Air Force budget reveals how much SpaceX undercuts launch prices(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Air Force budget reveals how much SpaceX undercuts launch prices
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/06/air-force-budget-reveals-how-much-spacex-undercuts-launch-prices/
130 comments
They were the only one left because the two remaining competitors merged to form ... ULA.
ULA used all of their political connections to keep SpaceX out of the government launch as long as they could, to maintain their monopoly pricing.
ULA used all of their political connections to keep SpaceX out of the government launch as long as they could, to maintain their monopoly pricing.
But it was Congress that forced the creation of ULA. Both Boeing and Lockheed were planning to leave the launch business and leave the US with nothing (except the Shuttle). Launch is an ugly business, you have big fixed costs but very lumpy revenues since you get paid when the rocket leaves the ground (which can be delayed for years due to late payloads, political roadblocks etc), and Delta and Atlas weren't competitive in the commercial market so they couldn't smooth things out.
So Congress told them to form ULA and they would give them a readiness contract to make it worth it to them even if they weren't launching often. Basically, it was that or lose the heavy launch capability which would have been a huge national security problem.
Obviously, that changes with SpaceX around, but what hasn't changed is that if Congress pulls that contract, they'll just kill ULA and the Delta and Atlas will be gone. Lockheed and Boeing still don't really want to be in this business and there is nothing they can do to make Atlas price competitive with Falcon, since their customer won't let them change anything.
So Congress told them to form ULA and they would give them a readiness contract to make it worth it to them even if they weren't launching often. Basically, it was that or lose the heavy launch capability which would have been a huge national security problem.
Obviously, that changes with SpaceX around, but what hasn't changed is that if Congress pulls that contract, they'll just kill ULA and the Delta and Atlas will be gone. Lockheed and Boeing still don't really want to be in this business and there is nothing they can do to make Atlas price competitive with Falcon, since their customer won't let them change anything.
>Launch is an ugly business, you have big fixed costs but very lumpy revenues since you get paid when the rocket leaves the ground (which can be delayed for years due to late payloads, political roadblocks etc), and Delta and Atlas weren't competitive in the commercial market so they couldn't smooth things out.
Add to that the real money is in the satellites themselves. If you were a big company like Lockheed it made far more sense to stick to building sats and buying launch services from someone else.
>Obviously, that changes with SpaceX around, but what hasn't changed is that if Congress pulls that contract, they'll just kill ULA and the Delta and Atlas will be gone.
Congress will probably allow Delta to die, but they're not going to be 100% dependent on Falcon. All it takes is a failed launch and nothing goes up for six months while investigators figure out what happened.
Add to that the real money is in the satellites themselves. If you were a big company like Lockheed it made far more sense to stick to building sats and buying launch services from someone else.
>Obviously, that changes with SpaceX around, but what hasn't changed is that if Congress pulls that contract, they'll just kill ULA and the Delta and Atlas will be gone.
Congress will probably allow Delta to die, but they're not going to be 100% dependent on Falcon. All it takes is a failed launch and nothing goes up for six months while investigators figure out what happened.
I definitely agree that Delta will die.
Probably not before there's another launch provider with reusable rockets (Looking your way Blue Origin/New Glenn)
Probably not before there's another launch provider with reusable rockets (Looking your way Blue Origin/New Glenn)
I am not a rocket scientist... but it seems like a 6 month investigation delay would be comparable to the time it would take to procure and integrate the payload into a completely different rocket?
Also if the launch savings exceed the total payload costs, in a pinch couldn't they just roll the dice given falcon's success %?
(The last falcon investigation delay was only ~4 months)
Also if the launch savings exceed the total payload costs, in a pinch couldn't they just roll the dice given falcon's success %?
(The last falcon investigation delay was only ~4 months)
The problem is a six month delay pushes everybody's launch back six months. So if you had an interplanetary probe scheduled for the next Mars launch window in April of 2018, a six month delay starting today would mean your probe doesn't get launched until the next window in July of 2020 unless you have enough clout to bump other launches.
I think they might talk about leaving the launch business but as long as the government is willing to pay lots of money, somebody will launch that stuff. Cooperation with Europe to improve how broad the market was would have been a interesting option.
They could have done something like the COTS program for rockets.
They could have done something like the COTS program for rockets.
Almost. There were two companies who were competing to provide EELV launches (Boeing and LockMart). They decided to merge their launch business into ULA to settle an industrial espionage court case that had begun spiraling out of control and threatened to doom Boeing's launch contracts.
Blame it on the cost-plus contract.
NASA paid cost-plus to ULA and the ilk initially (think 60's -90s) mainly because rocketry was a very new field and it was near impossible to reliably estimate the final cost the manufacturer would incur in fulfilling the contract, so NASA just said "spend whatever you want and we'll pay your spend plus 6%".
However it's well known now how much researching and building rockets costs, so cost-plus contracts are, essentially a very bad contract cost model. It's mainly because ULA and such have become _far_ too comfortable on their half-a-century monopoly and simply don't want their scam to end.
NASA paid cost-plus to ULA and the ilk initially (think 60's -90s) mainly because rocketry was a very new field and it was near impossible to reliably estimate the final cost the manufacturer would incur in fulfilling the contract, so NASA just said "spend whatever you want and we'll pay your spend plus 6%".
However it's well known now how much researching and building rockets costs, so cost-plus contracts are, essentially a very bad contract cost model. It's mainly because ULA and such have become _far_ too comfortable on their half-a-century monopoly and simply don't want their scam to end.
Seems to be working extraordinarily well given the technology lead that SpaceX and Blue Origin are working on or already have versus Russia and China. That lead should widen significantly in the next three or four years.
My read [which, knowing full well we're talking about the US government I'm still having a hard time believing] is that the SpaceX cost is 23% of the ULA cost. Meaning 77% less.
Do I misunderstand: "SpaceX won a contract to launch another GPS 3 satellite for $96.5 million. These represent "all-in, fully burdened costs" to the government, and so they seem to be roughly comparable to the $422 million "unit cost" in the Air Force budget for 2020."?
Do I misunderstand: "SpaceX won a contract to launch another GPS 3 satellite for $96.5 million. These represent "all-in, fully burdened costs" to the government, and so they seem to be roughly comparable to the $422 million "unit cost" in the Air Force budget for 2020."?
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-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"
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-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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
"But based upon discussions with various space policy experts, this is the maximum amount the Air Force believes it will need to pay, per launch, if United Launch Alliance is selected for all of its launch needs in 2020."
While helpful (and shockingly high), it is also misleading due to 2 factors:
1. ULA price spread is quite significant, fully loaded Delta Heavy is super expensive.
2. As per quote above, the number is for all launches done on ULA* .
AFAIK here is the formula used to arrive at 422:
(fixed_cost + number_of_launches * cost_per_launch) / number_of_launches = 422
fixed_cost = $1b/year subsidy
Without knowing number/weight/orbits of things UAF wants to launch it is hard to estimate how much each vehicle costs. Moreover, as per quote above, this price is for all launches done with ULA. If part of the launches are done with other providers amortized price will be higher due to the $1b subsidy.
* Without Falcon Heavy flying some launches must be done with ULA.
While helpful (and shockingly high), it is also misleading due to 2 factors:
1. ULA price spread is quite significant, fully loaded Delta Heavy is super expensive.
2. As per quote above, the number is for all launches done on ULA* .
AFAIK here is the formula used to arrive at 422:
(fixed_cost + number_of_launches * cost_per_launch) / number_of_launches = 422
fixed_cost = $1b/year subsidy
Without knowing number/weight/orbits of things UAF wants to launch it is hard to estimate how much each vehicle costs. Moreover, as per quote above, this price is for all launches done with ULA. If part of the launches are done with other providers amortized price will be higher due to the $1b subsidy.
* Without Falcon Heavy flying some launches must be done with ULA.
I got the impression the formula was:
(fixed_cost + number_of_launches * cost_per_launch) / number_of_launches = 422
(fixed_cost + number_of_launches * cost_per_launch) / number_of_launches = 422
You are right, my formula just computed the total price, I've updated my comment.
> * Without Falcon Heavy flying some launches must be done with ULA.
Even with Falcon Heavy, there are missions that will require the Delta IV Heavy.
Even with Falcon Heavy, there are missions that will require the Delta IV Heavy.
Why’s that? Falcon Heavy is projected to be able to take up considerably more payload.
Do you have a specific example? AFAIK Falcon Heavy can beat Delta Heavy on everything but some deep space and missions requiring super long coast. I am not sure how many of those UAF has.
Are you sure about that? The marketing materials [1] for the Falcon Heavy say:
"Falcon Heavy can lift more than twice the payload of the next closest operational vehicle, the Delta IV Heavy - at one-third the cost."
[1] http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy
"Falcon Heavy can lift more than twice the payload of the next closest operational vehicle, the Delta IV Heavy - at one-third the cost."
[1] http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy
That depends on the orbital destination. Delta IV Heavy has a _very_ eficient upper stage, which makes it better for high energy destinations.
Additionally, the Falcon upper stage has very limited on-orbit capabilities. It can't coast for a long time in order to insert a payload directly into a high orbit. (Though SpaceX is working on this, and did some tests in that direction on the recent NROL-76 launch)
Additionally, the Falcon upper stage has very limited on-orbit capabilities. It can't coast for a long time in order to insert a payload directly into a high orbit. (Though SpaceX is working on this, and did some tests in that direction on the recent NROL-76 launch)
This is false. There are some mission that they can not fly yet but the additional capabilities for the upper stage are already in development and have been partly tested.
I would expect that by the time the FH flys the upgrades to the upper stage should be rolled out, so they can fly direct insertions.
There is still the additional problem of vertical integration. SpaceX will start doing that on pad 39A.
I would expect that by the time the FH flys the upgrades to the upper stage should be rolled out, so they can fly direct insertions.
There is still the additional problem of vertical integration. SpaceX will start doing that on pad 39A.
My comment was based on the current reality. It is not "false". You're speculating about future capabilities which SpaceX is working towards (and certainly seem likely to achieve), but have not yet accomplished.
I don't think it's quite a fair direct comparison.
The $96.5M is for a single launch.
The $422 million is for each individual launch, plus assured access in a 24-hour window.
That is, the US Government is paying SpaceX for a launch. They're paying ULC for a launch, and a guarantee that if the US Government asks to launch a rocket tomorrow ULC will say "yes".
If the US Government asked SpaceX for a launch tomorrow, they would probably get a response of "No can do. We don't have a rocket fueled, on stand-by, and ready to go."* It costs a lot to maintain a spare rocket, launch pad, and other infrastructure necessary to launch a rocket within 24-hours around the year.
I still think SpaceX is a lot cheaper as a launch provider, but I don't think it's quite as extreme as the article makes it seem. I would imagine if SpaceX had to maintain 24-hour launch capacity their "unit cost" would be significantly higher than their individual launch cost.
* That's actually not quite true. By coincidence, SpaceX has a launch scheduled for June 17. If there were a national emergency the US Government could probably pay SpaceX to commandeer that launch. However, this is just a coincidence. If I were writing this comment on June 18 it would not be true.
The $96.5M is for a single launch.
The $422 million is for each individual launch, plus assured access in a 24-hour window.
That is, the US Government is paying SpaceX for a launch. They're paying ULC for a launch, and a guarantee that if the US Government asks to launch a rocket tomorrow ULC will say "yes".
If the US Government asked SpaceX for a launch tomorrow, they would probably get a response of "No can do. We don't have a rocket fueled, on stand-by, and ready to go."* It costs a lot to maintain a spare rocket, launch pad, and other infrastructure necessary to launch a rocket within 24-hours around the year.
I still think SpaceX is a lot cheaper as a launch provider, but I don't think it's quite as extreme as the article makes it seem. I would imagine if SpaceX had to maintain 24-hour launch capacity their "unit cost" would be significantly higher than their individual launch cost.
* That's actually not quite true. By coincidence, SpaceX has a launch scheduled for June 17. If there were a national emergency the US Government could probably pay SpaceX to commandeer that launch. However, this is just a coincidence. If I were writing this comment on June 18 it would not be true.
Thats not what assured access means. ULA absolutely cannot conduct a launch on 24 hours notice, nor can any launch provider. It takes months for them to prepare a launch. Payload integration alone (assuming, by some miracle, they actually had a rocket fully built, in the configuration needed, and all the development work needed to certify the combination of the rocket with a particular payload was done, and that the pad is available, exactly none of which will actually be true) takes multiple days. ULA does have, as a commercial service, RapidLaunch which is the fastest launch service in the world from order placement to liftoff, and that still takes 3 months minimum.
Assured access, as defined by the EELV program, just means there are at least 2 launch vehicles in service (in this case, Atlas V, Delta IV, and partially Falcon 9) which are capable and certified to carry the full range of national security payloads, which means problems with a single rocket design will never ground all national security payloads
Assured access, as defined by the EELV program, just means there are at least 2 launch vehicles in service (in this case, Atlas V, Delta IV, and partially Falcon 9) which are capable and certified to carry the full range of national security payloads, which means problems with a single rocket design will never ground all national security payloads
ULA does not and cannot offer guaranteed launch at any point in time -- their launches, including launches of government payloads, can be and are delayed for days by anything from technical glitches to unfavorable wind conditions to planes wandering into the launch corridor. (Google "Atlas V launch delay" for numerous examples.) And they don't have boosters "on standby, ready to go"; like everyone else, they refer to launch preparations as "campaigns", and they extend for weeks after the rocket and payload are both at the pad.
(There are other capabilities ULA offers that SpaceX still can't match, but those are all about babying the payloads -- mounting them vertically on the rocket, rather than tilting as is SpaceX's current practice; providing clean-room access to payloads already on the rocket, and so forth.)
(There are other capabilities ULA offers that SpaceX still can't match, but those are all about babying the payloads -- mounting them vertically on the rocket, rather than tilting as is SpaceX's current practice; providing clean-room access to payloads already on the rocket, and so forth.)
I think it's complicated by the retainer like fee the AF pays to ULA. Still, staggeringly cheaper.
why did the article compare spacex's costs for one flight, to the maximum ULA may receive for a flight... these are not equivalent things. Is the spacex rocket used for that GPS sat equivalent to a delta heavy ($350m) or an atlas v ($100m)?
Edit: this is a better article than the one linked: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-spacex-launch-ula-id...
it's the article for the gps sat, which clearly says Spacex undercut ULA by 40% on that contract -- so 83m vs 140m for ULA
That is a big difference, but much less than the 83m vs 422m in the article
Edit: this is a better article than the one linked: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-spacex-launch-ula-id...
it's the article for the gps sat, which clearly says Spacex undercut ULA by 40% on that contract -- so 83m vs 140m for ULA
That is a big difference, but much less than the 83m vs 422m in the article
Falcon 9 (the rocket used for the GPS launch) is comparable to the ~$100m Atlas.
The Falcon 9 (in 'expendable' mode) is roughly equivalent to an Atlas V in the 551 configuration (it's not an apples to apples comparison because the upper stage Atlas uses (Centaur) is _really_ capable).
In reusable mode, it's closer to a 511.
Delta IV Heavy is comparable to the (upcoming) Falcon Heavy (though again, due to the capabilities of Centaur, DIVH will be able to fly missions that FH cannot). It will be interesting to see just how big the price difference is there (I expect it to be pretty significant).
The Falcon 9 (in 'expendable' mode) is roughly equivalent to an Atlas V in the 551 configuration (it's not an apples to apples comparison because the upper stage Atlas uses (Centaur) is _really_ capable).
In reusable mode, it's closer to a 511.
Delta IV Heavy is comparable to the (upcoming) Falcon Heavy (though again, due to the capabilities of Centaur, DIVH will be able to fly missions that FH cannot). It will be interesting to see just how big the price difference is there (I expect it to be pretty significant).
Delta IV Heavy is comparable to the (upcoming) Falcon Heavy (though again, due to the capabilities of Centaur, DIVH will be able to fly missions that FH cannot).
The Delta Cryogenic Second Stage is not a Centaur. Yes, it uses the same propellants and a related (though not identical) RL-10 engine. The tanks are very different, though, and those are arguably the most unique thing about Centaur: pressure-stabilised ("ballon") tanks made of stainless steel, plus a common bulkhead between fuel and oxidiser tanks make for a very good propellant mass fraction.
The Delta Cryogenic Second Stage is not a Centaur. Yes, it uses the same propellants and a related (though not identical) RL-10 engine. The tanks are very different, though, and those are arguably the most unique thing about Centaur: pressure-stabilised ("ballon") tanks made of stainless steel, plus a common bulkhead between fuel and oxidiser tanks make for a very good propellant mass fraction.
SpaceX has already been testing the upgrades to the Upper Stage. They will soon be able to fly all missions.
Vertical integration is something they are still missing.
Vertical integration is something they are still missing.
[deleted]
I'd recommend watching the video of Elon Musk debate Michael Gass (of ULA) at a US Senate hearing. It's over an hour long, and really gets into the differences between the two programs.
Link to the part where Elon starts talking: https://youtu.be/IWVZYKGTenE?t=1102
Link to the part where Elon starts talking: https://youtu.be/IWVZYKGTenE?t=1102
Why is Elon/SpaceX charging so much less for rockets?
Couldn't they make more profit, to reinvest in Mars plans, by charging something like 90% of competitors for near perpetuity?
Couldn't they make more profit, to reinvest in Mars plans, by charging something like 90% of competitors for near perpetuity?
Falcon 9 is a new rocket without a lot of statistics about mission success rate. They had a few failed launches in 2015 and 2016. This makes launching your payload on a Falcon 9 more risky and you have to pay a higher insurance premium, than if you were to launch on a Soyuz rocket (all large payloads are insured). If they can get more successful launches under their belt, it will lower their risk and make insurance premiums go down. Then they can up their prices.
I'm speculating wildly, but it's not like demand is totally inelastic for launches. If you can make launches a lot cheaper, then it's not totally inconceivable that they might make it up in additional volume. Also, if Musk's goal is Mars, then the best thing for that is the healthiest possible space program, which requires the most economic launches.
You have an implicit assumption that the competitor was previously charging close to cost. They have an incentive to cut prices too after Space-X enters. The old monopoly price is different to the price where Space-X wins the contract.
What is a "non-mercerdi breach"(sp?)
Heard here: https://youtu.be/IWVZYKGTenE?t=2876 (and earlier too)
Not sure of the spelling or the definition.
Heard here: https://youtu.be/IWVZYKGTenE?t=2876 (and earlier too)
Not sure of the spelling or the definition.
She said "Nunn-McCurdy breach"
cf [1]: <The Nunn–McCurdy Amendment> "requires notification to the United States Congress if the cost per unit goes more than 25% beyond what was originally estimated, and calls for the termination of programs with total cost growth greater than 50%, unless the Secretary of Defense submits a detailed explanation"
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunn–McCurdy_Amendment
cf [1]: <The Nunn–McCurdy Amendment> "requires notification to the United States Congress if the cost per unit goes more than 25% beyond what was originally estimated, and calls for the termination of programs with total cost growth greater than 50%, unless the Secretary of Defense submits a detailed explanation"
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunn–McCurdy_Amendment
Thanks!
43224gg252(5)
$422m per launch vs under $100m per launch.
Just imagine how many schools, bridges, cancer treatments, or who knows what else that money could be better spent on.
Just imagine how many schools, bridges, cancer treatments, or who knows what else that money could be better spent on.
probably not much. that money is likely to be spent on elsewhere in military.
I'm pretty sure the military funds schools (University research funding, DARPA) and bridges (maybe in Afghanistan and Iraq). Cancer research is probably not a high priority, but traumatic brain injury treatment research and hearing loss mitigation are.
So in between various clumsy bombings with 75% noncombatant casualties, the military occasionally spends money on things universally good for society & humanity.
So in between various clumsy bombings with 75% noncombatant casualties, the military occasionally spends money on things universally good for society & humanity.
The U.S. Military is universally good for society & humanity.
(Unless you're ISIS)
(Unless you're ISIS)
Indeed! They've brought peace and stability to Iraq and Afghanistan, for example. /s
To be fair, the responsibility overwhelmingly lies with the civilian leaders of the military.
If the tool never works how its users expect, it might be appropriate to blame the tool.
It might, but I think the US military is a great tool and does its actual job fantastically well. The only thing you can really blame them for is that they did not give a broad enough set of strategic options to civilians.
That said the civilian government usually gives them nonsensical task that they simply can not do.
That said the civilian government usually gives them nonsensical task that they simply can not do.
Sometimes the military does a great job on hiding their inefficiencies too: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/pentagon-burie...
Oh for sure. But relatively to other military they are quite good and even while they waste a lot they can mostly to their jobs. Other military are very expensive and very ineffective.
It's just that USA military never seem to win any wars... or honorably escape from any conflict... or actually accomplish anything they ever claimed to have set out to do. Even if we're generous and put Korea in the win column, that was a really long time ago.
Again, the win the traditional military conflict and that is their primary responsibility. They are not equipped to do Nation building and they don't have the political support to do it. That's why they never exit a conflict very well, but they always crush in the beginning.
Korea was the last time they had a real problem winning the traditional military conflict.
Korea was the last time they had a real problem winning the traditional military conflict.
[deleted]
The tactical blunders resulting in the loss of noncombatant life are only so widespread because of the civilian leadership's priorities. It's rarely the fault of any one servicemember.
The military has some funding for roads and bridges in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, but the heavy lifting is done by the Department of State. Most of the budget is on personnel and equipment.
Or on freeway overpasses in the middle of nowhere.
Yeah, that's a couple of F-35s...
Just imagine what you could do if you didn't do those launches at all.
Just imagine what you could do if humanity moved at the pace of the slowest individual.
We could not have GPS, and still be trying to fly planes over other countries. I'm a fan of cost reduction, but it is more nuanced than this.
Sure, there is plenty of dual purpose stuff. Think of the Hubble as a Keyhole pointing the other way. But in general money spent on defense is spent in ways that make me wonder if we could not do something more useful with it. And a world with GPS could be more annoying than a world with say better education. And then you might end up launching those GPS satellites anyway, but from a different bucket and a little later.
Piggy-backing stuff onto the military budget that is dual use is a nice fig leaf but it does not reduce the component spent on the remainder: weapons of all sorts, kinds and shapes.
Piggy-backing stuff onto the military budget that is dual use is a nice fig leaf but it does not reduce the component spent on the remainder: weapons of all sorts, kinds and shapes.
> Think of the Hubble as a Keyhole pointing the other way.
I still remember one discussion on NRO where an user mentioned that it donated a space telescope to NASA [0], built around the same time as Hubble, that had better specs. And that's the spare one!
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_National_Reconnaissance_O...
I still remember one discussion on NRO where an user mentioned that it donated a space telescope to NASA [0], built around the same time as Hubble, that had better specs. And that's the spare one!
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_National_Reconnaissance_O...
That was fascinating! Thank you for sharing the link.
The one thing we've proven over the last 40 years is you don't get better education by throwing money at it. Here in California we spend, in constant dollar, twice what we spent per pupil in 1970. Test scores are flat.
Could we not have invented GPS through completely civilian subsidies?
Sure DARPA produces civilian applicable research as a side effect, but what about directly funding civilian research instead?
Sure DARPA produces civilian applicable research as a side effect, but what about directly funding civilian research instead?
Probably not. The compelling use cases for the first 20 years of GPS were all military with a few survey applications essentially riding free. The equipment used to be many, many pounds and tens of thousands of dollars. Almost every other industry besides had a "better" short term solution to location that met their needs at a fraction of the initial price of GPS.
salesguy222(1)
And now imagine how many schools could have been already built, as just under $100m was a price Arianespace had offered for over a decade for the same launches.
SpaceX’ concept is about going below $50m in the next years per launch.
SpaceX’ concept is about going below $50m in the next years per launch.
Isn't the price offered by Arianespace subsidized though? I could imagine that the EU is ok to subsidize to get market share in the private market but wouldn't be too happy to subsidize the US department of defense.
Only development is subsidized, ongoing costs are not.
The US could have easily contracted to Arianespace for these flights (especially as Arianespace is already a project of a close ally), and could have saved around 300 million USD for every single launch, of which there were thousands over the time frame that this was possible.
We’re seriously talking about dozens to hundreds of billions USD that could have been saved.
The US could have easily contracted to Arianespace for these flights (especially as Arianespace is already a project of a close ally), and could have saved around 300 million USD for every single launch, of which there were thousands over the time frame that this was possible.
We’re seriously talking about dozens to hundreds of billions USD that could have been saved.
The price is not subsidized to a huge degree. What they do is pay a lot for the development and infrastructure.
The Arian 6 will get like 3 Billion and many of its parts have a history of development by government investment.
Arianespace might come close to competing on price, but they can't compete on cost.
The Arian 6 will get like 3 Billion and many of its parts have a history of development by government investment.
Arianespace might come close to competing on price, but they can't compete on cost.
Now spacex is starting to compete, costs will come down. Is something not going as expected?