3 ms·

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 s

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.
- rgbrenner 9y ago
  the 140m is the government's estimate based on previous missions. So it's not clear if that includes these overruns or not. The launch would have used an Atlas V which costs $100m. In any case, I'm sure it's not $282m in overruns on a $140m contract.

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.

rgbrenner 9y ago
the 140m is the government's estimate based on previous missions. So it's not clear if that includes these overruns or not. The launch would have used an Atlas V which costs $100m. In any case, I'm sure it's not $282m in overruns on a $140m contract.