[Symmetry]

Lets not be too harsh on the ULA. They offer services like vertical integration that only the government cares about and they've gone over 100 launches without a payload loss. So if I was sending up a $10 billion space telescope they're the obvious choice for that.

I doubt they're going to get any more business for $200 commsats though now that SpaceX is getting on tempo.

[SEJeff]

The reliability standard they've set is indeed impressive, but they're simply milking the fat cow (USG) for cash. They were a perfect Rockefeller style monopoly with an utter lock on the military launch market until SpaceX sued the USAF to make it a normal bidding process.

Shaking that up a bit is a very good thing for overall use of tax dollars. I'll relent and agree entirely with you that there is a place for their extreme reliability. Then again, SpaceX is going to get there and they want to do 1 launch per week (40-50 launches total in 2018). If they don't develop the Vulcan engine and some sort of story for reliability, they're going to go the way of the dinosaurs. SpaceX is fighting for better (and cheaper) access to Space for everyone whereas ULA will soon be fighting to exist if they don't make serious changes soon.

[Already__Taken]

There might not be a business for $10bil telescopes every 10 years when there's an option of 10 $1bil telescopes launching every year.

The launch capacity/cost to propose such thinking just didn't exist.

[SEJeff]

You're not the only person to think that: https://www.spaceintelreport.com/ses-tells-satellite-builder...