This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Commercialization

USAF Agrees With SpaceX: Modify ULA Contract

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
March 27, 2015
Filed under , , ,
USAF Agrees With SpaceX: Modify ULA Contract

U.S. to modify launch capability deal for Lockheed-Boeing Venture, Reuters
“The U.S. Air Force must modify its annual “launch capability” contract with United Launch Alliance, to level the playing field for new competitors of the joint venture of Lockheed Martin Corp and Boeing Co, senior U.S. Air Force and Pentagon officials told lawmakers on Wednesday. … [Air Force Space Command Commander General John Hyten] said the contract made it impossible to have a fair competition, backing an argument often made by privately held Space Exploration Technologies. The company, also called SpaceX, hopes to be certified by June to compete for some satellite launches now carried out solely by ULA.”
Fiscal Year 2016 National Security Space Hearing, House Armed Services Committee, 25 March 2015
Prepared Testimony

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

252 responses to “USAF Agrees With SpaceX: Modify ULA Contract”

  1. HyperJ says:
    0
    0

    Uh-uh. The knives will be out now from ULA.

    And if the subsidy is folded into their launch contracts, then Tory Bruno’s launch cost estimates start looking a lot worse. (He continues to cite costs per launch without the “launch capability” subsidy, as if he is fooling anyone)

    • EtOH says:
      0
      0

      Averaging launches over the last three years, it looks like this would add roughly $90M to the cost of each ULA launch. I wonder if they will be able to cut some of their launch facilities after the up-front capabilities payment is eliminated.

      • HyperJ says:
        0
        0

        They won’t be able to until they retire one of the pads on each coast.

        Their ultimate goal appears to be one NGLV pad on each coast – no more. (eventually closing down the Delta IV pads) But they won’t be able to get the real savings until they retire the Delta IV – which is several years away.

  2. EtOH says:
    0
    0

    Fantastic! Glad to see the air force steadily moving to embrace, rather than undermine, competition in the launch market.

  3. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    Averaging launches over the last three years, it looks like this would add roughly $90M to the cost of each ULA launch. Will they be able to cut some of their launch facilities after the up-front capabilities payment is eliminated?

    • EtOH says:
      0
      0

      Well this is weird, I posted this, then deleted it and reposted it as a reply. And now it’s back.

        • Michael Spencer says:
          0
          0

          A bunch of old Twilight Zone episodes started showing up on my Tivo…forgot I had a wish list for them. They really stand up after all these years I have to say.

      • Paul451 says:
        0
        0

        “Delete” usually doesn’t work in Disqus. To remove a comment, re-edit the comment, delete the content (replace it with a single space), save it. (You can then try to delete the comment as well, it seems to work better on empty comments.)

    • Hondo Lane says:
      0
      0

      this ADDS $90M per launch, meanwhile SpaceX is selling F9s to the government for less than $90M
      http://www.nasa.gov/press/2

      • hikingmike says:
        0
        0

        Goodbye Delta IV I guess. Tough situation with the Atlas V engine though.

        • John Thomas says:
          0
          0

          Delta IV isn’t going anywhere soon. It still provides the heaviest lift capability to GEO, let alone an alternative (although expensive) to Atlas V.

          • hikingmike says:
            0
            0

            Ok… non-heavy. I believe ULA themselves said they are discontinuing Delta IV non-heavy.

          • John Thomas says:
            0
            0

            With SpaceX in the non-heavy market, I would expect there to mainly be the Falcon 9 and whichever ULA vehicle is the lowest cost in that market which I believe would be Atlas. Either that or they work on a lower cost Delta like the Delta 2.

  4. ReSpaceAge says:
    0
    0

    @torybruno said that ULA uses some of that money to pay fees/launch cost. Have those amounts been disclosed?

    Gwen said that she could do DoD launches for 170 million? Was She talking about Falcon heavy, or was she complaring to deltas price or is Spacex just juicing up the price?

    Anyone recall the context when she said that?

    I thought a DoD Falcon 9 launch cost about 100 million?

    • Terry Stetler says:
      0
      0

      And we don’t even know the implications of the upgraded Falcon 9’s performance on Falcon Heavy. +30% performance* on each core could make it even more of a beast.

      * AvWeek interview,

      http://www.aviationweek.com

      • Yale S says:
        0
        0

        Previously the F9 displaced the Atlas 4/50X series. The F9:TNG would displace the Atlas 4/51X and some Delta IV medium payloads.
        The Falcon Heavy replaces anything ULA flys.
        Interestingly, if the Falcon Heavy has the same performance boost, it will have the same LEO capability as the SLS Block 1.

        • HyperJ says:
          0
          0

          No, the F9/FH performance boost won’t really affect the FH published performance. But it probably allows them to reach that FH performance without crossfeed. (Crossfeed has been delayed)

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            why not? The published performance is for the non-optimized Merlins, and the non-stretched second stage, and without deep-cooled LOX.

          • HyperJ says:
            0
            0

            Because we know they have abandoned cross-feed. (for now) The other enhancements allow them to reach the same performance without it.

            The FH performance numbers that are published do not promise HOW it will be done. They are simply getting there by another route. One that also allows them to have more commonality with F9.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            What evidence have you that crossfeed is abandoned in the relevant 2018+ time period (when 3 certification flights have occurred and the USAF 1 year+ certification process completes?

            I assume you are referring to them deferring during initial flights (quite sensibly) and not abandoning

            DEFER
            put off (an action or event) to a later time; postpone.
            “they deferred the decision until February”

            ABANDON
            give up completely (a course of action, a practice, or a way of thinking).
            “he had clearly abandoned all pretense of trying to succeed”

          • HyperJ says:
            0
            0

            Deferring, yes. But if someone wants to pay for it, I’m sure they will happily do it. But the market for 50+ mt LEO payloads is nil at the moment, and they would rather spend their efforts on the next Raptor powered LV instead. As for sources – no official statement – but several knowledgeable posters on the NSF forums indicate this.

            We’ll know more as we get closer to the first FH launch.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            I would be vastly surprised if they used crossfeed anytime soon. Why complicate until you have 3 or so launches so you know how you machine works.
            You are correct about 50 ton payloads. SpaceX sees the rocket as an EELV machine and as the alternative to using non-expendable F9s in higher weight launches.

    • Yale S says:
      0
      0

      F Heavy
      F 9 for about $90

      • numbers_guy101 says:
        0
        0

        The thing is DoD will always pay more, to satisfy unique requirements, versus the purely commercial SpaceX price/rate. Even then, SpaceX prices to DoD will be far lower than anything equivalent in payload performance that ULA offers.

  5. Yale S says:
    0
    0

    Well, whadaya know…

  6. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    🙂

  7. Terry Stetler says:
    0
    0

    And from no less than Gen. Hyten himself.

    Drink, meet keyboard.

  8. tutiger87 says:
    0
    0

    When Boeing and Lockheed say “To hell” with the rocket business and we have SpaceX as a single point, what happens then.

    • Yale S says:
      0
      0

      “[With] SpaceX as a single point, what happens then?”

      Well, we’ll be launching rockets for a fraction of the cost as when ULA was doing it alone!
      I suspect that when ULA shrinks down as it plans and has only 2 pads, and reforms itself into a non-parasitic enterprise, then they will be capable of supporting themselves. The gov could follow the common practice of awarding the 2 lowest cost vendors out of the bidding pool, with a 60/40 or 70/30 split, with lower bidder grabbing the bulk. (With only 2 vendors special requirements are set, such a a maximum cost cap, or dropping the secondary suppliers percentages in ratio to their bid exceeding primary bidder’s. The split purchases work more smoothly with 3+ bidder pool.)
      ULA’s has as a goal to actually become competitive in the commercial launch business. If so, they can be like SpaceX and keep their production line humming with private launch services and see the government launches as very rich icing on the cake, rather than living parasitically on taxpayer launches.

      • Odyssey2020 says:
        0
        0

        I think you got it about right.

      • ex-utc says:
        0
        0

        there is no advantage for ULA to shrink down to unworkable levels just to make minimal profits trying to compete. More profits would be gained from selling off the buildings and real estate that account for the high overhead than would ever be gained from launches. the engines are the most expensive part, but they buy them so there isnt any investment there. Look to Orbital/ATK to be the competition, ULA may be the safest of the bunch due to experience and highly reviewed components but thats no longer a factor when Spacex as better political connections.

        • Yale S says:
          0
          0

          ULA is “selling off the buildings and real estate that account for the high overhead ” exactly for the purpose of becoming competitive and making a profit. Previously, before SpaceX, they had already moved production mainly to Decater, GA.
          The goal of ULA is specifically downsizing and re-engineering their procedures to operate in the real world. They believe profits are there to be made.
          Orbital/ATK have nothing to compete at the EELV level. I don’t see them joining the party.
          People in the company who long for the days of assured profit thru cost plus are not going to remain long.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            I suggested to Mr. @tory Bruno that he name his medium size rocket Vulcan and his super heavy lifter Zeus which he favored. Humm??? Wonder how big his Zeus reusable will be?

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            Still think that if ULA is serious about the future being the BE4, “Deep Blue” (as in “deep blue hero stuff”) would be cool! 🙂

        • Yale S says:
          0
          0

          “ULA may be the safest of the bunch due to experience and highly reviewed components but thats no longer a factor when Spacex as better political connections.”

          1) ULA has flown 52 RD-180s into space. SpaceX has flown 100 Merlin 1Ds into space.

          2) ULA/Boeing/Lockheed spend thirty times as much money lobbying than spacex.

          As to political donations, in the 2012 election, ULA/Boeing/Lockheed contributed $8 mill and SpaceX contributed $0.2 mil.

    • John Thomas says:
      0
      0

      We again have a single point of failure.

      • numbers_guy101 says:
        0
        0

        Yours is a strawman argument. A competitive marketplace is about growth. It will create traffic to and from space, some government, most not. The single point failure was tried allowing ULA to form, rather than getting real competition as part of the government strategy. Monopolies are never about growth and low cost, thought they may often be about assured access, or a very controlled customer base, as in DoD. The DoD as with NASA must give up control, for something better.

        • John Thomas says:
          0
          0

          No, Delta and Atlas are a response to not having a single point failure. If as was implied that Lockheed and Boeing get out of the rocket business (not likely), please tell me what other company other than SpaceX has the capability to launch similar payloads and at a significant flight rate in the near future?

          • Jeff2Space says:
            0
            0

            True, but a more reasonable approach might have been to keep Titan IV and have a competition for one new entry.

            This would have meant that when a winner was chosen either Atlas V or Delta IV would have lost the EELV competition and all funding. That would have been far more motivating than a cushy environment where both the Atlas V and Delta IV teams knew they had solid jobs for decades to come. In other words, picking two winners from the very beginning did not foster long term competition.

          • numbers_guy101 says:
            0
            0

            There are two points here. What might have been done back then, and what can be done going forward. Back then there was ample argument that affordable systems were needed that could grow, hold and bring back US satellite business to US launchers. By relation, that the DoD focus had to be such competitive launchers that also met thier needs, an inseparable set of goals. Competition at the time was thought to take care of this naturally. Volume was thought to assure this, by definition. It did not for assorted reasons, one being no true understanding of how to properly motivate that outcome. Also, not understanding losing money (as in the salesman joke) is not overcome by “volume”. A future can’t be built on an expensive, bloated process that more volume would just repeat. There were warnings back then, as now.

            Flash forward, we are still arguing inside DoD and NASA if this is even our mandate, to assure nascent businesses mature and can stand on their own, being competitive globally, so as to buy from that service our gov’t requirements, while being one customer of many for that service. While some of us believe this is the only way forward for certain goals, my self included, others want nothing to do with this strategy, perhaps hoping Apollo, or some budget salvation, comes around again. Perhaps just hooping their pet project is a survivor in the melee.

            So yes, in the future we need more SpaceX’s, more players, and that is and should be the overall strategy, with prices going even further down, flight rates even further up, and overall revenue for the industry growing, attracting capital. That will assure access to space at sustainable prices for government.

        • spacefx says:
          0
          0

          Actually, ULA was allowed to form precisely because the market could not support two providers using a competitive free market model. Not enough business to support it. The landscape is changing, but unfortunately it won’t happen overnight.

          • Jeff2Space says:
            0
            0

            A huge contributing factor was the fact that Delta IV and Atlas V were so expensive that they were utter failures in the commercial launch market. This is because DOD was driving the requirements, engineering process, pricing model, and etc.

            SpaceX was a success in the commercial market before attempting to go after DOD business. That is a huge difference between the business models of SpaceX and ULA.

          • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
            0
            0

            Yes that’s correct. In fact DoD interference in SpaceX’s production processes is exactly why their certification has been delayed.
            Cheers

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            Reuters) – The U.S. Air Force overstepped its bounds as it worked to certify privately held SpaceX to launch military satellites, undermining the benefit of working with a commercial provider, an independent review showed on Thursday….
            Air Force Secretary Deborah James ordered the review after the service missed a December deadline for certifying SpaceX to compete for some launches now carried out solely by United Launch Alliance,…

            The report, prepared by former Air Force Chief of Staff General Larry Welch, said the Air Force treated the process like a detailed design review, dictating changes in SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket and even the company’s organizational structure.

            That approach resulted in over 400 issues that needed to be resolved, which was “counterproductive” to a national policy aimed at encouraging competition in the sector.

            In fact, the process was intended to show that SpaceX met overall requirements to launch military satellites, not carry out the more detailed review required for each launch on a case-by-case basis, he said.

            Welch faulted SpaceX for assuming its experience launching other Falcon 9 rockets would suffice to be certified, and not expecting to have to resolve any issues at all….

            He urged the Air Force’s Space and Missiles Systems Center to “embrace SpaceX innovation and practices,”

          • Lewis says:
            0
            0

            Space X has a total of twenty launches so far, including the early flights that blew up. Didn’t he start suing the Air Force after he put up his first load to the ISS?

            Success has a low bar these days, yes?

          • duheagle says:
            0
            0

            21 launches, actually. The first three failed. All since have been successes. That’s 18 consecutive successes. What the heck is your idea of a “bar” for success?

            As to suing the Air Force, that was roughly two years after the first ISS mission and there had been others in the meantime. The suit was about the ULA block buy and had nothing to do with ISS.

          • Lewis says:
            0
            0

            “What the heck is youridea of a “bar” for success?”

            Apollo. Back and as close to Apollo as possible along with a solid hypersonic research program, scramjet/Pegasus flights, all pointing to a single stage to orbit vehicle. Having another look at Venturestar, NASP, things like that, figuring out how to deal with problems in continuity such that these projects can get through to the end. I also want to figure out the better option: SLS or many Delta/Atlas launches to get lunar missions going again, then do it right away.

            I am not interested in some Silicon Valley child, betting half the farm on Iridium 2 and NRO telescopes, stirring everything up so he can get a piece of federal subsidies while he blows smoke up all your asses.

            i do not understand why this piss ant has been allowed to captured such a gigantic portion of national resources while we have such horrific problems.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            You seem to be quite upset with the rise of SpaceX. Do you have any dogs in this hunt? Are you or people you’re involved with have any vested interest in ULA or other associated companies?

          • Lewis says:
            0
            0

            I’m more the biological type, not near aerospace in any way. I don’t own any stock. I do care, deeply, about manned space flight and the reality that we’re losing the ability to do it. The way I see it there are two categories to the problem:

            1. Continuity. Every program that starts stops when there’s a change in government, usually the executive. This is probably more damaging than anything else going on. I have no idea what to do about that.

            2. Finance. NASA has to deal with things other than manned space flight. Robots (no complaint about that, and they’re very good at it), diplomacy (ISS), aviation (I’d like to see a massive increase in that), basic science in weird stuff like climate (I guess, whatever), and on and on. In all of that they’re supposed to be buying rockets and putting guys in them to go do missions.

            Musk is not doing anything to help either of these problems. Vacuuming money is his worst offense. He’s taken over a billion to develop his personal company. I’m not a forensic accountant, but I believe that if I hired one and he had access to data, the vacuumed product would be between two and three billion.

            For that money Musk gets a chance to make money on the Air Force, which is a rival of NASA by the way, and off of this new satellite bubble growing before us. There has been a satellite bubble before.

            The launch vehicle that is produced by this might, might be cheaper than it’s EELV counterpart by a thin margin. And for that gain, if there is any after accounting, we invest what, a decade?

            That money could have bought a service module for the Orion, or something, and also financed launches, which would have been real development for the United States of America and its manned space flight program. Nooooooo, Elon, shitty little Silicon Valley needed to start a business so we “save” money.

            He’s also contributing to the continuity problem by burning this time. Sitting before our legislative body and speaking about our national programs! Like those guys need any distraction to slow things down and send them off in scattered directions. They’re a mess to begin with in the legislature. And we have the startup man talkign to them? Why?

            WTF?

          • Jeff2Space says:
            0
            0

            I really don’t understand the hatred towards a company who, in my opinion, is addressing the #1 problem with access to space, which is launch costs. I don’t see how “continuity” matters one bit when the program costs for SLS are so high that NASA is strugglling to come up with a single mission it can afford that still makes sense under the umbrella of “exploration”. Visiting a boulder brought back to the earth-moon system makes little sense to many, but that’s about the limit of what you can do with the funds being sucked up by SLS.

          • Jeff2Space says:
            0
            0

            Breaking a US Government sanctioned monopoly takes time. Might as well start early.

          • numbers_guy101 says:
            0
            0

            Partly, the lack of a market was caused by the new US ELVs having high costs that meant high prices. This may have occurred organically, that is due to being setup and emphasizing how to make the near term, “real” customer, happy -the Air Force. The one’s who decide who “wins” were to be made happy. There was then no way to backtrack and have a process with the same hardware running at far less costs, for a lower price to potential private sector customers. At the time this would have required SpaceX like efficiencies. You can go UP when DoD adds requirements that are inevitably unique, but the basic Lockheed and Boeing thinking was to bake in a process for DoD, losing sight of potential customers who had no real voice. There was then no going DOWN on price, unless losing money. Those potential customers did however have feet, and enough voice on the hill, to take their business abroad.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            Spacex has far more commercial contracts than it can service. There is plenty of business out there. ULA just can’t compete. They need to reform themselves from corporate socialism to free enterprise.

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            Definitely a work in progress!

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        And since the breakup of ma Bell we communicate with smoke signals!

    • Jeff2Space says:
      0
      0

      ULA is saying they’re developing a next generation launch vehicle, so a SpaceX monopoly is not a certainty by any means. But, worst case, a SpaceX monopoly would be little different than the the monopoly the USAF has been living with since the creation of ULA.

      • Spacetech says:
        0
        0

        There will never be a monopoly by ONE company.
        Why?–its called Military Assured Access to Space and that’s what this game is all about.
        It is the ONLY reason why two separate companies had to be subsidized to provide it and in a move to save further money ULA was born.
        ULA is a joint venture by Lockheed and Boeing that provides two options of very dependable albeit expensive vehicles to access space.
        Now that another dependable provider has finally matured of course the playing field must be leveled but only because it is only now become a competitive process.
        Just because you’re good at what you do expensive or not-if you are the only players in town that does not make you a monopoly.

        • Yale S says:
          0
          0

          Not sure what that last part means: ..if you are the only players in town that does not make you a monopoly.

          Yes it does:

          “A monopoly exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity”

        • Jeff2Space says:
          0
          0

          You start out by saying “There will never be a monopoly by ONE company.” and then state the obvious that ULA, a monopoly, was formed in a failed attempt at saving money, which invalidates the first sentence in your posting (history often repeats itself).

          Your last sentence, “Just because you’re good at what you do expensive or not-if you are the only players in town that does not make you a monopoly.” is clearly factually incorrect. ULA was the very definition of a monopoly. They were, and still are, the only company certified to fly the most expensive and sensitive DOD payloads.

          I don’t see the point you were trying to make since you keep contradicting yourself.

          • Spacetech says:
            0
            0

            I know what the word “Monopoly” means, ULA is a joint venture not a monopoly. Monopoly infers “control” ULA did not control being the only two launchers capable of lifting DoD payloads–there simply wasn’t anyone else and there is STILL no one else that can do it-until SPaceX is given the green light to loft DoD payloads.
            Then there will be three and let the competition begin.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            You actually do not understand the word monopoly.

            From the 2006 Federal Trade Commission’s Consent Order for the ULA creation where they listed some restrictions to protect others:

            Terms of the Consent Order: … This provision will prevent Boeing and Lockheed from discriminating against nascent government MTH launch services suppliers in order to protect ULA’s monopoly status. …

          • Jafafa Hots says:
            0
            0

            Look, man, it’s not a Monopoly unless I can choose a little metal dog, or barring that, a race car.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            The race car, or I don’t play.

      • richard_schumacher says:
        0
        0

        It would be better in one respect: their product would be a lot less expensive than those of the current monopoly, at least for a little while.

        • Jeff2Space says:
          0
          0

          If successful, I think everyone would be relatively happy. USAF wants two suppliers, and having them from two completely different companies fosters the kind of diversity in technologies and approaches that assures government access to space in case one fails.

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      Firefly scales up their single stage to orbit rocket lolol

    • numbers_guy101 says:
      0
      0

      Progress.

    • spacefx says:
      0
      0

      Good topic for discussion! It happened a few years back and forced the government to support the forming of ULA and all the expenses associated with it. The problem, as usual, is two sided. The old subsidy infrastructure obviously has to go away as the landscape changes, but that doesn’t necessarily level the playing field. ULA and there subs are saddled with costs associated with having to support the old “launch capability” structure, which the government demanded. Being a new comer, SpaceX doesn’t have those costs. For the foreseeable future this won’t be a true free market competition, for all the obvious reasons, but we can hope that the changeover is managed in such a way that Boeing decides it’s still worth doing and we don’t have to keep looking overseas to maintain the mandated dual launch capability.

      • SpaceMunkie says:
        0
        0

        ULA got formed because of that whole EELV fiasco – didn’t it?

        • ex-utc says:
          0
          0

          the fiasco is only a partial reason, going from a promised 40 flights a year to 10 made it uneconomical for two vendors to exist. Even Elon cant make it at 10 launches a year.
          If ULA quit because of too few launches, after the normal axing of personnel and shutdown of facilities, it would take at least 5 years to get them back up. allowing ELon to charge whatever he wanted for launches.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            “Even Elon cant make it at 10 launches a year.”

            Evidence?

          • Jeff2Space says:
            0
            0

            They went from 40 flights a year to 10 partly because they were so expensive they could not compete for commercial launches on price. Because of this, launch business largely went overseas. This created a situation in the US where start-ups, with lower launch costs, could disrupt the established US launch industry.

            The predicament that ULA is in is entirely self inflicted and exacerbated by their choice to buy RD-180 engines from Russia instead of investing (long term) in a US made alternative.

        • spacefx says:
          0
          0

          At the heart of the fiasco (or one of them) was the fact that there was not enough commercial business to support the commercial/DoD model. Boeing and Lockheed were ready to check out of the space business (or at least threatened to) forcing the current situation. I don’t blame them given the launch business environment back then; they were literally losing billions. With the changes in the landscape, in part forced by Elon and SpaceX, ULA and the government are having to learn to do things different. And that’s a good thing. But like I said, there are a lot of moving parts and quite a bit of work to be done before we can fulfill the mandate of assured access to space and have a true free market competition.

      • John Thomas says:
        0
        0

        The main reason for the subsidies is that the US needs two different launch vehicles in case one is shut down because of a failure. There isn’t enough launches available to pay for both so the US provides subsidies so they can maintain the line.

        Now SpaceX with it’s lower cost launch vehicle may stimulate more launch business but they would likely go to SpaceX. Don’t expect ULA with at least a Delta or Atlas go away even with SpaceX unless a new reliable low cost competitor shows up. That will be a while.

        • spacefx says:
          0
          0

          You’re right on target. SpaceX is changing the landscape and may indeed generate more interest in space ventures. But as I said, it will take time for that to develop. In the meantime, expect ULA to be kept in the game until something else comes up or they trim down and get competitive. Meanwhile, they will have to be fair with Elon in terms of support as well until it’s truly a free market competition.

          • John Thomas says:
            0
            0

            ULA will adapt. They probably won’t be as cheap as SpaceX but can offer different capabilities than SpaceX perhaps leveraging off of their experience. Also, if SpaceX can get exemptions from the FAR, expect ULA to do the same.

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            I agree. They (and their suppliers) have a lot of weight to shed, but given some time and some government involvement, they’ll get there. In all fairness, SpaceX will get some form of support as well. Like I said, if all goes well and commercial business picks up, we may eventually get to something that resembles a true free market.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            Indeed. They also have Centaur which as far as I can see gives them some unique advantages, no?

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            That is true.
            SpaceX will offer low-cost rides and ultra massive payloads, and ULA has a versatile upper stage.
            When ULA grows up and joins the modern world they may make a positive contribution.

        • Daniel Woodard says:
          0
          0

          The requirement for two different launch vehicles was not originally part of the EELV program. It’s my recollection that it was added after the decision was made to produce both the Atlas and Delta.

    • Yale S says:
      0
      0

      Blue Origin?

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      The reason SpaceX exists is monopoly pricing. Unless a monopoly is protected by the government and capital is not allowed to enter a competitor will always move capital in to get a piece of the extra normal profits the monopoly is generating.

      Musk would be a fool to jack up prices if he did have a monopoly because all it would do is bring in competition. He has already stated he will not take SpaceX public to avoid stockholder pressure to increase proft margins. Low profit margins is a defensive move because it increases the cost of entry for capital as the ROI period is longer.

      • spacefx says:
        0
        0

        Nice “big picture” business overview! Musk is certainly changing the landscape. Wonder how long he can truly keep prices at those levels. Efficiency, simplicity, and profit margins seem to help a lot, but there are some very smart people (that have proven to be fairly objective) who believe the numbers don’t really add up. In any event, it makes for a fun time in the business!

        • DTARS says:
          0
          0

          Those numbers include affordable reusables??

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            So far, “affordable reusable” doesn’t exist. It absolutely should be the way things are done, but there is a lot of work and investment $$ before it becomes a significant price breakthrough. Can’t include it in the bottom line quite yet!

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            Spacex will likely land on the barge on the 9th and fly their first resusable commercial rocket in less than 3 years. Spacex doesn’t need much money to include reusability. A little test hopping in New Mexico and they will be ready to go.

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            Elon has yet to give us reason to think he can’t get something done and I believe there is a very high probability he will get this done as well. It’s just that getting this to work and having it be a financial breakthrough of the magnitude expected are two completely different things. Since you’re probably in the business, you know that the reusable part is just a small piece of a very big equation and true flow through of savings is still a long way off.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            SpaceX plans to use the returned first stage from the next flight in 2 weeks for analysis and then flight testing in New Mexico. The next recovery from a few weeks later this Spring will be used as an actual for-sale launcher next year.. By the end of 2016, they will have a backlog of flying re-used rockets – each saving 10s of millions of dollars.

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            Sorry again. 10’s of millions…on a 90 million dollar launch? Like I’ve been saying, there is a reason that the sharps in the industry are saying the numbers don’t add up.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            No. On a commercial launch. SpaceX says that 75% of the cost is the flight hardware [I left out “for the first stage”]. Let’s assume it costs spacex 40 million to build a rocket. (Just a SWAG). The goal of the re-use is to simply refuel and refly. So there you have savings of 10s of millions of dollars. I am talking cost not price. Spacex can keep charging gov $90 million and commercial $60 mill and pocket the difference or lower prices. Shot well says they plan to ultimately drop to $6 mil price per launch, which is the end of all competitors. In the meantime it appears that they will do something between, just doing major discounts from competitors prices.

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            Musk at 1:13 advises ULA to drop Atlas because of the Russian engine and continue Delta and Falcon. Given the cost of Delta, he might have been speaking in jest…

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            Sorry, my bad. Just misread “each saving 10’s of millions” as in for each launch. I’ve seen such crazy claims in the few weeks I’ve been on here, I just thought it was another. Should have known better! 🙂 Just for fun, I ran a few quick numbers and I would suggest that 55-60 million is probably closer (which actually increases the savings of recovery), but that is only an educated guess. He is going to have to figure a way to get the DoD etc.revamp the certification process to truly accommodate re-usables, especially when it comes to man rating. It’s a bigger deal than most people realize, but he’s probably already working that problem.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            Sorry, my bad. Just misread “each saving 10’s of millions” as in for each launch. I’ve seen such crazy claims in the few weeks I’ve been on here, I just thought it was another.

            I can’t follow what you are trying to say.

            I ran a few quick numbers and I would suggest that 55-60 million is probably closer

            55-60 mill for what? I don’t follow you.

            He is going to have to figure a way to get the DoD etc.revamp the certification process to truly accommodate re-usables, especially when it comes to man rating.

            I suspect SpaceX isn’t planning to sell reused to DoD, immediately. SpaceX would use DoD to buy new hardware (at lower cost than ULA), and then SpaceX moves the recovered hardware to the commercial market. DoD is working on reusables, so if SpaceX does want to push that market, I suppose they will, but it looks optional.
            DoD doesn’t fly people to space, so man-rating isn’t an issue. NASA is man-rating F9 for Crew Dragon.

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            1. I misread your statement about saving “10’s of millions each”. I thought you were saying for each launch, which of course is ludicrous. I realized later that was not what you were saying.
            2. You tentatively threw out 40Million for a rocket. I was simply revising the number up to what seemed more reasonable to me. Given what DTARS came up with as a first stage cost, I think I’m not far off.
            3.Good points on DoD, and obviously the man rating is for NASA purposes at this point. My general point was that certification at all levels is going to need to address the reusable angle. It’s not trivial, as SpaceX’s fights with certification are not ONLY due to air force dragging their feet as seems to be the current narrative. See the Helium tank fiasco for one example.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            The helium tanks issue detected in a lot at the factory has zero to do with the certification.

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            ????? Are you kidding?? Do you know the story behind the tanks or the certification issues when you resource components?

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            Yes, I do. Do you? Show me.

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            Your quote:
            “The helium tanks issue detected in a lot at the factory has zero to do with the certification.”

            I’ll say it more clearly: that statement tells me you don’t understand certification issues when a company changes sourcing AND manufacturing process’s which also tells me you don’t know the history of those tanks. So I’ll make you a deal, and I hope you take me up on it. We know they have a problem with the tanks. Since you say you know the story of the tanks, tell me the source of the problem and I’ll tell you the ENTIRE history of the tanks why they have a problem. Or admit you don’t know much about the tanks and I’ll STILL tell you the whole story. What could be more fair? I’ll wait to hear from you.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            Spacex has said that their first stage costs about 30 to 35 million to make. So they could easily reduce their cost by 10 or 20 million per flight very soon.

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            Hadn’t seen that number, but thanks. It reinforces my faith that my estimate for the total rocket is somewhat more accurate than Simkin’s. Our guess on savings was that your 10M number is far more likely than 20M after real expenses, but pretty awesome nonetheless if he pulls it off!

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            Not sure if Spacex source or secondary source

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            Musk said that 1 booster cost 30+ and first stage is about 70 percent off whole cost. No clue of fixed or operating cost

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            Spacex just bought 90 million in Solar city bonds so that about 2 rockets powered by solar energy 🙂

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            Did they really? That makes things interesting!

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            You have your numbers wrong. I said: “. So there you have savings of 10s of millions of dollars.”
            So, taking DTARS numbers, “reduce their cost by 10 or 20 million per flight very soon” … or another way of saying “10s of millions of dollars.” – AS I SAID!

            However, as I pointed of, the further goal is, as the full cycle of recycle matures, “Shotwell says they plan to ultimately drop to $6 mil price per launch”. This with, using DTARS numbers even more strongly supports my statement: “savings of 10s of millions of dollars”

            Now your statement of the F9 cost of “I ran a few quick numbers and I would suggest that 55-60 million is probably closer” – which is MORE then SpaceX charges for a launch, in no way It reinforces my faith that my estimate for the total rocket is somewhat more accurate than Simkin’s..
            Actually the exact opposite!

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            You need to take a breath and do your math before you respond. Elon said 1 booster cost 30plus. Dtars said 30-35. Elon says it’s 70% of the cost of the rocket. I’ll use the 35 as it seems to be reasonable although I think it’s still a bit aggressive. I’ll use Elon’s 70% number but I would suggest it’s lower, probably more like 65%, but it’s just an estimate. That gives a total cost of $50,000 which isn’t that far off. if you plug in 65% which I think is more representative, it’s more like 55,000. We’re using his numbers here. I still personally lean towards the actual cost being 55,000 at the low end.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            Your numbers are all messed up.

            As DSTARS said, SpaceX apparently has stated that the FIRST STAGE costs $30-35 million (with all new parts).

            SpaceX has also said that 75% (not the 65% which you just made up out of your head) is the cost that FIRST STAGE.

            So using $30 mill), then the whole rocket costs = $40 mill and using the high end ($32.5 mill) = about $44 mill.

            My SWAG was $40 mill.
            You stated = “ I ran a few quick numbers and I would suggest that 55-60 million is probably closer… It reinforces my faith that my estimate for the total rocket is somewhat more accurate than Simkin’s...

            Somehow you claim your $15-20 million overestimate is better than my SWAG which was right on the money.

            Amazing

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            The range stated was 30M-35M. You used 30M, I’ll use the 35M as I believe it is more real number. You used 75% which is the number that Elon said is the percentage that represents the cost of the total hardware relative to the cost of the entire launch (which I think is reasonable). The number you should have used is 70% (stated elsewhere in this forum) which is the percentage Elon stated is the percentage of the first stage relative to the rest of the rocket. Using those numbers, you have 50M. Beyond that, my guesstimate was made before I saw Elon’s numbers and to be frank (in my personal opinion) I believe, knowing how the game is played, that no CEO gives out the real numbers, and will always use numbers that paint the more favorable picture.
            My personal belief is that 35M and 65% ring more plausible. That comes out to about 54M and from years of being burned I would suggest it’s foolish not add a minimum 10% pad to any rough guesstimate, but we can leave that out for now. So, using Elons numbers at face value, you have 50M and using my numbers you have 54M, and that’s without using any guesstimate padding (which nobody does in the real world).

        • Odyssey2020 says:
          0
          0

          True, the numbers probably don’t add up for SpaceX and for ULA as well.

          We can only surmise the numbers are somewhere in between.

        • Michael Spencer says:
          0
          0

          “there are some very smart people (that have proven to be fairly objective) who believe the numbers don’t really add up”

          Like who? I don’t think I’ve seen a cogent discussion anywhere that would support this point?

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            While most won’t make blatant public allegations for obvious reasons, and I won’t throw anyone under the bus here, you can start with Dr. Scott Pace (B.S. Physics Harvey Mudd, Masters Aeronautical Engineering MIT, Doctorate Policy Analysis Rand Graduate School). First Senate hearing about an hour in, he all but calls SpaceX out on their claimed numbers, at one point referring to it as magic. He says he accepts the numbers but clearly insinuates he doesn’t believe them. That’s about as bold as you’ll see in public. Behind the scenes, it’s a vibrant topic for conversation.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            I suspect that Dr. Pace does not have any internal numbers from SpaceX.

          • numbers_guy101 says:
            0
            0

            It’s unfathomable to some, but I think the worst for those who are very technically minded, that indirect costs, so much about how, not what, can be of such a great effect on costs and flight rate. I still can present these facts as assorted data to stakeholders and can see the ears being turned off, or the implications being struggled with at best. A poor design can mean costs, but it’s also a result of poor process that it does not get better, and it’s all about process when it comes to costs. An Atlas could go for as much as a Falcon 9, more or less, just replacing new ways of doing business atop the existing design. Those processes would also quickly and at low cost fix any design into a 2.0 and a 3.0 Atlas and so on that became competitive with any Falcon-albeit SpaceX might be on version who-knows by then. ULA has challenges, but the worse challenge is the many people inside and outside the ULA world and many in (NASA and AF) who just don’t get it and will always ignore even facts.

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            Some good points. With regards to my comment about high level individuals questioning the numbers, most of them are long past the “very technically minded” phase and are acutely aware of all the associated costs. Some of them write and sign the contracts from RFI stage going forward that put these things in the air. Some of them run entire facilities (and not just “old space”) When I hear their doubts about the numbers, I find it worth noting. We can each choose whether we think the idea has merit or not, but the narrative is out there.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            Actually that’s a fairly creative [and perhaps irresponsible] interpretation of Dr. Pace’s comments; he stressed that there are differences between the two accounting systems, his use of the word ‘magic’ clearly had no negative implications or implied black-cloud or nefarious suspicions.
            Dr. Pace has a well-earned reputation for fairness and even-handedness [I doubt he’s ever told a joke in his life, though:-)]

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            I would only suggest you note the timing of the comments relative to the topic at hand, and listen again. I’ll leave it there…

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            These are the individuals who get run over and never see what hit them. They don’t understand the flexible, proactive, nimble and dynamic disruptive world of an entrepreneurial explosion.
            Henry Ford, Edison, Rockefeller, Jobs, Musk, et al, destroy their competition because the competition can’t wrap their heads around alternative ways. They simply cannot grasp how these newbies are are doing what they are doing and decide is must be some bogus house of cards.
            Plus those dudes were ruthless.

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            Agree to the general point. In the specific case, I am only telling you what is being discussed by legitimate people in the industry, not all of whom are dinosaurs. 🙂

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            Which hearing are you referring to? Pace has said “As
            a potential competitor for national security launches, SpaceX is innovative, real, and
            brings an intense focus on cost control while meeting customer launch needs.”

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            Last years Senate hearing with Gass and Musk, about 1 hour in.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            A link plz, if you have one. Save some serious google depletion.

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            https://www.youtube.com/wat… Also, my memory ain’t what it used to be; go about 1:10 in rather than 1:00

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            I think you misunderstood what he said. He said that SpaceX uses a different style of accounting costs, appropriate for a commercial business but not like the detail that NASA as a government agency is used to from its vendors. They could not get the level of microscopic detail that NASA was used to as a cost-plus buyer. But, as he said with a smile, altho NASA could not see the magic under the hood that SpaceX uses, “they appreciate the results”. He was admiring them, not casting doubt on their numbers.

            And a year later, with 10 more successful flights, he said, “As a potential competitor for national security launches, SpaceX is innovative, real, and brings an intense focus on cost control while meeting customer launch needs.” as SpaceX demonstrated that it works.

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            My sense is that you are a pretty sharp and passionate person when it comes to this industry. Scott’s statements were as bold a declaration as you will hear, given the current environment; interpret them as you will.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            Two people here have commented and neither see your interpretation of the testimony as correct. Particularly when you see Pace’s glowing compliment from a year later seems to confirm our reading of his earlier comments.

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            I entered a response to you elsewhere in this string.

          • richard_schumacher says:
            0
            0

            Did Dr. Pace have any role in developing NASA’s cost models?

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            He was in program analysis, so he certainly used a variety of cost models, but developing cost models is a different deal handled by a large number of people.

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            I happen to have run across the following article while researching something else and thought of you. In Elon’s own words, he acknowledges that some people don’t believe his prices are deliverable. He dismisses it which is fine. My point was a pretty simple one from the very beginning; some people don’t believe his numbers are viable. That article was 4 years ago; now that the prices are close to double and Elon claims to be profitable, I personally think it’s not quite as far out there, but I’m just telling you that the skepticism is still there. http://www.cbsnews.com/news

        • Yale S says:
          0
          0

          SpaceX is a private company. Other than its private funding sources who is there that knows enough to render any judgement?

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            Didn’t say there was any judgement at all. Again, I simply said that there is a lot of discussion by experienced and educated people that believe that the numbers don’t add up. You may not find that of interest; I’m just letting people who may be interested know that the narrative is out there. I personally always like hearing what some of the influential people in our industry are thinking.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            I don’t see it. The example you provided did not demonstrate your point. It purely and only made the point that all of SpaceX’s costs and processes are not exposed to detailed scrutiny, not in any way concluding that the numbers don’t add up. That is a mis-characterization. Other examples?

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            Again, sorry the example didn’t work for you. Given my position I can only point to public domain. Believe the narratives at a high level on this topic don’t exist if you want. That’s your choice. But do some digging and keep an open mind, if you have an interest.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            Point to somewhere in the public domain.

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            Just so the discussion doesn’t spin out of control, this is what I said: “there are some very smart people (that have proven to be fairly objective) who believe the numbers don’t really add up.” I can only tell you from personal experience that this has been a topic of conversation for a number of years. When you asked for an example, the only public one that stuck out in my mind was Dr. Pace, and that was only because I remembered being a little surprised (and amused) that he said it in that forum. I have made no public accusations of wrong doing, nor I suspect would anyone else. I merely stated that the topic is discussed, which actually shouldn’t surprise you. Just for fun, go back and listen again, starting with the comments by Gass and Musk leading into Dr. Pace’s comments. Ask yourself if the context made sense, and if not, why was the subject brought up at that specific time. Then pretend you had been involved in discussions about the viability of the numbers over the years and listen to his words carefully. It may or may not look a little different, but might be entertaining. 🙂

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            You claim some mysterious secret knowledge you’re privy to due to you secret employment. The only non-secret evidence you are empowered to reveal, in fact, does not in any way support your claims. I think you must either stop accusing SpaceX of hinky numbers or take responsibility for your claims with evidence, not veiled whispers.

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            Once again, what I said was “there are some very smart people (that have proven to be fairly objective) who believe the numbers don’t really add up.” Someone asked for an example, and the only one that came to mind, that was documented, was Dr.Paces. You and Michael don’t hear it the same way, and that’s fine. Now what is surprising to me that it caused such a stir. I’ve never “claim(ed) some mysterious secret knowledge” because IT ISN’T A SECRET! What really surprises me is that it hasn’t occurred to you (of all people) that industry folks would be talking about this, for any number of reasons, even envy if want to believe that. You seem to always stay a bit ahead of the curve. In any event, if you want a new topic to chew on that may challenge your view of the industry, I would be happy to send some thoughts to you and then let you decide if it’s worth posting. It’s not a “mysterious secret”, but it is related to this discussion, and yes, it is talked about in non-secret but not broadcast to the public conversations. BTW, enjoy your stuff on the climate change front!

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            The comments you must be hearing are from those people I mentioned before who are obsolete and don’t know it yet. They are being obliterated and don’t understand how and they blame some hanky-panky rather than their failure to reform.

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            You seemed a strong, reasoned voice and I thought you would have an interest in some of the things that were really going on, not just the stuff you hear in the press. You wanted to know who was doubting the viability of the numbers. The fact that it was pointed out to you should have been enough to get your gears turning. The correct question should have been “what are the specific concerns about the numbers?”. You never asked that. In any event, I guess I don’t believe in lost causes: lets start with an obvious one. Look at the real world of young manufacturing companies and look at how make/buy ratios evolve. Now try to think about what things you might have to do to move the ratio anywhere close to what SpaceX is intimating. If you don’t start having questions, then I can’t help you. If you do, then let me know. Sorry Simkin. I’m getting cranky in my old age, but I guess I lose patience when people of obvious intelligence would rather stay trenched in on a position rather than be open to possibly gaining some new insight, even if it’s just for the sport. BTW, contrary to what you seem to assume, I happen to believe in what Elon is accomplishing, I just believe in keeping my eyes open.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            You are not now, nor previously, supplying the slightest evidence to support what you say.

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            I gave you a starting point on a basic topic. Did you spend a little time studying manufacturing start-ups, especially regarding incubation/growth and the natural and controllable adjustments of your make/buy ratios as you grow? Maybe even ask some friends in the industry. Then go back and trace the rise of SpaceX from the early 2000’s and see how it compares. Then do a little research into the general range that SpaceX is supposedly operating today and compare it to other manufactures of similar size and product. This is just one of the areas that should cause you to raise your eyebrows a bit. The information is out there, but you need to learn it on your own. You aren’t one to take someones word, which is probably a good thing.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            OK. I asked you for some sources and you gave the Dr. Pace comments, which hardly go to your point. Any other sources that actually support your implications?

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            Just copied a response I sent to Simkin:
            Just so the discussion doesn’t spin out of control, this is what I said: “there are some very smart people (that have proven to be fairly objective) who believe the numbers don’t really add up.” I can only tell you from personal experience that this has been a topic of conversation for a number of years. When you asked for an example, the only public one that stuck out in my mind was Dr. Pace, and that was only because I remembered being a little surprised (and amused) that he said it in that forum. I have made no public accusations of wrong doing, nor I suspect would anyone else. I merely stated that the topic is discussed, which actually shouldn’t surprise you. Just for fun, go back and listen again, starting with the comments by Gass and Musk leading into Dr. Pace’s comments. Ask yourself if the context made sense, and if not, why was the subject brought up at that specific time. Then pretend you had been involved in discussions about the viability of the numbers over the years and listen to his words carefully. It may or may not look a little different, but might be entertaining. 🙂

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            The reply I got in e-mail doesn’t show up here. Can you tell me how to do that? I have some things you might find interesting but don’t necessarily want to openly post. Thanks.

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        Shotwell said 170 million for FH. well if they recover all three cores isn’t their cost to fly Falcon H under 50 million? 100 million Plus profit isn’t bad on one flight.

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          It will depend if they get the inner core back and how much extra doing military contracts truely do add to the cost. Do not think congress is done trying to increase SpaceX’s costs to make them more inline with SLS.

        • Odyssey2020 says:
          0
          0

          It’ll cost a lot to refurbish those 3 cores so it’s hard to tell how much a FH launch will truly cost.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            I don’t think it will.
            Maybe at first, but it is in SpaceX interest in fact their survival to harden their booster design so there is very little refurbishment cost.

          • Jeff2Space says:
            0
            0

            Eventually they would like to get to a point where there is “very little refurbishment cost”, but that is absolutely not necessary in the beginning. Just being able to recover and inspect their stages after every flight will help them improve upon reliability (even if the stages are only re-flown as test vehicles in New Mexico). Once they get to the point where they are reusing stages on actual launches, this decreases the demands on the manufacturing facilities.

            One step at a time:
            1. Recovery and inspection
            2. Test re-flights in New Mexico
            3. Re-flight on an orbital mission.

          • Jeff2Space says:
            0
            0

            Depends on your definition of “a lot”. I would suspect it will cost a lot less to re-fly a Falcon 9 core/first stage than it did to refurbish the shuttle SRBs.

            Still, as long as it costs less than the cost to build a new stage, SpaceX comes out ahead. The side effect of reusing cores is the reduced need to produce cores at an ever increasing rate to keep up with the increasing demand for launches. This is a point that is not often made, but is critical to the overall business plan of SpaceX.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            SpaceX’s very specific stated goal is to not refurbish, but to reuse. They expect to simply refuel and fly dozens of times between extensive maintanence. Their model is the airliner.

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            Elon saying “their model is the airliner” is simply meant for the media; it makes for a cool sound bite. You know as well as I do that comparing a rocket to an airliner makes about as much sense as comparing the building of a limited run of Ferrari’s to a Model T assembly line.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            It is not just for the media. It is both SpaceXs stated goal, and a key component of their plans.

            The engines are basic, radiatively-cooled medium thrust motors. How are they much different than a jet engine? SpaceX has put the engines thru more than 40 cycles. To quote Musk: “There is no meaningful limit. We would have to replace a few parts that experience thermal stress after 40 cycles, but the rest of the engine would be fine.”. The avionics shouldn’t need repairs. The rocket body and tanks should be fine. Why should it not be simply a matter of doing a checkout, and then gassing it up?

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            Sorry, I’m not usually this blunt, but in this case you’re wrong. The statement IS just for the media (and the public). It’s simply there to set the narrative, and marginalize the difficulties, which is a standard persuasive technique. While he and I were referring to the techno/business model, you jumped to the mechanical similarities, so we’ll start there. Are you kidding me with the “radiatively-cooled medium thrust motors” comparison”?! Three or four Merlins could run California on an average day. They are controlled, high order bombs. Their cycles are measured in minutes, jet engines are measured in thousands of hours, so stop with the mechanical comparison and dismissing the effort in turn-around. The business model comparison is even more of joke. The numbers are many orders of magnitude apart. When it comes to strategic planning, in the real world, with real dollars, the comparisons are of no practical use. Like I said, it’s a nice sound bite.
            BTW, funny you should mention that the tanks should be fine. Do you know why he is having a problem with his helium tanks? Look up Arde, a manufacturer in New Jersey, and do some research. If you are the least bit sharp, which I think you are, it should lead you back to our discussion on the certification struggles and how he attempts to get his make/buy numbers to look better. It’s not as pretty as you think. Again, I appreciate the change Elon is bringing to the industry, but open your eyes!

          • Jeff2Space says:
            0
            0

            Certainly modern turbofan jet engines are currently rated to run thousands of hours between tear-downs, but that wasn’t always the case. Shooting down “aircraft like operations” is only meaningful when you specify the aircraft and engine type used for comparison.

            I would personally compare the Falcon 9R first stage to something like the J-58 turbojet engines on an SR-71, which were far more maintenance intensive than a modern turbofan engine. http://www.blackbirds.net/u

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            That’s a lot closer to reality, and you don’t tend to see J-58’s on commuter planes! 🙂

          • Jeff2Space says:
            0
            0

            Aerospace history fans will know how labor intensive the SR-71 was to maintain, including the J-58 engines. That said, there never was an “expendable” version of the SR-71, even early on in the program.

            Launch vehicles should not be designed to be deliberately expended after each use. Even if the cost to refurbish and re-fly were the same as building a new vehicle, reuse still makes sense for a couple of reasons:

            1. A recovered and re-flown vehicle will necessarily be inspected. This inspection process provides critical data to engineers about the robustness of the vehicle (i.e. how close it came to failure). These insights cannot always be gained by telemetry. This allows the engineers to improve upon the design, increasing reliability over the long run.

            2. Re-flying vehicles necessarily reduces the number of vehicles which must be manufactured every year. This reduces infrastructure costs by allowing the production facilities to be “leaner” than they would need to be to support the same launch rate using expendable vehicles.

            So, in the long run, re-flying vehicles proves advantageous, even if there is little to no cost savings.

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            100% agreement here. This whole thread started when I said that the “using the airliner as a model” comment was really just a nice sound bite for the media and there was some disagreement. I happen to be in favor of quite a few things that Elon is accomplishing, including reusability. I know it’s been looked at a lot over the years by all of us, but was never considered viable to the bean counters. A little like renewable energy, sometimes you have to take the early hit to get the darn ball rolling. If it can come close to standing on it’s own merit, everyone will have to follow.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            You are arguing zero.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            You misunderstand me. SpaceX’s comparison to an aircraft is based on reuse not duty-cycle.
            Yes, his engines have a shorter cycle, but that is not the point.
            The shuttle for example was massively refurbished with much totally disassembled and much replaced. A Falcon, like an airliner is designed to be quick diagnosed, restacked, refueled, then reflown. No refurb until >40 starts, and then only replacement of high thermal stress components.
            This analogy is not MINE. It is SpaceX’s, or they fudging that too like you claim they do with tier numbers?

            SpaceX
            “SpaceX believes a fully and rapidly reusable rocket is the pivotal breakthrough needed to substantially reduce the cost of space access. The majority of the launch cost comes from building the rocket, which flies only once. Compare that to a commercial airliner – each new plane costs about the same as Falcon 9, but can fly multiple times per day, and conduct tens of thousands of flights over its lifetime.
            Following the commercial model, a rapidly reusable space launch vehicle could reduce the cost of traveling to space by a hundredfold.”

            Sebastian:
            “single-digit hours” between landing and next flight, at least for the lower stages.
            “Multiple flights per day for first stage and side boosters,” Musk says.

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            Lot’s of great sounding statements from SpaceX. Simple question; do you take the following statement in it’s entirety at face value?
            “Following the commercial model, a rapidly reusable space launch vehicle could reduce the cost of traveling to space by a hundredfold.”

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            Yes.

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            Thank you for the straight response. Take any launch number you choose. We’ll start with non-heavies. SpaceX at 90M ULA at 233M. Divide by a hundred and take that number to one of your friends in the industry. Ask them if that number would even begin to cover fuel, range fees, documentation, etc. (and it is a big etc.), let alone processes and any hardware cost, either capital or routine. BTW, you once challenged my statement that people in the industry were saying that his numbers didn’t add up. You said show you in print. I have done you one better, I have it in Elons own words. I have included the link here. http://www.cbsnews.com/news…. Even at current prices which are closing in on double his early target prices, they still don’t think it’s a viable self supporting business. Personally I think it’s getting closer than some do, but can’t prove it.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            Each jet engine on a Boeing 777-300ER at takeoff can produce about 80% of the thrust of a SpaceX Merlin 1D. Are they “They are controlled, high order bombs.”?

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            Yeah, with a thrust to weight ratio of about 7 as opposed to 150 for the Merlin. Like I said, built to support a completely different techno/business model with entirely different boundary conditions. BTW, at a T/W ratio of 150, the bomb reference isn’t far off. 🙂

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            And right now @torybruno wishes he had a model T

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            Ain’t that the truth! 🙂

        • Neowolf says:
          0
          0

          If the government only buys launches on unused cores, then the savings from reuse will go to the customers who are willing to buy launches on reused cores. The feds will still be paying a full price. A nice feaure of this business model is it enables SpaceX to charge non-government customers less for a launch than they charge the feds, since they are buying different services.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            So. Spacex sells/launches reusable rockets in the 2018 to 2020 time frame and about 2020 DoD starts buying reusable rocket services because they are proven more reliable.
            DoD relaxes certification rules to help ULA get new rocket on line sooner.
            Gov. keeps ULA in business for Assured Access.
            The future looks bright for affordable launch :}

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            Take it to the next step: using the refurbs, DoD finds that once again ULA is priced out of the market…

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            And lobbyists desend on D.C. and drop millions into campaign coffers and somehow ULA gets more contracts. … smiles

          • EtOH says:
            0
            0

            Re-use lowers their costs overall and they can certainly use some of those savings to lower the price of DOD launches. Certainly they might choose not to, particularly if they have no competitors for price in that market, but that’s just how markets work.

      • Lewis says:
        0
        0

        “The reason SpaceX exists is monopoly pricing. Unless a monopoly is protected by the government and capital is not allowed to enter a competitor will always move capital in to get a piece of the extra normal profits the monopoly is generating.”

        Musk put in a hundred million, NASA 1.2 billion, France ?, … and you’re saying that Space X is not government supported?

        Space X did not move capital in to get a piece of extra normal profits. The company was built with seed money from a NASA administrator.

        I’m starting to think that if there was serious accounting on all this, these rockets are all costing the same thing. It’s just that the accounting is from the hip, from all parties. Not just you.

        • Yale S says:
          0
          0

          Launch vehicle funding is not the same as funding spacecraft. Ula is a launch service.

          • Lewis says:
            0
            0

            ULA is a front for Boeing/Lockheed Martin. They’re all public corporations that contract to the government. You can call it a launch service if you like. Who cares?

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            Actually, if you look at the contracts, SpaceX is much more in the “launch service” model, not that it makes a difference. Frankly, that’s part of Elon’s genius! ULA has some catching up to do when it comes to business savvy.

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          Please show me where I wrote that SpaceX is not government supported.
          SpaceX originally moved capital in for a green house project he wanted to send to mars.
          Once SpaceX when to venture capitalists, for capital infusions it was to get a piece of the HUGE profit margins of the established players.

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          “Musk: So I started with a crazy idea to spur the national will. I called it the Mars Oasis missions. The idea was to send a small greenhouse to the surface of Mars, packed with dehydrated nutrient gel that could be hydrated on landing. You’d wind up with this great photograph of green plants and red background—the first life on Mars, as far as we know, and the farthest that life’s ever traveled. It would be a great money shot, plus you’d get a lot of engineering data about what it takes to maintain a little greenhouse and keep plants alive on Mars. If I could afford it, I figured it would be a worthy expenditure of money, with no expectation of financial return.”

          http://www.wired.com/2012/1

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          “Musk put in a hundred million, “
          That was only his first amount of direct funding.

          When a company SELLS a product or service the profits are now that company. Musk is the majority shareholder. That means those profits are his, in the form of RETAINED EARNINGS. Musk can do whatever he wants with those earnings. He could take out those earning and spend them … OR .. he can plow them back into the company .. INCREASING how much he has put into the company.

          • Lewis says:
            0
            0

            He’s not a majority holder. It’s not a public company. And I’m sure you’re not privy to his accounting, nor can you be.

            You are privy to our hundred year old aerospace corporations’ books, some aspects easily, other available after an foia. And the profits are basically going into pensions for oh, 50 million (a rough guess, probably low) American citizens, among others.

            Also, One point two billion dollars (what Griffin cited in an oral history dictated in 2013) is what Space X had received up to that point. Now it’s more. They got the TRW fast track engine that was a contender for the shuttle. They pay for that? We did. Also, they’re getting a pretty good deal on 39A, which I think is really awful, building on the crawler way like it’s the driveway to the Packard plant in Detriot.

            I think that a person looking closely with an accounting background, time and skills would find some serious problems with this idea that there’s money being saved. As if that’s really important in the first place.

            20 launches. Everyone is yelling that it’s a great success. The owner suing the United States Airforce for the business he really wants. Overstating what ULA is getting paid. Ignoring a what, a 90 straight launch success rate…

            You guys are going to look rather foolish when the first space X vehicle blows up, don’t you think? Think of the bad dreams you’ll be having.

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            “Elon Musk, SpaceX’s founder and chief executive, is the company’s largest shareholder.” –

            http://spacenews.com/spacex

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            What the hell does not being a public company have to do with a CORPORATION having stock and shareholders? … sheesh

          • Lewis says:
            0
            0

            What does not being a public company have to do with a corporation having stock and shareholders?

            I don’t understand the question. Are you asking me what they have in common?

            Maybe this will help. Because it’s a private company, this entity spawned with one point two billion dollars of NASA money… the owner is allowed to take 90 million and buy bonds from another company that’s not doing so good.

            Ninety million in Solar City bonds! Wow, you guys are just kicking ass! A new space rocket and solar panels! Groovy!

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            ULA is only a launch service.
            SpaceX operates as both a launch service, with its Falcon rockets, and as an operator of currently cargo to ISS and soon crew to ISS using specialized spacecraft.
            The vast bulk of government cash (other than launch fees like DSCOVR) was developing and flying cargo and crew spacecraft.
            SpaceX’s rockets (which compete with ULA’s rockets) are essentially on private dimes.
            Read Griffin carefully to see the difference:

            “Substantial amounts of money, hundreds of millions of dollars, are being provided to the private companies. If SpaceX continues on along its current path, it will have received approximately $1.2 billion in government money from the collective programs. I’m rounding, but with this recent $400-plus million award under CCiCap [Commercial Crew integrated Capability], that brings the total SpaceX funding to something around $1.2 billion, maybe a little more.”

            BTW – They got the TRW fast track engine that was a contender for the shuttle.
            What they got was the concept for TRW’s pintle injector from the Lunar Module descent engine in the 1960’s.
            What is your point? All US aerospace enterprises use NASA’s hard won knowledge paid by the taxpayers. That is specifically part of the purpose of NASA.
            SpaceX invented the liquid-fueled rocket? Created rendezvous and docking?
            No, they stand on the shoulders of giants.

          • Lewis says:
            0
            0

            I’m well aware of the injector design and the overall history of the engine.

            Yes, 1.2 billion. I’m glad you’re reading the former administrator’s testimony, how he doesn’t like any of it. You would also be wise to listen to the likes of Armstrong (when he was alive) and Cernan. Or do you guys know more than Neil Armstrong and Eugene Cernan?

            New Space should be getting a grip on the reality that ULA isn’t receiving “welfare” and also that there’s nothing remarkable about space X.

            Except Space X is taking the fruits of this gifting via “standing on the shoulders of giants”, as you put it, and buying solar panel bonds for another company that Musk is running. Nobody else was buying the bonds, so a hundred million went from the subsidized Space X to junk bonds.

            I think I would prefer the money to finance launch infrastructure, but if we’re going to integrate bonds that the rest of the financial world doesn’t want into the national space program, well, that’s New Space.

            Moreover, as I’ve been saying all along, nothing special is happening with Space X. At best it’s a different looking machine that costs a few points less (not 1/6th or any of that other crazy shit that’s been going around), at worst it’s a snake oil man that’s found a way to extract serious government subsidies to enrich himself at the expense of a national program.

            We did not need any of this. We’re just pissing money away on snake oil.

            New Space sucks.

    • majormajor42 says:
      0
      0

      Boeing and Lockheed would drop SLS/Orion too??? Oh joy!

  9. SpaceMunkie says:
    0
    0

    Booohooo, they’re not playing fair!!, Make them play fair!!!!! Well Mr Musk, you are not playing fair either, you don’t have to follow FAR regulations for buying parts and services.

    • Yale S says:
      0
      0

      Details, please.

    • numbers_guy101 says:
      0
      0

      Firm fixed price contracts have their own FAR rules. Cost plus another set and some overlap. Details please is right. You continue to give out a false narrative.

      • SpaceMunkie says:
        0
        0

        firm price = indefinite delivery
        cost plus = extra cost plus late delivery

        • Daniel Woodard says:
          0
          0

          Cost plus means
          1) The contractor has every incentive to raise cost if it can get away with it
          2) Half the money is spent proving that the other half was actually spent on the contract
          3) No matter how much the government spends there is nothing left over. The contractor has no discretionary funds.
          4) If the contract ends all the experienced workers are fired.

          Firm fixed price means:
          1) A dollar saved is a dollar earned
          2) Paperwork is reduced so much that on a small task productivity can double
          4) The contractor can keep all the money left over to keep R&D going and develop alternative products if there is a gap in work.

          So why so much cost plus and contracts with other complications? One reason is that government contract managers often have little hands-on experience and do not know what their organizations are actually likely to need, how much it should cost, and how to tell if it was really delivered.

          One result is that many tasks are stuffed under Contract Line Item Number 10, optional items which are added (and priced) later, when the government has to go through expensive negotiations for each.

          http://www.gsa.gov/portal/g

          Finally, SpaceX has done and is doing part of its work under a Space Act Agreement which removes some obligations it would have under FARs. The details are beyond my knowledge.

          • SpaceMunkie says:
            0
            0

            exactly, and there is no recourse to fight it, all we can do is just smile and say “ok, when can we get it and how much more is it going to be?”
            We actually have a case where a company is just now delivering stuff ordered for the Ares1 project.

          • SpaceMunkie says:
            0
            0

            if they didn’t make so much money on it, no one contractor would bid on any projects

    • SpaceMunkie says:
      0
      0

      government buys parts and services that are grossly overpriced, and most contractors and sales people put these on backburner because FAR regulations on penalties for late delivery are so ridiculously complex, they are almost impossible to implement.

  10. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    This cnbc article says Spacex average cost for launch is 160 million VS ULAs 223??? Is this Correct?????

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/1025

    Phillip George
    18 hours ago
    I watched the proceeding – where did SpaceX say its average cost was $160 million. At approx. the 35 min mark -Spacex was stated the following –commercial launch average $60, DOD Falcon 9 – $80m, FH to DOD $150 m, and average price to US Govt. of $120m. Spacex also stated that ULA got $11b for 28 launches for an average over $400m for ULA.

    Is Mr. George correct?

  11. RocketScientist327 says:
    0
    0

    Wow – this is must shocking actually. While I completely agree with the USAF I never dreamed they would have done this.

    We will soon be looking at an apples to apples comparison – to quote Mr. LeBranche.

    What is really exciting is now, what do the parent companies do? And what does congress do? ULA should be made its own corporate entity and not have to answer to the parents.

  12. ex-utc says:
    0
    0

    it will never be a level playing field. ULA ( actually Boeing and Lockheed) developed the EELV’s on their own dime, promised 40 launches a year. then it dropped to 10, and they decided they needed two suppliers for redundancy. not enough launches to support two suppliers and recover development costs ( which were higher at Boeing from designing the new engine). Delta II was pushed to the side though it was still viable for many launches . SpaceX built up on NASA monies, bantam and low cost access to space information, but with minimal nasa review and no old infrastructure costs will always have lower costs.
    I will predict that ULA has no choice but to withdraw their services if they get less than 10 launches a year – leaving Elon the monopoly unless Blue Origin wants to go it alone and OrbitalATK gets their act together.

    • spacefx says:
      0
      0

      Nice to hear a level headed voice of reason; you must be in the business! I made the point that the non-level playing field had two sides but it wasn’t well received. I’m not pro or anti ULA or Elon specifically, but I do get the sense that it’s dangerous to say anything that doesn’t fit the standard narrative which seems to be pro Elon. BTW, the claim that SpaceX is (at least partly) built using NASA money has merit; I’ve seen how some of the contracts are set up.

      • Yale S says:
        0
        0

        NASA money mostly went to dragon

        • spacefx says:
          0
          0

          Your point?

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            I was referring to your statement about spacex at least partially being built on NASA money. We are talking about launch vehicles. The big NASA money went to payloads not rockets. ULA and its predecessors had massive government subsidies for their rockets. SpaceX very little.

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            Since Elon covers both sides of the equation, a check to SpaceX is a check to SpaceX, and how he applies it is his concern. I know the contracts are a bit pickier, but that is the beauty of having a privately held business. It also nips around the edges of part of Dr. Paces comments at the Senate hearing referring to accounting practices. Personally, I think Elon should be getting development contracts for as much as he can get. As a tax payer I believe he is getting more bang for our buck. My observation is just to keep the characterizations of ULA and SpaceX fair. Most people seem to believe that SpaceX is completely privately funded and ULA spends none of their own money. As usual, the answer is somewhere in between, not the extreme (ouch, sorry!).

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            Who thinks that that? What have all the competitions been about? What was the controversy about Boeing getting a billion and a half more than spacex to do the same job? Who are these mysterious “most persons” and how do you know what they think.

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            If you can’t agree that the standard perception is that SpaceX is mostly a privately funded company, then don’t worry about it. I won’t waste your time or mine.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            “If you can’t agree that the standard perception is that SpaceX is mostly a privately funded company, “

            Go ahead, waste my time. You talk about what “most people think”, about what people in the know discuss behind closed doors, you “chuckle” about what you think of other people’s comments. Go ahead, clarify. I’m patient.

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            Okay. Speaking to my comment about what “most people think”: just do a google search for general articles on SpaceX. The narrative is of a new, hard charging, free market style rocket company that is shaking up the industry. Their claim has always been that using government money rather than be being a self supporting, market driven business, was an old, outdated way of doing business and was a rip off of the American tax payer. When people think “SpaceX”, they think private company, financed by a silicon valley billionaire. When they think ULA, they think bloated old company living off the government dole. I maintain that is the standard view. Arguing the merits of the two views is a whole different story. BTW, the narrative is the same in the foreign press as well.
            I was “chuckling” because you kept trying to equate ULA’s BURDEN of old infrastructure with Elon’s CAPITAL INVESTMENT in old infrastructure, I guess because they both used the word “infrastructure”. Following is your quote: “Also SpaceX built on “no old infrastructure costs “?No way. Their whole infrastructure (on their dime) has been rehabbing old infrastructure – from their Hawthorne production plant, to SLC-39a.”

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            Give me a google search term that will demonstrate what “most people think”. Otherwise retract your comments.

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            Try Googling “SpaceX”.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            That’s is a totally bogus answer.

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            Sorry. Since you think my characterization of SpaceX’s public image is wrong, I can only suggest that you read any number of profile pieces that have been published over the years. When taken in total, you’ll find that the stories support my characterization as to the public image of SpaceX. To find them, just google “SpaceX”.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            Humor me. Show me a selection that I can total.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            Spacex reduced cost of rockets enough to leverage the commercial Market. That’s all that really matters.
            Who cares what people perceive?

            ULA is changing their model to compete!

            Gov. Will changes certification rules to help ULA compete

            All good!

            Also I think Spacex’s cost for one falcon is more like 40 not 55 mil.

            Next up Spacex will recover their faring.

            Note that Spacex choose to go for reusability before flying falcon heavy. Let DoD gravey wait! Meat and potatoes first

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            Good points. While I have said multiple times that what Elon has done to the industry is a good thing, it just bugs me when I believe the narrative doesn’t reflect a fair and balanced picture. But you’re right, that’s a me problem and it doesn’t matter in the big picture.
            On the price thing, using Elon’s numbers, 30+ for the first stage (call it 31.5M) and 70% for the first stage, you have $45M, which is closer to the 40M number than my number. My guesstimate was made before I saw Elon’s numbers and to be frank (in my personal opinion) I would guess, knowing how the game is played, that no CEO gives out the real numbers, and will always use numbers that paint the most favorable picture.
            My personal belief is that 35M and 65% ring more plausible. That comes out to about 54M and from years of being burned I always add 10%. Again, it’s a “personal opinion” take on the numbers, and as you pointed out, it’s for academic fun and it doesn’t really matter in the big picture. You probably saved me a ton of time on useless pontificating! 🙂

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            “My personal belief” is based upon absolutely zero supported evidence.

            “to be frank (in my personal opinion) I would guess, knowing how the game is played, that no CEO gives out the real numbers, and will always use numbers that paint the most favorable picture.”
            Do you have the slightest evidence that Musk is lying? Post it.

            “My personal belief is that 35M and 65% ring more plausible. That comes out to about 54M and from years of being burned I always add 10%”

            SpaceX has stated that it is near $30 mil for the first stage and that it is about 70% of TOTAL LAUNCH COST or about 75% of hardware cost of rocket.

            $54 million COST, as you pulled out of hot air apparently, for a rocket for a fixed launch PRICE of $61 mill (which includes everything for getting your payload into space – fuel, range, integration, etc, etc.)

            So all launch costs can come in for so much under $7mill that they still turn a profit?

            Consider that Shotwell said that when reusability becomes standard that they will drop the PRICE as low as $5 mill or negative $2million loss using your numbers (ignoring your 10% pad which would add another $5mill loss)

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        I get tired of hearing how much money did Musks get or not.
        The most important point is What is he doing with what he gets from NASA/the government.
        Example designing and testing reusable Rockets.

        Who cares if he learned from experience from NASA

        Who cares if he learned from the caveman that invented the wheel.

        With his privately held company he is turning the our stagnant do little Space program into the future kicking and screaming.
        He is Great!

        PS I’m also cheering for ULAs @torybruno too!
        I can’t wait to see what he says n the 13th of April

        • spacefx says:
          0
          0

          Personally, I think Elon should be getting development contracts for as much as he can get. As a tax payer I believe he is getting more bang for the buck. My observation is just to keep the characterizations of ULA and Elon fair. Most people seem to believe that he is completely privately funded and ULA spends none of their own money. BTW, Zeus isn’t bad! I think that if ULA is being honest and that the Blue Origins deal isn’t just a smokescreen, they should drop a total Newspace name and go with “Deep Blue”. I can just see that sitting on the launch pad. Kinda gives me goose bumps! 🙂

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            “Most people seem to believe that he is completely privately funded and ULA spends none of their own money. “
            What evidence do you have pertaining to what “most people” believe?

    • majormajor42 says:
      0
      0

      Boeing and LM’s own dime? USAF phase one, two, and three costs for EELV development were sizable & significant to the taxpayer.
      SpaceX had it’s own nickels in the mix as well as NASA cash. Studies show a little bit more clarity on what those totals were.
      “bantam”?
      space “information”?
      A lot of us would have liked to have seen a ULA option in place of SLS, which would have resolved any flight rate issues. There were some question about conflicts of interest on the part of Boeing and LM behind the scenes however.
      It’s all moot anyway. EELV development was over ten years ago. In less than ten years from now, reusability will be the norm. If nothing else causes ULA to withdraw their services by that point, their lack of reusability at a significant savings will prevent them from existing beyond that singularity.

    • Yale S says:
      0
      0

      “ULA ( actually Boeing and Lockheed) developed the EELV’s on their own dime”
      No.
      “The program office completed its Source Selection in October 1998 and awarded Development and Initial Launch Services contracts to Boeing and Lockheed Martin. Both contractors received a $500M development contract. [or $686 million each in 2014 dollars]. Boeing’s ILS contract was worth $1.38B and Lockheed Martin’s ILS contract was worth $650M.”

      SpaceX built on efficient design, management, and production.
      They chose sophisticated simplicity, and worked their behinds off to get commercial business, rather then wallowing in flabby government pork-bloat like LM and Boeing.

      Also SpaceX built on “no old infrastructure costs “?
      No way. Their whole infrastructure (on their dime) has been rehabbing old infrastructure – from their Hawthorne production plant, to SLC-39a.

      • spacefx says:
        0
        0

        1. While I agree with you that it was not the whole dime, their contributions were 10 figures. Should not be dismissed casually.
        2. ULA is not “actually Boeing and Lockheed”. While it is a joint venture, it is a separate entity (although full disclosure, B+L sit on the board), with it’s own agenda. In fact B+L signed a non compete clause regarding ULA about 10 years ago, which is almost up. They are gearing up to compete now.

        3. Simkin, really?! Equating “rehabbing old infrastructure” to the “old infrastructure costs” that was being discussed?? I had to check the byline to make sure it was you. 🙂

        • Yale S says:
          0
          0

          SpaceX moves to clean slate its acquisitions, essentially stripping everything – processes, hardware, real estate, whatever, down to the bones, and then recreating itself. That journey is only beginning for ULA.

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            Sorry, still chuckling! Elon made smart purchases at bargain basement prices and brought them into the 21st century at minimal cost. Great business man! ULA should take lessons. COMPLETELY unrelated to the “old infrastructure costs” referred to in the earlier discussions. Can’t figure why you keep trying to tie the two together. This is getting a bit off topic, but trying to understand the thought process and where you are going with this has my attention.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            Clarify what you mean then. If you think we are not on the same page, then provide clarifying detail.

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            Sure. One of SpaceX’s obvious and self admitted advantages is that they aren’t saddled with 100’s of millions of dollars of expense related to the current support and future dismantling of the old infrastructure that was part of the old school launch business. This is the well known issue that was being referred to. Your response was ” Their whole infrastructure (on their dime) has been rehabbing old infrastructure – from their Hawthorne production plant, to SLC-39a.” That is strictly capital investment, not related at all.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            ULA is getting $1billion per year of taxpayer bucks just to support their fixed costs. I pity them zero.

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            Pity isn’t the point. Your comparison was a nonsequitur and I was simply pointing it out. BTW, study the history of the billion dollar support and stop using it as a cheap anti-ULA soundbite. As a tax payer there are plenty of reasons to be really disgusted with ULA, but their culpability on that one is somewhat overblown.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            I am still unclear what you are talking about, but you miss my point. with a $1bill per year fund to support the old infrastructure, they have plenty of cash to unwind that old infrastructure and still leave major cash.
            Read this:
            “…the U.S. Air Force and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) pay ULA approximately $1 billion per year through distinct cost-plus-incentive-fee contract line items. These payments cover most of ULA’s fixed costs — for example, launch infrastructure, systems engineering and program management, launch operations, mission integration, base and range support costs, transportation costs, capital depreciation, and non-recurring engineering to name a few — for “up to eight launches” per year. These payments are in addition to the firm-fixed-price that ULA charges for EELV Launch Services (ELS) for each launch ordered through the block buy contract.”

            Their old infrastructure is a major profit center for ULA!
            So I do not pity them for carrying the burden. And as this is the whole point of the USAF announcement heading this thread, neither does the government.

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            I think you’re making an argument where there is none. I’m in agreement here. The payment arrangement will be abandoned, or highly modified, as it should be. Assured access will be achieved through better means, which is a good thing. I’m simply saying that there were very real reasons the system was put in place, and it wasn’t just ULA bilking the government. And, you’ll note that there is no provision for taking cash from those contracts to dismantle the system. For example, one of ULA’s suppliers, Aerojet-Rocketdyne, is apparently in the process of shedding 10% of their workforce and mothballing some major facilities because of the changes we’re talking about, and they are doing it mostly at their own expense.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            Money is fungible. They are getting a bil a year. That frees up the “100’s of millions” you said they spend on dismantling old infrastructure.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            One of SpaceX’s obvious and self admitted advantages is that they aren’t saddled with 100’s of millions of dollars of expense related to the current support and future dismantling of the old infrastructure that was part of the old school launch business.

            Where is that self-admitted?

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            It’s one of the beautiful things about SpaceX’s position and they aren’t shy about talking about it, nor should they be. Sorry to ask, but do you ever actually talk to anybody at SpaceX? I’m sure you can find any good inteview with Elon going back any number of years and it will come up.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            Again with the mysterious interviews. You just make stuff up, don’t you?
            Post a link.

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            OK, tell me, are you truly not aware that SpaceX is not saddled with old school infrastructure??! Do you then not see that this would naturally help them build a more competitive company?? Really?? If you think I’m “making this up”, try asking anyone in the industry if this is not one of SpaceX’s competitive advantages. Or ask anyone in business if this isn’t an obvious competitive advantage. Or try finding an article comparing “old space” and “new space”; it’s not hard. Before you assume someone is “making stuff up”, try doing a little research, you might learn something.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            Sorry, I don’t buy it. I post links and/or quotes when I say something that might need support or clarification. You do not (except once where it actually demonstrated the opposite of your position).
            Things like: ” try asking anyone in the industry”

            Bogus. Provide a direct quote or link.

          • spacefx says:
            0
            0

            Sorry. I had to finally stop when I read one of your other replies. You actually believe that first stage hardware alone can be 70% of a complete launch and 75% of hardware cost (leaving 2.86M for all other launch costs by your numbers). Either you’re just fooling around and sparring for fun, or you truly need to talk to someone in the industry.

    • numbers_guy101 says:
      0
      0

      Not true. The Air Force EELV investment was about $2 billion back in the 90’s. (This would be more now, adjusting for inflation.) The companies put in amounts that have been advertised at close to that, another $2 billion. The total being $4 billion. For this $2 billion the Air Force got 2 models of launcher of flexible configuration, across a payload range from 10t to 23t, now up to 28t on a Delta IV heavy after further investment. The product was ever since rather expensive, with a fixed cost now justified by the companies at $1 billion a year just to be at the ready and stay around. At the time the former payment was justified on the basis of waiting, literally, for payloads that were unpredictable and delayed. Prices of the service portion of a ULA launch in 2015 are about $150M a launch, and this is where numbers like $250M to $300M a ULA launch come from (amortize the $1 billion payment over 8 to 10 DoD launches a year). Higher numbers per launch that are out there are often including other non-ULA costs, such as the costs the Air Force incurs in other associated contracts, the Range and so on. Numbers confusion also occurs when seeing what the average ULA price may be including non-DoD customers like NASA. The NRO payments further cause numbers quoted to vary, etc.

      For Commercial Cargo, NASA put in $600M. The companies again put in about an equal amount. The total came to $1.2B. The product was 2 launchers, with the larger one, Falcon 9 starting at the 10t range, now at 13t to LEO. The product also included 2 new spacecraft, Cygnus and Dragon. The SpaceX launcher has a private sector price of about $60M, as compared to an Atlas at multiples of that. So you can see how the controversy ensues when comparing Atlas at similar payload class to Falcon 9, with the later being multiples, if not an order of magnitude, less in development, and some multiples less in price as well. Additionally, SpaceX is seizing back to the US sat launch business that would have gone abroad, something ULA has been unable to do. Additionally, NASA benefited indirectly, creating a lower cost option for it’s science payloads beyond just the cargo runs to ISS.

      As to the Future-we see it. NASA will encourage private sector providers to grow and prosper first, that we may step in and buy at the margin, as a service, later. And we know we need lightening to strike twice, and then some.