ULA Monopoly to Be Ended by Pentagon

[yg1968]

Lockheed-Boeing Launch Monopoly to Be Ended by Pentagon:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-12-04/lockheed-boeing-rocket-launch-monopoly-to-be-ended-by-pentagon

[Archibald]

The EELVs are good vehicles, but they are expensives. I think SpaceX and Orbital needs to be given a chance; and, btw, a panel of 4 launch vehicles is better than 2. Remember Titan and/or shuttle monoculture...

Perhaps someday we will this happens. Who knows ? http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1846/1

[Jim]

That article passes over that the USAF got permission to do the block buy of 36 cores from ULA.

[ngilmore]

Is this a new authoritative cost figure?

"The average launch cost, including research and development, has more than doubled to $464 million from a previous figure of $230 million, according to the Pentagon."

[neilh]

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27077.0

[Danderman]

It is fairly obvious that - long term - the dual EELV system is not sustainable, either Atlas or Delta must go.

IF Falcon Heavy works as advertised, then the rationale to keep Delta alive goes away.

The reaction from ULA and its parent companies should be to try to develop a new system that would be cost effective in comparison with SpaceX, but I don't think that such a move would be possible in their universe. Dissolution would be preferable to cost reductions.

[Jim]

The reaction from ULA and its parent companies should be to try to develop a new system that would be cost effective in comparison with SpaceX, but I don't think that such a move would be possible in their universe. Dissolution would be preferable to cost reductions.

Only in your universe and not the reality that exists today.

[Lurker Steve]

That article passes over that the USAF got permission to do the block buy of 36 cores from ULA.

With an option for 14 more. That's up to 50 cores over a period of 5 years.
If ULA and their suppliers can plan for that level of activity starting in 2015, it should help stabilize prices.

[simonbp]

Only in your universe and not the reality that exists today.

The reality today is that what what was a guaranteed source of income for ULA yesterday is now much less certain today. This time around, USAF authorized 36 ULA cores, and 14 non-ULA. Next time it will likely be closer to 14 ULA-only and the rest openly competed.

USAF launches are the only thing ULA has going for it right now, and if they loose any more of that market in the future, I doubt the shareholders (Boeing and LM) would be willing to put any more money into the company.

[Lurker Steve]

Only in your universe and not the reality that exists today.

The reality today is that what what was a guaranteed source of income for ULA yesterday is now much less certain today. This time around, USAF authorized 36 ULA cores, and 14 non-ULA. Next time it will likely be closer to 14 ULA-only and the rest openly competed.

USAF launches are the only thing ULA has going for it right now, and if they loose any more of that market in the future, I doubt the shareholders (Boeing and LM) would be willing to put any more money into the company.

I thought I read ULA has 36 launches guaranteed, with an option for up to 14 more. There is nothing in the announcement that says those other 14 launches are going to another launch provider.

ULA also has the possibility of additional launches for Commerical Crew. That's another 10 or so launches in the same time period.

Their competition needs to show they can maintain the same launch pace as ULA, if not higher.

[Jim]

Only in your universe and not the reality that exists today.

The reality today is that what what was a guaranteed source of income for ULA yesterday is now much less certain today. This time around, USAF authorized 36 ULA cores, and 14 non-ULA. Next time it will likely be closer to 14 ULA-only and the rest openly competed.

USAF launches are the only thing ULA has going for it right now, and if they loose any more of that market in the future, I doubt the shareholders (Boeing and LM) would be willing to put any more money into the company.

There are NASA missions

They haven't lost any of the market.

They haven't been putting money into the money for many years now.

[RanulfC]

Only in your universe and not the reality that exists today.

The reality today is that what what was a guaranteed source of income for ULA yesterday is now much less certain today. This time around, USAF authorized 36 ULA cores, and 14 non-ULA. Next time it will likely be closer to 14 ULA-only and the rest openly competed.

USAF launches are the only thing ULA has going for it right now, and if they loose any more of that market in the future, I doubt the shareholders (Boeing and LM) would be willing to put any more money into the company.

There are NASA missions

They haven't lost any of the market.

They haven't been putting money into the money for many years now.

Uhm? "Money into the Money"? 'Guessin that was supposed to be the "company" for years now? (Just making sure

Randy

[Danderman]

This is a fairly important development.

There is now a proven path for a launch vehicle company to get into the market. The question is whether there will be new players coming on board in the future. I suspect that it would take some sort of innovative approach to create that opening, ie a more reusable system.

[yg1968]

That article passes over that the USAF got permission to do the block buy of 36 cores from ULA.

It's mentionned in the article:

The service may also buy as many as 36 cores from the Lockheed-Boeing venture over the same period, with an option to purchase the additional 14 from it, if competitors aren’t ready, Kendall wrote.

[krytek]

This is a fairly important development.

There is now a proven path for a launch vehicle company to get into the market. The question is whether there will be new players coming on board in the future. I suspect that it would take some sort of innovative approach to create that opening, ie a more reusable system.

There isn't enough business to go around as of now.

[yg1968]

Some interesting GAO Reports on the certification of new launch providers:
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-317R
http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652037.pdf

See also this article for some of the highlights:
http://www.newspacewatch.com/articles/gao-releases-report-on-usaf039s-certification-of-new-launch-providers.html

[Jim]

See also this article for some of the highlights:
http://www.newspacewatch.com/articles/gao-releases-report-on-usaf039s-certification-of-new-launch-providers.html

Typical nonsense from him along with unsubstantiated assertions.

[yg1968]

See also this article for some of the highlights:
http://www.newspacewatch.com/articles/gao-releases-report-on-usaf039s-certification-of-new-launch-providers.html

Typical nonsense from him along with unsubstantiated assertions.

What about his assertion on the requirement for vertical integration?

The main reason that the Air Force ended ULA's monopoly is because of objections from Senators John McCain and Carl Levin to the bulk buy:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/10/25/senators-call-for-air-force-to-halt-talks-with-ula-on-bulk-rocket-buy/

[mlindner]

See also this article for some of the highlights:
http://www.newspacewatch.com/articles/gao-releases-report-on-usaf039s-certification-of-new-launch-providers.html

Typical nonsense from him along with unsubstantiated assertions.

Not sure where you read that in to it. It all looked pretty good. He made a lot of good points. Can you point out things you had specific issue with or that are wrong?

[Jim]

See also this article for some of the highlights:
http://www.newspacewatch.com/articles/gao-releases-report-on-usaf039s-certification-of-new-launch-providers.html

Typical nonsense from him along with unsubstantiated assertions.

Not sure where you read that in to it. It all looked pretty good. He made a lot of good points. Can you point out things you had specific issue with or that are wrong?

first, which ones are good?