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.