ULA long term plans

[JEF_300]

We started having some discussion in the ULA sale thread about what the long term plans for ULA should be. This is a dedicated thread for that.

In the short-to-mid term, Vulcan is ready and has a strong manifest. But with Starship, New Glenn, MLV, Terran R, Neutron, Nova, etc. all coming online in the next few years, it seems increasingly unlikely that Vulcan will be able to remain competitive and keep adding to it's manifest, making it's long term prospect uncertain.

So what do you think ULA should do about that?

[DanClemmensen]

ULA is currently a launch services firm focused on providing services to USSF and NROL. They are very good at it, except for not yet having a certified rocket. They should focus exclusively on providing these services, perhaps even using other companies' rockets.

[dglow]

1. Continue hiring former AF and SF personnel.
2. Continue convincing DOD that Centaur is the best sherpa for taking precious payloads to high-energy orbits.
3. Profit.

[TrevorMonty]

With current owners plan is likely to be business as usual. This thread may have to wait for a new owner.

[JEF_300]

As I said in the other thread, my pet theory is that ULA should start an SSTO project. It provides an at least plausible route to leapfrogging reusable TSTOs on cost to orbit, fits the LEO heavy launch market that seems to be the future (mega constellations and depots), and leans into ULA's existing expertise / tendency towards with high performance vehicles.

It would probably take something as radically different from prior standard SSTO concepts as F9 was from the Shuttle. Perhaps with a return to something more like the Delta Clipper or Chrysler SERV, instead of the winged SSTOs that seem to have been people's baseline from the 90s through to today, it could be made to work. I don't know. What I do know is, no major company has taken a serious look at the SSTO problem in almost a quarter century. I figure enough has changed that it's at least worth another look, and ULA strikes me as better positioned to do that than most.

(NOTE: I don't want this to turn into an SSTO thread, since we have plenty of those already. I mostly just wanted to acknowledge it as an option, without getting too into the weeds about it.)

[JEF_300]

With current owners plan is likely to be business as usual. This thread may have to wait for a new owner.

That's why I made it a thread about what "you think ULA should do about that", not a thread about what ULA will do about it.

[Coastal Ron]

I'll restate what I said over on the "ULA Long Term Plans" thread, that I don't think it makes sense for ULA's future owners to try and compete with the SpaceX Starship. That would be what is known as competing in a "Red Ocean", where "Cutthroat competition turns the ocean bloody red. Hence, the term ‘red’ oceans."

The future owners of ULA need to find uncontested market space, and focus their efforts there. This is what's known as a "Blue Ocean" strategy. More info here.

Since the beginning of the humans to launch payloads and people to space, there has been a competition in many ways for how to do that. SpaceX today is focused on dramatically lowering the cost to move payloads, and eventually people, to space, with the goal of making it cost effective to try to colonize Mars.

But while Elon Musk is focused on colonizing Mars, the same cost savings will allow for experimentation by others, including wealthy individuals, companies, and countries.

What Starship is positioned to do well is to move mass to low Earth orbit (LEO), where for Mars colonization purposes the ship will wait in orbit to be refueled before departing for Mars. The Starship ship has been designed to launch from a world with an atmosphere, land on a world with or without an atmosphere, and then return to a world with an atmosphere. However it is not really optimized for moving payloads and people exclusively through space, without returning to the surface of a world.

Creating the first generation of reusable space-only transportation systems is an opportunity that I think ULA's future buyers could focus on. It is a small market today, but that is because it costs too much to move payloads and people to space, but Starship will be solving that problem soon. Meaning that they could help start, and potentially dominate, this future market space.

ULA has experience building upper stages, and ULA in the past focused company resources on studying space transportation systems like ACES (see - "A Commercially Based Lunar Architecture").

Trying to compete with everyone else on creating a reusable or semi-reusable launcher doesn't make sense. Fly Vulcan for as long as they can, but otherwise launching mass from Earth is a commodity market that SpaceX has already won, and is positioned to dominate in the future. It would be a waste of money to try and compete in such a crowded field.

Creating the next market, which is enabled by Starship but not dominated by it, makes the most sense to me.

[Vultur]

I'm glad this is not my job.

I really don't see much of a path for them in the longer term.

 ULA's value proposition is largely the trust they've built for reliability with the US government/military. So they can't change their company culture to a fail-fast one without losing that.

Space systems is a much better idea than competing head to head with SpaceX on launch, but even for space systems do they have any real competitive advantage versus say Rocket Lab or, yeah, SpaceX? They're going to be higher overhead, etc

[deltaV]

I see 4 options for ULA (not mutually exclusive):
1. Use Vulcan as long as it's profitable, then close ULA down. This is the probable outcome if ULA isn't sold but seems less likely if ULA is sold.
2. Make a new partially or fully reusable launch vehicle (with 2-3 stages for LEO, 3 stages for GEO). There's a lot of competition here, including Falcon, Starship, Terran R, Nova, New Glenn, Neutron, and MLV. ULA could use a variant of SMART for reusing the expensive parts of the second and third stages.
3. Make a reusable in-space transportation system and propellant depots using Centaur/IVF/ACES tech. They could sell transport services, liquid hydrogen (to chemical and nuclear thermal stages) and liquid oxygen. If ULA's current owners had acted differently they could have been the leader at this with a NASA HLS contract but now Blue Origin will probably be the leader. There's less intensive competition here than with launch but there are still several competitors: Helios, the Blue Origin/Lockheed cislunar transporter, solar electric propulsion, and some launch vehicles.
4. Combine ULA's liquid hydrogen experience with someone else's nuclear experience to sell nuclear thermal stuff to silly parts of the government. Nuclear thermal is a bad idea but that's not a show-stopper if you're a cost-plus contractor.

[Tywin]

Copy from the other thread:

Why cargo and not people?

The great advantage of Dream Chaser is the LOW G on the reentry for the astronauts...

Maybe an evolution Dream Chaser SSTO, is the big next thing, IF, and only IF, the space tourist start to be great soon...

[meekGee]

With current owners plan is likely to be business as usual. This thread may have to wait for a new owner.

That's why I made it a thread about what "you think ULA should do about that", not a thread about what ULA will do about it.

The problem is that it's harder to turn ULA with all its baggage around, than it is to start fresh - and several companies are trying exactly that.

The question is just 10-20 years too late.

[Todd Martin]

Well, it may be people have focused too much on the price challenge in chasing available payloads rather than focus on what payloads ULA could themselves bring to the market.  After all, while SpaceX has been successful with Falcon 9, it is Starlink that was developed as the major long-term revenue generator for the company rather than launch services.  My personal preference is SBSP (space based solar power) as a potential BIG market.  ULA would start by partnering with a company like Sierra Space that has space-craft experience, leverage DOD contacts to get a purchase order to supply SBSP to the military, and then grow from there.  With high flight rate comes lower launch costs which is a virtuous cycle.  ULA wins, the planet Earth wins, and we keep competition in the domestic launch market.  Anyway, that's my wish.

[dglow]

Off-topic AF, but: take the money you'd invest in SBSP and build earthbound solar fields instead. Invest the leftover in high-efficiency transmission lines to get that power from the sunny southwestern deserts across to the eastern seaboard.

[Vultur]

Off-topic AF, but: take the money you'd invest in SBSP and build earthbound solar fields instead. Invest the leftover in high-efficiency transmission lines to get that power from the sunny southwestern deserts across to the eastern seaboard.

That works for the continental US. Not so much for Alaska and the northern half of Europe.

I agree SBSP does not make sense for most of the world's population, but it might well make sense for high latitudes - which includes a number of wealthy nations with strong desire for clean energy.

[LouScheffer]

Off-topic AF, but: take the money you'd invest in SBSP and build earthbound solar fields instead. Invest the leftover in high-efficiency transmission lines to get that power from the sunny southwestern deserts across to the eastern seaboard.

That works for the continental US. Not so much for Alaska and the northern half of Europe.

I agree SBSP does not make sense for most of the world's population, but it might well make sense for high latitudes - which includes a number of wealthy nations with strong desire for clean energy.

There are already projects to power southern Europe via undersea cables from solar fields in the Sahara.  Expanding this, the Sahara has plenty of room to power all of Europe, which would need cables to be extended to the northern half of Europe.  Even large capacity transmission lines are a lot cheaper than SBSP.

[DanClemmensen]

Off-topic AF, but: take the money you'd invest in SBSP and build earthbound solar fields instead. Invest the leftover in high-efficiency transmission lines to get that power from the sunny southwestern deserts across to the eastern seaboard.

That works for the continental US. Not so much for Alaska and the northern half of Europe.

I agree SBSP does not make sense for most of the world's population, but it might well make sense for high latitudes - which includes a number of wealthy nations with strong desire for clean energy.

There are already projects to power southern Europe via undersea cables from solar fields in the Sahara.  Expanding this, the Sahara has plenty of room to power all of Europe, which would need cables to be extended to the northern half of Europe.  Even large capacity transmission lines are a lot cheaper than SBSP.

As far as I know, the Morocco-to-UK transmission scheme is still being pursued.
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xlinks_Morocco%E2%80%93UK_Power_Project

[butters]

Their current position in the launch industry and lack of engine development experience suggests that the launch industry isn't their best prospect after Vulcan orders dry up. But it's tempting to reframe ULA as a United Pressure Vessel Alliance and consider their prospects for building space station modules. Can't ULA do what Thales Alenia is doing for Axiom? Plus the avionics suite and spacecraft bus functionality from Centaur. A lot of what they currently do, minus the powerful pump-fed engines they outsource, and exiting the relatively low-margin launch segment where they face formidable competition.

[Vultur]

Off-topic AF, but: take the money you'd invest in SBSP and build earthbound solar fields instead. Invest the leftover in high-efficiency transmission lines to get that power from the sunny southwestern deserts across to the eastern seaboard.

That works for the continental US. Not so much for Alaska and the northern half of Europe.

I agree SBSP does not make sense for most of the world's population, but it might well make sense for high latitudes - which includes a number of wealthy nations with strong desire for clean energy.

There are already projects to power southern Europe via undersea cables from solar fields in the Sahara.  Expanding this, the Sahara has plenty of room to power all of Europe, which would need cables to be extended to the northern half of Europe.  Even large capacity transmission lines are a lot cheaper than SBSP.

Yes but you are then dependent on the sunny country. Satellites can be owned by the country needing the power.

[Asteroza]

Off-topic AF, but: take the money you'd invest in SBSP and build earthbound solar fields instead. Invest the leftover in high-efficiency transmission lines to get that power from the sunny southwestern deserts across to the eastern seaboard.

That works for the continental US. Not so much for Alaska and the northern half of Europe.

I agree SBSP does not make sense for most of the world's population, but it might well make sense for high latitudes - which includes a number of wealthy nations with strong desire for clean energy.

There are already projects to power southern Europe via undersea cables from solar fields in the Sahara.  Expanding this, the Sahara has plenty of room to power all of Europe, which would need cables to be extended to the northern half of Europe.  Even large capacity transmission lines are a lot cheaper than SBSP.

Yes but you are then dependent on the sunny country. Satellites can be owned by the country needing the power.

Would that actually happen though? I would imagine a lease or power purchase agreement arrangement, leaving the ops to the builder who is equipped to actually do things, as opposed to some island nation without a space program.

The SunCable program to link Australian solar to Singapore via a subsea cable is apparently pushing forward, so transnational power+transmission arrangements are still a thing.


But more to the point, the middle letter of ULA is LAUNCH so that has to sustain ULA until they can reach long term goals. Pivoting to in-space/beyond-LEO services+equipment can be a valid plan, but will Vulcan be enough to keep ULA going until such a business unit can stand on it's own (either via government lunar largesse or actually being a significant member of the LEO services community)? If Vulcan is really ULA's last rocket, then pushing for SMART and squeezing the last launch contracts until the other semi-reusable/reusable entrants push them out of the market is going to be tough road until the LEO stuff gets on it's feet.

But for a LEO+ pivot, in my mind ULA has to be bought by someone to allow for a depot push. This is where heavy lobbying to congress to establish a strategic LEO propellant reserve for the space force might play out, but the risk there is will LEO+ services/equipment generate enough revenue when you aren't the bulk propellant provider. Can ULA survive merely as a value adding depot creator/operator.

[Solarsail]

FWIW, I actually DO think that ULA is well positioned to build an SSTO...  But only if we're asking about engineering and not markets, and SSTO means expendable rather than reusable...  SSTO mass fractions improve substantially with tripropellant engines, thrust augmented nozzles, and balloon tank structures.  ULA (or...  maybe Corvair) has / had experience with balloon tank design in both Centaur and the old Atlases.  I suspect ULA could build a three part balloon tank rocket with RP-1, oxygen and hydrogen tanks separated by common bulkheads (the hard part is the one they still do for Centaur).  And AR knows how do to oxygen rich turbopumps as well as thrust augmented nozzles.  Combine those and I bet you could orbit (expendably) with a payload somewhere above zero.

</rocket daydream>

[Vultur]

I think any competent rocket company could make an expendable SSTO. It's actually not as hard as people say, there's just no point.

Off-topic AF, but: take the money you'd invest in SBSP and build earthbound solar fields instead. Invest the leftover in high-efficiency transmission lines to get that power from the sunny southwestern deserts across to the eastern seaboard.

That works for the continental US. Not so much for Alaska and the northern half of Europe.

I agree SBSP does not make sense for most of the world's population, but it might well make sense for high latitudes - which includes a number of wealthy nations with strong desire for clean energy.

There are already projects to power southern Europe via undersea cables from solar fields in the Sahara.  Expanding this, the Sahara has plenty of room to power all of Europe, which would need cables to be extended to the northern half of Europe.  Even large capacity transmission lines are a lot cheaper than SBSP.

Yes but you are then dependent on the sunny country. Satellites can be owned by the country needing the power.

Would that actually happen though? I would imagine a lease or power purchase agreement arrangement, leaving the ops to the builder who is equipped to actually do things, as opposed to some island nation without a space program.

The SunCable program to link Austrailian solar to Singapore via a subsea cable is apparently pushing forward, so transnational power+transmission arrangements are still a thing.

Oh, it's fine as long as geopolitics don't change. But the wohle Russian gas thing might make a number of European countries prefer not to take that risk of SBSP could be made reasonably affordable.

If it's vastly more expensive no one will do it. But I don't think it has to be all that expensive if we assume the existence of Starship level launch capacity, and somewhat more expensive might be worth it.

[Tywin]

FWIW, I actually DO think that ULA is well positioned to build an SSTO...  But only if we're asking about engineering and not markets, and SSTO means expendable rather than reusable...  SSTO mass fractions improve substantially with tripropellant engines, thrust augmented nozzles, and balloon tank structures.  ULA (or...  maybe Corvair) has / had experience with balloon tank design in both Centaur and the old Atlases.  I suspect ULA could build a three part balloon tank rocket with RP-1, oxygen and hydrogen tanks separated by common bulkheads (the hard part is the one they still do for Centaur).  And AR knows how do to oxygen rich turbopumps as well as thrust augmented nozzles.  Combine those and I bet you could orbit (expendably) with a payload somewhere above zero.

</rocket daydream>

That sound like the soviet MAKS...

[sdsds]

I expect after the ownership dust settles ULA will announce a launch vehicle evolution path towards a triple-core Vulcan Heavy with full SMART engine reuse and some number of expended GEM boosters, plus an ACES-like upper stage. The primary target trajectory will be trans- or cis-lunar, depending on the payload.

New ownership, or a new agreement between the existing owners, would let them develop those payloads themselves. An Orion command module is < 11 t. Somehow I can't see Boeing designing another service module anytime soon. Maybe LM would try it, though.

[meekGee]

Predictably, this devolved into the pet-project fantasy subthread.

Guys.  This company hasn't developed anything substantially new since the day it was formed 20+ years ago.

When forced almost at gun point, they changed isogrid to orthogrid, switched engine supplier, and tinkered with Centaur yet again.  Oh and dusted off a 20-year-old plan for engine pod recovery.

20+ years.

Who do you think is left in that company that is capable of a brand new, revolutionary, from-the-ground-up project?

After a full generation passed by, people who stayed and thrived are people that fit what the company was doing.  And also lawyers and lobbyists.

My advice is to take the pet project elsewhere.

[Vultur]

Yeah, their company organization is not really set up for rapid or dramatic innovation.

They have a lot of trust built up with the US military/government - short of major reliability problems with Vulcan, that'll probably last them at least a decade.

But I don't expect any real growth for them. ULA may still be around in 2035, but only with a few launches/year and probably almost purely from government customers (Starliner will be gone and Kuiper either gone or launching on a cheaper provider).

And by that point someone else will have built up that trust...

[Eric Hedman]

There is another option for ULA that I haven't heard mentioned.  They could take ULA public with an IPO.  They could lay out a forward looking plan for the company if the company could raise possibly $5 billion or more through an IPO.  They would need to bring in some innovative people to help them do it.  Then Boeing could if they wanted to unload their shares over time betting they'll get what they think ULA is worth.  If they want to compete in the long-term, they should act like an aggressive high tech company and develop an aggressive plan and go for it.  That way Boeing and Lockheed aren't risking their own money but could still get a good return if the market likes their plans.  Boeing could even throw Starliner in if they think there may be a future in competing with SpaceX for manned launches to private space stations.  I could only imagine it flying on Vulcan in the next decade once Atlas is retired.  I can imagine space station operators would want dissimilar redundancy for launching crews.

[sdsds]

Hmm. Using production and launch resources they had available they developed a new heavy-lift launch system using a new (to them) propellant, and flew the first vehicle successfully. In less than 20+ years.

[deltaV]

I expect after the ownership dust settles ULA will announce a launch vehicle evolution path towards a triple-core Vulcan Heavy with full SMART engine reuse and some number of expended GEM boosters, plus an ACES-like upper stage. The primary target trajectory will be trans- or cis-lunar, depending on the payload.

Right now it looks like ULA probably won't be sold. It's possible that ULA will announce major new plans once the parents give up on selling but I find it unlikely. The parents only seem willing to approve major development if there's a low-risk business case. AFAICT none of the Vulcan upgrades you mentioned has a solid business case because it's unclear if anyone would buy launches that need the upgrades. The main potential users of launch bigger than existing Vulcan are Blue Origin's moon program and SpaceX's moon and mars programs but both companies have their own launchers and are unlikely to be interested in ULA's. Furthermore the upgrades you mentioned would likely be insufficient to make Vulcan competitive with Starship, New Glenn, and Blue's cislunar transporter so even if customers appear ULA may not win.

The only major development that I expect ULA to do in the near future if ULA isn't sold is SMART reuse. If SMART works they might do something similar to reuse valuable upper stage components too.

[ulm_atms]

I expect after the ownership dust settles ULA will announce a launch vehicle evolution path towards a triple-core Vulcan Heavy with full SMART engine reuse and some number of expended GEM boosters, plus an ACES-like upper stage. The primary target trajectory will be trans- or cis-lunar, depending on the payload.

New ownership, or a new agreement between the existing owners, would let them develop those payloads themselves. An Orion command module is < 11 t. Somehow I can't see Boeing designing another service module anytime soon. Maybe LM would try it, though.

Use RTLS liquid boosters instead of the GEMs and they might have a business case and a future.  The GEMs @ 5m each hurt its chances of ever getting cheaper or at least on par with the rest.  When they get RTLS boosters, then the company can then use that starting point for a full reuse system long term which is going to be a requirement by that point to stay fully, non-gov competitive.  My 2 cents.

[Jim]

ULA is currently a launch services firm focused on providing services to USSF and NROL. They are very good at it, except for not yet having a certified rocket. They should focus exclusively on providing these services, perhaps even using other companies' rockets.

that is nonsense

[Jim]

As I said in the other thread, my pet theory is that ULA should start an SSTO project.

not technically feasible for satellite delivery

[edzieba]

With the assumption of ULA being under new ownership:
- Fly out Vulcan's current contracts with Vulcan. Already a profitable enterprise with current contracts (both launch and supplier) with current vehicle.
- Acquire Ursa Major to being engine manufacturing internal
- Possibly attempt to replace solid strap-ons for Vulcan with liquid strap-ons to get some flight experience in, but not as standard (don't mess with existing contracts if not necessary). Could even be recoverable to get experience with rocket body EDL and refurbishment
- Experiment with re-useable upper stage on Vulcan for late life flights, either a recoverable stage or focus on in-orbit services (prop depoting and inter-orbit tugs for large payloads) as a USP
- New vehicle using Ursa Major engines, sized for market demands at the time. Possibly incorporating the previously developed liquid strap-ons to keep new core size down to what they already operate whilst retaining dial-a-rocket capability for larger payloads when needed.

[edkyle99]

But with Starship, New Glenn, MLV, Terran R, Neutron, Nova, etc. all coming online in the next few years ...

I very much doubt that all will succeed.  At any rate, only one of those listed in-development is really in the same payload category as Vulcan - and it already lost out in head-to-head competition for DoD business.

 - Ed Kyle

[Coastal Ron]

Guys.  This company hasn't developed anything substantially new since the day it was formed 20+ years ago.

Yep, under current management.

When forced almost at gun point, they changed isogrid to orthogrid, switched engine supplier, and tinkered with Centaur yet again.  Oh and dusted off a 20-year-old plan for engine pod recovery.

20+ years.

Yep, under current management.

Who do you think is left in that company that is capable of a brand new, revolutionary, from-the-ground-up project?

Oh, I agree, they are sized for building the new Vulcan, and not much else. And that was what current management wanted.

After a full generation passed by, people who stayed and thrived are people that fit what the company was doing.  And also lawyers and lobbyists.

If the reporting is true, then ULA is shedding a lot of people right now, which ironically puts them in a good position for hiring IF they get bought by someone that is perceived to have an interesting plan for the future. And that is still a big IF, because whoever buys ULA knows that ULA is poorly positioned for the future - because of the current management.

The only reason I see to buy ULA is acquire assets that can be useful for moving into the new market the new buyers think they can potentially dominate. And that isn't launching mass to space.

I think that could be in-space reusable transportation systems (i.e. tugs, shuttles, depots, etc.), since SpaceX will be capable of moving a LOT of mass into space for a pretty cheap price, and I think a lot of people, companies, and countries would want to do some experimentation with that capability.

But part of the reason why a sale hasn't happened may be because Boeing & Lockheed Martin have overvalued ULA, and no one wants to over pay. So ULA could end up not being sold, in which case it turns into a zombie company that no one wants to work for. That would be sad.

However if someone buys ULA assets that is perceived to have an exciting plan, then I think they will be able to attract good talent to wring value out of the ULA assets.

[meekGee]

Guys.  This company hasn't developed anything substantially new since the day it was formed 20+ years ago.

Yep, under current management.

When forced almost at gun point, they changed isogrid to orthogrid, switched engine supplier, and tinkered with Centaur yet again.  Oh and dusted off a 20-year-old plan for engine pod recovery.

20+ years.

Yep, under current management.

Who do you think is left in that company that is capable of a brand new, revolutionary, from-the-ground-up project?

Oh, I agree, they are sized for building the new Vulcan, and not much else. And that was what current management wanted.

After a full generation passed by, people who stayed and thrived are people that fit what the company was doing.  And also lawyers and lobbyists.

If the reporting is true, then ULA is shedding a lot of people right now, which ironically puts them in a good position for hiring IF they get bought by someone that is perceived to have an interesting plan for the future. And that is still a big IF, because whoever buys ULA knows that ULA is poorly positioned for the future - because of the current management.

The only reason I see to buy ULA is acquire assets that can be useful for moving into the new market the new buyers think they can potentially dominate. And that isn't launching mass to space.

I think that could be in-space reusable transportation systems (i.e. tugs, shuttles, depots, etc.), since SpaceX will be capable of moving a LOT of mass into space for a pretty cheap price, and I think a lot of people, companies, and countries would want to do some experimentation with that capability.

But part of the reason why a sale hasn't happened may be because Boeing &amp; Lockheed Martin have overvalued ULA, and no one wants to over pay. So ULA could end up not being sold, in which case it turns into a zombie company that no one wants to work for. That would be sad.

However if someone buys ULA assets that is perceived to have an exciting plan, then I think they will be able to attract good talent to wring value out of the ULA assets.

The recent departures are a case of whoever can find a better place, does. The writing is on the wall.  Whoever buys the company, they get those who couldn't/wouldn't/shouldn't leave.

But a long time before that - what development engineer stays at a place that forgoes development?

Anyone that wants to reboot ULA needs to weigh the benefits of getting their assets with the pain of getting their baggage.

It's a simple choice - the assets can be gotten cheaper if you just wait a bit longer.

This is not a new story. Legacy companies running out of steam has been played out many times before.

[deltaV]

But with Starship, New Glenn, MLV, Terran R, Neutron, Nova, etc. all coming online in the next few years ...

I very much doubt that all will succeed.  At any rate, only one of those listed in-development is really in the same payload category as Vulcan - and it already lost out in head-to-head competition for DoD business.

NSSL lane 2 is the key to ULA's future. Terran R, New Glenn, and Starship should be lane 2 capable. Reuse will give ULA's competitors huge advantages in price and reliability that ULA may be able to overcome initially but not indefinitely. If two of the three companies succeed at reuse then ULA would be stuck with third place, and third place may not be enough launches for ULA to survive on.

[JEF_300]

Who do you think is left in that company that is capable of a brand new, revolutionary, from-the-ground-up project?

To suggest that ULA are incapable of revolutionary ideas, on the basis that they didn't try any, ignores all the revolutionary ideas that they had, and told us about, and sometimes even spent real money on, yet didn't try. Like the decades of cryogenic depot studies and advocacy, for example. Or ULA's work with XCOR on a LH2 piston-pump engine. Or DTAL and other cis-lunar studies.

[meekGee]

Who do you think is left in that company that is capable of a brand new, revolutionary, from-the-ground-up project?

To suggest that ULA are incapable of revolutionary ideas, on the basis that they didn't try any, ignores all the revolutionary ideas that they had, and told us about, and sometimes even spent real money on, yet didn't try. Like the decades of cryogenic depot studies and advocacy, for example. Or ULA's work with XCOR on a LH2 piston-pump engine. Or DTAL and other cis-lunar studies.

Heresy, I know.

But any company that doesn't do anything for an extended amount of time, the people who can, they leave.

It's not like the team is sitting there, preserved in statis, until the day management makes a decision to move. Engineering organizations are fragile and prone to erosion. Can't see why ULA would be immune.

I'd dare tou to wait and see, but sadly it'll remain hypothetical - they'll never even try.

[JEF_300]

Who do you think is left in that company that is capable of a brand new, revolutionary, from-the-ground-up project?

To suggest that ULA are incapable of revolutionary ideas, on the basis that they didn't try any, ignores all the revolutionary ideas that they had, and told us about, and sometimes even spent real money on, yet didn't try. Like the decades of cryogenic depot studies and advocacy, for example. Or ULA's work with XCOR on a LH2 piston-pump engine. Or DTAL and other cis-lunar studies.

Heresy, I know.

But any company that doesn't do anything for an extended amount of time, the people who can, they leave.

It's not like the team is sitting there, preserved in statis, until the day management makes a decision to move. Engineering organizations are fragile and prone to erosion. Can't see why ULA would be immune.

I'd dare tou to wait and see, but sadly it'll remain hypothetical - they'll never even try.

Even if we run with the hypothetical that every single engineer in ULA capable of an original thought has left... why couldn't they just stand up a new engineering team, and hire people?
In an era where revolutionary new space companies are founded from nothing like every week, getting together a team of engineers to tackle a problem in a new way is not the hard part, especially with the financial resources / security of being an established company. It's not like training up new hires is something that ULA is unwilling to do; they have that whole ULA University thing going on.

[dglow]

If you need to stand up a new engineering team anyway then why buy? Just go out and hire.

[Coastal Ron]

If the reporting is true, then ULA is shedding a lot of people right now, which ironically puts them in a good position for hiring IF they get bought by someone that is perceived to have an interesting plan for the future. And that is still a big IF, because whoever buys ULA knows that ULA is poorly positioned for the future - because of the current management.
...

The recent departures are a case of whoever can find a better place, does. The writing is on the wall.  Whoever buys the company, they get those who couldn't/wouldn't/shouldn't leave.

But a long time before that - what development engineer stays at a place that forgoes development?

Anyone that wants to reboot ULA needs to weigh the benefits of getting their assets with the pain of getting their baggage.

Well, sure, isn't that always the case when a company is being sold because the owners no longer want the business?

I think you are ignoring though, that the buying company may already have a team in place that does new product development, and that all they need of the current ULA team is to execute on the existing Vulcan product, not develop new products.

They should offer to include current ULA employees a future career path into new products, but otherwise not require rely on that for executing the planned reason for buying ULA.

It's a simple choice - the assets can be gotten cheaper if you just wait a bit longer.

This is not a new story. Legacy companies running out of steam has been played out many times before.

Agreed, and it appears that ULA is losing value every day as it is due to the lack of ULA's parents to make a deal that a buyer would accept. That is on ULA's parents, not the potential buyers, and ULA's parents are (apparently) not doing enough to keep the value of ULA from dropping due to employee exodus.

[meekGee]

Who do you think is left in that company that is capable of a brand new, revolutionary, from-the-ground-up project?

To suggest that ULA are incapable of revolutionary ideas, on the basis that they didn't try any, ignores all the revolutionary ideas that they had, and told us about, and sometimes even spent real money on, yet didn't try. Like the decades of cryogenic depot studies and advocacy, for example. Or ULA's work with XCOR on a LH2 piston-pump engine. Or DTAL and other cis-lunar studies.

Heresy, I know.

But any company that doesn't do anything for an extended amount of time, the people who can, they leave.

It's not like the team is sitting there, preserved in statis, until the day management makes a decision to move. Engineering organizations are fragile and prone to erosion. Can't see why ULA would be immune.

I'd dare tou to wait and see, but sadly it'll remain hypothetical - they'll never even try.

Even if we run with the hypothetical that every single engineer in ULA capable of an original thought has left... why couldn't they just stand up a new engineering team, and hire people?
In an era where revolutionary new space companies are founded from nothing like every week, getting together a team of engineers to tackle a problem in a new way is not the hard part, especially with the financial resources / security of being an established company. It's not like training up new hires is something that ULA is unwilling to do; they have that whole ULA University thing going on.

You don't have to radicalize what I said.   I said engineering teams will erode and lose core competency.  I didn't say every single good engineer left.   But it takes a village, not a few capable people.

As for rebooting, it's a lot more complicated than just going out and hiring new people.

You carry a lot of organizational baggage, and team building is difficult under these conditions.  The obvious question for anyone wanting to reboot is "why".   Why not start from scratch, and pick off those individuals that you want.

If I were an investor that wanted to get into the space business, I'd put my money in a new venture, and keep an eye out for whatever pieces of ULA might be had for cheap, or those employees that I think I want to get.

[Reynold]

I said engineering teams will erode and lose core competency.  I didn't say every single good engineer left.   But it takes a village, not a few capable people.

Right, and good engineers tend to find it frustrating to work with bad or lazy ones, so may be even more prone to leave or just slow roll their way to retirement. 

The problem with the proposals to build dramatically different things (deep space transport, SBSP, etc.) is that ULA has a culture and financial structure where they aren't going to do something unless someone is paying them to do it, or at the very least are promising substantial orders.  That follows from both their parents, who operate the same way in the space business.  To the best of my knowledge, ULA probably is not earning enough profit per year these days for a big long term direction change either, they will not be able to do really lean development like a SpaceX or Rocketlab.  In addition, I would be really surprised if ULA has enough cash sitting around to have large engineering teams working for years on more long range projects, because their parent companies will have stripped it out each year.   

I worked in a company in a completely different industry that was owned by another company that stripped excess cash out as was earned, and you are always one bad year from going under, and certainly don't have the reserves to bet big on something with uncertain payoff. 

So what ULA should do is get out from under that, and Bruno needs to convince his owners that ULA is only worth what the highest bidder is offering.  While I like the IPO idea, my bet is that if they earn, say, $4B that way, the two owners will split it up and leave ULA with crumbs for any kind of new development, and public companies notoriously struggle with doing expensive long term projects rather than returning money to shareholders. 

[edkyle99]

This company so many seem to lament, United Launch Alliance, just successfully (very successfully) debuted a brand new, highly capable launch vehicle.  One able to handle the full range of NSSF missions, small to giant, LEO to deep space.  Not an easy thing.  ULA did this while flying out, successfully, Delta 2, Delta 4M, Delta 4 Heavy, and, soon, Atlas 5, carrying numerous landmark payloads.  Without failure for two decades.  Also not easy.  The company did it while retiring much infrastructure (and people) from those programs, but still flying from its active Atlas pad with the new rocket -  the pad, by the way, that it also converted to support human launches.  And a rebuilt Atlas pad soon to open at Vandenberg. 

Seems pretty nimble to me, and evidence of solid people top to bottom.

 - Ed Kyle

[Coastal Ron]

This company so many seem to lament, United Launch Alliance, just successfully (very successfully) debuted a brand new, highly capable launch vehicle.  One able to handle the full range of NSSF missions, small to giant, LEO to deep space.  Not an easy thing.

No, not easy, however how many years late they are in getting Vulcan operational.

And it doesn't matter if you execute a poor plan in a great way, the outcome is still a poor plan. And that is the situation with Vulcan, caused by ULA's parents, in that it is a expendable launcher in a semi-usable launcher world - and ULA's competitors are getting closer to full reusability.

My criticism of ULA has always been with ULA's parents, and unfortunately the plan that ULA's parents have ULA executing is really the wrong plan - ULA's employees can't do anything about that, which may be why ULA is losing so many people. That they recognize that ULA has been forced to execute the wrong plan.

And the wrong plan may be why it is so hard to find a buyer for ULA, because Vulcan is poorly positioned beyond the immediate future. Who wants to buy a company with such a short usable horizon?

I think ULA could be a valuable asset to be bought, but not because of Vulcan. Vulcan just provides revenue in the short term, but only the short term. Whoever buys ULA has to have a completely different set of goals for the long term.

[meekGee]

This company so many seem to lament, United Launch Alliance, just successfully (very successfully) debuted a brand new, highly capable launch vehicle.  One able to handle the full range of NSSF missions, small to giant, LEO to deep space.  Not an easy thing.  ULA did this while flying out, successfully, Delta 2, Delta 4M, Delta 4 Heavy, and, soon, Atlas 5, carrying numerous landmark payloads.  Without failure for two decades.  Also not easy.  The company did it while retiring much infrastructure (and people) from those programs, but still flying from its active Atlas pad with the new rocket -  the pad, by the way, that it also converted to support human launches.  And a rebuilt Atlas pad soon to open at Vandenberg. 

Seems pretty nimble to me, and evidence of solid people top to bottom.

 - Ed Kyle

In comparison with what others are doing, Vulcan is such a tiny step away from Atlas.

Basically Atlas 6.

So nimble, that they stuck with 2 liquid engines and dial-a-solid, milled Al alloy tanks, an upgraded version of the upper stage, and expendable operations with maybe some prospect of engine recovery one day.

And this was after being forced by Congress to change the main engine.

Basically nothing new.  If that's "nimble", I'm dying to see "sluggish".

They had every opportunity to respond ("they" includes the board) but they had zero ability to build something like what the nemesis is building. No ability to change or to even comprehend change.

 

[Athelstane]

This company so many seem to lament, United Launch Alliance, just successfully (very successfully) debuted a brand new, highly capable launch vehicle.  One able to handle the full range of NSSF missions, small to giant, LEO to deep space.  Not an easy thing.

No, not easy, however how many years late they are in getting Vulcan operational.

And it doesn't matter if you execute a poor plan in a great way, the outcome is still a poor plan. And that is the situation with Vulcan, caused by ULA's parents, in that it is a expendable launcher in a semi-usable launcher world - and ULA's competitors are getting closer to full reusability.

My criticism of ULA has always been with ULA's parents, and unfortunately the plan that ULA's parents have ULA executing is really the wrong plan - ULA's employees can't do anything about that, which may be why ULA is losing so many people. That they recognize that ULA has been forced to execute the wrong plan.

And the wrong plan may be why it is so hard to find a buyer for ULA, because Vulcan is poorly positioned beyond the immediate future. Who wants to buy a company with such a short usable horizon?

I think ULA could be a valuable asset to be bought, but not because of Vulcan. Vulcan just provides revenue in the short term, but only the short term. Whoever buys ULA has to have a completely different set of goals for the long term.

I have a soft spot for Tory Bruno, but I can't disagree with a word of this.

Vulcan, notwithstanding that it's 4 years late, should be a reliable EELV that has bought ULA another five year's lease on life. But that's only because the Defense Department and Amazon absolutely insist on having access to a launch vehicle without "SPACEX" stamped on the side, regardless of cost. But what happens when there are other partially and fully reusable rockets without "SPACEX" stamped on the side for Vulcan to compete with?

[edkyle99]

In comparison with what others are doing, Vulcan is such a tiny step away from Atlas.

Basically Atlas 6.

So nimble, that they stuck with 2 liquid engines and dial-a-solid, milled Al alloy tanks, an upgraded version of the upper stage, and expendable operations with maybe some prospect of engine recovery one day.

And this was after being forced by Congress to change the main engine.

Basically nothing new.  If that's "nimble", I'm dying to see "sluggish".

They had every opportunity to respond ("they" includes the board) but they had zero ability to build something like what the nemesis is building. No ability to change or to even comprehend change.

By "others" you mean one company, and even that one must expend cores for the heaviest missions that Vulcan can haul.  The world's other new launch vehicles (Ariane 6, CZ-6C, H-3, etc. - I count 11 of them during the past two years alone) are expendable. 

Vulcan uses new first stage engines and propellant and tanks.  Centaur 5 is much larger than the old 10 foot diameter Centaur.  The boosters are big upgrades.  Etc.  Atlas 5 could boost up to 8.9 tonnes to GTO.  Vulcan VC6 is listed at 14.4 tonnes.

 - Ed Kyle

[darkenfast]

In comparison with what others are doing, Vulcan is such a tiny step away from Atlas.

Basically Atlas 6.

So nimble, that they stuck with 2 liquid engines and dial-a-solid, milled Al alloy tanks, an upgraded version of the upper stage, and expendable operations with maybe some prospect of engine recovery one day.

And this was after being forced by Congress to change the main engine.

Basically nothing new.  If that's "nimble", I'm dying to see "sluggish".

They had every opportunity to respond ("they" includes the board) but they had zero ability to build something like what the nemesis is building. No ability to change or to even comprehend change.

By "others" you mean one company, and even that one must expend cores for the heaviest missions that Vulcan can haul.  The world's other new launch vehicles (Ariane 6, CZ-6C, H-3, etc. - I count 11 of them during the past two years alone) are expendable. 

Vulcan uses new first stage engines and propellant and tanks.  Centaur 5 is much larger than the old 10 foot diameter Centaur.  The boosters are big upgrades.  Etc.  Atlas 5 could boost up to 8.9 tonnes to GTO.  Vulcan VC6 is listed at 14.4 tonnes.

 - Ed Kyle

I think most here would agree that Bruno and the staff at ULA have done a pretty good job with the situation handed them by the owners of the company. But that does not change the fact that the current crop of new rockets (excluding New Glenn, if it works), are aiming where SpaceX has been, or is now. SpaceX is a moving target. If you want to succeed in an industry increasingly dominated by SpaceX, you are going to have to predict where SpaceX will be in a few years and beat them there. Inventing a new brand of horse-drawn buggy in the era of the Model T won't cut it.

[meekGee]

In comparison with what others are doing, Vulcan is such a tiny step away from Atlas.

Basically Atlas 6.

So nimble, that they stuck with 2 liquid engines and dial-a-solid, milled Al alloy tanks, an upgraded version of the upper stage, and expendable operations with maybe some prospect of engine recovery one day.

And this was after being forced by Congress to change the main engine.

Basically nothing new.  If that's "nimble", I'm dying to see "sluggish".

They had every opportunity to respond ("they" includes the board) but they had zero ability to build something like what the nemesis is building. No ability to change or to even comprehend change.

By "others" you mean one company, and even that one must expend cores for the heaviest missions that Vulcan can haul.  The world's other new launch vehicles (Ariane 6, CZ-6C, H-3, etc. - I count 11 of them during the past two years alone) are expendable. 

Vulcan uses new first stage engines and propellant and tanks.  Centaur 5 is much larger than the old 10 foot diameter Centaur.  The boosters are big upgrades.  Etc.  Atlas 5 could boost up to 8.9 tonnes to GTO.  Vulcan VC6 is listed at 14.4 tonnes.

 - Ed Kyle

By "others" I mean at least two just in the US (SpaceX and BO) plus others that are looking at new technologies (e.g. Stoke) and some that are at least trying (RL).

ULA is right now in the company of Ariane Space and Soyuz, running out the clock.

ULA basically gave up trying.  It never really got started actually - it was coasting from day one.

And if anyone has fantasies that if ULA was only "unburdened from the parents", the duckling will suddenly swan - there isn't anything in it that will make it change its ways.  ULA was born of, staffed from, and is behaving like the parents. Why would it be any different?  Look how much disdain they showed when someone tried to do things differently.


As for Vulcan, as has been repeatedly told to you upthread:
- For high energy, FH can fly a profile where it forward-recovers both side boosters.
- Just the GEMs cost as much as a SpaceX expended core.
- A falcon expended core can be one that flew multiple times, so is a fraction of its one-time cost.
- There is no profile where Vulcan has any advantage over Falcon, and that's before we start talking about possible flight rates etc.

It's not even close.

[TrevorMonty]

In comparison with what others are doing, Vulcan is such a tiny step away from Atlas.

Basically Atlas 6.

So nimble, that they stuck with 2 liquid engines and dial-a-solid, milled Al alloy tanks, an upgraded version of the upper stage, and expendable operations with maybe some prospect of engine recovery one day.

And this was after being forced by Congress to change the main engine.

Basically nothing new.  If that's "nimble", I'm dying to see "sluggish".

They had every opportunity to respond ("they" includes the board) but they had zero ability to build something like what the nemesis is building. No ability to change or to even comprehend change.

By "others" you mean one company, and even that one must expend cores for the heaviest missions that Vulcan can haul.  The world's other new launch vehicles (Ariane 6, CZ-6C, H-3, etc. - I count 11 of them during the past two years alone) are expendable. 

Vulcan uses new first stage engines and propellant and tanks.  Centaur 5 is much larger than the old 10 foot diameter Centaur.  The boosters are big upgrades.  Etc.  Atlas 5 could boost up to 8.9 tonnes to GTO.  Vulcan VC6 is listed at 14.4 tonnes.

 - Ed Kyle

By "others" I mean at least two just in the US (SpaceX and BO) plus others that are looking at new technologies (e.g. Stoke) and some that are at least trying (RL).

ULA is right now in the company of Ariane Space and Soyuz, running out the clock.

ULA basically gave up trying.  It never really got started actually - it was coasting from day one.

And if anyone has fantasies that if ULA was only "unburdened from the parents", the duckling will suddenly swan - there isn't anything in it that will make it change its ways.  ULA was born of, staffed from, and is behaving like the parents. Why would it be any different?  Look how much disdain they showed when someone tried to do things differently.


As for Vulcan, as has been repeatedly told to you upthread:
- For high energy, FH can fly a profile where it forward-recovers both side boosters.
- Just the GEMs cost as much as a SpaceX expended core.
- A falcon expended core can be one that flew multiple times, so is a fraction of its one-time cost.
- There is no profile where Vulcan has any advantage over Falcon, and that's before we start talking about possible flight rates etc.

It's not even close.

Your post has nothing to do with this thread. Next time read title and first post.

[Athelstane]

By "others" you mean one company, and even that one must expend cores for the heaviest missions that Vulcan can haul.  The world's other new launch vehicles (Ariane 6, CZ-6C, H-3, etc. - I count 11 of them during the past two years alone) are expendable. 

Vulcan uses new first stage engines and propellant and tanks.  Centaur 5 is much larger than the old 10 foot diameter Centaur.  The boosters are big upgrades.  Etc.  Atlas 5 could boost up to 8.9 tonnes to GTO.  Vulcan VC6 is listed at 14.4 tonnes.

 - Ed Kyle

1. I think the point some of us are trying to make is that the danger to ULA is not so much what is flying right now, but what is going to start flying over the next five years. With the possible exception of the Antares 300 - which so far as we know is only intended by NG for launching Cygnus resupply missions - every medium or heavy lift rocket in development in the U.S. is aiming at at least partial reusability. Up to four of them are looking hard into full reusability, at least in later iterations. And every one will be more vertically integrated in its supply chain than Vulcan.

Not every one of them is likely to succeed. But it may well be the case that only one of them needs to, in order to displace Vulcan from its inside track on NSSL launches when the time comes. And ULA's business case very much depends on having that inside track.

2. Vulcan is definitely a significant step forward for ULA. It's clearly a more capable launch vehicle than either Atlas V or Delta IV, and should save ULA a good deal of money, not least because it is replacing two independent launch vehicle families, each with its own manufacturing lines and launch facilities! But it clearly has major engineering heritage from the Atlas line. Honestly, Vulcan has more in common with the final iteration of Atlas V than Atlas V had in common with Atlas II, let alone earlier Atlas iterations. ULA chose to select a new name for the rocket largely as a PR move, even to the point of holding a naming contest for it (Tory loves to talk about that, from time to time). They are allowed to call their rocket whatever they want, of course; but they would have been well within their rights and at least well within talking distance of the engineering reality, to call it the Atlas VI instead.

[Coastal Ron]

By "others" you mean one company, and even that one must expend cores for the heaviest missions that Vulcan can haul.
...

By "others" I mean at least two just in the US (SpaceX and BO) plus others that are looking at new technologies (e.g. Stoke) and some that are at least trying (RL).

ULA is right now in the company of Ariane Space and Soyuz, running out the clock.

ULA basically gave up trying.  It never really got started actually - it was coasting from day one.
...
It's not even close.

Your post has nothing to do with this thread. Next time read title and first post.

Actually, it does. This thread is about ULA's long term plans, and as of today there are no announced "long term plans" beyond the new, expendable, Vulcan launcher.

When compared to the market Vulcan has to compete in, and the future launchers already announced that an expendable Vulcan will have to compete against, it is clear that ULA as currently constituted, is not well positioned for the future.

That could be why no buyer has been found yet for ULA, because as currently constituted, it isn't worth much.

So pointing out that ULA has no long term plans is very relevant to this thread, because that means only someone that buys ULA can give ULA a new direction that could allow it to survive long term.

[TrevorMonty]

By "others" you mean one company, and even that one must expend cores for the heaviest missions that Vulcan can haul.
...

By "others" I mean at least two just in the US (SpaceX and BO) plus others that are looking at new technologies (e.g. Stoke) and some that are at least trying (RL).

ULA is right now in the company of Ariane Space and Soyuz, running out the clock.

ULA basically gave up trying.  It never really got started actually - it was coasting from day one.
...
It's not even close.

Your post has nothing to do with this thread. Next time read title and first post.

Actually, it does. This thread is about ULA's long term plans, and as of today there are no announced "long term plans" beyond the new, expendable, Vulcan launcher.

When compared to the market Vulcan has to compete in, and the future launchers already announced that an expendable Vulcan will have to compete against, it is clear that ULA as currently constituted, is not well positioned for the future.

That could be why no buyer has been found yet for ULA, because as currently constituted, it isn't worth much.

So pointing out that ULA has no long term plans is very relevant to this thread, because that means only someone that buys ULA can give ULA a new direction that could allow it to survive long term.

This is post #1.
"We started having some discussion in the ULA sale thread about what the long term plans for ULA should be. This is a dedicated thread for that.

In the short-to-mid term, Vulcan is ready and has a strong manifest. But with Starship, New Glenn, MLV, Terran R, Neutron, Nova, etc. all coming online in the next few years, it seems increasingly unlikely that Vulcan will be able to remain competitive and keep adding to it's manifest, making it's long term prospect uncertain.

So what do you think ULA should do about that?
"

 Thread is not what ULA long term plans are but what we think they should be. If you what post about what current state of affairs use ULA Discussion thread.

[dglow]

Thread is not what ULA long term plans are but what we think they should be. If you what post about what current state of affairs use ULA Discussion thread.

Gosh, isn't it kinda silly to plot a course without any reflection on where you are and how you got there?

[hplan]

By "others" you mean one company, and even that one must expend cores for the heaviest missions that Vulcan can haul.
...

By "others" I mean at least two just in the US (SpaceX and BO) plus others that are looking at new technologies (e.g. Stoke) and some that are at least trying (RL).

ULA is right now in the company of Ariane Space and Soyuz, running out the clock.

ULA basically gave up trying.  It never really got started actually - it was coasting from day one.
...
It's not even close.

Your post has nothing to do with this thread. Next time read title and first post.

Actually, it does. This thread is about ULA's long term plans, and as of today there are no announced "long term plans" beyond the new, expendable, Vulcan launcher.

When compared to the market Vulcan has to compete in, and the future launchers already announced that an expendable Vulcan will have to compete against, it is clear that ULA as currently constituted, is not well positioned for the future.

That could be why no buyer has been found yet for ULA, because as currently constituted, it isn't worth much.

So pointing out that ULA has no long term plans is very relevant to this thread, because that means only someone that buys ULA can give ULA a new direction that could allow it to survive long term.

This is post #1.
"We started having some discussion in the ULA sale thread about what the long term plans for ULA should be. This is a dedicated thread for that.

In the short-to-mid term, Vulcan is ready and has a strong manifest. But with Starship, New Glenn, MLV, Terran R, Neutron, Nova, etc. all coming online in the next few years, it seems increasingly unlikely that Vulcan will be able to remain competitive and keep adding to it's manifest, making it's long term prospect uncertain.

So what do you think ULA should do about that?
"

 Thread is not what ULA long term plans are but what we think they should be. If you what post about what current state of affairs use ULA Discussion thread.

I would argue that ULA should do exactly what it is doing -- get the maximum value out of what it currently offers, exploit its niche to the max. Understand that that won't be possible forever, maybe only 5-10 years.

Yes, space launch will eventually be dominated by reusable launchers, but it may be better to launch one of those in a different, new company. There's no reason it has to be under the "ULA" banner. In fact, developing a new, reusable rocket at ULA would likely get in the way of maximizing Vulcan profits.

ULA's behavior is entirely rational and probably the best way to maximize shareholder value, even though it means ULA will not last forever.

The fact that the ULA owners have been trying to sell the company is consistent with trying to get max value out of it and not thinking about long-term growth.

[deltaV]

as of today there are no announced "long term plans" beyond the new, expendable, Vulcan launcher.

Vulcan has announced plans for SMART reuse so it's not fair to say that ULA has only expendable plans. I'm not saying SMART will be enough for Vulcan to compete, just that it's not nothing.

[meekGee]

as of today there are no announced "long term plans" beyond the new, expendable, Vulcan launcher.

Vulcan has announced plans for SMART reuse so it's not fair to say that ULA has only expendable plans. I'm not saying SMART will be enough for Vulcan to compete, just that it's not nothing.

SMART is just lip service to reusability. In the grand scheme of things, compared to reusable boosters or entire rockets, it offers practically nothing.

And this is assuming they'll even ever do it.

If NG succeeds, they'll realize the investment is split over too few launches, and won't even bother.

[Coastal Ron]

I would argue that ULA should do exactly what it is doing -- get the maximum value out of what it currently offers, exploit its niche to the max.

It is important to remember that when we talk about ULA, we aren't talking about ULA as the business owner, because ULA is owned by Boeing and Lockheed Martin. ULA is just a joint venture, with employees doing what the joint venture owners want done.

Understand that that won't be possible forever, maybe only 5-10 years.

Which may be why ULA is not very attractive for buying, because it only has short term value, and likely long term liability.

Yes, space launch will eventually be dominated by reusable launchers...

No, not eventually, TODAY! SpaceX TODAY launches around 90% of all mass going to space. And ULA only has a relatively expensive expendable launcher to compete with.

...but it may be better to launch one of those in a different, new company.

As I've stated before, I think it makes no sense for someone to buy ULA, with the intent to have ULA try to compete with SpaceX and everyone else in the semi-reusable and reusable launch market. ULA has ZERO specialties to offer a company that wants to buy them, with regards to building reusable launch systems. ZERO.

I have been advocating that whoever buys ULA will do so in order to leverage ULA's existing capabilities for a new market, specifically space-only transportation systems. However the market for this is still very early, so it would have to be someone that can take the time to build it out.

ULA's behavior is entirely rational and probably the best way to maximize shareholder value, even though it means ULA will not last forever.

You are conflating things again. ULA's employees don't make the strategic decision about what ULA does, ULA's two parents do.

The fact that the ULA owners have been trying to sell the company is consistent with trying to get max value out of it and not thinking about long-term growth.

Many of us knew years ago that ULA's parents would likely sell ULA, because ULA's parents would not allow ULA to build any form of reusability into the initial Vulcan design. That decision meant that ULA would not be competitive once Blue Origin got New Glenn operational and started competing for USAF payloads, which would shrink the amount of potential launches for ULA below what it would need to be a viable concern.

Vulcan has a very limited lifespan ahead of it today, and if someone wants to buy ULA it won't be because of the long term prospects for Vulcan, but because of other assets ULA has that can be leveraged into a new product or service in the near future.

But the lack of anyone stepping forward to buy ULA may mean that ULA no longer has enough value left to leverage for a future new product or service, in which case the only question will be how long it will take for ULA to wither and die... 

[sdsds]

[...] This thread is about ULA's long term plans, and as of today there are no announced "long term plans" beyond the new, expendable, Vulcan launcher. [...]

In the past they had a "Cislunar-1000" vision, supporting 1,000 people living and working in Earth-moon space.
https://www.space.com/33297-satellite-refueling-business-proposal-ula.html

Is there hard evidence, or only speculation, that they've backed away from that?

[deltaV]

In the past they had a "Cislunar-1000" vision, supporting 1,000 people living and working in Earth-moon space.
https://www.space.com/33297-satellite-refueling-business-proposal-ula.html

Is there hard evidence, or only speculation, that they've backed away from that?

AFAICT that vision has not changed ULA's actions in any non-trivial way. In particular that vision involved using ACES and ULA canceled ACES. A vision without action is irrelevant regardless of whether someone continues to believe in it.

[Eric Hedman]

[...] This thread is about ULA's long term plans, and as of today there are no announced "long term plans" beyond the new, expendable, Vulcan launcher. [...]

In the past they had a "Cislunar-1000" vision, supporting 1,000 people living and working in Earth-moon space.
https://www.space.com/33297-satellite-refueling-business-proposal-ula.html

Is there hard evidence, or only speculation, that they've backed away from that?

I don't think there is any evidence that this ever went beyond the PowerPoint stage.

[edzieba]

as of today there are no announced "long term plans" beyond the new, expendable, Vulcan launcher.

Vulcan has announced plans for SMART reuse so it's not fair to say that ULA has only expendable plans. I'm not saying SMART will be enough for Vulcan to compete, just that it's not nothing.

SMART is just lip service to reusability. In the grand scheme of things, compared to reusable boosters or entire rockets, it offers practically nothing.

It offers real-world experience with deployable inflatable decelerators in operational use, and gets you some engines back both to save the cost of buying new engines and breaks the link to supplier build rate constraining your flight rate. If you then want to apply those decelerators to upper stages, other spacecraft, etc, then the company with years of experience building and using them will have a leg-up on the competition.

Starship is a way to recover a stage, but is by no mean the only way or even the best way.

[...] This thread is about ULA's long term plans, and as of today there are no announced "long term plans" beyond the new, expendable, Vulcan launcher. [...]

In the past they had a "Cislunar-1000" vision, supporting 1,000 people living and working in Earth-moon space.
https://www.space.com/33297-satellite-refueling-business-proposal-ula.html

Is there hard evidence, or only speculation, that they've backed away from that?

I don't think there is any evidence that this ever went beyond the PowerPoint stage.

They still have the standing order to buy water or LOX/LH2 in orbit at $3k/kg.

[Coastal Ron]

SMART is just lip service to reusability. In the grand scheme of things, compared to reusable boosters or entire rockets, it offers practically nothing.

It offers real-world experience with deployable inflatable decelerators in operational use...

You seem to think that is important as an alternative to NOT using inflatable (and likely expendable) decelerators. Why? At best it seems to be a backup in case full reusability doesn't work, but we know that full reusability for Falcon 9 boosters works, so why care about lesser alternatives.

The "no part is the best part" meme can be overused, but in the case of Falcon 9 boosters and Starship booster and ship, using the same engines and tankage to return to Earth as you use to leave Earth has a lot of advantages. And the reliability of those systems is likely higher due to not having to reassemble the engines after every flight (i.e. like SMART).

...and gets you some engines back both to save the cost of buying new engines and breaks the link to supplier build rate constraining your flight rate.

SpaceX didn't perfect reusability because they couldn't build enough engines, they perfected reusability so that they could lower the overall cost of launch - and we have no idea whether SMART will actually save money overall, OR significantly lower the cost of launching Vulcan. And if ULA can't significantly lower the cost of Vulcan, they won't be able to compete outside the shrinking USAF market.

If you then want to apply those decelerators to upper stages, other spacecraft, etc, then the company with years of experience building and using them will have a leg-up on the competition.

I get it, it is fun to imagine engineering challenges, and think that having clever solutions matters. However the reality is that only money matters for customers (assuming safety is a given), and Vulcan with or without SMART is not competitive in a world that will soon have a fully reusable space transportation system - that doesn't need inflatable decelerators.

ULA has no experience building rocket engines, but ULA can build structures and do integration, and they have lots of experience and capabilities for operations. What can be done with those sets of capabilities to create a new market, one that isn't related to launch?

[deltaV]

They still have the standing order to buy water or LOX/LH2 in orbit at $3k/kg.

ACES was canceled in ~2019 so ULA doesn't need to fill ACES any more. Therefore that standing order from 2016-2017 (https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/880175583908446208) was probably canceled years ago. Do you have a recent source? Also even if ULA still wants to buy the price is probably lower now due to Starship and New Glenn.

[edzieba]

SMART is just lip service to reusability. In the grand scheme of things, compared to reusable boosters or entire rockets, it offers practically nothing.

It offers real-world experience with deployable inflatable decelerators in operational use...

You seem to think that is important as an alternative to NOT using inflatable (and likely expendable) decelerators. Why?

Because it decouples vehicle design from decelerator design.

SpaceX didn't perfect reusability because they couldn't build enough engines, they perfected reusability so that they could lower the overall cost of launch - and we have no idea whether SMART will actually save money overall, OR significantly lower the cost of launching Vulcan. And if ULA can't significantly lower the cost of Vulcan, they won't be able to compete outside the shrinking USAF market.

SpaceX aren't building ULA's engines.

Vulcan is currently cost-competitive with Falcon 9 in a large enough portion of the market to remain a going concern - as an expendable vehicle. Reusing even just the engines is a cost saving, as well as a time saving (not needing to wait for a supplier to deliver).

I get it, it is fun to imagine engineering challenges, and think that having clever solutions matters. However the reality is that only money matters for customers (assuming safety is a given), and Vulcan with or without SMART is not competitive in a world that will soon have a fully reusable space transportation system - that doesn't need inflatable decelerators.

As mentioned above, Vulcan has been competitive enough to win enough launches to work, even fully expendable. If Vulcan were not profitable, ULA's parents would not be funding its development.

As for inflatable decelerator utility: if this were a high TRL technology today, the kerfuffle over MSR and its mass limitations from limited rigid aeroshell size would not have occurred. It's not just a 'fun engineering challenge', this is a technology that already has demand.

[sstli2]

No, not eventually, TODAY! SpaceX TODAY launches around 90% of all mass going to space. And ULA only has a relatively expensive expendable launcher to compete with.

It is way more relevant to ULA as to what percentage of revenue for third-party customer launches is controlled by a particular entity or launch vehicle. Starlink is an internal revenue source that ULA has no ability to tap into. Further, I would not characterize this by mass or number of launches, but by revenue, as that is what really matters to a company like ULA.

I don't have hard numbers, but naturally you would expect high-dollar GEO launches from military and the like, as well as deep space class A NASA missions, to be where a lot of the revenue is concentrated.

And therefore ULA's current GEO niche is probably quite defensible as long as no one can do GEO more cost-effectively, which remains to be seen. I certainly would posit that Falcon Heavy and a 2-stage New Glenn doesn't differentiate themselves there, and it remains to be seen with Starship and a 3-stage New Glenn.

Ultimately all of this discussion about where ULA is going needs to be colored by the fact that they are capital constrained and will remain capital constrained even if Sierra buys them. Any talk of SSTOs, Starship competitors, etc. should be reigned in as thoroughly implausible.

[Coastal Ron]

SpaceX didn't perfect reusability because they couldn't build enough engines, they perfected reusability so that they could lower the overall cost of launch - and we have no idea whether SMART will actually save money overall, OR significantly lower the cost of launching Vulcan. And if ULA can't significantly lower the cost of Vulcan, they won't be able to compete outside the shrinking USAF market.

...
Vulcan is currently cost-competitive with Falcon 9 in a large enough portion of the market to remain a going concern - as an expendable vehicle.

For the short term, sure, for a very limited market that includes entities that want an alternative to SpaceX, or have mandated competition (USAF NSSL). But that market is not growing...

Reusing even just the engines is a cost saving, as well as a time saving (not needing to wait for a supplier to deliver).

SMART is an untested theory regarding both recovery and cost savings. As for engine supplies, I'm not sure why you are obsessing over engine delivery time (which I think is a non-issue), but ignoring engine refurbishment time.

...
If Vulcan were not profitable, ULA's parents would not be funding its development.

You do realize that ULA had no choice but to build a new launcher? ULA announced the Vulcan program in 2014, and at that time SpaceX was attempting to recover Falcon 9 boosters, but hadn't succeeded yet. So ULA's parents were still thinking they could continue the same ole, same ole regarding USAF and USG launch business.

But the lack of any ULA buyers after about a year being on the market is a sign that ULA is not perceived as being a valuable asset, which would be mainly due to Vulcan. And Vulcan is not enough to build a future business on.

Which is why I think if anyone buys ULA, it won't be because they want to operate Vulcan very long. That they will want ULA for a different future market.

[Coastal Ron]

No, not eventually, TODAY! SpaceX TODAY launches around 90% of all mass going to space. And ULA only has a relatively expensive expendable launcher to compete with.

...
Further, I would not characterize this by mass or number of launches, but by revenue, as that is what really matters to a company like ULA.

I don't have hard numbers, but naturally you would expect high-dollar GEO launches from military and the like, as well as deep space class A NASA missions, to be where a lot of the revenue is concentrated.

And therefore ULA's current GEO niche is probably quite defensible as long as no one can do GEO more cost-effectively, which remains to be seen.

Vulcan can lift 15.3mT to GTO, and Falcon Heavy can lift 26.7mT to GTO, in the same inclination. These are max figures, and would represent maximum level prices too, but for Falcon Heavy SpaceX can use boosters that have already flown previously, and then expend them for a max-load Falcon Heavy flight. Vulcan uses new equipment for each launch.

So just competing against Falcon 9/H, Vulcan is never the low cost choice.

And for U.S. Government launches, the basic launch costs are pre-negotiated so that the launch company should yield "X" amount of profit, with the profit % being the same for every launch company. So that is not an advantage for ULA, not if they are trying to match SpaceX on overall launch cost.

And remember SpaceX plans to retire Falcon 9/H once Starship is operational, and SpaceX is doing that because Starship should be significantly lower cost for customers vs Falcon 9/H. So that would make Vulcan an even harder choice for potential customers.

Ultimately all of this discussion about where ULA is going needs to be colored by the fact that they are capital constrained and will remain capital constrained even if Sierra buys them. Any talk of SSTOs, Starship competitors, etc. should be reigned in as thoroughly implausible.

ULA has always had access to the resources of its two parents, but the goals of the two parents were to milk as much money out of ULA as they could. Now they are trying to sell an entity that is poorly positioned for the future, so no one should be surprised that they are having trouble unloading ULA.

As to what someone could ULA for, I have always advocated that whoever buys ULA won't do it to stay in the launch business, because ULA is poorly positioned for that. My hope/guess would be to try to capture the in-space transportation market, but that is not yet very big, and could take significant capital. ULA's parents could have pursued that, but they don't really care about taking risks for new markets...

[sstli2]

Vulcan can lift 15.3mT to GTO, and Falcon Heavy can lift 26.7mT to GTO, in the same inclination. These are max figures, and would represent maximum level prices too, but for Falcon Heavy SpaceX can use boosters that have already flown previously, and then expend them for a max-load Falcon Heavy flight. Vulcan uses new equipment for each launch.

When people who launch to GEO buy a launch vehicle, they pay for the whole vehicle. They don't pay for a kg at a time. The customer's 5-10 ton satellite is indifferent to whether the vehicle could support 15 or 25 tons.

So just competing against Falcon 9/H, Vulcan is never the low cost choice.

I'm not sure if any definitive numbers have ever come out, but I can say that ULA is factually cheaper for NSSL Phase 2 flights than SpaceX (part of that is infra costs, but it's not clear how much). I have not seen any factual, non-speculative evidence that Vulcan is not cost-competitive in GEO.

As to what someone could ULA for, I have always advocated that whoever buys ULA won't do it to stay in the launch business, because ULA is poorly positioned for that. My hope/guess would be to try to capture the in-space transportation market, but that is not yet very big, and could take significant capital. ULA's parents could have pursued that, but they don't really care about taking risks for new markets...

What in-space transportation market? To reiterate my earlier point about being capital-constrained, there are only two types of entities that can pursue exploratory development for emerging market sectors - companies backed by billionaires, and big prime aerospace contractors. The latter has no desire to because there's no perceived ROI in it. So unless Mark Zuckerberg is planning on buying ULA, I'm not counting on it.

The crux of my post is two-fold:
- It does not make sense for ULA to undertake any massive pivots at this point in time, as their current strategy will be sustainable for the rest of the decade, and the shape of the market to come is not yet clear. Once a clear business case appears is when they should then think about their next move. I'm not convinced they should sell the farm on LEO-mania with a crowded field in the works and Kuiper as the only customer. I'm also not convinced they should sell the farm on some Moon or Mars fiction.
- There is no realistic transaction that could happen that would enable them to pivot anyway. Their primary value right now is what they have always been doing - high-energy orbital missions.

[sdsds]

I assume potential ULA buyers are at this point waiting for the NSSL Phase 3 Lane 2 Launch Service Procurement announcement "later this Fall." Or did that already happen? And is there any clue about what might come after Phase 3?

[TrevorMonty]

Don't know why people are rubbishing SMART yet think fishing F9 fairings out of sea and reusing them is great idea. Both recovery systems reduce launch costs. Vulcan engine pod is likely to be worth $20-25m as its not just $15m engines that are being recovered. I don't see why it should need refurbishment as plan is not to get pod wet, the HIAD will act like a raft. BE4 are designed to be reusable with no decoking required unlike Merlin. Early recoveries will be tested thoroughly but later it maybe case of bolting to new tank and do some hot fire tests on pad before launch.

There is also talk of recovering fairings so between two systems ULA could be saving $25-30m a launch. With 70 launches in manifest currently that is $1.7 -2.1B of potential extra profit over next few years. NB launches have been sold at set price so every cent saved becomes profit.

[meekGee]

Don't know why people are rubbishing SMART yet think fishing F9 fairings out of sea and reusing them is great idea. Both recovery systems reduce launch costs. Vulcan engine pod is likely to be worth $20-25m as its not just $15m engines that are being recovered. I don't see why it should need refurbishment as plan is not to get pod wet, the HIAD will act like a raft. BE4 are designed to be reusable with no decoking required unlike Merlin. Early recoveries will be tested thoroughly but later it maybe case of bolting to new tank and do some hot fire tests on pad before launch.

There is also talk of recovering fairings so between two systems ULA could be saving $25-30m a launch. With 70 launches in manifest currently that is $1.7 -2.1B of potential extra profit over next few years. NB launches have been sold at set price so every cent saved becomes profit.

Because fishing fairings from the sea is indeed getting replaced with an integrated payload bay, for similar reasons.

The practicalities of it dictate that boosters can RTLS more easily than fairings, and taking the fairings to orbit is more expensive than mere boost-back, so boosters RTLS happened first.

[edzieba]

You do realize that ULA had no choice but to build a new launcher?

In what world would LM and Boeing deliberately invest in a loss-making vehicle? The end to RD-180 sales forced the timing, but their options would have been to build a new launcher that is profitable, try "Delta IV it is, take it or leave it" at pricing that was already unpalatable before SpaceX was founded, or exit the launch market and wind down ULA once the remaining manifest had been flown.

Don't know why people are rubbishing SMART yet think fishing F9 fairings out of sea and reusing them is great idea. Both recovery systems reduce launch costs. Vulcan engine pod is likely to be worth $20-25m as its not just $15m engines that are being recovered. I don't see why it should need refurbishment as plan is not to get pod wet, the HIAD will act like a raft. BE4 are designed to be reusable with no decoking required unlike Merlin. Early recoveries will be tested thoroughly but later it maybe case of bolting to new tank and do some hot fire tests on pad before launch.

There is also talk of recovering fairings so between two systems ULA could be saving $25-30m a launch. With 70 launches in manifest currently that is $1.7 -2.1B of potential extra profit over next few years. NB launches have been sold at set price so every cent saved becomes profit.

Because fishing fairings from the sea is indeed getting replaced with an integrated payload bay, for similar reasons.

The practicalities of it dictate that boosters can RTLS more easily than fairings, and taking the fairings to orbit is more expensive than mere boost-back, so boosters RTLS happened first.

That's just faulty "better is the enemy of good" logic. SpaceX still recover Falcon 9 fairings, even though an integrated payload bay may be 'better', because it is still a benefit in and of itself.
Likewise, SMART will be a benefit in and of itself over full expenditure, regardless of what other recovery options may exist.

[JayWee]

Don't know why people are rubbishing SMART yet think fishing F9 fairings out of sea and reusing them is great idea. Both recovery systems reduce launch costs.

Because more than half of the contracted Vulcan are for Kuiper which fly in the VC6 configuration.
Even if you reuse the BE-4s, that's still $30M in thrown away solids.
An All-liquid Vulcan with SMART probably would sound a bit better. Altough then you are moving into NG territory and you can go for a barge landing...

[deltaV]

I assume potential ULA buyers are at this point waiting for the NSSL Phase 3 Lane 2 Launch Service Procurement announcement "later this Fall." Or did that already happen?

The lane 2 winners have not yet been announced and the announcement is expected this fall. We did learn that only ULA, Blue Origin, and SpaceX are competing for it.

In lane 1, there are yearly opportunities for companies to join the program and yearly competitions between the participating companies to win specific task orders, i.e. launches. The DOD has announced that ULA, Blue Origin, and SpaceX joined the program and will be competing for task orders. I don't know when the task order competition will happen.

And is there any clue about what might come after Phase 3?

Phase 4 is probably next.

The phase 3 RFP was released early 2023 and IIRC phase 3 is supposed to last 5 years so we'll probably get the phase 4 RFP in ~2028.

[sdsds]

I will be super-curious to see what happens around the same time as the Lane 2 announcement.

For ULA ownership, some potential buyers might emerge or re-emerge with serious bids. For ULA future capabilities, USSF might give some hints about Phase 4 reference orbits, maybe in the form of an RFI. If there's a potential NSSL mission that can only be addressed with a long-duration (multi-day) upper stage, ULA could be in a good position to respond.

[JEF_300]

Guys if you don't think ULA's current approach to launch is sustainable, than maybe you should go to a thread specifically made for proposing better approaches, and write about what you think they should be do- oh, wait a moment? That's THIS thread!

Discussion of problems with ULA should be the basis of a discussion about what they should do next, not the entire thread, or ideally, even an entire individual post. Please try to add at least something constructive to the discussion to your posts. Instead of posting nothing but critiques, or even critiques of critiques, because that just gets us the past page and a half.

[Tywin]

Is possible a Vulcan evolution with 3 BE-4, and without solid booster like the H3 rocket in the future configuration?

[deltaV]

Is possible a Vulcan evolution with 3 BE-4, and without solid booster like the H3 rocket in the future configuration?

The variant you describe would have two stages. Two-stage vehicles have trouble with high-energy missions such as the direct-GEO mission required for NSSL lane 2. I doubt ULA would want to develop a new stage that's only useful in LEO (but I could be wrong).

A better approach may be to make a three-stage vehicle with a ~6 BE-4 reusable first stage (or buy New Glenn's first stage), second stage based on Vulcan's first stage (including SMART reuse), and existing Vulcan upper stage as third stage (possibly with SMART-like reuse).

[deltaV]

Is possible a Vulcan evolution with 3 BE-4, and without solid booster like the H3 rocket in the future configuration?

This is off topic in this thread so I replied in the ULA long-term plans thread: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=61404.msg2628264#msg2628264.

[zubenelgenubi: Entire splinter thread split/merged to this thread.]

[DanClemmensen]

Is possible a Vulcan evolution with 3 BE-4, and without solid booster like the H3 rocket in the future configuration?

The variant you describe would have two stages. Two-stage vehicles have trouble with high-energy missions such as the direct-GEO mission required for NSSL lane 2. I doubt ULA would want to develop a new stage that's only useful in LEO (but I could be wrong).

A better approach may be to make a three-stage vehicle with a ~6 BE-4 reusable first stage (or buy New Glenn's first stage), second stage based on Vulcan's first stage (including SMART reuse), and existing Vulcan upper stage as third stage (possibly with SMART-like reuse).

At one point ULA described a Vulcan Heavy. It had three Vulcan cores, conceptually similar to a Delta IV Heavy.

[deltaV]

At one point ULA described a Vulcan Heavy. It had three Vulcan cores, conceptually similar to a Delta IV Heavy.

That's possible but I think three-core heavy vehicles will be a lot less popular in the future than they have been historically for two reasons. The first reason is that three-core vehicles look easy but are actually hard, e.g. Musk said "It actually ended up being way harder to do Falcon Heavy than we thought" (37:57 at https://youtube.com/watch?v=BqvBhhTtUm4). Looking easy but being hard was a great combination when the main challenge was convincing the DOD to pick you but doesn't work so well in the modern era where companies are accountable for delivering. The second reason is the fact that the center core and side cores stage at much different speeds, which was irrelevant for expendable vehicles but makes it hard to reuse them in the same way.

[sdsds]

Is possible a Vulcan evolution with 3 BE-4, and without solid booster like the H3 rocket in the future configuration?

The variant you describe would have two stages. Two-stage vehicles have trouble with high-energy missions such as the direct-GEO mission required for NSSL lane 2. I doubt ULA would want to develop a new stage that's only useful in LEO (but I could be wrong).

On the variants of H3 that have 3 LE-9 engines the third essentially substitutes for a pair of SRB3 solids. I think these variants provide lower performance at lower cost.

At the low end ULA offers the two-engine zero-solids VC-0 variant. If a payload operator can't afford that, their payload probably doesn't belong on a dedicated Vulcan Centaur launch.

[spacenut]

So, if ULA could stretch it's booster core and add a 3rd engine, it could eliminate a possible two solids?  You were showing the Japanese launcher, but ULA might be able to do the same.  Then when you add solids you can get even more performance.  Do you know the LEO tonnage this could deliver?  It might get into the New Glenn range for LEO or even GTO delivery. 

Also, can the core handle 3 BE-4's?  It might have to have flared out coverings like Saturn V.  Then only 3 solids could be added.  OR, big OR they could use Raptors that are smaller and possibly cheaper.  But we are talking a whole new rocket. 

[hkultala]

As I said in the other thread, my pet theory is that ULA should start an SSTO project. It provides an at least plausible route to leapfrogging reusable TSTOs on cost to orbit

Exactly the opposite.

SSTO launcher is MUCH bigger and MUCH more expensive than comparable 2-stage or 3-stage launcher.

And what makes it even more expensive to use is that TSTO allows reusing first stage with quite small performance penalty, whereas performan penalty of reusing SSTo is practically infinite, makes to whole craft quite inviable.

So in practice, the relevant cost comparison is full cost of big and expensive SSTO launcher vs only second stage of much cheaper TSTO launcher which makes the SSTO make even less sense.

And ULA is exactly the company unable to develop anything advanced. They are rocket manufacturing and operating company, not a rocket technology development company. They buy their relevant tech (engines) elsewhere.

[Jim]

Is possible a Vulcan evolution with 3 BE-4, and without solid booster like the H3 rocket in the future configuration?

no

[Jim]

And ULA is exactly the company unable to develop anything advanced. They are rocket manufacturing and operating company, not a rocket technology development company. They buy their relevant tech (engines) elsewhere.

Not true.

[meekGee]

And ULA is exactly the company unable to develop anything advanced. They are rocket manufacturing and operating company, not a rocket technology development company. They buy their relevant tech (engines) elsewhere.

Not true.

Well if ULA was capable (mentally) of changing the engine count on Atlas, would they have dragged BO through making BE-4 a larger engine, way back when?

They don't have the "question the requirements" directive...  So they configured the rocket first ("Be like Atlas") and then shopped for an engine "by the book", since they couldn't run a competitive bid between rockets with different number of engines.

Conjecture much?  You betcha. But you also know it when you see it...

And if they didn't do it for the transition from Atlas V to Vulcan, they won't do it for a hypothetical very-Vulcan.

[DanClemmensen]

At one point ULA described a Vulcan Heavy. It had three Vulcan cores, conceptually similar to a Delta IV Heavy.

That's possible but I think three-core heavy vehicles will be a lot less popular in the future than they have been historically for two reasons. The first reason is that three-core vehicles look easy but are actually hard, e.g. Musk said "It actually ended up being way harder to do Falcon Heavy than we thought" (37:57 at https://youtube.com/watch?v=BqvBhhTtUm4). Looking easy but being hard was a great combination when the main challenge was convincing the DOD to pick you but doesn't work so well in the modern era where companies are accountable for delivering. The second reason is the fact that the center core and side cores stage at much different speeds, which was irrelevant for expendable vehicles but makes it hard to reuse them in the same way.

Hey, I did not say I thought it was a good idea, I just said that they had described it. Tory even tweeted a picture of a model.
   https://x.com/torybruno/status/1285290783931858944

[deltaV]

So, if ULA could stretch it's booster core and add a 3rd engine, it could eliminate a possible two solids?

IMO ULA should concentrate their limited resources on two types of upgrade: ones that will pay off within ~5 years, and ones that are on the path to a vehicle that's cheap enough to compete with fully reusable Starship, New Glenn, and Nova. SMART reuse probably checks the 5-year-payoff box and it's debatable if it checks the path-to-competitive box. I guess a 3-engine core would check neither of those boxes.

[Brigantine]

3 BE-4

Two-stage vehicles have trouble with high-energy missions [...]

three-stage vehicle with a ~6 BE-4 reusable first stage [...] (including SMART reuse)

Post - SMART, the economic problems with 3+ engine cores will largely go away, since they're not expended.

Besides a VC0 that doesn't need to be under-fueled... It would plug a gap in people's Vulcan-Heavy ideas, give the side boosters enough engines for the job.

That said, it sounds like there are insurmountable technical problems precluding a more capable aft-pod, so this will probably only ever be KSP-fodder. Maybe Jim can elaborate, or maybe he's not at liberty to say.


My own "ULA long term plan" would zero in on the GEO market, using 3rd party LEO-refueling.
Could be either centaur with hydrogen from BO, or a new methalox space tug using whatever centaur experience is transferable. Appropriately sized to take fuel & payload from a single Starship/New-Glenn launch in LEO, deploy in GEO, and propulsively return to LEO (with or without aerobraking).

Compete with BO/SpaceX on mass fraction and reliability, not needing to use an over-sized SHLV upper stage.

Of course, this plan has plenty of its own problems too. Relies on satellite operators building big, or else a GEO-rideshare or GEO-payload-hosting market. Need to solve (multiple) payload integration in space. Still competing with vertically integrated competitors (touch wood they optimize for moon/mars instead of GEO) and the margins won't be fat.

[JEF_300]

Well if ULA was capable (mentally) of changing the engine count on Atlas, would they have dragged BO through making BE-4 a larger engine, way back when?

When did we learn that? I know that BE-4 was sized up so Vulcan would only need 2 of them, but I don't ever recall hearing that the push came from ULA.

I mean, I buy that at the time ULA had a preference for 2 (or even just 1) engines, for (perceived) reliability reasons. But my understanding has always been that the BE-4 size change was more of a choice by Blue Origin, to meet ULA where it was and thereby eek out a win over Aerojet Rocketdyne, rather than a mandate from ULA.

[meekGee]

Well if ULA was capable (mentally) of changing the engine count on Atlas, would they have dragged BO through making BE-4 a larger engine, way back when?

When did we learn that? I know that BE-4 was sized up so Vulcan would only need 2 of them, but I don't ever recall hearing that the push came from ULA.

I mean, I buy that at the time ULA had a preference for 2 (or even just 1) engines, for (perceived) reliability reasons. But my understanding has always been that the BE-4 size change was more of a choice by Blue Origin, to meet ULA where it was and thereby eek out a win over Aerojet Rocketdyne, rather than a mandate from ULA.

Potato tomato.

BE-4 was conceived smaller.  3 BE-4 very likely would have sufficed. I can't imagine BO didn't think this would be easier, but it was enough of a non-starter to make them upscale BE-4 instead.

[deltaV]

My own "ULA long term plan" would zero in on the GEO market, using 3rd party LEO-refueling.
...
Still competing with vertically integrated competitors (touch wood they optimize for moon/mars instead of GEO) and the margins won't be fat.

If ULA had built propellant transfer and depots a decade ago they probably could have won a NASA HLS contract and be in a good position now. Unfortunately they didn't do that. A propellant transfer and depot program seems difficult to start now because they'd be competing with SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Impulse's Helios for the GEO market, which is smaller than the LEO market and less likely to grow.

[sdsds]

[...] they probably could have won a NASA HLS contract [...]

My understanding is that the joint venture agreement that formed ULA limits it to providing only launch services. The parent companies appear unable to agree on expanding that charter.

To their credit they did fund the concept design work for the Dual Thrust Axis Lander, which would have provided what deltaV describes. Ah, the nostalgia.
https://web.archive.org/web/20091104134500/http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf

[deltaV]

My understanding is that the joint venture agreement that formed ULA limits it to providing only launch services. The parent companies appear unable to agree on expanding that charter.

Yeah, these alternate histories would have required that the parents allow ULA to expand its charter and retain more earnings for R&D.

[deltaV]

Post - SMART, the economic problems with 3+ engine cores will largely go away, since they're not expended.

Besides a VC0 that doesn't need to be under-fueled... It would plug a gap in people's Vulcan-Heavy ideas, give the side boosters enough engines for the job.

So you're proposing that Vulcan get rid of the solids and use one 3-engine core for easier missions and three 3-engine cores for harder missions? The heavy configuration would have more BE-4s than New Glenn (9 vs. 7) so it would probably have more performance as well, especially to higher energy orbits.

The simplest version of this would have three configurations: one-core SMART, three-core sides SMART center SMART, and three-core sides SMART center expended. I think this could work but may not be competitive because of the expendable hardware that SMART doesn't reuse.

To make this more competitive you could add propulsive landing reuse (RTLS or ASDS) as an option. Unfortunately that's tricky with only 3 engines since a single engine has an excessive amount of thrust. You'd likely need separate landing engines. You could have the following main dial-a-rocket options: one-core ASDS, one-core SMART, and three core sides ASDS center SMART. I think this could be competitive if there's a good solution to the landing engine problem.

The above replace-solids-with-three-reusable-cores plans may also work with the existing 2-engine cores with SMART. The expendable performance would be similar to current Vulcan so it would take a careful analysis to see if it could do the hardest NSSL lane 2 mission.

A better approach may be to make a three-stage vehicle with a ~6 BE-4 reusable first stage (or buy New Glenn's first stage), second stage based on Vulcan's first stage (including SMART reuse), and existing Vulcan upper stage as third stage (possibly with SMART-like reuse).

Note that a ~6 BE-4 stage would have an easier time doing propulsive landing than a 2 or 3 BE-4 stage would since there's no need for a separate landing engine to make the landing thrust-to-weight ratio reasonable. In the three-stage approach the main dial-a-rocket configurations would be first stage RTLS second stage SMART and first ASDS second SMART. A configuration without a first stage (like the existing Vulcan VC0 plus SMART reuse) is also possible but may not be used enough to be worth the trouble of having another option. This design has limited payload mass flexibility but that's probably fine since most of the market these days is giant constellations and they can adjust the number of satellites per launch to hit the launch vehicle's sweet spot.

[Brigantine]

a ~6 BE-4 stage would have an easier time doing propulsive landing

I can certainly imagine a 7x BE-4 first stage with a 7m diameter doing propulsive recovery...

OK, so then here's the boring answer to this thread:

Take Centaur, and lego-rockets it on top of an already (being) developed re-usable 1st stage* for ULA's typical small-payload high-energy market niche. Some mergers & acquisitions may be required.

You're right, you will need a middle stage. It's gonna be expendable so better be cheap. Kind of half a stage providing only a modest delta-V, so it can be solid-fueled.

So instead of Solids→Expend→Centaur,
change it to Reusable→Solid→Centaur
As before, using solid fuel for the first expendable stage saving cost before the rocket equation bites.

* - Not necessarily New Glenn, GS2 is already similar to Centaur. "Long term" there may be better candidates.

[EDIT: After thinking, assuming SMART can be made to work for VC-6, I'm starting to agree with you that SMART-Vulcan can be the middle stage, albeit with a reduced fuel load (shortened tanks), limited by the velocity range SMART-recovery works at. Inefficient rocket-equation-wise, but would still replicate (SMART-)VC-6 performance, limit new R&D cost, even keep re-using legacy pods. Comparable cost to expended GS2 (?), comparable GTO performance, with an advantage beyond GTO.
Still outdone by expendable GS2 + hypergolic kick stage, it would need to be priced competitively or bring existing contracts with it]

[deltaV]

I'm starting to agree with you that SMART-Vulcan can be the middle stage, albeit with a reduced fuel load (shortened tanks),

Yes the propellant load would likely need to be adjusted.

Inefficient rocket-equation-wise,

What do you mean?

but would still replicate (SMART-)VC-6 performance, limit new R&D cost, even keep re-using legacy pods.

Yep.

---

To get costs down ULA probably also needs to replace the Centaur V upper stage with something reusable. ULA appears to have tested inflatable heat shields from orbital velocity (https://blog.ulalaunch.com/blog/loftid-demonstrating-technology-for-large-inflatable-heat-shields) so maybe something like SMART would work well for Centaur V, i.e. recovering only the expensive components such as the engines and avionics using an inflatable heat shield. Or maybe ceramic tiles like Starship's upper stage or hydrogen cooling like Nova's upper stage would work better.

In summary if ULA doesn't want to do a clean-sheet rocket (and their possible new owners don't already have a reusable rocket) I think they should do the following. First stage using ~7 BE-4 with propulsive-landing reuse, or just use New Glenn's or Terran R's first stage with adjusted propellant load. Second stage using the Vulcan core plus SMART, vacuum nozzles, and adjusted propellant load. Third stage Centaur V with SMART-like reuse and adjusted propellant load. This vehicle should compete well against partially reusable vehicles and may do OK even against fully reusable vehicles. My hunch is they'll eventually need to go beyond SMART reuse and reuse all of the second and third stages but this isn't clear (e.g. Blue Origin is still considering if mass produced expendable upper stages are best) and SMART reuse will buy them time at least.

[Asteroza]

I'm starting to agree with you that SMART-Vulcan can be the middle stage, albeit with a reduced fuel load (shortened tanks),

Yes the propellant load would likely need to be adjusted.

Inefficient rocket-equation-wise,

What do you mean?

but would still replicate (SMART-)VC-6 performance, limit new R&D cost, even keep re-using legacy pods.

Yep.

---

To get costs down ULA probably also needs to replace the Centaur V upper stage with something reusable. ULA appears to have tested inflatable heat shields from orbital velocity (https://blog.ulalaunch.com/blog/loftid-demonstrating-technology-for-large-inflatable-heat-shields) so maybe something like SMART would work well for Centaur V, i.e. recovering only the expensive components such as the engines and avionics using an inflatable heat shield. Or maybe ceramic tiles like Starship's upper stage or hydrogen cooling like Nova's upper stage would work better.

In summary if ULA doesn't want to do a clean-sheet rocket (and their possible new owners don't already have a reusable rocket) I think they should do the following. First stage using ~7 BE-4 with propulsive-landing reuse, or just use New Glenn's or Terran R's first stage with adjusted propellant load. Second stage using the Vulcan core plus SMART, vacuum nozzles, and adjusted propellant load. Third stage Centaur V with SMART-like reuse and adjusted propellant load. This vehicle should compete well against partially reusable vehicles and may do OK even against fully reusable vehicles. My hunch is they'll eventually need to go beyond SMART reuse and reuse all of the second and third stages but this isn't clear (e.g. Blue Origin is still considering if mass produced expendable upper stages are best) and SMART reuse will buy them time at least.

Hrm, from a dev effort perspective, would it be better to "overbuild" a first stage SMART with LOFID style EDL capability (or at least parts), and LOFID style upper stage SMART, or would it be cheaper to build a first stage SMART using a lower spec set of HIAD style parts that are not EDL capable? In other words, is attempting to unify the hardware (shield, inflator, controller/GNC, etc) as much as feasible more attractive versus customizing to the different regimes/interfaces, assuming a baseline of inflatable SMART systems?

[sdsds]

Looking at the Cert-2 rollout photos, the GEM-63XL solids look pretty skinny. Is there an official version of a drawing like the one attached?

[Newton_V]

Looking at the Cert-2 rollout photos, the GEM-63XL solids look pretty skinny. Is there an official version of a drawing like the one attached?

Move the SRB at 2 o'clock to 11, and the one at 8 o'clock to 5.

[sdsds]

Move the SRB at 2 o'clock to 11, and the one at 8 o'clock to 5.

Like this?

[Newton_V]

Yes, with a few inches between the SRBs.

[deltaV]

Hrm, from a dev effort perspective, would it be better to "overbuild" a first stage SMART with LOFID style EDL capability (or at least parts), and LOFID style upper stage SMART, or would it be cheaper to build a first stage SMART using a lower spec set of HIAD style parts that are not EDL capable? In other words, is attempting to unify the hardware (shield, inflator, controller/GNC, etc) as much as feasible more attractive versus customizing to the different regimes/interfaces, assuming a baseline of inflatable SMART systems?

That's a good question that I don't know the answer to.

[Brigantine]

Inefficient rocket-equation-wise,

What do you mean?

I mean the mass fraction won't be as good. You burn so much fuel to get the weight of 2 BE-4's up to stage sep, but they don't contribute as much deltaV, it's not very optimized.

To get costs down ULA probably also needs to replace the Centaur V upper stage with something reusable

Hard to re-use something that doesn't come back to Earth. e.g. in heliocentric or GEO after the mission.

True though, some centaurs will re-enter. But are there even any other (competing) launch vehicles in a similar class that will be doing upper stage re-use? or just super-heavy LVs?

[DanClemmensen]

True though, some centaurs will re-enter. But are there even any other (competing) launch vehicles in a similar class that will be doing upper stage re-use? or just super-heavy LVs?

There may be a minimum size for a profitable reusable upper stage, but after you build it, it becomes cheaper to use this behemoth than it is to use an LV with a smaller non-reusable upper stage.

[ethan829]

Move the SRB at 2 o'clock to 11, and the one at 8 o'clock to 5.

Like this?

Yep, that's right.

[deltaV]

But are there even any other (competing) launch vehicles in a similar class that will be doing upper stage re-use? or just super-heavy LVs?

Starship and Nova may eat much of Vulcan's potential LEO business despite them being different sizes, especially for very large constellations where one can adapt to different sized launchers by adjusting the number of satellites per launch. Blue Origin is working on making New Glenn's second stage reusable, so New Glenn is also a problem for Vulcan's LEO market.

For high energy missions there's less competition - Starship and Nova are different sizes and will require propellant transfer and multiple launches, and New Glenn will need a third stage that likely won't be reusable since it won't be used that much. So if ULA wants to give up on commercial LEO and just do high energy and military missions they may not need full reuse to compete.

[dglow]

Move the SRB at 2 o'clock to 11, and the one at 8 o'clock to 5.

Like this?

Yep, that's right.

Updated diagram:

[c4fusion]

Looks like Vulcan was unable to win any launches in the first round of awards for NSSL Phase 3 Lane 1 - this definitely hurts but hopefully they will do better next round. Unfortunately we have no information of why they may have lost since this is military.

Ars article: link
PDF annoucement: link

[ZachF]

Looks like Vulcan was unable to win any launches in the first round of awards for NSSL Phase 3 Lane 1 - this definitely hurts but hopefully they will do better next round. Unfortunately we have no information of why they may have lost since this is military.

Ars article: link
PDF annoucement: link

Because expendables can’t compete with reusables. I know some want to pretend that’s not the case but it is.

SpaceX is not only undercutting them but probably getting nVidia-esque margins on top of it.

[abaddon]

Ars missed a stitch here, rhe NRO “mission set” must be at least two launches, not one, as the “set” will be launched in two separate quarters.  The wording is admittedly confusing.

[catdlr]

Looks like Vulcan was unable to win any launches in the first round of awards for NSSL Phase 3 Lane 1 - this definitely hurts but hopefully they will do better next round. Unfortunately we have no information of why they may have lost since this is military.

Ars article: link
PDF annoucement: link

Because expendables can’t compete with reusables. I know some want to pretend that’s not the case but it is.

SpaceX is not only undercutting them but probably getting nVidia-esque margins on top of it.

Right on, ZachF. If people would just look at this chart and fully understand it, reusable LV will have to be a "Must" if you survive in this industry. However, reusability is not a solution; reusability must also be cost-effective. Look at the high cost of the Space Shuttle, which was also reusable.

Also, China will be SpaceX's main competitor (soon), not the US or other international vendors.

[ThatOldJanxSpirit]

Looks like Vulcan was unable to win any launches in the first round of awards for NSSL Phase 3 Lane 1 - this definitely hurts but hopefully they will do better next round. Unfortunately we have no information of why they may have lost since this is military.

Ars article: link
PDF annoucement: link

Because expendables can’t compete with reusables. I know some want to pretend that’s not the case but it is.

SpaceX is not only undercutting them but probably getting nVidia-esque margins on top of it.

I don’t disagree in the long term, but this isn’t about price, it’s about inability to execute in the short term.

ULA will struggle to meet its current NNSL and Kuiper manifest over the next few years. Adding new flights to the manifest is going to be problematic for a while, and it’s probably in the interest of ULA and DoD that new missions are from Lane 2.

[ZachF]

Looks like Vulcan was unable to win any launches in the first round of awards for NSSL Phase 3 Lane 1 - this definitely hurts but hopefully they will do better next round. Unfortunately we have no information of why they may have lost since this is military.

Ars article: link
PDF annoucement: link

Because expendables can’t compete with reusables. I know some want to pretend that’s not the case but it is.

SpaceX is not only undercutting them but probably getting nVidia-esque margins on top of it.

I don’t disagree in the long term, but this isn’t about price, it’s about inability to execute in the short term.

ULA will struggle to meet its current NNSL and Kuiper manifest over the next few years. Adding new flights to the manifest is going to be problematic for a while, and it’s probably in the interest of ULA and DoD that new missions are from Lane 2.

Reuse has not only lead to lower prices, but higher reliability and schedule flexibility through increased cadence. The price and cost is not only lower but the product and services are superior on top of that.