This is exactly how the market is supposed to work - SpaceX is delivering the same service for a lower price and now ULA is finally forced to put serious effort into competing. I'm curious what they intend to do once the reusable first stage program gets going and launch costs drop even further.
I like that they "decided to open up the launch contracts" which is code for "Oh we got sued and lost." :-)<p>This is a great move for SpaceX and while painful for ULA the results of solid competition has usually been better product from all suppliers. Let's hope that helps make for better rockets.
<i>The Colorado-based firm plans to eliminate 875 jobs, or about one-quarter of its workforce, by end-2017, so it can better compete against SpaceX and other rivals, including the Jeff Bezos-backed...</i><p>Is anyone else here confused by how exactly cutting 1/4 of their workforce will make them more competitive? I get being lean and all that, but still...
As far as I know, ULA's track record for reliability is much better. Last I read, maybe a few months ago, SpaceX launches had failed 1 in ~19 times, and ULA's failed zero in ~85.<p>I wonder how the Air Force addressed this issue. Perhaps the cost of failure is less than the premium for reliability; perhaps they evaluated reliability based on something other than the track records (e.g., an engineering review); and of course it's political - McCain, Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is reputedly a strong advocate for SpaceX.
Wow, the contrast in sentiment between SpaceX vs ULA and Jabil vs Makerbot's Brooklyn factory (<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11574215" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11574215</a>) is striking. With SpaceX undercutting the incumbent, people are cheering free market competition but with Jabil undercutting the incumbents, people are complaining about work being done in buildings attached to the wrong pieces of Earth (China) even though in both cases, they cut costs by using genuinely more efficient processes.
"You know we're sitting on four million pounds of fuel, one nuclear weapon and a thing that has 270,000 moving parts built by the lowest bidder. Makes you feel good, doesn't it?" - Rockhound from Armageddon
SpaceX also does it 40% cheaper with over 38% MORE personnel. You'd think the ULA would be able to reduce costs with all these successful launches. I have a sneaking suspicion they increase the cost each time using the rationalization of, "look how many successful launches we have. You're paying for reliability."
I'm curious why they cut prices by 40% right off the bat?<p>Surely they must have had some idea what their competition would charge from historical bids, so why not come in at a 30% or even 20% discount?