Author Topic: ULA charter and the current reality  (Read 11499 times)

Offline saliva_sweet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 614
  • Liked: 476
  • Likes Given: 1826
ULA charter and the current reality
« on: 12/09/2014 07:06 pm »
ULA can't sell to Orbital.

I wonder if this is true anymore. Boeing and LM may have substantially revised the original ULA charter. A lot of the noises Bruno has been making are not compatible with it.
Only governmental flights can be sold and managed directly by ULA. Commercial flights are the responsibility of the original designer that deveoloped and flew their launcher before the creation of ULA. ULA will in turn be contracted for building the rocket and Launcher ops as well as some other areas. SC processing and checkout are managed by LM/Boeing according to the given contract instructions arranged by the customer. Jim is capable of providing additional details and corrections as I'm going off my memory of previous commercial flights.

There was also another post that said ULA charter cannot be revised before 2017. But reality has changed a lot since the charter was set up. Tory Bruno has been saying and is implementing things that are not compatible with it. And now there's this:
Quote from: Orbital Sciences press release
Atlas V Launch: Orbital has contracted with United Launch Alliance for an Atlas V launch of a Cygnus cargo spacecraft from Cape Canaveral, Florida, in the fourth quarter of 2015, with an option for a second Atlas V launch in 2016 if needed. The Atlas rocket’s greater lift capacity will allow Cygnus to carry nearly 35% more cargo to the ISS than previously planned for CRS missions in 2015.

Has it been changed after all? Did LM and Boeing get permission to alter it from the government? I am genuinely confused.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37449
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21466
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: ULA charter and the current reality
« Reply #1 on: 12/09/2014 07:15 pm »
It is still a gov't mission and not really a commercial mission.  Much like EFT-1.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: ULA charter and the current reality
« Reply #2 on: 12/09/2014 07:18 pm »
ULA contracts out directly all launches for the US Government. This includes NASA as a customer. Look at the Delta IV Heavy EFT-1 mission. LM was the Orion contractor and it went directly to ULA, if it was commercial LM would have had to go through Boeing. Now Orbital needs to launch its own craft to the ISS under a NASA contract and they also went to ULA. Straight NASA launches (like InSight mission) are handled with ULA through the NLS I/II launch contract. But the MexSat-3 contract on Atlas V was an LM contract (as in Launch Services company). Confusing but its consistent in its internal logic.

Offline saliva_sweet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 614
  • Liked: 476
  • Likes Given: 1826
Re: ULA charter and the current reality
« Reply #3 on: 12/09/2014 07:31 pm »
Thanks Jim and baldusi. Looks like everything is consistent and the charter stands for the time being.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18203
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: ULA charter and the current reality
« Reply #4 on: 12/10/2014 09:25 am »
It is still a gov't mission and not really a commercial mission.  Much like EFT-1.
You just defined a grey area.

NASA buys not a launcher and not even a spacecraft, but a service under CRS-1. Yet that is enough to classify it as a 'government mission' to be compatible with the ULA charter. Nice get away.

Offline saliva_sweet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 614
  • Liked: 476
  • Likes Given: 1826
Re: ULA charter and the current reality
« Reply #5 on: 12/10/2014 09:49 am »
It is still a gov't mission and not really a commercial mission.  Much like EFT-1.
You just defined a grey area.

NASA buys not a launcher and not even a spacecraft, but a service under CRS-1. Yet that is enough to classify it as a 'government mission' to be compatible with the ULA charter. Nice get away.

Can ULA use this gray area to distort the commercial market using block buy money? Can we expect another lawsuit?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37449
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21466
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: ULA charter and the current reality
« Reply #6 on: 12/10/2014 02:24 pm »
You just defined a grey area.

NASA buys not a launcher and not even a spacecraft, but a service under CRS-1. Yet that is enough to classify it as a 'government mission' to be compatible with the ULA charter. Nice get away.

It actually saves money for the gov't, which was the point of ULA.  There is no need to pay for the "tax" of the commercial launch company.

That is why there is no issue with it being done this way.

Offline saliva_sweet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 614
  • Liked: 476
  • Likes Given: 1826
Re: ULA charter and the current reality
« Reply #7 on: 12/10/2014 03:47 pm »
It actually saves money for the gov't, which was the point of ULA.

How? CRS is fixed price. Will Orbital be benefiting from the EELV launch capability contract or will there be a reimbursement to DOD?

Offline butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2399
  • Liked: 1693
  • Likes Given: 598
Re: ULA charter and the current reality
« Reply #8 on: 12/10/2014 04:11 pm »
Sorry, but how is NASA the customer when CRS providers procure launch services?
« Last Edit: 12/10/2014 04:12 pm by butters »

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
Re: ULA charter and the current reality
« Reply #9 on: 12/10/2014 04:21 pm »
Sorry, but how is NASA the customer when CRS providers procure launch services?
Because they're procuring launch services to fulfill a "Government" contract. And so it is within ULA's current charter.
« Last Edit: 12/10/2014 04:22 pm by rcoppola »
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline ArbitraryConstant

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2015
  • Liked: 628
  • Likes Given: 312
Re: ULA charter and the current reality
« Reply #10 on: 12/10/2014 07:42 pm »
One thing that's not super clear to me is how ULA can build a brand new expendable launcher under the current charter.

Looking at the 2020s, it's going to be a new first stage, almost certainly a new US. Maybe a pretty substantial Atlas heritage but definitely not in any way shape or form by any stretch of the imagination an Atlas V. The Delta IV probably goes away, so Boeing's participation is reduced.

How is this not a material change in ULA's status?

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: ULA charter and the current reality
« Reply #11 on: 12/10/2014 09:22 pm »
One thing that's not super clear to me is how ULA can build a brand new expendable launcher under the current charter.
if you are referring to the initial charter restrictions on new launcher development, that clause has expired for a while now.
 we had details on that in one of these threads here.

Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline terryy

  • Member
  • Posts: 25
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ULA charter and the current reality
« Reply #12 on: 12/12/2014 08:42 am »

It actually saves money for the gov't, which was the point of ULA.  There is no need to pay for the "tax" of the commercial launch company.

That is why there is no issue with it being done this way.

So that means Orbital/ULA will not have to make a ELC reimbursement payment to the DoD for this launch?  Do we know how much that would be if they had to pay it?

Offline saliva_sweet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 614
  • Liked: 476
  • Likes Given: 1826
Re: ULA charter and the current reality
« Reply #13 on: 12/12/2014 09:47 am »
So that means Orbital/ULA will not have to make a ELC reimbursement payment to the DoD for this launch?  Do we know how much that would be if they had to pay it?

If this is the case SpaceX should sue right now. This would mean that SpaceX's competitors in CRS, CRS2 and commercial crew can have their launches subsidized by DOD to the tune of $70M per launch (ELC ~$1B/year divided by 14 ULA launches this year).

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: ULA charter and the current reality
« Reply #14 on: 12/12/2014 10:28 am »

So that means Orbital/ULA will not have to make a ELC reimbursement payment to the DoD for this launch?  Do we know how much that would be if they had to pay it?

If this is the case SpaceX should sue right now. This would mean that SpaceX's competitors in CRS, CRS2 and commercial crew can have their launches subsidized by DOD to the tune of $70M per launch (ELC ~$1B/year divided by 14 ULA launches this year).
That's not how it works. Just for starters, its a subsidy to many things, some of which no commercial entity needs, and thus can't be charged for. But let's assume that it is only pad use. You have four pads, two (DIV and AV) at CCAF and another two VAFB. So the ELC contribution being only on the LC41 part (Atlas V from the Cape), which has 8 planned flights next year. So if we assume 250M per pad, and then divide by 8, you'd get a 31.25M contribution. But then I'm pretty sure OSC requested very little on top of standard launch, and thus its contribution would be much smaller.

Offline saliva_sweet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 614
  • Liked: 476
  • Likes Given: 1826
Re: ULA charter and the current reality
« Reply #15 on: 12/12/2014 10:59 am »
That's not how it works. Just for starters, its a subsidy to many things, some of which no commercial entity needs

Yes, the subsidy is to everything. Pads, factories, employees... all fixed costs. And that is absolutely huge competitive advantage. There are no doubt some things unnecessary for a commercial launch, but they are a small fraction. Pad maintenace is a small part of it. Not even ULA needs $250M/year to keep a pad working.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: ULA charter and the current reality
« Reply #16 on: 12/12/2014 12:17 pm »
Pad maintenance is a small part of it. Not even ULA needs $250M/year to keep a pad working.
And with that, I am sure the ground keeper at LC-41 just went, DOH!, they finally caught on...
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: ULA charter and the current reality
« Reply #17 on: 12/12/2014 01:12 pm »
That's not how it works. Just for starters, its a subsidy to many things, some of which no commercial entity needs

Yes, the subsidy is to everything. Pads, factories, employees... all fixed costs. And that is absolutely huge competitive advantage. There are no doubt some things unnecessary for a commercial launch, but they are a small fraction. Pad maintenace is a small part of it. Not even ULA needs $250M/year to keep a pad working.
We don't know what's inside that contract. I'm just saying that the part that a commercial flight might have to pay would probably be quite small in comparison to the whole program.

Offline WHAP

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 795
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: ULA charter and the current reality
« Reply #18 on: 12/12/2014 04:58 pm »
Pretty sure that any non-ELC mission results in an offset back to the government.  Just because it's a government mission doesn't exempt it from that treatment.  If it's not part of the EELV buy, then ULA gives some money back.  I wish I could offer sources, but I'm not one to spend much time looking through public documentation to find it.
ULA employee.  My opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.

Offline WindnWar

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 556
  • South Carolina
  • Liked: 333
  • Likes Given: 1811
Re: ULA charter and the current reality
« Reply #19 on: 12/12/2014 05:27 pm »
Pretty sure that any non-ELC mission results in an offset back to the government.  Just because it's a government mission doesn't exempt it from that treatment.  If it's not part of the EELV buy, then ULA gives some money back.  I wish I could offer sources, but I'm not one to spend much time looking through public documentation to find it.

Here is a doc covering the GAO info on it.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/661333.txt

From the doc,

 "Prior to the December 2013 contract modification,
compensation amounts were loosely based on an average of 30 days of
launch pad use, and not based on actual costs. DOD and ULA negotiated
the compensation amounts annually, and DOD was reimbursed through
price reductions on ULA invoices submitted to DOD at the end of the
fiscal year. Under the new contract, compensation is based on some
actual costs, including factory support and direct labor hours, and is
approximately three times the dollar amount per-launch of
reimbursements under previous contracts. Additionally, DOD and ULA
plan to adjust the contract value at the outset of each fiscal year,
commensurately reducing the overall value by the number of non-DOD
launches ULA expects to sell in the upcoming fiscal year. "

However in the paragraph right above this, there was this gem as well.

"The new contract is also
expected to provide DOD with a better understanding of individual
launch costs than it had under previous contracts, as some costs are
now directly attributable to specific launches, such as propellants,
transportation, and costs associated with launch mission integration.
However, according to DOD, about 75 percent of the costs for cost-
reimbursement contract items are combined and not broken out by
individual launch costs, which may limit DOD's ability to identify the
cost of any given launch. "

NASA qualifies as a non DOD launch so there would be a reimbursement, but the amount reimbursed is hard to determine since so much if it is bundle together.

Offline terryy

  • Member
  • Posts: 25
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ULA charter and the current reality
« Reply #20 on: 12/12/2014 10:30 pm »

So that means Orbital/ULA will not have to make a ELC reimbursement payment to the DoD for this launch?  Do we know how much that would be if they had to pay it?

Found the answer to my own question.  According to the GAO, ULA does reimburse the DoD part of the ELC for NASA missions.  It's on page 28 of the following:

http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/sites/default/files/hearings/FINAL_SPACE_LAUNCH_BRIEFING.PDF

Quote
ULA provided a small reimbursement to DOD for the resources used to launch missions sold to other customers, such as NASA or other government or commercial customers.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Re: ULA charter and the current reality
« Reply #21 on: 12/12/2014 11:02 pm »
That's not how it works. Just for starters, its a subsidy to many things, some of which no commercial entity needs
Yes, the subsidy is to everything. Pads, factories, employees... all fixed costs. And that is absolutely huge competitive advantage. There are no doubt some things unnecessary for a commercial launch, but they are a small fraction.

How sure are you of the part I bolded? From speaking with ULA folks (several years ago), he said a lot of their costs were driven by having NRO and USAF as key customers. That they required a lot of stuff commercial companies didn't, and that was part of what made it hard for them to compete commercially.

~Jon

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10200
  • Likes Given: 11936
Re: ULA charter and the current reality
« Reply #22 on: 12/12/2014 11:32 pm »
From speaking with ULA folks (several years ago), he said a lot of their costs were driven by having NRO and USAF as key customers. That they required a lot of stuff commercial companies didn't, and that was part of what made it hard for them to compete commercially.

No doubt that some of their costs are driven by unique customer requirements.  But unless the person you talked to was pretty high up in ULA, I doubt they would know how much that was.  That's usually pretty tightly held info.

As to why it's been hard for them to compete commercially, here is one possible reason.

If ULA's business philosophy has been to maximize their profit by concentrating on the U.S. Government as their primary customer, they have to have commercial pricing that is not too far out of line with what they charge the USG.  Which means that regardless how much it costs them to launch a commercial payload, they will make it seem like it costs in the same range as a DoD/NRO payload.  That premise has so far relied on being able to have a sole-source relationship with the USG, but that is starting to go away with SpaceX getting ready to bid on launches.

Now I know there is lots of debate about whether this is the way ULA acts, but it does fit with all the evidence we see.  That said, ULA has an opportunity to change that philosophy with their new launcher, and they can do it without jeopardizing the pricing for their current launchers.  So this situation could go away "soon", and I would give part of the credit to SpaceX for applying the pricing pressure.  Putin gets some credit too, but without SpaceX they would not need to address price with this upcoming change.

My $0.02
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline saliva_sweet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 614
  • Liked: 476
  • Likes Given: 1826
Re: ULA charter and the current reality
« Reply #23 on: 12/13/2014 12:31 pm »
Yes, the subsidy is to everything. Pads, factories, employees... all fixed costs. And that is absolutely huge competitive advantage. There are no doubt some things unnecessary for a commercial launch, but they are a small fraction.

How sure are you of the part I bolded?

I do not have inside knowledge so I cannot be certain. This is based on the assumption that maintaining any launch capability is more costly than supporting DOD requirements on top of that.

From speaking with ULA folks (several years ago), he said a lot of their costs were driven by having NRO and USAF as key customers. That they required a lot of stuff commercial companies didn't, and that was part of what made it hard for them to compete commercially.

EELVs were originally designed to be commercially competitive as well as meet the DOD demands. The market collapsed and ULA was formed. The market came back later, but competing commercially had become too hard. I think Coastal Ron is right about the reasons why.
« Last Edit: 12/13/2014 12:32 pm by saliva_sweet »

Offline ArbitraryConstant

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2015
  • Liked: 628
  • Likes Given: 312
Re: ULA charter and the current reality
« Reply #24 on: 12/13/2014 06:14 pm »
If ULA's business philosophy has been to maximize their profit by concentrating on the U.S. Government as their primary customer, they have to have commercial pricing that is not too far out of line with what they charge the USG.  Which means that regardless how much it costs them to launch a commercial payload, they will make it seem like it costs in the same range as a DoD/NRO payload.
I think this suggests, probably incorrectly, that they have a dial they can tweak to control costs that they fail to use. Seems more likely it's embedded pretty deeply in the cost structure and that's the only way they (currently) know to do launches. I don't think they're set up to do it a la carte. That's probably a target of the restructuring.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25242
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: ULA charter and the current reality
« Reply #25 on: 12/13/2014 06:25 pm »
Sorry, but how is NASA the customer when CRS providers procure launch services?
Because they're procuring launch services to fulfill a "Government" contract. And so it is within ULA's current charter.
I'd bet probably half of Iridium's customers are government (that certainly was the case at one point in their history). Does that make Iridium launches eligible for ULA's charter?

This is absolutely a gray area. Otherwise, what the heck does the "C" in COTS and CRS stand for?

I'm totally fine with ULA marketing even in the commercial side. The more distance between ULA and the Primes, the better.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37449
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21466
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: ULA charter and the current reality
« Reply #26 on: 12/13/2014 06:32 pm »

This is absolutely a gray area. Otherwise, what the heck does the "C" in COTS and CRS stand for?


So what does that have to do with ULA providing the service directly vs LM or Boeing being a middle man?  Either way, OSC is still providing the same service to the gov't via the existing contract and OSC is getting the same service from Atlas.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Re: ULA charter and the current reality
« Reply #27 on: 12/13/2014 06:42 pm »
No doubt that some of their costs are driven by unique customer requirements.  But unless the person you talked to was pretty high up in ULA, I doubt they would know how much that was.  That's usually pretty tightly held info.

I don't know if they knew the exact dollars and cents numbers, but they were high enough up to see what fraction of the work the engineering teams were putting into meeting non-commercial requirements. It's not perfect, but labor is often the highest costs in these things, and you can get a general feel for if it's a minor cost or a major one, and frankly, I think it makes sense that it's a major cost.

~Jon

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1