Category Archives: technology

Tesla has moats that other automakers cannot easily copy (i.e., why most shorts are idiots)

Many of the investors who have decided to short Tesla’s stock are extremely ignorant about the technology in Tesla cars. They mistakenly believe that the legacy automakers like Mercedes-Benz, BMW, VW and GM are going to eat Tesla’s lunch, once those automakers start rolling out competing electric vehicles (EVs). They are convinced that other automakers can easily copy the technology used by Tesla, which reveals their fundamental ignorance about EVs, batteries, charging and autonomous driving.

While legacy automakers have real advantages in terms of their trained workforces, quality control, and manufacturing capacity over Tesla, the shorts fail to understand the large technological advantages that Tesla has established over the legacy automakers. Telsa has created “moats” around the company that other automakers will not be able to easily cross. Tesla is carrying a large debt load and has only recently demonstrated its ability to generate a profit, so there are reasons to not invest in the company, but the reasons given by most shorts, which are widely publicized by the press, are mostly malarkey spread by ignoramuses who don’t have the slightest idea what they are talking about.

Engineers who have examined the Model 3 know that Tesla is at least 5 years and probably a decade ahead of the legacy automakers in terms of the tech in its EVs. It will take the legacy automakers years to catch up, and by the time they do, Tesla will probably still be a couple years ahead and have established the kind of brand reputation and scale of operations that it will make it hard to dethrone as the leading-edge EV manufacturer. In the same way that Mercedes-Benz has enjoyed decades of dominance in the global luxury car market and Ford dominates the North American pickup market, Tesla is setting itself up to dominate the global EV market.

Tesla has a number of advantages or “moats” that won’t be easy for other automakers to copy:

  1. Most energy-efficient electric motor on the market
    Tesla designed a custom hybrid motor for the Model 3, which Musk describes as a “switched reluctance, partial permanent magnet” motor. It is the first motor which uses glued together permanent magnets to form a Halbach array whose magnetic field is 1.4 times more powerful than a comparable permanent magnet. The efficiency of Tesla’s motor is shown by the fact that the Model 3 LR, which weighs 1610 kg, consumes 260 Wh / mile, compared to the 2019 Nissan Leaf S which weighs 1557 kg and consumes 300 Wh / mile. This motor is not only energy efficient, but in the Model 3 Performance, it is capable of going from 0 to 60 mph in 3.3 seconds, so Tesla has managed to combine energy efficiency, high torque and fast RPMs in the same motor, which is a difficult technical feat.

    The Chinese EV makers will probably copy the Model 3 motor quickly due to its obvious technical advantages, but the fact that very few automakers bought Munro & Associates’ teardown report on the Model 3 indicates that few Western automakers are planning on copying the Tesla motor any time soon.

  2. Cooling
    Tesla has figured out how to cool electric motors with high RPMs, which is a difficult technical feat. The Roadster 2.0 can maintain sustained speeds of over 250 mph, which means that they have figured out how keep the stator and rotor cool at very high RPMs. Electric supercars like the Rimac Concept One have gotten around the problem by using a lot of motors, which is expensive.The Model 3 has centralized cooling for the motor, battery and passengers, which lowers its costs and simplifies the car. In order for other automakers to copy the cooling in the Model 3, they would have to redesign their cars and get the engineers in different sections to cooperate (which Sandy Munro considers to be very difficult.)The Model 3 also has an innovative HVAC system that uses two planes of air, rather than using traditional louvers and vents, which means that Tesla was able to lower the dashboard and provide more space for the passenger.

  3. Highest energy density in battery
    The 2170 NCA cells in the Model 3 have an energy density of 247 Wh / kg (others say 265 Wh / kg), whereas the rest of the industry is using pouch or prismatic NMC cells with an energy density of 220 Wh / kg. It won’t be easy for other automakers to switch to NCA, because it requires designing a special battery management system (BMS) with custom application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), individual cell monitoring, and advanced cooling/heating to prevent thermal runaway and ensure low degradation rates of the cells. Tesla designed its custom 2170 form factor, because it is small enough to be efficiently cooled yet larger than 18650, so it cuts down on costs.

    Other automakers are not going to easily adopt the NCA battery chemistry with its higher energy density, because it bears a higher risk of thermal runaway that ca lead to fires. Controlling NCA cells involves designing a special BMS with custom chips and lots of wires to monitor the cells, plus a good cooling system, special anti-fire goop, and smaller cells that can be quickly cooled. It is hard to see other automakers putting that much effort into getting a higher energy density when NMC is almost as good and has better cycle life without all the extreme measures taken by Tesla.

  4. Battery manufacturing
    Tesla has an expensive BMS, but it has the lowest battery costs in the industry, which are reportedly approaching $100 per kWh of battery cells. By doing its own battery manufacturing in partnership with Panasonic and buying metals directly from the refineries, Tesla avoids middlemen markups and reduces shipping costs. Other automakers will have to invest $5 billion and spend 5 years building their own Gigafactory to catch up with Tesla on battery costs. Now that Nissan is selling off its battery factories, every other automaker will be dependent on external battery suppliers (although Toyota just announced a future battery partnership with Panasonic). What this means is that other automakers don’t control their own battery supply, so they will be faced by battery shortages as demand for EVs soars in the future and they will have to pay much higher prices than Tesla for their batteries.

    Many automakers will make the transition to EVs by using the tech of external suppliers, so they don’t control it and can’t rapidly evolve it to match Tesla’s tech. GM turned to LG Chem to supply both its drivetrain and its battery in the Bolt, which allowed GM to quickly launch the Bolt before the Model 3, but it meant that GM had to give a larger proportion of its revenue to LG and it can’t change its tech very easily.

    Because Tesla manufactures its own batteries, it has created battery research partnerships with investigators like Jeff Dahn at Dalousie University, which has improved the longevity of batteries and made them cheaper with fewer additives. Tesla recently bought Maxwell Technologies, a company that has developed a dry electrode that it claims to produce batteries with an energy density over 300 Wh / kg. Because it doesn’t require joining together the battery materials with the liquid solvent N-Methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP), Tesla may be able to eliminate the use of drying rooms in future battery manufacturing, which could reduce battery costs by 10% to 20%, because the driers consume huge amounts of energy and the NMP, which is a volatile organic compound, needs to be recaptured. Other automakers who depend on outside suppliers simply can’t make these kinds of innovations in their batteries.

  5. In house design and manufacturing
    Tesla makes most of its parts in house and does its engineering and manufacturing in the same location, which allows the company to avoid the markup of outside contractors and change its designs more quickly than its competitors. Because engineering is close to manufacturing, it is easier to change the design and Tesla doesn’t have to waste time and money renegotiating contracts with external suppliers. It will not be easy for other automakers to bring their manufacturing in house.

  6. Startup culture
    Tesla has a horizontal structure and a startup culture that allows for decisions to be made quickly and changes to be implemented with less bureaucracy than in other automakers. Employees are empowered to talk to everyone else in the company and don’t have to ask permission from high-ups. Nobody has a private office, in order to facilitate easy communication within the company. Employees are encouraged to walk out of meetings where they don’t think they can contribute or they feel they are wasting time.

  7. Leadership and mission
    Musk has set the company’s audacious mission to “accelerate the transition to sustainable transport”, and Tesla employees feel that they are working for the greater good of society and the planet. This sense of mission and the leadership of Musk gives the employees a common goal and causes people to work harder to achieve that goal. This factor is hard to quantify, but Tesla manages to achieve its goals in shorter time frames and against steeper odds than other automakers, partly because of the company’s mission and the leadership which is required to fulfill that mission.

    It won’t be easy for other automakers to copy the leadership or the mission of Tesla. The management of other automakers are so worried about the bottom line and the shakiness of their positions, that they fear taking the kind of risks that Tesla has taken. It will be very difficult for other automakers to decide to build the largest battery factory in the world or jump from being a luxury carmaker to the manufacturer of semis, grid batteries and solar roofs like Tesla.

  8. High speed charger network
    Tesla is currently the only automaker with a comprehensive high-speed charger network for its autos. Tesla Superchargers use 120 kW chargers, whereas other automakers are currently relying on 50 kW CSS or Chademo chargers, which often aren’t located on highways like the Superchargers, so they aren’t as convenient or as fast. It will be 3-5 years before the 80/350 kW CSS 2.0 network used by other automakers can compete with Tesla’s Supercharger network. This means that Tesla will be the only automaker for the next couple years that can sell its EVs to customers who need to travel long-distances and don’t want to own a second car for this purpose.

  9. Autonomous driving
    A number of independent tests have concluded that Tesla’s Autopilot is currently the best driver assistant on the market. Because Tesla watches drivers and sends their driving data to Tesla servers, Tesla has more info to train its driving AI than any other automaker and it instantly learns about changing road conditions. Other automakers don’t have their autos hooked into a cellular network and aren’t collecting driver data to train their driving AIs. Simply designing such a centralized system that is capable of incorporating driving data from thousands of cars will take other automakers years, because they will have to spend years acquiring the software and hardware engineering expertise to design such a system.

    Tesla is likely to be the first automaker to achieve full autonomous driving (level 5), and even if it doesn’t achieve it first, it is certainly going to have some of the lowest costs in the industry. Its current Autopilot Hardware 2.5 is a custom circuit board with an nVidia Pascal GPU and 2 Parker CPUs, which processes 200 frames per second from 8 surround cameras, 12 ultrasonic sensors and forward-facing radar on a redundant wavelength. Tesla has designed its own custom AI chip which is capable of processing 10 times as many frames per second as the nVidia system. Because Tesla spent 2 to 3 years designing its own drive processor, it doesn’t have to pay the markup of an outside supplier like nVidia and Intel’s Mobileye, and it can distinguish its EVs from the other automakers which will all be using the same tech from nVidia and Intel.

    Because Tesla designs its own autonomous driving tech, it has to bear higher R&D costs and it might fall behind nVidia and Intel. If this happens, Tesla can always turn to an outside supplier just like the other automakers, so Tesla won’t necessarily be left behind compared to other automakers

    On the other hand, Tesla’s decision to design its own tech means that there is a good chance that Tesla will end up paying less than its competitors for full autonomy, and the company will be able innovate its own tech in a way that other automakers cannot. Most companies working on full autonomy are planning on using LIDAR, which is very costly, whereas Tesla claims that it will be able to do full autonomy with its current Autopilot Hardware 2.5. If true, then Tesla will have the cheapest autonomous cars by far in the industry. The other problem is that LIDAR doesn’t work well in rain, sleet and fog and can’t see through cars, so Tesla may end up having the most reliable autonomous driving in bad weather.

  10. Software and infotainment system
    Tesla develops its own software and has created its own infotainment system for its touchscreens based on Linux and QT. Other automakers can copy the large flat screen driver interface that Tesla uses in its cars, but they can’t easily match Tesla’s software. Most automakers aren’t good at software development like Tesla which is based in the Silicon Valley and has poached programmers from many of the leading tech companies like Apple. Because Tesla does its own software development, it can roll out new features and customize its interface in a way that other auto companies cannot. Owners of Tesla cars are constantly discovering new Easter eggs that Tesla has provided in its infotainment system, like its dance and light show. Other automakers relying on infotainment systems from Android Auto, Apple CarPlay, Visteon, Clarion, Continental Automotive and AISIN, don’t have the kind of control and customization offered by Tesla.

  11. Over the air updates and cellular connectivity
    Tesla is has the ability to provide over the air (OTA) updates to its car. This allows Tesla to update its software and improve the car’s functionality over time. Software used to not be such a large component of automobiles, but Teslas are designed to be “computers on wheels,” so much of their functionality is determined by their software. When Consumer Reports reported that the Model 3 had a very long breaking distance, Tesla released an over the air update which fixed the problem within a week. Other automakers don’t have the ability to update their cars via a cellular network, so any upgrades have to be brought to a service center which is costly for the automaker and inconvenient for the customer. Tesla can eliminate many types of recalls that plague legacy automakers by using its over the air updates.

    The cellular connectivity in Tesla cars also allows Tesla to provide an extra level of service that the legacy automakers currently do not provide. Tesla contacts the owners of their cars, when the charge in the batteries gets too low and might be damaged by sitting for too long at a low charge. Tesla can provide a towing service because it knows when its cars break down on the road. Tesla recently announced that it added an option to call a tow truck even before the car stops.

  12. Transition to EVs and the ability to raise capital
    An even greater challenge for the legacy automakers is the fact that they still have so much R&D, infrastructure and expertise tied up in ICE vehicles. Engineers and managers who have spent their whole careers dedicated to one technology will not be nearly as committed or dedicated to switching to another technology as a company like Tesla which has no divided loyalties. There is nobody at Tesla urging caution or going slow with the new technology, because everyone is already 100% committed. The challenge for legacy automakers is being able to maintain their lines of ICE vehicles, while fully committing themselves to transitioning to EVs. So far, the best legacy automaker in this respect has been Nissan under the leadership of Carlos Gosn, and Nissan reportedly lost millions of dollars on its Leaf and battery factories. Although there have been some exceptions like Volvo’s recent announcement that it plans to electrify all its models, most legacy automakers have been very cautious and risk-adverse thus far and unwilling to fully commit the entire company to transition to EVs.

    The legacy automakers are reluctant to commit because they know that they are going to face an existential crisis when they transition to EVs. They will have to raise huge amounts of capital for R&D, retooling factories and retraining workers at exactly the same time as their revenue is falling from their ICE vehicle sales. Many investors will sell off their stock, convinced that the legacy automakers won’t be able to successfully make the transition. It will be difficult for the legacy automakers to raise money by offering new stock or bonds, if investors are skeptical that they can make the transition. Creditors will likewise be skeptical and are likely to demand high interest rates on loans to companies that are likely to go bankrupt. Some governments will provide generous lines of credit to help legacy automakers make the transition, but not all. Voters in the US might not be so generous. After having already bailed out the legacy automakers in 2009, they might decide to turn off the tap on easy credit and bailout money.

    Part of the problem for legacy automakers is that the total demand for automobiles especially in developed economies is likely to fall in the future, since autonomous vehicles will provide transport as a service, so there is less need to own a private vehicle, especially vehicles such as trucks, vans, RVs, luxury vehicles and sports cars, which have low usage rates. Many truck owners only haul something heavy a couple times a year, so they might decide to rent an autonomous vehicle for those occasions. Owners of vans and RVs may decide that they no longer need to own them, when they can rent them for family vacations and people who need a bit of style may decide that there is no need to own a Bentley or a Lamborgini when they can call an autonomous one for the evening.

    Tesla has already invested in the new technology, so it won’t face the same  existential crisis as the legacy automakers. Tesla probably will need to raise lots of capital to build new factories, but it has an almost limitless supply of credit, since investors are convinced of its future prospects for growth. Not only has Elon Musk demonstrated the ability to raise capital from Silicon Valley venture capitalists, but Google was fully willing to buy the company when it got into financial trouble in 2012.

    Tesla may be carrying a high debt load, but its future prospects are better than almost all the legacy automakers who have not yet made the transition to EVs, and investors know it, which is why Tesla’s market capitalization is so high compared to its revenue. Legacy automakers like GM which have a hundred times its revenue have a lower market capitalization that Tesla because investors are skeptical that GM will be able to successfully transition to electric motors, lithium batteries and autonomous driving and infotainment systems which will define the future of automotive industry.

There are downsides to almost all these “moats” that Tesla enjoys, but most of the shorts don’t even understand that these “moats” exist. They don’t understand the differences in electric motors, battery chemistry, battery management systems, cooling systems, infotainment systems, sensors, drive processors, etc, so they think that these things are largely interchangeable.

Most shorts also don’t understand that Tesla has invested billions in doing its own in-house design and manufacturing, and has designed its own chips and written its own software. Most of the legacy automakers don’t currently have the in-house expertise to develop their own electric motors, battery management systems, infotainment systems and autonomous driving systems, so they will either have to invest billions to acquire that expertise or accept higher costs and lower profit margins by outsourcing those activities to other companies.

There are risks to doing most of the work in house, because Tesla might get undercut in price or out-innovated by the external suppliers. Nissan lost millions because it invested in manufacturing the wrong type of batteries and didn’t use active cooling in its Leaf. Tesla thus far has managed to turn its in-house development and manufacturing into an advantage for the company.

It remains to be seen whether Tesla’s current “moats” might turn into quagmires for the company, which become sunken costs fallacies that prevent the company from outsourcing when better or cheaper tech appears on the horizon. Tesla’s ongoing investment in solar roofs and the Gigafactory 2 in Buffalo might end up becoming such a quagmire for the company. Still, most of Tesla’s in-house investments have proven beneficial to the company so far.

Whether investors decide that Tesla’s tech is a “moat” or a quagmire for the company, they should understand the fundamental differences in the tech and company culture that distinguishes Tesla from its competitors.

Debunking the myths about Elon Musk’s companies

I see a lot of misinformation being spewed on the internet about Elon Musk’s companies, Tesla and SpaceX. I have my own criticisms of these companies, based on environmental grounds, but almost all the criticisms that I encounter on the internet about Musk’s companies are erroneous and often malicious.

The two chief criticisms being bandied about on the internet are that Musk’s promises are based entirely on hype and fake claims and that his companies only survive due corporate welfare from the government. These charges are false, but like a lot of the misinformation on the internet, they are repeated so often that they obtain the status of commonly accepted wisdom.

Usually I ignore them, just like I ignore most of the obvious garbage floating around on the internet, but this comment from “Gmail X” to a Youtube video about the Falcon Heavy got under my skin:

Sorry kids. None of Musk’s companies deliver. He sells hype and imagination to low information people in return for billions in corporate welfare.

If this were just the erroneous opinion of one ignoramus on Youtube, then it would hardly be worth responding, but Gmail X’s flippant comment synthesizes a lot of what has been written about Elon Musk’s companies, including in some of the more reputable publications. There been an organized campaign by shorts in a number of news outlets to discredit Tesla. While the criticism is generally more subtle, it often boils down to these two basic points expressed by Gmail X that Musk’s companies peddle hype to gullible people and they only survive due to government subsidies. Both of these canards need to be debunked.

The technical innovation at Elon Musk’s companies is very real. Tesla’s Model 3 and SpaceX’s Falcon 9 are marvels of modern engineering. Elon Musk may lay out grand visions which appear impossible to fulfill, but his companies have doggedly worked at making those visions reality. They may not do it on Musk’s original time frame nor quite as grandiloquently as Musk presented the concept, but they have an amazing track record of eventually achieving goals that even the experts often believe to be impossible.

SpaceX was the first company in the world to do propulsive landing from orbit and its Merlin 1D engines have the highest thrust-to-weight ratio of any rocket engine in the world. The Raptor engine for the upcoming BFR will be the first methane rocket in commercial use and it will operate at 300 bar, which will be the highest rocket engine pressure in the world. The Falcon Heavy has achieved the lowest cost per kg to geosynchronous transfer orbit (GTO) of any rocket in the world and the BFR promises to eventually get to $1000 per kg.

Tesla not only produces the EVs with the longest driving range in the industry, but it has the best autonomous driving features currently on the market. Its batteries have the highest energy density per kg and its cars are rated the safest ones on the road. The Model 3 arguably has the most energy efficient EV engine on the market due to its innovative use of a Halbach array of permanent magnets. The Model 3 is also the first car to ever combine all cooling systems into one unit, so separate cooling systems are not needed for the battery and the air conditioning.

As for corporate welfare, SpaceX received no government grants or contracts for the first 6 years of its existence, which no other American rocket company can claim (ULA, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Orbital ATK/Northrup Grumman, Aerojet Rocketdyne, etc.) except for Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin, which has never even completed a single commercial launch. The only grant that SpaceX has received from the US government has been $33.6 million from the USAF to develop its Raptor low vacuum upper stage engine and SpaceX will pay for 2/3 of the cost. Compare that the fact that the USAF is paying 5/6 of the $353.8 million needed to develop Aerojet Rocketdyne’s AR1 engine. The US government hasn’t given SpaceX any grants to develop its Falcon 1, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy or future BFR rockets, whereas the USAF just announced that it will give $967 to ULA million to develop its next generation Vulcan rocket, $792 million to Northrop Grumman to develop its OmegA rocket and $500 million to Blue Origin to develop its New Glenn rocket. 

All other money that SpaceX has received from the US government has been in launch contracts which have saved US taxpayers billions of dollars. SpaceX charges the USAF between $82 and $98 million to launch the Falcon 9, whereas ULA has charged an average of $397.5 million to launch the Atlas V between 2015 and 2019 (including the annual EELV Launch Capability contracts), so SpaceX saves the US taxpayers $300 million per launch. SpaceX just signed a $130 million contract with the USAF to launch the Falcon Heavy, whereas ULA charges over $500 million for the Delta IV Heavy, which carries half the payload of the Falcon Heavy.

The charge that Tesla gets a lot of corporate welfare is also absurd. Tesla got a $465 million loan from the Energy Department’s Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) program, which was repaid 5 years early with between $15 and $20 million in profit for US taxpayers. In comparison, Ford got $5907 million and Nissan got $1448 millon in loans from the ATVM which they still haven’t repaid and Fisker defaulted on its $192 million loan from the ATVM. In addition, Chrysler got a $12.5 billion loan from the Treasury Department’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) during the auto bailout, which was repaid at a $1.3 billion loss to US taxpayers. GM got a $68.2 billion loan from TARP, which was repaid at a $8.9 billion loss to US taxpayers.

Yes, buyers of Tesla cars get a $7500 federal tax rebate, but none of that money goes to Tesla and it is available to all buyers of electric vehicles from any automaker. The idea that people would not buy Tesla cars without the federal tax rebate is absurd. The Tesla Roadster in 2008 cost $109,000 and the Roadster 2.0 will start at $200,000 in 2020, yet both have enjoyed large numbers of preorders. The Model S currently costs between $78,000 and $142,500, yet 206,700 of them have been sold over the last 3 years. The Model 3 had over 450,000 preorders, more than any other car in history, and its typical selling price is $47,300, so it is hardly a cheap car. People who just wanted the Model 3 because of its federal tax rebate could have bought the Nissan Leaf or Chevy Bolt, whose starting prices are much cheaper at $29,990 and $37,495, respectively. Most people who are waiting for the cheaper $35,000 standard model of the Model 3 probably won’t end up getting any federal tax rebate, since it has been cut in half in H1 of 2019 and to a quarter in H2 of 2019 and will disappear entirely in 2020. In other words, almost all the Model 3 customers who will end up getting the tax rebate had to pay even more than the rebate in order to get early versions of the car before the standard model will be released. Despite making customers pay extra for the car, it still hasn’t been able to keep up with demand. The Model 3 is currently the fourth best selling car in the US, and it would probably be the top selling car if it weren’t production constrained.

The argument that Tesla only survives because of its Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) credits from California and 9 other states is also hogwash. In Q3 2018, Tesla sold $52.3 million in ZEV credits out of $6.8 billion in total revenue, which generated $312 million in profits. Tesla clearly doesn’t need ZEV credits to survive. Other car companies are buying ZEV credits from Tesla, because they failed to sell enough EVs, plugin hybrids and hybrids, so they need to buy credits from Tesla to make up for their own lack of innovation.

The problem with misinformation bandied about on the internet is that it is often based on a grain of truth, but that grain of truth is turned into a mountain of malarkey. For example, it is true that SpaceX only survived as a company due to government contracts. In late 2008, SpaceX was on the verge of going bankrupt, after 6 years of being funding almost exclusively by Elon Musk. It would have been very difficult for Musk to raise any venture capital for the company at the height of the economic crash. NASA saved SpaceX from bankruptcy by awarding it a $1.6 billion contract in December 2008 to launch 12 times to the International Space Station (ISS) between 2009 and 2016.

NASA did save SpaceX, but it was in NASA’s best interest to save the company, since it ended up saving NASA billion of dollars and dramatically reducing the cost of getting to space over the next decade. NASA paid SpaceX $133.3 million per launch, but paying SpaceX for launches was much more efficient that the old way of supplying the ISS by the Space Shuttle which cost an average of $450 million per launch. Hiring SpaceX to fly to the ISS was a much better deal than the other deal that NASA signed on the same day with Orbital Sciences Corporation to launch 8 times to the ISS for $1.9 billion. In other words, Orbital was charging $237.5 million per launch, which was $104.2 million more than SpaceX.

NASA awarded these launch contracts to the ISS in order to develop a privatized space industry in the US which would be able to lower NASA’s costs and guarantee the agency access to space in the future. NASA achieved those goals in spades with SpaceX, but it has largely failed with SpaceX’s competitors. Orbital’s Antares 100 rocket used a first stage built by the Ukranian company, Yuzhnoye SDO. It used old Russian NK-33 engines built in the late 1960s and early 1970s, which had been refurbished by Aerojet Rocketdyne. After two Antares rockets blew up in 2014, Orbital had scrap the Antares 100 and used ULA’s Atlas V rocket with its Russian RD-180 engines to get to the ISS. Orbital, now renamed as Orbital ATK, launched its redesigned Antares 200 rocket in 2016. Its first stage was now built in the US, but it used Russian RD-181 engines.

In 2014, NASA signed contracts with Boeing and SpaceX to carry crew to the ISS. Boeing will launch its CTS-100 Starliner atop an Atlas V rocket. Boeing is charging $1.4 billion per crewed flight to the ISS, whereas SpaceX is charging $866.7 million per crewed flight. NASA also signed contracts in 2016 with Sierra Nevada and Boeing to supply the ISS, but both companies will launch their vehicles atop the Atlas V, so all four of SpaceX’s competitors are relying on Russian engines to get to the ISS, and all charge NASA almost twice as much as SpaceX.

Between 2010 and 2018, SpaceX’s share of the international commercial rocket launch market, grew from 0% to over 60%, while the Russian share fell from almost 60% to %0. SpaceX now has over 100 launches on it manifest worth $12 billion dollars. Considering that it only launched 22 times in 2018, it has a 4 year backlog of launch orders, so it hardly needs US government contracts to survive. In fact, it is doing the American people a favor by launching for so much cheaper than its competitors. Any suggestion that the US government is subsidizing SpaceX should be turned into a discussion of how much money SpaceX has saved American taxpayers.

One area where there is some validity to the claim that Tesla is dependent upon government subsidies in in selling its solar panels. SolarCity wouldn’t have grown nearly as fast as it did without the help of the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) which deducts 30% of the price of residential and commercial solar panels from federal taxes and the California Social Initiative which used to pay $3 per installed watt of solar in single family homes. SolarCity installed 34.1% of residential solar in the US in 2015, but after the company was acquired by Tesla for $2.6 billion in November 2016, its market share has since fallen to 18% of residential solar. Tesla’s Energy division, which includes both solar and battery storage, only represented 6.5% of the company’s total revenue in Q3 2018, and solar probably represents around 4%. The loss of the ITC would probably only reduce total revenue at the company by 1% or 2% and would hardly bankrupt the company.

Tesla didn’t receive any money from the ITC, the California Solar Initiative and similar government incentives to promote the use of solar, but they did increase market demand for solar which helped increase Tesla’s solar sales and the demand for its home batteries. The federal Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind and solar also helped increase demand for Tesla’s grid storage batteries, since utilities investing in renewable energy needed a way to store it. The new mandate from the California government that new residential construction must have solar panels will also increase the demand for Tesla’s panels and batteries, which may be a significant factor in the future, but is currently only a tiny proportion of the company. By the time Tesla manages to produce its batteries at enough scale to ramp up its sales of the Powerwall and Powerpack, most of the federal ITC and PTC subsidies will have expired. The ITC will only allow 10% of the cost of a new residential solar system to be deducted from federal taxes after 2021 and California’s mandate for solar in new construction provides no subsidies.

The biggest direct subsidies that Tesla has received have been in the form of subsidies from states hoping to attract investment and jobs. In 2014, Nevada pledged to provide up to $1.25 billion in tax rebates and incentives over 20 years if Tesla set up its battery factory, known as the “Gigafactory” outside Reno. Tesla was given a 10 year exception from property and business taxes, and a 20 year exception from sales taxes, plus some other perks like $43 million dollars in road construction to connect to a south-bound highway. In return, Tesla pledged to invest $3.5 billion in the factory by 2024 and provide 6,000 jobs that paid at least $22 per hour in 2018 and at least $25 per hour in 2024.

Tesla has already met its pledges to the state 6 years ahead of schedule. According to a report issued in December 2018 by the Nevada government, the Tesla has carried out $6.05 in capital investment in the Gigafactory and it now has 7,059 employees. The average hourly wage is $25.78. Plus, its construction has created 17,000 direct construction jobs and 7,900 indirect jobs between 2015 and 2018. The total economic impact of the Gigafactory’s construction has been $3.23 billion in the region. The three surrounding counties have grown by 25,500 inhabitants since 2014 and other tech companies have set up shop in the region. Gigafactory employees accounted for $57.7 million in total tax revenue in 2018.

It is still debatable whether Nevada should have spent $183,000 per job in order to attract Tesla to the state, but Tesla has exceeded the state’s projections in terms of the economic benefits. The construction of the Gigafactory has jumpstarted an advanced industrial base in a region that previously only had a service economy.

On the other hand, the subsidies that New York state is giving SolarCity/Tesla to set up solar manufacturing in Buffalo have not brought nearly as many economic benefits to a depressed region which has been losing its manufacturing jobs. Tesla must create 1,460 jobs at the RiverBend factory which Tesla calls “Gigafactory 2” by April 2020 and 5,000 jobs within 10 years or it risks paying up to $41.2 million for every year that it falls short. Tesla made the commitment in exchange for the state spending $750 million to repurpose an old steel mill that was shuttered in 1984 and equip the plant for solar manufacturing.

SolarCity projected when it signed the deal with New York in 2014, that it would need well over a gigawatt of solar capacity per year. Its solar installations, however, have fallen from a high of 870 MW in 2015 to roughly 350 MW in 2018. Tesla has retreated from the zero money down and purchasing power agreements that caused SolarCity to expand massively in the past, but put it $2.9 billion in debt. Tesla also sought to cut its costs by getting rid of its door-to-door solar sales force and its Home Depot stores, in favor of sales at its Tesla stores and selling online. These measures have made its solar more profitable, but have also reduced the need for a solar Gigafactory.

SolarCity never managed to perfect the manufacturing of solar cells using the techniques pioneered by Silevo, which it bought in 2013. After acquiring SolarCity, Tesla scrapped the idea of manufacturing its own cells and partnered with Panasonic which had decades of experience manufacturing high efficiency solar panels. Most of the 800 employees currently working in the Gigafactory 2 are now Panasonic employees. Tesla has encountered repeated production problems trying to manufacture solar roof tiles made of glass. It has over 10,000 preorders for its solar roof, but it hasn’t yet managed to iron out all the problems trying to sandwich solar cells inside of tempered glass.

Although Tesla has met its employment quotas thus far, the economic benefits of the Gigafactory 2 for Buffalo have been limited and some now regard the Gigafactory 2 as Governor Cuomo’s boondoggle. Much of the solar manufacturing equipment purchased by the state for the Gigafactory 2 turned out to not be useful, since Tesla decided to make solar tiles instead of panels and Panasonic needed its own specialized equipment to manufacture it high efficiency HIT cells. Even worse, the president of SUNY Polytechnic Institute which was the state’s local partner in the deal and the president of the company which was contracted to set up the factory were both convicted of corruption in 2018 for the way they handled the Gigafactory 2 contracts.

The Gigafactory 2 might eventually bring the promised economic benefits to Buffalo, but it is going to be a tough row to hoe. Many solar manufacturers in the US, including SolarWorld and Suniva, have gone bankrupt in recent years. Only specialty manufacturers, which don’t compete with the mass production of China, have managed to survive, such as First Solar, which makes thin film solar for utilities, and SunPower, which makes the highest efficiency panels on the market and has moved most of its manufacturing abroad to cheaper places like Malaysia and Mexico. Trump’s 30% tariff on foreign-made solar panels may help the profitability of Gigafactory 2 to some degree, but it has also increased component prices and reduced overall demand for solar in the US.  If Tesla can ever perfect its solar roof tiles, it can command a premium over other types of solar, but solar manufacturing is one of the most competitive industries in the world, so there is no guarantee.


It can be argued that Elon Musk’s companies shouldn’t be receiving these sorts of subsidies, but it is disingenuous to single out Tesla and SpaceX  and accuse them of living off the public purse, while ignoring far more egregious examples of public subsidies going to their competitors. In November 2013, Washington State voted to give Boeing $8.7 billion in incentives between 2014 and 2040, which was the largest single subsidy ever granted by an American state. Boeing has wrangled a total of $12.3 billion in incentives from Washington State, plus $450 million from South Carolina and $229 million from Missouri, as well. According to Good Jobs First, Ford, GM and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles have received $4.06, $6.12 and $2.20 billion, respectively, in public subsidies since 1976. If Tesla and SpaceX are going to be criticized for sucking on the public teat, then their competitors should be lambasted even more.

Debemos apoyar al Purism Librem 5, que es una bandera proclamando nuestros derechos digitales

Muchas personas en la comunidad de software libre no han prestando atención al desarrollo del celular Purism Librem 5. Será el primer celular de Linux en casi una decada y el primer celular certificado por el Free Software Foundation como “Respects your Freedom“, que significa que no contendrá binarios privativos. Es difícil expresar la importancia de este celular para el mundo de Linux y software libre.

El Librem 5 ha sido financiado por pedidos adelantados (crowdfunding) desde agosto de 2017. Es desarrollado por Purism, que es una de las mejoras empresas linuxeras de hardware. Sus laptops–los Librem 13 y Librem 15–son los únicos laptops en producción actual que utilizan Coreboot y Purism ha logrado desactivar el Management Engine de Intel. Tiene dos hardware kill switches para apagar el camera/microfono y el Wifi/Bluetooth. Son los únicos laptops que han sido fabricados desde el 2005 donde se puede instalar un BIOS libre.

Purism esta haciendo mucho desarrollo original en GTK+ y GNOME para realizar Linux como una plataforma real de celulares, como Android y iOS. La empresa ha creado libhandy, que es una biblioteca de GTK+ 3 para celulares que incluye un teclado virtual y phosh, que es un shell de GNOME encima de Wayland para celulares. También esta trabajando con las comunidades de KDE y UBports para que el Librem 5 pueda ser utilizado con Plasma Mobile y Ubuntu Touch.
Continue reading

What will be the response of the incumbent in the competition between ULA and SpaceX?

The current competition in the rocket launch industry illustrates what happens when a disruptor enters an industry and how the incumbent tries to adapt to the new competition. In the early 2000s, the American launch industry was controlled by two aerospace giants, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, which were locked in a bitter legal battle. The two companies eventually resolved their legal wrangles by forming a 50-50 joint venture in 2006 known as the United Launch Alliance (ULA). For the next decade, the ULA enjoyed a monopoly on national security launches by the Air Force and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO).

A legal challenge to this new monopoly was filed by a tiny startup out of California known as Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), which had outlandish plans to colonize Mars. SpaceX hadn’t even managed to finish building its prototype Falcon 1 rocket, much less launch it, so it wasn’t even regarded as a viable competitor by the US government and its legal case was dismissed. Many in the aerospace industry at the time thought that SpaceX was a joke. Everyone knew that only large, established aerospace companies with deep pockets and long-established ties with the government could secure the necessary funding to develop a new rocket. It would take billions of dollars and have to outsource hundreds of parts from aerospace companies with decades of experience creating components that could handle the rigors of space.

Nobody would have guessed when Elon Musk founded SpaceX in early 2002, that a Silicon Valley entrepreneur who had no experience in the aerospace industry would turn the entire industry on its head within a decade and a half by breaking all the rules for how an American aerospace company was expected to operate. With a budget of under $100 million, SpaceX managed to design and launch four rocket prototypes until it finally got one successfully into orbit in September 2008. Twenty-one months later, which is an amazingly short period of time in the aerospace industry, it launched its new medium-class Falcon 9 rocket, which would take over the global rocket industry over the next decade. SpaceX managed to design and successfully launch its Falcon 9 rocket for a total cost of $300 million, which was roughly what the ULA charged for each of its rocket launches at the time. A 2011 NASA study calculated that developing the same rocket using traditional cost-plus contracting would have cost $3.977 billion.

SpaceX was able to achieve such low costs by hiring a bunch of engineers “with a proven history of building and breaking things,” and telling them to build and test in order to iterate rapidly in their designs. The whole company was organized with a very thin hierarchical structure, so that anyone could talk to anyone else in the company to accomplish their goals, and critical decisions could be made as quickly as possible. The engineers were also given a mandate to build anything themselves if they could do it cheaper than buying it from an outside source.

Elon Musk was deeply disturbed by how much rockets cost, because he saw it as a barrier to ever colonizing Mars. To prove that getting to space shouldn’t cost so much, SpaceX transformed the rocket industry by offering to launch its Falcon 9 rocket for a base price between $49.9 and $56 million in 2010. SpaceX’s launch prices were so much lower than any other company, that SpaceX reportedly had a backlog of 50 launches worth $4 billion in 2013. The company didn’t have the capacity to execute most of those launches, but it demonstrated how dramatically SpaceX undercut the competition.

Today, SpaceX is able to launch a rocket once every 2 weeks and it controls over 60% of the global commercial launch market, which is a startling reversal because the US had zero percent of this market in 2010 and the Russians controlled almost 60% of it. SpaceX now has 100 launches on its manifest worth $12 billion, meaning that new customers will have to wait 4 years in the queue before SpaceX can launch their satellites.

SpaceX’s share of the commercial launch market, according to SpaceX.

SpaceX is able to produce and launch its rockets so cheaply, that it has now undercut the Russians in offering the cheapest way to get satellites into space. Its cost to put a kilogram into low earth orbit (LEO) and geosynchronous transfer orbit (GTO) is lower than any other rocket in the world. NASA has traditionally paid an average of $23,750 to put a kilo into GTO, but SpaceX can do it for as low as $6,078 per kilo.


Cost per kilo in GTO by rocket. Source: Bloomberg (2018-07-26) The New Rockets Racing to Make Space Affordable.

According to a recent FAA report, SpaceX has forced the entire rocket industry to drop its launch prices by 10% to 15%. As SpaceX has perfected the ability to propulsively land the first stage of its rockets, it can now reuse its first stages, which dramatically lowers its costs, since the first stage represents 60% of a rocket’s total cost. In contrast, its competitors have to throw away their first stages with each flight, which makes space flight very expensive.

SpaceX’s latest version of its Falcon 9 rocket, the Block 5, is designed so that its first stage can be used for 10 or more flights before needing refurbishment and SpaceX hopes that it will last over 100 flights before needing to be retired. This increased reusability has allowed SpaceX to lower the base price of its Falcon 9 rocket from $62.5 to $50 million and offer a new Falcon Heavy model which uses 3 cores for $90 million if reused, instead of $150 million if expended.

SpaceX also hopes to eventually be able to propulsively land its second stage, which represents 20% of Falcon 9’s costs. Many in the aerospace industry consider this to be a virtually impossible feat, considering the extra heat shielding and fuel that it will require, but SpaceX has already achieved a number of feats which were previously considered impossible. It has designed payload farings with thrusters and parafoils which will glide down so that SpaceX can theoretically catch them in a 3700 m2 net with shock absorbing arms on a ship in the ocean. It is now getting within a couple hundred meters of catching the fairings in its net. If SpaceX can figure out to reuse every part of its rockets and spread the cost of manufacturing a new rocket over 100 launches, then it calculates that it can lower its launch price down to just $5 million, which would revolutionize access to space.

Achieving rocket reusability has required thousands of engineering changes that would have taken decades to implement in a traditional rocket company, but SpaceX has a practice of continually improving its rocket designs. Within a decade of successfully launching its primitive Falcon 1 rocket in 2008, SpaceX’s rockets have evolved to become the most advanced in the world, with the most advanced avionics capable of propulsive landing and the highest thrust-to-weight ratio of any rocket engine.

To understand how extensive these changes have been, look at the dramatic changes which occurred between Block 4 and Block 5 of the Falcon 9. A new black thermal protection material was added to the Block 5’s interstage, raceways and landing legs, so that they won’t need to be repainted after every flight. The fuel valves have been made more durable. The painted aluminum grid fins that used to melt on reentry have been replaced with unpainted titanium that is designed to withstand 1000°C temperatures. The composite heat shield around the 9 engines on the base of the rocket has been replaced with a titanium one which has active water cooling at critical points. Plus, the octaweb, the structure holding the 9 engines, has been upgraded from a 2000 to a 7000 series of lithium-aluminum alloy which is stronger and it is now bolted together instead of welded, so it is easier to take off the engines for inspection and replacement. There is a new inertial measurement system, engine controllers and flight computer to make the avionics more fault tolerant. The composite overwrapped pressure vessels (COPV) made carbon fiber with an aluminum liner have been redesigned to be stronger. Finally, the Merlin 1D engines have been upgraded to provide 190,000 lbf of thrust at sea level, which is 8% more than the previous version.

No other rocket company before SpaceX managed to make these kind of changes so quickly to their designs. SpaceX’s founder, Elon Musk, created two startups (Zip2 and in the Silicon Valley before creating a rocket company and he brought the same kind of rapidly iterating engineering used by software programmers to rocket design. The goal was not to create the perfect design after hundreds of hours of meetings and long analysis, but rather try out new designs with lots of testing to see what works and then rapidly iterate on a design to perfect it.

SpaceX’s goal is to get to Mars as cheaply as possible, not try to justify ever greater costs through cost-plus contracts with the government and secure big contracts to build en masse before prototyping like traditional aerospace companies. It had the good fortune to have sympathetic administrators at NASA who shared its goals and funneled contracts to SpaceX to keep it afloat after it nearly went bankrupt in late 2008.

SpaceX couldn’t afford to pay the inflated prices for space-grade components made by the rest of the aerospace industry, so it generally either makes its own or adapts standard off-the-shelf parts. Rather than use radiation-hardened electronics, SpaceX uses 3 flight computers with standard processors for each of its engines and compares the results of each computer to make sure that radiation and the extreme stresses of space flight haven’t caused a failure in the calculations. This same idea of redundant fault tolerance guided their decision to use nine small engines on the Falcon 9, rather than a few powerful engines like on other rockets, because it allows an engine to fail and the other engines to compensate in order to complete a mission. SpaceX uses Linux and other standard software which is well tested and programs in C++, rather than in specialty languages like Ada used by most aerospace companies, because it is cheaper to find C++ programmers and easier to reuse and test its modules throughout their software.

By building its own components, SpaceX has been able to innovate in ways that ULA cannot. Dan Rasky, who helped invent the PICA heat shield at NASA, recounts how efficiently SpaceX operates. Rasky was asked by Musk in a meeting whether it would be better for SpaceX to manufacture PICA or hire an outside company. Rasky argued that SpaceX could make it more cheaply than an outside company. Used to operating at NASA, Rasky expected his recommendation to be confirmed by a follow-up study and a whole series of meetings. Instead, Musk immediately assigned a team to learn how to manufacture PICA. Not only did SpaceX’s team manage to do far more economically, but they managed create their own version called PICA-X, which significantly improved its properties. They also improved on their own version of NASA’s SIRCA heat shield, called XIRCA, which can be bent like a blanket to protect moving parts like the hinges in rocket fins, but it also can be used to protect electronics. The expertise that SpaceX gained in manufacturing their own heat shields gave SpaceX the confidence to redesign the BRF’s Starship to belly flop like a skydiver during reentry in order to reduce the velocity without expending fuel. Because SpaceX did its own R&D, it is confident that its PICA-X and XIRCA will be able to handle a large number of reentries before it needs to be replaced.

Many companies which do their own R&D get stuck in technological deadends by doggedly pursing the same solutions even when there are better alternatives. SpaceX appears to be able to avoid the deadend trap. It spent a huge amount of time learning how to make the BFR’s fuel tanks out of carbon fiber, and it reported some success in its efforts. Then, it unexpectedly announced that it would be switching to a 300 series stainless steel alloy that it calls SX500. Carbon fiber is stronger than steel at room temperatures, but SpaceX figured out how to cold-form this alloy, so that it is slightly slightly stronger than carbon fiber at cryogenic temperatures and significantly stronger at high temperatures. Furthermore, SpaceX says that this alloy can be polished like a mirror to reduce the high-speed friction and generated heat during reentry. SpaceX is now setting up its own foundry in Hawthorne to manufacture SX500.

SpaceX has been criticized for making such radical changes in the design of the BFR when presenting its annual updates to the public in 2016, 2017 and 2018,  but what these changes show is that the company is capable of quickly altering its designs as it learns more. Boeing’s SLS and Northrup Grumman’s OmegA show what happens when rocket companies get trapped in a traditional design.

Traditionally, rocket companies have not publicized their prices, so that their customers were at a disadvantage when contracting for their services. This secretive approach allowed rocket companies to virtually name their price in contract negotiations. SpaceX revolutionized the rocket industry by publicly stating in 2005 that the price of launching their Falcon 1 rocket would be $5.9 million, which was far lower than another other rocket company. This practice of publishing a price list eliminated favoritism and gave governments and telecommunications companies a means to plan their future costs, which in term has made more space projects possible.

What is particularly interesting has been the response of the United Launch Alliance (ULA) to the disruption caused by SpaceX. Ever since its founding as a joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin, ULA has enjoyed a monopoly on launches for the US government, and its high prices have reflected its lock on the market. Because its contracts with the government were so lucrative, it largely gave up competing in the commercial satellite launch market, which was served by Arianespace’s Ariane 5, International Launch Services’ Proton-M and Roscosmos’ Soyuz-2.


Global commercial launch market, source: Wikipedia.

ULA gave up competing in the commercial market, partly because its costs were much higher than Russia’s, but also because competing would have meant undercutting the monopoly prices that it was charging the US government. The US government wasn’t going to launch its national security payloads with a foreign launch company, so ULA had no reason to change its high prices and no incentive to innovation. The arrival of SpaceX, however, introduced for the first time a domestic competitor which could compete for its lucrative government contracts.

How ULA has responded is a textbook example of how incumbents react to disruption. The first step is to reassure jittery investors and the market that the incumbent has a plan to restructure its own business so that it can compete with the disruptor.  In October 2014, ULA announced that the company would be restructuring to cut the cost of its launches in half. It cut its workforce and it has started hiring young college graduates and encouraging its older workers to retire, which has hurt morale at the company and reduced the expertise of its workforce.

Another part of ULA’s response to SpaceX has been to use its lobbying power and that of its two parent companies to convince the government to continue giving it launch contracts. Musk alleged in January 2015 that there was a revolving door between the Air Force and Boeing and Lockheed Martin and that Air Force officials who expected to one day work in these companies were slow walking SpaceX’s certification for national security launches, which allowed the ULA to maintain its monopoly. He pointed out on Twitter that one Air Force procurement official who negotiated lucrative rocket launch contracts with the ULA later became a vice-president at Aerojet RocketDyne, which supplies rocket engines to the ULA.

After a number of delays, the Air Force eventually certified SpaceX for national security launches in May 2015 and SpaceX won its first Air Force contract in April 2016 for an $82.7 million launch of a GPS satellite, where the offered amount was so low that ULA didn’t even bother competing. It has since won another 96.5 million launch contract from the Air Force, and was recently awarded a $130 million contract to launch a classified satellite on its new Falcon Heavy rocket.

SpaceX’s prices for these government launches are a fourth of what ULA has traditionally charged. In 2015, the ULA claimed in a congressional hearing that it charged an average price of $225 million per launch, but that average included a $6.6 billion backlog in old orders from the Air Force to launch 42 cores of its legacy rockets and it only included $1 billion for one EELV Launch Capability (ELC) contract, that the Air Force pays the ULA to maintain its readiness to launch multiple types of rockets. Most of those back orders were never launched so they shouldn’t be included in the average and the ELC costs have to be included every year, not just once. The Government Accountability Office reported in 2015 that the government pays $360 million per launch and over $350 million of that goes to ULA. In 2014, the GAO estimated that the ULA will receive $422 million per launch in 2020.

SpaceX’s Falcon 9 is not large enough to carry the same payloads as the ULA’s Delta IV-Heavy, but it was a direct competitor to ULA’s Atlas V. Once it became clear that SpaceX would not be excluded from bidding for Air Force contracts, ULA announced that it would be lowering the base launch price of their Altas V from $180 to $109 million, which was still considerably more than Falcon 9’s base price of $62 million at the time.

SpaceX charges $25-35 million over its base price for government contracts because government agencies have extra requirements compared to commercial customers. Even in fulfilling these requirements, ULA charges almost double what SpaceX charges. In 2018, SpaceX won a bid for 3 launches of GPS III satellites in the later half of 2020 for the Air Force for the price of $96.7 million per launch. Meanwhile, ULA won a bid at the same time for $175.5 million per launch. In other words, SpaceX will charge $34.7 million over its base price compare to the ULA charging $66.5 million over its base price for what should be roughly the same services. On top of that, the ULA is charging the Air Force $867.0 million in 2019 to maintain its launch readiness. Given that five Altas V and three Delta IV-Heavy launches are expected in 2019, that means an additional $108.4 million per launch.

Although SpaceX can now compete for new contracts from the Air Force and NRO, it was initially locked out from most national security launch contracts, because the Air Force signed a deal in December 2013 with ULA to block buy the launches of 35 rocket cores (23 Atlas V and 4 Delta IV-Heavy) between 2014 and 2019 for a total price of $9.5 billion. After adding in $4.41 billion for 5 annual ELC contracts to maintain its launch readiness, the ULA will have charged a total of $397.5 million per rocket core or $515.3 per million rocket launch. By signing this long-term block buy, the Air Force and NRO only planned to allow SpaceX to compete for 14 launches and this number was then cut down to 7 or 8 due to budget cuts.

The 5-year block buy with the ULA had been in the works for a long time. In 2009, the Commander of the Air Force Space Command Air Force and Director of the NRO determined that short-term contracting for launch services needed to be replaced by long-term contracting to launch 8 booster cores per year over a 5 year period, in order to “help stabilize” the launch industrial base, which they believed to be “unstable”. In March 2011, a program was setup to carry out the 5-year block buy under the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV), which was a program set up in 1995 to ensure that the government would have more affordable and reliable access to space

In response, the Government Accountability Office issued a highly critical report of this plan in September 2011, noting that it would lead to the government buying more launches than it needed and rockets that weren’t used would require storage and later updating when eventually used. It also noted the block buy was “based on contractor data and analyses in lieu of conducting independent analyses” and the contractor data needed to “negotiate fair and reasonable prices” was “lacking.”

The Air Force and NRO did take the GAO recommendations into account and investigate the costs of rocket components. They claimed that the EELV and the 5-year block buy saved American taxpayers $4.4 billion. That number seems to be based on subtracting the final price from the initial projection in 2011 that 40 rocket cores would cost $15 billion, but the government could have saved a lot more by not signing a long-term contract that locked SpaceX out of the majority of the market. If the goal was to save money as claimed, then the Air Force should have logically waited until it had two competitors in the market before signing any long-term contracts.

What likely happened is that the ULA foresaw that SpaceX would soon be certified for national security launches, so it lobbied the Air Force to give it a long-term contract to guarantee its high prices and lock out its new competitor for the next five years. In response, SpaceX filed a lawsuit against the Air force in April 2014 in order to be allowed to compete for the launches in the 5-year block buy. In January 2015, SpaceX and the Air Force worked out a secret settlement to the suit, that allowed all parties to save face. The Air Force agreed to hasten the certification process and make it easier for new competitors to get certified. Plus, it promised to offer more launches for competitive bidding, while not modifying this contracts with the ULA. In return, SpaceX stopped turning the public spotlight on the cozy relationship between Air Force officials and their military contractors. Several months after the settlement, SpaceX’s CEO, Gwen Shotwell, made very complementary remarks about the Air Force’s cooperation in the certification process when grilled during congressional hearings.

Currently, the ULA still wins new contracts because the government has decided that there needs to be at least two launch providers, and ULA simply can’t launch for the low prices of SpaceX, so it has been able to charge over double the price of SpaceX. It is hard to say how much of ULA’s price advantage is the result of its superior lobbying, but the government now maintains that it is necessary to have two competing launch providers, whereas it didn’t believe that to be the case in 2006 when it allowed Boeing and Lockheed Martin join together to create a monopoly in the national security launch market.

The problem for ULA is that its ability to charge higher prices will be coming to an end in the 2020s, once the market expands from 2 to 4 competitors. Northrup Grumman (which recently bought Orbital ATK) is now developing its OmegA rocket and Blue Origin is working on its New Glenn rocket. ULA is also working on its next generation rocket, the Vulcan. ULA still has the advantage of greater lobbying power, which is reflected in the fact that the Air Force recently announced that it would be giving ULA $967 million to develop the Vulcan, whereas it will only give Northrop Grumman $792 million and Blue Origin $500 million to develop their new rockets.

However, the Air Force plans to only select 2 companies in 2020 to receive future launch contracts between 2022 and 2025. One of those companies will surely be SpaceX, since its Falcon 9 Block 5 and Falcon Heavy are so far ahead of the rest of the field, especially when considering that SpaceX will have the most reliable and best tested technology of any of the next generation rockets, which are important factors in national security missions. If ULA isn’t selected over Northrup Grumman and Blue Origin in 2020, it could potentially be a death sentence for the company.

Company history and political influence suggest that ULA will beat Northrup Grumman and Blue Origin, which have never been through the process of getting certified for national security launches. However, Northrup Grumman announced the design details of its OmegA rocket in April 2018, which was 5 months before ULA announced its design for the Vulcan in September 2018 and decided that Blue Origin’s BE-4 methane engine would power its first stage. Blue Origin might seem like a long shot, but the founder of Amazon, Jeff Bezos, who is the richest man in the world, has been pouring roughly $1 billion per year into the company and its New Glenn rocket promises a reusable first stage with an advanced methane engine and propulsive landing and a hydrogen engine for the expendable second stage.

The one thing going in ULA’s favor is that the Air Force is scheduled to decide before any of the 3 next generation rockets are scheduled to have their maiden flights in 2021. In other words, ULA might be facing years of delay in deploying its new rocket, but it might not be obvious to an outside observer, whereas the first rocket to successfully launch is an easy metric to judge. The fact that ULA might go bankrupt as a company if it doesn’t get selected also helps ULA, because the Air Force knows that Jeff Bezos will continue to fund the New Glenn no matter what and Northrup Grumman has deep pockets to keep the OmegA alive. On the other hand, ULA probably won’t disappear since its parent companies will probably step in to save it, so it could limp along to compete in the next round of Air Force contracts in the mid-2020s even it is not selected in 2020.

Just as important is the fact that the Air Force wants the companies that it selects to also be competitive in the commercial launch market, because that will keep their prices low. Although the ULA talks a good game about cutting its costs, it frankly doesn’t have a rocket design that can compete, nor is it a company accustomed to not charging monopoly rents. Blue Origin’s New Glenn is a much better rocket to launch commercial satellites and take tourists to space than the Vulcan. OmegA is an even more outdated rocket design than the Vulcan in some ways, since it will have no reusability at all, but Orbital Sciences Corporation managed to function for decades on very few launches per year from NASA before it was absorbed into Orbital ATK and then bought by Northrup Grumman, so the OmegA might be able to survive without national security launches far better than ULA’s Vulcan.

ULA has not been unaware of the technical advances happening at SpaceX and Blue Origin. It foresaw that its market was going to be disrupted, but it committed the classic mistake of incumbents in being plagued by indecision and failure to fully embrace the new technology and engineering practices that are disrupting its business.

A couple factors in particular are disrupting the rocket industry:

  • Rapid reusability with propulsive landing dramatically reduces the costs, making single-use rockets obsolete. A single-use rocket simply can’t compete economically with the first stage on the Falcon 9 Block 5 or the future New Glenn that are designed to be reused 10 times before refurbishment.
  • Methane (CH4) is a superior rocket fuel to kerosene (RP-1), H2 and solid state fuels for both technical and economic reasons. Methane burns cleanly so it facilitates rocket reuse, it is cheaper, it can be made anywhere in the solar system where there is CO2 and water, and it is cheaper to store than H2. Kerosene and solid state fuels leave a lot of residue that has to be cleaned, so it isn’t good for rapid reusability. Both of them produce black carbon (soot) which stays in the stratosphere for up to 4 years, so they create radiative forcing which causes global warming. Solid state fuels leave toxic residue and can’t be shut off in the event of an abort and can’t be used for propulsive landings. Liquid H2 leaks and needs to be stored at much lower temperatures which complicates the engineering and increases the cost of the tank, rocket engine and the launch. H2 also enbrittles storage containers and fuel lines, so there are questions how many times an H2 rocket can be reused.
  • Rapid innovation with continual improvements and startup company culture. Rocket development in the 1950s and 60s was based on rapid innovation, but the idea of experimentation and innovation was lost with commercialization and the need for greater reliability. New space companies like SpaceX, Blue Origin, Rocket Lab, Onespace and Ventions (formerly Astra Space) were inspired by the rapid innovation and horizontal structure of Silicon Valley startups. Making continuous improvements in design, eliminating bureaucracy, outside contractors and design requirements from outside agencies, and having the engineers working next to manufacturing in one location and manufacturing in house has allowed SpaceX to cut costs and rapidly innovate.

In addition, there are a number of technical advancements that are making it possible to better design rockets and innovate faster. Advancements in processors, robotics and artificial intelligence have made it possible to propulsively land a rocket. Human pilots never would be able to make all the necessary adjustments in milliseconds to land a rocket propulsively. Advances in 3D printing, computer modeling and CAD have made it possible to design new types of engines and launch vehicles faster and cheaper than before. New materials like carbon fiber, PICA and SIRCA heat shields, lithium batteries, composites and advanced metal alloys are making it possible to design better rockets, but companies like ULA, Orbital ATK/Northrup Grumman, Aerojet Aerodyne, Arianespace and Roscosmos are still using the same materials and often the same designs which date back to the 1960s.

ULA started designing its next-generation rocket in 2014, but it didn’t decide which engine to select–Blue Origin’s methane BE-4 or Aerojet Rocketdyne’s kerosene AR1–until late September 2018. For over four years, ULA had to design two different first stages for two different engines, when it was clear even back in 2014, which would be the superior engine. Not only did the BE-4 have better technical specs and was based on a superior fuel, but it was also farther along in its development and it had a surer source of funding to continue its development.

The new CEO of ULA, Tony Bruno, was convinced that the BE-4 was the better option and it promised to cost 60% of the price of the AR1, but he had to convince his board and the parent companies Boeing and Lockheed Martin. The board was only willing to authorize quarterly expenditures on the BE-4 engine and decided that the safest path was to also design for Aerojet Rocketdyne’s AR1 as a backup option. The AR1 didn’t have a clear source of funding to continue its development, and it was reportedly years behind schedule, but it took ULA over 4 years to finally drop it when it should have been dropped the moment Blue Origin started to successfully test fire the BE-4.

Although ULA had far more funding than SpaceX, it didn’t have the corporate culture or leadership to do much in-house R&D outside its limited core competency. ULA was essentially conceived as a cash cow for its parent companies, who didn’t want to invest too much into its R&D. Bruno tried to convince Boeing and Lockheed Martin to let him use ULA’s profits for more R&D rather than having to turn them over to the parent companies.

Because ULA outsourced its engines, it was hobbled in its ability to do R&D for propulsive landing. Back in 2014, when ULA was in talks with Blue Origin to use it BE-4 engine, it should have also been in talks to license or partner in the development of Blue Origin’s propulsive landing system for first stage reuseability. At the very least, it should have realized that it had missed the technological boat and tried to license the tech once Blue Origin and SpaceX started demonstrating the concept in late 2015, since it was clearly going to dramatically reduce launch costs and undercut ULA in the future.

ULA had been studying reusability for quite a while and decided back in 2008 that the best course of action was to only reuse the first stage’s engines, which represent two thirds of the cost of a first stage. While that wasn’t necessarily a bad decision in 2008 given the state of avionics at the time, it was clearly the wrong decision in 2015, when ULA announced that they would implement a system in their next generation Vulcan to detach the engines from the first stage with an inflatable heat shield to protect it during reentry, then use parafoils to glide them down to Earth and catch them with helicopters. The rub was that they decided to not bother implementing engine reusability until 2024, four years after they planned to first launch the Vulcan. Even today, after SpaceX has demonstrated the business case for propulsive landing and full reuseability, ULA still hasn’t changed its target date for partial reusability in 2024.

Tony Bruno argues that ULA’s plan for partial reusability makes more sense economically than full reuse through propulsive landing, because fuel doesn’t need to be expended to land the first stage. For larger payloads and payloads to GTO, there is not enough fuel left for propulsive landing and ULA would rather recover 2/3 of the cost of the first stage for 100% of launches, than recover 100% of the first stage some of the time.

Bruno’s arguments don’t hold much water. First of all, the ULA’s way of recovering the engines means that it won’t have rapid reusability because the engines will need to be flown to a recovery barge, shipped back to the factory and inspected, reattached to a new first stage and then shipped back to the launch site. In contrast, SpaceX lands its rockets either back on the landing site or on a floating barge which ships it back to the launch site. Then, all the first stage needs is a quick inspection before being reflown, so the turn around time and the costs are minimal. Vulcan’s system of flying to an exact spot with a parafoil and catching the first stage’s engines with helicopters will probably be more prone to errors than propulsive landing, so the recovery rate probably won’t be as high. It also has to be done in good weather over friendly international waters.

ULA is planning that the Vulcan will have a launch cost of $100 million, which means that even with reusability of its first stage engines after 2024, it will cost roughly:
$100M – ($100M x 60% x 2/3) = $60M
The problem is that SpaceX’s Falcon 9 will probably cost between $15 and $25 million per launch, if it has achieved full reusability of its payload fairings and it is getting 10+ launches of its first stage before refurbishment. Its RP-1 fuel only costs roughly $300,000 per launch, plus a couple million dollars in other launch costs, so most of its costs per launch will be replacing the second stage, which costs 20% of the rocket or roughly $12 million. SpaceX will be able to streamline the fabrication of its second stage and reduce its costs if the company is launching the Falcon 9 hundreds of times per year by the mid-2020s. Over 200 launches per year is likely if SpaceX controls virtually all of the global commercial launch market and implements its plan to place 12,000 satellites into low Earth orbit to provide a global internet service that it dubs “Starlink.” Even if Starlink falls through, SpaceX will still be launching roughly 50 times per year at a third of Vulcan’s theoretical cost of $60 million per launch. It is not hard to see that the Vulcan with first stage engine reuse simply won’t be competitive.

The second problem is that Bruno is assuming that the Vulcan will be competing with today’s Falcon 9 block 5 or Falcon Heavy. However, it will be competing with SpaceX’s future Big Falcon Rocket (BFR), which will be large enough deliver large payloads to GTO with full reusability of the entire rocket. SpaceX’s Starship (formerly named the Big Falcon Spaceship) will have cargo doors, rather than the expendable payload fairings found on the Vulcan/Centaur, which means an additional savings of $5 – $10 million per launch. If the BFR is 100% reusable and has as fast of a turn-around time as planned, then it potentially could cost one fiftieth of the price of the Vulcan per launch. SpaceX has set 2020 as its target date for the BFR’s first launch, which is comparable to the timeline for Vulcan’s first launch in 2021. Even taking into account Elon Musk’s tendency to announce overly optimistic timelines, the BFR should come into service at roughly the same time as the Vulcan, so they will be direct competitors.

The difficulty for incumbents like ULA is that the technological decisions that are deemed the most risky, often end up being the necessary choices to compete in the new environment. ULA’s decision to avoid developing propulsive landing makes sense from the point of view of minimizing R&D costs and risking less in a new technology which might fail. If the inflatable heatshields, parafoils and helicopters don’t work to recover the first stage engines, then ULA won’t have bet the company and it won’t have missed any major deadlines, since it is a secondary feature to be implemented after the Vulcan/Centaur is already in service. Similarly, the decision to go with traditional heat shielding rather than using NASA’s new PICA shielding makes sense from the point of view of avoiding risky new materials which might potentially fail, but SpaceX is able to use an innovative spaceship design in its Starship that bleeds off a lot of velocity in reentry and saves fuel because it was willing to adopt PICA and then improve it by learning how to manufacture it.

SpaceX’s willingness to invest the R&D to develop its own in-house manufacturing of so many components has now given it a tremendous competitive advantage over other rocket companies. Because SpaceX manufactures so many of its own components in house, it is able to update the design of its components more easily and quickly, because it doesn’t have to coordinate with external suppliers. Changing the design of one component that effects another component doesn’t devolve into the hassle of contract renegotiations over changed parts. Because almost all the engineering and manufacturing happens in Hawthorne, California, it is easy to call a meeting of all the people involved and make a design change that effects multiple components.

In contrast, the Vulcan will be designed and assembled with parts from many different suppliers. The two methane engines in the first stage will come from Blue Origin, the solid fuel boosters from Northrop Grumman, the avionics from L-3 Avionics, the payload fairings from Ruag, and the hydrogen RL10 engine for the second stage from Aerojet Rocketdyne. This outsourcing was even worse in the past. Close to 4000 companies worked on the Atlas rocket program. Not only does this out-sourcing substantially raise the costs because aerospace companies charge an arm and a leg for their components, it also makes it very difficult for ULA to change the design for continuous improvement of its rocket, so it can’t keep up with SpaceX’s pace of innovation.

If ULA were in an ordinary industry, it would already be facing bankruptcy. Just consider the fact that ULA says that it charges $350 million to launch its Delta IV-Heavy, but it is probably closer to $400 million once all the extra fees are tacked on for compliance with government requirements and above $500 million once the extra cost of “launch readiness” is included. In comparison, SpaceX doesn’t get any government money to maintain its “launch readiness” and it just signed a $130 million contract with the Air Force to launch the Falcon Heavy, which can carry 125% weight more to lower Earth orbit (LEO) and 93% more to geostationary transfer orbit (GTO) than the Delta IV Heavy. No company operating in a remotely free market stays in business for long when its competitor does twice as much work for a fourth of the price.

The very things that make aerospace companies so uncompetitive, also make them so resistant to being challenged by the free market. The fact that ULA has to send a portion of its profits to two bloated aerospace companies and subcontracts with so many other big aerospace companies raises its costs, but it also gives it enormous political clout. When SpaceX goes before congress, it will have the 2 senators from California on its side since it manufactures in Hawthorne, is building a new factory in the port of Los Angeles and launches in Vandenberg Air Force Base. It might also get  the two senators from Texas to show up since it has a test site in McGregor and launch site in Boca China near Brownsville. There is some chance that a Florida senator might pop in because SpaceX launches from Cape Canaveral, but little chance that the senators from Washington will support it, because Boeing employs so many more engineers in the state. SpaceX generates a lot of public support, but it is unclear how much influence that has in the halls of congress.

In contrast, if ULA has to face congress, it alone probably doesn’t have any more political influence than SpaceX, but its parent companies Boeing and Lockheed Martin have enormous pull in Washington. They have the lobbying power to let politicians know exact how many jobs in their districts are a stake. ULA, Boeing and Lockheed Martin together spend 17 times more on lobbying the federal government and give 11 times more than SpaceX in political contributions to federal candidates. Together they represent 35 times more jobs and control 81 times more revenue than SpaceX.

All the suppliers and subcontractors of the ULA also represent a potent lobbying force. As both the suppliers of components for ULA rockets and its potential rivals for launch contracts, the support from Northrup Grumman and Blue Origin will probably depend on the issue at hand. However, much of Blue Origin’s credibility as an aerospace company now rests on supplying engines for ULA’s Vulcan. If Blue Origin sends lobbyists to argue on behalf of ULA, politicians will pay attention because they know that the company is owned by the richest man in the world, who finances its operations by selling stock from the fourth largest corporation in the world in terms of market capitalization. If congress ever demands that the Air Force start awarding its launch contracts based on the lowest available price, then it is likely that ULA’s protests will be backed up by the lobbying power of Northrup Grumman, Blue Origin, Aerojet Rocketdyne and possibly even Amazon.


In the current political environment, ULA appears to have little to fear, despite the fact that it forces the American taxpayer to pay inflated prices for its services. Washington is governed by a bipartisan consensus in favor of military Keynesianism and political influence buying. The fact that a recent audit found that the Department of Defense made $21 trillion in unaccountable transactions between 1998 to 2015, doesn’t seem to have put any damper on congress’s willingness to lavish pork on the military-industrial complex. This bipartisan consensus, however, may not last forever if the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party comes to the fore. The number of Democrats in the US congress refusing to accept corporate PAC money increased from 4 to 40 in the last election cycle and they would see the inflated launch prices that the ULA charges as money better on fixing the lead pipes in Flint, Michigan and switching to 100% renewable energy.

Only recently has competition with SpaceX become a serious problem for the ULA. Its greater problem has been the vagaries of congress in funding projects at NASA and the space section of the Air Force. As the building of the Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion has ramped up to go to Mars under Obama and to the Moon under Trump, it has shrunk the funds available for other projects that employ ULA rockets. Of course, that shift directs more money towards its parent company, Boeing, so ULA can’t complain too loudly.

Republicans are offended by the fact that NASA studies how humans are changing the climate, so they are shifting funds away from Earth Observation, whose satellites, such as the Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite-2 (ICESat-2), are often launched by ULA. President Trump also tried to remove the funding for the International Space Station (ISS) in 2019, which also threatens ULA, since its rockets have twice launched to the ISS when Orbital’s rockets were delayed and its rockets will launch Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner to the ISS as well. An even greater threat to the ULA has been the fact that some Republicans in the House have lost confidence in the space division of the Air Force, which is why they want to create a separate Space Force, that Trump has picked up as his pet project. Funding for space at the Air Force was reduced by 7.3% in 2019.

The vagaries of politics can be seen in ULA’s varying levels of funding. According to Govini, ULA’s contracts from the US government grew from $1.1 billion in 2011 to over $3.6 billion in 2014. Then, it fell to $1.8 billion in 2016, and then grew to $2.2 billion in 2017. ULA received a total of $14.6 billion in launch contracts with the US government between the fiscal years of 2011 and 2017, which represented 48.9% of government spending on launch vehicles during that time period. ULA controlled 95% of government spending on medium-lift vehicles, but its funding has not been steady.


US government funding of launch vehicles, according to Giovini, Space Platforms & Hypersonic Technologies Taxonomy, p.10.

Living in a protected government market where the ULA can charge prices well above its international competition from Russia and Europe means that ULA also has to live by the vagaries of US politics. One of the reasons why there has been so much consolidation of US military contractors is the fact that larger companies have greater lobbying power and more ability to survive a government budget cut and the long waits between funding cycles.

Being the disjointed child of the two largest government aerospace contractors has helped protect the ULA politically, but it has also hobbled the company. If the ULA were an independent company, it could lobby against Boeing’s SLS/Orion as a boondoggle wasting tax payer money. Even better, it could be designing its own super heavy-lift and space craft like SpaceX and Blue Origin are doing to challenge Boeing. Not living under the controlling thumb of two aerospace giants would free it up to take risks like trying to design its own engines, avionics, playload fairings, etc, or even branch into new areas like satellites as SpaceX is doing to challenge the satellite divisions of Lockheed and Boeing.


Vendors of space platforms and supersonic technologies to the US government in 2011 and 2017. Source: Giovini, Space Platforms & Hypersonic Technologies Taxonomy, p.21.

What the case of ULA demonstrates is how incumbents often fail to respond adequately to technological disruption. Incumbents often see the new technology coming, yet that foresight doesn’t guarantee that they will make the right decisions to deal with it. Kodak anticipated digital cameras long before any of the companies which now make digital cameras. It was a Kodak engineer who created the first digital camera in 1975, yet the company never properly embraced the new technology until it was too late out of fear of cannibalizing their existing sales.

In a similar way, ULA anticipated reusability and even wrote a paper for how to implement the reuse of its first stage rockets in 2008, but the company made no effort to implement it. Then, it finally incorporated reusability in its next generation of rockets, but in a limited way, that involved the least change to its current design and it is only plans to implement it 9 years after its competitor started demonstrating the concept.

ULA gave up trying to be competitive on a world stage and it retreated into a government protected market where it enjoyed monopoly rents. This decision made it even more vulnerable to being disrupted when SpaceX appeared on the horizon, employing disruptive technologies (advanced avionics and propulsive landing providing reusability, methane engines, PICA heat shields and higher pressure engines with greater thrust-to-weight ratios), new engineering practices (continuous iterative improvements with testing, engineering working closely with manufacturing in one location, in-house design rather than out-sourcing, cheaper in-house and off-the-shelf components with redundant fault tolerance, and horizontal rather than hierarchical decision making) and new business practices (an aspirational goal beyond short-term profit, public pricing, public involvement in advances and growing the market by driving down prices).

ULA should have moved as quickly as possible to copy both the disruptive technology and the disruptive practices of its new competitor, but its culture and its business practices allowed only a partial embrace of disruption. ULA recognized the benefits of reusability, but it was unwilling to embrace propulsive landing that would make it possible, because it involved engineering new avionics and engines that it had always outsourced in the past and were outside its core competency. Instead, it only plans to implement reusability in a way that doesn’t involve major changes to its rocket design so it doesn’t have to undertake risky and costly R&D. It recognized that methane was a superior rocket fuel that would enable a high performing engine with fewer drawbacks than the existing fuels, but it took a wait-and-see attitude and dithered for years before finally committing to its use.

ULA had the opportunity to partner with another company, Blue Origin, to develop these new technologies, but instead it chose to treat Blue Origin like another outside contractor providing it with components, rather than embracing the new tech. ULA’s inability to fully embrace the disruption, but stay as much as possible with its old design and the old practices which made it successful in the past is a classic response of incumbents. There is a certain logic to this conservative response, since it is often better for a company to stick with what it knows, rather than do poorly what it doesn’t know. However, this response is a recipe for failure in the long term, when the competition is already functioning at a third of the incumbent’s costs and is planning to get to a tenth or maybe even a hundredth of its costs.

The way that ULA responded to the threat of disruption is illustrative of incumbents which enjoy privileged positions in their markets. First, it used its political influence to obtain a long-term contract that would lock out its competitor for the next 5 years. That strategy of manipulating the market worked to some degree, although the disruptor was able to use the courts and public pressure to crack open the Air Force’s bidding process so that it started to win some contracts after it was initially locked out. ULA’s response was not that different from the way that hotels, taxi drivers and the auto dealers have used their influence with local governments to try to exclude Airbnb, Uber and Tesla from their markets.

The second response of the incumbent was to announce a restructuring of its business to respond to the disruptor. This is commonly done to reassure investors that they shouldn’t lose faith in the incumbent as viable business. In ULA’s case, it isn’t a publicly traded company, but it had to reassure stockholders in its two parent companies. A new CEO was selected in 2014 who promised to cut its launch costs in half in order to better compete with SpaceX. In ULA’s case, the disruptor wasn’t the immediate threat, but rather political decisions in government funding, but the disruptor was used as a convenient justification for cost cutting. ULA reduced its number of executives by 30%, laid plans to reduce its number of launch sites from 5 to 2 and laid off workers.

Restructuring and cost cutting rarely works, because it usually doesn’t address the core problem when the disruptor has a significantly better product. In fact, laying off workers can demoralize the company’s workforce and make it harder for the incumbent to adopt the disrupting technology and/or business model that is necessary for its long-term survival.

The third response of incumbent is to develop new products with the disrupting tech. Many incumbents try to maintain their existing product lines, while introducing the disrupting tech in a new product line, that they try to isolate as much as possible. IBM used a separate engineering group to produce its original PC line in 1981 and tried to separate the members of that group as much as possible from its mainframe and minicomputer divisions, in order to be able to develop the PC using new rules, that would allow it to compete with Apple, Commodore and Radio Shack.

Tom Mueller, SpaceX’s chief architect of its rocket engines, provides an insightful summary of how the incumbents responded to the arrival of SpaceX:

And you know, we were ridiculed by the other big companies in the launch vehicle business. At first, they ignored us; and then they fought us; and then they— we found out; they found out that they couldn’t really win in a fair fight because we were successful and we were, you know, factors of two or three or probably even five lower costs than what they can do. So then it becomes an unfair fight, where they, you know, try to destroy you politically, and use other means. And then at some point, they figure out that they’ve got to do what you’re doing. So there’s a lot of talk at these other companies about how they’ll make reusable rockets; recover the engines, recover the stages, come up with a much lower-cost rocket so that they can compete. You know, there’s no way that they ULA would have considered buying engines from Blue Origin except for the pressure that SpaceX is putting on them. There’s no way that the French would have quickly abandoned the Ariane 5 and moved to the Ariane 6 design because— except for the pressure we’re putting on. So we’re really changing the world… Anyway, it’s great that we’re changing the paradigm and causing everybody else to think differently about how this is done.

What is interesting about ULA’s response is the fact that it isn’t using the skunkworks approach as IBM did. It is under pressure from Congress to stop using the RD-180 engine made in Russia, so it needs to replace the Atlas V with its new Vulcan rocket. It is adopting a disruptive methane engine and the idea of reusability, but in a cautious evolutionary way, so that it won’t have to change the design of its rocket too much and can avoid costly and risky R&D on new tech. This approach also avoids creating a potential competitor to the SLS being developed by its parent company, Boeing. Some NASA administrators are already admitting that the SLS is so over-budget and behind schedule that it might be scrapped if SpaceX’s BFR and Blue Origin’s New Glenn become viable replacements.

What is also interesting about ULA’s response to disruption is that it has been allowed to dither in deciding its course and hedge its bets on adapting to disruption over a time frame stretching from 2014 when it started planning the Vulcan to 2024 when it plans to have reusable engines. Most incumbents operating in freer markets don’t have a decade to respond and they don’t have the luxury to only partially implement the disrupting tech and not significantly change their engineering and business practices.

In all likelihood, ULA will be one of the two companies selected by the Air Force in 2020, so its business will be secure until at least 2025. In fact, the EELV 2 rules created by the Air Force and NRO to foster more competition and lower launch prices will probably end up protecting ULA. When the Air Force decided to implement the EELV 2, it was clear that there would soon be four viable competitors in the launch market, so their rules will limit the competition and keep out the challengers Blue Origin and Orbital ATK/Northrup Grumman. One of the companies selected by the EELV 2 in 2020 will get 60% of the contracts and the other will get 40%, so the Air Force has essentially guaranteed that ULA will still have 40% of the government launch market even though its Vulcan will be outdated and too expensive.

A cynical observer might believe that the Air Force deliberately created the EELV 2 to protect ULA, but the Air Force argues that that the market is only large enough to support to two competitors who cater to both the commercial and governmental launch markets. Also, the EELV 2 is helping to finance the development of new rockets by Blue Origin and Northrup Grumman, plus it is paying for the development of Aerojet Rocketdyne’s RD1 engine, so it is expanding the pool of potential competitors in the future. Much of this money is being wasted. Northrup Grumman’s solid-state boosters may be good technology for ICBMs which need to be ready to launch at a moment’s notice, but the OmegA will be even more outdated than ULA’s Vulcan. The Air Force is investing in yesterday’s rocket technology by financing the developing of the kerosene AR1 engine. SpaceX already has a highly performant kerosene rocket, and methane promises to be a much better rocket fuel.

Nonetheless, if both SpaceX and Blue Origin have functioning next-generation rockets by the mid-2020s, which appears likely at this point, then ULA will be driven out of business. ULA appears to be gambling that the US government and its bloated parent companies will always protect it, but the reality is that it needs to get to full reusability if it wants to guarantee its long-term survival. At this point, it looks like Nokia–a company which had 60% of the smartphone market in 2006 before the arrival of the iPhone and Android, but it waited too long to fully commit to any one course (Linux, open sourcing Symbian S90 or Windows Mobile), so it ended up with none of the market.

ULA’s only realistic hope in the long term is to fully embrace propulsive landing and full reusability, but it is facing a catch 22. If it announces tomorrow that its Vulcan is being radically redesigned for full reusability, then it won’t be selected in 2020 as one of the two companies under the EELV 2, so it needs to continue with the conservative design of the Vulcan to reassure the Air Force and NRO that its rocket will be ready in 2022 for the next round of launch contracts.

There are generally three outcomes for incumbents facing disruption. Most incumbents end up buying the companies which threaten them with a disruptive technology or business model, which is generally the best solution, since the incumbents generally don’t have the kind of corporate culture or leadership that would allow them to easily develop the disruption, but they do have the experience and resources to successfully market it. The other outcome which happens less often is that the disruptor buys the incumbent, as happened when Compaq bought Digital Equipment Corporation or Facebook bought Whatsapp. The third outcome to disruption is that an outside company will buy the incumbent as a way to get into the market. Often the buying company thinks that this will create a synergy with its existing products, but it can end in disaster if the buying company fails to address why the incumbent was losing market share, as happened when HP bought Palm and when Microsoft bought Nokia.

What is interesting about ULA’s case is that none of the three normal outcomes to disruption appear likely, so there is no easy escape route for the company. If ULA were being disrupted by normal startups, it could buy them, but both SpaceX and Blue Origin are controlled by founders who have visions for sending humans into space, so they have no interest in cashing out and certainly not to a company like ULA which has historically been guided by short-term profits and limited innovation.

Ideally, Blue Origin or SpaceX would buy ULA, because it has what these companies lack–the experience of launching reliably, dealing with government bureaucracies and maintaining deep ties with the Air Force and NRO to win government contracts. Boeing, however, will not want to help create a stronger competitor to its SLS/Orion and both Boeing and Lockheed Martin will want to keep a foothold in the growing space market. SpaceX is threatening to disrupt both Boeing and Lockheed in satellites as well, so neither company will want to help SpaceX get a better foothold as a national security contractor.

It is hard to see any outside companies being able to buy ULA, not only because it has to be an American company, but it has to be a company whose business bears no threat to Boeing and Lockheed. Aerojet Rocketdyne recognized that it needed to combine both rocket and engine manufacturing in order to compete with SpaceX, but it is so financially weak, that it couldn’t offer more than $2 billion for ULA, which is basically ULA’s annual revenue. The most obvious candidate would be Northrup Grumman, but it is too much of a competitor to ULA’s parent companies, and it is hard to see how it would design a next generation rocket any better, given what it is currently designing in the OmegA.

Given how hobbled the ULA is, it might be better for ULA to be split up and return to its two parent companies, because at least one of the halves would have a better chance of securing the kind of deep investment from its parent that is needed to implement propulsive landing and full reusability, but the financial situation of ULA will probably have to turn dire before a breakup takes place. At that point, both Boeing and Lockheed may decide that they have to stay in the launch business, just like Sony, HTC, LG and Motorola/Lenovo have stayed in the smartphone business despite losing money on every phone they sell. However, they also might look at the launch prices that SpaceX is charging in the future, and decide that it is not worth investing any more in such a low-margin business, just like IBM decided to get out of the PC business and then the x86 server business because it foresaw little chance of future profits on such thin margins.

Given its available options, ULA’s best chance for survival is to start a skunkworks now which works on propulsive landing. It should determine whether propulsive landing can be added to the Vulcan, or whether it requires a whole new rocket with smaller methane engines than the BE-4. Either way, it should be designing a fully reusable rocket with propulsive landing to be ready for the next round of the EELV starting in the mid-2020s.

The other possibility is to license propulsive landing tech from Blue Origin, but this will become increasingly difficult the closer that the New Glenn is to flying and can demonstrate that Blue Origin can replace ULA as the second Air Force/NRO launch provider. ULA would do better to form a partnership with Blue Origin right now to develop propulsive landing, but ULA will have to accept humiliating terms as a junior partner, since it brings less to the table. Blue Origin has already demonstrated the technology on small rockets. It also has the money, engineering talent, startup ethos and leadership needed to develop the next generation of rockets.

Disruption has happened in many industries, and rarely have the incumbents handled it without significant turmoil. It is hard to say at this juncture, what will happen to an incumbent like ULA which can’t take any of the normal routes (buying the disruptor or being bought by the disruptor or by an outsider trying to get into the market), but also has time to adapt to since it probably will receive military contracts that secure its business until 2025. Because ULA occupies such a unique position, what course it chooses and how long it delays in deciding its course will be fascinating to watch.

Review of the Camp Thunderbolt folding bike

I recently bought the Camp Thunderbolt, which is a folding bike with 16 gears. Since I live in mountainous La Paz, Bolivia, I need a bike with more than the standard 6-8 gears that are found on most folding bikes. All the reviews that I read online recommended avoiding the cheaper brands of folding bikes, but higher quality manufacturers like Dahon, Brompton and Tern charge an arm and leg for their folding bikes that have over 8 gears. The cheapest one that I could find was the Dahon Visc D18 Tour which costs $879, plus another $35 to add fenders and $36 to add a cargo rack. I consider fenders and a rack to be absolutely essential features on a bike, and it annoys me to no end that most bikes are sold as entertainment and fair-weather exercise devices, rather than a practical means to get to work in the rain and carry groceries. At a weight of 27 lbs, plus another 4 lbs for the fenders and rack, the Dahon Visc D18 Tour weighs a total of 31 lbs.

In contrast, the Camp Thunderbolt costs $425 if ordered from the manufacturer’s web site and includes fenders and a cargo rack. The Thunderbolt weighs 29 lbs, so it is a tad lighter and considerably cheaper than the Visc D18 Tour. In addition, the Thunderbolt includes disc brakes, whereas getting that feature on a Dahon bike would mean upgrading to the Visc D18 Disc, which costs $999.

I question whether it is worth paying the extra cost for a larger number of gears. The Ford by Dahon Convertible 7 Speed only costs $269 at ThorUSA (which is reportedly the best place to buy Dahon and Tern online in the US) and its user reviews on Amazon are about as good as the reviews for the Thunderbolt. In the end, however, I decided that it was worth paying the extra $155 for the Thunderbolt if it meant not having to get off the bike and walk it up hills. (Actually the Convertible 7 Speed is not as cheap as it appears, because it only includes a warranty on the bike if it is tuned by a bike shop, which adds $40-$70 to its price.)

The Thunderbolt took 9 days to ship from K7Sport in California to my parents’ house in Indiana, which was longer than the 2 to 7 days for free shipping listed on the Camp web site. It arrived preassembled in the box and it was very well packed to avoid damage in shipping.


The Camp Thunderbolt (with my added red chain on the cargo rack and extra lights on the front and back).

Problems I found with the Thunderbolt
Once I took the Thunderbolt out of the box, however, I discovered a number of problems. The front fender was scraping against the front tire, so I had to unloosen the bolt holding the fender to the front stem, then adjust the fender and retighten the bolt. The end of the front derailleur cable was sticking out, so it hit my foot with every rotation of the pedals. I had to loosen the cable’s nut and move the end of the cable so it would point it in toward the frame.


End of front derailleur cable pointing out to hit the pedal.

The screw in the quick release on the front stem was not tightened correctly, so the handle bars wobbled the first time I tried riding the bike. My father who is 75 years old fell off the bike, because he tried pulling up on the handlebars and they pulled all the way out of the front stem. Seeing my elderly father take a tumble on the bike gave me quite a fright, but he only suffered some minor scraps on his hands. Tightening the quick release’s screw eliminated the wobble in the handle bars.

There was only 1.5 cm of space between the Thunderbolt’s kickstand when raised and the back brake’s disc. When I kicked up the Thunderbolt’s kickstand, it moved far enough to bang against the brake’s disc on the back wheel, making it ring like a gong. After kicking up the kickstand a few times, I found grooves in the kickstand’s rubber bumper where it had banged into the brake’s disc.


Grooves in the side of the kickstand’s rubber bumper from banging against the back brake’s disc. Notice how I filed down the side of the bumper so it wouldn’t come so close to the disc.

I found that I could avoid the banging by raising the kickstand slowly with my hand, rather than using my foot, but that isn’t very convenient. I was concerned that this banging would warp the disc over time, so I tried to adjust the kickstand so it wouldn’t lie so close to the brake’s disc when folded up. Unfortunately, the kickstand is attached inside a slot, so it can’t be turned outward. I found that I was able to move the position of the raised kickstand so it was farther from the back brake’s disc by putting a metal wedge inside the slot where the kickstand is attached. Unfortunately, moving the kickstand outward with a metal wedge made it impossible to completely fold the bike, so I had 2 cm of extra space between the wheels when I folded up the bike.


I shoved a coin between the frame and the kickstand mounting to move the kickstand slightly outward.

I finally solved the problem by replacing the metal wedge with a thinner coin, shortening the kickstand to its minimum length and filing down one side of the kickstand’s rubber end bumper. With these 3 changes, I am now able to kick up the kickstand with my foot without banging the brake’s disc and I am able to completely fold the bike. Unfortunately, the shortened kickstand means that the bike is more liable to fall over, especially when parked on surfaces which aren’t flat or when carrying something heavy on the cargo rack.


Kickstand modified to not bang against back brake’s disc

Nobody else complained about this problem in the reviews of the Thunderbolt on Amazon, so maybe the kickstand on my bike requires more force than normal to raise it and that extra force causes it to strike the brake’s disc. However, it seems to me that the Thunderbolt’s kickstand is a fundamental design flaw. There isn’t much room to play with, since the kickstand can’t interfere with the folding of the bike. Maybe this problem could be solved by using a smaller disc in the brakes. In my opinion, the disc is too close to the road anyway and is likely to get scraped against curbs and accidentally kicked when trying to fold and unfold the bike and push it through crowded bus stations.


Shortening the kickstand makes the Thunderbolt lean over when parked, so I turn the front wheel away from the lean to give it more stability.

The second problem I found was that the front disc brakes constantly scraped. It is normal for disc brakes to scrape a little when a bike is new, but the scraping noise annoyed me, so I adjusted the brake pads so they wouldn’t lie so close to the disc, but that made the brakes mushy and it still didn’t solve the scraping. I was also annoyed to discover that the Yining brakes on the Thunderbolt only allow the position of one brake pad to adjusted. Better quality disc brakes allow the brake pads to be adjusted on both sides of the disc.


Black marks on the washers show where they were scraping against the front brake’s disc.

After taking off the front brake’s disc, I discovered that the washers on the brake were scraping against the disc. I tried to adjust the brake so it wouldn’t lie so close to the disc. The holes to attach the brakes are slots, so in theory the bolts holding the brake mounting can be moved away from the disc, but when I tried to move the bolts, the washers still scraped against the brake’s disc. In the end, I took a metal file and filed down the washers so they no longer scrape against the disc.


Filing down the washers that rub against the front brake’s disc.


The washers on the brake mounting after being filed down.

I also had to loosen the 2 bolts holding on the front disc brake mounting and readjust them so the brakes would evenly apply to the disc, rather than lopsidedly scape on one end of the disc. I also had to loosen the screw on the front wheel’s quick release, so the wheel would spin freely without scraping against the brakes. Clearly, the bike was sloppily assembled if it required this much adjustment.

Disc brakes don’t make a lot of sense on a folding bike in my opinion. People usually don’t ride folding bikes through snow and mud like mountain bikes, so debris usually doesn’t get on the wheels’ rims to hinder braking. Folding bikes also don’t need the added stopping power of disc brakes, since they generally aren’t ridden as fast or on as rough terrain as mountain bikes. The discs also add extra weight compared to normal rim brakes, and folding bikes should be as light as possible to be easy to carry.

None of the Amazon reviewers complained about the washers scraping the Thunderbolt’s front brake’s disc, so that was probably just caused by sloppy assembly of my bike, but several reviewers have complained that the Thunderbolt’s brakes squeal loudly when stopping. I also am annoyed by the squealing brakes. The squeal on the front brake was reduced once I adjusted the wheel in its forks and the placement of the brake pad unit, so there was no wobble to the brake’s disc, but I still hear the squealing. I have read online that squealing brakes can usually be fixed by replacing the brake pads and discs, but one Amazon reviewer tried that and reported that the squealing persisted after replacing the brakes. Camp could have avoided these problems altogether by using normal rim brakes. Disc brakes won’t have problems if the wheels warp over time and they are better at stopping when the roads are wet, but I think that the Thunderbolt would be better without disc brakes.

How the Thunderbolt rides
Once I fixed the scraping of the brakes and adjusted the kickstand so it doesn’t hit the back brake’s disc, I took the Thunderbolt on a 1.5 hour bike ride in La Paz. Even with 16 gears, I still had to get off the Thunderbolt and push it up the steep hills in La Paz. With a normal bike, I can stand up to pedal up steep hills, but the frame of Thunderbolt is not that long, so standing puts my body over the seat, rather over the center crossbar of the frame like on a normal bike. Because it is uncomfortable to pedal while standing on the Thunderbolt, it is harder to pedal up hills and harder to ride over rough terrain. Because the frame is not very long and the seat post and front stem are adjustable, the Thunderbolt allows me to ride in a more upright position, so I don’t have to hunch my body to reach the handlebars, like I do on a normal road bike.

It takes some adjustment to get used to riding a bike where the wheels are so much lower than your center of balance and the turning is very fast due to the smaller wheel size. On a normal bike, I only loosely grip the handlebars, but the Thunderbolt feels a little unsteady underneath me, so that I grip the handlebars more tightly to control it. I’m sure I will get used to it over time, and it is a lot of fun to ride because it turns so fast. At the higher gears it can really move. I used to ride unicycles and the first time I got on the Thunderbolt it reminded me of riding a unicycle. You have to be a little more aware when riding the Thunderbolt and constantly adjusting to keep everything steady.

It is difficult to jump curbs with the 20 inch wheels on the Thunderbolt and I often have to stop the bike to haul it over curbs. The wheels are only 1.5 inches thick and they have very little tread on them, which makes them glide smoothly over flat asphalt, but they are not designed to handle rough terrain. Many of the side streets in La Paz are paved with stone and riding over them in the Thunderbolt rattles every bone in my body. The seat adds a little cushion, but otherwise there is no suspension.

How well the Thunderbolt folds
The hinges on the Thunderbolt feel very stable and rigid when latched closed. I don’t feel any wobble from the hinges in the center frame or front stem when I ride the Thunderbolt. The Thunderbolt frame only comes with a 1 year warranty, whereas  Dahon’s new frames have a 10 year warranty, but the Thunderbolt’s aluminum frame and its hinges look very sturdy and I doubt that they will fail me. People who are close to the 250 lb limit for the bike, however, might need to avoid jumping and other types of riding that put a lot of stress on the frame.

The hinge on the center frame has a safety latch that is manually pushed down to prevent the center hinge from coming undone while riding. One thing that I don’t like about the hinges is the fact that their latches flap around freely when the bike is folded. Other folding bikes have springs to prevent flapping latches. I worry about the long-term durability of the plastic folding pedals; I suspect that they will have to be replaced after a couple years of hard use.

It takes a little practice to fold the Thunderbolt correctly. The quick release on the handle bars has to be undone and then the handlebars turned upwards so that the break calipers and gear shifters aren’t in the way of the wheels. If the handlebars aren’t turned upwards, then the two wheels won’t touch when the bike is folded. The front stem is folded down so it will hang between the two wheels when the center frame is folded. The front light with 3 AA batteries that I added to the handlebars is thin enough that I don’t have to take it off when folding the bike, but it rubs against the front tire when the bike is folded and I have to take it off if I plan to push the bike on its two wheels.


The seat post is pushed down to provide a leg for the Thunderbolt to rest upon when folded.

In order for the bike to be stable when folded, the seat post needs to pushed all the way down and the seat turned to the side so that the bike can rest on the bottom of the seat post. The bottom of the seat post has a plastic bumper on the bottom to prevent it from damaging delicate flooring. If the seat post is not pushed down, then the ground will scrape against the brake handle and the chain and teeth of the front sprocket.

If the seat post isn’t pushed down, then it can be used to push the folded Thunderbolt on its two wheels. The Thunderbolt can being pushed forward in front of your body, but not pulled behind like Brompton which is more convenient. There is a noticeable wobble back and forth between the two wheels when pushing the folded Thunderbolt forward.  When pushing around the folded Thunderbolt, I often forget that it can only go forward. If I step backwards, the pedals will start moving and jam into the wheels, which jerks me to a halt. I also tend to forget to always hold up the Thunderbolt, and I try to set it down on its front procket and handlebars, which isn’t good for the bike.  It takes a bit of practice to remember to always go forward and never set it down when wheeling around the folded Thunderbolt.


The metal plate from the front wheel only partially touches the magnet from the back wheel when the bike is folded.

There is a magnet on the back wheel to hold together the folded bike, but the metal plate on the front wheel doesn’t line up well and only touches part of the magnet, so the bond between the two wheels isn’t as strong as it could be. Camp also provides a velcro strap to hold together the two wheels and it probably should be used when transporting the Thunderbolt for long distances to ensure that the bike doesn’t unfold.

Using the Thunderbolt on public transport
I plan to carry the Thunderbolt in a bag on public transport, but I found that it feels very heavy and bulky when carried. I bought a Camp bag to carry the Thunderbolt for $25, but it takes quite a bit of wrangling to get it into the bag. The Thunderbolt does fit into the Camp bag with the seat post all the way down and the seat turned at an angle, but it is easier to zip up the bag if the seat post is pulled out of the frame and lain on top of the folded bike.


It takes me between 1.5 and 2 minutes to fold up the bike, put it inside the Camp bag and zip it up. Hopefully I will get faster with practice, but I don’t find it very convenient.

The shoulder strap on the Camp bag doesn’t have much padding, so it bothers me the way it digs into my shoulder if I have to carry it for more than a couple minutes. I will probably buy a replacement strap with better padding for the shoulder if I use the bag very often. I do worry that the shoulder straps are only attached to a little patch of the bag that could pull free over time. In contrast, the hand straps are much better attached to the bag. If I use the bag which weighs a tad over 2 lbs, I also need to carry it in my backpack when riding, which weighs another 2 lbs. When folded up, the Camp bag takes up all the room in my backpack, so it is not a small bag.


Strap on Camp bag.

I bought the Thunderbolt to avoid spending 30 minutes walking every day to get to work, but I’m not sure that I will go through the hassle of folding it, wrangling it into the bag, then unfolding it every day since it only will end up saving me roughly 15 minutes. On the other hand, I enjoy riding a bike, and I love the freedom of being able to avoid public transport altogether when the weather is nice.

The deciding factor in my buying a folding bike is the new public transport being implemented in La Paz, Bolivia where I live. Most public transport in La Paz consists of converted Toyota or Honda vans and half-sized Blue Bird school buses, where there is little room to carry a bike. La Paz has full-sized buses for a few routes through the city, but the folded Thunderbolt is too big to fit inside, and I am fearful of using the bike racks in the front of the bus, because the distinctive Thunderbolt would be a target for theft.  I bought a thick motorcycle chain to lock up the Thunderbolt to deter potential thieves, but I can’t use that on the bus racks.

Nonetheless, La Paz recently added Mi Teleférico, which is a new network of aerial cable cars. The cable cars are designed to hold up to 10 passengers, but they are almost never full, so there is usually plenty of room for me set down a big bike bag. I have to carry the bike bag in front of my body when going through the Teleférico’s turnstiles and some of the stations require walking for several minutes to get to the next line, but I have now taken the Thunderbolt folded inside a bag through most of the stations in the Teleférico without mishap.


The Thunderbolt on my porch with cable cars from La Paz’s new Teleferico in the background.

Bikes can be transported on the Teleférico, but they require buying a second ticket for the bike. Since almost nobody in La Paz has ever seen a foldable bike, the Teleférico employees don’t suspect that I am carrying a bike in my bag. So far, I haven’t been asked to buy a second ticket when carrying the Thunderbolt on the Teleférico. I make sure to stick my bike helmet in my backback and I’m wearing normal clothes for work, so it isn’t obvious that I’m a biker. I wonder if other commuters in La Paz will start using folding bikes and the Teleférico employees will eventually start looking for passengers carrying bike bags to charge them extra, but I doubt it will happen any time soon. Almost all the bikers in La Paz are either kids or tourists who get a thrill from riding beefy mountain bikes down dangerous Andean slopes.

Final thoughts on buying the Thunderbolt
I still can’t decide whether I made the right decision in buying the Camp Thunderbolt. The problems I have encountered so far convince me that it is best to buy a quality brand like Dahon, Tern or Brompton. Several of the Amazon reviewers compared the Thunderbolt favorably to Dahon models, but I doubt that I would have encountered the sloppy assembly and the design flaw in the kickstand if I had bought a Dahon. On the other hand, I wanted a higher number of gears to be able to ride up hills and I wasn’t willing to pay the prices charged by Dahon. If I had been 100% sure that I would use the folding bike every day to commute to work, I might have bought the Dahon Visc D18 Tour, but I bought the bike as an experiment so I wasn’t willing to invest that much.

The real choice for me was between paying $250-$300 for mountain bike and paying $450 for a folding bike with a bag. I needed a bike and I figured that I was going to spent at least $250 on a decent bike, so I decided that I might as well spent an additional $200 for a folding one with a bag that I can carry on public transport. Even if I end up not using the Thunderbolt during my daily commute, I will use it at other times to get around the city and on long distance buses when I travel in the Andes.

If the Thunderbolt holds up over time, then I will feel that I made a good purchase despite the initial problems that I have encountered with the bike. I don’t mind tinkering with a bike to fix minor problems and I’m too impecunious to invest in a more expensive bike. If living in a flatter place that doesn’t require as many gears, the Ford by Dahon Convertible 7 Speed or Muon are probably a safer bet than the Thunderbolt for people on a tight budget.

As a commuter bike, the Thunderbolt is simply too big and bulky in my opinion to be used on most public transport and it isn’t easy to carry in a bag. It takes me at least a minute and a half to fold it up and wrestle it into the Camp bag. Only in places where you can push it around on its own wheels would I recommend it for commuters using public transport. A smaller folding bike like the Brompton or Dahon Curl with 16 inch wheels is much more practical for public transport, but those types of commuter bikes simply aren’t designed for the rough roads of La Paz.

Trying to ride up the steep hills of La Paz has convinced me of the utility of electric bikes, but an electric motor and a large battery would add another 10 to 15 pounds, which will make the bike too heavy to carry in a bag on my shoulder, so I would have to pay extra to transport an ebike on La Paz’s Teleférico. Also, motorized bikes technically aren’t allowed on Teleférico, but that rule was probably written for scooters and mopeds. Most Teleférico employees have never seen an ebike before, so they will probably think that an ebike is a normal bike and let it pass.

Another option is to use a folding electric scooter, rather than a folding bike. They aren’t any lighter, but they fold more quickly than a bike and are easier to carry on public transport. On the other hand, I wouldn’t like to constantly worry about charging the lithium-ion battery and it can’t be transported on an airplane. Since I have studied the environmental impact of fabricating lithium-ion batteries, I am reluctant to needlessly increase my carbon footprint when I can use a non-motorized bike. Also electric scooters can’t be carried on airplanes (see below) due to their large lithium batteries, and shipping one to Bolivia via sea and land would be costly and dealing with Bolivian customs often involves weeks of bureaucratic hassle.

Traveling on airplanes with folding bikes
I only had one day to play with the Thunderbolt, before I packed it up and shipped it on a plane to Bolivia. My father figured out that I would be able to avoid paying oversize shipping fees by cutting down Thunderbolt’s box it so it was 14 inches wide, 26 inches long and 21.5 inches tall. Most airlines don’t charge oversize fees for checked luggage which is 62 linear inches or less. My father also cut some plywood panels to fit at both ends of the box to avoid the bike being crushed in transit. Given that the walls of the Thunderbolt’s carton box are double thickness, the extra wooden panels probably weren’t necessary, but my father thought that it would be a good idea. I took off the wheels, cargo rack, fenders and tied down the dérailleur to save space and I took the brakes’ discs off the wheels to avoid them being bent during shipping. (The nuts holding down the brake’s discs had washers on one wheel but strangely didn’t have washers on the other wheel.) We were able to cram everything into our cut-down box except one wheel, which I stuck in another suitcase.


The Thunderbolt box reenforced with plywood panels at the ends and cut down to 26 x 21.5 x 14 inches to avoid paying oversize luggage fees on airlines.

With the derailleur tied down, the frame of the Thunderbolt only needs a box which is 24 inches in length. If we had cut two inches from the length and added two inches to the width, we probably could have gotten the second wheel in the box, but we left the box its original width of 14 inches.

When I got to the airport, the lady checking me in for United Airlines asked me what was in the box. I told her that it was a folding bike, and she informed me that I would have to pay $150 extra to ship a bike, even though it fit within 62 linear inches and was under the 50 lb weight limit. I told her that charging an extra fee for a bike was unfair, since it shouldn’t matter to United Airlines what is inside the box as long as it complies with the normal baggage requirements. Seeing no way to contest the extra fee, I paid it. As I waited to board the plane, I used the free Wifi at the airport to check the United baggage requirements for sports equipment, which state:

United accepts non-motorized bicycles with single or double seats (including tandem) or up to two non-motorized bicycles packed in one case as checked baggage. If the bicycle(s) are packed in a container that is over 50 pounds (23 kg) and/or 62 (158 cm) total linear inches (L + W + H), the item(s) will be subject to standard oversize and overweight service charges. First, second and excess checked bag fees may apply. If the bicycle(s) are packed in a container that is less than 50 pounds (23 kg) and 62 (158 cm) total linear inches (L + W + H), there is no bicycle service charge, but the first or second checked bag service charges may apply.

The following are bicycle restrictions:

  • Handlebars must be fixed sideways and pedals removed, or
  • All loose items must be enclosed in plastic foam or similar protective material, or
  • Bicycle should be transported in a sealed box.
  • If your itinerary includes a United Express flight, please contact United for information regarding aircraft cargo hold limits
  • United is not liable for damage to bicycles that do not have the handlebars fixed sideways and pedals removed, handlebars and pedals encased in plastic foam or similar material, or bicycles not contained in a cardboard containers or hard-sided cases.

Note: Bicycles will not be accepted during an excess baggage embargo when no excess baggage is allowed.

With this information in hand, I complained about being charged the extra fee to ship the bike. It took the United agent almost an hour to figure out how to refund me the extra $150 that I had been charged, but we got it resolved before I boarded the plane. The moral of the story is that you need to know the baggage requirements for the airline beforehand and have a copy of the airline’s rules with you, because the airline agents probably don’t know their own rules and it is a hassle to contest the extra fees afterwards.

Given the amount of time that it takes to cut a box to the right proportions, disassemble the bike to fit in the box and then reassemble it upon arrival, it is worth buying a bag like the Downtube Folding Bike Soft Suitcase for $99. It doesn’t require any disassembly of the bike and it has rollers, making it easier to carry than a box. It looks like normal luggage, so you are unlikely to get questioned by airline agents about its contents. However, my custom box with wooden panels provides better protection against getting crushed, so I will keep using it. Tern reports that their 20 inch bikes can fit in a standard 30×21×13 inch hardbody suitcase if disassembled, so it might not be necessary to use a custom box.

Cómo la industria de PCs dificulta el uso de otros sistemas operativos

Ayer ProcessMaker Inc., que es mi empleador, me entregó un nuevo laptop–un HP Probook 450 G3–que tuvo Windows 7 instalado por defecto. ProcessMaker Inc. tiene reglas para prevenir el uso de software ilegal, entonces tuve que considerar que hacer con la copia de OEM Windows en la maquina.

He utilizado Linux desde el año 1999 y siento totalmente desarmado tratando de usar cualquier versión de Windows después de Windows XP. Tengo una partición de Windows 7 en mi laptop personal que sólo he buteado 2 o 3 veces en los últimos dos años. Recuerdo que lo utilice una vez para verificar un problema del hardware y otra vez para hacer una llamada por Skype, que ha dejado de funcionar en Debian 8.

No me gusta Windows por razones técnicas porque es un sistema muy inferior y por razones ideológicas porque soy partidario de la filosofía de software libre y la libertad digital. Sin embargo, tenemos preguntas acerca de Windows en el foro de ProcessMaker que necesito contestar. Entonces, necesito usar Windows de vez en cuando en mi trabajo, pero prefiero usarlo en una maquina virtual. Es mucho más conveniente para mí arrancar una maquina virtual de Windows que rebutear la maquina en una partición separada de Windows. Continue reading

Reflections on learning Rust and violating copyright law

A year ago I attempted to learn Rust, a new systems programming language created by the Mozilla Foundation. I learn new computer languages not because I get any practical utility out of them, but rather because I find computer languages to be inherently fascinating. Studying a new language is like reading a profound work of philosophy. It makes your mind expand with the possibilities and stretches you to think in new ways. At my job in ProcessMaker, Inc., I occasionally learn a new trick or two from reading PHP and JavaScript code, but those languages no longer stretch the horizons of what I already know.

On the other hand, I still fondly recall how my mind was blown by the concepts I learned when I first learned programming. It was my senior year in college and I picked up the book, the New C Primer Plus, 2nd Ed. by Mitchell Waite and Stephen Prata while Christmas shopping in 1995. I stumbled across it in Circuit City on the bottom shelf below all the shrink-wrapped software. I recall that it was sitting all alone on the shelf–all the other things around it had been snatched up by the Christmas rush. It was a throw-back to the time when learning how to use a computer still meant learning how to program it, but most people rushing through Circuit City had overlooked it. At the time, people told me to learn a newer language like Java or Visual Basic, but I had become fascinated by how computers work, and wanted to learn the gritty details of a low-level language like C. I spent the next 3 weeks reading 700 pages of code examples in utter fascination. The book taught me dozens of new concepts. At the end of each chapter, there were exercises to do as homework. Since I didn’t have a C compiler, I wrote out my code examples with pencil and paper, not really knowing if they worked or not, but simply enjoying what I was learning. 
Continue reading