ULA General Discussion Thread

[thespacecow]

Until orbital refueling becomes a truly practical and economical endeavor - which isn't guaranteed to happen, let alone happen soon - an architecture with a lot of staging and expendability will likely remain optimal for high-energy missions. ULA will always have some kind of customer for it.

There're not enough high-energy missions to sustain a company like ULA, and they have no advantage here anyways, given the latest SpaceX 5 to 2 win in NSSL Phase 3 Lane 2.

And you don't need refueling to launch high energy missions using RLV, a powerful space tug would also work, companies like Impulse are already building that.

[Jim]

There're not enough high-energy missions to sustain a company like ULA, and they have no advantage here anyways, given the latest SpaceX 5 to 2 win in NSSL Phase 3 Lane 2.

And you don't need refueling to launch high energy missions using RLV, a powerful space tug would also work, companies like Impulse are already building that.

Those would be wrong.  Multiple comm, multiple SIGINT, Missile warning/tracking, space surveillance, NASA and list goes on.
Tug is not feasible for GEO or escape

[Robotbeat]

Helios.

[spacenut]

Even a Tug would have to be refueled.  Right now, SpaceX with Falcon Heavy, New Glenn with it's hydrolox upper stage, Vulcan, and Atlas V can all reach the high orbits so long as the size and mass of the satellite fits everyone's fairings.  Starship still has to re-enter, land, and be refueled to get to high energy orbits.  All will come, but how soon is still a guess. 

However ULA has competition and new competition coming soon.  Their market share might become less and less, unless they get some Kuiper launches.  New Glenn may take those away, even SpaceX could. 

[Robotbeat]

Helios doesn’t need to be refueled. Tugs wouldn’t necessarily need to be either.

[southshore26]

Even a Tug would have to be refueled.  Right now, SpaceX with Falcon Heavy, New Glenn with it's hydrolox upper stage, Vulcan, and Atlas V can all reach the high orbits so long as the size and mass of the satellite fits everyone's fairings.  Starship still has to re-enter, land, and be refueled to get to high energy orbits.  All will come, but how soon is still a guess. 

However ULA has competition and new competition coming soon.  Their market share might become less and less, unless they get some Kuiper launches.  New Glenn may take those away, even SpaceX could.

Your location says East Alabama... I have a hard time believing you are from that area and don't understand that ULA will not be allowed to fail for the foreseeable future. They have WAY too much support in congress for that to ever be allowed to happen... that's just the reality.

[Newton_V]

Even a Tug would have to be refueled.  Right now, SpaceX with Falcon Heavy, New Glenn with it's hydrolox upper stage, Vulcan, and Atlas V can all reach the high orbits so long as the size and mass of the satellite fits everyone's fairings.  Starship still has to re-enter, land, and be refueled to get to high energy orbits.  All will come, but how soon is still a guess. 

However ULA has competition and new competition coming soon.  Their market share might become less and less, unless they get some Kuiper launches.  New Glenn may take those away, even SpaceX could.

Your location says East Alabama... I have a hard time believing you are from that area and don't understand that ULA will not be allowed to fail for the foreseeable future. They have WAY too much support in congress for that to ever be allowed to happen... that's just the reality.

Not be allowed to fail?  What are you talking about?   It would surprise me if there was one member of congress who even knew who ULA was.

[LouScheffer]

However ULA has competition and new competition coming soon.  Their market share might become less and less, unless they get some Kuiper launches.  New Glenn may take those away, even SpaceX could.

Your location says East Alabama... I have a hard time believing you are from that area and don't understand that ULA will not be allowed to fail for the foreseeable future. They have WAY too much support in congress for that to ever be allowed to happen... that's just the reality.

This was once true, but not any more.

At that time, about a decade ago, ULA was the only provider that could perform certain national security missions.  Senator Richard Shelby, a strong supporter of ULA, occupied/chaired several critical senate positions such as the intelligence and appropriations committees.  At this time your statement was accurate.

But now SpaceX can perform any mission that ULA can, and soon Blue Origin will be certified to do this as well.  This means there is no longer a national security reason to keep ULA around. Both SpaceX and BO can likely undercut ULA on price if they choose to.  Senator Shelby is retired, and no other senator has either the influence or interest in keeping ULA in business.   So now ULA will need to fight for business like any other company.

[spacenut]

ULA had a lot of contracts.  However, in about 10 years or so after all the new reusable rockets are operational, they will be hard pressed to stay in business.  You have two reusable rockets now that can do high energy orbits.  FH and New Glenn.  Both partly reusable.  Kuiper might help ULA, but their first choice will probably be New Glenn as Bezos still has a large stake in Amazon.  There is only so far than ULA can cut costs and still stay in business. 

As far as Alabama.  Blue is making rocket engines in Huntsville.  Of course Vulcan if being made a few miles west in Decatur.  Then there is the Marshal Spaceflight Center that is busy with SLS.  We on this forum see the light, that SLS days are also limited, as it costs too much. 

Vulcan might stay longer if they get the partial reuse by saving the engines, and dumping the tanks.  Vulcans upper stage engines are also expensive.  I have thought they might be able to replace the RL-10's with the new BE-7's, or a cluster of them to match what RL-10 can do, but maybe cheaper.  It all depends on the parents of ULA, Boeing and Lockheed.  Would they be willing to spend the money to make a reusable rocket?

[XRZ.YZ]

Afterall, ULA is a very small piece for LM or Boeing.
Loss it will be negative, but nothing strategic.

Total equity (losses)/earnings (ULA) represented approximately $(5) million, or (1)%, of Space's operating
profit during the quarter ended March 30, 2025, compared to approximately $15 million, or 5% for the same
period in 2024

From 2025Q1 LM quarterly report

[StraumliBlight]

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1991186509920125395

There’s nothing quite as lovely as a full rack of Centaurs…

[ThatOldJanxSpirit]

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1991186509920125395

There’s nothing quite as lovely as a full rack of Centaurs…

There is nothing so horrific to the CEO of a manufacturing company than a warehouse stacked with product because they can’t ship it.

[sstli2]

I was hoping to see ULA close out this year with a dual-stack, dual-launch of GPS III-SV09 and KV-01. Not sure if that's in the cards, anymore.

[Jim]

There is nothing so horrific to the CEO of a manufacturing company than a warehouse stacked with product because they can’t ship it.

those aren't completed.  4 are just tanks.
That has been the case most of the time since customers are usually late.
Also, ULA is getting progress payments for meeting milestones. 
Even though they are providing launch services, some payment milestones are hardware production related.

[StraumliBlight]

ULA's RocketShip will arrive at Port Canaveral on November 29th, 04:00 UTC.

[Robert_the_Doll]

[catdlr]

As noted on social media (December 22, 2025), Tory has announced his departure from ULA.

Anyone wishing to comment on his departure is kindly requested to do so in the new thread created today.

Tory Bruno resigns as ULA President and CEO
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=64088.msg2745554#msg2745554

Please leave this ULA General Discussion Thread for continuing ULA development news.

Thanks
Tony

[ZachF]

However ULA has competition and new competition coming soon.  Their market share might become less and less, unless they get some Kuiper launches.  New Glenn may take those away, even SpaceX could.

Your location says East Alabama... I have a hard time believing you are from that area and don't understand that ULA will not be allowed to fail for the foreseeable future. They have WAY too much support in congress for that to ever be allowed to happen... that's just the reality.

This was once true, but not any more.

At that time, about a decade ago, ULA was the only provider that could perform certain national security missions.  Senator Richard Shelby, a strong supporter of ULA, occupied/chaired several critical senate positions such as the intelligence and appropriations committees.  At this time your statement was accurate.

But now SpaceX can perform any mission that ULA can, and soon Blue Origin will be certified to do this as well.  This means there is no longer a national security reason to keep ULA around. Both SpaceX and BO can likely undercut ULA on price if they choose to.  Senator Shelby is retired, and no other senator has either the influence or interest in keeping ULA in business.   So now ULA will need to fight for business like any other company.

It's actually even more than that.

Chinese military will soon (probably 2028) have access to similar cost to LEO as SpaceX does internally. ±$1500/kg.
<
China could be able to build their own brilliant pebbles, and if we don't have our own, they could deny the US access to space at any time and there is nothing we would be able to do about it

In this environment, spending billions to give ULA market share just so we can have a second provider (even though we already have multiple now) is detrimental to national security.

A lot of people are still in the pre-reusable mindset. Things are going to change big, and even bigger when full reuse is possible. I *guarantee* China has designs on their own brilliant pebbles as soon as ZS3/CZ12A are ready, and if they're paying $30m per ZQ3 launch and the USSF is still fooling around paying $200m for a Vulcan launch we deserve what's coming to us.

[DreamyPickle]

I keep seeing ULA being referenced as a "second provider" but they are are actually a "third provider", behind SpaceX and Blue Origin. New Glenn successfully recovering the first stage dramatically undercuts the ULA business case.

The case for subsidizing the viability of two providers is very strong, but not for three providers.

It seem likely that Vulcan will fly out only a subset of the manifest and get bought out by Blue Origin. The only reason Blue hasn't bought them yet is that disagreements on price - Jeff Bezos believes in reusability and thus values ULA much less than the current owners. He thinks that ULA valuation will decrease over time.

[sstli2]

If the orbital data center hype pans out, and with people like Sam Altman exploring the purchase of Stoke Space, ULA has more value than their launch manifest net revenue. An AI tech firm wanting to get in would bid for it and probably beat what Jeff would be willing to pay. (I'm not expecting it to pan out, but that's a debate for a different thread).

I don't agree with the premise that subsidizing only two providers is necessary. The redundancy is moderately useful for peacetime but where it will really make a difference is during conflict, when supply chains, facilities, infrastructure, labor, software systems, launch sites could all get compromised or even targeted. The more dissimilarity you maintain, the more resilient you are to this. China is actually doing quite well with their industry comprised of countless many different state-sponsored launch companies. Efficiency and cost will always be relevant, but when these capabilities really matter, it's secondary.