51–60 of 154 posts
Is anyone else here confused by how exactly cutting 1/4 of their workforce will make them more competitive? I get being lean and all that, but still...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now that you mention it, isn't it crazy that manufacturing a single F-35 costs more than an entire satellite launch including support services?
At this point, I'm pretty sure the Stargate must be real and the crazy cost per unit for the F-35 is to hide R&D, construction and launch of a space defense fleet.
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.
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…
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…
It's more likely that the response will be too slow than fast and overwhelming. ULA likely took advantage of their monopoly to underinvest in lower-cost technologies, and the lead time to correct that could be very long.
Earlier 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.
The Colorado-based firm plans to eliminate 875 jobs, or about one-quarter of its workforce, by end-2017, so it can better compete against SpaceX and other rivals, including the Jeff Bezos-backed... Is anyone else here confused by how exactly cutting 1/4 of their workforce will make them more competitive? I get being lean and all that, but still...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depends on the costs of the payloads.
Launch insurance is also included, and for a very good reason.
Insurance doesn't reduce the costs of (whatever event you're insuring), it just evens them out. Instead of paying for (e.g.) 1 failure every 25 launches, you pay for 0.04 failures on every launch (plus the insurance company's profit).
So the payloads' costs still apply.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is also illegal to bid contracts below cost when the customer is the DoD.
Illegal is a very lose term...so many projects "overrun" their contract price...I don't believe that these companies that have decades of military and government contract experience cannot budget for overhead expenses and project delays. They just end up charging more later on, rather than be upfront with actual costs.
The cynic in me assumes the 40% savings will just get shoveled into the F-35 furnace.
Now that you mention it, 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 ahead of time, etc.
The plane has to handle every contingency of war: Take off from wherever and whenever needed, fly anywhere, refuel in mid-air, dodge enemies trying to kill it (can SpaceX or ULA do that?), destroy enemies trying to avoid it, return safely home, etc.