ULA long term plans

[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?