Live data from Hacker News

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

reuters.com

131–140 of 154 posts

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

#131

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 interne…

Plus they have insurance on it. If something goes wrong, they'll still be ahead. I'd bet money, the insurance is far less than the savings by switching to SpaceX.

The only problem would be a long delay....

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

#132
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…

That is so last century, when even monopolies tried to provide good customer service and a quality product. This century 100% of the effort is focused on business efficiency so that larger returns can be made for the shareholders/etc.

This means little reinvestment, little customer service, and a product/service only good enough to keep the conservative party from admitting that sometimes a little regulation is necessary (aka just about never).

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

#134
post #125
post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's true +1. I'm sure they don't make every integrated circuit and piece of electrical wire. My general point still stands, ULA do much less manufacturing in house by a very large margin.

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

#135
post #125
post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not accurate; they don't build all parts, just most of them.

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

#136
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 wit…

This marvelous and insightful metaphor is deserving of its own post!

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

#137
post #125
post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The unverified components were steel rods. SpaceX manufacture most of the complicated parts, but they buy nuts and bolts. Also, the steel rods were checked, but only statistically, not each one. 1 in more than a thousand failed at 5 times lower than its design strength.

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

#138
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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 economics, but even then it's probably decades out.

There are three disjoint space markets: - military: largely price insensitive; volume unknown to me but not enormous; has specialized needs so a lot of it couldn't be satisfied by COTS launch systems - science: some of which (earth sensing) can use COTS, the rest is low volume, has non-commercial requirements (e.g. non-LEO) and often has weird timing constraints depending on what the orrery says. - commercial, which is what we all want to explode in volume! Today this is 100% LEO.

Science is largely the space side of NASA and I personally am convinced congress only funds in order to provide enough economic volume that the contractors are available to support the military. I.e. a fig leaf for the military just like the DoE (whose hands are all over space science as well).

So commercial: the chicken and egg problem the compound of two (used to be three, see below) issues: launches are rare and expensive, so satellites are few and far between, which makes them expensive, which doesn't encourage volume, which doesn't encourage launch capacity development, which keeps them expensive... This is one of the reasons why previous private efforts (e.g. Rotary Rocket) have foundered. Despite what my libertarian friends say, it's almost impossible to break out of this trap without government incentive; the activation energy is too high.

Now almost is not the same as 100% and this is where I'd like to believe and agree with you. And I do agree, except the time base I believe in is too slow to support the phrase "huge surge in demand"

One thing that has been great is the folie à deux on the part of billionaires Bezos and Musk (I believe that SpaceX and Zip2 are the only companies Musk actually founded, right?) has allowed ego to try to break that cycle for LEO applications. Unless Google or Apple or Amazon can start pumping out satellites for internal use in high volume the overall market will grow slowly (who else is likely to buy a lot of satellites? I'm not sure). And even so that effort will take time to ramp up. If not...hard to see who will take up the slack.

I also look forward to non-LEO applications, like mining. It has its own bootstrap problem.

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

#139
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…

PT said that in context of Google which is a search monopoly but pretends to me a media company where it might seem like just another fish in the pond.

That analogy is not applicable here because PT is referring to businesses who capture market by innovation and growth and become monopolies. I am reasonably sure PT is not referring to monopolies like USPS/AT&T/COMCAST/Cable Companies who have become monopolies using government's coercive power.

If you are running a business where your only customer is government and you are a monopoly I don't think anyone cares about innovation much. I would love to see counter examples if you have any.

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

#140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes. PT was talking totally different context there and I think he has been quoted out of context.
Post reply on HN