Author Topic: ULA and Monopoly discussions  (Read 28655 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
ULA and Monopoly discussions
« on: 04/16/2011 05:57 pm »
I don't understand why people complain about the so called ULA monopoly on national security launches.   Look at history.

Martin Marietta had it with T-IIIB, C, and D.
NASA had it with the shuttle
LM had it with Titan IV class missions (and it had Atlas II)
.
so what is so different with ULA having Delta and Atlas?

Offline pummuf

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 112
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ULA and Monopoly discussions
« Reply #1 on: 04/16/2011 06:02 pm »
I don't understand why people complain about the so called ULA monopoly on national security launches.   Look at history.

Martin Marietta had it with T-IIIB, C, and D.
NASA had it with the shuttle
LM had it with Titan IV class missions (and it had Atlas II)
.
so what is so different with ULA having Delta and Atlas?

What's wrong with monopolies? You have to ask?

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: ULA and Monopoly discussions
« Reply #2 on: 04/16/2011 06:06 pm »
so what is so different with ULA having Delta and Atlas?

Maybe all of these were wrong. But is it really a monopoly? DoD needs assured access to space and that comes at a price. The ELC was awarded competitively and has a finite duration, so it has to be renewed and recompeted every n years. The market may be too small at the moment to support multiple simultaneous suppliers, but that could change if NASA switches to commercial transport.
« Last Edit: 04/16/2011 06:09 pm by mmeijeri »
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Andy USA

  • Lead Moderator
  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1029
  • Los Angeles, California
  • Liked: 206
  • Likes Given: 255
Re: ULA and Monopoly discussions
« Reply #3 on: 04/16/2011 06:10 pm »
I don't understand why people complain about the so called ULA monopoly on national security launches.   Look at history.

Martin Marietta had it with T-IIIB, C, and D.
NASA had it with the shuttle
LM had it with Titan IV class missions (and it had Atlas II)
.
so what is so different with ULA having Delta and Atlas?

I've done a search and absolutely no one has made this claim on this site. Not one person.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: ULA and Monopoly discussions
« Reply #4 on: 04/16/2011 06:13 pm »
I don't understand why people complain about the so called ULA monopoly on national security launches.   Look at history.

Martin Marietta had it with T-IIIB, C, and D.
NASA had it with the shuttle
LM had it with Titan IV class missions (and it had Atlas II)
.
so what is so different with ULA having Delta and Atlas?

What's wrong with monopolies? You have to ask?
It depends on what the monopoly is for.  Some areas, where there is a large market demand, a monopoly stifles growth of the market, such as Bell Telephone which limited communications growth.  Upon its breakup, you had the rapid rise of cellular phones, computer modems, and the internet. 

However, in a market with limited potential, like electrical access to the home (cannot realistically ask for home manufacturers to wire up a home for the potentially hundreds or thousands of potential electrical plugs, wiring systems, etc of a true open market) then a monopoly with regulation makes perfect sense. 

So, which do you classify ULA?  Is lift technology in such demand that multiple vendors are going to be viable? 

From my viewpoint, I do not see enough demand for a full open market at this time.  Frankly, I don't see enough demand for more than 2-3 vendors, with one handling huge industrial and the other two handling innovation.  This is the initial compromise for Bell Telephone, with MCI and GTE being the smaller innovative companies.  I see ULA in much the same position as Bell, providing a fixed basis to then innovate off of. 
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Re: ULA and Monopoly discussions
« Reply #5 on: 04/16/2011 06:23 pm »
I don't understand why people complain about the so called ULA monopoly on national security launches.   Look at history.

Martin Marietta had it with T-IIIB, C, and D.
NASA had it with the shuttle
LM had it with Titan IV class missions (and it had Atlas II)
.
so what is so different with ULA having Delta and Atlas?

I've done a search and absolutely no one has made this claim on this site. Not one person.

Looking here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24816.60
and here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24179.msg718829#msg718829

And going back many years: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=661.msg7208#msg7208

Offline pummuf

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 112
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ULA and Monopoly discussions
« Reply #6 on: 04/16/2011 06:29 pm »
I don't understand why people complain about the so called ULA monopoly on national security launches.   Look at history.

Martin Marietta had it with T-IIIB, C, and D.
NASA had it with the shuttle
LM had it with Titan IV class missions (and it had Atlas II)
.
so what is so different with ULA having Delta and Atlas?

What's wrong with monopolies? You have to ask?
It depends on what the monopoly is for.  Some areas, where there is a large market demand, a monopoly stifles growth of the market, such as Bell Telephone which limited communications growth.  Upon its breakup, you had the rapid rise of cellular phones, computer modems, and the internet. 

However, in a market with limited potential, like electrical access to the home (cannot realistically ask for home manufacturers to wire up a home for the potentially hundreds or thousands of potential electrical plugs, wiring systems, etc of a true open market) then a monopoly with regulation makes perfect sense. 

So, which do you classify ULA?  Is lift technology in such demand that multiple vendors are going to be viable? 

From my viewpoint, I do not see enough demand for a full open market at this time.  Frankly, I don't see enough demand for more than 2-3 vendors, with one handling huge industrial and the other two handling innovation.  This is the initial compromise for Bell Telephone, with MCI and GTE being the smaller innovative companies.  I see ULA in much the same position as Bell, providing a fixed basis to then innovate off of. 

When monopolies are granted they generally come with regulatory oversight, such as with public utilities. Your electric company does not get to charge whatever they want, like PWR is doing with the RL10 now. 

This is in the context of capitalism, where corporations exist to make money.  The government wants to launch satellites. The launch providers are owned by shareholders who demand a return on their investment. The two have different motivations. There has to be a mechanism to govern that relationship - preferably competition among the launch providers. Without competition, you see higher costs and less advancement in the state of the art. There are exceptions, of course, which is why NASA pays to develop certain things. Sill, the best intentions in the world can't match competition as a motivator. Even the old USSR had competing design bureaus.


« Last Edit: 04/16/2011 06:49 pm by pummuf »

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: ULA and Monopoly discussions
« Reply #7 on: 04/16/2011 07:06 pm »
I don't understand why people complain about the so called ULA monopoly on national security launches.   Look at history.

Martin Marietta had it with T-IIIB, C, and D.
NASA had it with the shuttle
LM had it with Titan IV class missions (and it had Atlas II)
.
so what is so different with ULA having Delta and Atlas?

What's wrong with monopolies? You have to ask?
It depends on what the monopoly is for.  Some areas, where there is a large market demand, a monopoly stifles growth of the market, such as Bell Telephone which limited communications growth.  Upon its breakup, you had the rapid rise of cellular phones, computer modems, and the internet. 

However, in a market with limited potential, like electrical access to the home (cannot realistically ask for home manufacturers to wire up a home for the potentially hundreds or thousands of potential electrical plugs, wiring systems, etc of a true open market) then a monopoly with regulation makes perfect sense. 

So, which do you classify ULA?  Is lift technology in such demand that multiple vendors are going to be viable? 

From my viewpoint, I do not see enough demand for a full open market at this time.  Frankly, I don't see enough demand for more than 2-3 vendors, with one handling huge industrial and the other two handling innovation.  This is the initial compromise for Bell Telephone, with MCI and GTE being the smaller innovative companies.  I see ULA in much the same position as Bell, providing a fixed basis to then innovate off of. 

When monopolies are granted they generally come with regulatory oversight, such as with public utilities. Your electric company does not get to charge whatever they want, like PWR is doing with the RL10 now. 

This is in the context of capitalism, where corporations exist to make money.  The government wants to launch satellites. The launch providers are owned by shareholders who demand a return on their investment. The two have different motivations. There has to be a mechanism to govern that relationship - preferably competition among the launch providers. Without competition, you see higher costs and less advancement in the state of the art. There are exceptions, of course, which is why NASA pays to develop certain things. Sill, the best intentions in the world can't match competition as a motivator. Even the old USSR had competing design bureaus.

PWR, however, is not the monopoly in this case.  There are options, although for them to be utilized would require time and money.  ULA is developing next-generation upper stages, and if PWR prices are kept too high, this gives an opportunity for another engine company such as XCOR, Aerojet, and SpaceX to come up with a solution.  I know Aerojet is more than capable, and SpaceX has discussed an US engine which is capable of doing the job but am uncertain as to it's status.  XCOR has been working on a Methane engine, which so I understand could do the job as well.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline R.Simko

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: ULA and Monopoly discussions
« Reply #8 on: 04/16/2011 08:09 pm »
With monopolies you don't get the competition that drives innovation and lower prices.  Too me, the question is, is there enough launch business to have more than one US launch company.  If SpaceX can keep their prices low and bring in additional international commercial contracts, that can increase the amt. of launch business available.

The US use to dominate the commercial satellite launch market, it would be great to see US companies gaining back market share.  Hopefully with Bigelow, there will be a growing HSF market of not only the super rich, but other countries that want to send people to space.

IMHO, if we can bring American launch prices down substantially, there can be a large enough market for more than one launch company.

Offline DarkenedOne

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Liked: 58
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: ULA and Monopoly discussions
« Reply #9 on: 04/17/2011 01:21 am »

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2173
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: ULA and Monopoly discussions
« Reply #11 on: 04/17/2011 09:55 pm »
EELV was created a) to ensure US military access to space in the event of a long shutdown of shuttle operations (as has happened twice), and b) to ensure that US launch vehicle manufacturers would not cease production due to loss of commercial launch business to lower cost russian and chinese competition, so that talent and infrastructure would remain in the US as an important strategic asset. Lockheed and Boeing (actually McDonnell Douglas at the time owned Delta production) were chosen to ensure "competition" between the two companies would, in theory, keep costs down. A statutory duopoly, not a monopoly.

In order for a third competitor to enter the EELV market, they'd have to demonstrate a sufficient record of successful launches, but obviously would not have access to national security customers in order to pay for the cost of establishing that safety record, which in economics is called a 'barrier to entry'. A third launch operator would need to either fund the cost of enough launches to reach a successful record, or get commercial or other government customers to pay for those risks. Beale was one possibility in the 90's, but they went under after spending allegedly $300 million in failing to complete development, and also ran into problems when they explored establishing a launch site in Venezuela (back before Chavez came to power), I believe, but the kicker there was, according to Beale, funding of Lockheed's Venturestar/X-33 program that drove other capital sources away from investing in Beale. Beale said that Venturestar was intentional corporate welfare to an EELV operator in order to prevent real launch competition, a statement that caused a lot of controversy (and I'm sure some folks here will chime in).

Then Lockheed and Boeing decided to merge their launch operations to "save taxpayers money" (despite the fact that launch costs continue to climb at ULA) and the merger became ULA, which as the only certified EELV operator, and given requirements on others to provide a successful launch record, was in fact, a monopoly, though not an explicitly worded one: theres the barrier to entry but no law saying nobody else can compete if they overcome that barrier to entry. SpaceX has worked to establish a successful launch record and presumably will be able to compete for EELV contracts in the future. Them entering that market niche would return that market to the condition it was in before the ULA merger: two launch operators, a duopoly, with a barrier to entry, but not a statutory exclusion of  competition.

The possible entry of SpaceX into that market has clearly dawned on ULA that they need to do some serious work to cut costs. Their deal with XCOR on a hydrogen engine is a good sign that that is happening. Hopefully they will continue to act in this way to meet the lower cost competitive threat that SpaceX poses to their business.

So, while ULA was in a monopolistic position for the EELV market, that is coming to a close and the signs of burgeoning competition forcing costs down show that the free market is working as it should. If the DoD were serious about cutting costs, they'd end the cost-plus and guaranteed profit clauses of the EELV program.
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: ULA and Monopoly discussions
« Reply #12 on: 04/17/2011 09:58 pm »
If the DoD were serious about cutting costs, they'd end the cost-plus and guaranteed profit clauses of the EELV program.

They can't very well do that unilaterally and they shouldn't until there is a proven competitor. SpaceX is getting there, but it's a long way away from building up a track record comparable to that of the EELVs. Or even matching their capabilities.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: ULA and Monopoly discussions
« Reply #13 on: 04/17/2011 11:11 pm »
EELV was created a) to ensure US military access to space in the event of a long shutdown of shuttle operations (as has happened twice), and b) to ensure that US launch vehicle manufacturers would not cease production due to loss of commercial launch business to lower cost russian and chinese competition, so that talent and infrastructure would remain in the US as an important strategic asset. Lockheed and Boeing (actually McDonnell Douglas at the time owned Delta production) were chosen to ensure "competition" between the two companies would, in theory, keep costs down. A statutory duopoly, not a monopoly.


No, that is not the reason.  The DOD had long transitioned to ELV's and divorced itself from the shuttle when the EELV program was started.  EELV program was initiated to reduce the cost of launch by 1/4 and replace Delta II, Atlas II, Titan IV. 

PS EELV is a specific program and only refers to two specific vehicles.   It is not the same as ELv

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: ULA and Monopoly discussions
« Reply #14 on: 04/18/2011 12:49 am »
EELV was created a) to ensure US military access to space in the event of a long shutdown of shuttle operations (as has happened twice), and b) to ensure that US launch vehicle manufacturers would not cease production due to loss of commercial launch business to lower cost russian and chinese competition, so that talent and infrastructure would remain in the US as an important strategic asset. Lockheed and Boeing (actually McDonnell Douglas at the time owned Delta production) were chosen to ensure "competition" between the two companies would, in theory, keep costs down. A statutory duopoly, not a monopoly.


No, that is not the reason.  The DOD had long transitioned to ELV's and divorced itself from the shuttle when the EELV program was started.  EELV program was initiated to reduce the cost of launch by 1/4 and replace Delta II, Atlas II, Titan IV. 

PS EELV is a specific program and only refers to two specific vehicles.   It is not the same as ELv
*if* we utilized the EELV's at the volume predicted, the costs would be far more reasonable.  We cannot sit back and complain about costs while starving them of launch opportunities.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: ULA and Monopoly discussions
« Reply #15 on: 04/18/2011 01:34 am »
I don't understand why people complain about the so called ULA monopoly on national security launches.   Look at history.

Martin Marietta had it with T-IIIB, C, and D.
NASA had it with the shuttle
LM had it with Titan IV class missions (and it had Atlas II)
.
so what is so different with ULA having Delta and Atlas?

My guess is that the arrival of new SpaceX and Orbital launch vehicles, along with ULA cost and price increases, are the reason.  These newcomers might offer realistic competition for future DoD EELV-class contracts.   

Until now, the only contract winners for medium to big payload DoD contracts were essentially the original guys who handled the work prior to the post-Challenger opening of commercial launch services.  These original guys were the original winners of the IRBM and ICBM contracts.  What was once Convair (General Dynamics), Martin (Marietta), and (McDonnell) Douglas is now just United Launch Alliance. 

The new guys, or at least one of the new guys, want a shot.  If they succeed in jumping through all of the proper hoops, they should get it - a chance to fairly compete for contracts.  I look forward to that competition, which should, no matter who wins, be good for the nation.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline DarkenedOne

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Liked: 58
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: ULA and Monopoly discussions
« Reply #16 on: 04/18/2011 05:04 am »
EELV was created a) to ensure US military access to space in the event of a long shutdown of shuttle operations (as has happened twice), and b) to ensure that US launch vehicle manufacturers would not cease production due to loss of commercial launch business to lower cost russian and chinese competition, so that talent and infrastructure would remain in the US as an important strategic asset. Lockheed and Boeing (actually McDonnell Douglas at the time owned Delta production) were chosen to ensure "competition" between the two companies would, in theory, keep costs down. A statutory duopoly, not a monopoly.


No, that is not the reason.  The DOD had long transitioned to ELV's and divorced itself from the shuttle when the EELV program was started.  EELV program was initiated to reduce the cost of launch by 1/4 and replace Delta II, Atlas II, Titan IV. 

PS EELV is a specific program and only refers to two specific vehicles.   It is not the same as ELv
*if* we utilized the EELV's at the volume predicted, the costs would be far more reasonable.  We cannot sit back and complain about costs while starving them of launch opportunities.

The solution is simple.  Get rid of one of them.  The Air Force policy is causing the problem.  There is simply too low a launch rate in order to keep both rockets around. 

Fact of the matter is that the Air Force does not need two launch systems.  Both rockets are reliable enough for the job.  Only one of them is required to reasonably assured access to space.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: ULA and Monopoly discussions
« Reply #17 on: 04/18/2011 05:18 am »
EELV was created a) to ensure US military access to space in the event of a long shutdown of shuttle operations (as has happened twice), and b) to ensure that US launch vehicle manufacturers would not cease production due to loss of commercial launch business to lower cost russian and chinese competition, so that talent and infrastructure would remain in the US as an important strategic asset. Lockheed and Boeing (actually McDonnell Douglas at the time owned Delta production) were chosen to ensure "competition" between the two companies would, in theory, keep costs down. A statutory duopoly, not a monopoly.


No, that is not the reason.  The DOD had long transitioned to ELV's and divorced itself from the shuttle when the EELV program was started.  EELV program was initiated to reduce the cost of launch by 1/4 and replace Delta II, Atlas II, Titan IV. 

PS EELV is a specific program and only refers to two specific vehicles.   It is not the same as ELv
*if* we utilized the EELV's at the volume predicted, the costs would be far more reasonable.  We cannot sit back and complain about costs while starving them of launch opportunities.

The solution is simple.  Get rid of one of them.  The Air Force policy is causing the problem.  There is simply too low a launch rate in order to keep both rockets around. 

Fact of the matter is that the Air Force does not need two launch systems.  Both rockets are reliable enough for the job.  Only one of them is required to reasonably assured access to space.
That would solve one issue, but cause another, namely their different profiles cannot be as easily covered by a single rocket.

Their Phase II plan would be a better solution, unifying the tooling would cut the costs to produce dramatically.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline DarkenedOne

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Liked: 58
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: ULA and Monopoly discussions
« Reply #18 on: 04/18/2011 02:19 pm »
EELV was created a) to ensure US military access to space in the event of a long shutdown of shuttle operations (as has happened twice), and b) to ensure that US launch vehicle manufacturers would not cease production due to loss of commercial launch business to lower cost russian and chinese competition, so that talent and infrastructure would remain in the US as an important strategic asset. Lockheed and Boeing (actually McDonnell Douglas at the time owned Delta production) were chosen to ensure "competition" between the two companies would, in theory, keep costs down. A statutory duopoly, not a monopoly.


No, that is not the reason.  The DOD had long transitioned to ELV's and divorced itself from the shuttle when the EELV program was started.  EELV program was initiated to reduce the cost of launch by 1/4 and replace Delta II, Atlas II, Titan IV. 

PS EELV is a specific program and only refers to two specific vehicles.   It is not the same as ELv
*if* we utilized the EELV's at the volume predicted, the costs would be far more reasonable.  We cannot sit back and complain about costs while starving them of launch opportunities.

The solution is simple.  Get rid of one of them.  The Air Force policy is causing the problem.  There is simply too low a launch rate in order to keep both rockets around. 

Fact of the matter is that the Air Force does not need two launch systems.  Both rockets are reliable enough for the job.  Only one of them is required to reasonably assured access to space.
That would solve one issue, but cause another, namely their different profiles cannot be as easily covered by a single rocket.

Why is that?

Their Phase II plan would be a better solution, unifying the tooling would cut the costs to produce dramatically.

Problem is that they continually requested subsidies to do things yet costs for launching is still very high.  It would be cheaper to just drop one.

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: ULA and Monopoly discussions
« Reply #19 on: 04/18/2011 02:38 pm »
Why is that?

Rockets are optimized to reach certain Orbits. The Saturn I for instance was optimized for LEO. If you needed to reach GEO you would need another stage. Titan IIIC could get to GEO. The Shuttle and Falcon 9 are optimized for LEO. The shuttle can carry nothing higher than LEO without an upper stage while Falcon 9 can carry 4MT. Atlas V(Falcon 9's competitor) in its smallest form lifts 10MT to LEO and 4.5 to GEO but lifts more than Falcon 9 in larger forms(up to 29MT to LEO and 10 to GTO).

F9H lifts 53 to LEO but only 19MT to GTO. A Delta IV heavy can lift about 25MT to LEO and 13MT to GTO.  Not that far behind a FH9 in the GTO lift(despite the cost).
 
Their Phase II plan would be a better solution, unifying the tooling would cut the costs to produce dramatically.

They would still drop one but they would have one in the same catagory as FH. An Atlas Phase II would cover the same range as Atlas does now and go up to 70MT. Phase II would be like 100+ MT.

Delta can be brought up to 50MT with other upgrades.
« Last Edit: 04/18/2011 02:47 pm by pathfinder_01 »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1