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

141–150 of 154 posts

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

#141

Post by neurotech1 »

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.

The NRO sometimes has a spare satellite in production, so if one failed somehow, the replacement could be ready relatively quickly, if it was vital to national security. The NRO has transferred surplus hardware to NASA for science missions.

Google Terra Bella (aka Skybox) uses SmallSat (~100 Kg) imaging satellites, and the NRO could use a similar for priority uses where a launch failure wouldn't be as painful as loosing a $1Bn spy satellite. A SmallSat wouldn't be as capable as the larger ones, but has advantages.

The purpose of the EELV program is more about assured access to launch vehicles to get to space, than individual missions being near 100% success.

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

#142

Post by neurotech1 »

ecnal wrote: post #65
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…

Multiroles like the F-18, F-16 (excluding the original worthless LWF proposal), Su-30, Su-35, (today's, though not the original) MiG-29 and Su-27 variants, Typhoon, Tornado, Mirage, Rafale, and nearly every fixed-wing fighter employed by every air force today definitely do not have bad histories--some less stellar than others, but none bad. Multirole capability is primarily a function of the weapons an aircraft can e…

Its about budgets, both on development and on procurement and operational costs. The Su-27 series and the F-15 are relatively expensive jets to procure and operate, and the F-16C (or F-16A MLU) are a good middle ground budget wise.

The F-5E/F Tiger [0] was one of the most under appreciated fighters on the market in the 70s and early 80s. The was limited in A/A victories in real combat because of lack of opportunities, although successfully used at TOPGUN and FWS at a low operating cost. Although marketed as a LWF, The F-5 was actually a multi-role aircraft, and used in combat as a strike aircraft.

IMO the F/A-50 [1] is the most under-appreciated advanced 4th gen fighter on market. At around $30m its half the cost of a new F-16, although a refurbished F-16 is viable for budget constrained Air Forces.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-5

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAI_T-50_Golden_Eagle

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

#144

Post by Faint »

gumby wrote: post #138
simonh wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dramat…

> Even if ULA dramatically cut their costs to drive SpaceX out of business, that will stimulate a huge surge in demand for launches. If only that were true. It does happen in many markets, but not currently in the space market. Space is still in the early-stage / chicken-and-egg mode. A bit of simple value chain analysis shows why. TL;DR: we may be closer than I think to the space business moving into traditional eco…

Much of the commercial communication satellites (like every TV satellite) go to GEO.

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

#145

Post by Gravityloss »

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 heard that would be illegal

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

#146

Post by syncsynchalt »

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…

(note: this post is not directed to you, I'm sure none of this is news to you. rather it's for the benefit of the audience)

ULA is safe for a while due to the DoD's requirement that they keep two domestic methods for space access alive.

Previously this was met with the combination of ULA's Atlas V and Delta IV. Now it'll be the F9 and Atlas V, with the expensive Delta IV being phased out (it's still occasionally needed as it's the largest booster still in operation worldwide).

However ULA's in trouble if another SpaceX shows up. I assume that's why they're working so closely with Blue Origin, better to capture that player now and get a cheap engine provider out of it.

Another input: cost isn't everything; the Atlas V has never lost a payload, while the F9 has. An extra $40m doesn't look like much if your payload is a half billion dollars, for example.

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

#147

Post by greglindahl »

syncsynchalt wrote: post #146
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…

(note: this post is not directed to you, I'm sure none of this is news to you. rather it's for the benefit of the audience) ULA is safe for a while due to the DoD's requirement that they keep two domestic methods for space access alive. Previously this was met with the combination of ULA's Atlas V and Delta IV. Now it'll be the F9 and Atlas V, with the expensive Delta IV being phased out (it's still occasionally need…

ULA will probably end up encouraging Bezos to build a complete rocket. There are some other players talking about using the BE3 (the tourist rocket engine) as an upper-stage engine, and ULA is likely to use the BE4. At that point, Bezos can market the complete rocket as "You already depend on our engines, why not try our complete rocket?"

You can't really "capture" a billionaire's business.

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

#148

Post by tn13 »

j1vms wrote: post #83
tn13 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem with monopolies is that they lag behind on innovation.

> Problem with monopolies is that they lag behind on innovation. With an arguable rare exception being AT&T from the early 20th century up until about ~1980 perhaps, nurturing within it the renowed Bell Labs and its predecessor(s).

What exactly has AT&T innovated in ? AT&T's monopoly in recent times is mostly because it has joined hands with government to keep others out.

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

#149

Post by Gibbon1 »

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…

Hazy Memory, you're correct. 60's not 50's. The F-111 had major teething problems and the carrier based version was abandoned.

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

#150

Post by jacobush »

ecnal wrote: post #65
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…

Multiroles like the F-18, F-16 (excluding the original worthless LWF proposal), Su-30, Su-35, (today's, though not the original) MiG-29 and Su-27 variants, Typhoon, Tornado, Mirage, Rafale, and nearly every fixed-wing fighter employed by every air force today definitely do not have bad histories--some less stellar than others, but none bad. Multirole capability is primarily a function of the weapons an aircraft can e…

Or the very effective Gripen, which is explicitly Fighter Attack Recon.
Post reply on HN