A key article concerning the pressure to change procurement approach for large NSS sats:QuoteBattle brewing in the Pentagon over military space investmentsQuote...Hyten wants to see drastic changes in satellite procurements. He has been pushing the Air Force to stop buying complex, expensive spacecraft that he believes are “fragile” and “undefendable,” and instead start deploying more resilient networks of smaller, cheaper satellites that can be more easily replaced if they came under attack.QuoteThe Air Force last month issued a “request for information” for a “SBIRS follow-on” system, calling it a “unusual and compelling” need and setting a 2029 target date for its deployment.Hyten called it “ridiculous” that this could take 12 years.QuoteThe focus should be on investing in a “very good sensor” for strategic missile warning that can be attached to any satellite.QuoteHyten said he is prepared to draw a line in the sand if business as usual continues in the SBIRS follow-on program.QuoteMeanwhile, the Pentagon has spent years trying to figure out how to buy wideband communications, he noted. “It’s just a commodity. Why don’t we buy it as a commodity?”
Battle brewing in the Pentagon over military space investments
...Hyten wants to see drastic changes in satellite procurements. He has been pushing the Air Force to stop buying complex, expensive spacecraft that he believes are “fragile” and “undefendable,” and instead start deploying more resilient networks of smaller, cheaper satellites that can be more easily replaced if they came under attack.
The Air Force last month issued a “request for information” for a “SBIRS follow-on” system, calling it a “unusual and compelling” need and setting a 2029 target date for its deployment.Hyten called it “ridiculous” that this could take 12 years.
The focus should be on investing in a “very good sensor” for strategic missile warning that can be attached to any satellite.
Hyten said he is prepared to draw a line in the sand if business as usual continues in the SBIRS follow-on program.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon has spent years trying to figure out how to buy wideband communications, he noted. “It’s just a commodity. Why don’t we buy it as a commodity?”
I'm not expecting ULA to do this, but on the other hand I'm a little surprised that no-one has tried to directly replace the RL-10 in the low-thrust, high-performance, simple-cycle, high cost market.
Quote from: AncientU on 12/27/2017 12:01 pmDon't think ULA plus AJR is competitive. Neither has adjusted to the realities of today's and tomorrow's marketNo, people are just over hyping the "realities of today's and tomorrow's market". Most don't know what they are talking about and just repost the same unsupported biased opinions.
Don't think ULA plus AJR is competitive. Neither has adjusted to the realities of today's and tomorrow's market
When is it "wishful thinking" vs "a market pivot"?With the RIM vs IOS/Android it was a consumer phenomena.Jim's in the real world about mission SC builds and current on orbit growth. My concern is ROI for those new on orbit payloads to sustain a launch frequency uptick.Keep in mind that speed to launch is more important at the moment than volume of launches/performance.So, it's nice things are changing, but the market has to move to keep that change going ...
Quote from: Jim on 12/28/2017 04:38 pmQuote from: AncientU on 12/27/2017 12:01 pmDon't think ULA plus AJR is competitive. Neither has adjusted to the realities of today's and tomorrow's marketNo, people are just over hyping the "realities of today's and tomorrow's market". Most don't know what they are talking about and just repost the same unsupported biased opinions.That's exactly what RIM said back in 2007. Sometimes those with the deepest knowledge are the last to see change coming... but only time will tell.
Quote from: envy887 on 12/28/2017 05:10 pmQuote from: Jim on 12/28/2017 04:38 pmQuote from: AncientU on 12/27/2017 12:01 pmDon't think ULA plus AJR is competitive. Neither has adjusted to the realities of today's and tomorrow's marketNo, people are just over hyping the "realities of today's and tomorrow's market". Most don't know what they are talking about and just repost the same unsupported biased opinions.That's exactly what RIM said back in 2007. Sometimes those with the deepest knowledge are the last to see change coming... but only time will tell.Here's a background article for those of us who weren't familiar with the analogy:http://www.macnn.com/articles/10/12/27/rim.thought.apple.was.lying.on.iphone.in.2007/
The fact that they are still waiting for either a company that has never built an orbital engine or another whose product has been promised forever and will likely be uncompetitive due to price if ever finished shows their true colors.ULA and parents had the perfect opportunity to head off upstarts like SpaceX before they achieved any market share. Instead, they invested in cheap Russian and Ukrainian rockets which went exactly no where, while sitting on the Nation's consolidated rocket engineering expertise.At present, Europe, Russia, and likely China (along with Blue Origin) are investing in reusable rocket technology, even knowing that it will probably render their new, expendable rockets obsolete. Boeing*/LockMart/Ula... nada.* Boeing's effort with DARPA for a small sat launcher may be the exception.
Quote from: AncientU on 12/30/2017 03:10 pmThe fact that they are still waiting for either a company that has never built an orbital engine or another whose product has been promised forever and will likely be uncompetitive due to price if ever finished shows their true colors.ULA and parents had the perfect opportunity to head off upstarts like SpaceX before they achieved any market share. Instead, they invested in cheap Russian and Ukrainian rockets which went exactly no where, while sitting on the Nation's consolidated rocket engineering expertise.At present, Europe, Russia, and likely China (along with Blue Origin) are investing in reusable rocket technology, even knowing that it will probably render their new, expendable rockets obsolete. Boeing*/LockMart/Ula... nada.* Boeing's effort with DARPA for a small sat launcher may be the exception.Europe, Russia, and Ukraine are countries, not publicly traded companies. By that analogy, it should be the US government investing in reusable rocket technology. However, simply encouraging privately-held commercial space companies seems to be doing the job at the moment. It's hard for a publicly traded company to make speculative investment that would take many years to pay back.
...Europe, Russia, and Ukraine are countries, not publicly traded companies. By that analogy, it should be the US government investing in reusable rocket technology. However, simply encouraging privately-held commercial space companies seems to be doing the job at the moment. ...
Quote from: AncientU on 12/30/2017 03:10 pmULA and parents had the perfect opportunity to head off upstarts like SpaceX before they achieved any market share. Instead, they invested in cheap Russian and Ukrainian rockets which went exactly no where, while sitting on the Nation's consolidated rocket engineering expertise."Ukrainian rockets"? RD-180 is manufactured by Energomash of Russia. I can't think of anything Ukrainian on an Atlas or Delta. - Ed Kyle
ULA and parents had the perfect opportunity to head off upstarts like SpaceX before they achieved any market share. Instead, they invested in cheap Russian and Ukrainian rockets which went exactly no where, while sitting on the Nation's consolidated rocket engineering expertise.
A private company is responsible for its future.
ULA's parents are plenty capable of such investment. How much exactly did SpaceX require? Nothing that Boeing and Lockheed can't jointly (or separately) afford.
Quote from: meekGee on 12/30/2017 03:49 pmA private company is responsible for its future. Only if it's in control of its funding. SX is. REL is somewhat. ULA is funded at the whim of it's parents. Quote from: meekGeeULA's parents are plenty capable of such investment. How much exactly did SpaceX require? Nothing that Boeing and Lockheed can't jointly (or separately) afford.You're forgetting the first rule of being a USG Contractor. "Why should I invest my money when I can invest yours?*"*Apologies if you're not a US taxpayer.
Quote from: AncientU on 12/30/2017 04:15 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 12/30/2017 04:08 pmQuote from: AncientU on 12/30/2017 03:10 pmULA and parents had the perfect opportunity to head off upstarts like SpaceX before they achieved any market share. Instead, they invested in cheap Russian and Ukrainian rockets which went exactly no where, while sitting on the Nation's consolidated rocket engineering expertise."Ukrainian rockets"? RD-180 is manufactured by Energomash of Russia. I can't think of anything Ukrainian on an Atlas or Delta. - Ed KyleDidn't Boeing invest in Sea Launch/Zenit vehicles that were made in the Ukraine?Boeing, yes, but not ULA. Boeing's Sea Launch involvement pre-dated ULA and Delta 4. You have to transport yourself back in time, to the 1990s when commercial launch prices collapsed thanks to the flood of cheap ex-Soviet and even Chinese rockets. It was impossible for Boeing and Lockheed Martin to compete with these prices, so both companies joined international consortiums (ILS and Sea Launch) to participate in the business. Lockheed backed out of ILS in 2006. Boeing stayed with Sea Launch until it went bankrupt, causing the company to lose a lot of cash. There were no commercial cargo or crew contracts (STS was still flying). The money was in satellites and DoD launches, and Boeing even messed that up with the EELV scandal. There should have only been one EELV, but DoD changed the plan at the last minute to fund two, messing up the investment models, and doubling the per-launch costs, for both. DoD also slashed its satellite plans late in the game, increasing costs further. Much blame lies with the U.S. Government when it comes to the high costs of these machines and to the lack of investment in U.S. liquid propulsion during that era. Boeing lost another billion or so on EELV, and Lockheed Martin seemed ready to pull the plug on Atlas. ULA was formed in 2006 to pick up the pieces, something that it has done with excellence in terms of its mission performance. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 12/30/2017 04:08 pmQuote from: AncientU on 12/30/2017 03:10 pmULA and parents had the perfect opportunity to head off upstarts like SpaceX before they achieved any market share. Instead, they invested in cheap Russian and Ukrainian rockets which went exactly no where, while sitting on the Nation's consolidated rocket engineering expertise."Ukrainian rockets"? RD-180 is manufactured by Energomash of Russia. I can't think of anything Ukrainian on an Atlas or Delta. - Ed KyleDidn't Boeing invest in Sea Launch/Zenit vehicles that were made in the Ukraine?
That rule is their undoing when the landscape changes.
I'm just saying the excuses of "we're a publicly traded company" and "it's not us it's the parents" and "the market does't exist" - they're all just that.
Quote from: meekGee on 12/30/2017 04:51 pmThat rule is their undoing when the landscape changes. That depends on how much the landscape changes.Quote from: meekGeeI'm just saying the excuses of "we're a publicly traded company" and "it's not us it's the parents" and "the market does't exist" - they're all just that.Firstly ULA is not a publicly traded company and ULA is basically treated by it's parents the way a state owned industry is by it's countries Treasury IE, take as much money out and use it elsewhere and give them as little back as possible. As Boeing / LM stockholder that is exactly what you want. Their money in your wallet. Bruno has a very tricky balancing act to maintain. It's quite clear that neither of ULA's parents like the launch vehicle business but they know if they shut it down and walk away they will be known as the USG contractors who, when given every benefit by the USG (Anti trust on the merger? Don't even think about it. Billion dollar "Assured access" payments to keep doing your job? We understand, times are tough. 36 core block buy with no competition? It's yours.) still just could not be bothered. He has to keep funding flowing to Vulcan/ACES Centaur 5 as they work toward phasing out all 3 legacy lines and moving to 1 single vehicle. In other circumstances I'd say the best thing that could happen to ULA would be for them to have a MBO but I don't think that's possible with a company this size (I'll bet SG1962 can say a thing or two about such a notion, but unfortunately I don't think they will add up to "Yes, it can be done," although I'd love to be proved wrong).