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
That's a good point. I'd forgotten that. There has been some discussion in the light of Sea Launch's difficulties of payloads moving to other vehicles. It will be interesting to see if any end up on EELVs (Atlas V in particular.)
In that case, could ULA be dissolved now?
It's also worth reviewing the DoD's statement in support of the formation of ULA to the FTC, for example...QuoteTo 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.Boeing and LM may starve ULA, but DoD holds the key to its cage.
1. Seems like a better way to have gone would have been to subsidize both individually for a period of time until one or both LV's proved adequately reliable.
2. And then let it go to the "open market" after that. If one wanted to retire their line because there was too much overhead to maintain without full government funding, then so be it, the other one would get all the government work. If one or the other was able to reduced prices enough to get commercial contracts, so be it.
3. If a new company is able to start up and compete for that government work against LM and/or Boeing, then so be it. But this way it seems like the government has to go on funding ULA forever, or let it fold as it would likely collapse under it's weight without full government funding with it's overhead and costs structure (currently). And folding would mean both Atlas and Delta going bye-bye. LEaving no EELV for the government. I'm sure there was probably a good reason for the formation of ULA rather than funding the two companies separately for a period of time, but with my limited knowledge I can't see it.
4. Also, couldn't they have downselected to just one EELV, but retained Titan IV capability for a time (say 5 years) as the backup until the chosen EELV proved adequately reliable? SOunds likethe fear was both EELV's were new and unproven, and the government didn't want to run into a situation like they had after Challenger? So keep the Titan IV facilities at the CApe and VAFB in reserve for a few years until the EELV of choise demonstrates itself adequately, then retire Titan and have the single EELV. Then other upstart companies like SpaceX could later compete for that government work against Delta or Atlas if they were able to.
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.
Right. ULA is a bit like United Space Alliance in that regard. It would have to be a new entrant for EELV class business, not necessarily Lockheed or Boeing, but not ULA.
Ed Kyle
In that case, could ULA be dissolved now?
No. It is too integrated. Only if Atlas V and* Delta IV go away would it be possible to dissolve it. But as long as both exist, there is no way to separate them back into the parent company.
*Maybe or, and the remaining vehicle program (people, hardware, facilities, etc) goes back to the original parent company. And then there is question of compensation to the other company.
But it isn't going away, ULA has contracts for more than 5 years out.
1. it would have cost more
2. They already released LM from having to provide a Heavy and a west coast pad. So, they couldn't go all in and Boeing already cheated at this time
3. There were no other competitors.
4. There were only two launch vehicle providers in the late 1990's (LM and Boeing). There were no upstarts around. There were suppose to be many commercial constellations that would have sustained both companies.
1. it would have cost more
2. They already released LM from having to provide a Heavy and a west coast pad. So, they couldn't go all in and Boeing already cheated at this time
3. There were no other competitors.
4. There were only two launch vehicle providers in the late 1990's (LM and Boeing). There were no upstarts around. There were suppose to be many commercial constellations that would have sustained both companies.
Ok, thanks for the information Jim.
A couple of follow ups though.
#2: Atlas doesn't have a heavy, but they do have a pad at SLC-3, right? SO I'm not sure I understand this...
#3 & #4 There were no other competators, and no upstarts on the horizon back then. But wouldn't they have at least thought of the possibility that at some point in the future there -might- be? Seems unlikely they would have thought there'd never be another potential player...ever..other than LM and Boeing...
But this is the government we are talking about, so I can put nothing past them...
#4 Still, couldn't they have retained Titan capability for a few years, and chose just one EELV (and dealt with Boeing's cheating as a separate issue). Both EELV's were new, but even if the chosen one had a problem, it woudln't have been a program-ending problem, and would be able to be fixed and resolved by the EELV supplier. Titan could have been used as a backup during that prodcess. After a time, certainly whichever EELV was chosen, it would attain an adequate level of reliability, allowing Titan assets to be fully retired. Titan was expensive, but it's assets existed, and it was proven reliable. It wouldn't seem like there'd be a reason not to use it as the backup while the new EELV was proving itself.
But again, maybe there's things that were going on at that time I don't understand, and reasons they didn't do that.
SLC-3E and SLC-3W are reserved by USAF for ULA, SLC-3W remains inactive at this time and has not been upgraded since its last Atlas launch on 24 March 1995 with USA-109 on an Atlas-E/F launcher.
SLC-3E and SLC-3W are reserved by USAF for ULA, SLC-3W remains inactive at this time and has not been upgraded since its last Atlas launch on 24 March 1995 with USA-109 on an Atlas-E/F launcher.
SLC-3W was modified and supported a Falcon 1 flight readiness firing in 2005
#3 & #4 There were no other competators, and no upstarts on the horizon back then. But wouldn't they have at least thought of the possibility that at some point in the future there -might- be? Seems unlikely they would have thought there'd never be another potential player...ever..other than LM and Boeing...
But this is the government we are talking about, so I can put nothing past them...
#4 Still, couldn't they have retained Titan capability for a few years, and chose just one EELV (and dealt with Boeing's cheating as a separate issue). Both EELV's were new, but even if the chosen one had a problem, it woudln't have been a program-ending problem, and would be able to be fixed and resolved by the EELV supplier. Titan could have been used as a backup during that prodcess. After a time, certainly whichever EELV was chosen, it would attain an adequate level of reliability, allowing Titan assets to be fully retired. Titan was expensive, but it's assets existed, and it was proven reliable. It wouldn't seem like there'd be a reason not to use it as the backup while the new EELV was proving itself.
But again, maybe there's things that were going on at that time I don't understand, and reasons they didn't do that.
If a new company is able to start up and compete for that government work against LM and/or Boeing, then so be it. But this way it seems like the government has to go on funding ULA forever, or let it fold as it would likely collapse under it's weight without full government funding with it's overhead and costs structure (currently). And folding would mean both Atlas and Delta going bye-bye. LEaving no EELV for the government. I'm sure there was probably a good reason for the formation of ULA rather than funding the two companies separately for a period of time, but with my limited knowledge I can't see it.
So, as a related question, is there any reason ULA itself (if the government was ok with it) couldn't retire one LV and just focus on the other and stream line on that?
Or merge the two into a single Atlas Phase 2 that used parts of both, but was a singular LV system?
I know I've postulated that a few times on this thread, as that would seem from the outside as being the clear and obvious way forward, but maybe they can't or won't do that for reasons I don't really understand yet. (but I am learning!) .
Upper-stage engines (along with fairings) seem to be among the most troublesome components of today's launch vehicles. Doesn't pushing Atlas V and Delta IV toward a common upper stage eliminate much assuredness of assured space launch, thereby undermining the whole rationale for keeping two EELVs in the first place?
If a new company is able to start up and compete for that government work against LM and/or Boeing, then so be it. But this way it seems like the government has to go on funding ULA forever, or let it fold as it would likely collapse under it's weight without full government funding with it's overhead and costs structure (currently). And folding would mean both Atlas and Delta going bye-bye. LEaving no EELV for the government. I'm sure there was probably a good reason for the formation of ULA rather than funding the two companies separately for a period of time, but with my limited knowledge I can't see it.
Think 2005/6, what options did the AF, Lockheed or Boeing have? As independent companies the overhead costs were much higher than ULA. There was no alternative launch offering. So there was a shotgun wedding. Now 8 years later was that the correct decision? ULA has delivered what was intended, reduced cost, assured access to orbit and reliable launch. Even today there is no viable alternative, a lot of hope, but a lot more broken promises.
Upper-stage engines (along with fairings) seem to be among the most troublesome components of today's launch vehicles. Doesn't pushing Atlas V and Delta IV toward a common upper stage eliminate much assuredness of assured space launch, thereby undermining the whole rationale for keeping two EELVs in the first place?
Going to a more common upper stage would make things "worse" in that more anomalies would have to be resolved for both vehicles.