ULA is getting green light

#360 by Jim on 17 Nov, 2006 02:02
Quote
bombay - 16/11/2006 8:04 PM

"Remember that the FTC has not given its final approval it has been more than 30 days since they intervened pending public comment."

"Here are Space X's comments."

http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/lockheed-boeing-ula/061031setccomment.pdf

Reading this makes my blood boil!!!
This letter written to the FTC in response to their approval of ULA highlights everything wrong with the ULA and the gov't regulatory process. It clearly and accurately cites (through documented references) the rebuttal to the false claims that the that the pro-ULA-back-room wheelers and dealers (i.e. LM, Boeing, USAF, DoD, and FTC) are making.

This is not just a bunch of Space X sour grapes; their complaints and concerns are legitimate. Read it for yourselves and draw your own conclusions.

[/QUOTE]

ULA has rockets that work and meet requirements. Spacex has neither. End of story.

Too bad that he didn't want to start building rockets in 1995 and get in the ground floor of the EELV.
#361 by bombay on 17 Nov, 2006 02:52
The theme of the comments was not what rockets Space X has or doesn't have. The theme of the letter centered on the fact that LM and Boeing are bound by the same antitrust laws as everyone else and national security does not provide an effective defense against an illegal merger, in this case a monopoly, as stated in the FTC's Horizontal Merger Guidelines.

In short, the FTC is the model of hypocricy. They're supposed to protect the public by ensuring laws of fair competition are followed, they admitted that nat'l defense is not a trump card to be used to permit an illegal merger, and they admitted that all of the reasoning behind forming ULA, that is taxpayer savings, improved reliability, and so forth will not be realized - and yet - they sign off on the deal.

The final vote has not been tallied, so story may not be over yet.
#362 by Jim on 17 Nov, 2006 11:27
Quote
bombay - 16/11/2006 10:35 PM

The theme of the comments was not what rockets Space X has or doesn't have. The theme of the letter centered on the fact that LM and Boeing are bound by the same antitrust laws as everyone else and national security does not provide an effective defense against an illegal merger, in this case a monopoly, as stated in the FTC's Horizontal Merger Guidelines.

In short, the FTC is the model of hypocricy. They're supposed to protect the public by ensuring laws of fair competition are followed, they admitted that nat'l defense is not a trump card to be used to permit an illegal merger, and they admitted that all of the reasoning behind forming ULA, that is taxpayer savings, improved reliability, and so forth will not be realized - and yet - they sign off on the deal.

The final vote has not been tallied, so story may not be over yet.

There is no issue here . It happens all the time. We have only one commercial aircraft supplier, one AP supplier and one hydrazine supplier. There are many more. How many shipyards build nuke subs now? or Aircraft carriers? When the market doesn't support multiple suppliers, contraction/mergers happen and are allowed.

So what is the difference between ULA or LM or Boeing. Either way, there is only going to be one supplier. The DOD sees ULA as the same as Electric Boat. The DOD just rather have more options to fly.
#363 by bombay on 17 Nov, 2006 16:03
Quote
Jim - 17/11/2006 6:10 AM

Quote
bombay - 16/11/2006 10:35 PM

The theme of the comments was not what rockets Space X has or doesn't have. The theme of the letter centered on the fact that LM and Boeing are bound by the same antitrust laws as everyone else and national security does not provide an effective defense against an illegal merger, in this case a monopoly, as stated in the FTC's Horizontal Merger Guidelines.

In short, the FTC is the model of hypocricy. They're supposed to protect the public by ensuring laws of fair competition are followed, they admitted that nat'l defense is not a trump card to be used to permit an illegal merger, and they admitted that all of the reasoning behind forming ULA, that is taxpayer savings, improved reliability, and so forth will not be realized - and yet - they sign off on the deal.

The final vote has not been tallied, so story may not be over yet.

There is no issue here . It happens all the time. We have only one commercial aircraft supplier, one AP supplier and one hydrazine supplier. There are many more. How many shipyards build nuke subs now? or Aircraft carriers? When the market doesn't support multiple suppliers, contraction/mergers happen and are allowed.

So what is the difference between ULA or LM or Boeing. Either way, there is only going to be one supplier. The DOD sees ULA as the same as Electric Boat. The DOD just rather have more options to fly.
I ask you the reasoning behind the DoD rejecting the GD acquisition of Newport News Shipbuilding back in 2001. The answer is it would have created a nuclear shipbuilding monopoly.

So what's the difference with ULA? One monoploy is more of a monopoly than the other? There's no sense to this.
#364 by spacedreams on 17 Nov, 2006 16:12
Doesn't Space-X actually have more to gain than lose from the ULA deal? From what everybody has been saying around here, a majority of Delta guys are staying in Southern California. Isn't Space-X in El Segundo? How many other rocket programs are in the area? Pretty soon there will be a pretty good stock of rocket scientists with some good successful experience looking for work in the area. If I was a new start-up I think I would try to work with them instead of possibly turning them against me.

Plus I never have understood how a competitor could argue against a monopoly. If there is competition how can it be a monopoly? There isn't anything preventing companies other than ULA from getting an AF launch contract similar to ULA is there? It seems simple but I'm not a business guy just a lowly engineer. I'm sure someone with a finance background can correct me.
#365 by Jim on 17 Nov, 2006 16:14
Quote
bombay - 17/11/2006 11:46 AM

I ask you the reasoning behind the DoD rejecting the GD acquisition of Newport News Shipbuilding back in 2001. The answer is it would have created a nuclear shipbuilding monopoly.

So what's the difference with ULA? One monoploy is more of a monopoly than the other? There's no sense to this.

They didn't want subs and aircraft carriers under one roof. That would be the same as ICBM's and LV's under on company
#366 by bombay on 17 Nov, 2006 16:49
Quote
Jim - 17/11/2006 10:57 AM

Quote
bombay - 17/11/2006 11:46 AM

I ask you the reasoning behind the DoD rejecting the GD acquisition of Newport News Shipbuilding back in 2001. The answer is it would have created a nuclear shipbuilding monopoly.

So what's the difference with ULA? One monoploy is more of a monopoly than the other? There's no sense to this.

They didn't want subs and aircraft carriers under one roof. That would be the same as ICBM's and LV's under on company
The difference in the view of the DoD was that the shipbuilding monopoly would not have increased reliability of the product. It had nothing to do with subs and carriers being under one roof.
The DoD's take on ULA is that launch tempo will be increased thus improving reliability, which is paramount to nat'l defense-that's the difference. This rationale however was refutted by the FTC, the RAND report, ExpectMore.gov: Space Launch, and more.
The FTC admitted that they didn't possess the technical expertise to refute what the DoD was claiming although it's obvious that they're suspicious. The FTC needs to do what they're there for and reject the ULA proposal.
#367 by Jim on 17 Nov, 2006 16:53
just sour grapes
#368 by bombay on 17 Nov, 2006 18:11
Oh I almost forgot, the DoD itself despite claiming that the ULA monopoly is o.k. with them because of increased launch tempo, which would improve reliability, also acknowledged that: "the most negative view of the creation of ULA is that it will almost certainly have an adverse effect on competition, including higher prices over the long term, as well as a diminution in innovation and responsiveness." Increased launch tempo and reliability with diminished innovation and responsiveness???

Sour grapes - I think not. Collusion between the two most powerful defense contractors and various parties of the U.S. Gov't - I think so.
#369 by Dexter on 17 Nov, 2006 23:22
Quote
R&R - 16/11/2006 7:19 PM

I have read it more than once and it is sour grapes.

Many of the things SpaceX says (as well as the FTC) regarding competition are crap because without ULA one of the companies WILL get out of the buisness and then the government is worse off than they will be with ULA because the one left over doesn't have a Heavy and that will cost big bucks to get capability on both coasts.

They say how it's not fair that ULA should be able to offer better prices commercially due to government subsidies. Problem is the Air Force is paying for launch capability no matter what so the tax payer really doesn't lose. They don't lose because if the Air Force only has a few launches then the launch teams get stagnant and skills diminish thus reliability goes down. More launches even if "subsidized" by the governement is a return on investment.

Throughout this rant (SpaceX's not mine) there are subtle and not so subtle references to SpaceX geting pushed out of EELV competition. That's the biggest load of crap of all. Maybe when they get a working rocket and then if they ever get one in the same class as Atlas and Delta and it proves to be as reliable then he can start to complain. For now he should shut up and concentrate on doing what he says he will because if he does succeed in that ULA won't matter and the Air Force will give him all the buisness he can handle.

This I find very interesting. You are implying that Boeing has threatened to pull the chord on Delta 4.
The irony here is that the previous defense consolidations approved by the FTC have led to present environment where the tail is wagging the dog.
Perhaps the DOD should call them on this and then by tankers and cargo planes from EADS/Airbus.
Its obviously OK to buy Russian rocket engines.
This whole thing STINKS!
#370 by Propforce on 17 Nov, 2006 23:30
R&R is right. If SpaceX can deliver, NOBODY ... and I mean... NOBODY ! can compete with their quoted launch price of $6M per launch.

I would like to see Elon Musk deliver at that price... AND... stay in business.

He would still have a long long way to go anywhere near Delta IV or Atlas V launch payload capacity....
#371 by Dexter on 17 Nov, 2006 23:31
Quote
Jim - 17/11/2006 11:36 AM

just sour grapes

It's obvious that Space X's future business case is helped out by stopping the ULA scheme.

Their response does site that even the FTC recognizes the violations against Sherman Anti-Trust and the Clayton Act.

National Security is not at risk without ULA.

Status Quo has been successful.

If the importance is to increase launch tempo then downselect one program and make sure it has a heavy lift, west coast pads, and American made engines without wasting more taxpayer dollars.
#372 by Propforce on 17 Nov, 2006 23:55
Quote
Dexter - 17/11/2006 4:05 PM
This I find very interesting. You are implying that Boeing has threatened to pull the chord on Delta 4.
.......................
Its obviously OK to buy Russian rocket engines.
This whole thing STINKS!
As I've said before, if the Air Force was "forced" to down-select during the initial (Buy-1) EELV program, they would have NO CHOICE but to select Boeing.
As I've also said before, this Lockheed's sueing of Boeing is BOGUS. Boeing did not win the Buy-1 proposal by "slightly under-cutting" LM's prices. Boeing won BIG by making it's own infrastructure investment, including a Heavy, that met & far exceeded EELV launch requriements. LM FAILED to make such investment. Rather, LM blatantly violate the initial procurement rule by going with a Russian-supplied engine, making its launch vehicle dependent on a non-allied nation, and doing some "hand-waving" of a U.S. engine production capability in 10 years or so which has came and gone.
Since Lockheed is widely known as "2nd career home" for many of the Air Force brasses, one couldn't help but wonder if it was another way to keep Lockheed in the game?
One has to ask, if the Air Force's initial reason for changing the EELV procurement rule, and instead keeping BOTH companies, was because the "rosey outlook of commercial launch market" was able to sustain both launch companies thus provide the competitive pricing benefit to the Air Force. Then why could it uses the reverse logic to down-select to one EELV contractor, instead of incurring the cost of maintaining both launch teams and vehicles?
Could it be that Lockheed has always been trailing behind on its EELV capability, e.g., no Heavy version, no west-coast launch capability, etc.? A "down-select" would mean that Boeing wins and Lockheed lost?
#373 by R&R on 18 Nov, 2006 00:42
Quote
Dexter - 18/11/2006 5:05 PM
This I find very interesting. You are implying that Boeing has threatened to pull the chord on Delta 4.

It's based on an interview the VP of their Defense division gave about 6 months before ULA was announced in which he stated and I'm paraphrasing here Boeing could no longer sustain the losses of Delta IV and if the Ait Force did not agree to fund more of their costs they would shut down Delta IV.

It may have been a shot across the bow to get a better deal in Buy 3 but it may also have been aimed at ULA which must have been in the works.
#374 by bombay on 18 Nov, 2006 01:21
Oddly, the USAF regards both the Atlas V and Delta IV programs as "not mature", thus their desire to keep the two programs in business, at least for the time being. An evaluation of both programs was to occur during the Buy 4 award in 2010, at which point a possible downselect would have occured.

Both companies have issues. The Delta IV certainly doesn't equal the history that the Atlas V and what preceded it has (the Centaur in particular was developed in 1958). The Atlas V on the other hand has no heavy lift and never developed the U.S. RD-180.

What better way to avoid the downselect ax than to chuck the two products under one roof and claim that the gov't is funding only the company instead of the two, even though the aggregate amount of funding will likely be unchanged.

So instead of having fair competition where both companies would have to work to develop a superior product that would meet all EELV requirements or face being the loser in a downselect, we'll be left with ULA that's comprised of (2) products with their own shortcomings with no urgent need to address them.
#375 by Jim on 18 Nov, 2006 01:22
Quote
Propforce - 17/11/2006 7:38 PM

Boeing won BIG by making it's own infrastructure investment, including a Heavy, that met & far exceeded EELV launch requriements.

Actually the D-IV medium fails to meet the payload to orbit requirements.
#376 by bombay on 18 Nov, 2006 01:40
Quote
R&R - 17/11/2006 7:25 PM

Quote
Dexter - 18/11/2006 5:05 PM
This I find very interesting. You are implying that Boeing has threatened to pull the chord on Delta 4.

It's based on an interview the VP of their Defense division gave about 6 months before ULA was announced in which he stated and I'm paraphrasing here Boeing could no longer sustain the losses of Delta IV and if the Ait Force did not agree to fund more of their costs they would shut down Delta IV.

It may have been a shot across the bow to get a better deal in Buy 3 but it may also have been aimed at ULA which must have been in the works.
I don't think Boeing or LM are in any position to strongarm the gov't into buying into the ULA by threatening to the plug on Atlas or Delta.

Boeing had $30B and LM $37B in defense related gross revenue last year. The $1B or so that LV's contributed to Boeing and Lockheeds gross sales is nothing. There's no denying that space launches are critical towards nat'l security and I don't think the gov't would look too kindly on either company pulling out of the business without facing the gov't wrath. The risk of losing out on $billions of future gov't contracts would far outweigh the gain of bailing out on what amounts to insignificant losses and gains in the LV sector.
#377 by Propforce on 18 Nov, 2006 01:44
Quote
Jim - 17/11/2006 6:05 PM

Quote
Propforce - 17/11/2006 7:38 PM

Boeing won BIG by making it's own infrastructure investment, including a Heavy, that met & far exceeded EELV launch requriements.

Actually the D-IV medium fails to meet the payload to orbit requirements.

D-IV Medium plus meet those requirements.
#378 by Jim on 18 Nov, 2006 01:48
Quote
Propforce - 17/11/2006 9:27 PM

Quote
Jim - 17/11/2006 6:05 PM

Quote
Propforce - 17/11/2006 7:38 PM

Boeing won BIG by making it's own infrastructure investment, including a Heavy, that met & far exceeded EELV launch requriements.

Actually the D-IV medium fails to meet the payload to orbit requirements.

D-IV Medium plus meet those requirements.

The requirements were for no solids
#379 by Propforce on 18 Nov, 2006 02:10
Quote
Jim - 17/11/2006 6:31 PM

Quote
Propforce - 17/11/2006 9:27 PM

Quote
Jim - 17/11/2006 6:05 PM

Quote
Propforce - 17/11/2006 7:38 PM

Boeing won BIG by making it's own infrastructure investment, including a Heavy, that met & far exceeded EELV launch requriements.

Actually the D-IV medium fails to meet the payload to orbit requirements.

D-IV Medium plus meet those requirements.

The requirements were for no solids

Oh get a life, Jim. Why are you still hung-up on solids? They made the EELV missions, didn't they?