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 shuttleLM had it with Titan IV class missions (and it had Atlas II).so what is so different with ULA having Delta and Atlas?
so what is so different with ULA having Delta and Atlas?
Quote from: Jim on 04/16/2011 05:57 pmI 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 shuttleLM 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?
Quote from: Jim on 04/16/2011 05:57 pmI 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 shuttleLM 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.
Quote from: pummuf on 04/16/2011 06:02 pmQuote from: Jim on 04/16/2011 05:57 pmI 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 shuttleLM 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.
Quote from: Downix on 04/16/2011 06:13 pmQuote from: pummuf on 04/16/2011 06:02 pmQuote from: Jim on 04/16/2011 05:57 pmI 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 shuttleLM 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.
If the DoD were serious about cutting costs, they'd end the cost-plus and guaranteed profit clauses of the EELV program.
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.
Quote from: mlorrey on 04/17/2011 09:55 pmEELV 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
Quote from: Jim on 04/17/2011 11:11 pmQuote from: mlorrey on 04/17/2011 09:55 pmEELV 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.
Quote from: Downix on 04/18/2011 12:49 amQuote from: Jim on 04/17/2011 11:11 pmQuote from: mlorrey on 04/17/2011 09:55 pmEELV 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.
Quote from: DarkenedOne on 04/18/2011 05:04 amQuote from: Downix on 04/18/2011 12:49 amQuote from: Jim on 04/17/2011 11:11 pmQuote from: mlorrey on 04/17/2011 09:55 pmEELV 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.
Why is that?