ULA Vs SpaceX: Just Bring More Money
Washington’s ‘Star Wars’, Politico
“A Washington brawl has broken out over the future of the U.S. military’s ability to reach orbit, with the powerhouse combo of Boeing and Lockheed Martin jostling with the scrappy yet well-funded upstart of entrepreneur Elon Musk’s SpaceX for multibillion-dollar contracts for launching satellites. The competition is upending the norms of the defense contractor heavyweights, who are not used to dealing with relatively fresh rivals, and has released a flood of lobbying cash. SpaceX has spent more than $1.3 million on lobbying this year and while the Boeing-Lockheed joint effort, called United Launch Alliance, spent more than $900,000 both on pace to easily set new records for the companies once the final quarter of 2015 is reported.”
Please call this by its proper name: the military-industrial-congressional complex expansion program.
So many politicians pray to the God of Free Enterprise with the mantra of ‘let the marketplace sort it out!’.
Turns out the battle is only partly fought in the marketplace. No matter. Elon came to play.
Let the free market decide, having corporations/CEOs only look out for their shareholders, and 1-2 yr ROI with today’s stock for pay incentives–not the nation. In many cases, competition means duplication and excess capacity.
Shuttle could launch about a dozen times per year, which would translate into 1000mT/yr, quite a robust Exploration program–not to mention the benched fleet. Today, there is not sufficient cash to develop and launch any HSF mission BEO. The result: the wrong architecture, ‘distributed launch’, again without a gas station, since there is no need because of the low launch rate, compromising every path forward.
I’d like to give you New Spacers a good dose of “free market” decisions. SpaceX could lead the way by re-paying back to the treasury all of the federal grants and subsidies it has received over the years to pay for its R&D costs.
Fair is fair…So how many years at 3B/yr will old space pay back for shuttle derived at Cost Plus? Atlas/Delta upgrades? What is the cost for Falcon Crew vs certifying a LV that will be retired again? For developing Orion? Yes, there were constraints beyond their control.
Hey what about Oil and corn subsidies– hasn’t fracking been around for over 60 years per the ‘info’ commercials? and do not forget the ethanol mistake. First lesson in making money…use other folks’ money.
The great news is that many R&D efforts have had ROI and job creation.
Only if Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and ULA did the same thing — and did it first, since they’ve been doing that since the 60s or longer.
What you suggest is not really the “free market way”. SpaceX should consider all the money federal government gave them as investments, and therefore taxpayers should be shareholders of the company. The treasury should have seats on SpaceX’s board and voting rights according to the shares the government holds. The same should apply to Boeing and Lockmart, and very likely these two are actually state owned.
Or they could consider those funds paid for services rendered.
“SpaceX should consider all the money federal government gave them as investments, and therefore taxpayers should be shareholders of the company.”
Sure, because when you buy a car, you get stock in the company, right?
When you hire a service to mow your lawn, you get stock in the company, right?
You get stock in your mobile phone company every month when you pay your bill, right?
No, SpaceX doesn’t consider the money they got from the government as an investment, because the government was purchasing services with that money.
Well, I’d like to see you Old Spacers explain the enormous costs of development paid to ULA and ilk while SpaceX develops a complete rocket system for less than $1B. And most of it internal cash.
Look at the costs of the proposed Vulcan as an instance. Elon has to be laughing.
“e-paying back to the treasury all of the federal grants and subsidies”
What grants and subsidies? They’ve had a string of contracts with deliverables.
I like free enterprise. And we need government. But government does tend to taint everything it touches.
I’m too tired to tangle with you, Mr. Sink 🙂 While a statement like that deserves a response, I’ve had tree weeks of kidney stones. Another time.
Very sorry to hear that, Michael. That sounds absolutely miserable. Get well soon, and I promise to let you beat me up bad as my contribution to your healing process.
Is it odd that when I see those numbers my reaction is “is that all?”
Actually, I’m not sure. What’s the going rate for a congressional vote? I haven’t priced them recently. Also, are they cheaper to rent than buy?
Seriously, I think I can stay within this site’s policies if I make one comparison. When someone running for president announced plans to spend $2 million per week on his campaign, that was considered large enough to make front-page news. $2 million per year for the launch industry lobbying Congress is over 2% of $2 million per week for a well-funded presidential campaign. That’s actually quite a lot, relatively speaking.
Of course, that $2 million is pretty small compared to the value of the federal contracts involved. Perhaps that should be considered extremely efficient, targeted marketing.
It’s hospitality to politicians that influences decisions in government, not value to the taxpayer!
I wonder about that as well. Take the whole ULA-engine thing with players from Alabama, New Mexico, Moscow, and Virginia as well as a ‘failure to bid’ that was surely simple showmanship. Keith covered the issue relentlessly but never got to the heart of the questions involved or the discussions happening at the highest levels.
It’s not for lack of trying but lack of access, and that’s exactly what those $$$ buy. The real story will remain hidden behind a checkbook.
Michael Spencer well said about the most recent comment you made 1 hour ago completely agree with you. You have elegance poetic saying in several your comment nicely done, thank you much.