Could Boeing quit the United Launch Alliance in the future?

[Vahe231991]

In case anyone's aware, when the United Launch Alliance was formed in December 2006 because a strong, competitive commercial launch market did not materialize within the United States, but at that time, SpaceX was a young company and therefore had yet to become a serious competitor in the commercial space launch market that Boeing and Lockheed Martin were dominating when they formed the ULA. Since SpaceX is now a full-fledged rival to ULA in the commercial and military launch market on which the ULA initially had a monopoly, might Boeing sometime in the future withdraw from the United Launch Alliance and force the ULA to disband so that Lockheed Martin assumes full responsibility for production of the Vulcan, given that the Delta IV Heavy will be retired within the next two years and Lockheed Martin has historically developed several space launch vehicles and ballistic missiles (the Atlas II and Atlas III were also built by Lockheed Martin)? I consider is possible that Boeing could save money for advanced aerospace projects like blended wing body transports and a potential UCAV version of the MQ-25 Stingray for the USAF by quitting the ULA, and Boeing had little experience developing SLVs prior to acquiring the McDonnell Douglas company in charge of building the Delta rocket.

[Stan-1967]

Yes, Either Boeing or LM could someday quit being a partner of ULA.  I would guess there are pathways in the JV contract that allow for termination.  Ultimately the answer  will probably be determined by answering the question, "Is ULA making money for the parent companies?"  It that answer is "yes", then I doubt either party will exit.  Given Vulcan's impressive building manifest, I'd say Boeing will be part of ULA for some time.

[DreamyPickle]

Since they are half owners they wouldn't "quit" as much as "sell their stake".

[russianhalo117]

Since they are half owners they wouldn't "quit" as much as "sell their stake".

Since ULA was created by government decree as a ma datory 50:50 joint venture both parties would either have spinoff the assets into a replacement company and jointly dissolve the JV or jointly sell their stakes. Court and government approval would be required per its founding documentation which I no longer have a soft copy of but I recall exists in the early part of this forum.

[Jim]

I consider is possible that Boeing could save money for advanced aerospace projects like blended wing body transports and a potential UCAV version of the MQ-25 Stingray for the USAF by quitting the ULA,

makes no sense.  ULA is a constant source of income for Boeing.

[Jim]

given that the Delta IV Heavy will be retired within the next two years .

That has no bearing on matter.  Delta IV, Atlas V and Vulcan are not IP of either Boeing or Lockheed Martin but ULA.  History has no part in this.

[edzieba]

when the United Launch Alliance was formed in December 2006 because a strong, competitive commercial launch market did not materialize within the United States

And because of the espionage case: Boeing's theft of LM documentations on the EELV programme.
Boeing was facing the potential of being locked out of government contracting if they lost the case, a potential large financial loss if they settled (if they even could settle), and the government would have lost its redundant launch option. LM were facing potentially poor commercial sales for Atlas in the face of the collapse of the first wave of megaconstellation attempts.
The formation of ULA allowed everyone involved to save face and keep operating: The espionage case could be dropped, 'Boeing' under ULA could continue to offer Delta IV, the government got its two EELV families for redundancy (and avoided loss of a large aerospace industrial base), and both LM and Boeing received sufficient cash from the government to keep their launch businesses afloat in the face of the lack of anticipated commercial demand. LM could have held out in order to crush Boeing's competition and have the government launch market to themselves, but it would at best have been a pyrrhic victory (likely making a loss overall on Atlas with little commercial success and less public financial support).

With Vulcan taking the blurred line between the LM (Atlas) and Boeing (Delta) halves of the business and completely demolishing all pretences of separation, it's not really an option for Boeing to separate 'its business' from ULA. At absolute best they could try and sell their stake to LM, but I can't see that being a particularly good deal for LM - taking on all the financial burden (and risk) of switching to a new launch vehicle by themselves, or Boeing - losing all access to the launch market.

[hkultala]

I consider is possible that Boeing could save money for advanced aerospace projects like blended wing body transports and a potential UCAV version of the MQ-25 Stingray for the USAF by quitting the ULA,

makes no sense.  ULA is a constant source of income for Boeing.

No, might make lots of sense.

If it produces lots of constant money, then L-M (or somebody else) might be willing to pay a large sum of money from it.

It's all about ROI (return of investment). If Boeing needs a lot of money for other projects and cannot get cheap loan or money from investors with good conditions, then it may make a lot of sense to sell of a profitable business to get lots of money that can be invested to in the future will bring even more money into the company.

This is all very simple economics.

[Jim]

or Boeing - losing all access to the launch market.

Boeing still has SLS

[edzieba]

or Boeing - losing all access to the launch market.

Boeing still has SLS

They're the prime contractor building it, but it's not their own IP, or even their own facilities used to construct and launch it. Boeing could not (even if they could afford to) go and build and operate their own non-SLS clone and fly their own missions without intimate support from NASA, let alone iterate on it to build a new launch vehicle independently. If the whims of congress decided that SLS would be replaced with the New And Bigger Launch System, Boeing would not really have the option to continue flying SLS.

[Vahe231991]

or Boeing - losing all access to the launch market.

Boeing still has SLS

Boeing's previous forays into fabricating rocket components prior to acquiring McDonnell Douglas included manufacturing the Saturn V first stage and the Inertial Upper Stage used to launch Titan and Space Shuttle payloads beyond low Earth orbit. In any case, even if Boeing quits the ULA after the last Delta IV Heavy launch is conducted, its role in building the core stage for the SLS (which will launch later this summer) means that it is not exiting the launch market.

[TrevorMonty]

or Boeing - losing all access to the launch market.

Boeing still has SLS

Losing all access to "launch market" as in commercially competitive.

[Jim]

or Boeing - losing all access to the launch market.

Boeing still has SLS

Losing all access to "launch market" as in commercially competitive.

That is not a requirement

[JayWee]

What are (if any) areas LM/Boeing aren't allowed to do on their own by the ULA agreement?
Say, if either of them wanted to build a reusable vehicle (like the ones LM showed renders of), would that be allowed?

[TrevorMonty]

or Boeing - losing all access to the launch market.

Boeing still has SLS

Losing all access to "launch market" as in commercially competitive.

That is not a requirement

Is SLS Boeings to sell or does NASA own it?

[Jim]

or Boeing - losing all access to the launch market.

Boeing still has SLS

Boeing's previous forays into fabricating rocket components prior to acquiring McDonnell Douglas included manufacturing the Saturn V first stage and the Inertial Upper Stage used to launch Titan and Space Shuttle payloads beyond low Earth orbit. In any case, even if Boeing quits the ULA after the last Delta IV Heavy launch is conducted, its role in building the core stage for the SLS (which will launch later this summer) means that it is not exiting the launch market.

And Sealaunch

[edzieba]

or Boeing - losing all access to the launch market.

Boeing still has SLS

Boeing's previous forays into fabricating rocket components prior to acquiring McDonnell Douglas included manufacturing the Saturn V first stage and the Inertial Upper Stage used to launch Titan and Space Shuttle payloads beyond low Earth orbit. In any case, even if Boeing quits the ULA after the last Delta IV Heavy launch is conducted, its role in building the core stage for the SLS (which will launch later this summer) means that it is not exiting the launch market.

And Sealaunch

Though similar to SLS, Boeing was managing the project but not actually manufacturing or operating the vehicles or GSE. Sealaunch is also effectively dead for the foreseeable future.

[edkyle99]

Though similar to SLS, Boeing was managing the project but not actually manufacturing or operating the vehicles or GSE. Sealaunch is also effectively dead for the foreseeable future.

Reports at the time said that Boeing "provided the payload fairing and interstage structure", which was called the "Payload Unit".  Boeing also reportedly did "analytical and physical spacecraft integration" and "managed overall mission operations". 

Keep in mind that Boeing joined the Sea Launch effort before it merged McDonnell Douglas, which is to say before it gained the Delta 2/3/4 launch vehicles via. that merger and began competing against itself(!).  It lost big bucks on the Sea Launch venture, then it lost big bucks again on Delta 4. 

 - Ed Kyle

[Vahe231991]

Though similar to SLS, Boeing was managing the project but not actually manufacturing or operating the vehicles or GSE. Sealaunch is also effectively dead for the foreseeable future.

...then it lost big bucks again on Delta 4. 

 - Ed Kyle

In what ways has Boeing lost big financially on the Delta IV? I should point out that the Delta IV family, despite bearing the name of earlier-generation Delta rocket stages used to power pre-Delta III/IV variants of the Delta SLV family, utilizes new first stage technology and a more modern Delta rocket stage. When the Delta IV Heavy is retired, the SLS will be the only American SLV to use a Delta rocket stage. The Delta II was manufactured by McDonnell Douglas on the eve of that firm's merger with Boeing, and because of that merger, Boeing assumed the legal manufacturing rights to fabricating components of the Delta II.

[Jim]

Though similar to SLS, Boeing was managing the project but not actually manufacturing or operating the vehicles or GSE. Sealaunch is also effectively dead for the foreseeable future.

...then it lost big bucks again on Delta 4. 

 - Ed Kyle

In what ways has Boeing lost big financially on the Delta IV? I should point out that the Delta IV family, despite bearing the name of earlier-generation Delta rocket stages used to power pre-Delta III/IV variants of the Delta SLV family, utilizes new first stage technology and a more modern Delta rocket stage. When the Delta IV Heavy is retired, the SLS will be the only American SLV to use a Delta rocket stage. The Delta II was manufactured by McDonnell Douglas on the eve of that firm's merger with Boeing, and because of that merger, Boeing assumed the legal manufacturing rights to fabricating components of the Delta II.

No need to educate this group on launch vehicle heritage, especially with incorrect information.

Boeing never recoup the investment in the DeltaIV development .

ICPS is not a Delta stage.  It has a different size hydrogen tank than used on Delta IV.

And no, Delta II went to ULA and no longer was Boeing.

[edkyle99]

And no, Delta II went to ULA and no longer was Boeing.

It was for awhile.  Boeing/McDonnell Douglas merged August 1, 1997.  United Launch Alliance was formed December 1, 2006. 

 - Ed Kyle

[Vahe231991]

And no, Delta II went to ULA and no longer was Boeing.

It was for awhile.  Boeing/McDonnell Douglas merged August 1, 1997.  United Launch Alliance was formed December 1, 2006. 

 - Ed Kyle

Considering that there has been criticism by some over the Boeing's decision in 1997 to acquire McDonnell Douglas in light of the delays in the Starliner program, it's possible that if the Conestoga program had been continued rather than canceled given that the Conestoga itself was a privately funded SLV, and McDonnell Douglas had sold its space division to Orbital Sciences, then the ULA might not have existed.

[sdsds]

ICPS is not a Delta stage.  It has a different size hydrogen tank than used on Delta IV.

Splitting hairs. ICPS is certainly a Delta-derived stage, right? Did the ICPS flight software require any substantial re-qualification effort?

As for Boeing, do they already have or won't they likely get the contract for the follow-on SLS upper stage? Or could ULA offer a stage based on Vulcan core tooling for that?

[mkent]

What are (if any) areas LM/Boeing aren't allowed to do on their own by the ULA agreement?
Say, if either of them wanted to build a reusable vehicle (like the ones LM showed renders of), would that be allowed?

EELV-class* expendable launch vehicles and services are reserved for ULA.  Neither Boeing nor Lockheed Martin may participate in those markets.

Likewise, small (such as Lockheed Martin's Athena I & Athena II) and super-heavy (such as Boeing's SLS) expendable launch vehicles and services as well as reusable launch vehicles and services are reserved for the parent companies.  ULA may not participate in those markets.

Which is why trying to turn ULA into another SpaceX is a dead letter.  They cannot build payloads or re-usable launch vehicles.  SMART re-use and the ACES upper stage are about as far as they can go, and even that's pushing it (hence the pushback from their board of directors).

So, short answer, is yes, either Lockheed Martin or Boeing could build an RLV if they so chose.  It's ULA who couldn't.

*medium, intermediate, and large-class launch vehicles

[mkent]

In what ways has Boeing lost big financially on the Delta IV?

In then-year dollars (and those dollars are 25 years old at this point), Boeing spent about $1 billion of its own money developing the RS-68 engine; $500 million on the Common Booster Core (CBC), the Decatur factory, the Delta Mariner barge, and integration of the Delta IV vehicle; $250 million on LC-37 at the then CCAFS; and $250 million upgrading SLC-6 at the then VAFB.  It also spent about $500 million on the Delta IV Heavy, but Boeing got reimbursed for that by the Air Force since there was no commercial market for that vehicle.

Considering the time value of money, Boeing has never pulled anywhere near enough money out of ULA to make that up.

People here sometimes seem to forget that Boeing is the largest commercial aerospace company in the world.  If they were making money on launch vehicles, they'd still be doing it.

As for Boeing, do they already have or won't they likely get the contract for the follow-on SLS upper stage?

They already have the contract for the follow-on SLS upper stage.  It's called the Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) and will fly beginning with Artemis IV.  They are past CDR and are working on final drawing release this year.

[Jim]

And no, Delta II went to ULA and no longer was Boeing.

It was for awhile.  Boeing/McDonnell Douglas merged August 1, 1997.  United Launch Alliance was formed December 1, 2006. 

 - Ed Kyle

Considering that there has been criticism by some over the Boeing's decision in 1997 to acquire McDonnell Douglas in light of the delays in the Starliner program, it's possible that if the Conestoga program had been continued rather than canceled given that the Conestoga itself was a privately funded SLV, and McDonnell Douglas had sold its space division to Orbital Sciences, then the ULA might not have existed.

No, it is not possible.   There is no reason for McD to sell Delta.

[Jim]

And no, Delta II went to ULA and no longer was Boeing.

It was for awhile.  Boeing/McDonnell Douglas merged August 1, 1997.  United Launch Alliance was formed December 1, 2006. 

 - Ed Kyle

Considering that there has been criticism by some over the Boeing's decision in 1997 to acquire McDonnell Douglas in light of the delays in the Starliner program, it's possible that if the Conestoga program had been continued rather than canceled given that the Conestoga itself was a privately funded SLV, and McDonnell Douglas had sold its space division to Orbital Sciences, then the ULA might not have existed.

No, all  McDonnell Douglas was bought buy Boeing.  OSC did not get any part.

And Conestoga would not have any bearing on this matter

[Vahe231991]

Found this news item of relevance to this topic:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/03/sources-say-prominent-us-rocket-maker-united-launch-alliance-is-up-for-sale/

As I already stressed on this thread when I first created it, the emergence of SpaceX as a major player in the civil and military satellite launch business challenged the ULA's monopoly on launching national security missions and NASA science probes, and I pondered the question of whether the ULA venture could disband given that the Delta II and single-stick Delta IV were retired in the 2010s and two more Delta IV Heavy launches are left, not to mention that the Delta II was designed by McDonnell Douglas and Boeing took over development of the Delta II after acquiring McDD. If the ULA is sold to another company, Boeing and Lockheed Martin would have to sell the legal manufacturing rights for the Vulcan SLV, Centaur stage, and ICPS to whichever company acquires ULA.

[Jim]

If the ULA is sold to another company, Boeing and Lockheed Martin would have to sell the legal manufacturing rights for the Vulcan SLV, Centaur stage, and ICPS to whichever company acquires ULA.

Huh?

The manufacturing rights and IP are what would be sold.   There is nothing else to the company.  There aren't any other assets except for the factory real estate.

I pondered the question of whether the ULA venture could disband

No, it couldn't because there was no Delta or Atlas /or Boeing or MDC divisions within ULA.    It was one company with one set of employees putting out two products.  (There is no difference between single stick Delta IVs and Heavy from manufacturing or operations).   ULA profits were split by Boeing and LM.  That and the management board were the only things that were specifically Boeing and LM.   If ULA were to "disband", it means Atlas and Vulcan are gone.  If ULA were to be sold and Atlas and Vulcan were continued, it is only a name change for the employees, like what happened when ULA was formed.

not to mention that the Delta II was designed by McDonnell Douglas and Boeing took over development of the Delta II after acquiring McDD.

Boeing did not "take over" development of the Delta II after acquiring McD.  After Boeing bought MCD and the only thing that change with Delta is that the MDC Delta employees were now Boeing Delta employees. 

[woods170]

If the ULA is sold to another company, Boeing and Lockheed Martin would have to sell the legal manufacturing rights for the Vulcan SLV, Centaur stage, and ICPS to whichever company acquires ULA.

If Boeing and LockMart have no intention to sell the production rights, then they wouldn't be putting ULA up for sale. And then there is the fact that Boeing and LockMart own only part of the production rights.

For example: LockMart does not exclusively own the manufacturing rights for Atlas V:

https://spacenews.com/air-force-confirms-ula-position-on-atlas-5-production-rights/

...the Defense Department said it did not own the design or production rights for the rocket, nor did it own the intellectual property rights, according to a June 19 statement from Capt. Annmarie Annicelli, an Air Force spokeswoman.

Lockheed Martin and ULA say they own different elements of the Atlas 5 design. According to Annicelli, ULA also owns the Atlas 5 production facility in Decatur, Alabama, and the launch pads and towers at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida and at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

A similar arrangement exists for Delta IV.
Vulcan is an all-ULA development. Same for Centaur V. Both the production rights and IP rest solely with ULA for those.

Whoever buys ULA from Boeing and LockMart gets whatever production rights, still lying with Boeing or LockMart, as an integrate part of the deal. Similar to how Northrop Grumman acquired the production rights for shuttle-derived SRBs when they bought Orbital-ATK.

[Vahe231991]

If the ULA is sold to another company, Boeing and Lockheed Martin would have to sell the legal manufacturing rights for the Vulcan SLV, Centaur stage, and ICPS to whichever company acquires ULA.

If Boeing and LockMart have no intention to sell the production rights, then they wouldn't be putting ULA up for sale. And then there is the fact that Boeing and LockMart own only part of the production rights.

For example: LockMart does not exclusively own the manufacturing rights for Atlas V:

https://spacenews.com/air-force-confirms-ula-position-on-atlas-5-production-rights/

...the Defense Department said it did not own the design or production rights for the rocket, nor did it own the intellectual property rights, according to a June 19 statement from Capt. Annmarie Annicelli, an Air Force spokeswoman.

Lockheed Martin and ULA say they own different elements of the Atlas 5 design. According to Annicelli, ULA also owns the Atlas 5 production facility in Decatur, Alabama, and the launch pads and towers at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida and at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

A similar arrangement exists for Delta IV.
Vulcan is an all-ULA development. Same for Centaur V. Both the production rights and IP rest solely with ULA for those.

Whoever buys ULA from Boeing and LockMart gets whatever production rights, still lying with Boeing or LockMart, as an integrate part of the deal. Similar to how Northrop Grumman acquired the production rights for shuttle-derived SRBs when they bought Orbital-ATK.

Didn't know that Lockheed Martin and ULA own different elements of Atlas V production. Which of the design and production rights for the Delta IV Heavy are owned by ULA, and which ones are owned by Boeing?

[Jim]

Didn't know that Lockheed Martin and ULA own different elements of Atlas V production. Which of the design and production rights for the Delta IV Heavy are owned by ULA, and which ones are owned by Boeing?

ULA has all the production rights for Delta, Atlas and Vulcan and would be sold with ULA.  There is no need to deal with or figure what LM and Boeing have or have not.

[Vahe231991]

Didn't know that Lockheed Martin and ULA own different elements of Atlas V production. Which of the design and production rights for the Delta IV Heavy are owned by ULA, and which ones are owned by Boeing?

ULA has all the production rights for Delta, Atlas and Vulcan and would be sold with ULA.  There is no need to deal with or figure what LM and Boeing have or have not.

Thanks for clarifying. I was asking that question because it's mentioned in post#29 that Lockheed Martin don't own any production rights for the Atlas V, and Boeing stopped owning production rights for the Delta II and Delta IV after the ULA venture was formed in December 2006.