Comments on: ULA and SpaceX trade jabs

By: Art

Art — Wed, 02 Jul 2014 04:32:41 +0000

You nailed it on the head about that block buy. The Air Force fiscal year 2014 started on Oct 1, 2013 & ends on Sep 30, 2014. So this block buy being approved at the end of the 1st quarter of fiscal year 2014, under pressure from ULA, can possible be called coercing a gov institution. The Air Force could have waited until second the end of the second quarter of FY 2014. Especially, when they knew that there would be competition. Ideally the award could have waited until the end of the third quarter of FY 2014. The fact that it did not means that the civilian official in the contracting office resorted to illegal means to achieve a high level job opportunity as a reward. Suddenly this Air Force contracting official retires the same FY & receives a VP post in a supplier of ULA hardware. Come on!! The only reason this individual didn’t get on with ULA is because the blatant corruption couldn’t be easily hidden. Just my opinion.

By: Jim Nobles

Jim Nobles — Wed, 02 Jul 2014 01:53:53 +0000

So to you all this mess is about people liking SpaceX too much?

By: Neil

Neil — Wed, 02 Jul 2014 01:28:11 +0000

Yep even ESA doesn’t require a billion dollar subsidy. It’s more like $100 or so million.
ULA simply can’t compete unless, they’ve been significantly feathering their nest and price gouging the DoD which I think they have anyway but the question is by how much? This I would not put past them.
Cheers.

By: Fred Willett

Fred Willett — Tue, 01 Jul 2014 02:56:02 +0000

it would be nice to see launch costs come down and to have ULA start poaching in commercial launch market and give Space X some competition there.
Ain’t gunna happen. ULA rockets are just too expensive.
ULA can’t compete even with a $1B annual “assured access” subsidy.
ULA’s commercial launches are few and far between. SpaceX currently has 30% of the global launch market and is eyeing off 50%.
The fact is ULA needs the protection of the block buy to stop SpaceX eating its lunch.

By: Neil

Neil — Tue, 01 Jul 2014 01:17:13 +0000

Yes but they aren’t in the ‘certification’ loop as yet. I think that they will be but not just yet.

By: common sense

common sense — Mon, 30 Jun 2014 21:20:13 +0000

“Itâ€™s not about opposing Space X, and if you have to pull out that barb then your position is questionable.”

Not sure what is questionable about my position. I support SpaceX. Clear enough?

“This is about not glorifying Mr. Musk as the second coming and taking a hard look without any biases. No matter what argument I or any other of the minority of posters on this board make, the Space X faithful will not cast their eyes away for one minute to have a truly non-biased discussion. Of course, politics is all about bias so I suppose its presence is apt considering the nature of this board.”

The nature of your comment does show that you have no substance in your argument. “second coming”? “SpaceX faithful”?

“So, wave the flag and Space X pom poms all you like.”

I wave nothing. I do not “pom pomp” anything either. I leave it to those who have no substantiated argument in either camp.

“It doesnâ€™t change the fact that ULA and Space X have similar business objectives and have their playbooks by which to achieve them.”

I see. So now you know the business objectives of both ULA and SpaceX. Wow you are quite the informed poster obviously. And all that without link or reference to your argumentation. Neat.

“Take the stars out of your eyes for a few minutes and exercise some of that common sense and you might see it.”

I might reply something nasty about taking things out of other things but I will not just to be polite. However I will not take the stars out of my eyes since they drove me thus far. And as far as of “common sense” goes believe you me I have heard it all from those like you in this forums and others. And so far I would like to be proven wrong. Once. Just once.

By: Coastal Ron

Coastal Ron — Mon, 30 Jun 2014 20:23:05 +0000

MORE REALITY said:

“Honestly, this whole â€œcompetitionâ€ and â€œfairnessâ€ schtick is getting old.”

Capitalism and free trade never gets old.

“Itâ€™s about acquiring the most reliable ride to space for national security assets, period.”

Actually, no. The government is not willing to pay any price in order to ensure every launch is successful. There is an economic trade off.

And let’s remember that the Air Force itself does want competition, and that it has remarked in the past about how the increases in launch costs are unsustainable.

So again, no this isn’t about acquiring the most reliable ride to space, but the overall most cost effective one.

By: MORE REALITY

MORE REALITY — Mon, 30 Jun 2014 19:49:35 +0000

But the reality is that no matter what you think about certification, USAF is the customer, and they make the rules.

By: MORE REALITY

MORE REALITY — Mon, 30 Jun 2014 19:48:42 +0000

Sorry. Certification doesn’t work that way. There is more to it than that.

By: MORE REALITY

MORE REALITY — Mon, 30 Jun 2014 19:30:11 +0000

It’s not about opposing Space X, and if you have to pull out that barb then your position is questionable. This is about not glorifying Mr. Musk as the second coming and taking a hard look without any biases. No matter what argument I or any other of the minority of posters on this board make, the Space X faithful will not cast their eyes away for one minute to have a truly non-biased discussion. Of course, politics is all about bias so I suppose its presence is apt considering the nature of this board.

So, wave the flag and Space X pom poms all you like. It doesn’t change the fact that ULA and Space X have similar business objectives and have their playbooks by which to achieve them. Take the stars out of your eyes for a few minutes and exercise some of that common sense and you might see it.