ULA long term plans

[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.