Quote from: Coastal Ron on 05/07/2016 06:03 pmAnd ULA has to do that without a mature in-house commercial marketing department. So watching for hirings in their marketing department should also be an indicator of how they will approach this market.Not true, ULA is supported by Boeing launch services and Lockheed Martin commercial launch services.
And ULA has to do that without a mature in-house commercial marketing department. So watching for hirings in their marketing department should also be an indicator of how they will approach this market.
The recovered boosters have too many issues to be claimed as "aircraft like operations". The first clearly wasn't "flight worthy".
I think ULA will be just fine. SpaceX prices have already risen, and will continue to rise, even as it increases its "footprint" with new buildings and launch pads, etc.. Meanwhile ULA is slashing staffing and subcontractors and footprint, and therefore slashing its own costs. The real unknowns are 1.) Falcon Heavy - will it work and what will it really cost? 2.) OATK's EELV goals and 3.) Blue Origin's long-term intentions.
QuoteI think ULA will be just fine. SpaceX prices have already risen, and will continue to rise, even as it increases its "footprint" with new buildings and launch pads, etc.. Meanwhile ULA is slashing staffing and subcontractors and footprint, and therefore slashing its own costs. The real unknowns are 1.) Falcon Heavy - will it work and what will it really cost? 2.) OATK's EELV goals and 3.) Blue Origin's long-term intentions.There's also 4) Stratolaunch to consider, but haven't heard from them for some time. At some point they claimed test flights in 2016. But if their plans work out they may also have an EELV class competitor?
Quote from: RyanC on 05/07/2016 04:49 pmBut the commercial side is being sewn up by SpX Not true at all. There are might not be enough for 4 suppliers but SX can't get and can't handle the whole commercial side.
But the commercial side is being sewn up by SpX
ULA will have its niche and Spacex isn't going to go play in that sandbox. There are requirements for DIV Heavy past 2020.NASA is buying a vehicle for the Mars 2020 rover right now. Guess who is going to fly it?
SpaceX prices have already risen, and will continue to rise
Quote from: RyanC on 05/07/2016 01:41 amBy the time Vulcan launches in 2019; SpX is going to have been recovering boosters like clockwork for three years and the public (and congress) is going to ask why NASA/DoD contract money is being spent on something that dumps the first stage in the ocean (Vulcan isn't even going to have engine recovery until a few years down the line).DoD can just explain they need two launchers for redundancy. Plus SpaceX may not bother with some of the weird requirements for DoD launches, so it looks to me that ULA would always have some business, it's just not as many as before.
By the time Vulcan launches in 2019; SpX is going to have been recovering boosters like clockwork for three years and the public (and congress) is going to ask why NASA/DoD contract money is being spent on something that dumps the first stage in the ocean (Vulcan isn't even going to have engine recovery until a few years down the line).
SpaceX prices have already risen,
and will continue to rise,
even as it increases its "footprint" with new buildings and launch pads, etc..
Meanwhile ULA is slashing staffing and subcontractors and footprint, and therefore slashing its own costs.
The real unknowns are 1.) Falcon Heavy - will it work and what will it really cost?
2.) OATK's EELV goals and 3.) Blue Origin's long-term intentions.
Quote from: Jim on 05/07/2016 03:32 pmULA will have its niche and Spacex isn't going to go play in that sandbox. There are requirements for DIV Heavy past 2020.NASA is buying a vehicle for the Mars 2020 rover right now. Guess who is going to fly it?Yes, this will take time and they're not there yet, but I'm certain SpaceX will play in that sandbox eventually (unless there are serious financial problems for SpaceX, always a possibility). SpaceX has been climbing the value-chain ever since they started, and they're not likely to stop just short of large national security launches....which doesn't mean end-of-the-road for ULA. There's a national security imperative to have launcher redundancy.
There is also the possibility that SLS will be finished, and will compete politically with ULA for launches. That might not amount to a lot of launches, but as an example, the SLS backers might shift funding for a half dozen smaller planetary science or astrophysics missions to a single SLS-launched mission, which could put a big dent in ULA's potential NASA business.
I want to see people improve their posts. However, I agree, ULA is way behind the game, but saying they are "boned" is childish.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 05/07/2016 01:48 pmI want to see people improve their posts. However, I agree, ULA is way behind the game, but saying they are "boned" is childish.I can't see any other way of putting it in a short, succinct sentence.If you asked me for a more detailed explanation (the $5 dollar option as opposed to the $0.50 option) -- I'd say that ULA is creeping very fast into "Death zone" of airplane performance graphs -- where you don't have sufficient altitude and/or airspeed to recover before Controlled Flight into Ground (CFIT). The disaster is coming, and it's going to be visible in slow motion; like CFIT from the Death zone.