Origin. $967 million will go to the Vulcan rocket.

The Blue Origin rocket and the BE4 should be solid competitors to the SpaceX Falcon Heavy starting around 2022.

Blue Origin Glenn Rocket will have a reusable first stage.

It would be good to have a decent competitor to SpaceX.

If the BE-4 and Glenn rocket gets flying then Bezos would be able to fund a fully reusable New Armstrong rocket which will likely be fully BFR competitive.

97 thoughts on “Blue Origin and BE4 get $1 billion Air Force boost”

  1. Air Force will NEVER AGAIN be dependent on a SINGLE launch vehicle for access to space. It is all about guaranteed access so that if one launch vehicle explodes the Air Force can launch for years while the other launch vehicle is being fixed.

    Reply
  2. Air Force will NEVER AGAIN be dependent on a SINGLE launch vehicle for access to space.It is all about guaranteed access so that if one launch vehicle explodes the Air Force can launch for years while the other launch vehicle is being fixed.

    Reply
  3. This exactly. Government isn’t in the business of fairness; it’s in the business of driving people to their absolute limits to achieve a desired end.

    Reply
  4. This exactly. Government isn’t in the business of fairness; it’s in the business of driving people to their absolute limits to achieve a desired end.

    Reply
  5. So another 4+ years for New Glenn to compete with FH. By that point BFR should be close to ready, if not already operational. Will New Armstrong take another 10 years after that? By that point, SpaceX will have the next generation. BO needs to up their game if they want to catch up.

    Reply
  6. So another 4+ years for New Glenn to compete with FH. By that point BFR should be close to ready if not already operational. Will New Armstrong take another 10 years after that? By that point SpaceX will have the next generation. BO needs to up their game if they want to catch up.

    Reply
  7. It is a true corruption. Blood money will never lost its power. $500 million >>Blue BE-4>>Boeing, Lockheed Martin $792 million >>Northrop Grumman $967 million >>Boeing, Lockheed Martin immortal tyrants BOEING, killing people since 1916 Lockheed Martin>> Glenn L. Martin Company, killing people since 1912 Northrop Grumman>>Grumman, killing people since 1929

    Reply
  8. It is a true corruption.Blood money will never lost its power. $500 million >>Blue BE-4>>Boeing Lockheed Martin$792 million >>Northrop Grumman $967 million >>Boeing Lockheed Martinimmortal tyrantsBOEING killing people since 1916Lockheed Martin>> Glenn L. Martin Company killing people since 1912Northrop Grumman>>Grumman killing people since 1929

    Reply
  9. Ignor, here’s how you fix this – amend the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, paragraphs (10) thru (16), and Article II, Section 2, paragraphs (1) & (2). Hope this helps & please keep us informed of your progress. You’re welcome.

    Reply
  10. The military procurement process is notoriously corrupt and plagued by cronyism. I’m not sure how this drives people to their “absolute limits”. Seems more like the other way around: The defense contractors extract the maximum amount they can get for a given program/weapons system.

    Reply
  11. Ignor here’s how you fix this – amend the Constitution Article I Section 8 paragraphs (10) thru (16) and Article II Section 2 paragraphs (1) & (2).Hope this helps & please keep us informed of your progress.You’re welcome.

    Reply
  12. The military procurement process is notoriously corrupt and plagued by cronyism. I’m not sure how this drives people to their absolute limits””. Seems more like the other way around: The defense contractors extract the maximum amount they can get for a given program/weapons system.”””

    Reply
  13. No, they are not that corrupt. It is a gross and irresponsible exaggeration. The cases of corruption are highlighted by the media and result in pinishment. What you are describing is Russia. There is no such lawlessnes here. Extracting the maximum they can does not equal corruption. I will give that defense contractors abused the system in the past but they are put in a much stricter limits nowdays since to people like senator McCain.

    Reply
  14. For a couple of reasons. One, because Space X didn’t compete BFR for this program, they competed F9, and were rejected from this phase of the solicitation. Why? Not stated. They are allowed to re-submit for Phase 2 in a few years. When the original RFP for this went out, BFR didn’t exist – I don’t think ITS even existed. Secondly, because this contract is EELV – Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle – for national security payloads. BFR is not ideal for a single national security payload. It is overkill times 10. This is not a heavy class rocket contract, it’s a medium class rocket contract. That’s why they competed Falcon 9. This is meant to replace the ULA Atlas V monopoly with USAF. This contract/proposal is John McCain’s legacy, who worked his ass off to get the government to stop being dependent on the Russian RD-180 motors that ULA was using on Atlas V. They wanted national security payloads to be launched with all domestically designed and manufactured rocket motors. This was in part because of the catastrophic failure of the Antares Orb-3 mission resultant from FOD and poor machining of the AJ-26 motors sourced from the Soviet Union by Aerojet Rocketdyne. Basically we realized we gotta stop using old ass Russian rocket motors and incentivize American companies to innovate new motors. Technically, that mandate would not really be best spent on Space X since Space X has already developed the F9 Merlin motors and the whole point is to diversify and cultivate more new American innovation in rocketry, though that’s not a good reason to deny them if their vehicle was robust and their quote was competitive. You have to bear in mind in a lot of these RFPs that the USG’s interests are not best served by taking all the money that can possibly be funneled into spaceflight and rocketry and giving it all to Space X just because some people think Space X is the future. The USG’s interests are best served if the likes of Space X, Boeing, Aerojet Rocketdyne, a

    Reply
  15. No they are not that corrupt. It is a gross and irresponsible exaggeration. The cases of corruption are highlighted by the media and result in pinishment. What you are describing is Russia. There is no such lawlessnes here. Extracting the maximum they can does not equal corruption. I will give that defense contractors abused the system in the past but they are put in a much stricter limits nowdays since to people like senator McCain.

    Reply
  16. For a couple of reasons. One because Space X didn’t compete BFR for this program they competed F9 and were rejected from this phase of the solicitation. Why? Not stated. They are allowed to re-submit for Phase 2 in a few years. When the original RFP for this went out BFR didn’t exist – I don’t think ITS even existed. Secondly because this contract is EELV – Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle – for national security payloads. BFR is not ideal for a single national security payload. It is overkill times 10. This is not a heavy class rocket contract it’s a medium class rocket contract. That’s why they competed Falcon 9. This is meant to replace the ULA Atlas V monopoly with USAF. This contract/proposal is John McCain’s legacy who worked his ass off to get the government to stop being dependent on the Russian RD-180 motors that ULA was using on Atlas V. They wanted national security payloads to be launched with all domestically designed and manufactured rocket motors. This was in part because of the catastrophic failure of the Antares Orb-3 mission resultant from FOD and poor machining of the AJ-26 motors sourced from the Soviet Union by Aerojet Rocketdyne. Basically we realized we gotta stop using old ass Russian rocket motors and incentivize American companies to innovate new motors. Technically that mandate would not really be best spent on Space X since Space X has already developed the F9 Merlin motors and the whole point is to diversify and cultivate more new American innovation in rocketry though that’s not a good reason to deny them if their vehicle was robust and their quote was competitive. You have to bear in mind in a lot of these RFPs that the USG’s interests are not best served by taking all the money that can possibly be funneled into spaceflight and rocketry and giving it all to Space X just because some people think Space X is the future. The USG’s interests are best served if the likes of Space X Boeing Aerojet Rocketdyne and

    Reply
  17. It’s obvious that most of the posters don’t have a clue about US federal government procurement regulations. With a few exceptions, federal contracts are awarded thru a competitive bid process. The federal government issues a public RFP for most contracts, and you can find them listed on fbo.gov. Also remember that even though SpaceX failed to meet the deadline for participation in the original EELV program, they later filed a protest and were allowed to bid on USAF EELV launch contracts. Some of which SpaceX have recently been awarded thru this supposedly “corrupt” competitive bid process.

    Reply
  18. It’s obvious that most of the posters don’t have a clue about US federal government procurement regulations. With a few exceptions federal contracts are awarded thru a competitive bid process. The federal government issues a public RFP for most contracts and you can find them listed on fbo.gov.Also remember that even though SpaceX failed to meet the deadline for participation in the original EELV program they later filed a protest and were allowed to bid on USAF EELV launch contracts. Some of which SpaceX have recently been awarded thru this supposedly corrupt”” competitive bid process.”””

    Reply
  19. Sorry, but I think it might be you who doesn’t “have a clue”. To suggest that the procurement process is not corrupt is beyond laughable. The evidence is everywhere, the scandals are virtually limitless. Scores of books and investigative reports have been written on the subject. Everyone from senators to former DoD officials to the contractors themselves have complained about it. If you say the process is not corrupt then you simply aren’t looking. According to the Office of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, in fiscal year 2016 over half of Defense Department procurement spending — totaling more than $100 billion — was on noncompetitive contracts. That’s almost the very essence of corruption. The Corporate Research project found that Raytheon defrauded the Pentagon 5 times, Lockheed Martin 7 times and Northrup Grumman 7 times, and yet continue to be awarded huge Pentagon contracts. You have wasteful, bloated contracts like the F-35 program. You have the $600 toilet seats and $400 hammers. We spend more than the next 10 highest-spending countries combined on defense, and this is not because our technology is so vastly superior. There’s no such thing as transparency in the Pentagon’s budget. You have people like former Defense Secretary Robert Gates complained about it. You have Donald Rumsfeld complaining about it. You have the Palantir lawsuit, and scores of other lawsuits.

    Reply
  20. Sorry but I think it might be you who doesn’t have a clue””. To suggest that the procurement process is not corrupt is beyond laughable. The evidence is everywhere”” the scandals are virtually limitless. Scores of books and investigative reports have been written on the subject. Everyone from senators to former DoD officials to the contractors themselves have complained about it. If you say the process is not corrupt then you simply aren’t looking.According to the Office of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy in fiscal year 2016 over half of Defense Department procurement spending — totaling more than $100 billion — was on noncompetitive contracts. That’s almost the very essence of corruption. The Corporate Research project found that Raytheon defrauded the Pentagon 5 times Lockheed Martin 7 times and Northrup Grumman 7 times and yet continue to be awarded huge Pentagon contracts. You have wasteful bloated contracts like the F-35 program. You have the $600 toilet seats and $400 hammers. We spend more than the next 10 highest-spending countries combined on defense and this is not because our technology is so vastly superior. There’s no such thing as transparency in the Pentagon’s budget. You have people like former Defense Secretary Robert Gates complained about it. You have Donald Rumsfeld complaining about it. You have the Palantir lawsuit”” and scores of other lawsuits.”””””””

    Reply
  21. There will be many, domestically-produced F9’s and BFR’s. I think what you’re saying is that there’s risk inherent to having a single anything, e.g.: – A single design (could prove flawed, be unable to accomplish a particular mission, or be compromised somehow). – A single company (could go bankrupt, raise prices, etc) – A single manufacturing base (Wider base = more political support, individual companies can go bankrupt, any given supplier could be compromised, etc) In short, it’s difficult to achieve reliability with a single point of failure and, therefore, it’s insufficient for SpaceX to provide lots of rockets at lowest cost. The Air Force must have multiple solutions for every mission. Do I understand you correctly?

    Reply
  22. It is about having two different rockets so that you can launch a payload 100.0% of the time. Back when the Air Force was dependent on the Space Shuttle to launch satellites and Challenger exploded the Air Force found itself with NO access to space. The Air Force will never again find themselves in this position. So they made the EELV program. Key point: two rockets from different vendors. Even when both EELV rockets were consolidated under ULA they had to keep both rockets. Most launches were on Atlas V’s, a few on Delta IV Heavy just to keep Boeing production going. The key point being that the Air Force is actually moving quite quickly to displace Atlas and Delta with F9H and anything else but in the meantime they want to have two rockets with no Russian engines.

    Reply
  23. There will be many domestically-produced F9’s and BFR’s. I think what you’re saying is that there’s risk inherent to having a single anything e.g.:- A single design (could prove flawed be unable to accomplish a particular mission or be compromised somehow).- A single company (could go bankrupt raise prices etc)- A single manufacturing base (Wider base = more political support individual companies can go bankrupt any given supplier could be compromised etc)In short it’s difficult to achieve reliability with a single point of failure and therefore it’s insufficient for SpaceX to provide lots of rockets at lowest cost. The Air Force must have multiple solutions for every mission. Do I understand you correctly?

    Reply
  24. It is about having two different rockets so that you can launch a payload 100.0{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of the time.Back when the Air Force was dependent on the Space Shuttle to launch satellites and Challenger exploded the Air Force found itself with NO access to space. The Air Force will never again find themselves in this position.So they made the EELV program. Key point: two rockets from different vendors. Even when both EELV rockets were consolidated under ULA they had to keep both rockets. Most launches were on Atlas V’s a few on Delta IV Heavy just to keep Boeing production going.The key point being that the Air Force is actually moving quite quickly to displace Atlas and Delta with F9H and anything else but in the meantime they want to have two rockets with no Russian engines.

    Reply
  25. I worry that Blue Origin with their New Shepard capsule have not learnt from the experience of Soyuz 11, which ended in disaster when the crew capsule depressurized during preparations for reentry, killing the three-man crew. That is why the crew wear the sokol space suit, which is designed to protect the crew is there is a loss of cabin pressure.

    Reply
  26. I worry that Blue Origin with their New Shepard capsule have not learnt from the experience of Soyuz 11, which ended in disaster when the crew capsule depressurized during preparations for reentry, killing the three-man crew. That is why the crew wear the sokol space suit, which is designed to protect the crew is there is a loss of cabin pressure.

    Reply
  27. There will be many, domestically-produced F9’s and BFR’s. I think what you’re saying is that there’s risk inherent to having a single anything, e.g.: – A single design (could prove flawed, be unable to accomplish a particular mission, or be compromised somehow). – A single company (could go bankrupt, raise prices, etc) – A single manufacturing base (Wider base = more political support, individual companies can go bankrupt, any given supplier could be compromised, etc) In short, it’s difficult to achieve reliability with a single point of failure and, therefore, it’s insufficient for SpaceX to provide lots of rockets at lowest cost. The Air Force must have multiple solutions for every mission. Do I understand you correctly?

    Reply
  28. There will be many domestically-produced F9’s and BFR’s. I think what you’re saying is that there’s risk inherent to having a single anything e.g.:- A single design (could prove flawed be unable to accomplish a particular mission or be compromised somehow).- A single company (could go bankrupt raise prices etc)- A single manufacturing base (Wider base = more political support individual companies can go bankrupt any given supplier could be compromised etc)In short it’s difficult to achieve reliability with a single point of failure and therefore it’s insufficient for SpaceX to provide lots of rockets at lowest cost. The Air Force must have multiple solutions for every mission. Do I understand you correctly?

    Reply
  29. It is about having two different rockets so that you can launch a payload 100.0% of the time. Back when the Air Force was dependent on the Space Shuttle to launch satellites and Challenger exploded the Air Force found itself with NO access to space. The Air Force will never again find themselves in this position. So they made the EELV program. Key point: two rockets from different vendors. Even when both EELV rockets were consolidated under ULA they had to keep both rockets. Most launches were on Atlas V’s, a few on Delta IV Heavy just to keep Boeing production going. The key point being that the Air Force is actually moving quite quickly to displace Atlas and Delta with F9H and anything else but in the meantime they want to have two rockets with no Russian engines.

    Reply
  30. It is about having two different rockets so that you can launch a payload 100.0{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of the time.Back when the Air Force was dependent on the Space Shuttle to launch satellites and Challenger exploded the Air Force found itself with NO access to space. The Air Force will never again find themselves in this position.So they made the EELV program. Key point: two rockets from different vendors. Even when both EELV rockets were consolidated under ULA they had to keep both rockets. Most launches were on Atlas V’s a few on Delta IV Heavy just to keep Boeing production going.The key point being that the Air Force is actually moving quite quickly to displace Atlas and Delta with F9H and anything else but in the meantime they want to have two rockets with no Russian engines.

    Reply
  31. There will be many, domestically-produced F9’s and BFR’s. I think what you’re saying is that there’s risk inherent to having a single anything, e.g.:
    – A single design (could prove flawed, be unable to accomplish a particular mission, or be compromised somehow).
    – A single company (could go bankrupt, raise prices, etc)
    – A single manufacturing base (Wider base = more political support, individual companies can go bankrupt, any given supplier could be compromised, etc)

    In short, it’s difficult to achieve reliability with a single point of failure and, therefore, it’s insufficient for SpaceX to provide lots of rockets at lowest cost. The Air Force must have multiple solutions for every mission. Do I understand you correctly?

    Reply
  32. It is about having two different rockets so that you can launch a payload 100.0% of the time.

    Back when the Air Force was dependent on the Space Shuttle to launch satellites and Challenger exploded the Air Force found itself with NO access to space. The Air Force will never again find themselves in this position.

    So they made the EELV program. Key point: two rockets from different vendors. Even when both EELV rockets were consolidated under ULA they had to keep both rockets. Most launches were on Atlas V’s, a few on Delta IV Heavy just to keep Boeing production going.

    The key point being that the Air Force is actually moving quite quickly to displace Atlas and Delta with F9H and anything else but in the meantime they want to have two rockets with no Russian engines.

    Reply
  33. Sorry, but I think it might be you who doesn’t “have a clue”. To suggest that the procurement process is not corrupt is beyond laughable. The evidence is everywhere, the scandals are virtually limitless. Scores of books and investigative reports have been written on the subject. Everyone from senators to former DoD officials to the contractors themselves have complained about it. If you say the process is not corrupt then you simply aren’t looking. According to the Office of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, in fiscal year 2016 over half of Defense Department procurement spending — totaling more than $100 billion — was on noncompetitive contracts. That’s almost the very essence of corruption. The Corporate Research project found that Raytheon defrauded the Pentagon 5 times, Lockheed Martin 7 times and Northrup Grumman 7 times, and yet continue to be awarded huge Pentagon contracts. You have wasteful, bloated contracts like the F-35 program. You have the $600 toilet seats and $400 hammers. We spend more than the next 10 highest-spending countries combined on defense, and this is not because our technology is so vastly superior. There’s no such thing as transparency in the Pentagon’s budget. You have people like former Defense Secretary Robert Gates complained about it. You have Donald Rumsfeld complaining about it. You have the Palantir lawsuit, and scores of other lawsuits.

    Reply
  34. Sorry but I think it might be you who doesn’t have a clue””. To suggest that the procurement process is not corrupt is beyond laughable. The evidence is everywhere”” the scandals are virtually limitless. Scores of books and investigative reports have been written on the subject. Everyone from senators to former DoD officials to the contractors themselves have complained about it. If you say the process is not corrupt then you simply aren’t looking.According to the Office of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy in fiscal year 2016 over half of Defense Department procurement spending — totaling more than $100 billion — was on noncompetitive contracts. That’s almost the very essence of corruption. The Corporate Research project found that Raytheon defrauded the Pentagon 5 times Lockheed Martin 7 times and Northrup Grumman 7 times and yet continue to be awarded huge Pentagon contracts. You have wasteful bloated contracts like the F-35 program. You have the $600 toilet seats and $400 hammers. We spend more than the next 10 highest-spending countries combined on defense and this is not because our technology is so vastly superior. There’s no such thing as transparency in the Pentagon’s budget. You have people like former Defense Secretary Robert Gates complained about it. You have Donald Rumsfeld complaining about it. You have the Palantir lawsuit”” and scores of other lawsuits.”””””””

    Reply
  35. Sorry, but I think it might be you who doesn’t “have a clue”. To suggest that the procurement process is not corrupt is beyond laughable. The evidence is everywhere, the scandals are virtually limitless. Scores of books and investigative reports have been written on the subject. Everyone from senators to former DoD officials to the contractors themselves have complained about it. If you say the process is not corrupt then you simply aren’t looking.

    According to the Office of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, in fiscal year 2016 over half of Defense Department procurement spending — totaling more than $100 billion — was on noncompetitive contracts. That’s almost the very essence of corruption. The Corporate Research project found that Raytheon defrauded the Pentagon 5 times, Lockheed Martin 7 times and Northrup Grumman 7 times, and yet continue to be awarded huge Pentagon contracts. You have wasteful, bloated contracts like the F-35 program.

    You have the $600 toilet seats and $400 hammers. We spend more than the next 10 highest-spending countries combined on defense, and this is not because our technology is so vastly superior. There’s no such thing as transparency in the Pentagon’s budget.

    You have people like former Defense Secretary Robert Gates complained about it. You have Donald Rumsfeld complaining about it. You have the Palantir lawsuit, and scores of other lawsuits.

    Reply
  36. It’s obvious that most of the posters don’t have a clue about US federal government procurement regulations. With a few exceptions, federal contracts are awarded thru a competitive bid process. The federal government issues a public RFP for most contracts, and you can find them listed on fbo.gov. Also remember that even though SpaceX failed to meet the deadline for participation in the original EELV program, they later filed a protest and were allowed to bid on USAF EELV launch contracts. Some of which SpaceX have recently been awarded thru this supposedly “corrupt” competitive bid process.

    Reply
  37. It’s obvious that most of the posters don’t have a clue about US federal government procurement regulations. With a few exceptions federal contracts are awarded thru a competitive bid process. The federal government issues a public RFP for most contracts and you can find them listed on fbo.gov.Also remember that even though SpaceX failed to meet the deadline for participation in the original EELV program they later filed a protest and were allowed to bid on USAF EELV launch contracts. Some of which SpaceX have recently been awarded thru this supposedly corrupt”” competitive bid process.”””

    Reply
  38. It’s obvious that most of the posters don’t have a clue about US federal government procurement regulations. With a few exceptions, federal contracts are awarded thru a competitive bid process. The federal government issues a public RFP for most contracts, and you can find them listed on fbo.gov.

    Also remember that even though SpaceX failed to meet the deadline for participation in the original EELV program, they later filed a protest and were allowed to bid on USAF EELV launch contracts. Some of which SpaceX have recently been awarded thru this supposedly “corrupt” competitive bid process.

    Reply
  39. No, they are not that corrupt. It is a gross and irresponsible exaggeration. The cases of corruption are highlighted by the media and result in pinishment. What you are describing is Russia. There is no such lawlessnes here. Extracting the maximum they can does not equal corruption. I will give that defense contractors abused the system in the past but they are put in a much stricter limits nowdays since to people like senator McCain.

    Reply
  40. No they are not that corrupt. It is a gross and irresponsible exaggeration. The cases of corruption are highlighted by the media and result in pinishment. What you are describing is Russia. There is no such lawlessnes here. Extracting the maximum they can does not equal corruption. I will give that defense contractors abused the system in the past but they are put in a much stricter limits nowdays since to people like senator McCain.

    Reply
  41. For a couple of reasons. One, because Space X didn’t compete BFR for this program, they competed F9, and were rejected from this phase of the solicitation. Why? Not stated. They are allowed to re-submit for Phase 2 in a few years. When the original RFP for this went out, BFR didn’t exist – I don’t think ITS even existed. Secondly, because this contract is EELV – Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle – for national security payloads. BFR is not ideal for a single national security payload. It is overkill times 10. This is not a heavy class rocket contract, it’s a medium class rocket contract. That’s why they competed Falcon 9. This is meant to replace the ULA Atlas V monopoly with USAF. This contract/proposal is John McCain’s legacy, who worked his ass off to get the government to stop being dependent on the Russian RD-180 motors that ULA was using on Atlas V. They wanted national security payloads to be launched with all domestically designed and manufactured rocket motors. This was in part because of the catastrophic failure of the Antares Orb-3 mission resultant from FOD and poor machining of the AJ-26 motors sourced from the Soviet Union by Aerojet Rocketdyne. Basically we realized we gotta stop using old ass Russian rocket motors and incentivize American companies to innovate new motors. Technically, that mandate would not really be best spent on Space X since Space X has already developed the F9 Merlin motors and the whole point is to diversify and cultivate more new American innovation in rocketry, though that’s not a good reason to deny them if their vehicle was robust and their quote was competitive. You have to bear in mind in a lot of these RFPs that the USG’s interests are not best served by taking all the money that can possibly be funneled into spaceflight and rocketry and giving it all to Space X just because some people think Space X is the future. The USG’s interests are best served if the likes of Space X, Boeing, Aerojet Rocketdyne, a

    Reply
  42. For a couple of reasons. One because Space X didn’t compete BFR for this program they competed F9 and were rejected from this phase of the solicitation. Why? Not stated. They are allowed to re-submit for Phase 2 in a few years. When the original RFP for this went out BFR didn’t exist – I don’t think ITS even existed. Secondly because this contract is EELV – Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle – for national security payloads. BFR is not ideal for a single national security payload. It is overkill times 10. This is not a heavy class rocket contract it’s a medium class rocket contract. That’s why they competed Falcon 9. This is meant to replace the ULA Atlas V monopoly with USAF. This contract/proposal is John McCain’s legacy who worked his ass off to get the government to stop being dependent on the Russian RD-180 motors that ULA was using on Atlas V. They wanted national security payloads to be launched with all domestically designed and manufactured rocket motors. This was in part because of the catastrophic failure of the Antares Orb-3 mission resultant from FOD and poor machining of the AJ-26 motors sourced from the Soviet Union by Aerojet Rocketdyne. Basically we realized we gotta stop using old ass Russian rocket motors and incentivize American companies to innovate new motors. Technically that mandate would not really be best spent on Space X since Space X has already developed the F9 Merlin motors and the whole point is to diversify and cultivate more new American innovation in rocketry though that’s not a good reason to deny them if their vehicle was robust and their quote was competitive. You have to bear in mind in a lot of these RFPs that the USG’s interests are not best served by taking all the money that can possibly be funneled into spaceflight and rocketry and giving it all to Space X just because some people think Space X is the future. The USG’s interests are best served if the likes of Space X Boeing Aerojet Rocketdyne and

    Reply
  43. Ignor, here’s how you fix this – amend the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, paragraphs (10) thru (16), and Article II, Section 2, paragraphs (1) & (2). Hope this helps & please keep us informed of your progress. You’re welcome.

    Reply
  44. Ignor here’s how you fix this – amend the Constitution Article I Section 8 paragraphs (10) thru (16) and Article II Section 2 paragraphs (1) & (2).Hope this helps & please keep us informed of your progress.You’re welcome.

    Reply
  45. The military procurement process is notoriously corrupt and plagued by cronyism. I’m not sure how this drives people to their “absolute limits”. Seems more like the other way around: The defense contractors extract the maximum amount they can get for a given program/weapons system.

    Reply
  46. The military procurement process is notoriously corrupt and plagued by cronyism. I’m not sure how this drives people to their absolute limits””. Seems more like the other way around: The defense contractors extract the maximum amount they can get for a given program/weapons system.”””

    Reply
  47. It is a true corruption. Blood money will never lost its power. $500 million >>Blue BE-4>>Boeing, Lockheed Martin $792 million >>Northrop Grumman $967 million >>Boeing, Lockheed Martin immortal tyrants BOEING, killing people since 1916 Lockheed Martin>> Glenn L. Martin Company, killing people since 1912 Northrop Grumman>>Grumman, killing people since 1929

    Reply
  48. It is a true corruption.Blood money will never lost its power. $500 million >>Blue BE-4>>Boeing Lockheed Martin$792 million >>Northrop Grumman $967 million >>Boeing Lockheed Martinimmortal tyrantsBOEING killing people since 1916Lockheed Martin>> Glenn L. Martin Company killing people since 1912Northrop Grumman>>Grumman killing people since 1929

    Reply
  49. Air Force will NEVER AGAIN be dependent on a SINGLE launch vehicle for access to space. It is all about guaranteed access so that if one launch vehicle explodes the Air Force can launch for years while the other launch vehicle is being fixed.

    Reply
  50. Air Force will NEVER AGAIN be dependent on a SINGLE launch vehicle for access to space.It is all about guaranteed access so that if one launch vehicle explodes the Air Force can launch for years while the other launch vehicle is being fixed.

    Reply
  51. This exactly. Government isn’t in the business of fairness; it’s in the business of driving people to their absolute limits to achieve a desired end.

    Reply
  52. This exactly. Government isn’t in the business of fairness; it’s in the business of driving people to their absolute limits to achieve a desired end.

    Reply
  53. No, they are not that corrupt. It is a gross and irresponsible exaggeration. The cases of corruption are highlighted by the media and result in pinishment. What you are describing is Russia. There is no such lawlessnes here. Extracting the maximum they can does not equal corruption. I will give that defense contractors abused the system in the past but they are put in a much stricter limits nowdays since to people like senator McCain.

    Reply
  54. So another 4+ years for New Glenn to compete with FH. By that point BFR should be close to ready, if not already operational. Will New Armstrong take another 10 years after that? By that point, SpaceX will have the next generation. BO needs to up their game if they want to catch up.

    Reply
  55. So another 4+ years for New Glenn to compete with FH. By that point BFR should be close to ready if not already operational. Will New Armstrong take another 10 years after that? By that point SpaceX will have the next generation. BO needs to up their game if they want to catch up.

    Reply
  56. For a couple of reasons. One, because Space X didn’t compete BFR for this program, they competed F9, and were rejected from this phase of the solicitation. Why? Not stated. They are allowed to re-submit for Phase 2 in a few years. When the original RFP for this went out, BFR didn’t exist – I don’t think ITS even existed. Secondly, because this contract is EELV – Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle – for national security payloads. BFR is not ideal for a single national security payload. It is overkill times 10. This is not a heavy class rocket contract, it’s a medium class rocket contract. That’s why they competed Falcon 9. This is meant to replace the ULA Atlas V monopoly with USAF. This contract/proposal is John McCain’s legacy, who worked his ass off to get the government to stop being dependent on the Russian RD-180 motors that ULA was using on Atlas V. They wanted national security payloads to be launched with all domestically designed and manufactured rocket motors. This was in part because of the catastrophic failure of the Antares Orb-3 mission resultant from FOD and poor machining of the AJ-26 motors sourced from the Soviet Union by Aerojet Rocketdyne. Basically we realized we gotta stop using old ass Russian rocket motors and incentivize American companies to innovate new motors. Technically, that mandate would not really be best spent on Space X since Space X has already developed the F9 Merlin motors and the whole point is to diversify and cultivate more new American innovation in rocketry, though that’s not a good reason to deny them if their vehicle was robust and their quote was competitive. You have to bear in mind in a lot of these RFPs that the USG’s interests are not best served by taking all the money that can possibly be funneled into spaceflight and rocketry and giving it all to Space X just because some people think Space X is the future. The USG’s interests are best served if the likes of Space X, Boeing, Aerojet Rocketdyne, and Blue Origin are all competing as hard as they can to make the next generation rocket that will outcompete or out sell one another. Granted, Space X has a huge leg up with re-usability – the USG is not agile, and is not onboard with reuse-ability and the projected cost savings. But it’s only a matter of time. I’m sure there were reasons. Space X already has some classified government contracts, this was just a chunk of work from another bin.

    Reply
  57. Ignor, here’s how you fix this – amend the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, paragraphs (10) thru (16), and Article II, Section 2, paragraphs (1) & (2).
    Hope this helps & please keep us informed of your progress.
    You’re welcome.

    Reply
  58. The military procurement process is notoriously corrupt and plagued by cronyism. I’m not sure how this drives people to their “absolute limits”. Seems more like the other way around: The defense contractors extract the maximum amount they can get for a given program/weapons system.

    Reply
  59. It is a true corruption.
    Blood money will never lost its power.

    $500 million >>Blue BE-4>>Boeing, Lockheed Martin
    $792 million >>Northrop Grumman
    $967 million >>Boeing, Lockheed Martin

    immortal tyrants

    BOEING, killing people since 1916
    Lockheed Martin>> Glenn L. Martin Company, killing people since 1912
    Northrop Grumman>>Grumman, killing people since 1929

    Reply
  60. Air Force will NEVER AGAIN be dependent on a SINGLE launch vehicle for access to space.

    It is all about guaranteed access so that if one launch vehicle explodes the Air Force can launch for years while the other launch vehicle is being fixed.

    Reply
  61. So another 4+ years for New Glenn to compete with FH. By that point BFR should be close to ready, if not already operational. Will New Armstrong take another 10 years after that? By that point, SpaceX will have the next generation. BO needs to up their game if they want to catch up.

    Reply

Leave a Comment