Dexter - 4/10/2006 12:22 AMLockheed concluded in March, Boeing has yet to strike a deal an we are in October. Thats about seven months. How much detail do you need?Sounds more like a show-stopper in the negotiations.
edkyle99 - 5/10/2006 3:19 PMThis Washington Post article:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100301365.htmlquotes both FTC and Pentagon officials saying that the purported ULA savings will be more than offset by higher prices resulting from lack of EELV competition.
The article also says that ULA is expected to "generate" up to $2 billion per year from of the U.S. government, which seems a bit pricey to me since current plans show only eight EELV launches per year at most.
I suppose it was this or one of the EELVs dropped altogether. In my opinion, one less EELV would have been a better result than the ULA compromise.
- Ed Kyle
R&R - 4/10/2006 4:56 PMQuoteedkyle99 - 5/10/2006 3:19 PMThis Washington Post article:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100301365.htmlquotes both FTC and Pentagon officials saying that the purported ULA savings will be more than offset by higher prices resulting from lack of EELV competition.Sounds more like a miss-quote or officials who have no clue. Both companies now have the Launch Services contracts (Buy 3) which pays the overhead and a fixed price for each launch. Without ULA there's no competition and regardless of it the costs are basically fixed so how does it go up? Moving all Engineering to one site and all manufacturing to one site saves money.
QuoteThe article also says that ULA is expected to "generate" up to $2 billion per year from of the U.S. government, which seems a bit pricey to me since current plans show only eight EELV launches per year at most.Probably includes that fixed cost I spoke of above.
QuoteI suppose it was this or one of the EELVs dropped altogether. In my opinion, one less EELV would have been a better result than the ULA compromise.Dropping one doesn't mean the cost is cut in half in fact it could be almost as much since they would still need more than half the people to engineer, build and launch the extra rockets of the same kind. The launch rate may be too much for one without at least some infrastructure upgrades. And heaven forbid there's a failure, now there's no other option.
If it were Boeing that left just imagine the cost to get the A5 Heavy online in time to support what's already scheduled for D4. One can only guess what it would have cost to get D4 people to stick around long enough to finish what's been started. What did it cost to get Titan folks to stick around as long as they did?
Bruhn - 17/7/2006 1:59 PMI was just in the plant on Friday. There were about 10 Delta IVs and 6 Delta IIs on the floor. While it certainly was spacious, I couldn't imagine having 40 Delta IV CBCs packed in there. I'm sure its doable, but watch out when backing up.
Jim - 4/10/2006 6:27 AMQuoteDexter - 4/10/2006 12:22 AMLockheed concluded in March, Boeing has yet to strike a deal an we are in October. Thats about seven months. How much detail do you need?Sounds more like a show-stopper in the negotiations.Boeing's agreement was in August
general - 4/10/2006 10:15 PMQuoteJim - 4/10/2006 6:27 AMQuoteDexter - 4/10/2006 12:22 AMLockheed concluded in March, Boeing has yet to strike a deal an we are in October. Thats about seven months. How much detail do you need?Sounds more like a show-stopper in the negotiations.Boeing's agreement was in AugustBoeing has not finalized their Buy 3 contract yet. They have a "handshake" agreement with the AF, but still not completed.
bombay - 4/10/2006 9:53 PMAlso in the Washington Post article, the FTC acknowledged that creating the ULA monopoly "will probably lead to higher prices and lower quality". In the WSJ, FTC staff stated the joint venture (ULA) likely would "reduce the rate of innovation" while raising prices to launch U.S. government satellites in coming years.So the DoD recommended the joint venture based principally on improved national security stating that: "the unique national security benefits from the joint venture would exceed any anticompetitive harm."Now for the twisted logic:National security through the formation of ULA will be impoved by (1) less quality (2) less innovation (3) higher prices for launch services in coming years.Therefore, more risk of launch failure at a higher price equates to "unique national security benefits". Huh!!!!
Dexter - 5/10/2006 9:27 PMQuotebombay - 4/10/2006 9:53 PMAlso in the Washington Post article, the FTC acknowledged that creating the ULA monopoly "will probably lead to higher prices and lower quality". In the WSJ, FTC staff stated the joint venture (ULA) likely would "reduce the rate of innovation" while raising prices to launch U.S. government satellites in coming years.So the DoD recommended the joint venture based principally on improved national security stating that: "the unique national security benefits from the joint venture would exceed any anticompetitive harm."Now for the twisted logic:National security through the formation of ULA will be impoved by (1) less quality (2) less innovation (3) higher prices for launch services in coming years.Therefore, more risk of launch failure at a higher price equates to "unique national security benefits". Huh!!!!Read it straight from the source from the undersecretary Krieg at the Pentagon:http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0510165/0510165dodletterkriegtomajoras.pdfThis is not journalistic speculation, this is the opinion of a top ranking official at the Pentagon.He does not believe the savings will be realized, and the reliability will be reduced. How does this benefit national security when a rocket blows up taking out a critical national security asset.Anyone remember the Titan IV failures in the 1990s?
bombay - 6/10/2006 12:11 AMDoesn't both the Boeing and Atlas EELV upperstages use the same P&W engine whereby an alternate vehicle option would be rendered null and void if a problem existed with the common upperstage engine?The justification for ULA is an absolute farse. The spin and contradicting statements regarding the joint venture that's available for all to read makes the regulatory process a joke.
quark - 6/10/2006 12:05 AMULA was the lesser of the evils. Door number 1, DoD pays the complete cost of two independent providers each working at a fraction of capacity.Door number 2, DoD forces a downselect (through competition or attrition), pays the exit costs of the loser and is left with a single source with no regulatory authority.Door number 3, DoD approves ULA, gets to keep two independent systems, gets some cost savings through consolidation and has the regulatory authority provided by the consent decree.On a separate note, why should Boeing or LM be precluded from recovering their investment in the EELV systems? Is it right that the government should entice contractors to invest with the promise of huge sales in a winner-take-all competition, then change the rules halfway through to a winner-take-half. Then renegotiate everything again to explicitly preclude any investment recovery? The whole premise of a business model is that up front investments in product development are recovered in product sales down stream. It's like the USG going to Microsoft and insisting that it will buy Office but only pay the cost of burning the CD.
Jim - 6/10/2006 4:28 AMQuotebombay - 6/10/2006 12:11 AMDoesn't both the Boeing and Atlas EELV upperstages use the same P&W engine whereby an alternate vehicle option would be rendered null and void if a problem existed with the common upperstage engine?The justification for ULA is an absolute farse. The spin and contradicting statements regarding the joint venture that's available for all to read makes the regulatory process a joke.Both companies are addressing the RL-10 issue, But they use different models. WRT the standdown,Atlas could have flown but chose not to.Your opinion.