Space Force awards SpaceX big launch contract
Space Force yesterday awarded SpaceX a $733 million contract for what appears to be a total of eight future launches of military and national security payloads.
Few details were released about the payloads, including the launch timeline. The deal was issued as part of the military launch contracting system, which in June named SpaceX, ULA, and Blue Origin as its launch providers for the next five years.
However, one official’s comment appeared to suggest this contract award was the military’s expression of disgust at the delays at ULA and Blue Origin in getting their rockets launchworthy.
“In this era of Great Power Competition, it is imperative to not leave capability on the ground,” Brig. Gen. Kristin Panzenhagen, program executive officer for Assured Access to Space, said in an emailed statement on Friday. “The Phase 3 Lane 1 construct allows us to execute launch services more quickly for the more risk-tolerant payloads, putting more capabilities on orbit faster in order to support national security,” Panzenhagen added. [emphasis mine]
In other words, the Space Force wanted to split this contract between the three companies, but it decided to give it all to SpaceX because it expected any launches given to ULA and Blue Origin would not launch on time, and it didn’t want “to leave [that] capability on the ground.”
In the case of ULA, its Vulcan rocket finally made its first two launches this year, four years late, but on the second launch had a failure on one of its solid-fueled strap-on boosters (the nozzle fell off). Though the rocket successfully placed its dummy payload into the correct orbit, the military has either decided that it can’t yet certify Vulcan for military launches, or sees further delays while the investigation and fixes are installed.
As for Blue Origin, its New Glenn rocket is also four years behind schedule, and likely won’t launch until next year. To get it certified will also probably require two launches, and since that company never seems to be in a hurry to do anything (NASA removed its payload from New Glenn’s first launch because the company had failed to meet the required interplanetary launch window), the Pentagon probably decided it can’t give it any contracts at this time.
And so, more launches and profits for SpaceX. While it is great for that company, with revenue that will likely aid in developing Starship/Superheavy, this is not a healthy situation for the American space industry. As a nation we need more than one launch provider. We need these other companies to stop dithering around and get the job done. That’s the true American way. Have they forgotten how to do it?
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
Space Force yesterday awarded SpaceX a $733 million contract for what appears to be a total of eight future launches of military and national security payloads.
Few details were released about the payloads, including the launch timeline. The deal was issued as part of the military launch contracting system, which in June named SpaceX, ULA, and Blue Origin as its launch providers for the next five years.
However, one official’s comment appeared to suggest this contract award was the military’s expression of disgust at the delays at ULA and Blue Origin in getting their rockets launchworthy.
“In this era of Great Power Competition, it is imperative to not leave capability on the ground,” Brig. Gen. Kristin Panzenhagen, program executive officer for Assured Access to Space, said in an emailed statement on Friday. “The Phase 3 Lane 1 construct allows us to execute launch services more quickly for the more risk-tolerant payloads, putting more capabilities on orbit faster in order to support national security,” Panzenhagen added. [emphasis mine]
In other words, the Space Force wanted to split this contract between the three companies, but it decided to give it all to SpaceX because it expected any launches given to ULA and Blue Origin would not launch on time, and it didn’t want “to leave [that] capability on the ground.”
In the case of ULA, its Vulcan rocket finally made its first two launches this year, four years late, but on the second launch had a failure on one of its solid-fueled strap-on boosters (the nozzle fell off). Though the rocket successfully placed its dummy payload into the correct orbit, the military has either decided that it can’t yet certify Vulcan for military launches, or sees further delays while the investigation and fixes are installed.
As for Blue Origin, its New Glenn rocket is also four years behind schedule, and likely won’t launch until next year. To get it certified will also probably require two launches, and since that company never seems to be in a hurry to do anything (NASA removed its payload from New Glenn’s first launch because the company had failed to meet the required interplanetary launch window), the Pentagon probably decided it can’t give it any contracts at this time.
And so, more launches and profits for SpaceX. While it is great for that company, with revenue that will likely aid in developing Starship/Superheavy, this is not a healthy situation for the American space industry. As a nation we need more than one launch provider. We need these other companies to stop dithering around and get the job done. That’s the true American way. Have they forgotten how to do it?
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
I think it is a *reasonable* expectation that both Vulcan and New Glenn will be certified for NSSL launches by next summer, and more over, that the USSF likely *has* that expectation. So, that’s well before 2026, when these launches would take place.
The problem is, certification is only the first obstacle to overcome here. Both of these rockets have very large manifests to work down — in Vulcan’s case, that includes a few dozen NSSL Phase 2 launches it hasn’t even started on yet. And just how quickly *can* they get their launch cadence up? Tory keeps saying that ULA can pull off 20 launches next year. I hope he can, but that would be an absolute world record for a new orbital launch vehicle in its first year of operation. How likely is that?
So I think the Space Force AAS team thought about that, and decided that ULA would be too deep in working through its backlog of Phase 2 launches in 2026, and that would put any new Phase 3 launches in schedule jeopardy. SpaceX, meanwhile, will probably be shooting for upwards of 200 launches in 2026.
But there’s still plenty of Lane 1 launches to hand out yet. Hey, if by next summer ULA has gotten certified and squeezed off 3 or 4 more Vulcan launches, maybe AAS will be ready to award them some Lane 1 launches for 2027 or 2028. Of course, it’s also quite possible that Rocket Lab will have gotten Neutron into operation and certified by then, too, and that will add yet one more Lane 1 competitor….
Minor edit in penultimate paragraph: “because the company had failed to meet”
Andi: Thank you. Dropped word added.
733 million for eight launches…
What a bargain!
Discount orbital services done right, cheap, and done now!
(customer satisfaction “guaranteed” or the next launch is for free! We do special deliveries and modifications for your particular needs upon request)
Sounds like Gen. K ran out of patience, and maybe she didn’t have a whole bunch of it to start with!?
All of this illustrates an irony. SpaceX has forged a new path to launch by winning govt contracts from NASA then sued to be allowed to break ULA’s monopoly on NSSL contracts. Let’s remember that when the company was about to die, NASA saved SpaceX with a government contract. Now they dominate those govt contracts and the NSSL as the govt seeks to avoid another monopoly. SpaceX is a tremendous company that actually gets things done but it is becoming that new monopoly as we watch.
The true competitors to SpaceX aren’t the old dinosaurs you mention, but the small launchers like Rocket Lab and Firefly who are in many ways modeled on SpaceX more aggressive way of developing rockets and space systems. SpaceX aggressive marketing on rideshares has undercut the small launchers and devastated their launch revenue forcing them all to now focus on developing medium launch. By the time they get their medium lift rockets up and running, Starship may have swallowed that market as well. Meanwhile the Space Force through Lane 1 is trying to hold out a lifeline to those smaller companies. My fear is that they will never be able to reach it.
No one should cry tears over ULA or Blue Origin not getting contracts but allowing all the smaller rocket startups to be smothered in lane 1 by SpaceX is a mistake we will all eventually regret. The rules on Lane 1 need to be revised. Awarding the largest rocket company in the world an almost 1 billion dollar contract in a program designed to foster industrial competition (competition with that very same company mind you) is counter-productive to say the least. SpaceX is a great company but it is turning into a voracious teenager eating everything on the table while the smaller children struggle to find enough scraps to keep them alive. One day soon we could wake up and find that all the malnourished little startups have finally died.
Richard M,
You seem, as usual, to have things pretty well figured out.
PR,
The NASA contract that saved SpaceX was hardly granted as an entirely altruistic act of charity. The Columbia disaster spelled the eventual end of Shuttle and NASA still had a space station to keep operating. Ares 1 was supposed to be the answer, but it was an irretrievably unsuitable vehicle – too expensive and a flying paint shaker that would have pureed any biological science specimens or crew on the way up. So NASA needed SpaceX to haul freight to ISS and – critically – to bring things back at least as badly as SpaceX needed money.
It is, indeed, too bad that SpaceX has no real competition at this point, but that isn’t a consequence of anything SpaceX has done but of unforced errors on the part of would-be competitors. The country needs SpaceX’s capabilities more than it needs SpaceX to have real competition. The latter, in any case, will not magically appear if the government does anything to hobble or slow down SpaceX.
PR wrote: “SpaceX aggressive marketing on rideshares has undercut the small launchers and devastated their launch revenue forcing them all to now focus on developing medium launch. By the time they get their medium lift rockets up and running, Starship may have swallowed that market as well.”
I keep hearing people say this, but it is not the reality of the situation. Both Rocket Lab and Virgin Orbit exhibit the reality. The small launchers are launching as fast as they can, but there are far, far more smallsats that want launches than these companies can accommodate. SpaceX’s Transport launches are making up the difference, keeping the smallsat industry in business, otherwise it would be the failure that it had been for the previous four decades. SpaceX is the good guy in this industry, not the devil.
The real situation is that regulators are over regulating, and the small launchers are finding that it is difficult to make money through all that red tape. Virgin Orbit even went from a leading smallsat launch powerhouse to bankrupt due to red tape delays. The rest of the small-launch industry is running scared. They are turning into larger launchers, because the cost of the red tape is the same no matter the size of the launcher, and they can make more money on each large-satellite launch. Robert called this one correctly a couple of years ago.
If all goes well, Starship should be concentrating on huge payloads, not medium or large. The other companies should be able to find efficiencies that surpass the Falcon 9’s efficiencies. SpaceX has left room for improvement, and these companies should be able to walk into that room.
____________________
Dick Eagleson wrote: “The NASA contract that saved SpaceX was hardly granted as an entirely altruistic act of charity.”
More than that, the contract was not a guarantee of SpaceX success. The second company that got that contract failed to achieve the first milestone, but somehow SpaceX did. Kistler went out of business, and its contract went to Orbital Sciences, which was able to complete the contract as the second supplier of Commercial Resupply Services. At the time it got that contract (that became CRS), SpaceX only had one contract for one satellite launch and that was not enough business to keep making payroll. SpaceX needed more customers, and NASA became one of those customers.
“It is, indeed, too bad that SpaceX has no real competition at this point, but that isn’t a consequence of anything SpaceX has done but of unforced errors on the part of would-be competitors.”
Amen.
In the next couple of years, Blue Origin should show that it, too, can compete in the launch business. Rocket Lab is also growing into its own powerhouse, and by the end of the decade should also be launching medium payloads, undoubtedly with aspirations to become a heavy launch company. Arianespace could have been a contender, but it was constrained by the ESA and the EU.
Just as SpaceX is currently concentrating on launching Starlink satellites, Starship will be used heavily to move men and materiel to Mars. Other contracts will help keep SpaceX in business and help new space companies (e.g. commercial space stations) to thrive, but we already know SpaceX’s priorities.
PR,
At last check (August), Rocket Lab still says they are on track for a mid-2025 launch of Neutron. If that holds – and given their current progress, it might – then Rocket Lab would be a good position to grab some share of the next batch of Lane 1 launches (presumably for 2027 or 2028) to be awarded next year.
The whole point of Lane 1 is to get more providers into the DoD launcher pool. I think the Space Force will go out of their way to sling them *something*. Granted, this assumes they can get a couple successful launches and certification, or a track for certification, in next year. I don’t think they’ll even need to demonstrate recovery or reuse yet.
All of which is to say, I don’t think it will be too late for Rocket Lab if they can keep to any semblance of this schedule.
Now, Relativity on the other hand….
Hello Dick,
It really is, isn’t it? Isn’t it remarkable how every single one of the legacy and new entrants into the medium/heavy launch market ran into major development delays? Obviously rocket development timelines sliding right is not an unknown thing, but still…
As I keep saying, though, the real competition in this market is not against SpaceX. No one has any shot at doing *that* save perhaps in the most niche ways…. No, the real competition is to make it as one of the “not-SpaceX launch providers.” Because while Starship will be impossible to beat on price or capacity, there are enough important launch customers — Space Force, NASA, competing LEO constellation operators — who have a vested interest in there being at least one or more “not-SpaceX launch providers.” I suspect there’s just enough such business to sustain two providers, if they’re lean and mean about their operation. But certainly one, at any rate.
My gut says that Blue Origin and Rocket Lab have the inside track on those two slots. (Vulcan will die, Relativity may arrive too late with too little, and Stoke and Firefly have too many unknowns to make out at this point.) And if that is what the launch market looks like in 2030, I figure we’ll be in very good shape.
I am rooting for Stoke…a real underdog story.
At least Ares I/Liberty/Omega was to fly depressed trajectory. Falcon can too I believe.
Stoke has a fair number of former Blue Origin and SpaceX peeps. And it shows.
Can’t wait to see an orbital flight (and recovery) of that rocket.
Speaking of Stoke, an update today: They are hard at work.
“We’re putting our new vertical stage 1 engine test stand through its paces out in Moses Lake… pushing liquid nitrogen through, testing the systems, and getting ready to light it up.” {Video attached]
https://x.com/stoke_space/status/1848366310922527129
Richard M: I will add to today’s “Quick space links.” Thank you.