The story also suggests that SpaceX has ticked off a four star general with its lawsuit, among other things.
I wonder if that same four star general was ticked off when Boeing and ULA sued the Air Force for $385M just two years ago:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/boeing-ula-suing-air-force-385-millionSeems like $385M is nothing to sneeze about, whereas the beef SpaceX has with the Air Force boils down to saving money, not paying more.
Just thought I'd provide that perspective...
Price doesn't matter if the product isn't available for purchase.
"The convergence of a Russian threat to cut off RD-180 supply, SpaceX’s impending certification to compete with the Falcon 9v1.1 and the lawsuit filed by SpaceX April 28 claiming ULA’s sole-source deal with the U.S. Air Force was anticompetitive has put so much pressure on the Atlas V that it is unlikely to survive, the source says."http://m.aviationweek.com/space/support-grows-new-us-rocket-engine
The story also suggests that SpaceX has ticked off a four star general with its lawsuit, among other things.
I wonder if that same four star general was ticked off when Boeing and ULA sued the Air Force for $385M just two years ago:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/boeing-ula-suing-air-force-385-million
Seems like $385M is nothing to sneeze about, whereas the beef SpaceX has with the Air Force boils down to saving money, not paying more.
Just thought I'd provide that perspective...
If I was a customer, I'd be pretty ticked off if a supplier filed a legal complaint against me as deceptive, misleading and disingenuous as the one SpaceX filed against the Air Force. And of course the claim that giving SpaceX what they want would save the AF money comes entirely from SpaceX, and is deceptive, misleading, disingenuous and also self-serving.
[...] That is why we gave the $225M number which is arrived at by adding up the value of all our contracts (numerator) and dividing by the total number of missions represented in those contracts (denominator). [...]
This is indeed a reasonable way to calculate costs. However, many folks believe this number to be much higher (wrongly, in your opinion). What numbers did you use for the denominator (total value of all contracts) and the numerator (total number of missions)?
Price doesn't matter if the product isn't available for purchase.
And smart people see through the hype and know that this isn't an issue.
The story also suggests that SpaceX has ticked off a four star general with its lawsuit, among other things.
I wonder if that same four star general was ticked off when Boeing and ULA sued the Air Force for $385M just two years ago:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/boeing-ula-suing-air-force-385-million
Seems like $385M is nothing to sneeze about, whereas the beef SpaceX has with the Air Force boils down to saving money, not paying more.
Just thought I'd provide that perspective...
If I was a customer, I'd be pretty ticked off if a supplier filed a legal complaint against me as deceptive, misleading and disingenuous as the one SpaceX filed against the Air Force. And of course the claim that giving SpaceX what they want would save the AF money comes entirely from SpaceX, and is deceptive, misleading, disingenuous and also self-serving.
It helps to actually read the legal brief and then compare it with the known facts. SX is not a boy scout here but is a long, long way from the villain you described.
The story also suggests that SpaceX has ticked off a four star general with its lawsuit, among other things.
I wonder if that same four star general was ticked off when Boeing and ULA sued the Air Force for $385M just two years ago:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/boeing-ula-suing-air-force-385-million
Seems like $385M is nothing to sneeze about, whereas the beef SpaceX has with the Air Force boils down to saving money, not paying more.
Just thought I'd provide that perspective...
If I was a customer, I'd be pretty ticked off if a supplier filed a legal complaint against me as deceptive, misleading and disingenuous as the one SpaceX filed against the Air Force. And of course the claim that giving SpaceX what they want would save the AF money comes entirely from SpaceX, and is deceptive, misleading, disingenuous and also self-serving.
If you don't see how $90 million (the number SpaceX claims for one of their launches, singly) is less than $164 million (the number ULA claims for an Atlas launch above, after the discounts of the block buy are taken into account), there's not much hope for you. I suspect a conflict of interest, in which case your post is disingenuous and self-serving.
As far as USAF being a customer ticked off at lawsuits, it seems like at least a few of the acquisition personnel have managed to soothe their ruffled feelings by cashing in on sweet industry positions. It might be helpful to remember these acquisition people are (supposed to be) serving the American people, and I don't believe the American people are as well served by a "too big to let fail" launch supplier as they are by open competition.
The story also suggests that SpaceX has ticked off a four star general with its lawsuit, among other things.
I wonder if that same four star general was ticked off when Boeing and ULA sued the Air Force for $385M just two years ago:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/boeing-ula-suing-air-force-385-million
Seems like $385M is nothing to sneeze about, whereas the beef SpaceX has with the Air Force boils down to saving money, not paying more.
Just thought I'd provide that perspective...
If I was a customer, I'd be pretty ticked off if a supplier filed a legal complaint against me as deceptive, misleading and disingenuous as the one SpaceX filed against the Air Force. And of course the claim that giving SpaceX what they want would save the AF money comes entirely from SpaceX, and is deceptive, misleading, disingenuous and also self-serving.
If you don't see how $90 million (the number SpaceX claims for one of their launches, singly) is less than $164 million (the number ULA claims for an Atlas launch above, after the discounts of the block buy are taken into account), there's not much hope for you. I suspect a conflict of interest, in which case your post is disingenuous and self-serving.
As far as USAF being a customer ticked off at lawsuits, it seems like at least a few of the acquisition personnel have managed to soothe their ruffled feelings by cashing in on sweet industry positions. It might be helpful to remember these acquisition people are (supposed to be) serving the American people, and I don't believe the American people are as well served by a "too big to let fail" launch supplier as they are by open competition.
Apples and oranges. SpaceX will quote you a price of $90 million, as long as you buy a payload in the limited range they can launch, and accept their limited flight history. DoD pays extra for ULA because they have agreed to launch everything the DoD wants to launch, most of which SpaceX can't launch, and also they've got a better history of launch success.
Except if despite 1$ billion per year they can't assure access to space...
The story also suggests that SpaceX has ticked off a four star general with its lawsuit, among other things.
I wonder if that same four star general was ticked off when Boeing and ULA sued the Air Force for $385M just two years ago:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/boeing-ula-suing-air-force-385-million
Seems like $385M is nothing to sneeze about, whereas the beef SpaceX has with the Air Force boils down to saving money, not paying more.
Just thought I'd provide that perspective...
If I was a customer, I'd be pretty ticked off if a supplier filed a legal complaint against me as deceptive, misleading and disingenuous as the one SpaceX filed against the Air Force. And of course the claim that giving SpaceX what they want would save the AF money comes entirely from SpaceX, and is deceptive, misleading, disingenuous and also self-serving.
It helps to actually read the legal brief and then compare it with the known facts. SX is not a boy scout here but is a long, long way from the villain you described.
I've read the "not a lawsuit" complaint, and compared it with known facts. Still not impressed.
Price doesn't matter if the product isn't available for purchase.
And smart people see through the hype and know that this isn't an issue.
Those closest to an industry are often the most blind to outside forces. The storm hitting Atlas is much bigger than Atlas, it's bigger than the entire industry. Atlas is collateral damage. It isn't vital enough to wag the dog of US sanctions.
Apples and oranges. SpaceX will quote you a price of $90 million, as long as you buy a payload in the limited range they can launch, and accept their limited flight history. DoD pays extra for ULA because they have agreed to launch everything the DoD wants to launch, most of which SpaceX can't launch, and also they've got a better history of launch success.
The longer flight history is a legitimate advantage to list for ULA over SpaceX.
But your argument about Falcon 9's more limited payload is utterly without merit. SpaceX isn't complaining about payloads that they can't launch. They're not saying the Air Force should stop all buys from ULA. They're just saying that the payloads they can launch they should be allowed to compete for.
And the block buy limits the ability of not just Falcon 9 but also Falcon Heavy to compete, because it goes so far into the future.
It baffles me why ULA proponents would mix in their one legitimate argument -- of a longer flight history giving greater confidence of reliability -- with various kinds of nonsense. It just taints the whole ULA cause.
When company starts to talk about average price, then I as a customer should start to get worried. Should not ULA be able to say the total price and how many launches that price is spread across. The next question I have when people start saying average, what is the variance, what is does it include and not include? This is from the GAO when it talks about ULA costs:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/661330.pdf...the GAO Summary number 4 makes for interesting reading.
OK, I think this thread has run its course. Hopefully, most of you now recognize that ULA's prices are not over $400M as has been claimed, but far less. The full price of an Atlas V 401 is $164M while the incremental price is less than $100M. Thanks to those who participated in the discussion. While I don’t always reply, I do read every post.
To those skeptical of my veracity, think hard. For me to go on the record publically with false data given all the scrutiny ULA is under would be incredibly stupid. The pricing data I started the thread with is factual, reflected in contracts and can be verified by USG inspection.
I don't apologize for pointing out SpaceX's miserable record of on time launches. The data speak for themselves. However, I much prefer to do my talking on the launch pad and ULA has launched twice since SpaceX took their latest rocket down.
As many have pointed out, the real contest begins in the future. There is only one company in the present that is certified and can perform all the USG missions. ULA is working hard to transform itself for a future commercial competitive market. We have been there before and can return. In future posts, I will provide more detail of what we are doing to reduce cost, some of the very cool innovations we are pursuing, propulsion alternatives, etc. Stay tuned!
In future posts, I will provide more detail of what we are doing to reduce cost, some of the very cool innovations we are pursuing, propulsion alternatives, etc. Stay tuned!
Interesting. Most interesting.
In future posts, I will provide more detail of what we are doing to reduce cost, some of the very cool innovations we are pursuing, propulsion alternatives, etc.
Personally I would be more interested in hearing why ULA prices went up despite earlier promises at ULA formation time that they would go down.
I would be more interested in hearing why it took 5 years and $500M to upgrade RS-68 to RS-68A (~6% thrust upgrade, +4 seconds Isp). This is glacial pace. I take it the longer it is and the more expensive it is, the better. Taxpayer is paying, so why worry.
Not holding my breath, though.
1. Personally I would be more interested in hearing why ULA prices went up despite earlier promises at ULA formation time that they would go down.
2. I would be more interested in hearing why it took 5 years and $500M to upgrade RS-68 to RS-68A (~6% thrust upgrade, +1 second Isp). This is glacial pace. I take it the longer it is and the more expensive it is, the better. Taxpayer is paying, so why worry.
1. Because subcontracted hardware increased due to the shutdown of the shuttle program
2. Because of the NRO involvement and mission assurance aspects