ULA is getting green light

#260 by bombay on 03 Nov, 2006 23:39
"I'm only saying this because people here seem to be comparing having ULA vs strong seperate Boeing and Lockheed entities. But is the later really a choice? At the corporate level, these guys exist to maintain stock value and the EELV programs aren't helping them."

Throughout this thread, 18 pages and counting, every advertised reason for forming ULA (i.e. cost savings, assured access, more reliability, preserving nat'l security, improved quality, two independent launch systems) was shot full of holes. And I mean EVERY advertised reason was picked apart.

What you're saying is essentially what people would love to here and wouldn't argue. That is, the EELV programs for both companies are chronic money losers and Boeing and Lockheed wanted to dump them for share holder value reasons.

The truth however can't be told. If an attempt to form ULA was based primarily for the purpose of getting the programs off of the books, the DoD and FTC would have shot the deal down. The truth will never be known but the truth is not contained in what Boeing and Lockheed are saying.
#261 by quark on 04 Nov, 2006 04:59
Quote
bombay - 3/11/2006 5:22 PM

"I'm only saying this because people here seem to be comparing having ULA vs strong seperate Boeing and Lockheed entities. But is the later really a choice? At the corporate level, these guys exist to maintain stock value and the EELV programs aren't helping them."

Throughout this thread, 18 pages and counting, every advertised reason for forming ULA (i.e. cost savings, assured access, more reliability, preserving nat'l security, improved quality, two independent launch systems) was shot full of holes. And I mean EVERY advertised reason was picked apart.

What you're saying is essentially what people would love to here and wouldn't argue. That is, the EELV programs for both companies are chronic money losers and Boeing and Lockheed wanted to dump them for share holder value reasons.

The truth however can't be told. If an attempt to form ULA was based primarily for the purpose of getting the programs off of the books, the DoD and FTC would have shot the deal down. The truth will never be known but the truth is not contained in what Boeing and Lockheed are saying.

Do you want Boeing to walk away from ULA? Do you like Delta IV's chances in a downselect competition? How much do you think Boeing will have to pay to settle the PIA lawsuit? Boeing management is sick of sinking money into Delta IV. Be careful what you wish for; the alternative may be worse.
#262 by Propforce on 04 Nov, 2006 05:57
Quote
quark - 3/11/2006 9:42 PM

Do you want Boeing to walk away from ULA? Do you like Delta IV's chances in a downselect competition? How much do you think Boeing will have to pay to settle the PIA lawsuit? Boeing management is sick of sinking money into Delta IV. Be careful what you wish for; the alternative may be worse.

If the Air Force is "forced" to down-select an EELV contractor, it'll have no choice but to select Boeing.

The reason is simple, Boeing has the heavy and can meet ALL of the EELV missions. Lockheed chosed to NOT to build a heavy version, it's not Boeing's fault.

This PIA lawsuit is bogus. Assuming some employees in Boeing did have Lockheed's financial data, what part of Boeing's own $2.5B investment into both CCAFS and VAFB launch pads, a completely new factory in Decatur, a Delta-Mariner transport barge, it's novel horizontal integration approach, its investment for a completley new RS-68 engine, and its investment to a DIV-H version, that Boeing "stole" from Lockheed's "proprietary data"?? Lockheed could have done all those things. Lockheed chosed NOT to do all those things. Boeing did not force Lockheed NOT to build a Heavy version (of course, now LM say they can do it in 18 month... while getting paid on government's money of course...). When it comes to the initial Buy-1 proposal, Boeing was the clear winner. The PIA scandal has nothing to do with how Boeing won the Buy-1. Boeing put in its own money and energy to win this proposal. Lockheed did not.

What did Lockheed do? Buy the RD-180 engine from the Russians, lease an aircraft from the Russians for transporting Atlas V subassemblies. Russians, russians .... RUSSIANS !... is this any reliable basis for the U.S. national security and for the future of U.S. space programs?

So Boeing is guilty of spending its own money to bring a better launch system online in order to meet its customer's needs, and this is wrong why?

LM's lawyers simply smelled blood and went for it. Boeing's management squealed like little girls and gave-in.

If the NRO does not like the Delta-IV, then why is it footing the bills for an RS-68 upgrade? Why doesn't it foot the bill for a Atlas-V Heavy? A heavy launch pad in VAFB? How about the bill for a U.S made RD-180 engine production facility?

Both LM and Boeing are sick of sinking money into the EELV program. Both went to the Air Force and said if you don't fund us, we will cancel the program. Both kept buying the RL-10 engines even though nobody is flying because P&W made the same threat to the Air Force. How many RL-10 do you guys have in your inventory by now? 30 or 40 maybe? You paid that just to keep P&W RL-10 production line going, not that you'll ever get to use all the engines. Same story.

The alternate for Boeing Delta employees is not worse. The alternate maybe worse for LM employees, and for the NRO and the EELV program office.
#263 by Jim on 04 Nov, 2006 11:30
Acutually Boeing produced a subpar vehicle. Medium version failed to meet the 10K to GTO requirement. The Heavy is the only thing keeping Delta-IV alive.
#264 by meiza on 04 Nov, 2006 11:59
What are these RS-68 upgrades that are being talked about?
#265 by Propforce on 04 Nov, 2006 16:04
Quote
Jim - 4/11/2006 4:13 AM

Acutually Boeing produced a subpar vehicle. Medium version failed to meet the 10K to GTO requirement. The Heavy is the only thing keeping Delta-IV alive.

The EELV program office obviously disagree with you.
#266 by Jim on 04 Nov, 2006 16:12
That was when it was a paper rocket before the actual integration of the missions started and vehicles were coming off the production line.
Proof:
The realignment of the missions wasn't just punishment.
Buy 2 and 2.5 were Atlas V
NASA hasn't bought a Delta IV (GOES doesn't count since the spacecraft bought the launch service)
Bulk of the NRO missions are on Atlas
#267 by Propforce on 04 Nov, 2006 16:59
Quote
Jim - 4/11/2006 8:55 AM

Buy 2 and 2.5 were Atlas V
NASA hasn't bought a Delta IV (GOES doesn't count since the spacecraft bought the launch service)
Bulk of the NRO missions are on Atlas

Buy 2 and 2.5 was during the PIA scandal.

NASA bought practically ALL of the Delta II launches instead.

How else would Atlas V survive if they don't get the medium payload launches?

Again, where's that NRO money for a Atlas V Heavy? You think the NRO wants to bank its future on a Russian production engine?
#268 by Jim on 04 Nov, 2006 17:07
Quote
Propforce - 4/11/2006 12:42 PM
NASA bought practically ALL of the Delta II launches instead.

No. MRO, SDO, LRO, PNH and MSL. NASA can't sole source Delta II's anymore like it did for the 19 pack. Anyways, it would lose against the Atlas V 401
#269 by Jim on 04 Nov, 2006 17:15
Quote
Propforce - 4/11/2006 1:40 AM
Boeing's own $2.5B investment into both CCAFS and VAFB launch pads, a completely new factory in Decatur, a Delta-Mariner transport barge, its investment for a completley new RS-68 engine, and its investment to a DIV-H version, Lockheed could have done all those things. Lockheed chosed NOT to do all those things.

Because of this, Boeing has priced itself out of the commercial and NASA market.

If legacy Boeing hadn't interfere with MC DAC development, it wouldn't have done all those things and would have followed more of a "evolved" approach

Quote
it's novel horizontal integration approach

Which has caused more problems than it was suppose to solve.
#270 by yinzer on 04 Nov, 2006 17:17
The PIA lawsuit was not, as you so eloquently state, Incorrect. Knowing that government procurement works on a "send in your proposal, we'll look at everyone's, and make a decision" basis, rather than a "hey, Lockheed, Boeing says they'll do the Medium flights for $70M each while you said $80M... care to come down on price a bit?" basis, knowing how much Lockheed was going to charge and how they thought the Atlas V would perform meant that Boeing could just claim that they were a little better than that in all respects and be guaranteed a big contract win. When the truth about costs and operational hiccups came out later, it'd be too late to do anything about it.

Which is what they did. Have you ever compared how long the Delta IV Payload Planners Guide says a rocket will sit on the pad, vs. how long it actually does?
#271 by Dexter on 04 Nov, 2006 21:41
Quote
Jim - 4/11/2006 11:58 AM

Quote
Propforce - 4/11/2006 1:40 AM
Boeing's own $2.5B investment into both CCAFS and VAFB launch pads, a completely new factory in Decatur, a Delta-Mariner transport barge, its investment for a completley new RS-68 engine, and its investment to a DIV-H version, Lockheed could have done all those things. Lockheed chosed NOT to do all those things.

Because of this, Boeing has priced itself out of the commercial and NASA market.

If legacy Boeing hadn't interfere with MC DAC development, it wouldn't have done all those things and would have followed more of a "evolved" approach

Quote
it's novel horizontal integration approach

Which has caused more problems than it was suppose to solve.
This is exactly the point I was trying to make before between Atlas V vs. Atlas 3. The US had a competitive commercial system and even the NRO flew on it one time but rather than maintain that capability to enhance assured access, Lockheed chose to truncate and retire it. Now you also have an Atlas V that does not compete commercially for the same reason you stated for Delta IV. Of course my argument is dismissed but your argument is rock solid. Double Standard again.
As far as developing launch pads, heavy variants, and American engines, I believe that was part of the original intent of the EELV program. Things that Lockheed chose not to do.
What was the timeframe that this ocurred?
#272 by Dexter on 04 Nov, 2006 21:42
Quote
Jim - 4/11/2006 11:50 AM

Quote
Propforce - 4/11/2006 12:42 PM
NASA bought practically ALL of the Delta II launches instead.

No. MRO, SDO, LRO, PNH and MSL. NASA can't sole source Delta II's anymore like it did for the 19 pack. Anyways, it would lose against the Atlas V 401

How do you figure?
#273 by bombay on 05 Nov, 2006 03:08
"Do you want Boeing to walk away from ULA? Do you like Delta IV's chances in a downselect competition? How much do you think Boeing will have to pay to settle the PIA lawsuit? Boeing management is sick of sinking money into Delta IV. Be careful what you wish for; the alternative may be worse".

Delta IV's chances in a downselect independent of ULA are excellent for reasons already covered. As part of ULA however, where ULA rather than the gov't would ultimately decide which LV stays and goes, I don't think the Delta IV stands a snowballs chance in hell against Atlas V. The ULA will be based out of Denver where the Atlas V influence would run roughshod over Delta IV.

You can't help but believe that the Delta IV would suffer the same fate as the Atlas III post GD where it was shelved and the Titan influence molded the Atlas program into what it is today.

So yes, I do want Boeing to walk away from ULA and yes, I would then like Delta IV's chances in a downselect.
#274 by R&R on 05 Nov, 2006 05:01
A couple of points and questions.

Atlas V got all of the Buy 2 & 2.5 Launches because Boeing was banned from competing.

NASA has not directly bought a Delta IV because Atlas V has been cheaper not necessarily because it is better. I will concede it has advantages with the flexibility and range of the intermediate versions. Excluding the Heavy Delta IV has been just as reliable as Atlas V.

Saying the NRO likes Atlas V better does not add up. The NRO is spending a lot of money to upgrade the Delta IV West Coast Pad. I'd like to see the list of launches moved to Atlas as part of the penalty for the procurement scandal. I wonder if the number of NRO missions proclaimed as proof the NRO likes Atals more came from that.

along this line cold the Titan IV Pad at Vandenberg have been an upgrade possibility for Atlas V Heavy? If not why?

It has been said that Atlas V has better flexibility and many of the payloads it's flown would not fit easily on Delta IV and would likely require a larger version (More Solids or Heavy) to accomplish what a smaller Atlas V (No or fewer Solids) could do. I'd like to see a list of the payload weights for what Atlas has flown compared to the Atlas and Delta capabilities.
#275 by Jim on 05 Nov, 2006 14:21
"Now you also have an Atlas V that does not compete commercially for the same reason you stated for Delta IV. "

Never said that. Said it is harder, but it still competes. But it is more related to labor rates vs buydown of investment.

"You can't help but believe that the Delta IV would suffer the same fate as the Atlas III post GD where it was shelved and the Titan influence molded the Atlas program into what it is today."

This is plain BS. The Atlas III was a useless vehicle once Atlas V was online. A-III could not have flown any of the A-V missions to date. The GD influence is still there and still prevailant. Most of the practices used by LM are GD and LERC legacy
#276 by Jim on 05 Nov, 2006 14:44
Quote
R&R - 5/11/2006 12:44 AM

1. Atlas V got all of the Buy 2 & 2.5 Launches because Boeing was banned from competing.

2. NASA has not directly bought a Delta IV because Atlas V has been cheaper not necessarily because it is better. I will concede it has advantages with the flexibility and range of the intermediate versions. Excluding the Heavy Delta IV has been just as reliable as Atlas V.

3. Saying the NRO likes Atlas V better does not add up. The NRO is spending a lot of money to upgrade the Delta IV West Coast Pad. I'd like to see the list of launches moved to Atlas as part of the penalty for the procurement scandal. I wonder if the number of NRO missions proclaimed as proof the NRO likes Atals more came from that.

4. along this line cold the Titan IV Pad at Vandenberg have been an upgrade possibility for Atlas V Heavy? If not why?

5. It has been said that Atlas V has better flexibility and many of the payloads it's flown would not fit easily on Delta IV and would likely require a larger version (More Solids or Heavy) to accomplish what a smaller Atlas V (No or fewer Solids) could do. I'd like to see a list of the payload weights for what Atlas has flown compared to the Atlas and Delta capabilities.

1. They didn't have to award those missions. They still wouldn't flown for a few years

2. I disagree and know

3. There are only a few D-IV Heavy mission "types". Very limited use. The rest, save one, are on Atlas V. My comments aren't based by looking at the manifest but from hearing the comments

4. Titan cores were 10' dia, Atlas V is 13' and something. Atlas V is too wide

5. Don't need to know the actual weights. Look at the capabilities here:
http://www.skyrocket.de/space/doc_lau/delta-4.htm
http://www.skyrocket.de/space/doc_lau/atlas-5.htm

Any Atlas V 4m with 1 solids or more or 5M with 3 solids or more has more performance than the comparable Delta V. This means 2 of the 8 A-V's to date would have needed a D-IV heave, 2 more were on the borderline and 1 other would have needed more expensive 5m Med +
#277 by lmike on 06 Nov, 2006 03:19
The Atlas V *is* a "better rocket" The rest is neither here nor there. You can argue 'till you turn blue. If the dollar dispensing department likes it, don't blame it on anything else...
#278 by lmike on 06 Nov, 2006 03:30
Quote
GraphGuy - 31/10/2006 1:28 PM

Quote
lmike - 29/10/2006 11:54 AM
Easy, now. Remember when the Japanese sold some CNC tooling to the Soviets in the 80s that was used in some nuclear sub's drive shaft manufacturing? They trade with everyone nowadays (China especially) And the US may be dumped as soon as they find a better "protector"

Not to throw water on you, but who would the Japanese look to for a protector apart from America?

China: not going to happen, they are still is a bit sore over Japan invading and occupying them in WWII.

Russia: not going to happen, Japan fought a war with them and won.

Korea: see China.

EU: not going to happen, the EU can barely offer a credible military deterrent for their own borders, let alone protecting Japan if Kim lobs a nuke at Japan.

Japan isn't going to find another protector, ever. I'm perfectly fine with us having them manufacture fuel tanks. We sell them F-15s and PAC-3s. We licensed Aegis technology to them so why not let them make fuel tanks?

I just hope your history books are better than your rocket orientation books. The last war Japan had with the USSR, it (Japan) lost completely and utterly (see Kurile islands... and the Manchjuria army)

And going by the same logic... Japan fought with and lost to the US, are we now at war with them...? (Heck, we nuked them twice) (this is solemn, I don't approve of punishing the people indescrimetnatly )
#279 by bombay on 06 Nov, 2006 05:28
Quote
Jim - 5/11/2006 9:04 AM

"Now you also have an Atlas V that does not compete commercially for the same reason you stated for Delta IV. "

Never said that. Said it is harder, but it still competes. But it is more related to labor rates vs buydown of investment.

"You can't help but believe that the Delta IV would suffer the same fate as the Atlas III post GD where it was shelved and the Titan influence molded the Atlas program into what it is today."

This is plain BS. The Atlas III was a useless vehicle once Atlas V was online. A-III could not have flown any of the A-V missions to date. The GD influence is still there and still prevailant. Most of the practices used by LM are GD and LERC legacy
If anyone is spouting BS it's you. We already covered in detail on previous pages of this thread what the Atlas III was capable of delivering when the Atlas V came on line. Perhaps you should go back and read the posted information to jog your short memory.

We also covered the "Titanization" of the Atlas program, which defines ULA - so I won't bore people with that topic.

I stand by what I said. The Titan, or should I say - Atlas - influence will run amock over the Delta IV team upon the formation of ULA. Denver will promote Atlas to the nth degree and treat the Delta like a stepchild. In fact, Denver will act and sound no different than you do when talking this subject.