Submitted by cnbc_official t3_11b3eko in space
Comments
cnbc_official OP t1_j9vobs3 wrote
The U.S. military is preparing to buy another round of rocket launches from companies next year, and Space Force leadership says they’re taking a new “mutual fund approach” to the acquisition strategy.
“As opposed to picking a single stock, we pick two different approaches, because we thought that would best allow the government to pivot,” said Colonel Chad Melone, the chief of the U.S. Space Force’s Space Systems Command’s Launch Procurement & Integration division, in a press briefing on Friday.
Earlier this month the Space Force kicked off the process to buy five years worth of launches, under a lucrative program known as National Security Space Launch Phase 3. In 2020, the second phase of NSSL awarded contracts to two companies – Elon Musk’s SpaceX and United Launch Alliance, the joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed Martin– for about 40 military missions, worth about $1 billion per year.
Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/24/space-force-rocket-launch-acquisitions-approach.html
[deleted] t1_j9vqq2g wrote
[removed]
Triabolical_ t1_j9wfpaj wrote
Currently sf uses NSSL to buy most of their launches from SpaceX and ULA, and others they contract out individually.
In their proposed new approach, they do pretty much the same.
The real question is how many of the launches that would have been in the first category get moved to the second.
OudeStok t1_j9xti8m wrote
Sounds very much like support for SpaceX wannabee competitors. Currently there are no US companies with a viable alternative to SpaceX Falcon, Falcon Super Heavy and Starship.
youknowithadtobedone t1_j9yzzcx wrote
Not every launch needs a F9. Rocket Lab is mentioned in the article for example
Dead_Or_Alive t1_j9zhoc6 wrote
And Astra… (looks at my stocks in ASTR and RKLB) please buy some launches from Rocket Lab and Astra.
Glittering_Leading93 t1_j9ytr2f wrote
There is no rocket company or government in the world that has what spacex can offer. They’re just built different 😂
GhettoFinger t1_j9z2e3v wrote
Yeah, because relying on a single company for everything is super smart 🙄. You fund SpaceX competitors so that they can build competitive capabilities.
Xaxxon t1_j9zfjm9 wrote
That works in a lot of other businesses, but Elon's companies don't play by the usual rules of just trying to be slightly better than the competition.
There is no sane business reason to build Starship. Yet they're going all in on it.
GhettoFinger t1_j9zoki4 wrote
Yes there is, the business reason to create startship is to win even more lucrative NASA contracts. SpaceX is not a business, it’s a quasi government agency. SpaceX literally can not exist without NASA, they don’t release financials because it’s not public, but I’d be shocked if they didn’t get over 90% of their profits through NASA contracts.
SpaceX needs NASA far more than NASA needs them. The problem is that NASA is constrained through bureaucracy which makes going to space very expensive for them, so for them to do what SpaceX does would eat most of their budget. So they delegate that to SpaceX so they can allocate that budget to something more productive.
The best thing for NASA and the Space Force is to use SpaceX for the missions that need to be done that only they can do for now, while funding their competitors to help them grow, so they can also have the capabilities to do the same missions in the future. This will put massive downward pressure on SpaceX’s ability to use their position for leverage in the future and keep these corporate parasites in check.
Xaxxon t1_j9zp0hm wrote
Spacex doesn’t need nasa to fly astronauts to space.
Nasa needs spacex (or Russia) to fly astronauts to space. (More than once every couple years at least and for less than a billion dollars per person)
Spacex NEEDED nasa for sure at one point but that point has come and gone. Nasa is a great partner but is no longer required.
GhettoFinger t1_j9zquj7 wrote
NASA needed the Russians and now SpaceX to keep costs down, but they don’t need them because they’re incapable of doing it themselves. They just wouldn’t have the bandwidth to do anything else which is not sustainable or ideal for scientific research.
However, SpaceX needs NASA to exist, which is a much more desperate need. SpaceX has no other cash flows besides NASA contracts that can sustain them, except maybe starlink, but that is still operating at a loss from analysis that I’ve seen. How would SpaceX survive without NASA? I would love to see you explain this.
Xaxxon t1_j9zqxo3 wrote
TSLA and starlink is profitable this year and that will only grow.
Also outside investors. Those investors have been lining up with no short term goal for profit.
Plus they launch for other companies.
See. That wasn’t so hard.
GhettoFinger t1_j9zr94z wrote
Except Elon himself said starlink is losing money
Xaxxon t1_j9zrerj wrote
Yes in the past that was true. In the future it’s not. Gwynne said it’s profitable this year.
You also ignored all the other parts.
GhettoFinger t1_j9zsi0r wrote
Well go ahead and link where she says that, but nonetheless I won’t believe shit until there are concrete numbers and that won’t happen until he releases an IPO. They can say whatever they want, but until it’s backed up more than with a “trust me bro” I’ll take it with a pinch of salt. Also, it needs to be more than just profitable to sustain not only the costs to operate starlink, but also fund their development and non-starlink space flights. That is several years away. Until that point, they are NASA’s servant.
And even when they are fully self sustainable, the government should heavily regulate what they can do. We need to make sure these parasites don’t cover low earth orbit with their trash for profit. If they want to do space flight, they need to be kept on a very tight leash
Xaxxon t1_j9zsr06 wrote
https://www.google.com/search?q=gwynne+starlink+profitable
And I listed a bunch of other things that also fund spacex. Starlink is only one part.
In addition to all the things I listed previously, they also sell spaceflights to civilians.
You're really rabbit holeing on one thing -- you're wrong about that but even if you're right the original statement STILL holds. SpaceX doesn't need nasa to get humans on mars, it just makes it easier.
Of course they aren't actually going to go to mars without nasa - nasa will get on board the SpaceX plan at some point - too embarrassing to get left behind. But SpaceX COULD
However, NASA cannot keep astronauts on the ISS full time without either SpaceX or Russia.
MT_Kinetic_Mountain t1_j9yy9we wrote
Didn't nasa basically try to go for the same thing? Like they didn't want to just rely on SpaceX for crew mission to the ISS and they'd hoped/hoping for Boeing to join the club
youknowithadtobedone t1_j9z0b24 wrote
Yes. But SpaceX was actually the backup option so to speak. They expected Boeing to be the stable safe option while giving the newcomer
Decronym t1_j9zts6n wrote
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |EELV|Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle| |NSSL|National Security Space Launch, formerly EELV| |ULA|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)|
^(2 acronyms in this thread; )^(the most compressed thread commented on today)^( has 21 acronyms.)
^([Thread #8614 for this sub, first seen 25th Feb 2023, 19:55])
^[FAQ] ^([Full list]) ^[Contact] ^([Source code])
[deleted] t1_j9w2g0z wrote
[removed]
NugKnights t1_j9voq16 wrote
Sounds more like they wana hook up their friends.
[deleted] t1_j9zeaum wrote
[removed]
CannaVance t1_j9vxc14 wrote
I still can't ever get further than reading Space Force.
[deleted] t1_j9xgy5a wrote
[removed]
Thereelgerg t1_jaepu07 wrote
An English tutor could help you with that.
Gandalf2000 t1_j9vr91v wrote
>mutual fund approach
That's such a weird way to phrase the very basic and logical concept of "not putting all your eggs in one basket"