And now similar logic is being used to keep two commercial crew providers in the game.
The only lesson we can learn from history is that the lessons never seem to be learned.
That's a bit harsh; I think we have learned a bit, and commercial crew's approach reflects it.
Or it could just be that in life, there are multiple competing lessons to be learned.
No doubt. One such lesson is that a free market is one where the government isn't involved and therefore applying free market economics to a situation where the government is the primary (or only) customer is just silly.
Paging Dr Bigelow.
IMHO depends entirely on what ULA is able to do to remain competitive 2018+ without significant support from their parents between now and then, which at present doesn't appear to look good.
that isn't true.
a. ULA doesn't get any support from its parents and hasn't for several years
b. it does look good for being competitive
Right; as I said, "without significant support from their parents". That support could come in two ways: (1) injection of new money; (2) reduction in the amount of money they take out of ULA. (Excluding significant credit lines and guarantees which Boeing and LM provide to ULA, but those are constrained and for specific purposes.)
Assuming Boeing and LM won't go for option (1), then the question is how much of ULA's profits they're willing to let ULA keep? ULA's profitability sets an upper bound on that amount, and is effectively determined by the DOD. Subtract from that the amount Boeing and LM are willing to let ULA keep, and you have the maximum amount ULA has to invest in ongoing improvements.
The alternative is to assert that for ULA to compete in the market 2018+, they will require no improvements and thus no investment between now and then. Doubtful.
It becomes more of a matter that ULA's internal fate, future sustainability, and viability hinges a great deal on Boeing and Lockheed Martin resolving their differences
Boeing and LM differences have no bearing on this matter. It is up to ULA.
See above. Maybe "resolving their differences" isn't the correct framing, but the amount ULA has available to invest in improvements depends on agreement between Boeing and LM. While execution within given boundaries may be up to ULA, ULA is largely at the mercy of others in drawing those boundaries.
As matters stand, I think the only thing keeping Delta-IV's nose above the water is the fact that DoD seems to prefer the type and Delta-IVH is currently the only operation vehicle of its type available from US launch providers.
Well then scrap Atlas, uses a russian engine anyway.
Delta can't do human launch, so Atlas is needed for Commercial Crew. That's the delightful situation in which we find ourselves: D-IVH is needed for heavy launch and Atlas-V is needed for crew launch.
I'm pretty sure the Atlas would be the better one to keep. I -think- it's cheaper, and it will be man rated. I believe Jim said earlier in this thread or another than with a wide body Centaur, Atlas 55x would have the capacity of current D4H. ULA's been kicking around the idea of a common 5m upper stage for awhile now for both lines. So that could be an avenue to get D4H capacity while downsizing to just the one booster core.
Adding a tri-core Atlas V-heavy would be a pretty easy upgrade uption from there that would get over 30mt with the WBC, if there was ever a payload and customer for it.
... two completely different EELV's was not necessarily forever. Per the DoD in 2006, "for the foreseeable future", "because they are relatively new, unproven systems with limited flight experience", and "until the Department can certify assured access to space through reliance in a single vehicle".
That's interesting. I wonder whether DoD could ever truly "certify assured access to space through reliance in a single vehicle."
Never was a valid requirement. There was no backup for Titan IV and there is no backup for Delta IV Heavy
Yea, wasn't the "backup" of keeping both initially mainly because they were both new and they weren't sure if problems might arise in one or the other? Until they proved their reliability?
Never was a valid requirement. There was no backup for Titan IV and there is no backup for Delta IV Heavy
So what, pray tell, is the justification for keeping both EELVs on line?
I'm guessing the main reason is Atlas can't duplciate D4H, but Atlas is probably potentially the better and more flexible LV? And easiest to man-rate.
And it would take investment to upgrade Atlas V to meet D4H performance. Might be some issues with needing to produce a certain number of Delta cores to recoup initial sunk costs in the program? Before you'd break even and could retire it.
common launch pads capable of both vehicles, common launcher processing center for both vehicles,
Not going to happen since they are unique to the cores and the cores are not going to change.
It makes no sense to develop a common core that only differs on propellant and engines. There is no requirement for specific propellant or engines. So there is a need or drive to go to one core, it will be a "common" core and will eliminate the other one. Will look more like an Atlas since it will be easier to adapt.
Yea, I couldn't see them going with a common diameter core, but still keeping cores with different propellants.
Just retire one so production of the other can increase. They could commonize on a single 5m kerolox core, which would basically be a short D4 core, with different LOX and fuel tank ratios...otherwise known as Atlas Phase 2. But that requires the new development of a new 5m kerolox core. Even if using exisitng engines and tank tooling as it would, I imagine it wouldn't be cheap.
Good to hear Atlas would be the more likely of the two to keep. That'd be what I have guessed, but interesting to hear it from Jim.
Never was a valid requirement. There was no backup for Titan IV and there is no backup for Delta IV Heavy
So what, pray tell, is the justification for keeping both EELVs on line?
I'm guessing the main reason is Atlas can't duplciate D4H, but Atlas is probably potentially the better and more flexible LV? And easiest to man-rate.
And it would take investment to upgrade Atlas V to meet D4H performance. Might be some issues with needing to produce a certain number of Delta cores to recoup initial sunk costs in the program? Before you'd break even and could retire it.
The Atlas family can duplicate the performance of the Delta IV Heavy and better it. An Atlas V Heavy is supposed to be able to put 29 mt into LEO and lift 13.5 mt to GTO. If that isn't adequate for the USAF's needs I don't know what would be adequate. What needs to happen is ULA needs to make the investments necessary to make the Atlas V Heavy a reality. Do that and they can kill off the Delta IV entirely. Or they could sit there, fiddling at the margins, until Spacex and possibly even Orbital knock down their front door. They're already losing NASA contracts to both of those firms, so it's not like ULA is benefiting from the status quo. If they want to survive in the long run, they're going to have to make some serious investments, slim down, and go independent. Short of outright independence, ULA is too hamstrung to be an effective competitor long-term to Spacex.
I would hazard a guess the nightmare scenario is Orbital upgrading the Antares with an LRE upper stage and renovating a pad at Cape Canaveral. It might not happen, but I've long since learned that firms often move into new markets in steps. If Orbital follows Spacex' lead, ULA will have to take action.
They're already losing NASA contracts to both of those firms, so it's not like ULA is benefiting from the status quo. If they want to survive in the long run, they're going to have to make some serious investments, slim down, and go independent. Short of outright independence, ULA is too hamstrung to be an effective competitor long-term to Spacex.
Not true. Between the two of them, there has only been one launch. COTS and CRS don't count, since those involve a spacecraft.
Also, unsupported conclusion. 4 launches is not enough data to base such a claim.
Short of outright independence, ULA is too hamstrung to be an effective competitor long-term to Spacex.
I tend to think that Lockheed buying out Boeing’s share would be just as good. The problem isn’t necessarily lack of independence, it’s trying to serve two masters.
COTS and CRS don't count, since those involve a spacecraft.
Wait, what? >.<
Short of outright independence, ULA is too hamstrung to be an effective competitor long-term to Spacex.
I tend to think that Lockheed buying out Boeing’s share would be just as good. The problem isn’t necessarily lack of independence, it’s trying to serve two masters.
COTS and CRS don't count, since those involve a spacecraft.
Wait, what? >.<
ULA only supplies launch services and not cargo and therefore is excluded from directly competing
Never was a valid requirement. There was no backup for Titan IV and there is no backup for Delta IV Heavy
So what, pray tell, is the justification for keeping both EELVs on line?
I'm guessing the main reason is Atlas can't duplciate D4H, but Atlas is probably potentially the better and more flexible LV? And easiest to man-rate.
And it would take investment to upgrade Atlas V to meet D4H performance. Might be some issues with needing to produce a certain number of Delta cores to recoup initial sunk costs in the program? Before you'd break even and could retire it.
The Atlas family can duplicate the performance of the Delta IV Heavy and better it. An Atlas V Heavy is supposed to be able to put 29 mt into LEO and lift 13.5 mt to GTO. If that isn't adequate for the USAF's needs I don't know what would be adequate. What needs to happen is ULA needs to make the investments necessary to make the Atlas V Heavy a reality. Do that and they can kill off the Delta IV entirely. Or they could sit there, fiddling at the margins, until Spacex and possibly even Orbital knock down their front door. They're already losing NASA contracts to both of those firms, so it's not like ULA is benefiting from the status quo. If they want to survive in the long run, they're going to have to make some serious investments, slim down, and go independent. Short of outright independence, ULA is too hamstrung to be an effective competitor long-term to Spacex.
I would hazard a guess the nightmare scenario is Orbital upgrading the Antares with an LRE upper stage and renovating a pad at Cape Canaveral. It might not happen, but I've long since learned that firms often move into new markets in steps. If Orbital follows Spacex' lead, ULA will have to take action.
Ummm...I meant the versions of Atlas currently flying can't match D4H which also is currently flying.
Of course they could build an AVH. I just meant what's flying now without more investment.
As I mentioned earlier though, the better investment might be a WBC/ACES to put on top of the Atlas-55x LV. According to Jim that will meet D4H's performance, and it would get ULA the 5m common upper stage that seem to be wanting, at least given they've been studying it and talking about it for a long time.
AVH has significantly better LEO performance than D4H, but I think it's GTO/GSO/escape peroformance isn't much different because D4H has a bigger upper stage in the 5m DCSS than current Centaur. AVH with current Centaur has it's BLEO capacity limited compared to it's LEO capacity because of Centaur's size.
A 5m WBC would fix that, and even have more fuel than DCSS I believe.
So I'm thinking that upgrade would make more sense than AVH with current Centaur. And it would be a next gen upper stage will all the cool tech ULA's been tinkering with for the last several years. It wouldn't require any pad modifications either I don't think, as AVH would for the two outboard CCB's.
I would hazard a guess the nightmare scenario is Orbital upgrading the Antares with an LRE upper stage and renovating a pad at Cape Canaveral. It might not happen, but I've long since learned that firms often move into new markets in steps. If Orbital follows Spacex' lead, ULA will have to take action.
That is no threat to ULA.
ULA only supplies launch services and not cargo and therefore is excluded from directly competing
True, but changing that to "directly or indirectly" doesn't appear to change much. I would also hope that ULA feels as a partner that they are competing for
CRS CCP as much as Boeing and SNC, otherwise they have institutional problems that go far beyond legal constraints.
So I'm thinking that upgrade would make more sense than AVH with current Centaur. And it would be a next gen upper stage will all the cool tech ULA's been tinkering with for the last several years. It wouldn't require any pad modifications either I don't think, as AVH would for the two outboard CCB's.
The $M (or $B?) question is where is the money going to come from to fund such changes? DOD is focused on cost control, and that will likely continue for the foreseeable future. Boeing and LM don't appear to be interested--or maybe they are and they have a plan which we haven't seen indications of?
ULA only supplies launch services and not cargo and therefore is excluded from directly competing
True, but changing that to "directly or indirectly" doesn't appear to change much. I would also hope that ULA feels as a partner that they are competing for CRS as much as Boeing and SNC, otherwise they have institutional problems that go far beyond legal constraints.
I was referring to the past CRS and COTS competition. The context was ULA "losing" contracts to OSC and Spacex, which isn't true, except for one launch, Jason.
I was referring to the past CRS and COTS competition. The context was ULA "losing" contracts to OSC and Spacex, which isn't true, except for one launch, Jason.
Oops, right. And original post corrected: CCP not CRS.
They're already losing NASA contracts to both of those firms, so it's not like ULA is benefiting from the status quo. If they want to survive in the long run, they're going to have to make some serious investments, slim down, and go independent. Short of outright independence, ULA is too hamstrung to be an effective competitor long-term to Spacex.
Not true. Between the two of them, there has only been one launch. COTS and CRS don't count, since those involve a spacecraft.
Also, unsupported conclusion. 4 launches is not enough data to base such a claim.
So let me get this straight, ULA is going from having a monopoly on both NASA and DoD launches to only one on DoD launches that is now under threat, and this is a good situation to find themselves in? Losing a monopoly by definition means they're losing market share, meaning had Orbital and Spacex not become involved, those future COTS launches could have been revenue for ULA instead. I also think the attitude of dismissing one's competition is really dangerous.
Let me tell you about a firm that once did that. I'm sure you've used a cellphone. Well, the inventor of that was a firm called Motorola. Their management, with which I am familiar, believed that Motorola would become the world's first trillion dollar company in the 1980s and early 1990s. When competition began to spring up, they dismissed it. Nokia? "Nokia's better at making toilet paper than cellphones!" Motorola further shot itself in the foot by not recognizing the importance of transitioning from analog to digital, and soon found itself losing its crown to a firm that once manufactured toilet paper. Even after all that, members of the firm totally missed the appeal of the iPhone, and now Motorola is a bit player in a sector it started.
There may be more barriers to entry for Spacex and Orbital, but make no mistake, dismissing them as threats now is a bad idea. It's not like Orbital couldn't get a more ambitious CEO who wanted to upgrade the Antares and compete for more NASA & DoD launches. Orbital does have the cash to make that happen. All they need is the right individual in power and suddenly ULA could find itself in a dogfight with 2 competitors for NASA launches. Ah, but what do I know? I'm sure right now you're calling your family on a Motorola cellphone, no?
Losing a monopoly by definition means they're losing market share, meaning had Orbital and Spacex not become involved, those future COTS launches could have been revenue for ULA instead.
Well, technically "losing a monopoly" does not "by definition" mean "they're losing market share". But yes, practically speaking in this case it does, as putting anything in orbit requires launch services, for which ULA is demonstrably not competitive other than for a narrow subset of the "launch services" market.
I also think the attitude of dismissing one's competition is really dangerous.
Agree. Betting on the failure of your competition is not a recipe for success. That might have been a valid (if low-probability) argument a few years ago; today, not so much, and decreasing rapidly with every passing month.
There may be more barriers to entry for Spacex and Orbital...
I'd argue the opposite. ULA does not have a Secret Sauce that only They know how to concoct; they have no Secret Technology that only They are privvy to. It is a matter of organizational rigor, discipline and hunger.
In short, ULA may be able to defend their patch of turf for some time to come, but that patch will be a decreasingly small part of the pie. Eventually--unless there are subsantive changes--defending that patch will become unsustainable or it will be reduced to irrelevance.
There may be more barriers to entry for Spacex and Orbital, but make no mistake, dismissing them as threats now is a bad idea. It's not like Orbital couldn't get a more ambitious CEO who wanted to upgrade the Antares and compete for more NASA & DoD launches. Orbital does have the cash to make that happen. All they need is the right individual in power and suddenly ULA could find itself in a dogfight with 2 competitors for NASA launches. Ah, but what do I know? I'm sure right now you're calling your family on a Motorola cellphone, no?
You are absolutely correct, one should never dismiss potential threats. That said, a key assumption is that Antares or Falcon are cheaper than the EELV's. While there is a lot of speculation that Falcon is very cheap, and SpaceX has sold contracts at low values, what is the actual cost. With SpaceX's staffing now equivalent to ULA's why does anyone think that Falcon is cheaper to build and launch?
