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

71–80 of 154 posts

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

#71

Post by DigitalJack »

secfirstmd wrote: post #50
eggy wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's an interesting point. I could only hope that it is actually true, and that the F35 is more subterfuge than boondoggle.

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

#72

Post by oxymoron »

hudibras wrote: post #4
mdorazio wrote: post #3

This is exactly how the market is supposed to work - SpaceX is delivering the same service for a lower price and now ULA is finally forced to put serious effort into competing. I'm curious what they intend to do once the reusable first stage program gets going and launch costs drop even further.

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…

I disagree. Ashlee Vance spends quite a bit of time talking about how the SpaceX approach differs in his biography of Elon Musk. Basically, Musk turns out to be manically cost aware, and a lot of what SpaceX does is focused specifically on that. One of the examples given are that they figured out how to use stock electronics rather than the very expensive radiation hardened versions that are conventionally used, for a 10:1 cost saving. They've done this throughout their entire system. I'd be very surprised if ULA were able to match.

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

#73

Post by Teever »

secfirstmd wrote: post #50
eggy wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've wondered the same. I'm quite curious when they'll unveil an unmanned F-35.

I also wonder just how much of the technology and the pace of development we're seeing from SpaceX hasn't originated from the military themselves.

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

#74

Post by Teever »

kirrent wrote: post #24
zeusk wrote: post #10

Yet, SpaceX cries about getting undercut by ISRO.

A group which SpaceX is a member of raised concerns that launches by ISRO are allegedly subsidised by the Indian government and therefore the pricing is anticompetitive but have also acknowledged that the market served by the PSLV is badly serviced by American companies. They're not the only ones to raise the same concern but no-one's seriously crying about being undercut. Even as it is, the Falcon 9 and PSLV price p…

That seems a little hypocritical in light of the fact that the entire US aeronautics industry was subsidized by the US government.

If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.

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

#75

Post by patrickk »

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.

An interesting counterargument from Peter Thiel:

"Monopolies drive progress because the promise of years or even decades of monopoly profits provides a powerful incentive to innovate. Then monopolies can keep innovating because profits enable them to make the long-term plans and finance the ambitious research projects that firms locked in competition can't dream of."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-competition-is-for-l...

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

#76

Post by nitrogen »

patrickk wrote: post #75
tn13 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem with monopolies is that they lag behind on innovation.

An interesting counterargument from Peter Thiel: " Monopolies drive progress because the promise of years or even decades of monopoly profits provides a powerful incentive to innovate. Then monopolies can keep innovating because profits enable them to make the long-term plans and finance the ambitious research projects that firms locked in competition can't dream of. " http://www.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-competit…

I don't really buy it. Decades of monopoly profits are a powerful incentive to stagnate. Those profits definitely fund a lot of survival, and potentially some interesting side projects, but I wouldn't call most of it innovation or progress. As for ambitious research projects, some people just do those on their own, and for the rest, there's academia, government grants, and venture capital.

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

#77

Post by ricardobeat »

patrickk wrote: post #75
tn13 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem with monopolies is that they lag behind on innovation.

An interesting counterargument from Peter Thiel: " Monopolies drive progress because the promise of years or even decades of monopoly profits provides a powerful incentive to innovate. Then monopolies can keep innovating because profits enable them to make the long-term plans and finance the ambitious research projects that firms locked in competition can't dream of. " http://www.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-competit…

Wow, that's a stretch. He even uses google's "don't be evil" as an example, which we know is dead and buried. Monopolies have a way, way stronger incentive to just stand still, optimize and collect profits.

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

#78

Post by dsfuoi »

sb057 wrote: post #43
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 bidd…

Errata: The lowest bidder that met the mission/project requirements.

Cheapest != worst, see SpaceX.

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

#79

Post by anovikov »

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…

It only applies when whole company was doing that. ULA is made from Boeing and LM, and Boeing does most of its job in the real market, selling passenger jets, and competes quite successfully.

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

#80

Post by BurningFrog »

rebootthesystem wrote: post #63
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 are missing a very important data point: ULA receives nearly a billion dollars a year just to exist. They don't have to deliver a single vehicle. Free tax-payer money being gifted to the highest bidder. THAT has to end. Then let's see them compete.

How much are they bidding?

I'm in for $999M

Post reply on HN