Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX undercut ULA rocket launch pricing by 40 percent: U.S. Air Force

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 154 posts

Re: SpaceX undercut ULA rocket launch pricing by 40 percent: U.S. Air Force

#41

Post by peterwoo »

cmsmith wrote: post #8
hudibras wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're exactly right, except that I don't think ULA is going to have much trouble matching SpaceX's prices. They were in a monopoly situation before where they could name their own price (not really, but close enough). I could see even ULA's pricing pendulum swing all the other way: they could start bidding for contracts at a loss, using their other business sectors to prop up the space division until they drive Spac…

It seems like 'buying first stage engines from Russia' will have a hard time undercutting the 'reuse the first stage entirely' strategy, no?

ULA has an engine reuse plan. If they can get it working it'll be much more efficient than the hoverslam approach.

Re: SpaceX undercut ULA rocket launch pricing by 40 percent: U.S. Air Force

#42

Post by eggy »

tn13 wrote: post #22
hudibras wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're exactly right, except that I don't think ULA is going to have much trouble matching SpaceX's prices. They were in a monopoly situation before where they could name their own price (not really, but close enough). I could see even ULA's pricing pendulum swing all the other way: they could start bidding for contracts at a loss, using their other business sectors to prop up the space division until they drive Spac…

Problem with monopolies is that they lag behind on innovation.

True, but a monopoly due to beating the competition with fair business practices is not the same as the monopoly targeted by anti-trust laws. Until a genuine competitor beats the honest monopoly fair and square, they stand at the top. Government work usually is fertile ground for the wrong type of monopoly, so I am very happy to see SpaceX disrupt this field. SpaceX's rockets are upwards of $40 million a launch, and the Lockheed F35 fighter price is going to keep climbing upwards of $200 million per fighter. Now let's see another SpaceX or similar innovative company step in to the military weapons system market! This should, but it will not translate to less taxes for the average Joe.

Re: SpaceX undercut ULA rocket launch pricing by 40 percent: U.S. Air Force

#43

Post by sb057 »

wnevets wrote: post #40

"You know we're sitting on four million pounds of fuel, one nuclear weapon and a thing that has 270,000 moving parts built by the lowest bidder. Makes you feel good, doesn't it?" - Rockhound from Armageddon

Which was based on the following quote from actual real person and astronaut John Glenn:

"I guess the question I'm asked the most often is: "When you were sitting in that capsule listening to the count-down, how did you feel?" Well, the answer to that one is easy. I felt exactly how you would feel if you were getting ready to launch and knew you were sitting on top of two million parts -- all built by the lowest bidder on a government contract."

Re: SpaceX undercut ULA rocket launch pricing by 40 percent: U.S. Air Force

#44

Post by Obi_Juan_Kenobi »

hackuser wrote: post #33

As far as I know, ULA's track record for reliability is much better. Last I read, maybe a few months ago, SpaceX launches had failed 1 in ~19 times, and ULA's failed zero in ~85. I wonder how the Air Force addressed this issue. Perhaps the cost of failure is less than the premium for reliability; perhaps they evaluated reliability based on something other than the track records (e.g., an engineering review); and of c…

Atlas V had a partial failure in 2007, cutting down the operational life of the satellites. The most recent Cyngus mission was also nearly a failure when MECO occurred 5 seconds prematurely, but Centaur was able to make up the difference. Atlas I and II also had a healthy number of failures, so the question is whether you consider III and beyond a new vehicle, or a continuation of a single development program.

CRS-7 was certainly a blow to SpaceX. There's no sugar-coating that, but there's no such thing as certainty in space. Even with the stellar Atlas V record, there's still risk.

Also, for this mission, no justification needed to be made, as ULA did not submit a bid. And yes, Falcon 9 went through a lengthy certification process.

Re: SpaceX undercut ULA rocket launch pricing by 40 percent: U.S. Air Force

#45

Post by bediger4000 »

gozur88 wrote: post #29
hudibras wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're exactly right, except that I don't think ULA is going to have much trouble matching SpaceX's prices. They were in a monopoly situation before where they could name their own price (not really, but close enough). I could see even ULA's pricing pendulum swing all the other way: they could start bidding for contracts at a loss, using their other business sectors to prop up the space division until they drive Spac…

>You're exactly right, except that I don't think ULA is going to have much trouble matching SpaceX's prices. I do. In the '90s I was working for a company that was used to bidding cost plus contracts when DoD contracts pretty much dried up as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Management tried very hard to realign the company to compete in the commercial sector and failed miserably. Changing the focus of a…

Beyond that, a logical argument can be made against putting all the national space eggs in one basket.

If that argument actually carried any weight, then ULA wouldn't exist, but Martin, McDonnel Douglas Aerospace, and GD Convair would. That is, the DoD and the defense companies trot out any arguments they feel like, and hope that Congress accepts them.

I concur on your analysis of companies that are fat and happy bidding and working on DoD contracts. It's really, really hard to turn those companies around.

Re: SpaceX undercut ULA rocket launch pricing by 40 percent: U.S. Air Force

#46

Post by hackuser »

qaq wrote: post #39
hackuser wrote: post #33

As far as I know, ULA's track record for reliability is much better. Last I read, maybe a few months ago, SpaceX launches had failed 1 in ~19 times, and ULA's failed zero in ~85. I wonder how the Air Force addressed this issue. Perhaps the cost of failure is less than the premium for reliability; perhaps they evaluated reliability based on something other than the track records (e.g., an engineering review); and of c…

It's very easy to address even if you assume 5.5% failure rate will remain constant and not decline Space X is still significantly cheaper.

It depends on the costs of the payloads.

Re: SpaceX undercut ULA rocket launch pricing by 40 percent: U.S. Air Force

#47

Post by jonathanoliver »

hydrogen18 wrote: post #19
JoshTriplett wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I could see even ULA's pricing pendulum swing all the other way: they could start bidding for contracts at a loss, using their other business sectors to prop up the space division until they drive SpaceX out of business. That would be blatantly anticompetitive dumping, by the textbook definition.

It is also illegal to bid contracts below cost when the customer is the DoD.

So maybe they undercut all contracts except the DoD ones?

Re: SpaceX undercut ULA rocket launch pricing by 40 percent: U.S. Air Force

#48

Post by bediger4000 »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #37
krschultz wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now that you mention it, isn't it crazy that manufacturing a single F-35 costs more than an entire satellite launch including support services?

I seem to remember that in the 1950's the US tried to design unitary multi-role fighter and it failed.

Not in the 1950s - that would have been the F-4 Phantom, and it was actually quite successful, in production from 1959 to 1979, and probably still flying (albeit totally hotrodded) by lots of air forces.

You might be thinking of the F-111, which was supposed to be all things to all services. That was the 1960s. Or maybe the failed A-12, which was supposed to be an attack plane for all services.

But you're correct, unitary, multi-role fighters have a bad history.

Re: SpaceX undercut ULA rocket launch pricing by 40 percent: U.S. Air Force

#49

Post by gozur88 »

bediger4000 wrote: post #45
gozur88 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You're exactly right, except that I don't think ULA is going to have much trouble matching SpaceX's prices. I do. In the '90s I was working for a company that was used to bidding cost plus contracts when DoD contracts pretty much dried up as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Management tried very hard to realign the company to compete in the commercial sector and failed miserably. Changing the focus of a…

Beyond that, a logical argument can be made against putting all the national space eggs in one basket. If that argument actually carried any weight, then ULA wouldn't exist, but Martin, McDonnel Douglas Aerospace, and GD Convair would. That is, the DoD and the defense companies trot out any arguments they feel like, and hope that Congress accepts them. I concur on your analysis of companies that are fat and happy bid…

>If that argument actually carried any weight, then ULA wouldn't exist, but Martin, McDonnel Douglas Aerospace, and GD Convair would.

Times have changed. I think Congress may have seen the error of its ways on this one.

Re: SpaceX undercut ULA rocket launch pricing by 40 percent: U.S. Air Force

#50

Post by secfirstmd »

eggy wrote: post #38
jordanthoms wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ULA's only business is selling launches, almost entirely to the US Government, so the subsidy would have to come from their owners - Lockheed and Boeing. I haven't seen any indication that they are at all interested in giving ULA a massive subsidy to gain market share - in fact it looks more like the opposite, they have been reluctant to invest in ULA and have been funding Vulcan development on a quarter-by-quarter b…

And Lockheed still has to clean up the F-35 fighter mess with cost overruns, cancelled orders, spies taking terabytes of data, and retrofitting already-delivered planes. Not to mention, suspicious accounting of the amount of indirect jobs it supposedly created, and ever-increasing costs as other countries bail or lower their order numbers. It is the most expensive weapons system purchase to date.

I'm always curious how much of a "covert" budget for the next stealth or other projects, can be hidden in something as big as the F35 program.
Post reply on HN