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

[TrueGrit]

ULA is a mature business with the goal of making money for those who have a stake in them.   As with any mature business, they make sensible, conservative decisions based on clear business cases.  They don't take chances, and as an organization, they aren't strongly motivated by a vision beyond ROI for their stakeholders.  Given that they have a stable market niche, they are not out to change the game significantly, they are happy to milk the cash cow they have.  This may be sensible, and their accomplishments may be worthy of respect, but it is not inspirational.

Not true...  ULA has a lot of activities going on to constantly evolve its products.  From small improvements that aren't apparent at "10,000 ft", but result in improved reliability or cost, to major system redesigns.  I only need to point out the Common Upper Stage, Low Cost Upper Stage Engine, Upgraded RS68A engine, to Commercial Crew...  All of which were funded in part by ULA R&D...  Just because some don't progress to production or become hyped by the press means ULA is sitting still.  But unlike SpaceX who has a constant need to be in front of the New York based media ULA works directly with its government customers on what to invest in.  In a world dominated by engineers and data driven decisions the SpaceX hype machine is actually a turnoff.  ULA by design doesn't hype itself because it knows the vast majority of the government base prefers professional excellence over Hollywood-like hype.  Particularly for those costumers that have an aversion to the spot-light and wish the existence of the agency was never publically disclosed.

[go4mars]

Just because some don't progress to production or become hyped by the press means ULA is sitting still. 

But it makes them relatively less inspiring to the unwashed masses.

But unlike SpaceX who has a constant need to be in front of the New York based media ULA works directly with its government customers on what to invest in.

Meeting existing needs, while certainly commendable and prudent, is relatively less inspiring than trying to anticipate and meet needs that don't yet exist, and doing it with a degree of transparency so the unwashed masses can assess and debate.

ULA by design doesn't hype itself because it knows the vast majority of the government base prefers professional excellence over Hollywood-like hype.  Particularly for those costumers that have an aversion to the spot-light and wish the existence of the agency was never publically disclosed.

IIRC, think one of the first F1's had an undisclosed government payload.  I think a little more swagger and bluster from ULA would be a good thing.  Still, highlighting current strengths doesn't inspire as much as highlighting a better future.   For a certainty, ULA commands respect.  But it's dramatic positive changes or dramatic increases in capability that inspire.  I'd like to see ULA highlight planned improvements better, and then set on a course to achieve them.  Dramatic improvements in the future state versus the current state are inspiring (improved capabilities, and lower prices). 

Improvements in residential plumbing get taken for granted even though they work really really well.  I look forward to the day when reusable stages and cheap access to space are taken for granted.  Show me something along those lines to "inspire" rather than "impress".   

[Jorge]

I think a little more swagger and bluster from ULA would be a good thing. 

They'd certainly be entitled to it should they choose to do so. But ULA's current customers are impressed more by quiet, steady, reliability than swagger and bluster, and ULA is quite understandably playing to that.

[Jim]

But it makes them relatively less inspiring to the unwashed masses.
 

Which doesn't matter because they don't have or control the money

[rcoppola]

To be inspiring, you need to have an inspiring vision, passionately communicated by a single voice. If you ask who runs ULA?, very few would know, or care.

America loves characters and stories.

"Self-made young millionaire starts space company in the hopes of getting to Mars."

"Self taught rocket designer, assembles young team, builds rocket and capsule to bring cargo and eventually crew to ISS and beyond."

"A small private American company is about to do what only a handful of nations have done"

It's exciting. It gets peoples' imaginations going. It reflects all the best of what people believe it means to be a part of our way of life. If you can dream the big dream and work hard enough for it, you can make it happen.

(None of this is meant in any way to diminish the achievements of ULA but rather answer the question posed)

[Antares]

But it makes them relatively less inspiring to the unwashed masses.

Which doesn't matter because they don't have or control the money

Yeah, but the unwashed Congress-critters do, and they put irrational pressure on the rocket buyers in DC, Arlington, Florida and L.A. to buy an unproven rocket.  Not that SpaceX won't get there someday, but when it absolutely, positively has to be on orbit Falcon is not yet the choice.  It's hard to convince people who don't understand risk management of that point.

[Lurker Steve]

But it makes them relatively less inspiring to the unwashed masses.

Which doesn't matter because they don't have or control the money

Yeah, but the unwashed Congress-critters do, and they put irrational pressure on the rocket buyers in DC, Arlington, Florida and L.A. to buy an unproven rocket.  Not that SpaceX won't get there someday, but when it absolutely, positively has to be on orbit Falcon is not yet the choice.  It's hard to convince people who don't understand risk management of that point.

There was some recent presentation I was looking at regarding EELV program status and upgrades. Perhaps I found it following the RS-68A thread. It mentioned that the development program cost the government 1 Billion (500 million for each Boeing / LM), and the vendors contributed 4.5 Billion of their capital.

It's that actually a better return on the DOD investment than what NASA is getting from any of the "new space" companies.

How much of it's own money did Boeing have invested in the X-33 before it was cancelled by NASA ?

[Robotbeat]

But it makes them relatively less inspiring to the unwashed masses.

Which doesn't matter because they don't have or control the money

Yeah, but the unwashed Congress-critters do, and they put irrational pressure on the rocket buyers in DC, Arlington, Florida and L.A. to buy an unproven rocket.  Not that SpaceX won't get there someday, but when it absolutely, positively has to be on orbit Falcon is not yet the choice.  It's hard to convince people who don't understand risk management of that point.

There was some recent presentation I was looking at regarding EELV program status and upgrades. Perhaps I found it following the RS-68A thread. It mentioned that the development program cost the government 1 Billion (500 million for each Boeing / LM), and the vendors contributed 4.5 Billion of their capital.

It's that actually a better return on the DOD investment than what NASA is getting from any of the "new space" companies.

How much of it's own money did Boeing have invested in the X-33 before it was cancelled by NASA ?

Um, the return on investment for government investment shouldn't be how much the contractors can be duped into spending on a project but instead what value is created for a certain government investment.

[rcoppola]

But it makes them relatively less inspiring to the unwashed masses.

Which doesn't matter because they don't have or control the money

Yeah, but the unwashed Congress-critters do, and they put irrational pressure on the rocket buyers in DC, Arlington, Florida and L.A. to buy an unproven rocket.  Not that SpaceX won't get there someday, but when it absolutely, positively has to be on orbit Falcon is not yet the choice.  It's hard to convince people who don't understand risk management of that point.

There was some recent presentation I was looking at regarding EELV program status and upgrades. Perhaps I found it following the RS-68A thread. It mentioned that the development program cost the government 1 Billion (500 million for each Boeing / LM), and the vendors contributed 4.5 Billion of their capital.

It's that actually a better return on the DOD investment than what NASA is getting from any of the "new space" companies.

How much of it's own money did Boeing have invested in the X-33 before it was cancelled by NASA ?

It's not about, engine development programs, investments, etc. It's about having an exciting vision and communicating it out effectively.

[sdsds]

This is my first post on this thread. I have great respect for Boeing and Lockheed-Martin, but in 1961 Eisenhower warned about them (and other companies): "This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. [...] We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

That specter of a threat to democracy coming from the very institutions devoted to protecting it casts a long and dark shadow. In comparison SpaceX looks bathed in light.

[cro-magnon gramps]

Well said, SDSDS
    I have looked in on this thread, and have wanted to post, but thought the better of it;
    My own point of view agrees with what you have said, but added to that view is the actions of one of the Parent Companies, Boeing, in the CCDEV competition; their announcement that if they don't get chosen in the down select, they'll close up shop and that's it, take their baseball home; along with fact that they have less money than SpaceX (which I found strange, coming from Boeing the mega company, until I realized they must mean, less money was given them by the Gov't hand outs); yet SpaceX is going to continue development of their Dragon Manned Vehicle regardless of what the down select decides;
    To me that exemplifies the difference between the Military Industrial Complex Mindset, that sucks at the teat of Government and the Nu-Space  companies that have sprung up in recent years; and why one set of companies is Inspiring, and the other are not;
    it is the Teslas and the Wright Bros. "winging it" and pushing against the envelope with what little they have, coming back year after year to the battle, while the big companies like Westinghouse, steam roller on;
    or put another way, the difference between a child with a "silver spoon" upbringing, and the "wrong side of the track" kid with brains, who perseveres and succeeds despite the knock downs from "their Betters"; in our society today, who is the more inspired and inspiring??

edit: btw, I should add, that this is my perception, as one of the unwashed masses, of ULA vs Nu-Space, not necessarily the reality;

[Ben the Space Brit]

But it makes them relatively less inspiring to the unwashed masses.

Which doesn't matter because they don't have or control the money

Perhaps, but it also means that there is less pressure on those who do control it to provide money to do new and different things.

[Proponent]

The military space budget is about twice NASA's -- another good dollars-and-sense reason for ULA to appeal to boring DoD types rather than flashier things.

[Antares]

If Boeing is so risk averse, why are they involved with commercial airplanes?

It's a question of risk exposure.  SpaceX is willing to be exposed to more risk, as young and privately held companies typically are.  Don't like Boeing's risk posture?  I hope you don't buy a ticket on an airline.

This cynicism is unbecoming and ill-informed.  Corporations are not evil.  They play the game as the rules are written.  Don't like how they play?  Fix the rules.  Don't blame the players.

[Lurker Steve]

This is my first post on this thread. I have great respect for Boeing and Lockheed-Martin, but in 1961 Eisenhower warned about them (and other companies): "This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. [...] We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

That specter of a threat to democracy coming from the very institutions devoted to protecting it casts a long and dark shadow. In comparison SpaceX looks bathed in light.

I have no love of the military industrial complex, but I also try to read between the lines regarding Elon Musk / SpaceX.

Note 1: Each of Musk's current businesses are dependant on some sort of taxpayer financing, either thru tax credits that lower the costs of solar panel installation and low emmission vehicles, or direct taxpayer funding from NASA / DoD missions thru SpaceX. Does that inspire me ?

Note 2: SpaceX tries to advertise itself as the little company that could, but they aren't so little any more. They are well on their way towards 2000 employees, if they aren't there already. ULA has been working with the true little guys like Masten and XCor. SpaceX doesn't like to outsource, so they aren't providing any support to the smaller players in the business.

If I need a personal story for inspiration,I pick Ely Callaway. He was sucessfully in 3 or 4 completely unrelated businesses, and I really enjoy visiting his Winery. Or from the living, I can choose Jeff Bezos, Paul Allen, or Bill Gates. Both Allen and Gates are to be admired in their post-Microsoft lifes. Bezos controls the site where I spend most of my discretionary income. I don't mind that some of my Amazon dollars go to fund Blue Origin or to raise the Apollo Saturn V engines from the ocean floor.