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

101–110 of 154 posts

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

#101

Post by simonh »

anovikov wrote: post #79
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…

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.

The supply chain for their current rocket designs is a big problem. Many of the parts are outsourced to suppliers with very high overheads and margins, so they're already locked into a very high cost structure outside their own org. The only effective way to fix that will be to move to new designs with more efficient sourcing and cost structures and that will take time.

The other issue is capacity. Even if ULA dramatically cut their costs to drive SpaceX out of business, that will stimulate a huge surge in demand for launches. To drive anyone out of business, ULA would have to meet all of that demand on their own. I don't believe that's possible for them, they just don't have the capability to ramp up capacity fast enough, so SpaceX and other operators would pick up the excess business anyway.

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

#102

Post by Mvandenbergh »

sounds wrote: post #51
hackuser wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on the costs of the payloads.

Launch insurance is also included, and for a very good reason.

I don't think government buys launch insurance and if they do, they shouldn't.

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

#103

Post by mseebach »

markveronda wrote: post #52

The Colorado-based firm plans to eliminate 875 jobs, or about one-quarter of its workforce, by end-2017, so it can better compete against SpaceX and other rivals, including the Jeff Bezos-backed... Is anyone else here confused by how exactly cutting 1/4 of their workforce will make them more competitive? I get being lean and all that, but still...

You decide on the one or two areas where you have a shot of actually competing, and then you shed as much weight as possible outside those areas.

It's like when IBM sold their consumer PC and laptop business to Lenovo. The analysis was that the consumer business was essentially commoditised and IBMs core value proposition is in high-value-added servers and services -- the laptops were a distraction.

(In reality, IBMs core value proposition is being IBM, so they could probably have carried on selling ridiculously marked up ThinkPads to the enterprise and government market)

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

#104

Post by simonh »

Evolved wrote: post #67

SpaceX also does it 40% cheaper with over 38% MORE personnel. You'd think the ULA would be able to reduce costs with all these successful launches. I have a sneaking suspicion they increase the cost each time using the rationalization of, "look how many successful launches we have. You're paying for reliability."

To be fair SpaceX actually build all of their rocket parts themselves from scratch. ULA just assembles them from parts made by third parties, including the Russian engines.

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

#105

Post by Nutmog »

Wow, the contrast in sentiment between SpaceX vs ULA and Jabil vs Makerbot's Brooklyn factory (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11574215) is striking. With SpaceX undercutting the incumbent, people are cheering free market competition but with Jabil undercutting the incumbents, people are complaining about work being done in buildings attached to the wrong pieces of Earth (China) even though in both cases, they cut costs by using genuinely more efficient processes.

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

#106

Post by kochthesecond »

SEJeff wrote: post #35
hudibras wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, they wouldn't exactly put it that way in the press release. An alternate end-game would be ULA stringing together a few contract wins, pushing SpaceX to the brink, and then ol' Elon gets a nice offer from Boeing and Lockheed...

Elon plays the long game, and I don't think Boeing and Lockheed have any interest in going to Mars. He wouldn't sell from a moral standpoint.

I would be very surprised if Elon sells space X in the next ten years. Based on the book by ashlee at least.

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

#107

Post by eggy »

Teever wrote: post #73
secfirstmd wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You need a human, not to fly it right now, but somebody has to reboot the software in flight ;) [1]

  [1]  http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/f-35-radar-system-has-bug-that-requires-hard-reboot-in-flight/

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

#108

Post by Ftuuky »

pricechild wrote: post #93
hackuser wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> isn't it crazy that manufacturing a single F-35 costs more than an entire satellite launch including support services? Not IMHO: The launch is a single, controlled, predictable task; they can choose their exact launch time and location for optimal performance; have extensive quality control checks and engineering, a room full of support engineers, etc; the exact route and timing of the launch is carefully planned a…

> dodge enemies trying to kill it I thought dogfighting was nolonger required in this day and age?

Not dogfighting but you still have to evade missiles and whatnot.

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

#109

Post by anc84 »

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.

But what amount of the SpaceX is funded by money gathered elsewhere? Is it fair competition or are they undercutting?

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

#110

Post by hga »

maaku wrote: post #90
bediger4000 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, un…

A-12 is the SR-71, no?

Different A-12: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_A-12_Avenger...

You're thinking of the first generation of what became the SR-71, which was made for the CIA, and used a different numbering scheme: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_A-12

Post reply on HN