ULA is getting green light

#960 by Jim on 20 May, 2007 13:28
Quote
CFE - 20/5/2007 4:48 AM

It has been noted that the upper stage of Jupiter in the DIRECT 2.0 proposal looks like a scaled-up Centaur. Even if NASA sticks with Ares I&V, they can hopefully apply the pressure-stabilized structural concept from Centaur to the Ares V upper stage (EDS) to increase its performance. Structures like the Delta IV upper stage have lower performance than Centaur due to their heavier, more rigid construction.

Centaur ICES are not pressure stablized
#961 by publiusr on 21 May, 2007 19:14
Quote
CFE - 20/5/2007 3:48 AM

Structures like the Delta IV upper stage have lower performance than Centaur due to their heavier, more rigid construction.

Delta IV has lower performance because it is narrow for an all cryogenic rocket. ET/ARES V cores are simple, large, and wide enough for high volume LH2.

Delta IV is awkward. Small for a cryogenic booster, but unwieldy compared to Atlas. And no engine out.
#962 by Dexter on 25 May, 2007 05:55
http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_5904279

Being discussed in another thread titled "Lockheed Looks to youth" but it fits nicely with what I had previously predicted.

"One of Lockheed Martin's biggest hiring efforts is for the Orion crew exploration vehicle, to bring its workforce from about 450 to 600. "

So Lockheed needs 150 new employees for Orion in Denver. I would have to assume the majority would be engineering related positions.

"The Colorado-based United Launch Alliance also has an urgent interest in the pipeline of skilled employees. It is looking to hire about 300 people, half of them new college graduates this summer and half of them more-experienced employees over the next six months. "

"Those hires are meant to fill openings made available by former Boeing employees who are not moving to Colorado from their jobs on the Delta rocket program in Huntington Beach, Calif. About 400 of the roughly 900 who received offers will move from Huntington Beach to Colorado, while roughly 1,000 Atlas employees already work for the ULA here.

The company is concerned that many new college graduates have already been hired for other jobs, "but we are pressing ahead anyway," said ULA spokeswoman Julie Andrews.

A key goal of the ULA is to cut costs for the government for rocket launches through the consolidation, but much of the consolidation will happen at launch sites, and not immediately, Andrews said."

So ULA is trying to hire new engineers but they have already been hired elsewhere and they are competing against Lockheed which is designing the next manned space vehicle..

Where do you think the cream of the crop of new engineers will want to work?

And now consolidation will happen but not immediately so the promised savings used to justify this scheme of 150 million dollars per year are now not going to be realized, if ever.
#963 by Dexter on 31 May, 2007 03:28
Here is an interesting article over 10 years old but sure seems topical:

http://pogo.org/p/contracts/ca-970311-reform.html

And then there is this little tid bit:

http://www.mcaleese.com/articles/dbdriven/show_items.php

"Apr 16, 2007 Increased EELV Costs in SARs Concern Analysts, Mike Fabey, Aerospace Daily, USD(ATL) December 2006 SAR report of 12% cost increase in USAF EELV program"

Silly me, I thought they said there would be a savings.....
#964 by WHAP on 31 May, 2007 18:02
Quote
Dexter - 30/5/2007 9:28 PM
And then there is this little tid bit:

http://www.mcaleese.com/articles/dbdriven/show_items.php

"Apr 16, 2007 Increased EELV Costs in SARs Concern Analysts, Mike Fabey, Aerospace Daily, USD(ATL) December 2006 SAR report of 12% cost increase in USAF EELV program"

Silly me, I thought they said there would be a savings.....

And the point you're making is that Boeing and LM lied because EELV costs went up prior to the formation of ULA? Thanks for sharing.
#965 by Dexter on 01 Jun, 2007 05:30
Quote
WHAP - 31/5/2007 1:02 PM

Quote
Dexter - 30/5/2007 9:28 PM
And then there is this little tid bit:

http://www.mcaleese.com/articles/dbdriven/show_items.php

"Apr 16, 2007 Increased EELV Costs in SARs Concern Analysts, Mike Fabey, Aerospace Daily, USD(ATL) December 2006 SAR report of 12% cost increase in USAF EELV program"

Silly me, I thought they said there would be a savings.....

And the point you're making is that Boeing and LM lied because EELV costs went up prior to the formation of ULA? Thanks for sharing.

Perhaps the point is why would the cost go up prior to ULA formation?

Let's go into the grab bag of defense contractor excuses.

Commercial market collapsed - used in 2003
Cracked launch pad resulted in not launching anything - too early for that.

This program has been through a Nunn-McCurdy review already, so why the increase especially with the fixed cost already covered by the AF.

I am sure that the ULA owned by Boeing and Lockheed will claim a 12% savings and everyone will pat themselves on the back and the executives will give themselves a bonus.

Here is another tid bit for your reading enjoyment:

http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?documentid=3015&programID=68&from_page=../friendlyversion/printversion.cfm
#966 by Antares on 01 Jun, 2007 13:51
Dexter, what would your solution be? It's not like there are viable alternatives out there. For example, one can complain about Ares I because EELV is a viable alternative. The only option out there besides ULA would be a downselect, and that would violate the Assured Access policy.
#967 by WHAP on 01 Jun, 2007 15:18
Quote
Dexter - 30/5/2007 9:28 PM
... http://www.mcaleese.com/articles/dbdriven/show_items.php ...

Silly me, I thought they said there would be a savings.....

Quote
Dexter - 31/5/2007 11:30 PM
Perhaps the point is why would the cost go up prior to ULA formation?

Let's go into the grab bag of defense contractor excuses.

Commercial market collapsed - used in 2003
Cracked launch pad resulted in not launching anything - too early for that.

This program has been through a Nunn-McCurdy review already, so why the increase especially with the fixed cost already covered by the AF.

I am sure that the ULA owned by Boeing and Lockheed will claim a 12% savings and everyone will pat themselves on the back and the executives will give themselves a bonus.

Here is another tid bit for your reading enjoyment:

http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?documentid=3015&programID=68&from_page=../friendlyversion/printversion.cfm

But your second point was not the one you were making in your first post. That first clip you posted was essentially a headline with no information. Over what period did those cost increases occur? Were they part of or independent of the Nunn-McCurdy review? What was the baseline for the 12% increase? Was the increase related to Buy III?

Boeing and LM executives may get bonuses, but their job is to make money for their shareholders. If I owned their stocks (up ~20% and ~35% in the past year, respectively), I wouldn't mind them getting bonuses. Besides, those execs can no longer claim much from their rocket businesses, since they no longer control them. They'd much rather forget they existed, based on their effects on earnings (hence the reason for ULA).

One other point - the latest "tidbit" you posted had the statement "Also suspect is that once the ULA has been approved by government regulatory agencies, assuming that it does not snag on any rules against monopolies, the lawsuit against Boeing will quietly be dropped." What's the point of the modifier "quietly"? This was one of the conditions of the formation of ULA - it was no secret. The lawsuit was by LM, not the US government, so the taxpayers aren't missing out on a big windfall here.

I, too, would like to know what your solution to the "EELV shenanigans" are.
#968 by Dexter on 01 Jun, 2007 21:59
Quote
Antares - 1/6/2007 8:51 AM

Dexter, what would your solution be? It's not like there are viable alternatives out there. For example, one can complain about Ares I because EELV is a viable alternative. The only option out there besides ULA would be a downselect, and that would violate the Assured Access policy.

Good question. I frankly don't care about what configuration is used whether it is Atlas, Delta, Ares.... as most of the folks here perpetually argue over the merits of each. I just don't like the inconsistent logic that changes as the wind blows.

My concern is that one thing is promised whether it is performance of a rocket or a cost savings due to a merger, and when we as a country make decisions based on those promises and fail to deliver on those promises, you have to ask, what would have been the decision if the promise was anchored in reality or with some experience from previous programs.

If you look at the list from macaelse.com provided above, you see that the norm with defense contracting is cost overruns and failure to deliver on promised parameters whether it is cost or performance. JSF, Littoral combat ship, Space Shuttle etc.. I suspect Ares will be no different. I am of the opinion that this ritual of promising something like a savings and then not delivering on it is intentionally done because we are banking on short-term memory loss. After all we are an ADD society. EELV is just a classic example of this and now ULA follows that pattern. Maybe this is just the way Washington DC works

At its inception, EELV was supposed to be a modernization of the ICBM derived “legacy” systems which included cheaper pricing - Promise not delivered.

At its inception EELV was supposed to be a single program downselect . Mr. Teets argued to keep both Atlas and Delta with the thought that two providers would create competiton. Boeing decided to violate PIA and completely destroy competition – Promise not delivered.

At its inception, the Lockheed EELV was to have American produced RD-180 engines. 12 years after the initial promise, the first Lockheed/ULA EELV has Russian made-engines. Promise not delivered

At the announcement of ULA in May 2005, the promised savings of $100-150 million was touted by the companies. Now, reports are surfacing that the savings will not be immediate and may be relative to a revised higher cost baseline.

As far as the "assured access policy", I believe this was created by the AF for purposes of keeping two systems. Prior to EELV, you had Titans launching heavy sattellites from three pads, two east cost and one west, Atlas doing intermediates from three, same as Titan, and Delta doing mediums with the same set-up. Nine total launch pads. Now one cracked pad has a critical mission grounded. So, while assured access might be a good principle to some people, it has been poorly executed.

In another thread here there is a comparison of Russian paper to American paper requirements. It seems to me that the increase in paperwork has an associated increase in cost due to the bureacracy required to manage it. This creates more management and mangement is typically paid higher salaries and that is why we have a spiraling cost of launch vehicles which no longer makes us competitive in the commercial market.

My solution would have been to stop ULA from forming in the first place because the monopoly situation created as was of concern to the FTC. Too late now. The very nature of your question suggests you do not have an answer to this monopoly so you would accept status quo.

Solution 1 - Since ULA is a monopoly catering to the Air Force, the AF should come in and question every single cost element and strip away every bureaucratic element that does not add value to the product, in much the same way as the Japanese do. Take the Russian paperwork model and ask which paperwork is important and which is not. Streamline ULA .

Solution 2 – The AF should focus money on creating competition by helping SpaceX develop the Falcon 9.
#969 by MySDCUserID on 01 Jun, 2007 22:51
Quote
Dexter - 1/6/2007 4:59 PM

Solution 1 - Since ULA is a monopoly catering to the Air Force, the AF should come in and question every single cost element and strip away every bureaucratic element that does not add value to the product, in much the same way as the Japanese do. Take the Russian paperwork model and ask which paperwork is important and which is not. Streamline ULA .

Solution 2 – The AF should focus money on creating competition by helping SpaceX develop the Falcon 9.

Boeing claimed that they were not making profits off of their Delta line and that they were considering getting out of the launch business if ULA did not happen. So, even if you did not end up with The Borg, you very well may have gained an Atlas monopoly.

Also, the government is often the cause of the bureaucratic elements in the business.

Also, that Japanese approach that you referred to (commonly known as a kaizen) is widely used throughout the industry.
#970 by Dexter on 02 Jun, 2007 00:36
Quote
WHAP - 1/6/2007 10:18 AM

Boeing and LM executives may get bonuses, but their job is to make money for their shareholders. If I owned their stocks (up ~20% and ~35% in the past year, respectively), I wouldn't mind them getting bonuses. Besides, those execs can no longer claim much from their rocket businesses, since they no longer control them. They'd much rather forget they existed, based on their effects on earnings (hence the reason for ULA).

One other point - the latest "tidbit" you posted had the statement "Also suspect is that once the ULA has been approved by government regulatory agencies, assuming that it does not snag on any rules against monopolies, the lawsuit against Boeing will quietly be dropped." What's the point of the modifier "quietly"? This was one of the conditions of the formation of ULA - it was no secret. The lawsuit was by LM, not the US government, so the taxpayers aren't missing out on a big windfall here.

The quote that stands out to me in that article is :

"Overall, the Air Force has estimated that this ethics lapse by Boeing brought on around $230 million in extra costs."

But lying and unethical behavior seem to be OK.

How could the DOD have spent that money for equipment and salaries of soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan? For death benefits of widows of fallen servicemen?

That's $230M that the companies avoided paying so no wonder the price of the stocks are rising at 25-30%.

As an investor, I too would be happy, as a taxpayer, however, I am PI$$ED.
#971 by MySDCUserID on 02 Jun, 2007 00:59
Quote
Dexter - 1/6/2007 7:36 PM

As an investor, I too would be happy, as a taxpayer, however, I am PI$$ED.

I suspect your anguish runs deeper than just being a taxpayer as you do not seem to be as vocal about other questionable government decisions discussed throughout this website.
#972 by WHAP on 02 Jun, 2007 16:09
Quote
Dexter - 1/6/2007 6:36 PM

The quote that stands out to me in that article is :

"Overall, the Air Force has estimated that this ethics lapse by Boeing brought on around $230 million in extra costs."

But lying and unethical behavior seem to be OK.

How could the DOD have spent that money for equipment and salaries of soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan? For death benefits of widows of fallen servicemen?

That's $230M that the companies avoided paying so no wonder the price of the stocks are rising at 25-30%.

As an investor, I too would be happy, as a taxpayer, however, I am PI$$ED.

$230M is probably an understatement. I guess you're going to be even more frakked.

But that money didn't necessarily "take away" from money spent anywhere else. Why not spend it on highway repair? Space exploration? Clean water? I bet there's waste in every other government program (and some is probably much larger than $230M). Why not take away from others to support EELV?

The $230M is close to the amount spent to create the Atlas V pad at VAFB. LM wasn't going to spend that money at all before PIA. While there may be some profit in there, neither Atlas nor Delta was contributing anything positive to either parent company's bottom line. If anything it was the unloading of these divisions that allowed the stock to climb, but even that is unlikely given the money LM and Boeing are making elsewhere (like the 787).

In response to one of your earlier posts, RD-180 was never intended to be "American built" from the inception of the EELV program. And just so you don't set your expectations too high, don't look for an American RD-180 - it is very unlikely that it will ever happen.

As far as ULA cost savings, anyone who thought the "cost savings" of $150M/year were going to be realized within the first three years was dreaming. I don't think that was ever promised, and it's naive to think that consolidation expenses would not prevent any savings for a while. Also, think about how much $150M is relative to government expenses in general. To you and me, that's a lot of money. The government probably spends that much on toilet paper for the Pentagon each year.
#973 by Dexter on 02 Jun, 2007 21:36
Quote
WHAP - 2/6/2007 11:09 AM

In response to one of your earlier posts, RD-180 was never intended to be "American built" from the inception of the EELV program. And just so you don't set your expectations too high, don't look for an American RD-180 - it is very unlikely that it will ever happen.

Covered this earlier (Page 24):

1995 - "Key to the Lockheed Martin system is a liquid oxygen/kerosene (LO 2 -RP-1) common core booster that yields significant cost savings. The common core boosters are powered by the Pratt & Whitney manufactured RD-180 engine for U.S. government missions."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/eelv_l.htm

1997 - "Yeltsin approves U.S. production of RD-180 engine foe EELV."
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-5556764_ITM

1997 - "On November 6, 1997 the Air Force modified its procurement plans for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program. The original concept -- a single winner-take-all award -- was amended, splitting the work between a pair of finalists for the multi-billion launch contracts, McDonnell Douglas (now part of Boeing) and Lockheed Martin. One of the major reasons given for the redirection was to enhance U.S. space launch competitiveness by keeping two rocket builders in business." (Notice no mention of assured access to space)
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/business/delta_eelv-991124....

2003 - On July 24, 2003, the Air Force concluded that Boeing was in possession of proprietary Lockheed documents during the 1998 Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) source selection.
www.mcaleese.com/10282004Presentation.ppt

Lockheed has been advertising co-production since 1995. They were awarded a contract in 1997. The official announcement came out about the espionage in 2003.

What was Lockheed doing for the 5+ years in between?

What was going to be the source of financing for the 1997-2003 time period?

What was going to be the source of financing if Boeing never got caught or never spied in the first place?

I think they rolled the dice and dragged their feet on co-production hoping that Boeing would fail on Delta 4.

And now we should not expect American co-production?

What happened to the Buy-American Act?
#974 by WHAP on 02 Jun, 2007 23:03
Quote
Dexter - 2/6/2007 3:36 PM

What was Lockheed doing for the 5+ years in between?

What was going to be the source of financing for the 1997-2003 time period?

What was going to be the source of financing if Boeing never got caught or never spied in the first place?

I think they rolled the dice and dragged their feet on co-production hoping that Boeing would fail on Delta 4.

And now we should not expect American co-production?

I believe a lot of effort in the 5+ years went into obtaining production and material information that was not necessary for Atlas III. LM spent money (both its and the government's), but I don't think the Boeing PIA made much difference. The cost of building the infrastructure capable of producing and testing an American RD-180 probably ended up being more than either LM or the government wanted to spend.

Again, you make it sound like LM and Boeing were making a killing on EELV's. If they were, then ULA would not have been necessary. IIRC, LM spent $1B of its own money and Boeing spent $1.5B. Neither company had much hope of recovering that amount given the cost of their rockets and the commercial market.
#975 by Chris Bergin on 03 Jun, 2007 18:14
Retirement seems likely for rocket made in Decatur; ULA hopeful:
http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/business/070603/delta2.shtml
#976 by yinzer on 03 Jun, 2007 19:06
The US government was going to buy a lot more Atlas Vs than they ended up buying, and the commercial market was going to end up buying many times more than they ended up buying. The inital buy of 100 RD-180s was expected to last a few years, maybe 10; at that point co-production would have been ironed out. Sadly, that's not what happened.
#977 by Dexter on 04 Jun, 2007 03:15
Quote
WHAP - 2/6/2007 6:03 PM

Quote
Dexter - 2/6/2007 3:36 PM

What was Lockheed doing for the 5+ years in between?

What was going to be the source of financing for the 1997-2003 time period?

What was going to be the source of financing if Boeing never got caught or never spied in the first place?

I think they rolled the dice and dragged their feet on co-production hoping that Boeing would fail on Delta 4.

And now we should not expect American co-production?

I believe a lot of effort in the 5+ years went into obtaining production and material information that was not necessary for Atlas III. LM spent money (both its and the government's), but I don't think the Boeing PIA made much difference. The cost of building the infrastructure capable of producing and testing an American RD-180 probably ended up being more than either LM or the government wanted to spend.

Again, you make it sound like LM and Boeing were making a killing on EELV's. If they were, then ULA would not have been necessary. IIRC, LM spent $1B of its own money and Boeing spent $1.5B. Neither company had much hope of recovering that amount given the cost of their rockets and the commercial market.

Earlier you said and I quote.

"In response to one of your earlier posts, RD-180 was never intended to be "American built" from the inception of the EELV program. And just so you don't set your expectations too high, don't look for an American RD-180 - it is very unlikely that it will ever happen."

Hypothetically speaking, do you think the Air Force would have given any consideration to a Russian engined launch vehicle at the time of the downselect if Lockheed did not make this promise? Do you think the Atlas V would have ever made it of the drawing board?

This is my whole beef here.
Promise something, get a decision made in your favor, and then never deliver on the promise.
As far as your post above, there is something we can agree on. The cost ended up being more than was expected. This was either due to maliciousness or ineptitude. You decide.

Expect the same thing from ULA.
#978 by Jim on 04 Jun, 2007 05:05
Quote
Dexter - 3/6/2007 11:15 PM
Hypothetically speaking, do you think the Air Force would have given any consideration to a Russian engined launch vehicle at the time of the downselect if Lockheed did not make this promise? Do you think the Atlas V would have ever made it of the drawing board?

This is my whole beef here.
Promise something, get a decision made in your favor, and then never deliver on the promise.
As far as your post above, there is something we can agree on. The cost ended up being more than was expected. This was either due to maliciousness or ineptitude. You decide.

Expect the same thing from ULA.

May be your beef but LM was't doing anything in a vacuum. It had full USAF concurrence (more so the NRO) on every move it made and it didn't/hasn't "blackmailed" anyone
#979 by WHAP on 04 Jun, 2007 22:36
Quote
Dexter - 3/6/2007 9:15 PM

Hypothetically speaking, do you think the Air Force would have given any consideration to a Russian engined launch vehicle at the time of the downselect if Lockheed did not make this promise? Do you think the Atlas V would have ever made it of the drawing board

Yes, and yes. If the Air Force wanted to have multiple providers, what other choice did they have? I think the Atlas III had already flown at the time of the downselect, so there was some confidence in the RD-180, regardless of the production location. An American RD-180 may have been a goal, but this isn't the only program where the end state has been modified over time. And I'm not sure if either maliciousness or ineptitude applies. There could be a bunch of other reasons - is the risk of not having access to the RD-180 for an extended period of time really worth the cost of creating the co-production facilities.

Also, I don't think LM dragged its feet hoping Delta 4 would fail. I won't speculate as to whether they dragged their feet or not, but they probably wanted more assistance than the government wanted to provide.

If the RD-180 were an American engine, would Delta 4 exist?