Why does ULA (w/ many achievements) appear less "inspiring"?

[Robotbeat]

Okay, I made this thread from here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28006.msg890645#msg890645

Why is ULA apparently less inspiring than PR-heavy SpaceX?

Possible reasons (could be several):
1) Their interesting alternative solutions (ala depots) aren't as profitable as existing programs for their parent companies (Boeing and/or Lockheed Martin).
2) They don't have a cult of personality like SpaceX.
3) They're simply focused more on delivering than promising, don't feel like they have to brag about grand plans.
4) Their cost structure is mature, and thus can't take advantage of early optimism.
5) ULA is possibly saddled with heritage costs and programs.

EDIT:And, of course, you are welcome to disagree with the premise. I find ULA pretty inspiring myself.

[Jason1701]

I think it's because they don't have an inspiring goal. They exist simply to provide the U.S. government access to space, not to better humanity.

(3) is a good point for Blue and XCOR.

[QuantumG]

ULA is strictly limited in what they can actually do.. for example, they can only sell "excess capacity" to the commercial launch market. So when they talk about propellant depots, everyone know this is a "mother may I?" situation where an approval from the political powers is required before any money will ever be spent on it.

[Robotbeat]

ULA is strictly limited in what they can actually do.. for example, they can only sell "excess capacity" to the commercial launch market. So when they talk about propellant depots, everyone know this is a "mother may I?" situation where an approval from the political powers is required before any money will ever be spent on it.

So... #5 to a certain extent?

[Galactic Penguin SST]

ULA is more or less limited to launch vehicle processing and operations, so it's hard for it to appear more "inspiring" than what it does today.....

Now why Lockheed Martin / Boeing / other aerospace companies with a fairly long history appear less "inspiring" (or is it?)? That's a good question, and I would like to hear your answers.

[david1971]

FWIW, here's ULA's most recent promo video:

http://www.youtube.com/user/UnitedLaunchAlliance

[AS-503]

It's that Russian engine.

[Hauerg]

FWIW, here's ULA's most recent promo video:

http://www.youtube.com/user/UnitedLaunchAlliance

I stopped watching at 0:23 when I heard "... and on budget".

[Proponent]

All the reasons in the OP seem plausible to me.  I'd put No. 2 (cult of personality) near the top.  People love celebrities and the media pander to that love.  Musk is the only guy in the business who qualifies as rock star.  Not only does this explain why there's so much more buzz about SpaceX than ULA, but it also explains why we here so much more about SpaceX than, say, Orbital or Sierra Nevada.

I'd emphasize No. 3 (delivering rather than promising), in that recent marketing has implicitly criticized SpaceX for talking more than doing.  In other words, ULA is presenting its workmanlike mundaneness as a virtue.  A virtue it may be, but inspiring it's not.

I'd also go for a variation on No. 1 (ULA's interesting aren't profitable).  I'd say the issue might be that people love big rockets.  The easiest space-related things to identify with on a non-technical level (which is all that's relevant for most people) are people (astronauts and rock-star rocket company owners) and big rockets.  (Take me as an example:  I think building an HLV now is a bad idea, but I'd love to see one fly.  I think the Shuttle, each launch of which was an HLV-sized spectacle, was a failure that should have been put out to pasture long ago, but I'd still rank seeing a launch in person as one of my most memorable experiences.)  Big rockets are way cool.  In contrast, ULA's most intriguing proposals, are remote and nerdy.  Falcon Heavy is visceral; a propellant depot or an IVF Centaur is intellectual.

[Tcommon]

 "new" is appealing, otherwise the Shuttle made everything else boring in comparison.

[Ben the Space Brit]

ULA is strictly limited in what they can actually do.. for example, they can only sell "excess capacity" to the commercial launch market. So when they talk about propellant depots, everyone know this is a "mother may I?" situation where an approval from the political powers is required before any money will ever be spent on it.

So... #5 to a certain extent?

A modification of #5 - ULA isn't saddled with heritage programs and tnd/or costs - it is saddled with heritage regulatory restrictions that cannot be easily removed (assuming that anyone actually wanted them removed, which is debatable).

Additionally, ULA is unfortunate enough that it doesn't get mentioned.  Their launches are too often seen as NASA or DoD - Seriously, when was the last time you heard ULA mentioned in coverage of a Delta or Atlas launch (in the rare occasion that happens)? I know that I never have.  You can't be inspiring if people don't know you exist.  That's why I think renting out an executive summary and artists' impressions of the Phase-1 Moon/Mars/Depots papers and the EELV evolution path to Time or Science as a special article on spaceflight might be useful as it would greatly increase the company's public (and I mean public - outside the space geek community) exposure.  People will be inspired by the big dreams and realistic engineering proposed there.

[zodiacchris]

My five cents worth - ULA are are providing an excellent service of getting payloads into space, on time and on budget, and the paying client gets what he pays for. Like a hightech trucking company. However, I don't expect them to suddenly turn around and send a spacecraft around the moon, there has to be a client. They do great inovative thinking, fuel depots, lunar architecture, but at the same time we know that if the US goverment doesn't come up with the money it is not going to happen. And we have been waiting now for 40 years to get out of LEO...

With SpaceX there is just (seemingly) more potential to do things and go places, even if the goverment dollars are not forthcoming. If Elon makes it and retires on Mars, I'd die a happy man because I REALLY want to se us (as mankind) to get there before I kick the bucket, and he might just scratch that itch. If the Chinese make it I'd be happy, too (anybody really), but they are more technocratic than inspiring.

Off the spoap box now..

[Jim]

I stopped watching at 0:23 when I heard "... and on budget".

"on budget" is not a lie or a misrepresentation

[Rocket Science]

ULA is a victim of its own success. Making the un-routine seem routine… Look at the number of nations/aerospace corporations that are on Earth vs. the number that can successfully launch time and time again.

[Antares]

FWIW, here's ULA's most recent promo video:

http://www.youtube.com/user/UnitedLaunchAlliance

I stopped watching at 0:23 when I heard "... and on budget".

Just because you don't understand why doesn't mean it's wrong.