6 ms·

My read [which, knowing full well we're talking about the US government I'm still having a hard time believing] is that the SpaceX cost is 23% of the ULA cost.

My read [which, knowing full well we're talking about the US government I'm still having a hard time believing] is that the SpaceX cost is 23% of the ULA cost. Meaning 77% less. Do I misunderstand: "SpaceX won a contract to launch another GPS 3 satellite for $96.5 million. These represent "all-in, fully burdened costs" to the government, and so they seem to be roughly comparable to the $422 million "unit cost" in the Air Force budget for 2020."?

bigdubs 9y ago
I think it's complicated by the retainer like fee the AF pays to ULA. Still, staggeringly cheaper.
TrainedMonkey 9y ago
"But based upon discussions with various space policy experts, this is the maximum amount the Air Force believes it will need to pay, per launch, if United Launch Alliance is selected for all of its launch needs in 2020." While helpful (and shockingly high), it is also misleading due to 2 factors: 1. ULA price spread is quite significant, fully loaded Delta Heavy is super expensive. 2. As per quote above, the number is for all launches done on ULA* . AFAIK here is the formula used to arrive at 422: (fixed_cost + number_of_launches * cost_per_launch) / number_of_launches = 422 fixed_cost = $1b/year subsidy Without knowing number/weight/orbits of things UAF wants to launch it is hard to estimate how much each vehicle costs. Moreover, as per quote above, this price is for all launches done with ULA. If part of the launches are done with other providers amortized price will be higher due to the $1b subsidy. * Without Falcon Heavy flying some launches must be done with ULA.
- Eridrus 9y ago
  I got the impression the formula was: (fixed_cost + number_of_launches * cost_per_launch) / number_of_launches = 422
  - TrainedMonkey 9y ago
    You are right, my formula just computed the total price, I've updated my comment.
- JshWright 9y ago
  > * Without Falcon Heavy flying some launches must be done with ULA. Even with Falcon Heavy, there are missions that will require the Delta IV Heavy.
  - robin_reala 9y ago
    Why’s that? Falcon Heavy is projected to be able to take up considerably more payload.
  - TrainedMonkey 9y ago
    Do you have a specific example? AFAIK Falcon Heavy can beat Delta Heavy on everything but some deep space and missions requiring super long coast. I am not sure how many of those UAF has.
  - andrewwharton 9y ago
    Are you sure about that? The marketing materials [1] for the Falcon Heavy say: "Falcon Heavy can lift more than twice the payload of the next closest operational vehicle, the Delta IV Heavy - at one-third the cost." [1] http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy
    - JshWright 9y ago
      That depends on the orbital destination. Delta IV Heavy has a _very_ eficient upper stage, which makes it better for high energy destinations. Additionally, the Falcon upper stage has very limited on-orbit capabilities. It can't coast for a long time in order to insert a payload directly into a high orbit. (Though SpaceX is working on this, and did some tests in that direction on the recent NROL-76 launch)
  - nickik 9y ago
    This is false. There are some mission that they can not fly yet but the additional capabilities for the upper stage are already in development and have been partly tested. I would expect that by the time the FH flys the upgrades to the upper stage should be rolled out, so they can fly direct insertions. There is still the additional problem of vertical integration. SpaceX will start doing that on pad 39A.
rgbrenner 9y ago
It's wrong.. but not because you misunderstood.. thats what the writer wants you to believe... because the writer is attempting to pump the numbers to make it sound more exciting.* but the article that they linked to for the $83m figure says spacex undercut ULA by 40%.. which means ULA was going to charge under $140m for that same launch. ULA didn't bid on the 96m launch.. so it's impossible to say what it would have charged... but it likely would have been around the same $140m, since it's for the same gps 3 sat. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-spacex-launch-ula-idUSKCN0XP2T2 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-spacex-launch-ula-id... * Yes, I think the writer is being dishonest. They have a link to an article that clearly says 40%.. then the writer discards that number, and finds other data that isn't directly comparable to write an article about it, and waives away the differences with "seems to be comparable to"
- rory096 9y ago
  There's no dishonesty. The author makes it very clear that the GAO report prices in the billion dollar a year fixed subsidy ULA receives.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - rgbrenner 9y ago
    The article says the $422m is "maximum amount the Air Force believes it will need to pay, per launch". Are you saying that the air force ALWAYS pays the maximum for every launch -- no matter the payload? If not, then clearly the number includes much more than just a subsidy.
    - btilly 9y ago
      No, it means that this is the maximum that total_paid/launches could be. And includes fees that are paid independently of whether a launch happens.
- kobeya 9y ago
  As someone who worked for one of the partner companies in ULA... the price quoted by ULA is just the base cost for the rocket hardware. They then nickel and dime the government for all the various launch services as well (fueling, launch prep, payload installation, integration tests, mission control, etc.). It's a bit like the basic cost of an appendectomy being $1,500, but then the bill from the hospital includes a bed fee, a surgery prep fee, $15 per gauze used, etc. SpaceX's <$100m price print is all inclusive -- it is the full price you pay. No extra or hidden fees. The author is a little deceptive in that they quote the upper estimate rather than the average. They should have quoted the average cost. But to be clear I don't think that's nearly as deceptive as saying ULA's comparable cost is $140m.
ncallaway 9y ago
I don't think it's quite a fair direct comparison. The $96.5M is for a single launch. The $422 million is for each individual launch, plus assured access in a 24-hour window. That is, the US Government is paying SpaceX for a launch. They're paying ULC for a launch, and a guarantee that if the US Government asks to launch a rocket tomorrow ULC will say "yes". If the US Government asked SpaceX for a launch tomorrow, they would probably get a response of "No can do. We don't have a rocket fueled, on stand-by, and ready to go."* It costs a lot to maintain a spare rocket, launch pad, and other infrastructure necessary to launch a rocket within 24-hours around the year. I still think SpaceX is a lot cheaper as a launch provider, but I don't think it's quite as extreme as the article makes it seem. I would imagine if SpaceX had to maintain 24-hour launch capacity their "unit cost" would be significantly higher than their individual launch cost. * That's actually not quite true. By coincidence, SpaceX has a launch scheduled for June 17. If there were a national emergency the US Government could probably pay SpaceX to commandeer that launch. However, this is just a coincidence. If I were writing this comment on June 18 it would not be true.
- brickmack 9y ago
  Thats not what assured access means. ULA absolutely cannot conduct a launch on 24 hours notice, nor can any launch provider. It takes months for them to prepare a launch. Payload integration alone (assuming, by some miracle, they actually had a rocket fully built, in the configuration needed, and all the development work needed to certify the combination of the rocket with a particular payload was done, and that the pad is available, exactly none of which will actually be true) takes multiple days. ULA does have, as a commercial service, RapidLaunch which is the fastest launch service in the world from order placement to liftoff, and that still takes 3 months minimum. Assured access, as defined by the EELV program, just means there are at least 2 launch vehicles in service (in this case, Atlas V, Delta IV, and partially Falcon 9) which are capable and certified to carry the full range of national security payloads, which means problems with a single rocket design will never ground all national security payloads
- rst 9y ago
  ULA does not and cannot offer guaranteed launch at any point in time -- their launches, including launches of government payloads, can be and are delayed for days by anything from technical glitches to unfavorable wind conditions to planes wandering into the launch corridor. (Google "Atlas V launch delay" for numerous examples.) And they don't have boosters "on standby, ready to go"; like everyone else, they refer to launch preparations as "campaigns", and they extend for weeks after the rocket and payload are both at the pad. (There are other capabilities ULA offers that SpaceX still can't match, but those are all about babying the payloads -- mounting them vertically on the rocket, rather than tilting as is SpaceX's current practice; providing clean-room access to payloads already on the rocket, and so forth.)

bigdubs 9y ago

I think it's complicated by the retainer like fee the AF pays to ULA. Still, staggeringly cheaper.

TrainedMonkey 9y ago

"But based upon discussions with various space policy experts, this is the maximum amount the Air Force believes it will need to pay, per launch, if United Launch Alliance is selected for all of its launch needs in 2020." While helpful (and shockingly high), it is also misleading due to 2 factors: 1. ULA price spread is quite significant, fully loaded Delta Heavy is super expensive. 2. As per quote above, the number is for all launches done on ULA* . AFAIK here is the formula used to arrive at 422: (fixed_cost + number_of_launches * cost_per_launch) / number_of_launches = 422 fixed_cost = $1b/year subsidy Without knowing number/weight/orbits of things UAF wants to launch it is hard to estimate how much each vehicle costs. Moreover, as per quote above, this price is for all launches done with ULA. If part of the launches are done with other providers amortized price will be higher due to the $1b subsidy. * Without Falcon Heavy flying some launches must be done with ULA.

Eridrus 9y ago
I got the impression the formula was: (fixed_cost + number_of_launches * cost_per_launch) / number_of_launches = 422
- TrainedMonkey 9y ago
  You are right, my formula just computed the total price, I've updated my comment.
JshWright 9y ago
> * Without Falcon Heavy flying some launches must be done with ULA. Even with Falcon Heavy, there are missions that will require the Delta IV Heavy.
- robin_reala 9y ago
  Why’s that? Falcon Heavy is projected to be able to take up considerably more payload.
- TrainedMonkey 9y ago
  Do you have a specific example? AFAIK Falcon Heavy can beat Delta Heavy on everything but some deep space and missions requiring super long coast. I am not sure how many of those UAF has.
- andrewwharton 9y ago
  Are you sure about that? The marketing materials [1] for the Falcon Heavy say: "Falcon Heavy can lift more than twice the payload of the next closest operational vehicle, the Delta IV Heavy - at one-third the cost." [1] http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy
  - JshWright 9y ago
    That depends on the orbital destination. Delta IV Heavy has a _very_ eficient upper stage, which makes it better for high energy destinations. Additionally, the Falcon upper stage has very limited on-orbit capabilities. It can't coast for a long time in order to insert a payload directly into a high orbit. (Though SpaceX is working on this, and did some tests in that direction on the recent NROL-76 launch)
- nickik 9y ago
  This is false. There are some mission that they can not fly yet but the additional capabilities for the upper stage are already in development and have been partly tested. I would expect that by the time the FH flys the upgrades to the upper stage should be rolled out, so they can fly direct insertions. There is still the additional problem of vertical integration. SpaceX will start doing that on pad 39A.

rgbrenner 9y ago

It's wrong.. but not because you misunderstood.. thats what the writer wants you to believe... because the writer is attempting to pump the numbers to make it sound more exciting.* but the article that they linked to for the $83m figure says spacex undercut ULA by 40%.. which means ULA was going to charge under $140m for that same launch. ULA didn't bid on the 96m launch.. so it's impossible to say what it would have charged... but it likely would have been around the same $140m, since it's for the same gps 3 sat. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-spacex-launch-ula-idUSKCN0XP2T2 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-spacex-launch-ula-id... * Yes, I think the writer is being dishonest. They have a link to an article that clearly says 40%.. then the writer discards that number, and finds other data that isn't directly comparable to write an article about it, and waives away the differences with "seems to be comparable to"

rory096 9y ago
There's no dishonesty. The author makes it very clear that the GAO report prices in the billion dollar a year fixed subsidy ULA receives.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- rgbrenner 9y ago
  The article says the $422m is "maximum amount the Air Force believes it will need to pay, per launch". Are you saying that the air force ALWAYS pays the maximum for every launch -- no matter the payload? If not, then clearly the number includes much more than just a subsidy.
  - btilly 9y ago
    No, it means that this is the maximum that total_paid/launches could be. And includes fees that are paid independently of whether a launch happens.
kobeya 9y ago
As someone who worked for one of the partner companies in ULA... the price quoted by ULA is just the base cost for the rocket hardware. They then nickel and dime the government for all the various launch services as well (fueling, launch prep, payload installation, integration tests, mission control, etc.). It's a bit like the basic cost of an appendectomy being $1,500, but then the bill from the hospital includes a bed fee, a surgery prep fee, $15 per gauze used, etc. SpaceX's <$100m price print is all inclusive -- it is the full price you pay. No extra or hidden fees. The author is a little deceptive in that they quote the upper estimate rather than the average. They should have quoted the average cost. But to be clear I don't think that's nearly as deceptive as saying ULA's comparable cost is $140m.

ncallaway 9y ago

I don't think it's quite a fair direct comparison. The $96.5M is for a single launch. The $422 million is for each individual launch, plus assured access in a 24-hour window. That is, the US Government is paying SpaceX for a launch. They're paying ULC for a launch, and a guarantee that if the US Government asks to launch a rocket tomorrow ULC will say "yes". If the US Government asked SpaceX for a launch tomorrow, they would probably get a response of "No can do. We don't have a rocket fueled, on stand-by, and ready to go."* It costs a lot to maintain a spare rocket, launch pad, and other infrastructure necessary to launch a rocket within 24-hours around the year. I still think SpaceX is a lot cheaper as a launch provider, but I don't think it's quite as extreme as the article makes it seem. I would imagine if SpaceX had to maintain 24-hour launch capacity their "unit cost" would be significantly higher than their individual launch cost. * That's actually not quite true. By coincidence, SpaceX has a launch scheduled for June 17. If there were a national emergency the US Government could probably pay SpaceX to commandeer that launch. However, this is just a coincidence. If I were writing this comment on June 18 it would not be true.

brickmack 9y ago
Thats not what assured access means. ULA absolutely cannot conduct a launch on 24 hours notice, nor can any launch provider. It takes months for them to prepare a launch. Payload integration alone (assuming, by some miracle, they actually had a rocket fully built, in the configuration needed, and all the development work needed to certify the combination of the rocket with a particular payload was done, and that the pad is available, exactly none of which will actually be true) takes multiple days. ULA does have, as a commercial service, RapidLaunch which is the fastest launch service in the world from order placement to liftoff, and that still takes 3 months minimum. Assured access, as defined by the EELV program, just means there are at least 2 launch vehicles in service (in this case, Atlas V, Delta IV, and partially Falcon 9) which are capable and certified to carry the full range of national security payloads, which means problems with a single rocket design will never ground all national security payloads
rst 9y ago
ULA does not and cannot offer guaranteed launch at any point in time -- their launches, including launches of government payloads, can be and are delayed for days by anything from technical glitches to unfavorable wind conditions to planes wandering into the launch corridor. (Google "Atlas V launch delay" for numerous examples.) And they don't have boosters "on standby, ready to go"; like everyone else, they refer to launch preparations as "campaigns", and they extend for weeks after the rocket and payload are both at the pad. (There are other capabilities ULA offers that SpaceX still can't match, but those are all about babying the payloads -- mounting them vertically on the rocket, rather than tilting as is SpaceX's current practice; providing clean-room access to payloads already on the rocket, and so forth.)