spinofflive
The Rocket Lab Mission Control room during the opening of the new Rocket Lab factory in Auckland last month (Photo by Phil Walter/Getty Images)
The Rocket Lab Mission Control room during the opening of the new Rocket Lab factory in Auckland last month (Photo by Phil Walter/Getty Images)

BusinessNovember 20, 2018

What lies inside Rocket Lab’s secret US military contracts?

The Rocket Lab Mission Control room during the opening of the new Rocket Lab factory in Auckland last month (Photo by Phil Walter/Getty Images)
The Rocket Lab Mission Control room during the opening of the new Rocket Lab factory in Auckland last month (Photo by Phil Walter/Getty Images)

Rocket Lab is a celebrated New Zealand success story, with a stated mission to open access to space and improve life on Earth. Yet many of its key contracts are with the US military and their suppliers. Ollie Neas reports on the dark side of a local business hero.

Last Friday Rocket Lab announced that it had secured US$140m (NZ$206m) in new funding from a range of investors, including the publicly-owned ACC.

After a launch the Sunday before, this announcement marked the second time in a week that hundreds of international media outlets took notice of Rocket Lab and, by extension, New Zealand.

At home, though, the issue has been whether New Zealand deserves more of the credit for the billion-dollar company’s success, with Chris Keall in the New Zealand Herald querying descriptions of Rocket Lab as an “American start-up”.

However, there is another side to Rocket Lab, one that raises questions about New Zealand’s – and ACC’s – support for the company.

Rocket Lab’s stated mission is to open access to space to improve life on earth. But it’s not just a launcher of commercial satellites. It is also a defence contractor that has worked on contracts with military applications for US defence agencies.

One of its investors is Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest weapons manufacturer. It would also appear the company has links to In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s venture capital firm.

Rocket Lab says that it is committed to using space for peaceful purposes, and that consumers rely on space-based applications funded and operated by the defence sector – like GPS, for example. Peace Advocacy Auckland, the anti-war advocacy group, says that Rocket Lab’s involvement with Lockheed Martin and the US Department of Defense makes it complicit in the arms trade.

Meanwhile ACC’s own investment guidelines prohibit it from investing in Lockheed Martin or its subsidiaries directly due to Lockheed’s involvement in the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

Rocket Lab’s link with the CIA’s venture capital firm was revealed in 2016 by US investigative journalism site The Intercept, but has not been reported by the New Zealand media.

Although it operates independently, In-Q-Tel invests on behalf of the CIA and the broader US intelligence community in companies whose products may have national security applications.

A document obtained by The Intercept shows that Rocket Lab CEO Peter Beck spoke at a summit of In-Q-Tel portfolio companies in February 2016. Other speakers included then-FBI director James Comey. Beck earlier wrote about Rocket Lab for In-Q-Tel’s quarterly publication in 2015.  

In contrast, Lockheed Martin’s investment in Rocket Lab is mentioned routinely in press coverage and was the subject of a jibe by departing Vector chairman Michael Stiassny to the Vector AGM last week.

However, the extent of Rocket Lab’s defence industry work has gone essentially unremarked. Details of this work had been removed from Rocket Lab’s website by the time the regulatory regime enabling the company’s activities in New Zealand came into law last year.

Jacinda Ardern greets Rocket Lab CEO Peter Beck during the opening of the new Rocket Lab factory last month in Auckland. Photo by Phil Walter/Getty Images

Many of the details are confidential, but documents available online, including archived pages from Rocket Lab’s website, give some insight into the defence work of a company that has marketed itself as a designer and manufacturer of “defence systems”.

Rocket Lab’s life as a defence contractor began in the two years after the launch of the Aotea 1 rocket from Great Mercury Island, near the Coromandel peninsula, in November 2009, when it won contracts from at least three US defence agencies.

One contract was for the Operationally Responsive Space Office – a joint initiative of several space agencies within the US Department of Defense – for Rocket Lab to study a booster, a small electronics system and a launch vehicle to place small-satellites into orbit.

Another contract required Rocket Lab to research high density rocket propellants for the Office of Naval Research (ONR) and the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). ONR is the main research agency for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, while DARPA is the Pentagon agency tasked with developing technologies that “maintain and advance the capabilities and technical superiority of the United States military.

Annual DARPA expenditure documents show contracts for Rocket Lab valued at US$102,299 in 2010 and US$400,000 in 2011. The documents state that the funding was administered by the “TTO”, DARPA’s Tactical Technology Office, whose website describes its mission as “to provide or prevent strategic and tactical surprise with very high-payoff, high-risk development and demonstration of revolutionary new platforms”.

The outcome of the DARPA research was a Viscous Liquid Monopropellant (or VLM) – a rocket fuel with characteristics of both solid and liquid fuels. A US patent for the VLM, filed in March 2012 but not approved until May this year, sets out various potential uses, including as a propellant for sub-orbital airborne missiles.

Rocket Lab demonstrated the VLM in November 2012 to international representatives of “government military agencies”.

In response to questions from The Spinoff last week, Rocket Lab says that the VLM “has not been deployed for use”.

It was around this time that Rocket Lab’s involvement with Lockheed Martin began. In November 2010, Rocket Lab stated that it had supplied Lockheed Martin, along with the Australian Defence Force, with some thermal ablative material – a plastic product that protects metal in high temperatures.

A Rocket Lab press release from June 2012 states that this material had been “selected as an alternative material for thermal protection on Patriot missiles”.

The Patriot Missile is a surface-to-air missile system that has been used by the US, Israeli and Saudi militaries, including in Iraq, Syria and Yemen.

Lockheed Martin is a major producer of Patriot missiles.

Rocket Lab confirmed to The Spinoff that its ablative material has been “evaluated and qualified for use in high-temperature aerospace applications, including on ground infrastructure for anti-missile systems. Less than 20kg of the ablative material was produced for this.”

One of Rocket Lab’s military projects at this time did receive a degree of media attention.

“Instant Eyes”, the product of a partnership with US defence contractor L2 Aerospace, was an unmanned aerial vehicle launched from a hand-held rocket that provided high-resolution imagery to its users on the ground.

Rocket Lab told The Spinoff that Instant Eyes was intended for use by “first responders requiring real-time situational awareness in scenarios such as forest fires and search and rescue operations”.

However, marketing materials from the time refer to its applications for “tactical missions” and “covert use”, and include images of US soldiers. The Rocket Lab website compared it to other intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance tools for the battlefield, such as the Pointer, Raven or Predator – all drones used by the US military.

Marketing material for L2 Aerospace’s Instant Eyes product shows images of soldiers. (Photo: L2 Aerospace)

“It’s meant for instant intelligence, so you can get a picture of what’s on the other side of the building or what’s on the other side of the hill,” Lance Lord, the founder of L2 Aerospace and a retired four-star general and former head of Air Force Space Command, told Florida Today at the time.

In March and April 2012  Instant Eyes was tested in preparation for demonstrations to “NATO and US Military users”.

However, Rocket Lab told The Spinoff that it was never deployed to market or used in the field.

Since Lockheed Martin’s investment, Rocket Lab’s work for US military agencies has continued. According to the Federal Procurement Data System, the database that lists significant contracting from the US federal government, Rocket Lab signed deals with agencies of the Department of Defense in September 2015, October 2017 and May 2018.

The 2015 contract, worth US$99,964 for DARPA, required Rocket Lab to demonstrate how a small launch vehicle could use Automated Flight Termination technology, a system to automatically terminate rocket launches, including to protect public safety.

The abstract for the funding indicated the technology might be used in support of the “XS-1 program”, DARPA’s experimental spaceplane that will allow the US military to put satellites into orbit at short notice.

The 2017 contract, worth US$5.7 million for the Air Force Research Laboratory, was for “a prototype project in the area of interest small responsive launch”. No other information is available.

The 2018 contract is the most significant. Worth US$6.5 million, it appears to require Rocket Lab to launch a classified secret DARPA satellite into orbit.

The statement of work for the contract does not detail what the satellite will do, describing it only as a “RF Risk Reduction Deployment (R3D2) spacecraft”. But it does state that the contract performer “will require access and safeguarding for the classified SECRET R3D2 satellite” and that “as a result, the selected performer must have, or otherwise be able to obtain a SECRET Facility Clearance”.

An unclassified DARPA budget justification document explains the agency’s interest in responsive space launches of the kind Rocket Lab might provide.

“A space force structure that is robust against attack represents a stabilizing deterrent against adversary attacks on space assets. The keys to a secure space environment are situational awareness to detect and characterize potential threats, a proliferation of assets to provide robustness against attack, ready access to space, and a flexible infrastructure for maintaining the capabilities of on-orbit assets.”

The document explains that DARPA intends to leverage commercial industry plans to launch small satellites in support of its objectives. Transcripts of the US Congressional Committee on Armed Services outline that Rocket Lab is one of several companies to have met with defence and intelligence agencies to discuss “small Launch-on-Demand missions”.

Speaking to the Committee in May 2017, General John Raymond, the Commander of Air Force Space Command, described one workshop attended by Rocket Lab as being “to gain awareness of industry capabilities and timelines required to execute small Launch-on-Demand missions”, and that it was to be followed by separate meetings with each company to “discuss costs and planning required to meet DOD responsive/rapid launch concepts and desired capabilities”.

Lockheed Martin’s investment in Rocket Lab also appears to be connected to demand from the US government.

In February this year, the general manager of Lockheed Martin Ventures, Chris Moran, told Space News: “We need low-cost access to space and high potential frequency of access, which would open different mission types.

“The US government was pushing us to have that kind of access, so we made that investment in Rocket Lab in their Series B.”

In 2015 Peter Beck told Stuff that Lockheed Martin’s investment would go toward both the Electron rocket programme and other “strategic joint programmes”, but said the details of this were commercially sensitive.

In a statement to The Spinoff, Rocket Lab said that it has no joint strategic projects with Lockheed Martin. It says that Lockheed Martin Space Systems made a minority investment in the company in 2015.

The size of Lockheed Martin’s stake in the company is not public, in part because Rocket Lab USA is incorporated in Delaware, which requires minimal disclosure by companies.   

Lockheed Martin was this year awarded a contract by the UK Space Agency to launch rockets from a proposed launch site in Sutherland, Scotland, and has said that it is considering using Rocket Lab’s Electron rocket for launches from the site. Rocket Lab says that it is evaluating the Sutherland site as an additional launch site, among others.

CEO Peter Beck says the Lockheed Martin investment is partly going towards Rocket Lab’s Electron rocket project. (Photo: Rocket Lab).

Responding to questions from The Spinoff, Rocket Lab said that its mission is to open access to space to improve life on Earth.

“This means enabling more small satellites to reach orbit and provide crucial data and services that improve the way we understand our planet, how we connect with each other, how we protect people and resources, and how we innovate and explore.

“Many of the space-based applications relied on by consumers today are funded and operated by the defence sector, including systems like GPS (Global Positioning System), which is operated by the US Air Force.

“Rocket Lab is committed to the safe, peaceful and responsible use of space. The company will not launch weapons, nor will it launch payloads that are contrary to national security interests.”

However, peace advocates say that Rocket Lab’s involvement with the defence sector is inconsistent with pursuing peace on Earth.

“For Rocket Lab to contribute to the advancement of humanity they need to get out of the military industrial complex,” said Valerie Morse, a spokesperson for Peace Action Auckland.   

“The US Department of Defense is a military agency. As far as the peace movement is concerned the provision of goods and services to the military is an instance of participation in the arms trade.

“I think that most people in New Zealand do not actually support the development of weaponry and particularly do not support the use of public money for the development of US military weapons. That’s really the connection that needs to be made. If Lockheed is involved we are talking about weapons.”

Rocket Lab is not alone among space companies in working for the defence sector. Both Elon Musk’s SpaceX and Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin are undertaking significant contracts for US defence agencies.

But what sets Rocket Lab apart is the support it has received from the New Zealand government both through research and development funding from Callaghan Innovation – of up to $10 million, according to Peter Beck – and now investment from ACC.

ACC’s investment guidelines prohibit it from investing directly in companies involved in nuclear explosive devices, anti-personnel mines, and cluster munitions. Its Direct Investment Exclusions List explicitly prohibits investment in Lockheed Martin or its subsidiaries due to its involvement in the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

As international media outlets continue to point out, Rocket Lab is no longer New Zealand’s responsibility alone. Rocket Lab is a chiefly US-owned company. Last month it announced its second launch site would be in the state of Virginia, and that it is eyeing up others in Europe and Asia. Yet while its connections to the US and the defence industry continue to grow, New Zealand remains critical to its operations, as ACC’s investment shows.

Keep going!
Houses under construction at Hobsonville Point. (Photo by Fiona Goodall/Getty Images).
Houses under construction at Hobsonville Point. (Photo by Fiona Goodall/Getty Images).

BusinessNovember 19, 2018

Why’s it so hard for builders to make money in a construction boom?

Houses under construction at Hobsonville Point. (Photo by Fiona Goodall/Getty Images).
Houses under construction at Hobsonville Point. (Photo by Fiona Goodall/Getty Images).

Kiwi builders have never been in hotter demand, but red tape is making it nearly impossible to get ahead. Alex Braae spoke to builders and bankers about the state of the construction industry. 

Willie Hewitt’s construction company, Westmoreland, is constantly flat out, but it’s never making any money. In the middle of housing boom he’s strapped for cash. This is what his last year has looked like as he goes about the business of putting up four small brick and tile units in the Auckland suburb of Orewa:

“The sections had old houses on them that have been removed, and we just want to build these four little units. On one of the sites, it turned out that Council had a stormwater drain running through the site, and it was deemed to be abandoned – Council records said that. The houses were designed around the premise that the stormwater drain wasn’t in use.

“So about six months ago, we were very close to getting the building consent, so we thought we’d start doing earthworks. We start doing that, and then we found out the stormwater line wasn’t actually abandoned, it was live. So the Council records were incorrect. And the problem was also that the line was broken in five places, and Council basically tells my client that they have to fix it, if they want to continue with the job. So you’d think that’s pretty easy, you just have to fix a pipe in the ground.”

And here’s where the story veers towards the Kafkaesque.

“Auckland Council deal with stormwater pipes, Watercare deal with sewer pipes. Because the stormwater pipe crosses over a sewer line, Watercare also has to be involved. So you now have an engineer at Watercare dealing with a sewer pipe, and an engineer at the Council dealing with the stormwater pipe. And my engineer has to deal with both of them. And when one engineer approves their line, then the other engineer still has to peer review the other accepted proposal, to make sure it doesn’t impact on their line. So now I’m paying three engineers, to figure out how to run a pipe through the ground. And all the while we’re still not building.”

Hewitt says if he’s lucky, the company will break even on the job.

Two cranes pierce the early morning mist in Auckland (Image: Getty Images).

An astonishing amount of building is going on in New Zealand at the moment. Cranes dot the skyline of Auckland, new subdivisions are springing up on the outskirts of every major city, the government is promising to deliver 100,000 houses through the KiwiBuild programme, and both skilled tradies and building materials are in desperately short supply.

For councils around the country this creates a surge in consent applications that must be processed. A recent report from consulting firm MartinJenkins found the Auckland Council’s building consents department was facing issues meeting demand, and a heavy workload was making it difficult to implement changes that would improve capability. They’re under an immense amount of pressure.

Hewitt says it sometimes seems like councils are dealing with that pressure by using procedural measures to delay consents, because their workload is so high. “They issue what are called RFIs – requests for further information – which is a legal loophole where they can make up any ridiculous question in the world, in order to stop the clock on the 21 days in which they have to legally process your plans.”

Auckland Council rejects the contention that it uses RFIs in this way. Ian McCormick, manager for building control, says that comprehensive and accurate applications wouldn’t be subject to RFIs. “RFIs are not used to gain processing time, they’re used when the detail needed to show a proposal meets the building code hasn’t been provided. In a perfect world we wouldn’t need them. RFIs clog our system, slow the process, and create follow up work for our busy department.” He adds that the council actively worked with applicants to reduce the chances of RFIs being needed.

Regardless, Auckland Council’s own figures show that the pace of consenting isn’t keeping up with demand for housing in the city. Nearly 13,000 dwellings were consented in the city in the year to September 2018, and the month-by-month trend is upwards. But this only brings consenting back up to pre-Global Financial Crisis levels, and is still short of what’s needed. The recent Housing Stocktake report found that by some estimates the cumulative shortfall of houses in Auckland over the last decade is as much as 45,000.

All of this is having a huge impact on Willie Hewitt’s business. While he is constantly busy, he is struggling to stay ahead financially. “We have $7.5 million worth of work that has been tied up in various councils, for as much as 12 months,” he says, which accounts for about half of Westmoreland’s turnover. They’re doing busy-work, rather than being busy with work.  

John Callaghan, a business manager at Kiwibank who has a history in the construction industry, says larger construction firms are particularly susceptible to cashflow problems from delayed consents. “If you’ve got a lot of staff and overheads, and they’ve got to wait and wait to get work done, then that has a bigger financial implication than a one or two man band. It definitely has an impact, and if you’re getting it happening on every job, it has a huge compounding effect.”

He says that means Kiwibank works with customers on a case-by-case basis, “at a relationship level”, to keep their businesses afloat. “It might mean that you need to provide them with working capital funding for a period of time, to see through those hurdles. Sometimes firms will find themselves in a position where they’ve got 20 jobs on the go, and 15 of them are held up in Council.”

Kāpiti Coast construction firm NZ Proud understands the need for a robust consent process, but is constantly managing long delays because of the drawn out process (Image: supplied).

There’s a widespread acknowledgement among builders that some of the consents and regulations are completely reasonable and justified. Nobody wants a return to the leaky building fiasco of the 90s. Johnnie Saunders, the director of Kāpiti Coast construction firm NZ Proud, says building standards are getting stricter, “and so they should be. They’ve been pretty loose for a long time.”

But he added that “the only problem is red tape. The consenting process is so long and drawn out and painful, because it’s so restrictive. It’s making things difficult time frame-wise, and you’re not going to be able to build quickly. You have to wait for plans, engineering and consent. But it needed to happen, because we needed to make sure quality construction was the focus, because we’ve had so many issues with it over the last few decades.”  

Willie Hewitt has considered changing the way his company structures contracts to deal with the situation. At the moment, he charges customers a fixed price for a build, but he wonders if a better way of doing it would be to build houses at cost, and then charge by the hour for his company’s administrative work. “If we were just sending out invoices to our clients on a weekly basis for the administrative side of building their house, we’d probably be more profitable, compared to just building the houses.”

And while he also accepts that some of the hoops he has to jump through with Council are reasonable, he just wants to get on with actually building. And he warns that if things don’t improve, more firms will find themselves in financial difficulty.

“It’ll start happening more and more to the smaller guys, because while there’s so much work out there, nobody’s making a dollar out of it.”