It's lovely how a small company makes the big ones move their fat asses to do something better, instead of using decades-old technologies.
SpaceX undercut ULA rocket launch pricing by 40 percent: U.S. Air Force
151–154 of 154 posts
Re: SpaceX undercut ULA rocket launch pricing by 40 percent: U.S. Air Force
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
True, I was hasty / poor proofreading I'm sorry. Thanks for pointing that out!
However my main point is still true: today commercial and non-commercial applications have quite different needs and thus different economic drivers.
Re: SpaceX undercut ULA rocket launch pricing by 40 percent: U.S. Air Force
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.)
No. It's to exist.
Remove that subsidy and they implode instantaneously. Their cost per launch would be just about the highest in the world.
Re: SpaceX undercut ULA rocket launch pricing by 40 percent: U.S. Air Force
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
How/why/what? Is it through subsidies, or preferred govt contracts, or what? Why are they just being given money?