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

121–130 of 154 posts

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

#121

Post by Symmetry »

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…

If I was launching a $10 billion dollar satellite ULA's very impressive track record would make me strongly consider going with them. SpaceX's reliability going forward is probably going to be better than their reliability up to this point but there's essentially no way they won't lose a single satellite over their next 100 launches.

But these GPS satellites are only in the $100m dollar range according to the internet so it just doesn't make sense to pay an extra $50m to go from 97% reliability to 99.7%.

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

#122

Post by nradov »

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.

You're mischaracterizing the payment. It isn't for existing, it's for maintaining standby launch capabilities. Being able to launch a military satellite on demand is valuable for national security purposes. So taxpayers are getting something for that money. (Whether we should be spending so much on the military in the first place is a separate issue.)

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

#123

Post by warfangle »

apercu wrote: post #117
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.

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…

Well, that's how it's 'supposed' to work. According to 18th century agrarian economics. Before the telegraph (let alone the internet) enabled businesses to get that large.

But due to collusion, sometime-insufficient regulation (e.g., ad networks that can and do deliver malware), sometime-overbearing regulation (e.g., software patents), and ... well ... the rest of the real world, Adam Smith market economics is exceedingly reductionist. It works in the microcosm. Until you take into account that no economic entity or system is fully enclosed.

For example: has Blackboard yet been toppled, or are they still suing and/or acquiring any potential competitor via its vast patent portfolio, all the while being the absolute worst solution to its problem possible?

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

#124

Post by maaku »

hga wrote: post #110
maaku wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Today I learned... Thank you.

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

#125

Post by greedo »

simonh wrote: post #104
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.

I don't think this is accurate. With the CRS-7 failure, Musk commented on how they hadn't adequately verified component integrity from a 3rd party supplier.

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

#126

Post by greedo »

bediger4000 wrote: post #48
Gibbon1 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, un…

The F-4 was not a joint project in any way. It was a Navy funded aircraft that was later adopted by the Marines and Air Force.

Similarly, the A-12 was also a Navy program, not a joint project. The Air Force considered buying it (had it been funded to completion by the Navy) as a replacement for the F-111, but this consideration was largely superficial, and they had little to no input into it's design.

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

#127

Post by Angostura »

warfangle wrote: post #123
apercu wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well, that's how it's 'supposed' to work. According to 18th century agrarian economics. Before the telegraph (let alone the internet) enabled businesses to get that large. But due to collusion, sometime-insufficient regulation (e.g., ad networks that can and do deliver malware), sometime-overbearing regulation (e.g., software patents), and ... well ... the rest of the real world, Adam Smith market economics is exceed…

Hmmm,

I wonder if we could create a simple little Web site people could post markets with virtual monopolies that that would like to see disrupted. It could act as an ideas board for entrepreneurs looking for fertile start-up areas.

It could be a simple post, but with the opportunity to flesh it out out with information on barriers to entry etc,potential market size etc.

You could post about blackboard. I could post about TES.com/jobs which has a virtual monopoly on advertising jobs in the UK teachers market, despite appalling service and ludicrous prices.

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

#129

Post by SEJeff »

kochthesecond wrote: post #106
SEJeff wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Having read the exact same book I simply can't agree more. He has no reason to make a profitable company public seeing how much of a mess it has made things wtih tesla.

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

#130

Post by hga »

GigabyteCoin wrote: post #128

I'm curious why they cut prices by 40% right off the bat? Surely they must have had some idea what their competition would charge from historical bids, so why not come in at a 30% or even 20% discount?

Might be a generally better business strategy going forward, it makes it more difficult to match their price, doesn't get them hooked on higher and ultimately non-sustainable profit margins, etc.

Also, when they publish their prices to normal customers (http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities), it would look bad if the premium they charge the government for additional costs such as security was too high.

Post reply on HN