-
#100
by
clongton
on 11 Jun, 2014 11:23
-
I am just so saddened to see ULA stoop SO low.
Did they really believe that all those people in that room were that stupid?
-
#101
by
Oli
on 11 Jun, 2014 12:30
-
Wow, that's even worse than SpaceX' marketing.
Know the facts, understand the truth.
LoL
@chronsciguy @ulalaunch @SpaceX @elonmusk I imagine the Nokia board had a similar chart when the iPhone was launched.
One of the funnier responses. 
I wish people would stop making such idiotic comparisons.
-
#102
by
edkyle99
on 11 Jun, 2014 15:53
-
Both Mr. Gass and Mr. Musk stretched the facts during that hearing. Both claimed, for example, 100% success. Both knew better.
Yes, this is all unseemly, these contractors harping at one another, airing their dirty laundry in public.
But, seriously, when was the last time the space business was this much fun?
- Ed Kyle
-
#103
by
savuporo
on 11 Jun, 2014 15:54
-
Ok, cries of low tactics etc - fully warranted but not too constructive or interesting.
| NASA contracts 2007- now | 2.6B | 2.5B |
| NASA Launches 2007 - now | 11 | 3 |
| NASA Contracted $/Launch | $240M | $840M |
| NASA Mass Delivered to Orbit | 72,622lbs | 6671lbs |
| NASA Cost/lb | $36k | $378k |
| BLEO Launches | 6 | 0 |
The numbers
do look pretty bad.
How does the picture change if we move the beginning of the window to first Falcon 1.1 launch ? With the best cherry picking, how good can this picture become ? What if we extrapolate to next two years of booked manifests, too ?
-
#104
by
RedLineTrain
on 11 Jun, 2014 16:25
-
Furthermore, ULA doesn't account for the weight of the Dragon that was lifted. Rather, only cargo is included.
And then, the cost of each Dragon is included in launch costs.
Obviously dishonest. Makes you wonder how ULA came up with the $225 million cost for its own Air Force Atlas V flights.
-
#105
by
savuporo
on 11 Jun, 2014 17:04
-
Note that noone has taken a honest stab at posting a corrected table. Feel free to cherry pick the timeframes
-
#106
by
rcoppola
on 11 Jun, 2014 17:22
-
Note that noone has taken a honest stab at posting a corrected table. Feel free to cherry pick the timeframes
I would think perhaps showing it as launch contract to launch contract:
SpaceX
Contract - $1.6B
Launches - 12
Per launch - $133M
Mass-to-orbit 44,000lbs (forgot if down mass was included in this or not)
$36k per lb
*Doesn't include Dragons' mass (Not sure if it should) which technically is mass-to-orbit unless you say it's the equivalent of a complex fairing used to just protect / hold/ deliver it's internal cargo)
-
#107
by
rcoppola
on 11 Jun, 2014 17:35
-
You have to give it to them, the 109% price increase Vs. 5% cost reduction is a nice touch.
-
#108
by
Chris Bergin
on 11 Jun, 2014 17:59
-
Right. Thread trimmed. A whole lot of nonsense followed the posting of that chart.
The ridiculous posts have been removed, as have some probably OK posts, because some people we foolish enough to QUOTE the stupid posts. And I'm not spending all day cutting quotes out of posts. DO NOT quote stupid posts, or your post will be removed as a result of the trim.
DO NOT quote stupid posts, allowing yourself a stupid post, because you know it'll go. That's a fast way to get sanctioned.
One single stupid post from this point onwards and you'll get sanctioned.
-
#109
by
baldusi
on 11 Jun, 2014 19:38
-
You have to give it to them, the 109% price increase Vs. 5% cost reduction is a nice touch.
I would like the GAO opinion on that. Apparently the 2012 price hike was an illusion. I'll repeat it. Having so many good things and positive comparisons where they basically show their quality and capability difference, they really didn't had to fall so low.
I didn't liked the graph because they failed to pot the v1.0 on SpaceX side. But then they could have talked about then putting Delta I/II/III and Atlas (and may be even Titan). So you have to give it to them that.
They could have talked about launch scrubs. LV caused launch delays. Marginal cost of launches. They could have used a Bayesian reliability per family. They could have talked about certifications. About actual NASA missions. About DoD mission requirement compliance. Or about % of missions that they can cover. So many advantages that's incredible to go for this.
-
#110
by
savuporo
on 11 Jun, 2014 19:41
-
-
#111
by
baldusi
on 11 Jun, 2014 20:20
-
I would take at least this decade (2010+), but from capability start seems fair, too. That's 2002. Falcon 9 v1.0 can be left out because it was more Delta II class than EELV. Which is just to say that EELV has launched 72 times with to partial failures. Falcon 9 v1.1 has launched 4 of 4. Which is still too little to say anything.
-
#112
by
arachnitect
on 11 Jun, 2014 20:27
-
And here we go, a more "fair and balanced" scorecard, someone bothered
http://pic.twitter.com/pfVrqPd8or
It's not "demonstrated capabilities" anymore is it? Changing the start date to 1.1.2013 throws out a huge amount of ULA launch history. Note the one flight in "sun/moon/planets," a category dominated by ULA both past and future.
If we're going to move the start date up, they might as well make it just the past year. Or make it launch history since F9.1.1 introduction (get rid of CRS-2). OR go back to 2010 (add 4 Falcons, 20+ ULA launches).
Not that there's much point arguing about the past. There's no getting around the fact that ULA has flown more missions to more places. SpaceX would argue (not unreasonably) that it's future capability that matters.
-
#113
by
Go4TLI
on 11 Jun, 2014 20:35
-
SpaceX would argue (not unreasonably) that it's future capability that matters.
And that is where all the arguments falter relative to SpaceX and this topic. It amounts to "trust me, watch what we will do" when there is no guarantee on performance, cost, tempo, reliability or anything until the system flies multiple times.
Right now, the manifest for SpaceX moves to the right far more often than it is actually being executed. It's not to say they have not done some impressive things but at the end of the day their operations need to match their rhetoric.
-
#114
by
clongton
on 11 Jun, 2014 21:09
-
... a category dominated by ULA both past and future.
May I borrow your crystal ball? There's some stock I've been looking at.
-
#115
by
Jakusb
on 11 Jun, 2014 21:10
-
C'mon people. This is apples and oranges in many ways.
And thus easy to tweak the numbers any way you want.
How many trips to the sun?
How many soft landings of first stage?
None of them will win the argument.
Both sides try to look good against the other. Neither should really bother to compare and simply go do what they are both good at: build and launch rockets. Both in their own special way.
Both with fanatic amazing peoples that will not accept any good word on the other party.
Let's just hope that the Nokia analogy does not apply to ULA and SpaceX does not fail its quest. There should be room for them both and likely several other space endeavoring companies.
To the stars, and beyond!
-
#116
by
savuporo
on 11 Jun, 2014 21:22
-
-
#117
by
rcoppola
on 11 Jun, 2014 21:24
-
You have to give it to them, the 109% price increase Vs. 5% cost reduction is a nice touch.
I would like the GAO opinion on that. Apparently the 2012 price hike was an illusion. I'll repeat it. Having so many good things and positive comparisons where they basically show their quality and capability difference, they really didn't had to fall so low.
I didn't liked the graph because they failed to pot the v1.0 on SpaceX side. But then they could have talked about then putting Delta I/II/III and Atlas (and may be even Titan). So you have to give it to them that.
They could have talked about launch scrubs. LV caused launch delays. Marginal cost of launches. They could have used a Bayesian reliability per family. They could have talked about certifications. About actual NASA missions. About DoD mission requirement compliance. Or about % of missions that they can cover. So many advantages that's incredible to go for this.
Yes, there were many ways for them to have devised their materials without the elaborate numerical manipulations. I wish they would have. Many wonderful enabling launches for the scientific community alone. You play to your strengths.
Alas, which is why their capabilities and successes are displayed proudly and clearly. While their cost comparisons are distorted into a pretzel type illogic.
There are 2 fundamental questions:
1. Can ULA maintain current capabilities while becoming more cost competitive.
Challenges:
-Atlas V Re-engine
-Cost reductions (Infrastructure and workforce overhead)
2. Can SpaceX increase capabilities while keeping costs extremely competitive?
Challenges:
-Manufacturing & Launch cadence
-FH
The next 24 months will begin to tell the tale. There's room for both, so here's to some good old fashion in-the-trenches competition.
-
#118
by
arachnitect
on 11 Jun, 2014 21:34
-
... a category dominated by ULA both past and future.
May I borrow your crystal ball? There's some stock I've been looking at.
The future is a big place; I was referring to the next few years.
ULA has missions in this category on contract, and additional contracts likely before FH flies.
-
#119
by
clongton
on 12 Jun, 2014 00:20
-
... a category dominated by ULA both past and future.
May I borrow your crystal ball? There's some stock I've been looking at.
The future is a big place; I was referring to the next few years.
ULA has missions in this category on contract, and additional contracts likely before FH flies.
And the Air Force and ULA have locked SpaceX out of several potential contracts for many years to come.
That's what started this whole thing.
