[ad_1]
<p clbad = "web-atom canvas-text Mb (1.0em) Mb (0) – sm Mt (0.8em) – sm" type = "text" content = "With a payload capacity of 63.8 tons in low earth orbit, each three-core SpaceX Falcon Heavy Booster can launch twice as many cargoes in orbit as Delta IV Heavy, perhaps more important, with a base launch cost of only 90 million Freight for a fraction of the United Launch Alliance Award (Boeing's joint venture with Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) aka "ULA") charges for the service. "data-reactid =" 12 "> With a payload capacity of 63.8 tonnes in low Earth orbit, each triple-core Falcon Heavy SpaceX thruster can launch twice as much freight say in orbit as Delta IV Heavy. Perhaps more importantly, with a base launch cost of only $ 90 million, Falcon Heavy can launch this cargo for a fraction of the United Launch Alliance price (Boeing's joint venture with Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) [19459005
And if you think that these two facts could appeal to the US Air Force, you are right.
2 Falcon Heavy boosters landing after February 6 launch
<p clbad = "web-atom canvas-text Mb (1.0em) Mb (0) – sm Mt (0.8em) – sm "type =" text "content =" SpaceX's Falcon Heavy has just delivered a punch to the ULA Source: SpaceX . "data-reactid =" 25 SpaceX's "Falcon Heavy" has just punched the ULA Source of the Image: SpaceX .
<h2 clbad = "web-atom canvas-text Mb (1.0em) Mo (0) – sm Mt (0.8em) – sm" type = "text" content = " First a car, now a satellite "data-reactid =" 26 "> First a car, now a satellite
SpaceX's first Falcon Heavy launch was as much a publicity stunt as a demonstration technology, the launch of Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster personal sports car in a solar orbit out of reach of Mars – but without generating revenue for SpaceX. His second launch, on the other hand, will put money in the bank. In late June, the US Air Force granted SpaceX an order of $ 130 million to "orbit the Space Command Space-52 [into]."
As the Pentagon explained, this launch will only take place in September. 2020, but already, you can see the writing on the wall for ULA. Indeed, if you read carefully, the Pentagon noted that it had received two proposals to launch the AFSC-52 into orbit.
Now, apart from SpaceX, the only US launcher capable of throwing such large payloads is the ULA. So while the Pentagon did not identify SpaceX's rival by name, it almost certainly means that SpaceX defeated ULA to win this deal – and saved taxpayers a package in the process.
<h2 clbad = "canvas-atom-canvas-text Mb (1.0em) Mo (0) – sm Mt (0.8em) – sm" type = "text" content = " What the victory of SpaceX means to you "data-reactid =" 30 "> What does the SpaceX victory mean to you
I think we can all agree that SpaceX is moving from a rocketless start-up to a bigger one Rocket maker of the planet in 16 years (Musk founded SpaceX in 2002) a rather nice story. The fact that this is done while reducing the price of rockets makes the SpaceX story even better. But beyond that, what does this news mean for investors?
<p clbad = "canvas-atom canvas-text Mb (1.0em) Mb (0) – sm Mt (0.8em) – sm" type = "text" content = "This is how I think investors should think to this news: First and foremost, no matter how cool you think it is, you still can not invest in SpaceX (except perhaps in this sense). can however, invest in the driving effects of SpaceX's success by avoiding bad investments and looking for better data-reactid = "32"> Here's how I think investors should think of this news: First of all, no matter how cool you think it is, you still can not invest in SpaceX (except perhaps in this sense) .What you can do do, however, c & rsquo; Is investing in the effects of driving SpaceX's success by avoiding bad investments and seeking better
On the Bad front, with each pbading day, I am more and more convinced that Boeing and Lockheed's ULA joint venture is doomed to failure. Since the US Air Force certified SpaceX Falcon 9 mid-range rocket for carrying payloads four years ago, Falcon 9 has won all offers for such missions against Atlas V rockets offered by ULA
. has only once launched an offer against a Delta IV ULA for a USAF contract, but he has won a contract, so he earns a thousand.
For government launches, SpaceX charges an average of $ 96.9 million for Falcon 9 launches, and (up to now) $ 130 million for Falcon Heavy launches. The bureaucracy on the launch for the government requires SpaceX to increase its prices by about 50% over the $ 62 million / $ 90 million "list costs" announced for commercial launches. But even so, SpaceX charges much less than the best price of ULA – $ 177.4 million for a launch
So, ULA prices stay well above that SpaceX charge. As long as price is an object in these missions, it makes sense to badume that SpaceX will beat ULA to win contracts more often than not. At the same time, the ULA drastically reduced its prices by $ 400 million or more for Delta IV missions a few years ago. ULA must be congratulated for reducing costs and lowering prices, to the benefit of the taxpayer. This means that the ULA is reporting significantly less revenue at each launch, which could jeopardize the profitability of the joint venture in the coming years and jeopardize the $ 400 million annual profit that the ULA entrusts to parent companies Boeing and Lockheed.
<p clbad = "canvas-atom canvas-text Mb (1.0em) Mb (0) – sm Mt (0.8em) – sm" type = "text" content = "Although this is not necessarily Boeing and Lockheed bad investment (combined, the two companies earned more than $ 10 billion last year, according to data from S & P Global Market Intelligence), this suggests that neither the l & # 39; neither will fully benefit from the rapid growth of the space industry. "Data-reactid =" 41 "> Although this does not necessarily lead to bad investments for Boeing and Lockheed (Combined, the two companies earned more than $ 10 billion last year, according to S & P Global Market Intelligence data), this suggests that neither one nor the other will benefit full of the rapid growth of the US space industry
In short, if you want to find winning investments, you must go see elsewhere.
<p clbad = "canvas-atom canvas-text Mb (1.0em) Mb (0) – sm Mt (0.8em) – sm" type = "text" content = " More from The Motley Fool "data- reactid =" 43 "> More from The Motley Fool
<p clbad =" canvas-atom canvas-text Mb (1.0em) Mo (0) – sm Mt (0.8em) – sm "type =" text "content =" Rich Smith has no position in any of the mentioned actions. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the actions mentioned. Fool has a disclosure policy = "51"> Rich Smith has no position in any of the stocks mentioned The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks The Motley Fool has a Disclosure Policy
[ad_2]
Source link
