12 ms·

Equally large news from today's press conference at the National Press Club - SpaceX is taking on ULA (united launch alliance, a consortium of incumbent players

Equally large news from today's press conference at the National Press Club - SpaceX is taking on ULA (united launch alliance, a consortium of incumbent players in the market) and the "block buy" allocation of military / national-security launches to ULA. Here's their handout, from one of the reporters there: https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/459734785314013184 https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/459734785314013184 Playing politics a bit, Elon's claiming a ~ 75% reduction in launch costs by using Falcon 9 rockets instead of the block buys allocated to ULA, so he's filing a lawsuit to give his company access to this market. He even goes into details of how some of ULA's engines are manufactured in Russia, and given the festivities in the Ukraine our legislators would rather be less dependent on Russia for space access. He even whets the politicians' appetites with his blurb at the bottom describing how $1B per year could instead pay for operating a fleet of A-10's, or 15 Marine Corps battalions, or 12 F-16 squadrons ... or it could instead pay for purchasing 10 F-35's, 2 LCS's, or 50 UH-60 Black Hawks. Politicians (and Beltway reporters) definitely respond to money dangled in front of their face. Here's how he arrives at the ~75% reduction, btw: • ULA annual cost: $3.0-3.5B • ULA cost per launch: ~$460M • Falcon 9 cost: "under $100M" This forum has tons of live-blog style commentary leading up to and during the press conference. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=lsmvrej5r2jcakuthchhko36i5&topic=34552.0 http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=lsmvrej... -------------------- (edited to clarify about ULA engine sourcing; thanks physcab)

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- BrandonMarc 12y ago
  "Seems like the wrong time to be sending hundreds of millions of dollars to the Kremlin" -- Elon Musk He's certainly not making friends in Russia today. That said, I feel like the ISS is too important to be left to the whims of the US Congress. IIRC NASA plans to deorbit the American part of it within the next decade, while Russia keeps the rest aloft and turns it into a waystation for planetary missions.
  - grinich 12y ago
    Not many people know that he initially (pre-SpaceX) tried to buy a couple decommissioned ICBMs to send a plant to Mars. He was ready to write the check, and the Russians spiked the price at the last minute. So he's probably got a grudge or two.
    - ash 12y ago
      I've heard of Russian ICBM story, but I haven't heard of this part before: > the Russians spiked the price at the last minute What's the source for this part?
      - grinich 12y ago
        They had two more trips scheduled to Russia; now Ressi decided, as he says, "I didn't like dealing with Russians," and told Musk he wasn't going back. Musk went anyway. On the second trip, Musk brought his wife, Justine — "I think that's the trip when the lead Russian designer started spitting at us," Cantrell says — and on the third and final trip he brought his money. He was ready to buy three Russian ICBMs for $21 million when the Russians told him that no, they meant $21 million for one. "They taunted him," Cantrell says. "They said, 'Oh, little boy, you don't have the money?' I said, 'Well, that's that.' I was sitting behind him on the flight back to London when he looked at me over the seat and said, 'I think we can build a rocket ourselves.'" http://www.esquire.com/features/americans-2012/elon-musk-interview-1212 http://www.esquire.com/features/americans-2012/elon-musk-int... It's a great article.
    - rayiner 12y ago
      I doubt it's a grudge. Accusing your competitor of sending money to the Kremlin in a time when the U.S.-Russia relationship isn't exactly great is simply a well-executed political jab.
  - ericcumbee 12y ago
    What is your source on that? According to a page on the NASA site from Oct 13. The Station is expected be operational through at least 2028.
- Crito 12y ago
  While I agree that it is definitely best to use domestic launchers and not have to rely on the Russians for engines or astronaut launch, I don't think that "Fuck the Russians" is really a great expression of that. Since Apollo-Soyuz, spaceflight has been something that our two countries can productively collaborate on, despite our (at times, vast) political differences. Maintaining good relations between NASA and the RKA is valuable for everybody. SpaceX/RKA relations are less important however.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
    - lotsofmangos 12y ago
      Calling for NASA to stop working with Roscosmos and the ISS over Putin is nuts. Space research and exploration is more than petty flag waving.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - joyeuse6701 12y ago
        Somehow I think taking over Crimea is more than petty flag waving to the people who live there. I'd ask for more empathy for those whose lives may be irrevocably damaged by the actions of the Russian Head of State.
        icebraining 12y ago
        Having empathy doesn't mean we should fall into the politician's fallacy. Unless you can demonstrate how would stopping the collaboration actually help the Crimeans, it's nothing but demagogy.
        lotsofmangos 12y ago
        Taking over Crimea is awful and completely predictable, as is the land corridor from Crimea to Russia that will be opened to the north. Russia is scared of losing control of the naval base it has held there for over a century. However the collaboration with the ISS is something that forces communication and trust on a joint project at a high level. It is not just that it is important for space research, it is even more important for soft diplomacy. It forces the governments into situations where they have to talk about something other than sabre rattling on a regular basis.
- rebolek 12y ago
  Well, F* nationalists. Earth is too important to be left to the whims of crazies like you.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
  - unethical_ban 12y ago
    As always, there is a middle ground between "rah rah <country>" and "one world!". The U.S. government, especially its intelligence agencies, have many potentially grave flaws for a democracy. Putin and the Russian government, however, are decidedly worse leaders for freedom, and no friend of the US government or its citizens. Therefore, it's not unreasonable to look to be less dependent on their honesty, integrity and goodwill. So stop being so F*ing judgmental.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  I wouldn't be so hasty. By the time NASA has its own launch capability to the ISS again, Putin may have retired.
mikeash 12y ago
Musk said a normal Falcon 9 launch is $60 million. I'm not sure exactly what's involved with "Government-driven costs in addition to the cost of launch services" but I'd hazard a guess that they're not $40 million per launch. Could end up being a nicely profitable sale for SpaceX if they can pull it off.
- BrandonMarc 12y ago
  ... especially if, as he said, he can reduce his current launch costs by 30% by re-using rockets.
  - syncsynchalt 12y ago
    It seems likely the the USAF would specify first-run rockets for the best chance of success, so the USAF would not see a cost reduction unless spacex were to re-purchase the recovered booster or similar (or offered a credit that equated to the same).
    - Crito 12y ago
      The USAF buys a launch, not the rocket itself. The recovered stages belong to SpaceX.
    - BrandonMarc 12y ago
      True, but then in that situation SpaceX would just not give the 30% cost reduction for the launch. The 30% figure he mentioned was after giving the "under $100M" price point.
- kindredlight 12y ago
  Musk estimates that Air Force "mission assurance" requirements would cost $30 million, hence a $90 million ("under $100 million") price-tag.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    Do you happen to know just what is involved there? I'm not too familiar with this stuff, and I'm curious.
physcab 12y ago
ULA uses engines manufactured from many different sources. Some rockets fly with engines manufactured in Russia, and as far as I know these aren't necessarily new engines but re-used from the 60's. But other programs use engines manufactured in the US. Atlas V rockets have engines made by Aerojet Rocketdyne which is based in Sacramento California. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V Also to match costs, you have to look at the payloads and the distance to space. Falcon 9 - $56M - 4.8 metric tons to GTO Falcon 9H - $135M - 21 metric tons to GTO Atlas IV/V - $160M - 7 metric tons to GTO or 21 tonnes to LEO Ariane V - $200M - ? metric tons to GTO http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/007/131124commercial/#.U1qpneZdXig http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/007/131124commercial/#.U1q... These other companies justify the higher price because they have a better track record. If you're a military customer and your payload needs to get to space, you probably will choose the "safe" bet. Its a catch-22. SpaceX needs more flights to prove their record, but they can't get more flights because of their record.
- BrandonMarc 12y ago
  Good point. I should have said "some of" as a qualifier.
- kindredlight 12y ago
  All Atlas V first-stage engines (RD-180) are manufactured in Russia. That the second stage engines are made in the US doesn't change the fact that you're dependent on Russian supply. In response to your edits: >but they can't get more flights because of their record The Air Force required 3 successful flights in the exact configuration the Air Force would fly. SpaceX provided the "record" as stipulated by the Air Force, which nevertheless committed to a large block-buy contract with ULA. By the Air Force's own standards, the billion-dollar subsidy is not necessary for their needs-to-get-to-space payloads. Also, "the other companies" is just a single supplier, ULA.
  - trhway 12y ago
    >you're dependent on Russian supply and my understanding that this supply is limited to the what had already been manufactured long time ago. Beside the inventory issues, one can easy imagine Putin saying "bad Americans, no more gas ... err... rocket engines for you"
higherpurpose 12y ago
Space programs should probably not be the first to sanction in such situations. I doubt Putin would be too hurt about it anyway. If there are sanctions, they should be on other markets first. When we'll be a "space race", I doubt it will matter much whether those sent into space are Americans, or Russians or Chinese or Germans.
andrewtbham 12y ago
I watched a senate hearing where Elon Musk squares off with the ULA. It's awesome. One great quote is where the ULA says Space X can't handle the missions. Elon responds. If our rockets are good enough for NASA, they are good enough for the Department of Defense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_azyt1JhI0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_azyt1JhI0
- ElComradio 12y ago
  I suspect if you asked a DoD gal if it was more critical that, say, a military commsat got to orbit than something that measures solar flares, she'd beg to differ with Elon.
  - sitkack 12y ago
    Yeah we all would expect them to say that. Everyone's baby is the cutest. Everyone's problems are the most important.
- m_mueller 12y ago
  That was an interesting watch, even as a foreigner. The ULA representative did everything he could to defend their contract - a 'good' politicians as it seems. He responded pretty well to Feinstein's chart I have to say - a chart with cost per ton in orbit would have been much more informative and I couldn't deduct from her numbers whether that has actually gone up significantly. Musk's response to Shelby's remark on a partial SpaceX mission failure was very witty - "according to ULA's standard's this mission was perfect" - he seems to be very good at thinking on the foot.
  - seanjensengrey 12y ago
    Yeah, that chart is painful. Talking about absolute dollars with no basis is not productive.
ericd 12y ago
Wow, he really knows how to push the right buttons... I suppose it helps to have a company you built with almost unfair price/technical advantages behind you.
- gfodor 12y ago
  Yes it was so easy
  - ericd 12y ago
    ? I didn't say it was easy,..
    - gfodor 12y ago
      pointing out an accomplishment as "unfair" without further elaboration serves to diminish it
      - ericd 12y ago
        I just meant unfair as in they have extreme advantages that almost no one else can replicate. That's an impressive accomplishment, I don't think it diminishes what they've done at all.
mkempe 12y ago
It's not equally important news. Suing the government for mismanagement of a procuration process is a short-term path to selling more of the same. Demonstrating landing ability, then refueling and launching within a day is a medium-term path to completely changing space flight. [added] When I say short-term vs medium-term, I mean it wrt strategy. I wouldn't bet on the short-term issue being solved first...
adinb 12y ago
ULA testified to congress that they have a 2 year supply of RD-180 engines (not sure of the exact number). The RD-180 argument is definitely weaker. Cost & reusability are much stronger arguments for canceling/recompeting the ULA block buys. That said, I can't wait until we have genuine competition in the space launch sector, especially with lightning fast turn times. It would be a genuine revolution in space access—even if money were no object, there's no one in history that has had the technology to support continual launches to orbit.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

BrandonMarc 12y ago
"Seems like the wrong time to be sending hundreds of millions of dollars to the Kremlin" -- Elon Musk He's certainly not making friends in Russia today. That said, I feel like the ISS is too important to be left to the whims of the US Congress. IIRC NASA plans to deorbit the American part of it within the next decade, while Russia keeps the rest aloft and turns it into a waystation for planetary missions.
- grinich 12y ago
  Not many people know that he initially (pre-SpaceX) tried to buy a couple decommissioned ICBMs to send a plant to Mars. He was ready to write the check, and the Russians spiked the price at the last minute. So he's probably got a grudge or two.
  - ash 12y ago
    I've heard of Russian ICBM story, but I haven't heard of this part before: > the Russians spiked the price at the last minute What's the source for this part?
    - grinich 12y ago
      They had two more trips scheduled to Russia; now Ressi decided, as he says, "I didn't like dealing with Russians," and told Musk he wasn't going back. Musk went anyway. On the second trip, Musk brought his wife, Justine — "I think that's the trip when the lead Russian designer started spitting at us," Cantrell says — and on the third and final trip he brought his money. He was ready to buy three Russian ICBMs for $21 million when the Russians told him that no, they meant $21 million for one. "They taunted him," Cantrell says. "They said, 'Oh, little boy, you don't have the money?' I said, 'Well, that's that.' I was sitting behind him on the flight back to London when he looked at me over the seat and said, 'I think we can build a rocket ourselves.'" http://www.esquire.com/features/americans-2012/elon-musk-interview-1212 http://www.esquire.com/features/americans-2012/elon-musk-int... It's a great article.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    I doubt it's a grudge. Accusing your competitor of sending money to the Kremlin in a time when the U.S.-Russia relationship isn't exactly great is simply a well-executed political jab.
- ericcumbee 12y ago
  What is your source on that? According to a page on the NASA site from Oct 13. The Station is expected be operational through at least 2028.
Crito 12y ago
While I agree that it is definitely best to use domestic launchers and not have to rely on the Russians for engines or astronaut launch, I don't think that "Fuck the Russians" is really a great expression of that. Since Apollo-Soyuz, spaceflight has been something that our two countries can productively collaborate on, despite our (at times, vast) political differences. Maintaining good relations between NASA and the RKA is valuable for everybody. SpaceX/RKA relations are less important however.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    Calling for NASA to stop working with Roscosmos and the ISS over Putin is nuts. Space research and exploration is more than petty flag waving.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - joyeuse6701 12y ago
      Somehow I think taking over Crimea is more than petty flag waving to the people who live there. I'd ask for more empathy for those whose lives may be irrevocably damaged by the actions of the Russian Head of State.
      - icebraining 12y ago
        Having empathy doesn't mean we should fall into the politician's fallacy. Unless you can demonstrate how would stopping the collaboration actually help the Crimeans, it's nothing but demagogy.
      - lotsofmangos 12y ago
        Taking over Crimea is awful and completely predictable, as is the land corridor from Crimea to Russia that will be opened to the north. Russia is scared of losing control of the naval base it has held there for over a century. However the collaboration with the ISS is something that forces communication and trust on a joint project at a high level. It is not just that it is important for space research, it is even more important for soft diplomacy. It forces the governments into situations where they have to talk about something other than sabre rattling on a regular basis.
rebolek 12y ago
Well, F* nationalists. Earth is too important to be left to the whims of crazies like you.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- unethical_ban 12y ago
  As always, there is a middle ground between "rah rah <country>" and "one world!". The U.S. government, especially its intelligence agencies, have many potentially grave flaws for a democracy. Putin and the Russian government, however, are decidedly worse leaders for freedom, and no friend of the US government or its citizens. Therefore, it's not unreasonable to look to be less dependent on their honesty, integrity and goodwill. So stop being so F*ing judgmental.
lotsofmangos 12y ago
I wouldn't be so hasty. By the time NASA has its own launch capability to the ISS again, Putin may have retired.

mikeash 12y ago

Musk said a normal Falcon 9 launch is $60 million. I'm not sure exactly what's involved with "Government-driven costs in addition to the cost of launch services" but I'd hazard a guess that they're not $40 million per launch. Could end up being a nicely profitable sale for SpaceX if they can pull it off.

BrandonMarc 12y ago
... especially if, as he said, he can reduce his current launch costs by 30% by re-using rockets.
- syncsynchalt 12y ago
  It seems likely the the USAF would specify first-run rockets for the best chance of success, so the USAF would not see a cost reduction unless spacex were to re-purchase the recovered booster or similar (or offered a credit that equated to the same).
  - Crito 12y ago
    The USAF buys a launch, not the rocket itself. The recovered stages belong to SpaceX.
  - BrandonMarc 12y ago
    True, but then in that situation SpaceX would just not give the 30% cost reduction for the launch. The 30% figure he mentioned was after giving the "under $100M" price point.
kindredlight 12y ago
Musk estimates that Air Force "mission assurance" requirements would cost $30 million, hence a $90 million ("under $100 million") price-tag.
- mikeash 12y ago
  Do you happen to know just what is involved there? I'm not too familiar with this stuff, and I'm curious.

physcab 12y ago

ULA uses engines manufactured from many different sources. Some rockets fly with engines manufactured in Russia, and as far as I know these aren't necessarily new engines but re-used from the 60's. But other programs use engines manufactured in the US. Atlas V rockets have engines made by Aerojet Rocketdyne which is based in Sacramento California. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V Also to match costs, you have to look at the payloads and the distance to space. Falcon 9 - $56M - 4.8 metric tons to GTO Falcon 9H - $135M - 21 metric tons to GTO Atlas IV/V - $160M - 7 metric tons to GTO or 21 tonnes to LEO Ariane V - $200M - ? metric tons to GTO http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/007/131124commercial/#.U1qpneZdXig http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/007/131124commercial/#.U1q... These other companies justify the higher price because they have a better track record. If you're a military customer and your payload needs to get to space, you probably will choose the "safe" bet. Its a catch-22. SpaceX needs more flights to prove their record, but they can't get more flights because of their record.

BrandonMarc 12y ago
Good point. I should have said "some of" as a qualifier.
kindredlight 12y ago
All Atlas V first-stage engines (RD-180) are manufactured in Russia. That the second stage engines are made in the US doesn't change the fact that you're dependent on Russian supply. In response to your edits: >but they can't get more flights because of their record The Air Force required 3 successful flights in the exact configuration the Air Force would fly. SpaceX provided the "record" as stipulated by the Air Force, which nevertheless committed to a large block-buy contract with ULA. By the Air Force's own standards, the billion-dollar subsidy is not necessary for their needs-to-get-to-space payloads. Also, "the other companies" is just a single supplier, ULA.
- trhway 12y ago
  >you're dependent on Russian supply and my understanding that this supply is limited to the what had already been manufactured long time ago. Beside the inventory issues, one can easy imagine Putin saying "bad Americans, no more gas ... err... rocket engines for you"

higherpurpose 12y ago

Space programs should probably not be the first to sanction in such situations. I doubt Putin would be too hurt about it anyway. If there are sanctions, they should be on other markets first. When we'll be a "space race", I doubt it will matter much whether those sent into space are Americans, or Russians or Chinese or Germans.

andrewtbham 12y ago

I watched a senate hearing where Elon Musk squares off with the ULA. It's awesome. One great quote is where the ULA says Space X can't handle the missions. Elon responds. If our rockets are good enough for NASA, they are good enough for the Department of Defense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_azyt1JhI0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_azyt1JhI0

ElComradio 12y ago
I suspect if you asked a DoD gal if it was more critical that, say, a military commsat got to orbit than something that measures solar flares, she'd beg to differ with Elon.
- sitkack 12y ago
  Yeah we all would expect them to say that. Everyone's baby is the cutest. Everyone's problems are the most important.
m_mueller 12y ago
That was an interesting watch, even as a foreigner. The ULA representative did everything he could to defend their contract - a 'good' politicians as it seems. He responded pretty well to Feinstein's chart I have to say - a chart with cost per ton in orbit would have been much more informative and I couldn't deduct from her numbers whether that has actually gone up significantly. Musk's response to Shelby's remark on a partial SpaceX mission failure was very witty - "according to ULA's standard's this mission was perfect" - he seems to be very good at thinking on the foot.
- seanjensengrey 12y ago
  Yeah, that chart is painful. Talking about absolute dollars with no basis is not productive.

ericd 12y ago

Wow, he really knows how to push the right buttons... I suppose it helps to have a company you built with almost unfair price/technical advantages behind you.

gfodor 12y ago
Yes it was so easy
- ericd 12y ago
  ? I didn't say it was easy,..
  - gfodor 12y ago
    pointing out an accomplishment as "unfair" without further elaboration serves to diminish it
    - ericd 12y ago
      I just meant unfair as in they have extreme advantages that almost no one else can replicate. That's an impressive accomplishment, I don't think it diminishes what they've done at all.

mkempe 12y ago

It's not equally important news. Suing the government for mismanagement of a procuration process is a short-term path to selling more of the same. Demonstrating landing ability, then refueling and launching within a day is a medium-term path to completely changing space flight. [added] When I say short-term vs medium-term, I mean it wrt strategy. I wouldn't bet on the short-term issue being solved first...

adinb 12y ago

ULA testified to congress that they have a 2 year supply of RD-180 engines (not sure of the exact number). The RD-180 argument is definitely weaker. Cost & reusability are much stronger arguments for canceling/recompeting the ULA block buys. That said, I can't wait until we have genuine competition in the space launch sector, especially with lightning fast turn times. It would be a genuine revolution in space access—even if money were no object, there's no one in history that has had the technology to support continual launches to orbit.