There is no transition period if one is fired or has "abrupt" retirement.
ULA press release:http://www.ulalaunch.com/ula-names-tory-bruno-president-and-chief.aspx?title=ULA+Names+Tory+Bruno+President+and+Chief+Executive+Officer+
Quote from: AnalogMan on 08/12/2014 08:01 pmULA press release:http://www.ulalaunch.com/ula-names-tory-bruno-president-and-chief.aspx?title=ULA+Names+Tory+Bruno+President+and+Chief+Executive+Officer+for me the only interesting thing about this retirement; is his replacement coming in from the outside. Thought someone "internal" would move up.
Well, LM is not THAT outside.
Not too shocking, but does this new guy seriously think he can be better at marketing and PR than Musk? Maybe he is expected to better at inside-the-beltway battles. IMO ULA has a very good chance of losing half of their market after FY 2019, so he better get with it.
I think the big deal about Mr Bruno is that he combines technical expertise for LV development from Lockheed Strategic & Missile Defense Systems with a new business model, if you look at his LinkedIN page he lists a couple of authored books on his business models:http://www.linkedin.com/pub/tory-bruno/b/b3/92So I am guessing he will come in and revamp ULA's business methods.
Keeping in mind that Elon Musk is not someone that came from a deep background in rockets, it begs the question of whether someone with a deep background in rockets provides some form of an advantage?
I've often wondered in the future if ULA would go public. A public sale of stock would allow shareholders of LM and Boeing to get a return for their investment at the height of the launch business.
I'm reminded of this: Peacetime CEO/Wartime CEO
With my intent to retire in the near term and the changing industry landscape over the next several years, the board of directors and I have agreed that the immediate appointment of my successor to begin the leadership transition is in the best interest of the company,
No one in their right mind would take ULA public today. Their financial future is too cloudy, and this CEO change confirms that.
Wrong. The CEO change is the result of a pending retirement.
Quote from: Jim on 08/13/2014 01:07 pmWrong. The CEO change is the result of a pending retirement.If that's all it was then why did they not announce the new CEO ahead of time, instead of with immediate effect? Doing it ahead of time would have lessened the inevitable speculation / unfavourable publicity that an immediate replacement generates.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 08/13/2014 03:13 amNo one in their right mind would take ULA public today. Their financial future is too cloudy, and this CEO change confirms that.Wrong. The CEO change is the result of a pending retirement.
His performance in the Gass vs. Musk hearing was subpar. When the SpaceX vs. USAF lawsuit on the block buy showed up he made a dumb move: when you are not actually part of a lawsuit, don't get yourself involved in any way; avoid the bad press. Nevertheless, ULA publicly expressed support for the USAF side of the case.Next Gass overplayed his hand in the lawsuit by allowing ULA to file a motion to have the lawsuit dismissed, only to have that motion denied by the judge some time later. The judge clearly told ULA (and thus Gass) that ULA was no party in the lawsuit and should stay out. Gass should have realised this earlier, but failed to do so.IMO those right there are some of the reasons why this is happening. Put simply: Gass blew it and now has to make way for someone else to clean up the mess.
How can it be "ahead" of time? The retirement announcement has to come first. Gass decides to retire and ULA decides to find a replacement and announce both at the same time.
Quote from: Jim on 08/13/2014 01:53 pmHow can it be "ahead" of time? The retirement announcement has to come first. Gass decides to retire and ULA decides to find a replacement and announce both at the same time.And they announced the new CEO was already in post. In my experience companies announce a future date when a new CEO (once chosen) will take up their post, unless there's a pressing reason why the previous CEO can't continue in post a day longer.The press release doesn't say anything about an orderly handover to Tony Bruno having already taken place.
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/13/2014 02:59 pmQuote from: Jim on 08/13/2014 01:53 pmHow can it be "ahead" of time? The retirement announcement has to come first. Gass decides to retire and ULA decides to find a replacement and announce both at the same time.And they announced the new CEO was already in post. In my experience companies announce a future date when a new CEO (once chosen) will take up their post, unless there's a pressing reason why the previous CEO can't continue in post a day longer.The press release doesn't say anything about an orderly handover to Tony Bruno having already taken place.http://www.ulalaunch.com/michael-gass-statement-regarding-his.aspx?title=Michael+Gass+Statement+Regarding+His+Retirement
Which includes a quote directly refuting your point. "I have agreed that the immediate appointment of my successor"There's can be only one CEO at a time, and there was no transition period. Transition periods aren't just typical, they're expected. There was no transition period, therefore, this was highly irregular. It gives every impression that Gass was terminated.Why?
For all we know, this transition could have been planned for quite some time and was kept from the public.
Quote from: JasonAW3 on 08/13/2014 04:36 pmFor all we know, this transition could have been planned for quite some time and was kept from the public. To replace him without a public transition periods makes it appear to be a termination. Why do it that way if it's not a termination?
There is a public transition period of several months, it just appears that the search for his successor was kept as an internal matter. He's staying with ULA through the end of the year.
Whether he was terminated or not, it has the signatures of a termination. It's unusual for a corporate leader in good standing to be treated this way.
Quote from: Linze on 08/13/2014 05:46 pmWhether he was terminated or not, it has the signatures of a termination. It's unusual for a corporate leader in good standing to be treated this way.Wrong on both accounts. He is not being "treated" in anyway that can be construed as bad. He has been thinking about retiring and he talks to his BOD, and to take advantage of his remaining time, they appoint his successor to have a transition.
You're just wrong here Jim. Corporate leaders in good standing aren't CEO on Tuesday and not CEO on Wednesday unless they've lost the confidence of the BoD. He's made a lot of money for these guys over the years, even this year. Something changed. Something happened.
Quote from: Linze on 08/13/2014 06:09 pmYou're just wrong here Jim. Corporate leaders in good standing aren't CEO on Tuesday and not CEO on Wednesday unless they've lost the confidence of the BoD. He's made a lot of money for these guys over the years, even this year. Something changed. Something happened.Nope, just another case where you are wrong again (just like the RD-180's)What changed is Gass decided to retire and what happened is he worked out a transition. You don't know how long this has been in work.
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/13/2014 01:25 pmQuote from: Jim on 08/13/2014 01:07 pmWrong. The CEO change is the result of a pending retirement.If that's all it was then why did they not announce the new CEO ahead of time, instead of with immediate effect? Doing it ahead of time would have lessened the inevitable speculation / unfavourable publicity that an immediate replacement generates.How can it be "ahead" of time? The retirement announcement has to come first. Gass decides to retire and ULA decides to find a replacement and announce both at the same time.
Microsoft Corp. today announced that Chief Executive Officer Steve Ballmer has decided to retire as CEO within the next 12 months, upon the completion of a process to choose his successor. In the meantime, Ballmer will continue as CEO and will lead Microsoft
You don't know the details either, Jim.
This debate is beyond silly. Please stop.It really doesn't matter if he was forced out early or if he really really really wanted to retire. The fact is, he is gone. Don't worry about him, he is likely a multi-millionaire and got a nice retirement package for playing ball.
Knowing that this is what is likely going to happen at ULA in the next 2-3 years, would you want to stay around and be the guy that has to deliver the bad news and sit through all of those painful meetings? No thanks. Mike Gass decided to cash out, take his nest egg and go do some consulting and sit on the board of directors for a few other companies. He is a smart guy to get out now while his reputation is intact.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 08/13/2014 07:28 pmYou don't know the details either, Jim. You don't know that. I heard inklings of him wanting to retire months ago.ULA is not a public company, so they don't have to make such announcements in advance.
Quote from: RocketGoBoom on 08/14/2014 11:32 pmKnowing that this is what is likely going to happen at ULA in the next 2-3 years, would you want to stay around and be the guy that has to deliver the bad news and sit through all of those painful meetings? No thanks. Mike Gass decided to cash out, take his nest egg and go do some consulting and sit on the board of directors for a few other companies. He is a smart guy to get out now while his reputation is intact. Unsubstantiated. It wasn't just decided.
Jim, everything I wrote was written in the context of it being my opinion of what likely happened. Anyone with any reading comprehension skills would recognize that. I am completely indifferent to your adjudication on whether something in substantiated or not.
I started this thread a few days ago. I bumped into Gass at Galileo here in Centennial on Wednesday. It was definitely his decision to retire. I don't know him well enough to flat out ask him if he was forced out. But everyone has basically indicated that he informed the board of directors of his intent to retire not too long ago. And he was in a very good mood when I talked to him. It's the happiest I've seen him. Certainly didnt look like someone who just got fired. I congratulated him on a great career.In other news, Tory Bruno has already moved in. Mike Gass has a new, smaller, office.
CEO Bill Swanson of Raytheon announced the board's selection of his successor, Tom Kennedy, a couple of months in advance, setting a date for the end of his tenure at the end of Q1 or thereabouts. "Effective immediately" it was definitely not, and the contrast with this announcement is notable.
Quote from: mvpel on 08/13/2014 10:11 pmCEO Bill Swanson of Raytheon announced the board's selection of his successor, Tom Kennedy, a couple of months in advance, setting a date for the end of his tenure at the end of Q1 or thereabouts. "Effective immediately" it was definitely not, and the contrast with this announcement is notable. As others have pointed out, ULA is a privately held company. I don't think you can extrapolate the behavior of a publicly traded company, where you generally have to keep your shareholders more in-the-loop on major changes like that. I honestly can't think of too many examples of leadership changes in privately held companies, which would probably be a better point of comparison.
I think what matters is what ULA will be doing forward looking. This thread has failed in focusing on what Tory Bruno will bring to the table and how this will change ULA going forward. Going forward is what counts, the historical section is for focusing on the past. So can we get the mod's to change the thread title to: Tory Bruno succeeds Mike Gass as ULA's CEO?Edit/Lar: Did you try reporting it to the mods? I'm not seeing a report as of now...
To get a feeling of how Gass was viewed inside ULA, take a look at glassdoor.comhttp://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/United-Launch-Alliance-Reviews-E146300.htm
Can we focus on trying to figure out how the ULA of the future under Bruno will behave differently from the ULA of the past under Gass (if at all)?
Scenario #2 is what we all hope happened, but I think it's more likely #1 happened.
Quote from: butters on 08/16/2014 10:52 pmScenario #2 is what we all hope happened, but I think it's more likely #1 happened.Why? Scenario #2 implies the board has no clue or plan for the future, while scenario #1 shows what board does have a clue and a way forward. Honestly, I can not see why Scenario #2 is better. That said, hopefully the board (ie. Lockheed and Boeing) will give Mr. Bruno the support he needs for ULA to grow and stay competitive. I would like to believe the Board, Boeing, and Lockheed have the insight needed to guide ULA through these interesting times.
Often times the plans boards come up with are not worth the paper they are written on. I can't speak to this board but many boards are populated by professional directors, eminence grises who sit on many boards and pontificate... without a lot of expertise.
Quote from: butters on 08/16/2014 10:52 pmScenario #2 is what we all hope happened, but I think it's more likely #1 happened.Why? Scenario #2 implies the board has no clue or plan for the future, while scenario #1 shows what board does have a clue and a way forward.
Honestly, I can not see why Scenario #2 is better.
That said, hopefully the board (ie. Lockheed and Boeing) will give Mr. Bruno the support he needs for ULA to grow and stay competitive. I would like to believe the Board, Boeing, and Lockheed have the insight needed to guide ULA through these interesting times.
Raytheon Missile Systems Company (RMSC) developed the Lay a Missile on the Table (LAMOTT) process for the rapid development of a functional missile, prior to the Engineering and Manufacturing Development phase of the DOD acquisition process. The goal was to make a first missile with a functional guidance system in less than a year. This would produce a 300% decrease in development cycle time for this type of product technology and design maturity.
"Systematic and institutional fear of anything new, and that includes tech from within the last 15 years. innovation comes here to die.""Company will not invest into new technology.""no forward development of technology"Seems like the CEO change might present a much needed opportunity for ULA if Bruno has the vision and ability to execute.
Quote from: Blackjax on 08/17/2014 01:08 am"Systematic and institutional fear of anything new, and that includes tech from within the last 15 years. innovation comes here to die.""Company will not invest into new technology.""no forward development of technology"Seems like the CEO change might present a much needed opportunity for ULA if Bruno has the vision and ability to execute.It doesn't matter what the CEO's vision is, the BOD determines the direction of ULA by setting the budget it has operate with.
If their parents (LH and Boeing) seriously think about competing with SpaceX, shouldn't they either develop new rockets by themself* or create new company like ULA, only with goal to develop new at least partially reusable LV?
Many people, including Jim, pointed out that ULA is banned from doing anything beyond tinkering with current Delta and Atlas rockets.
So, if nothing changes, ULA at best is fated to be milked all its worth as long as possible and then disbanded.
According to his LinkedIn page:Mr. Bruno is the author of two books that explore the medieval Knights Templar from the perspective of modern business: “Templar Organization” and “Templar Incorporated.”
Now maybe the definition of the term "ELV" would provide some restrictions,
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 08/17/2014 08:33 pmNow maybe the definition of the term "ELV" would provide some restrictions, Some? It is very restrictive, it means no RLV.
Huh... Under that contract, ULA is pretty much hosed when it comes to possible transition to reusables. By contract, they aren't even allowed to pursue RLV development unless either NASA modifies the terms of their contracts, (highly unlikely at this late stage) or if NASA puts out a new contract for bid for reusable launch systems. How SpaceX has managed to be able to develop and implement their reusability systems so far is kind of interesting, and illustrate a more flexible contract than is typical of NASA.
Re-usability has yet to be demonstrated, and even when/if it is, it will still have a long way to go to prove financially viable.
Quote from: JasonAW3 on 08/18/2014 02:12 amHuh... Under that contract, ULA is pretty much hosed when it comes to possible transition to reusables. By contract, they aren't even allowed to pursue RLV development unless either NASA modifies the terms of their contracts, (highly unlikely at this late stage) or if NASA puts out a new contract for bid for reusable launch systems. How SpaceX has managed to be able to develop and implement their reusability systems so far is kind of interesting, and illustrate a more flexible contract than is typical of NASA.Huh? ULA has no such contract with NASA and it isn't a contract that is limiting them. It is ULA's owners, Boeing and Lockheed Martin that put the restrictions on ULA via ULA's charter. ULA only exists to operate the Delta and Atlas fleets. If Boeing and/or Lockheed Martin want to develop RLV's, they will do it themselves and not have to share the revenues (if any) with each other.Spacex has no such contract with NASA either. Spacex is developing its RLV hardware on its own dime.
Quote from: Mader Levap on 08/17/2014 04:59 pmIf their parents (LH and Boeing) seriously think about competing with SpaceX, shouldn't they either develop new rockets by themself* or create new company like ULA, only with goal to develop new at least partially reusable LV?ULA doesn't need to develop new rockets. If anything, it needs one less rocket. It has the tools it needs to compete for and, I believe, to win most of the key DoD launch contracts. Re-usability has yet to be demonstrated, and even when/if it is, it will still have a long way to go to prove financially viable.
ULA doesn't need to develop new rockets. If anything, it needs one less rocket.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 08/17/2014 07:54 pmRe-usability has yet to be demonstrated, and even when/if it is, it will still have a long way to go to prove financially viable.Trouble is developing an RLV isn't exactly quick either. So if re-usability is demonstrated and financially viable then waiting for that to be achieved before starting development would put a company years behind.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 08/12/2014 10:56 pmAccording to his LinkedIn page:Mr. Bruno is the author of two books that explore the medieval Knights Templar from the perspective of modern business: “Templar Organization” and “Templar Incorporated.”It was on the ULA page as well. And. I picked up a copy of each yesterday...
And TV is just a passing fad, radio is the proven money-maker. And digital cameras won't replace film any time soon. And it will be a long time before digital music makes the CD obsolete. And so on and so on.
Jim, correct me if I'm wrong but ULA was formed in the time that the only RLV happened to be the space shuttle.EELV's go back to the years after Challenger and contain that second 'E' simply to distinguish from RLV's (= STS).What keeps the parent companies (Boeing and Lockmart) from dropping the 'E' from the acronym ELV?Or does the USAF have a say in this as well?
"What keeps the parent companies (Boeing and Lockmart) from dropping the 'E' from the acronym ELV" is the parent companies themselves. It is highly unlikely that either of them would want to share in the development of new vehicles, when they could get all the money themselves
For reusable rocket technology, the time of "long before it's actually practical" has passed. We're rapidly approaching the time when it's 100% proven.
Quote from: Jim on 08/18/2014 01:56 pm"What keeps the parent companies (Boeing and Lockmart) from dropping the 'E' from the acronym ELV" is the parent companies themselves. It is highly unlikely that either of them would want to share in the development of new vehicles, when they could get all the money themselvesMaybe. But if they did that then they'd be competing against themselves in the form of ULA. So either they compete against themselves, which is an interesting business strategy, or they pull out of ULA and go back to competing on the open market with a brand new launcher that likely is still in development (and not approved for government launches, the most lucrative).I don't see either of those options as compelling, certainly not in the near term. Which is why creating a new launcher through ULA looks like the most likely answer for both Boeing and Lockheed Martin - assuming they want to try and compete with SpaceX. Especially given the reason why ULA was formed in the first place.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 08/18/2014 08:42 amFor reusable rocket technology, the time of "long before it's actually practical" has passed. We're rapidly approaching the time when it's 100% proven.For a first stage if it works, on LEO missions, which represents a minority of mission types. And when used there will be a substantial payload penalty.Falcon 9 v1.1 won't do fly backs on GTO missions, as we've already seen. The second stage won't be reused on any mission. And it remains to be seen what shape those first stages will be in when they land.The new CEO is a sign that ULA is going to change, in part to respond to the SpaceX challenge. The company can do several things to attack costs, but reusability isn't one of them. - Ed Kyle
1. Reduced overhead?2. Steamlined work/pad flow?3. Go to a single pad on each coast?4. Down select to a single design?5. Go after new stages that cost less to make than current stages? The common upper stage with a low cost RL-10 replacement comes to mind. I wonder what the tea leaves will show.
4. Elements are in work, common avionics, common payload adapters, common processes, common upper stage engine, etc common upper stage and fairings are down the line
Wow. I don't have much experience with glassdoor.com - do people who post tend to be more those with grievances?It's just that reading the posts for ULA, if they're anywhere near the truth then the new CEO has really got his work cut-out.
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/18/2014 11:19 amWow. I don't have much experience with glassdoor.com - do people who post tend to be more those with grievances?It's just that reading the posts for ULA, if they're anywhere near the truth then the new CEO has really got his work cut-out.I wouldn't trust so much this kind of sites,this one in particular. Negative judgments are what usually prevails; moreover, I took a look to the posts related to few company that I know (albeit not in aerospace business) and I found them pretty unfounded, to say the least.
I thought the main point of Falcon Heavy was to get good-sized GTO sats up while reusing the three cores?(Center core being the iffy part, possibly requiring barge-related antics and upper stage obviously being expendable)
If Boeing or LM wants to build a new launcher (RLV, they wouldn't do a new ELV), they would go it alone and not have to share in the revenue.
If they were to go to create a new launcher through ULA: one, it is not in the charter and 2, the FTC would have to look at it again.
Quote from: Jarnis on 08/18/2014 06:50 pmI thought the main point of Falcon Heavy was to get good-sized GTO sats up while reusing the three cores?(Center core being the iffy part, possibly requiring barge-related antics and upper stage obviously being expendable)Yes, but the GTO payload for a reusable Falcon Heavy would only be a bit better than the GTO payload of an expendable Falcon 9 v1.1. So they'll have to recover that center core along with the boosters, and be able to re-fly all of them, to make it worthwhile. - Ed Kyle
Many people, including Jim, pointed out that ULA is banned from doing anything beyond tinkering with current Delta and Atlas rockets. So, if nothing changes, ULA at best is fated to be milked all its worth as long as possible and then disbanded.If their parents (LH and Boeing) seriously think about competing with SpaceX, shouldn't they either develop new rockets by themself* or create new company like ULA, only with goal to develop new at least partially reusable LV?* Yes, I know, competing on merits is unheard of and crazy talk.
....<snip> .....But, ultimately, I don't think there's any need for ULA to develop any new vehicle. More a need to down select to just one EELV...probably Atlas V...and streamline their operation to get cost down. .... <snip> ....
Quote from: Lobo on 08/19/2014 04:52 pm....<snip> .....But, ultimately, I don't think there's any need for ULA to develop any new vehicle. More a need to down select to just one EELV...probably Atlas V...and streamline their operation to get cost down. .... <snip> ....While I agree with most of what you said, due to the recent RD-180 politics, I strongly suspect that the only way that could happen is if they found an alternative domestic Kero-LOX engine and modified the current Vandenberg Delta Heavy pad to support it. Then add in a low cost higher thrust RL-10 replacement.
Quote from: kevin-rf on 08/19/2014 06:51 pmQuote from: Lobo on 08/19/2014 04:52 pm....<snip> .....But, ultimately, I don't think there's any need for ULA to develop any new vehicle. More a need to down select to just one EELV...probably Atlas V...and streamline their operation to get cost down. .... <snip> ....While I agree with most of what you said, due to the recent RD-180 politics, I strongly suspect that the only way that could happen is if they found an alternative domestic Kero-LOX engine and modified the current Vandenberg Delta Heavy pad to support it. Then add in a low cost higher thrust RL-10 replacement.If ULA down-selects to one vehicle, doesn't that end the Boeing/LM joint venture?At what point in such a down-select would LM have to buy Boeing out or divest itself of Boeing assets/legacy engineers/etc. -- in other words, disband ULA because the 'alliance' part is history?
Quote from: AncientU on 08/19/2014 08:54 pmQuote from: kevin-rf on 08/19/2014 06:51 pmQuote from: Lobo on 08/19/2014 04:52 pm....<snip> .....But, ultimately, I don't think there's any need for ULA to develop any new vehicle. More a need to down select to just one EELV...probably Atlas V...and streamline their operation to get cost down. .... <snip> ....While I agree with most of what you said, due to the recent RD-180 politics, I strongly suspect that the only way that could happen is if they found an alternative domestic Kero-LOX engine and modified the current Vandenberg Delta Heavy pad to support it. Then add in a low cost higher thrust RL-10 replacement.If ULA down-selects to one vehicle, doesn't that end the Boeing/LM joint venture?At what point in such a down-select would LM have to buy Boeing out or divest itself of Boeing assets/legacy engineers/etc. -- in other words, disband ULA because the 'alliance' part is history?Why would it? Beoing doesn't own Delta IV. Lockheed Martin doesn't own Atlas V. ULA does. Even if they down-select internally, Boeing and LM can still share profits.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 08/18/2014 02:07 pmQuote from: Jim on 08/18/2014 01:56 pm"What keeps the parent companies (Boeing and Lockmart) from dropping the 'E' from the acronym ELV" is the parent companies themselves. It is highly unlikely that either of them would want to share in the development of new vehicles, when they could get all the money themselvesMaybe. But if they did that then they'd be competing against themselves in the form of ULA. So either they compete against themselves, which is an interesting business strategy, or they pull out of ULA and go back to competing on the open market with a brand new launcher that likely is still in development (and not approved for government launches, the most lucrative).I don't see either of those options as compelling, certainly not in the near term. Which is why creating a new launcher through ULA looks like the most likely answer for both Boeing and Lockheed Martin - assuming they want to try and compete with SpaceX. Especially given the reason why ULA was formed in the first place.They'd just call it something like "Atlas V Phase 2" or "Delta IV Phase 2" so that although partially or mostly a new vehicle, it doesn't violate the founding tenant of ULA.
But, ultimately, I don't think there's any need for ULA to develop any new vehicle. More a need to downselect to just one EELV...probably Atlas V
...and streamline their operation to get cost down.
Although, if they were to keep and streamline on just Atlas V, they could revisit the Mid Air Recover of the RD-180 engine research they did awhile back. That could -perhaps- lower costs more...
Why would it? Beoing doesn't own Delta IV. Lockheed Martin doesn't own Atlas V. ULA does. Even if they down-select internally, Boeing and LM can still share profits.
Quote from: Lars_J on 08/19/2014 09:02 pmWhy would it? Beoing doesn't own Delta IV. Lockheed Martin doesn't own Atlas V. ULA does. Even if they down-select internally, Boeing and LM can still share profits.No, Boeing and LM still own the rights to their own vehicles.
Sigh... But that goes against what you have been saying for a long time. So ULA just operates them? Make up your mind.
Quote from: Lars_J on 08/19/2014 09:31 pmSigh... But that goes against what you have been saying for a long time. So ULA just operates them? Make up your mind.No, you need to have better reading comprehension. I have always said that ULA operates them. Boeing and LM don't do any hands on work or engineering but they each own the intellectual property.
What about things like Common Avionics? Or if they ever implement Common Upper stage?
With the September 17 press conference announcing ULA and Blue Origin are teaming up on a new engine (which may need a new launcher), this puts the ULA Gass-Bruno CEO transition in a new light.We know that ULA has been working with Blue Origin for at least a year, and if this new direction was going to happening soon it would make sense to let the new CEO put his stamp on the creation, even though Gass has been laying the ground work. Lots of decisions have to be made now that the partnership has been consummated, so having the long-term CEO being in charge from the beginning makes sense.I was in the middle of a conversation about business models with someone when, for some reason, this thought bubbled up. My brain does the darn-dest things when I'm not watching, but this one was actually worth mentioning...
Exclusive: ULA plans new rocket, restructuring to cut launch costs in halfUnited Launch Alliance is starting to develop a whole new rocket system and will be restructuring its processes and workforce to slash launch costs in half amid smaller military budgets and competition from SpaceX.The result will be a smaller ULA in the near term, but one able to grow again and win new kinds of business in the long run, said Tory Bruno
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 09/24/2014 11:43 pmWith the September 17 press conference announcing ULA and Blue Origin are teaming up on a new engine (which may need a new launcher), this puts the ULA Gass-Bruno CEO transition in a new light.We know that ULA has been working with Blue Origin for at least a year, and if this new direction was going to happening soon it would make sense to let the new CEO put his stamp on the creation, even though Gass has been laying the ground work. Lots of decisions have to be made now that the partnership has been consummated, so having the long-term CEO being in charge from the beginning makes sense.I was in the middle of a conversation about business models with someone when, for some reason, this thought bubbled up. My brain does the darn-dest things when I'm not watching, but this one was actually worth mentioning... Here's the big article on business direction under Mr. Bruno.QuoteExclusive: ULA plans new rocket, restructuring to cut launch costs in halfUnited Launch Alliance is starting to develop a whole new rocket system and will be restructuring its processes and workforce to slash launch costs in half amid smaller military budgets and competition from SpaceX.The result will be a smaller ULA in the near term, but one able to grow again and win new kinds of business in the long run, said Tory Brunohttp://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/boosters_bits/2014/10/exclusive-ula-plans-a-new-rocket-restructuring-to.html
So, let's say the pair of BE-4s match the cost of the RD-180 (or are free for that matter)... And the cost of solids drops away...Many questions remain as to how the 50% reduction can be achieved. It's unlikely to be by increases in numbers of cores produced, maybe even the opposite will be true.1. Are the RL-10s, which are the supposed cost drivers, now going the be half priced or will they be replaced by BE-3?2. Are the other vendors going to cut costs in half or is there going to be a massive flow of component development/replacement in house at ULA?3. Are the Unions on board with doubling their output?4. Is the engineering workforce ready to develop the new vehicle at half the payroll?5. Is Management going to be slashed?6. Are Boeing/LM going to settle for half the profit?All of the above is correct answer by necessity.
If the consolidate on a single rocket that's half the pads, building, probably just one third of the production lines, tec.
Quote from: baldusi on 10/17/2014 11:52 amIf the consolidate on a single rocket that's half the pads, building, probably just one third of the production lines, tec.But is it? True they are running single shift on four pads, but they are pretty much tapped out on the Atlas pads. Reducing the number of pads would reduce the number of missions they can fly a year. While this may work for Vandenberg, They would be hard pressed to meet the flight rate with only one east coast pad. Didn't a planetary mission recently get manifested for Vandenberg?I suspect the savings come from cheaper first stage engines, single assembly line in a single location, ditching the Hydrogen first stage, and he didn't say it, but they must be looking to reduce the upper stage costs. That would mean a low cost RL-10 replacement and cheaper tankage.
Quote from: baldusi on 10/17/2014 11:52 amIf the consolidate on a single rocket that's half the pads, building, probably just one third of the production lines, tec.But is it? True they are running single shift on four pads, but they are pretty much tapped out on the Atlas pads. Reducing the number of pads would reduce the number of missions they can fly a year. While this may work for Vandenberg, They would be hard pressed to meet the flight rate with only one east coast pad. Didn't a planetary mission recently get manifested for Vandenberg?
There is also the longstanding claim that SpaceX costs would rise to match the market as set by ULA.
Nice to see that Jim is finally proven wrong with regards to ULA.He has stated a number of times that developing all new launch systems is off limits for ULA. Supposedly, the ULA charter allows ULA to only work on Atlas V and Delta IV, including improvements, but nothing else.Example of improvements is the common avionics suite now under development for Atlas V and Delta IV.However, now we have the new ULA CEO (no less) clearly stating that ULA is actively working on an all new rocket, with new engines. Not an Atlas V, not a Delta IV, but an all new rocket.Under Jim's reasoning that would be a violotion of ULA's charter. I see two possible explanations for this:1. Jim was wrong all the time because ULA's own charter did not actually prevent them from working on anything but Atlas V and Delta IV.2. ULA's charter was recently changed to allow for work on a new launcher.My guess is Jim will pick the second option for his bail out.
...The problem with building large RL-10 batches is you end up putting a large number of engines into inventory. Bean counters do not like that. ULA got caught in that trap during the formation of ULA. They inherited a large number of DeltaIV RL-10's from Boeing. It also leads to an unhealthy relationship between you and your engine supplier. If you order a large batch of RL-10's every five years, what do they do in the meantime? Do you continue to offer them? Is it worth it? That is part of the overhead problem...
Quote from: kevin-rf on 10/17/2014 03:52 pm...The problem with building large RL-10 batches is you end up putting a large number of engines into inventory. Bean counters do not like that. ULA got caught in that trap during the formation of ULA. They inherited a large number of DeltaIV RL-10's from Boeing. It also leads to an unhealthy relationship between you and your engine supplier. If you order a large batch of RL-10's every five years, what do they do in the meantime? Do you continue to offer them? Is it worth it? That is part of the overhead problem...That is why I think the RL-10 will be retired after the current inventory is reduced. With something like the Blue BE-3 (in-house production). CEO Bruno will have to make a call on this soon.
That is why I think the RL-10 will be retired after the current inventory is reduced.
Quote from: AncientU on 10/17/2014 10:00 amThere is also the longstanding claim that SpaceX costs would rise to match the market as set by ULA.They are
Quote from: Jim on 10/17/2014 04:40 pmQuote from: AncientU on 10/17/2014 10:00 amThere is also the longstanding claim that SpaceX costs would rise to match the market as set by ULA.They are...roughly with inflation (from 56,5 mln$ to 61.2 mln$). But hey, spin is spin.Behaviour of ULA shows they do not assume that this empty claim is true. I hope you will not try to pull "ULA lowers price, so they matches prices of SpaceX, so I was right".
1. ...roughly with inflation (from 56,5 mln$ to 61.2 mln$). But hey, spin is spin.2. Behaviour of ULA shows they do not assume that this empty claim is true. I hope you will not try to pull "ULA lowers price, so they matches prices of SpaceX, so I was right".
... More significantly, you can mothball a 3D printer for 5 years.
This guy is the right guy to do this. What he claims to do, sounds about right. What about timing and resources?To shrink down to 1/3, you must address near term demand (both DIV/H and AV) and new designs, shutdown facilities/lines EOLing what you are launching as you launch them for years, discharge staff while bringing up a new line with a differently assembled staff. In essence, stuff unheard of in past incarnation(s).All the above is strictly survival. Will get you to competitive company position, and retain current customers.Where do you get the cash/investment to accomplish this? From unsplit profits not returned to shareholders revenue share? From "block buy" upfront? From JV earnest monies of some kind? From a friendly loan?One can "cost reduce" existing product to make it both attractive to existing customers, and while still a premium performance vehicle (as also is Ariane 5 and H II A/B and likely even Angara A5), it may be attractive and cheap enough to garner commercial market share. Is that competitive enough as a goal for the new CEO?If not, he's got a considerably larger job and game plan than is yet revealed. As well as needs well beyond what likely can fit within the bounds of the firm he's described.What does he not have? A base economical vehicle from the lowest cost, fewest/most used components, smallest manufacturing and test footprint.Does he need this? Sooner or later? What happens if someone crawls under his costs relentlessly hammering? One with seemingly endless financial resources?