5 ms·

This is not some individual scenario. This is the way people talk in business on the regular. You break it down into overly simplistic, but generally useful wa

This is not some individual scenario. This is the way people talk in business on the regular. You break it down into overly simplistic, but generally useful ways to explain the situations. I don't doubt his candid explanation was correct, and I don't see anything wrong with it really. It's the internal analysis of the situation at a given time. Those things change, and are not written in stone.

cryptoz 11y ago
> I don't doubt his candid explanation was correct, and I don't see anything wrong with it really. Why wouldn't you doubt this? His speech included a number of factually incorrect engineering statements about his competitors (SpaceX). If he was being "honest", then he was wrong. His "candid explanations" of things were fraught with error and also wildly offensive, not to mention dangerous for the business.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > His speech included a number of factually incorrect engineering statements Such as ... ?
- AndyNemmity 11y ago
  "Correct" in this case meaning, his honest belief of the situation. In this vertical, I don't know if he was wrong or right in the detail of his analysis. What was the offensive part?
  - zepto 11y ago
    The misogyny
    - ChrisDutrow 11y ago
      I noticed hints of misogyny as well. I don't think what he said was technically misogynist, but it smelled like it.
    - TrevorJ 11y ago
      I missed that part, what specifically are you referring to?
      - nkurz 11y ago
        Presumably he's referring to the "two brides" analogy. It's discussed more elsewhere in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11307425 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11307425
mikeash 11y ago
I do doubt his candid explanation was correct, because his statements include several things that are just factually wrong. ULA faces a big threat from SpaceX right now. If SpaceX's reusability plans work out, if SpaceX can get their reliability up, and if SpaceX can work on their delays and start launching on time, ULA is going to be in a world of hurt. They had a long time as a sole-source launch provider for the government, and suddenly they're being undercut by a factor of five which could soon turn into a factor of ten or fifteen. Now, that's a lot of "ifs" up there, but ULA can't be complacent if they want to still exist in a decade or two. If I was the CEO of ULA, I'd want my upper management to consist of people who understand this situation, who recognize the threat, who take it seriously, and who will work to keep ULA competitive as they go from having guaranteed business to needing to fight for every launch contract. And this fellow does not sound like he fits that description in the least.
- hackuser 11y ago
  What did he say that was factually wrong? I think he said most of what you said and didn't contradict the rest. For example: “Along came Elon Musk and changed the game completely…we can’t afford [to bid] any more because the price points are coming down as low as $60 million,” he said. “The best day you’ll see us bid at $125 million or twice that number. Add in the capabilities cost, it eclipses the $200 million. … So now we’re going to have to take and figure out how to bid these things much lower cost. The government can’t just say, you know, ULA’s got a great track record, they’ve done 100 launches.” What are you referring to?
  - mikeash 11y ago
    He greatly overestimated the amount of fuel SpaceX needs to land a Falcon 9, and especially overestimated the amount of fuel needed for the SES-9 landing attempt. The implication that fuel even matters is pretty weird too; The fuel for a ~$60 million Falcon 9 launch costs about $200,000. He also says that SpaceX loses a quarter of a billion dollars per launch, which makes very little sense. Really, the fuel thing sticks out at me. Maybe I'm making too big of a deal about it, but reuse is going to be very important, ULA is working on their own version of it (recovering just the engines, not the entire first stage), and he ought to know about it. Or if he doesn't, because details are for underlings, he ought to know what he doesn't know about it.

cryptoz 11y ago

> I don't doubt his candid explanation was correct, and I don't see anything wrong with it really. Why wouldn't you doubt this? His speech included a number of factually incorrect engineering statements about his competitors (SpaceX). If he was being "honest", then he was wrong. His "candid explanations" of things were fraught with error and also wildly offensive, not to mention dangerous for the business.

hackuser 11y ago
> His speech included a number of factually incorrect engineering statements Such as ... ?
AndyNemmity 11y ago
"Correct" in this case meaning, his honest belief of the situation. In this vertical, I don't know if he was wrong or right in the detail of his analysis. What was the offensive part?
- zepto 11y ago
  The misogyny
  - ChrisDutrow 11y ago
    I noticed hints of misogyny as well. I don't think what he said was technically misogynist, but it smelled like it.
  - TrevorJ 11y ago
    I missed that part, what specifically are you referring to?
    - nkurz 11y ago
      Presumably he's referring to the "two brides" analogy. It's discussed more elsewhere in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11307425 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11307425

mikeash 11y ago

I do doubt his candid explanation was correct, because his statements include several things that are just factually wrong. ULA faces a big threat from SpaceX right now. If SpaceX's reusability plans work out, if SpaceX can get their reliability up, and if SpaceX can work on their delays and start launching on time, ULA is going to be in a world of hurt. They had a long time as a sole-source launch provider for the government, and suddenly they're being undercut by a factor of five which could soon turn into a factor of ten or fifteen. Now, that's a lot of "ifs" up there, but ULA can't be complacent if they want to still exist in a decade or two. If I was the CEO of ULA, I'd want my upper management to consist of people who understand this situation, who recognize the threat, who take it seriously, and who will work to keep ULA competitive as they go from having guaranteed business to needing to fight for every launch contract. And this fellow does not sound like he fits that description in the least.

hackuser 11y ago
What did he say that was factually wrong? I think he said most of what you said and didn't contradict the rest. For example: “Along came Elon Musk and changed the game completely…we can’t afford [to bid] any more because the price points are coming down as low as $60 million,” he said. “The best day you’ll see us bid at $125 million or twice that number. Add in the capabilities cost, it eclipses the $200 million. … So now we’re going to have to take and figure out how to bid these things much lower cost. The government can’t just say, you know, ULA’s got a great track record, they’ve done 100 launches.” What are you referring to?
- mikeash 11y ago
  He greatly overestimated the amount of fuel SpaceX needs to land a Falcon 9, and especially overestimated the amount of fuel needed for the SES-9 landing attempt. The implication that fuel even matters is pretty weird too; The fuel for a ~$60 million Falcon 9 launch costs about $200,000. He also says that SpaceX loses a quarter of a billion dollars per launch, which makes very little sense. Really, the fuel thing sticks out at me. Maybe I'm making too big of a deal about it, but reuse is going to be very important, ULA is working on their own version of it (recovering just the engines, not the entire first stage), and he ought to know about it. Or if he doesn't, because details are for underlings, he ought to know what he doesn't know about it.