-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Norbert
TSLA will win
Yes, but from what I could tell that didn't go over well as the senator or whoever asked the question is obviously ULA biased and took out of it that SpaceX would have considered it a success while ULA wouldn't have. And didn't Elon mix up, this was a CRS mission not Cassiope as the primary payload and the secondary failed to deliver due to NASA constraints, not due to vehicle incapability. Had he said that instead of being cheeky he might have won the exchange, but he's too much Elon and had to stick it in one more time to ULA
Not sure I understand your point. He did say the lost payload was secondary and optional by definition (surely reflected in an even lower price), while obviously the air force would ask only for primary and mandatory delivery in the first place. I'd be sure ULA never offered "optional" delivery for a correspondingly lower price, so that's out-of-competition. What exactly could he have said that he didn't say?
Mario Kadastik
Active Member
The way it went he didn't really go into the details. He mentioned it was secondary that was lost and that primary was successful and then poked fun at ULA definition of success. The floor went back to the senator who asked ULA about it and they claimed of course a loss of satellite is not success and that's how the senator took it and the discussion moved on. So I considered that a loss of argument for Tesla albeit a minor one. Had he claimed immediately that the primary mission was for NASA and the secondary was conditional on NASA allowance and that the vehicle performed perfectly delivering NASA payload and could have delivered also the secondary, but NASA vetoed it and that was a risk known to the secondary payload customer. THAT answer would have been to the regulators a fully understandable answer. Right now Elon got his jibe at ULA, but lost the power of argument on it. He's human and I fully understand his wish to put some sarcasm in there, but it possibly could have helped SpaceX more if he hadn't
I think that particular response was about the only minor loss for Elon, he did gain a lot of support from all of his other arguments and I seriously cannot understand how US Military and intelligence satellites could be launched on Atlas rockets if they have Russian made components. Also the responses by the ULA CEO were all about familiarity, his long history and capabilities, but if you looked at his statements about how others are doing far better than their engineers said even possible theoretically and how consolidating and innovating is the way forward he was effectively playing into Elon's hands
And the senator who showed the chart was extremely well impressed by SpaceX and understood that ULA is abusing their position. I sure hope that this leads to SpaceX getting more and more contracts and I did love the fact that SpaceX is happy to take all the contracts and doesn't need the 1B subsidy That kind of put things into perspective. And the discussion on cost of overhead of full disclosure into costs and resources involved that increases the launch cost. The senator was hoping the price difference comes down without realizing that SpaceX calculations ALREADY included this extra overhead bringing launch costs from 60M to 90M Still saving 280M per launch in comparison. I think that might have been a sour pill to figure out by the senator who seemed very pro-ULA. Anyway, let's see how it goes
But I think it was a good and informative discussion and I laughed out loud when ULA CEO claimed that they can and will compete successfully in direct competition with SpaceX under equivalent conditions. Riiight.
Mario, that as well was my impression of that particular exchange between Senator Shelby and Elon.
I also found it a bit embarrassing when the ULA executive said they went to Russia and saw things their engineers didn't know was possible, but now they think they can make that Russian engine themselves if they had to. That doesn't really inspire confidence.
I also found it a bit embarrassing when the ULA executive said they went to Russia and saw things their engineers didn't know was possible, but now they think they can make that Russian engine themselves if they had to. That doesn't really inspire confidence.
Norbert
TSLA will win
The way it went he didn't really go into the details. He mentioned it was secondary that was lost and that primary was successful and then poked fun at ULA definition of success. The floor went back to the senator who asked ULA about it and they claimed of course a loss of satellite is not success and that's how the senator took it and the discussion moved on. So I considered that a loss of argument for Tesla albeit a minor one. Had he claimed immediately that the primary mission was for NASA and the secondary was conditional on NASA allowance and that the vehicle performed perfectly delivering NASA payload and could have delivered also the secondary, but NASA vetoed it and that was a risk known to the secondary payload customer. THAT answer would have been to the regulators a fully understandable answer. Right now Elon got his jibe at ULA, but lost the power of argument on it. He's human and I fully understand his wish to put some sarcasm in there, but it possibly could have helped SpaceX more if he hadn't
Thanks, I think I see your point now. While I don't know enough about the details of the situation to tell how easily, or not, NASA could have made a different decision, I think the danger there would have been that it might have come across as if he was trying to blame NASA, or not respecting NASA's judgement that there might have been a risk to the primary mission otherwise.
I do think that ULA's CEO tried to paint a black-and-white picture, and that Elon was able to point that out. Even if of course this (quite obviously biased) Senator and ULA where playing balls into each others court, and then declaring an end of the discussion at a point convenient to them. After all, ULA does have a good track record with its longer history.
I think that particular response was about the only minor loss for Elon, he did gain a lot of support from all of his other arguments and I seriously cannot understand how US Military and intelligence satellites could be launched on Atlas rockets if they have Russian made components. Also the responses by the ULA CEO were all about familiarity, his long history and capabilities, but if you looked at his statements about how others are doing far better than their engineers said even possible theoretically and how consolidating and innovating is the way forward he was effectively playing into Elon's hands
Agree, it seems he wasn't used to being challenged in his monopoly position, and indirectly helped Elon make his points.
And the senator who showed the chart was extremely well impressed by SpaceX and understood that ULA is abusing their position. I sure hope that this leads to SpaceX getting more and more contracts and I did love the fact that SpaceX is happy to take all the contracts and doesn't need the 1B subsidy
Anyway, let's see how it goes
Agree again, he tried to play invincible, but I think it showed he wasn't sure at all what to make of this new situation, and that underneath he was afraid of having a tough time ahead.
russian-engine-on-rocket-needs-u-s-review-hagel-says has a great quote in it, from Gass:
... and we invested hundreds of millions to advertise that we invested...
Musk, on the other hand, invested (only) hundreds of millions to actually design and build even better engines.
... and we invested hundreds of millions to advertise that we invested...
Musk, on the other hand, invested (only) hundreds of millions to actually design and build even better engines.
Actually, I thought the point about the difference, i.e. the need for mission assurance, was made rather clear in the hearing. Though I don't know what about the Air Force certifications go above and beyond what NASA does. I would think approaching the ISS where there is risk to the expensive station as well as the lives on board would be rather strict. But I guess that's more about the Dragon rather than the Falcon.
I took it as not comparing it to Nasa Commercial Crew (as SpaceX is not certified for this yet), but rather comparing it to Nasa Commercial Cargo.
jeff_adams
Member
The Russians are really gonna rue the day they mocked Elon. All they had to do was sell him some old ICBMs that probably wouldn't even have made it to Mars.
They will lose so much business competing with SpaceX. I hope he shows no mercy.
They will lose so much business competing with SpaceX. I hope he shows no mercy.
Also, found this excellent article on the current status of this legal action (read the comments too):
SpaceX EELV suit updates Space Politics
Similar threads
- Article
