… And I suppose, what most who are questioning or critical of ULA’s business model are mainly not understanding is why doesn’t ULA really try to get more than just that limited bread-and-butter government work? Why don’t they make moves to try to start getting commercial market share? Either streamline to one LV, or perhaps have one LV as the uber-expensive and reliable government LV (Delta IV for example) and then streamline the other LV to be a viable competitor in the commercial market. The more commercial launches Atlas would get, the higher the production rate, and the lower the cost. Just standard economics of scale.
So some of us look at ULA and wonder why they don’t seem to really do anything in that direction. Or at least not much that’s apparent…
Wow, this is certainly a mouth full.
Part of the SpaceX – ULA difference that you describe can be attributed to historic lessons learned.
General Dynamics, then Martin Marietta (Atlas II) and McDonald Douglas (Delta II) went after the commercial launch market in a big way through the 1990’s. They lost their shirts in the process. Ariane would offer a customer a launch for 10% less than whatever the US company offered. Proton a further 10% less. This was great for the satellite builders and end customers, but all of the launch companies lost money. Interestingly, despite the 30% drop in launch prices, the commercial demand for launch services was static. While the Russian and European governments ensured at least break even for their companies, the American companies were expected to simply take the loss.
Toward the end of the 1990’s Boeing and Lockheed Martin invested heavily in Delta IV and Atlas V, lured by the national security and huge “internet from the sky” markets. Cellular technology and incredible pace of fiber optic distribution essentially eliminated demand for satellite based internet. Problems developing next generation military satellites resulted in substantial delays in security payloads, with delays of up to a decade or outright cancelation. Boeing and Lockheed Martin had to write off well over a billion dollars.
Enter SpaceX. They have gotten further than any of the few dozen rocket start ups of the past 2 decades, with some 50 payloads on the manifest including CRS. But SpaceX has had various struggles. The Falcon 1 market turned out to be much smaller than expected, despite the attractive pricing. Learning a lesson, SpaceX bypassed the Falcon 5 and went straight to the 9, go where the market is. In February 2011 SpaceX showed 7 Falcon 9 launches on their manifest for launch in 2011. Reality was no 2011 launches, followed by one in 2012. Performance issues of the Falcon 9 required a major redevelopment resulting in the Falcon 9 1.1 to be launched later this year. With all of these changes can SpaceX start providing actual, regular launch services? Can SpaceX afford to deliver these launches according to the contracted launch prices? If succesful, how will foreign governments react to this threat to their national space access programs?
Personally I think the next couple of years will be very interesting for the global launch industry.
General Dynamics, then Martin Marietta (Atlas II) and McDonald Douglas (Delta II) went after the commercial launch market in a big way through the 1990’s. They lost their shirts in the process.
The Falcon 1 market turned out to be much smaller than expected, despite the attractive pricing. Learning a lesson, SpaceX bypassed the Falcon 5 and went straight to the 9, go where the market is.
Ariane would offer a customer a launch for 10% less than whatever the US company offered. Proton a further 10% less. This was great for the satellite builders and end customers, but all of the launch companies lost money. Interestingly, despite the 30% drop in launch prices, the commercial demand for launch services was static.
Ariane would offer a customer a launch for 10% less than whatever the US company offered. Proton a further 10% less. This was great for the satellite builders and end customers, but all of the launch companies lost money. Interestingly, despite the 30% drop in launch prices, the commercial demand for launch services was static.
Which is exactly why ULA (or Boeing/LM whatever), if they are to survive, must find something radically cheaper, that taps latent demand. With a RLV they could actually underbid the competition. Or they could just stop building rockets.
Now that We know that Ariane 6 will use a solid first stage, I wonder if US launch services providers like ULA will be looking at similar options for the future, as a means of cutting launch costs.
Now that We know that Ariane 6 will use a solid first stage, I wonder if US launch services providers like ULA will be looking at similar options for the future, as a means of cutting launch costs.
Ed Kyle
Now that We know that Ariane 6 will use a solid first stage, I wonder if US launch services providers like ULA will be looking at similar options for the future, as a means of cutting launch costs.
No, because ULA only does EELV's. Just because Ariane does it, doesn't mean it works for others.
Now that We know that Ariane 6 will use a solid first stage, I wonder if US launch services providers like ULA will be looking at similar options for the future, as a means of cutting launch costs.
Ed Kyle
Is ULA able to anything other than make some basic improvements to the Atlas and Delta rockets ? They aren't allowed to build an Athena-clone for instance.
Now that We know that Ariane 6 will use a solid first stage, I wonder if US launch services providers like ULA will be looking at similar options for the future, as a means of cutting launch costs.
No, because ULA only does EELV's. Just because Ariane does it, doesn't mean it works for others.
Jim,
This an many other comments you’ve made that I’ve read begs a question that I (and probably others) maybe don’t quite understand.
I think when many of us think “EELV”, we think of Delta IV, Atlas V, and similarly sized LV’s. However, when you talk about EELV’s, I think you specifically mean Delta IV and Atlas V are not just types of EELV’s….but the EELV label only applies to them.
I guess I think of “Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle” like I do “smartphone” Android, Windows 8, and iPhones are all smart phones.
But iPhone –only- refers to the Apple phone. The phone made by HTC or Motorola is not an “iPhone”.
It’s just that “Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle” would seem to apply to any modern expendable launch vehicle by definition. Being a generic term where “Atlas” and “Delta” are specific names for specific LV’s.
So, when you say ULA only does EELV’s, I think that they could do anything in the EELV class. Right now they do Delta IV and Atlas V, but they could create a new liquid, or replace everything with an Ariane 6 type solid launcher, or whatever. To me and I think others, any of that would still be ULA making EELV’s.
But I think you are saying ULA can –only- do Atlas and Delta, and direct derivatives of the intellectual property of Atlas and Delta? And they can’t do anything BUT that, or else…what? They’d be dissolved by the government? Maybe you could clarify so that at least myself understands what ULA can and can’t do going forward. Because I think Ed is postulating a scenario where SLS gets ATK advanced boosters, and if they are really as cheap as ATK is claiming (and ArianeSpace’s probably move to a solid LV sorta makes that seem plausible) maybe ULA buys booster segments from ATK to create an Ariane 6 type LV? So if NASA wasn’t efficiency minded enough to use Atlas and Delta for their launchers, maybe DoD/USAF could use NASA boosters for their LV’s? And maybe that one common SLS composite based solid LV system lowers costs enough to also get some commercial business for ULA, as well as bringing costs down for USAF/DoD?
I think a scenario like that is what Ed is kicking around. But…maybe that’s not even possible for ULA to do, as an American Araine 6 wouldn’t be Atlas or Delta derived, and thus not technically an “EELV”, and thus, ULA is somehow prohibited from doing it?
Do you have some clarification on this?
EELV was/is a USAF program with requirements that Boeing and LM specifically designed Delta IV and Atlas V to meet, which then the USAF procured. So Delta IV and Atlas V are the only vehicles that are EELV's. they were evolved from existing ELV's, hence the name. It isn't the same as smartphones. There can be other vehicles that are in the EELV class, but they are not EELV's.
ULA exists specifically to manufacture and operate the Delta IV and Atlas V (EELVs) and their derivatives. Also, Boeing and LM can not develop anything similar that would compete with the EELV's. For anything new out of this box, Boeing and LM would go it alone and compete against each other.
Also, the USAF/DOD is not going to drop the EELV's for a least a decade and some.
Now that We know that Ariane 6 will use a solid first stage, I wonder if US launch services providers like ULA will be looking at similar options for the future, as a means of cutting launch costs.
No, because ULA only does EELV's. Just because Ariane does it, doesn't mean it works for others.
To avoid losing the ability to launch critical national security payloads, the National Space Transportation Policy requires the Department to sustain two evolved expendable launch vehicles (EELV) until the Department can certify assured access to space through reliance in a single vehicle. The Department cannot yet accept the risks of only one of the EELV launch vehicle families because they are relatively new, unproven systems with limited flight experience. A single supplier might achieve some of the cost saving benefits projected by the companies with ULA, but a single launch vehicle presents unacceptable risk to national security for the foreseeable future.
I really think that ULA should be looking to break into the commercial launch market. It occurs to me that there is plenty of spare Delta-IV capacity and maybe even some Atlas-V capacity (although I'd imagine a lot of the latter will ultimately go to commercial crew). The point is that, if they can get their prices down, the downfall of Sea Launch and the occasional problems with BRIZ-M could send some income their way.
ULA can't do commercial itself. It was created to perform EELV contract launches for the government. Boeing or Lockheed could contract ULA for that purpose (commercial), but that seems cumbersome, and obviously has not been effective.
Ed Kyle