U.S. Air Force is opening up rocket contracts for competition

By Phil Plait | October 14, 2011 2:16 pm

The U.S. Air Force, in cooperation with NASA and the National Reconnaissance Office, has announced their certification strategy to allow competition for rocket launch contracts. This is after a Letter of Intent was signed by the three groups last year, and a Memorandum of Understanding earlier this year. What it means is that another necessary step has been taken in allowing private companies to compete for the lucrative contracts.

I think this is a good thing. Right now, the Air Force contracts all its launches with the United Launch Alliance, a union of Boeing and Lockheed Martin that started in 2006. These are the folks who make rockets like the very reliable Delta II, which has sent a large number of probes to destinations in the solar system, and the Atlas V, which will launch the Mars Science Lab to the Red Planet in November.

I wouldn’t necessarily say ULA has a monopoly, since in many ways they are the only game in town to launch such rockets (though others don’t hesitate to call it that). But SpaceX, a private company, has successfully launched its Falcon 9 rocket, capable of taking supplies and humans to orbit (though it’s not human-rated yet; it has to be certified to take people up, which should happen in the next couple of years). The future for SpaceX looks pretty good. This new announcement by the USAF/NRO/NASA means that companies like SpaceX have a chance to elbow their way into this billion-dollar opportunity.

And again, this is just one more step toward this open contract; it may be some time before any money exchanges hands. This situation is interesting; Elon Musk, head of SpaceX, has made it clear he is gunning for ULA; SpaceX filed an antitrust suit against the formation of ULA in 2005 (which ultimately was denied), and has made many announcements in the past that he can launch rockets cheaper and better than competitors. I think he may very well be right. ULA makes a huge amount of money in defense launches, and if Spac X can get a piece of that then things will get very interesting indeed.

I’m a big fan of competition, when the playing field is level. I’m not an expert in this area, but this sounds like a good direction for the government to go. If SpaceX — and a handful of other companies coming up now — can launch rockets reliably and less expensively, then that makes access to space easier for everybody. And that is something I’d very much like to see.

Again, I am no expert here. If you agree or disagree, or better yet have information about this, I’d be curious to see it; please leave it in the comments. This is a fairly complex situation, and I’d like to learn more.

Image credit: SpaceX

CATEGORIZED UNDER: NASA, Piece of mind, Space

Comments (36)

  1. This is great news. Our military is still using Russian rocket engines, although SpaceX is now the leading producer of them in the world.

  2. I wonder what the Section M evaluation criteria will say on any RFP that comes out? That is where you will see if they truly are serious about opening up the field. :)

  3. The last time engineers and executives had their offices within spitting distance of the production floor, not counting Scaled Composites and Space X, was the Skunk Works. What did the Skunk Works ever produce of note? The U-2, the SR-71, stealth technology for planes and ships… were lucky flukes.

    The Space Scuttle showed the power of Korporate Kulture! It was the perfect committee consensus product, including decisions to Green its external insulating foam and launch outside its temperature boundary conditions. Reality is a peer vote.

  4. Chris L.

    LarianLeQuell,
    Exactly. They can easily write it up so that only someone like ULA can qualify.

  5. Ross

    As much as I support space exploration and travel, I don’t believe the competition among ULA and the launch upstarts will have much effect. Applying the concepts from Christensen’s book The Innovator’s Dilemma, the launch upstarts are offering only an incremental, not a disruptive improvement in technology. Moreover, they are going after existing industry customers. Christensen shows that upstarts succeed by serving non-consumers of the existing industry, and later grow into serving existing customers. I think for Space X et al to succeed, they must first identify and serve a market of non-consumers of launch services. For example, what if Space X could come up with a way to serve overnight delivery services with rockets instead of aircraft? Would this work? I have no idea. But the point is, that is the kind of thinking they need to be doing. Not going head-to-head against ULA. You would think Musk would recognize this, since it is the same strategy that made PayPal successful.

  6. Strangethingintheland

    Well, I’m not sure I agree with the conclusion Ross draws. First, one does not require a disruptive innovation in order to disrupt a marketplace, for example, with a higher quality product at a lower price. So what he says about Christensen’s thesis is true but not necessarily applicable.

    Second, this is a company with multiple potentially disruptive innovations in the pipeline, including the reusable launch vehicle. That does in fact go after a different marketplace altogether, namely if costs were to come down by a factor of 10 from ULA’s, just as an example, there would be many new categories of customer at this price point.

  7. Das Boese

    “Our military is still using Russian rocket engines, although SpaceX is now the leading producer of them in the world.”

    SpaceX rockets use the Merlin engine, which was developed 100% from scratch by them. The only thing in common with Russian designs is that they burn kerosene, one of the reasons for SpaceX’s radically low costs.

    You’re thinking of ULA, who use the Russian RD-180 on the Atlas V. They’re still built by Energomash in Russia, although it was planned to build them in the US and P&W Rocketdyne has a license to do so.

    The Taurus II which should have its first test launch sometime later this year uses refurbished NK-33 engines from the Soviet Moon program.

  8. Jens

    I hope the US soon gets it together. Meanwhile, perhaps they can lean a bit on Arianespace.

  9. Eeyore3061

    Ross, go look at the numbers again.

    On one hand, SpaceX’s price point for F9’s is *without* a Government anchor contract (though having one has accelerated R&D and production) so the only reason there price point has moved over the years is inflation, materials cost shifts, and slight optimism in the time for R&D, any extra government requirements, and full testing programs. Their business plan was set up that way and they got investors with it.

    ULA, on the other hand has let it be know that the EELV cost per launch in the upcoming contract is going to be higher then inflation and etc since the last EELV Block Buy contract(s). And this is with mature technology and vehicles.

    On the Gripping Hand, RosKosmos just killed the Rus-M so the economies-of-scale for RD-180 engine production just went away on top of their paying for a big chunk of the ‘Man-Rating’ of that engine. So the assumed costs for all future Atlas-V’s (which uses 1 RD-180 as the first stage motor vis the Rus-M that would have used *4* for its first stage) and the ‘Man-Rating’ program for them to carry the CST-100 from Boeing as part of the NASA CCDev program.

  10. Eeyore3061

    {Edit Save Failed, this is the edited version}

    Ross, go look at the numbers again.

    On one hand, SpaceX’s price point for F9’s is *without* a Government anchor contract (though having one has accelerated R&D and production) so the only reason there price point has moved over the years is inflation, materials cost shifts, and slight optimism in the time for R&D, any extra government requirements, and full testing programs. Their business plan was set up that way and they got investors with it.

    ULA, on the other hand, has let it be know that the EELV cost per launch in the upcoming contract is going to be higher then inflation and etc since the last EELV Block Buy contract(s). And this is with mature technology and vehicles.

    On the Gripping Hand, RosKosmos just killed the Rus-M. So the future assumed cost for the RD-180 engine due to economies-of-scale production just went away therefore the assumed costs for all future Atlas-V’s (which uses 1 RD-180 as the first stage motor vs the Rus-M that would have used *4* for its first stage) just went out the Airlock. *And*, on top of that, the RosKosmos share of the ‘Man-Rating’ program of it for the Rus-M and Atlas-V went out the same Airlock. So now Boeing has to shoulder most, if not all, of the costs to ‘Man Rate’ the first stage of the Atlas-V. And *that”s going to directly effect the CST-100 CCDev Program. While SpaceX’s Dragon CCDev Program just keeps moving on. ;)

  11. MadScientist

    That’s great news – let’s see how things go. Other operations like SpaceX can compete if (1) they have a candidate vehicle and (2) they don’t have too many and way overpaid managers. ULA on the other hand has a great advantage in a number of situations – they can refit decommissioned rockets.

  12. Eric

    Cautiously optimistic, through I think the devil is in the details.

    Boeing et al have more than 100x SpaceX’s lobbying capability. Supposedly “small-government” (sic) Republican Congressmen already don’t like SpaceX because SpaceX doesn’t lobby as well as ULA, and of course, there’d be less pork since SpaceX is so much more efficient. Somehow Republicans have a hard time understanding that crony capitalism does not equal “free market” and that we should reward innovation and not lobbying. All this means we can expect lots of pressure on the Air Force to shape contract / bidding rules to be very unfair.

    In any event, this is excellent news, but I think the public and press needs to keep up the pressure to make sure that this works as it should. BTW, there’s nothing inherently dumb about ULA. With SpaceX nipping at their heels, they could be awesome and cost-effective too. They just need the motivation to do more cool engineering and less bribery of politicians and Air Force generals.

  13. Radwaste

    I have relatives who once worked for United Space Alliance, and I actually wonder why it is that any of this is so expensive. Nerds all over the planet design spacecraft and components for fun.

    I suspect they are afflicted with Administerium Bureaucratus, that toxoplasmoid that insists that work can only be done after the proper employee development program is in place and fully funded.

  14. Randy Owens

    “I wouldn’t necessarily say ULA has a monopoly, since in many ways they are the only game in town to launch such rockets….”

    Umm, just what do you think that word ‘monopoly’ means, then? You keep using that word….

  15. The original EELV idea was that there was supposed to be competition between Boeing and Lockheed, but the total number of goverment launches was not large enough to support both businesses. They merged into ULA.

    Now, with no more launches, they are going to invite in even more companies to complete. With luck, maybe we will end up with a ULAX!

  16. Elmar_M

    I am very excited about this. I hope that the criteria are not too harsh for SpaceX to be able to meet them. It is a bit unfair that the established launch providers dont have to meet these criteria due to “a history of successful launches”. Makes it seem a bit like unfair advantage to me, but then it is a fair point. I guess it mostly depends on the actual requirements.
    I also like how innovative SpaceX is. In the short time that they have existed they have designed 3 rockets and flown two and designed and flown a new spacecraft. They have also now already the 4th iteration of their Merlin engine coming up (Merlin 1d).
    With those they can do Falcon 9 Block 3, which has 50% more payload than the original Falcon9.
    Next year they will also start testing of their reusable launcher. They are planning on going 100% reusable in the future. This is all very exciting!

  17. Jason

    Larian,

    The minimum requirement, if too restrictive, can be protested. The GAO is pretty good at upholding those sets of protests (given they are valid).

  18. Torbjorn Larsson, OM

    At the very least it is a political move to save USAF asses, which means the current situation has gotten to them.

    Perhaps it is even a sincere opportunity. I would like to think so.

    About them russian engines, they have been claimed to have been provided at half actual manufacturing cost to boot. Likely to support the sinking russian space industry. I guess the new prize and/or availability picture on RD-180 is like Musk seeing his competitors “living in interesting times”.

    I like the comparison Musk did. ‘We can already send up men in the Dragon [for about a year now] with the same risk as the Shuttle launches.’ (I.e. no LAS.)

    @ Das Boese:

    The comment you discuss can be read to coincide with how you describe the facts, it is a bit vaguely written.

    @ Elmar_M:

    Sure it is exciting that IIRC* SpaceX has gambled on at least 1st stage reusability to promise the launch prize they have, and since “plan A” didn’t work (chutes) they now have to work “plan B”.

    Luckily Musk seems happy with the chances (but wisely acknowledge the unknowns). Also, I don’t think the company will sink if it turns out it isn’t doable.

    ————-
    * Of course there has been a lot of wind over the launch sites since then, history becomes clouded. Maybe they never needed that to happen, and I am relying on a created “memory”.

    The current interest may indeed be driven mostly by Musk’s desire to make Mars colonizable, and other’s desire to get higher returns.

  19. vince charles

    3. Uncle Al Said:
    October 14th, 2011 at 2:39 pm

    “The Space Scuttle showed the power of Korporate Kulture! It was the perfect committee consensus product, including decisions to Green its external insulating foam and launch outside its temperature boundary conditions. Reality is a peer vote.”

    …and the foam lie rears its ugly head again. The Bipod Ramp foam on the Shuttle External Tank has always been made with ozone-depleting propellant, just like the PAL ramps and other pieces likely to break off. “The process of applying foam to that part of the tank had not changed since 1993.”

    The only foams which use newer propellants are flat areas, which are much less likely to chip. However, the point is moot, as the older, CFC-containing foam has chipped plenty of times- in fact, it has chipped to the point of tile damage for the entire history of the Shuttle.

    Reality has voted you down.

  20. vince charles

    7. Das Boese Said:
    October 14th, 2011 at 3:30 pm

    “SpaceX rockets use the Merlin engine, which was developed 100% from scratch by them.”

    This talking point really galls me every time it gets repeated. The Merlin engine was derived from TRW and NASA-Marshall efforts. The combustion chamber was derived from various engines of the TRW LCRE (Low Cost Rocket Engine) and TRW/Marshall Space Flight Center LCPE (Low Cost Pintle Engine). Merlin formed its engine team primarily by hiring TRW staff.

    The design of the Merlin turbopump was contracted to Barber-Nicols, Inc. BNI then delivered a turbopump which they derived from NASA-Marshall’s FASTRAC engine (which Marshall had contracted from BNI) and the Air Force Bantam project (also a prior BNI contract):

    “BNI designed and manufactured the Merlin Turbopump for the SpaceX Falcon Launch Vehicle. The Merlin Engine produces more than 100,000 pounds of thrust at sea level and the turbopump is the lightest in its thrust class. Barber-Nichols used its experience gained on the Fastrac and Bantam projects to rapidly develop the Merlin Turbopump. The first unit was delivered to the customer less than one year after design work began.”

    http://www.barber-nichols.com/products/rocket_engine_turbopumps/

    So… combustion chamber and turbopump. That leaves??? Oh, and SpaceX also contracts various tank parts to the same Wisconsin shop that made Delta II tank parts.

  21. vince charles

    10. Eeyore3061 Said:
    October 14th, 2011 at 4:28 pm

    “So now Boeing has to shoulder most, if not all, of the costs to ‘Man Rate’ the first stage of the Atlas-V. ”

    No. Bigelow has explicitly signed a deal with LockMart to fly on Atlas V. And even if a formal deal has not been signed, Sierra Nevada also has Atlas V as their front-runner.

    More speculatively, I seriously doubt Blue Origin will actually fly on a from-scratch rocket. That then puts them on Atlas V, as having second-mover advantage.

  22. vince charles

    14. Randy Owens Said:
    October 14th, 2011 at 6:57 pm

    ““I wouldn’t necessarily say ULA has a monopoly, since in many ways they are the only game in town to launch such rockets….”

    “Umm, just what do you think that word ‘monopoly’ means, then? You keep using that word….”

    No. The US has launched on foreign rockets plenty of times, using non-monetary exchanges and local set-asides. The law is that the US government can’t pay for them outright. The DoD, in particular, has plenty of deals with allied militaries to use US resources; together, they’re easily worth a decent-sized rocket launch. So the US, and the DoD specifically, had only granted ULA a paper monopoly.

  23. Randy Owens

    @vince charles: Oh, I’ll agree with you that that’s how things are. But the way Phil described it is exactly what would make them a monopoly, not something that somehow excludes them from the monopoly label.

  24. Elmar_M

    @Tjorborn Larsson, who said:

    Sure it is exciting that IIRC* SpaceX has gambled on at least 1st stage reusability to promise the launch prize they have, and since “plan A” didn’t work (chutes) they now have to work “plan B”.

    Luckily Musk seems happy with the chances (but wisely acknowledge the unknowns). Also, I don’t think the company will sink if it turns out it isn’t doable.

    Actually they can deliver the launch prices at which they are selling already and make a profit from those. In case you have not read up on that.
    What they can not do, is deliver the launch prices that they want to deliver (which would be much lower than what they are offering right now) yet.
    For this, they will need reusability. Dont forget that the purpose of SpaceX is not to make Elon Musk richer, but to develop a space infrastructure for future colonization. For this, they have to lower the launch costs to or below the goals set by Elon Musk.

    @Vince Charles:
    And all of these engines that you cited are somehow based on designs by Wernher von Braun and his team. Any chemical rocket engine built by anyone is an evolution of someone elses designs. What SpaceX did was combine many great parts that were based on (somteimes never finished, like Fastrac) designs made by others and built a new engine design out of those components.
    If you think that a car designed by Ford is not built out of components mostly designed (and often built) by somebody else, you are totally off. People still say that the car was designed and built by Ford. I dont think that there is any industry anymore where anything is built from scratch without even remotely basing it on somebody elses designs.
    SpaceX made an engine design using parts partially designed by others. I still think it can be called a SpaceX design.
    The first Merlin engine prototypes were built by a guy in his garage, btw.

  25. vince charles

    25. Elmar_M Said:
    October 16th, 2011 at 1:41 pm

    “What they can not do, is deliver the launch prices that they want to deliver (which would be much lower than what they are offering right now) yet. For this, they will need reusability.”

    No, they don’t need reusability. Both US and European studies have corroborated: reusability does not save money until launch rates reach several dozen (not one dozen) per year. Before that flight rate, reusability actually costs money.

    These studies were then borne out by flight experience: the Shuttle was more expensive than its competitors, at any flight rate achieved. Whether or not it would have began to save at 25-50 launches per year was never shown. With this experience in hand, Arianespace does not reuse the Ariane 5 boosters; recovery of the boosters is only done occasionally for engineering analysis (i.e., how close did we come to exceeding our safety margins), not material or programmatic savings. The few times engineers examine recovered boosters, they discard them afterward; they don’t reload them. This, despite the Ariane 5 being considered a wildly-successful launcher, with more orders and flights than any competitor.
    .

    “SpaceX made an engine design using parts partially designed by others. I still think it can be called a SpaceX design.”

    You really have no idea just how extensive the plagiarism went, do you? Or how forward-thinking the LCRE and FASTRAC were, do you?

    And yes, I interviewed at Saturn and some automotive suppliers before my aerospace career got going.

  26. vince charles

    Sorry, double post…

  27. Theron

    @Eeyore3061

    I couldn’t ignore the sexism in those books, but nice reference all the same.

  28. Elmar_M

    No, they don’t need reusability. Both US and European studies have corroborated: reusability does not save money until launch rates reach several dozen (not one dozen) per year. Before that flight rate, reusability actually costs money.

    These studies were based on different assumptions. They were based on the huge standing army of the very, very maintenance intensive shuttle. A simpler, less demanding design like the one by SpaceX will require less maintenance and therefore cost less and will not need that high a flightrate. Also, who says that the flightrate wont increase with prices going down? From all we know, it will.

    You really have no idea just how extensive the plagiarism went, do you? Or how forward-thinking the LCRE and FASTRAC were, do you?

    As I said, they certainly had designs by others that they were inspired by as well. There is nothing wrong with taking off the shelf designs and combining them into a new engine.
    As I said (but you failed to read), the car industry does that ALL the time.

    I think your dislike for SpaceX is quite clear from your comments. I dont quite know why that is, but I believe that you either work for some oldspace company, or NASA and are annoyed with SpaceX showing you how it is done.

  29. vince charles

    30. Elmar_M Said:
    October 17th, 2011 at 5:49 am

    “These studies were based on different assumptions. They were based on the huge standing army of the very, very maintenance intensive shuttle. A simpler, less demanding design like the one by SpaceX will require less maintenance and therefore cost less and will not need that high a flightrate. Also, who says that the flightrate wont increase with prices going down? From all we know, it will.”

    No, these studies were based on production volumes and their scaling laws, and not Shuttle-specific, either. Introducing reusability before hitting your economies of scale is shooting yourself in the foot. A little part of me wonders if Falcon reusability is the ghost of Mike Griffin haunting us- it’s a way to differentiate yourself from those “traditional” rockets based on missiles.

    As for voodoo flight rates, the Shuttle tried that. Experience has been that major increases in the customer base may occur in the long term. In the short term, the benefit is pressure on competitors, but that does NOT translate to significantly more launches. Product cycles and management inertia (e.g., financing and expansion costs, eggs-in-one-basket aversion among managers, insurers, and shareholders) simply don’t respond elastically.

    In addition, many of the forms of expansion do not take the form of more launches, but heavier ones, as economies of scale apply to mission design. To a first approximation, it’s far easier to add transponders and solar cells to a comsat than to run a business juggling more birds. Thrusters, batteries, sep/deployment mechanisms and the antennas on them scale favorably with size, not quantity. Push comes to shove, you put more birds on a larger rocket, a la SPELTRA and SYLDA- it’s commuting in the GTO lane, a la SpaceShip Two going from three seats to eight. This is a real chicken-and-egg problem for access to space.

    Overall, the prospects of Falcon launches going from Ariane 5 levels to Zenit 2 (the spy satellite, not the launcher) are slim, without a Soviet Union around to create demand.
    .

    “As I said, they certainly had designs by others that they were inspired by as well. There is nothing wrong with taking off the shelf designs and combining them into a new engine.”

    There is when (the former) TRW (, now Northrop Grumman) sues you for _THEFT_OF_INTELLECTUAL_PROPERTY_, Elmar.
    .

    “As I said (but you failed to read), the car industry does that ALL the time.”

    I read it just fine the first time… and understood, being a former car nut, economics student, and parts scrounger. Pretty presumptuous of you to tell me what I read and didn’t read. Oh, and I’m also familiar with the Lotus Elise. Apparently, Elon Musk learned his lesson, and actually paid Lotus this time:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Elise#Special_editions

    “I think your dislike for SpaceX is quite clear from your comments. I dont quite know why that is, but I believe that you either work for some oldspace company, or NASA and are annoyed with SpaceX showing you how it is done.”

    HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

    And the presumption continues! I was designing an alt.space vehicle at the same time as SpaceX. Except I started from literal scratch- a new fuel spec, both more powerful and potentially cheaper if scaleup went well. I then went past chambers, turbopumps and injectors, to new tankage developments and production processes. SpaceX, however, still trumps all that by spending more money, sooner, and amassing an order log before competitors can truly capitalize, scaring off outside investors. Oh, and this is all before siccing high-priced lawyers and lobbyists on the former TRW when they cry foul.

    So, that’s how it’s done? I am annoyed with SpaceX plagiarism and muscle as a design engineer, American, and human being. I know quite well that the Wright Brothers’ company went broke, as second-mover businessmen outhustled the technical base gained by the two brothers. Maybe that’s really how it’s done in America.

  30. MaDeR

    @vince:
    No one ever designed and created anything completely from scrath. Ever heard about phrase “standing on shoulders of giants”?

    “And the presumption continues! ”
    I find hilarious that after denying it, you instantly reconfirm his accusation of SpaceX hate in next sentences.

    “Except I started from literal scratch”
    No, you don’t. I can say without checking that you are lying.

    “chambers, turbopumps and injectors,”
    And this is “literal scrath”… because you seem to think no one before you used or invented fuel, chambers, turbopumps or injectors. Did you invented rocket equation too? No? You filthy thief.

    “_THEFT_OF_INTELLECTUAL_PROPERTY_”
    You forgot five exclamations and unreadable font. Sources, please. I heard about few lawsuits involving SpaceX, but no one was about “theft of intellectual property”.

  31. vince charles

    35. MaDeR Said:

    “Ever heard about phrase “standing on shoulders of giants”?”

    Yep, sloganeering is still sloganeering, same as when I was in school. There’s a difference between standing on a giant, and rifling through his pockets on the way up, and harvesting a vital organ or two on the way up. But you don’t know that difference, because by your own admission you are not privy to the events under discussion.
    .

    ““Except I started from literal scratch”
    No, you don’t. I can say without checking that you are lying.”

    Then you spoke too soon. We used no proprietary or classified data or other held properties, nor did we breach any non-disclosure agreements or non-compete clauses. This is because there was no budget for lawyers, and everyone knew it, and everyone could figure out what the resulting rules were.
    .

    “… because you seem to think no one before you used or invented fuel, chambers, turbopumps or injectors. Did you invented rocket equation too? No? You filthy thief.”

    Wow, I can’t believe you decided to post this in public. You don’t even know just how much you don’t know. Tsiolkovskiy was an academic, literally and figuratively. Whether or not he could legally obtain property rights to ideas and expect future compensation, even out to the time in question, he didn’t… he published openly (as much as was physically possible for him), in the tradition of the gentleman scientists who came before him. And after him- the same holds for Goddard, who received both university and government funding, and thus could not claim ownership and demand additional and future compensations. Most of the Germans, incredibly, fell into this category to at least some degree. And US research includes both proprietary/classified and academic, open works- even to the extent that published, open data likely helped the Soviets at the peak of the Cold War.

    This is not true for SpaceX. When sued, the company initially tried to countersue, as well as assembling a lobbying effort. When that failed to intimidate, SpaceX settled, paying millions of dollars.

    Let that sink in, MaDeR. SpaceX got caught, and called out for it; they had to pay millions. You want details? Oh, wait, you can’t- one of the terms they successfully negotiated was no admission of guilt, and no disclosure of the details of the settlement. Neither of these alone is conclusive, but when combined with the payout, the overall terms are a tacit admission of guilt in my book. Particularly after you’ve heard Elon Musk lie about competing rockets… to a technical audience that knew better.

    Follow the money, MaDeR. SpaceX, again, got caught, and was forced to pay. I didn’t have to follow the money, because unlike you I was aware of the circumstances and events. In fact, it’s almost as if you’ve never published at all, and have never generated and defended any intellectual properties.
    .

    “I find hilarious that after denying it, you instantly reconfirm his accusation of SpaceX hate in next sentences.”

    If standing up to shady business practices is what you call hate, then I’m happy to disappoint you. It puts me in league with Tsiolkovskiy, who also demanded recognition (but not money) in the face of his intellectual competitors.
    .

    “You forgot five exclamations and unreadable font.”

    So, that’s the way you’ve decided to go. Shall I now point out all the grammar/spelling errors in just your one post?

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »