Don't forget that SpaceX had to sue to be allowed to even compete in these bids.
SpaceX undercut ULA rocket launch pricing by 40 percent: U.S. Air Force
111–120 of 154 posts
Re: SpaceX undercut ULA rocket launch pricing by 40 percent: U.S. Air Force
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Sure does but avg payload cost would need to be 990,000,000 for it to no longer hold true.
Re: SpaceX undercut ULA rocket launch pricing by 40 percent: U.S. Air Force
#113This 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…
[deleted]
Re: SpaceX undercut ULA rocket launch pricing by 40 percent: U.S. Air Force
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Even if an entity is large enough to self-insure, it can make sense to buy insurance if you don't have the internal capacity to estimate the risk accurately. Yes, it might be better to simply hire the risk assessors from the insurance company, but there might be incentive issues. It can also help for external transparency: If the project fails and is self-insured, then people can question whether the risk assessment was correct.
Re: SpaceX undercut ULA rocket launch pricing by 40 percent: U.S. Air Force
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's an interesting point. I could only hope that it is actually true, and that the F35 is more subterfuge than boondoggle.
With the cost overrun of the F35 Project, though, one could probably finance a whole Stargate program, spaceships included.
Assuming there aren't similar cost overruns...
Re: SpaceX undercut ULA rocket launch pricing by 40 percent: U.S. Air Force
#116This 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?
Seed money spent on shares isn't a subsidy because the investor retains the value of the shares. I'm not aware of any implication that SpaceX gets subsidy funding from any external source. Anyway, they have submitted audited accounts of their cost structure to the air force.
Re: SpaceX undercut ULA rocket launch pricing by 40 percent: U.S. Air Force
#117This 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.
It's not just how it's supposed to work (I'm agreeing with you), it's how it often works.
Most of us on here work in software - how many times have we seen tech companies get their products and services deep inside an organization and milk it for years once they have leverage. Once it gets too bad, alternatives begin to come in to the marketplace. These are usually cheaper/better.
But still the practice happens over and over again. This means that those years of milking it is worth it.
Re: SpaceX undercut ULA rocket launch pricing by 40 percent: U.S. Air Force
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You can meet all the requirements and still make compromise in quality to reach expected price point. Cost doesn't get slashed out of thin air.
Re: SpaceX undercut ULA rocket launch pricing by 40 percent: U.S. Air Force
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Thinking of Congress as a single entity that is capable of sustained memories is dangerous. Congress is a hive of bees, half of whom absolutely hate the other half, with individuals' life spans being potentially very short due to the mandatory fight-to-the-death that happens every 2 or 6 years. Said deathmatch inevitably leads to significant distraction, as well, since any sane individual is going to be concerned with their own survival to the point of preoccupation if it's constantly under threat. So each of these individuals is operating in the service of their own interests, which may or may not be in line with the interests of Congress or the nation as a whole.
Individual congresspeople might see why a past decision did or did not work out well in the long run. That's very different from seeing whether the same decision is politically expedient in the present moment. Nor does it necessarily imply that Congress as a whole is even capable of forming stable memories that can reliably retain that sort of knowledge.
Re: SpaceX undercut ULA rocket launch pricing by 40 percent: U.S. Air Force
#120Earlier 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…
> The plane has to handle every contingency of war And all of those problems are (supposedly) solved by the time the plane is being manufactured. Your argument regards R&D costs, not manufacturing costs.
Every bit of complexity you add makes it more difficult and expensive to manufacture.