Quote from: AncientU on 12/30/2017 05:18 pmYup. Boeing and LockMart, later ULA, were sitting on all (most) of the rocket engineering expertise in the USA during those years, and also had the huge technological edge of the US in their column. Why couldn't they compete? When the investments went south by 2006-2010, and SpaceX was emerging, did they learn how or prove how it could be done better? Only conclusion is that they did not have the DNA to compete. Still don't.Too much easy cash like ELC and Block Buy give aways... USG paying launch prices that are unsustainable.They did try to compete, despite the impossible and rapidly changing international political/economic conditions at the time. They maximized profits by concentrating on satellites, and by supporting international ventures to launch them cheaply. That's the best they could do. The alternative was pulling out of launch altogether. And what did they get for their efforts? Big monetary losses on launch, but presumably profits on satellites.They pulled out of launch due to the losses, forming ULA to support EELV likely only because the government demanded. Even then the U.S. launch crises did not become apparent to most political leaders. Elon Musk noticed, and started up a company, at just the right instant as it turned out because it really wasn't until Putin consolidated his power during the late 2000s, combined with the Constellation cancellation and the forced STS retirement, that the need for companies like SpaceX became apparent. Only then did NASA offer billions for cargo contracts to support the newcomer. Remember that until that contract, SpaceX only had a failing Falcon 1 to show for its efforts. Interestingly, NASA's contract came in 2006, the same year that ULA was formed, that Lockheed Martin pulled out of ILS, and only weeks before Sea Launch suffered the ultimately financially devastating NSS-8 launch explosion. All of that change came quickly. In the interim, ULA did its thing to keep DoD in space as ordered. It provides to this day capabilities that no other U.S, launch provider can offer. Only now, post-Ukraine, etc. when Russia's ultra-low-cost rockets no longer get to play commercially as they once did, does ULA have its chance to try the U.S. propulsion route. - Ed Kyle
Yup. Boeing and LockMart, later ULA, were sitting on all (most) of the rocket engineering expertise in the USA during those years, and also had the huge technological edge of the US in their column. Why couldn't they compete? When the investments went south by 2006-2010, and SpaceX was emerging, did they learn how or prove how it could be done better? Only conclusion is that they did not have the DNA to compete. Still don't.Too much easy cash like ELC and Block Buy give aways... USG paying launch prices that are unsustainable.
ULA is of and for the parents. It is staffed by the parents' employees, and led by the parents' executives, Bruno included - so for all purposes of discussion, they are one and the same.
Both Boeing and LM did invest heavily in new LVs, to service government
They had a huge head start to modernize and advance rocketry, but totally blew it. No excuses.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 12/30/2017 06:38 pmQuote from: AncientU on 12/30/2017 05:18 pmYup. Boeing and LockMart, later ULA, were sitting on all (most) of the rocket engineering expertise in the USA during those years, and also had the huge technological edge of the US in their column. Why couldn't they compete? When the investments went south by 2006-2010, and SpaceX was emerging, did they learn how or prove how it could be done better? Only conclusion is that they did not have the DNA to compete. Still don't.Too much easy cash like ELC and Block Buy give aways... USG paying launch prices that are unsustainable.They did try to compete, despite the impossible and rapidly changing international political/economic conditions at the time. They maximized profits by concentrating on satellites, and by supporting international ventures to launch them cheaply. That's the best they could do. The alternative was pulling out of launch altogether. And what did they get for their efforts? Big monetary losses on launch, but presumably profits on satellites.They pulled out of launch due to the losses, forming ULA to support EELV likely only because the government demanded. Even then the U.S. launch crises did not become apparent to most political leaders. Elon Musk noticed, and started up a company, at just the right instant as it turned out because it really wasn't until Putin consolidated his power during the late 2000s, combined with the Constellation cancellation and the forced STS retirement, that the need for companies like SpaceX became apparent. Only then did NASA offer billions for cargo contracts to support the newcomer. Remember that until that contract, SpaceX only had a failing Falcon 1 to show for its efforts. Interestingly, NASA's contract came in 2006, the same year that ULA was formed, that Lockheed Martin pulled out of ILS, and only weeks before Sea Launch suffered the ultimately financially devastating NSS-8 launch explosion. All of that change came quickly. In the interim, ULA did its thing to keep DoD in space as ordered. It provides to this day capabilities that no other U.S, launch provider can offer. Only now, post-Ukraine, etc. when Russia's ultra-low-cost rockets no longer get to play commercially as they once did, does ULA have its chance to try the U.S. propulsion route. - Ed Kyle That's one reading of history... 'as ordered' sounds like an excuse, not an explanation.ULA, by the sworn testimony of its CEO, had the plans and the ability to go the US propulsion route... did from the beginning of the RD-180 buy. When SpaceX was fumbling around trying to get a rocket to orbit, they had the full expertise base of the USA, fifty years of rocketry experience, and could have easily built what SpaceX did -- ask all the 'experts' -- SpaceX just used what everyone else understood and had shelved. All of this could have been done while keeping DoD in space (for which they were paid more than adequately).So, finally, they're building Vulcan, a vehicle fully capable of competing in the EELV market of 2002. They had a huge head start to modernize and advance rocketry, but totally blew it. No excuses.
Wrong. ULA has its own employees. They are neither Boeing or LM. It also has its own facilities and IP
Yup. Boeing and LockMart, later ULA, were sitting on all (most) of the rocket engineering expertise in the USA during those years, and also had the huge technological edge of the US in their column. Why couldn't they compete? When the investments went south by 2006-2010, and SpaceX was emerging, did they learn how or prove how it could be done better?
Only conclusion is that they did not have the DNA to compete. Still don't.Too much easy cash like ELC and Block Buy give aways... USG paying launch prices that are unsustainable.
Quote from: meekGee on 12/30/2017 06:09 pmULA is of and for the parents. It is staffed by the parents' employees, and led by the parents' executives, Bruno included - so for all purposes of discussion, they are one and the same.Wrong. ULA has its own employees. They are neither Boeing or LM. It also has its own facilities and IP
When SpaceX was fumbling around trying to get a rocket to orbit, they had the full expertise base of the USA, fifty years of rocketry experience, and could have easily built what SpaceX did -- ask all the 'experts' -- SpaceX just used what everyone else understood and had shelved. All of this could have been done while keeping DoD in space (for which they were paid more than adequately).
Quote from: AncientU on 12/30/2017 08:11 pmWhen SpaceX was fumbling around trying to get a rocket to orbit, they had the full expertise base of the USA, fifty years of rocketry experience, and could have easily built what SpaceX did -- ask all the 'experts' -- SpaceX just used what everyone else understood and had shelved. All of this could have been done while keeping DoD in space (for which they were paid more than adequately).Yep, they could have all done what SpaceX did, with regards to domestic engine technology. Because you can't have it both ways - Either A) SpaceX was doing something truly revolutionary that Boeing/Lockmart/ULA/AJR just couldn't match (not according to experts on this forum) - Or B) Boeing/Lockmart/ULA/AJR just didn't try hard enough, all too happy with the status quo... Neither is very flattering for Boeing/Lockmart/ULA/AJR.
I read on the Russian section, that Russia is now going to work on a re-usable booster. Seems ULA is falling further behind, especially if BO gets New Glenn going.
The interesting bit is that Boeing/LockMart/AJR are heading down the same cash cow milking route with SLS/Orion and their NSS satellite businesses -- which is great, IMO. Status Quo Queens all. All have been too much spent for the returned product, and all need competition to kill them.