4 ms·

I was watching a congressional committee discussion on this subject a year or two ago - consensus seemed to be that the gov should always have at least two comp

by Hayvok 6y ago

I was watching a congressional committee discussion on this subject a year or two ago - consensus seemed to be that the gov should always have at least two companies available to provide launch services. Hedges their bets a bit and it nurtures the industry.

ceejayoz 6y ago
In other words: Paying inflated prices for ULA launches is cheaper in the long run than SpaceX having a monopoly.
- zamadatix 6y ago
  I think it'd be more apt to say paying inflated prices for a secondary mitigates finical risk than guarantees less spent over time. It may or may not actually be cheaper to pay both in the long run. On one hand theoretically if they were the only option in the world they could charge absurd amounts. On the other hand it seems they stand to make more in the coming years commoditizing launches to attract more overall customers/launches and charge them each millions than to charge a few customers billions. Also they'll never be the only one in the world but it is a risk they could end up the only commercial venture in the US capable of launching. One option is medium cost with low risk of astronomical (pun intended) cost and the other a low cost with a medium risk of astronomical cost.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- QuotedForTruth 6y ago
  Its more about the somewhat likely probability that a single launch provider will have a failure that necessitates a lengthy investigation during which they are grounded. Its nice in that situation to have another launch provider who can pick up essential missions.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    That's certainly a risk, but "we're the only launch provider in the US, and we just raised prices from $250M to $2.5B, and any potential competition will take 5-10 years to get up to capability" is a big risk too. The DOD isn't gonna launch GPS satellites on a Progress.
- Hayvok 6y ago
  The DoDs primary concern is access to launch capability. Not price. SpaceX achieving a market monopoly would only be a concern to the DoD in that it would potentially limit the number of companies capable of providing launch services. SpaceX is a private company (regardless of how many gov $ it receives) and can’t simply be restructured like a government agency could if it got into serious enough trouble. (Legal, financial, managerial, market, etc.) Since SpaceX can expose itself to potentially fatal risk (by definition), it is in the government’s national security interests to spread that risk among several companies, regardless of the price tag.
  - kazagistar 6y ago
    > SpaceX is a private company (regardless of how many gov $ it receives) and can’t simply be restructured like a government agency could if it got into serious enough trouble. (Legal, financial, managerial, market, etc.) Technically it can, its just that the US government doesnt like to.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- onepointsixC 6y ago
  ULA claims their Vulcan rocket will be more competitive price wise while their reliably record is impeccable. Considering the payloads cost a billion, the Pentagon likely doesn't mind paying a bit of a premium for reliability.
free_rms 6y ago
Seems like they should have stopped ULA from forming in the first place then, right? The press release quotes I've seen on the topic were high on "eliminating redundant work" (aka competition).
- garmaine 6y ago
  Well the silver lining is it created the conditions for SpaceX to exist.
- dtparr 6y ago
  My recollection is that the FTC did investigate, but that it was decided that the EELV/ULA situation was preferable to maintain assured access to multiple launch vehicles (Delta+Atlas) and stop Boeing and LM from running each other into the ground. (I think there was serious industrial espionage too).
- thinkcontext 6y ago
  The government forced them to form ULA after Boeing was found to have thousands of pages of Lockheed proprietary info. Boeing had been stripped of a $1B launch award and was barred from bidding pending the investigation. Rather than have Boeing endure the criminal and civil liability a joint venture with advantageous terms to Lockheed was decided on. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-probe-intensifies-over-secret-lockheed-papers/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-probe-intensifi...

by Hayvok 6y ago

ceejayoz 6y ago

In other words: Paying inflated prices for ULA launches is cheaper in the long run than SpaceX having a monopoly.

zamadatix 6y ago
I think it'd be more apt to say paying inflated prices for a secondary mitigates finical risk than guarantees less spent over time. It may or may not actually be cheaper to pay both in the long run. On one hand theoretically if they were the only option in the world they could charge absurd amounts. On the other hand it seems they stand to make more in the coming years commoditizing launches to attract more overall customers/launches and charge them each millions than to charge a few customers billions. Also they'll never be the only one in the world but it is a risk they could end up the only commercial venture in the US capable of launching. One option is medium cost with low risk of astronomical (pun intended) cost and the other a low cost with a medium risk of astronomical cost.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
QuotedForTruth 6y ago
Its more about the somewhat likely probability that a single launch provider will have a failure that necessitates a lengthy investigation during which they are grounded. Its nice in that situation to have another launch provider who can pick up essential missions.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  That's certainly a risk, but "we're the only launch provider in the US, and we just raised prices from $250M to $2.5B, and any potential competition will take 5-10 years to get up to capability" is a big risk too. The DOD isn't gonna launch GPS satellites on a Progress.
Hayvok 6y ago
The DoDs primary concern is access to launch capability. Not price. SpaceX achieving a market monopoly would only be a concern to the DoD in that it would potentially limit the number of companies capable of providing launch services. SpaceX is a private company (regardless of how many gov $ it receives) and can’t simply be restructured like a government agency could if it got into serious enough trouble. (Legal, financial, managerial, market, etc.) Since SpaceX can expose itself to potentially fatal risk (by definition), it is in the government’s national security interests to spread that risk among several companies, regardless of the price tag.
- kazagistar 6y ago
  > SpaceX is a private company (regardless of how many gov $ it receives) and can’t simply be restructured like a government agency could if it got into serious enough trouble. (Legal, financial, managerial, market, etc.) Technically it can, its just that the US government doesnt like to.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
onepointsixC 6y ago
ULA claims their Vulcan rocket will be more competitive price wise while their reliably record is impeccable. Considering the payloads cost a billion, the Pentagon likely doesn't mind paying a bit of a premium for reliability.

free_rms 6y ago

Seems like they should have stopped ULA from forming in the first place then, right? The press release quotes I've seen on the topic were high on "eliminating redundant work" (aka competition).

garmaine 6y ago
Well the silver lining is it created the conditions for SpaceX to exist.
dtparr 6y ago
My recollection is that the FTC did investigate, but that it was decided that the EELV/ULA situation was preferable to maintain assured access to multiple launch vehicles (Delta+Atlas) and stop Boeing and LM from running each other into the ground. (I think there was serious industrial espionage too).
thinkcontext 6y ago
The government forced them to form ULA after Boeing was found to have thousands of pages of Lockheed proprietary info. Boeing had been stripped of a $1B launch award and was barred from bidding pending the investigation. Rather than have Boeing endure the criminal and civil liability a joint venture with advantageous terms to Lockheed was decided on. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-probe-intensifies-over-secret-lockheed-papers/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-probe-intensifi...