-
#280
by
Lobo
on 30 Apr, 2014 17:23
-
I can't see any way for ULA to get the prices of the current Delta-IV or Atlas-V down to the levels Space-X are clearly aiming for, so there comes a point where their only realistic chance of competing with this new paradigm is to design a new vehicle that targets a competitive price point.
That isn't for ULA to do, that would be up Boeing or LM individually to decide if they want to do it themselves.
ULA can't do anything but EELV's.
LM and Boeing can't do ELV's in the EELV class. But they could do RLV's in any class.
Jim,
Maybe you can help us understand a little, what can or might happen to ULA if in at some point in the future, USAF let's ULA restructure as they like, and competatively bids -all- launches. And assuming that at ULA's current prices, SpaceX is able to undercut them on each launch (even if SpaceX's prices go up from where they are now in order to meet USAF and DoD requirements.)
You've said ULA can only operate the Atlas and Delta EELV's. They can't develop a new, lower cost ELV in that class.
What would likely happen? Would ULA streamline and downselect to just one EELV?
Would they disolve and go back to their parent companies, as the environment in which they were created would have changed?
Can their "charter" be changed such that they could develop any new/different ELV's in the EELV class to better compete in open bidding with SpaceX for government and commercial payloads, and ArianeSpace for international payloads?
I've gathered ULA is as it is because of the conditions and events that existed in the early 2000's. Will USAF and DoD ever start competing all launches? And if so, how do you see ULA's actions going forward?
-
#281
by
butters
on 30 Apr, 2014 17:53
-
If I understand it correctly, ULA's charter is a disaster. It prevents them from developing new launch systems, and it prevents the two biggest aerospace corporations in the United States from doing their own medium-heavy launch systems. It's programmed from the outset to be a dead end, and it practically ensures that a new generation of launch providers will have to leap-frog the incumbents and carry the future of the U.S. launch industry.
The question isn't how should ULA's business model change. How could it? ULA is the original kind of corporation, like we used to have at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, where corporations where narrowly chartered for a specific purpose (e.g. build a bridge) and then dissolved after their designated role had been exhausted.
-
#282
by
mmeijeri
on 30 Apr, 2014 18:42
-
Couldn't someone (say Aerojet) approach Boeing and LM with a proposal to buy ULA, or at least a stake in it? Is there anything in the consent decree that would disallow this?
-
#283
by
John-H
on 30 Apr, 2014 19:01
-
Perhaps we are looking at this from the wrong end. ULA seems to be the unwanted stepchild of two parents who did not do well in the EELV program. Faced with a declining government launch rate and rising prices, they had no reason to stay in the market at all.
The Air Force, however, absolutely needs to launch a variety of payloads and has to pay whatever it takes. They can beg and plead for lower costs, but the only way to be sure the payloads are launched is to pay enough to make it worthwhile for the seller.
Could there be one faction in the Air Force that pushed the block buy as a way to ensure that the rockets, and the people that they have learned to deal with, are still around in a few years time? Another faction is willing to take a chance on lower prices and hope that the capability and schedule performance will be there when needed.
If SpaceX takes some of the launches, the remainder will be even more expensive for the Air Force, and the total savings may not be as expected. ULA will survive until ALL of its capabilities can be matched by someone else.
-
#284
by
Space Ghost 1962
on 30 Apr, 2014 20:30
-
Well meant posts but a little off.
The "special existence" of ULA is none of those things. It's rather obvious - US govt needed an ELV better than the past Atlas Delta Titan, so the deal was to have a competition and end up with one they could hold onto to answer specific need effectively.
For various reasons we ended up with both. To make both into one, we took parts out of two firms and glued them together as one.
This is why its "special". Nothing more. Please leave it at that.
You have two shareholders as a direct result. The shotgun marriage of sorts has a very specific prenuptial, because these are major league competitors. The rules are clear and aren't going to change.
So what's the limits here? The two shareholders desires as far as how much to adjust/improve joint EELV offering addressing F9/FH - maybe a little, maybe more. Up to them.
What's not in bounds - ULA making a F9R/FHR/FXX direct competitor. Because LockMart/Boeing would be the one to do so.
ULA isn't an unwanted stepchild. Its a tremendous success that has defined the norm and is hard to dismiss with its successes.
It means that Boeing and LockMart can bid on related work and not have to depend upon another firm to get things on orbit (or not). Extremely valuable.
But you can't wave a magic wand and turn it into this thing or that thing as you like. Not mutable. Hard to get two big companies to agree on much different, especially when they have so much riding on things not changing.
Which is not to mean they won't change because they are. But not in unreal ways. Only in real ways.
-
#285
by
butters
on 30 Apr, 2014 21:01
-
What's not in bounds - ULA making a F9R/FHR/FXX direct competitor. Because LockMart/Boeing would be the one to do so.
I'm not sure that true. It's my understanding that Lockheed and Boeing aren't allowed to pursue EELV-class launch vehicles of the type they'd need to compete with SpaceX. Jim mentioned that they are permitted to do RLVs, but as SpaceX is demonstrating, it's a lot easier to develop an RLV if you can market the prototypes as ELVs.
ULA can't change, and its parents can't enter the market.
-
#286
by
Space Ghost 1962
on 30 Apr, 2014 21:15
-
What's not in bounds - ULA making a F9R/FHR/FXX direct competitor. Because LockMart/Boeing would be the one to do so.
I'm not sure that true. It's my understanding that Lockheed and Boeing aren't allowed to pursue EELV-class launch vehicles of the type they'd need to compete with SpaceX. Jim mentioned that they are permitted to do RLVs, but as SpaceX is demonstrating, it's a lot easier to develop an RLV if you can market the prototypes as ELVs.
ULA can't change, and its parents can't enter the market.
Understand. But ... this is about contracts ... legal definitions ... which work by specific semantics. I'll try to help you on this.
At the time of the ULA creation, no one had done an RLV that was optionally an ELV. Didn't exist for the contract to take it into account.
Now one exists. Has a business model. It clearly does not fit against specific definition of Atlas V or Delta IV. In law it is discrete and non-overlapping. To add more, in the history between the start of ULA to present, nothing ULA has done falls within the province of such. Closest is a proposal to recover and reuse engines as a recoverable engine pod - not in F9R.
So yes unsurprisingly Jim is right. I've helped you.
-
#287
by
mgfitter
on 01 May, 2014 17:46
-
With legal shackles like this binding all three companies, there doesn't appear to be an easy path for any of them to actually compete with Space-X, assuming of course that they do pull-off the re-usability technology trick and can thereby drop their prices in the manner they are clearly aiming for.
What is becoming even clearer than ever, is that LM/Boeing are going to have to fix this first, if they want any hope of remaining competitive in this changing marketplace.
I still say that selling ULA as a going concern, together with providing appropriate permissions for ULA to continue to develop its products completely independently, is going to be the most profitable route for the parents at this point. I wouldn't be surprised to start hearing noises in public, along this direction, before the end of the year.
Maybe even sooner given the Orbital/ATK merger.
-MG.
-
#288
by
Lobo
on 02 May, 2014 22:45
-
With legal shackles like this binding all three companies, there doesn't appear to be an easy path for any of them to actually compete with Space-X, assuming of course that they do pull-off the re-usability technology trick and can thereby drop their prices in the manner they are clearly aiming for.
What is becoming even clearer than ever, is that LM/Boeing are going to have to fix this first, if they want any hope of remaining competitive in this changing marketplace.
Well, I don't know they they would compete per se. It depends if USAF/DoD continues to pay them enough to "retain" their services as is, and use them for most of their launches.
If USAF/DoD decides they won't do that any more, and they would allow each launch (or perhaps small groups of launches) to be competed openly, ULA probably won't be able to compete as they are now. They'll need to restructure. There's not need to restructure until USAF/DoD stops paying them to retain their current operation and capabilities. So it really depends on that happening. Yes, they have shackles on, but they are paid to wear them, so it's not necessarily detrimental to them.
Maybe even sooner given the Orbital/ATK merger.
-MG.
Yes, that has interesting possibilities. Especially if they decide to upgrade Antares enough with big ATK solid segmented boosters to push it up into EELV class performance. It could be pretty low cost if all solid, and if ATK's new shuttle booster diameter booster segments are relatively cheap.
They could continue to launch from Wallops. They could lease a VAB bay and modify an old STS MLP to launch at 39B (NASA's trying to get someone to do that anyway). The solid booster segments could use the SLS SRB infrastructure directly to get there and stack.
And VAFB or Kodiak to be used to launch on the West Coast. I believe Kodiak has vertical integration capabilities. Might be an issue of access to the payload on the pad, which I believe USAF requires. Wallops and KSC won't have that, and I don't know if Kodiak does. It would have to be added new for sure to any place at VAFB. So not sure how they'd handle that for USAF/DoD launches.
-
#289
by
RocketGoBoom
on 03 May, 2014 19:41
-
Once Falcon Heavy has completed 3 launches and is certified by the USAF, would that be sufficient to qualify SpaceX to compete for 100% of the same launches that ULA currently provides? Is there some other category of payload that the Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy would still not be able to handle?
-
#290
by
Jim
on 03 May, 2014 20:29
-
CCAFS and VAFB are the only approved launch sites for the DOD because of the existing payload processing infrastructure.
-
#291
by
rcoppola
on 03 May, 2014 22:09
-
The real question is how should the EELV program model be changed going forward.
ULA has been simply catering to the requirements as set forth by a vital Govt' concern. It is that concern and the requirements set forth to ensure the successful facilitation of that concern that have been driving this bus.
I'd just assume a top to bottom review of the entirety of the EELV program. Without that, it's not practical to expect ULA to be able to alter their business model in a meaningful way. IMO
-
#292
by
AncientU
on 04 May, 2014 16:49
-
The real question is how should the EELV program model be changed going forward.
ULA has been simply catering to the requirements as set forth by a vital Govt' concern. It is that concern and the requirements set forth to ensure the successful facilitation of that concern that have been driving this bus.
I'd just assume a top to bottom review of the entirety of the EELV program. Without that, it's not practical to expect ULA to be able to alter their business model in a meaningful way. IMO
The 'top' of that review should be the 'no price is too high' and 'what NRO wants, NRO gets' commandments. Everyone is assuming we need and are getting all the 'safety' we are paying for from the tens of billions of dollars we are orbiting in the name of security. (Note: $10B = lifetime income of 2,500 professionals)
Maybe, just maybe, they could get along with less (say 50%, just to pick a number).
-
#293
by
watermod
on 04 May, 2014 23:23
-
Everyone is assuming we need and are getting all the 'safety' we are paying for from the tens of billions of dollars we are orbiting in the name of security.
Maybe the National Security folks should always have a few more spare satellites when they contract for them. That would permit a "riskier" calculation for launch platforms and could well be cheaper and more robust in the end and spares available for emergencies.
-
#294
by
Coastal Ron
on 05 May, 2014 00:11
-
The real question is how should the EELV program model be changed going forward.
ULA has been simply catering to the requirements as set forth by a vital Govt' concern. It is that concern and the requirements set forth to ensure the successful facilitation of that concern that have been driving this bus.
I'd just assume a top to bottom review of the entirety of the EELV program. Without that, it's not practical to expect ULA to be able to alter their business model in a meaningful way. IMO
I think there is some truth to what you are saying.
Regardless how ULA got to this point, they can't just drop their prices and suddenly be able to compete with SpaceX and be as profitable as SpaceX (which is the only way to survive long term). They have built up their infrastructure to match not only their customers every need, but also to match the prices they charge.
So if the Air Force wants ULA to be a service provider for the long term after SpaceX starts taking away business from them, AND for ULA to drop their prices so as to stay competitive with SpaceX, then the Air Force and the U.S. Government entities that have payloads to be launched are going to have to be involved too.
That's going to have to take leadership from someone within the government, likely someone in the Air Force. Someone whose mission is to take a lot of cost out of the system, which means they are not going to be popular with those that don't want to remove people and infrastructure from the gravy train. We'll see if that happens.
In the mean time Boeing and Lockheed Martin have to figure out how to deal with a smaller pie for launches, and pressure to reduce costs far more than they supposedly have. And that's going to be interesting to watch.
-
#295
by
TrevorMonty
on 28 Jul, 2014 17:36
-
-
#296
by
a_langwich
on 29 Jul, 2014 04:00
-
This article could have gone under multiple threads but I liked the part about ULA engineering team. It would be great to see what ULA could do if they were given more freedom by their owners.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/07/28/space-access-society-update/
I am curious about one point raised by the article: Boeing doing the upper stage work for SLS, when ULA has the experts.
I vaguely remember this coming up before, and Jim saying it was complicated...Jim, could you set us straight again?
The Centaur hardware folks are at ULA now? DCSS hardware and design guys are at ULA too?
Does the Boeing upper stage contract for SLS cut out Kutter et al and all the ACES and IVF work? Or would Boeing subcontract to ULA?
Does Bernard Kutter (or any such ULA employee) put on a Boeing hat and do work for SLS, and then put on a ULA hat and do ACES and IVF, or is that impossible by the terms of the merger?
-
#297
by
Jim
on 29 Jul, 2014 12:53
-
1. The Centaur hardware folks are at ULA now? DCSS hardware and design guys are at ULA too?
Does the Boeing upper stage contract for SLS cut out Kutter et al and all the ACES and IVF work? Or would Boeing subcontract to ULA?
2. Does Bernard Kutter (or any such ULA employee) put on a Boeing hat and do work for SLS, and then put on a ULA hat and do ACES and IVF, or is that impossible by the terms of the merger?
1. yes, yes, yes, don't know
2. Not possible. They are either one or the other, but not both.
-
#298
by
a_langwich
on 29 Jul, 2014 22:09
-
1. The Centaur hardware folks are at ULA now? DCSS hardware and design guys are at ULA too?
Does the Boeing upper stage contract for SLS cut out Kutter et al and all the ACES and IVF work? Or would Boeing subcontract to ULA?
2. Does Bernard Kutter (or any such ULA employee) put on a Boeing hat and do work for SLS, and then put on a ULA hat and do ACES and IVF, or is that impossible by the terms of the merger?
1. yes, yes, yes, don't know
2. Not possible. They are either one or the other, but not both.
Ouch, that's too bad. ULA really does have all the experience, have shown they are thinking very closely about exploration features in upper stage designs, have been pursuing innovative ideas... sigh.
-
#299
by
CommercialSpaceFan
on 03 Aug, 2014 01:15
-
1. The Centaur hardware folks are at ULA now? DCSS hardware and design guys are at ULA too?
Does the Boeing upper stage contract for SLS cut out Kutter et al and all the ACES and IVF work? Or would Boeing subcontract to ULA?
2. Does Bernard Kutter (or any such ULA employee) put on a Boeing hat and do work for SLS, and then put on a ULA hat and do ACES and IVF, or is that impossible by the terms of the merger?
1. yes, yes, yes, don't know
2. Not possible. They are either one or the other, but not both.
Ouch, that's too bad. ULA really does have all the experience, have shown they are thinking very closely about exploration features in upper stage designs, have been pursuing innovative ideas... sigh.
Lockheed had the shuttle era external tank experience. ULA has the nations LH2 upper stage experience. Apparently NASA had other priorities then building on experience.