4 ms·

Here's a pretty good video with some technical details on why spacex isn't always the best option: https://youtu.be/QoUtgWQk-Y0 https://youtu.be/QoUtgWQk-Y0 T

Here's a pretty good video with some technical details on why spacex isn't always the best option: https://youtu.be/QoUtgWQk-Y0 https://youtu.be/QoUtgWQk-Y0 The government also wants to maintain redundant capabilities, and ULA, which has an incredible success rate and is an incredibly reliable company, is a pretty damn good option for one of the two.

bryanlarsen 6y ago
Like most Scott Manley videos, it's a great video, but it's out of date. That video basically mentions three things: fairing size, vertical integration and the fact that SpaceX's rockets in reusable mode don't lift as much as competitors. This contract pays SpaceX to fix the first two issues and the third can be solved by using the SpaceX rocket in expendable mode.
- simonh 6y ago
  And of course even reusable rockets are eventually EOL, so that rocket in ‘expendable mode’ might have actually flown half a dozen missions beforehand.
- jccooper 6y ago
  ULA maintains a couple of technological advantages; they have some unique insertion steering and their hydrogen upper stage is particularly well-suited for Earth-escape missions. However, SpaceX insertion is good enough for nearly every mission and they can make up for upper stage efficiency with brute force via Falcon Heavy--at a similar or better price point. They also have a few paperwork advantages. Their vehicles have nuclear ratings, though SpaceX can certainly get that any time they want now. And they have demonstrated high reliability, which is important for uninsured billion-dollar payloads. Though it's getting harder to argue against F9. An of course, they're owned by two major defense contractors with plenty of political clout. But: their main advantage now is that they exist and are in the US and The Customer wants to maintain multiple options. Once Blue Origin comes online ULA's going to lose that one too, and will have to either figure out a way to make Vulcan price competitive, go on a crash course to develop a new competitive rocket (for which they're already too late), or lean on their relationship advantages and existing contracts to hang on for a while until at some point reality finally overcomes politics. There's a lot of moving parts but they're not moving in a direction favorable to ULA, and given how hamstrung they are by their ownership structure I'd lean towards that last one.
  - AtlasBarfed 6y ago
    Or they get bought by another company in another country that wants launch capability. Space force will spark an arms race, be it a sprint or a marathon
specialist 6y ago
"The government also wants to maintain redundant capabilities..." As a taxpayer, I'm totally enthusiastic on board with this strategy. Said another way, I demand that our government hedges and mitigates risks. Many of our current challenges are because of previous ill-advised efficiency efforts.
- valuearb 6y ago
  Real redundancy is provided through high cadence operations, which is SpaceX all the way. Paying billions extra for inferior hardware adds little redundant benefit.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    That's only one dimension of redundancy. The other one is control/ownership. High cadence won't save you if they suffer a problem that shuts down their entire fleet for a year, or if through a hyperloop accident Gwynne Shotwell gets replaced by her counterpart from the mirror universe, and decides to stop servicing US government unless she gets to be the empress. Point being - and tangentially, it's somewhat of a blind spot in tech industry - besides scaling, you also really need ownership/control redundancy. Legal single points of failure are still single points of failure.

bryanlarsen 6y ago

Like most Scott Manley videos, it's a great video, but it's out of date. That video basically mentions three things: fairing size, vertical integration and the fact that SpaceX's rockets in reusable mode don't lift as much as competitors. This contract pays SpaceX to fix the first two issues and the third can be solved by using the SpaceX rocket in expendable mode.

simonh 6y ago
And of course even reusable rockets are eventually EOL, so that rocket in ‘expendable mode’ might have actually flown half a dozen missions beforehand.
jccooper 6y ago
ULA maintains a couple of technological advantages; they have some unique insertion steering and their hydrogen upper stage is particularly well-suited for Earth-escape missions. However, SpaceX insertion is good enough for nearly every mission and they can make up for upper stage efficiency with brute force via Falcon Heavy--at a similar or better price point. They also have a few paperwork advantages. Their vehicles have nuclear ratings, though SpaceX can certainly get that any time they want now. And they have demonstrated high reliability, which is important for uninsured billion-dollar payloads. Though it's getting harder to argue against F9. An of course, they're owned by two major defense contractors with plenty of political clout. But: their main advantage now is that they exist and are in the US and The Customer wants to maintain multiple options. Once Blue Origin comes online ULA's going to lose that one too, and will have to either figure out a way to make Vulcan price competitive, go on a crash course to develop a new competitive rocket (for which they're already too late), or lean on their relationship advantages and existing contracts to hang on for a while until at some point reality finally overcomes politics. There's a lot of moving parts but they're not moving in a direction favorable to ULA, and given how hamstrung they are by their ownership structure I'd lean towards that last one.
- AtlasBarfed 6y ago
  Or they get bought by another company in another country that wants launch capability. Space force will spark an arms race, be it a sprint or a marathon

specialist 6y ago

"The government also wants to maintain redundant capabilities..." As a taxpayer, I'm totally enthusiastic on board with this strategy. Said another way, I demand that our government hedges and mitigates risks. Many of our current challenges are because of previous ill-advised efficiency efforts.

valuearb 6y ago
Real redundancy is provided through high cadence operations, which is SpaceX all the way. Paying billions extra for inferior hardware adds little redundant benefit.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  That's only one dimension of redundancy. The other one is control/ownership. High cadence won't save you if they suffer a problem that shuts down their entire fleet for a year, or if through a hyperloop accident Gwynne Shotwell gets replaced by her counterpart from the mirror universe, and decides to stop servicing US government unless she gets to be the empress. Point being - and tangentially, it's somewhat of a blind spot in tech industry - besides scaling, you also really need ownership/control redundancy. Legal single points of failure are still single points of failure.