ULA charter and the current reality

ULA charter and the current reality by saliva_sweet on 09 Dec, 2014 19:06
Quote from: russianhalo117 on 08 Nov, 2014 15:47
Quote from: saliva_sweet on 08 Nov, 2014 10:26
Quote from: MP99 on 08 Nov, 2014 08:17
ULA can't sell to Orbital.

I wonder if this is true anymore. Boeing and LM may have substantially revised the original ULA charter. A lot of the noises Bruno has been making are not compatible with it.
Only governmental flights can be sold and managed directly by ULA. Commercial flights are the responsibility of the original designer that deveoloped and flew their launcher before the creation of ULA. ULA will in turn be contracted for building the rocket and Launcher ops as well as some other areas. SC processing and checkout are managed by LM/Boeing according to the given contract instructions arranged by the customer. Jim is capable of providing additional details and corrections as I'm going off my memory of previous commercial flights.

There was also another post that said ULA charter cannot be revised before 2017. But reality has changed a lot since the charter was set up. Tory Bruno has been saying and is implementing things that are not compatible with it. And now there's this:
Quote from: Orbital Sciences press release
Atlas V Launch: Orbital has contracted with United Launch Alliance for an Atlas V launch of a Cygnus cargo spacecraft from Cape Canaveral, Florida, in the fourth quarter of 2015, with an option for a second Atlas V launch in 2016 if needed. The Atlas rocket’s greater lift capacity will allow Cygnus to carry nearly 35% more cargo to the ISS than previously planned for CRS missions in 2015.

Has it been changed after all? Did LM and Boeing get permission to alter it from the government? I am genuinely confused.
#1 by Jim on 09 Dec, 2014 19:15
It is still a gov't mission and not really a commercial mission. Much like EFT-1.
#2 by baldusi on 09 Dec, 2014 19:18
ULA contracts out directly all launches for the US Government. This includes NASA as a customer. Look at the Delta IV Heavy EFT-1 mission. LM was the Orion contractor and it went directly to ULA, if it was commercial LM would have had to go through Boeing. Now Orbital needs to launch its own craft to the ISS under a NASA contract and they also went to ULA. Straight NASA launches (like InSight mission) are handled with ULA through the NLS I/II launch contract. But the MexSat-3 contract on Atlas V was an LM contract (as in Launch Services company). Confusing but its consistent in its internal logic.
#3 by saliva_sweet on 09 Dec, 2014 19:31
Thanks Jim and baldusi. Looks like everything is consistent and the charter stands for the time being.
#4 by woods170 on 10 Dec, 2014 09:25
Quote from: Jim on 09 Dec, 2014 19:15
It is still a gov't mission and not really a commercial mission. Much like EFT-1.
You just defined a grey area.

NASA buys not a launcher and not even a spacecraft, but a service under CRS-1. Yet that is enough to classify it as a 'government mission' to be compatible with the ULA charter. Nice get away.
#5 by saliva_sweet on 10 Dec, 2014 09:49
Quote from: woods170 on 10 Dec, 2014 09:25
Quote from: Jim on 09 Dec, 2014 19:15
It is still a gov't mission and not really a commercial mission. Much like EFT-1.
You just defined a grey area.

NASA buys not a launcher and not even a spacecraft, but a service under CRS-1. Yet that is enough to classify it as a 'government mission' to be compatible with the ULA charter. Nice get away.

Can ULA use this gray area to distort the commercial market using block buy money? Can we expect another lawsuit?
#6 by Jim on 10 Dec, 2014 14:24
Quote from: woods170 on 10 Dec, 2014 09:25
You just defined a grey area.

NASA buys not a launcher and not even a spacecraft, but a service under CRS-1. Yet that is enough to classify it as a 'government mission' to be compatible with the ULA charter. Nice get away.

It actually saves money for the gov't, which was the point of ULA. There is no need to pay for the "tax" of the commercial launch company.

That is why there is no issue with it being done this way.
#7 by saliva_sweet on 10 Dec, 2014 15:47
Quote from: Jim on 10 Dec, 2014 14:24
It actually saves money for the gov't, which was the point of ULA.

How? CRS is fixed price. Will Orbital be benefiting from the EELV launch capability contract or will there be a reimbursement to DOD?
#8 by butters on 10 Dec, 2014 16:11
Sorry, but how is NASA the customer when CRS providers procure launch services?
#9 by rcoppola on 10 Dec, 2014 16:21
Quote from: butters on 10 Dec, 2014 16:11
Sorry, but how is NASA the customer when CRS providers procure launch services?
Because they're procuring launch services to fulfill a "Government" contract. And so it is within ULA's current charter.
#10 by ArbitraryConstant on 10 Dec, 2014 19:42
One thing that's not super clear to me is how ULA can build a brand new expendable launcher under the current charter.

Looking at the 2020s, it's going to be a new first stage, almost certainly a new US. Maybe a pretty substantial Atlas heritage but definitely not in any way shape or form by any stretch of the imagination an Atlas V. The Delta IV probably goes away, so Boeing's participation is reduced.

How is this not a material change in ULA's status?
#11 by savuporo on 10 Dec, 2014 21:22
Quote from: ArbitraryConstant on 10 Dec, 2014 19:42
One thing that's not super clear to me is how ULA can build a brand new expendable launcher under the current charter.
if you are referring to the initial charter restrictions on new launcher development, that clause has expired for a while now.
we had details on that in one of these threads here.
#12 by terryy on 12 Dec, 2014 08:42
Quote from: Jim on 10 Dec, 2014 14:24

It actually saves money for the gov't, which was the point of ULA. There is no need to pay for the "tax" of the commercial launch company.

That is why there is no issue with it being done this way.

So that means Orbital/ULA will not have to make a ELC reimbursement payment to the DoD for this launch? Do we know how much that would be if they had to pay it?
#13 by saliva_sweet on 12 Dec, 2014 09:47
Quote from: terryy on 12 Dec, 2014 08:42
So that means Orbital/ULA will not have to make a ELC reimbursement payment to the DoD for this launch? Do we know how much that would be if they had to pay it?

If this is the case SpaceX should sue right now. This would mean that SpaceX's competitors in CRS, CRS2 and commercial crew can have their launches subsidized by DOD to the tune of $70M per launch (ELC ~$1B/year divided by 14 ULA launches this year).
#14 by baldusi on 12 Dec, 2014 10:28
Quote from: saliva_sweet on 12 Dec, 2014 09:47
Quote from: terryy on 12 Dec, 2014 08:42
So that means Orbital/ULA will not have to make a ELC reimbursement payment to the DoD for this launch? Do we know how much that would be if they had to pay it?

If this is the case SpaceX should sue right now. This would mean that SpaceX's competitors in CRS, CRS2 and commercial crew can have their launches subsidized by DOD to the tune of $70M per launch (ELC ~$1B/year divided by 14 ULA launches this year).
That's not how it works. Just for starters, its a subsidy to many things, some of which no commercial entity needs, and thus can't be charged for. But let's assume that it is only pad use. You have four pads, two (DIV and AV) at CCAF and another two VAFB. So the ELC contribution being only on the LC41 part (Atlas V from the Cape), which has 8 planned flights next year. So if we assume 250M per pad, and then divide by 8, you'd get a 31.25M contribution. But then I'm pretty sure OSC requested very little on top of standard launch, and thus its contribution would be much smaller.
#15 by saliva_sweet on 12 Dec, 2014 10:59
Quote from: baldusi on 12 Dec, 2014 10:28
That's not how it works. Just for starters, its a subsidy to many things, some of which no commercial entity needs

Yes, the subsidy is to everything. Pads, factories, employees... all fixed costs. And that is absolutely huge competitive advantage. There are no doubt some things unnecessary for a commercial launch, but they are a small fraction. Pad maintenace is a small part of it. Not even ULA needs $250M/year to keep a pad working.
#16 by kevin-rf on 12 Dec, 2014 12:17
Quote from: saliva_sweet on 12 Dec, 2014 10:59
Pad maintenance is a small part of it. Not even ULA needs $250M/year to keep a pad working.
And with that, I am sure the ground keeper at LC-41 just went, DOH!, they finally caught on...
#17 by baldusi on 12 Dec, 2014 13:12
Quote from: saliva_sweet on 12 Dec, 2014 10:59
Quote from: baldusi on 12 Dec, 2014 10:28
That's not how it works. Just for starters, its a subsidy to many things, some of which no commercial entity needs

Yes, the subsidy is to everything. Pads, factories, employees... all fixed costs. And that is absolutely huge competitive advantage. There are no doubt some things unnecessary for a commercial launch, but they are a small fraction. Pad maintenace is a small part of it. Not even ULA needs $250M/year to keep a pad working.
We don't know what's inside that contract. I'm just saying that the part that a commercial flight might have to pay would probably be quite small in comparison to the whole program.
#18 by WHAP on 12 Dec, 2014 16:58
Pretty sure that any non-ELC mission results in an offset back to the government. Just because it's a government mission doesn't exempt it from that treatment. If it's not part of the EELV buy, then ULA gives some money back. I wish I could offer sources, but I'm not one to spend much time looking through public documentation to find it.
#19 by WindnWar on 12 Dec, 2014 17:27
Quote from: WHAP on 12 Dec, 2014 16:58
Pretty sure that any non-ELC mission results in an offset back to the government. Just because it's a government mission doesn't exempt it from that treatment. If it's not part of the EELV buy, then ULA gives some money back. I wish I could offer sources, but I'm not one to spend much time looking through public documentation to find it.

Here is a doc covering the GAO info on it.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/661333.txt

From the doc,

"Prior to the December 2013 contract modification,
compensation amounts were loosely based on an average of 30 days of
launch pad use, and not based on actual costs. DOD and ULA negotiated
the compensation amounts annually, and DOD was reimbursed through
price reductions on ULA invoices submitted to DOD at the end of the
fiscal year. Under the new contract, compensation is based on some
actual costs, including factory support and direct labor hours, and is
approximately three times the dollar amount per-launch of
reimbursements under previous contracts. Additionally, DOD and ULA
plan to adjust the contract value at the outset of each fiscal year,
commensurately reducing the overall value by the number of non-DOD
launches ULA expects to sell in the upcoming fiscal year. "

However in the paragraph right above this, there was this gem as well.

"The new contract is also
expected to provide DOD with a better understanding of individual
launch costs than it had under previous contracts, as some costs are
now directly attributable to specific launches, such as propellants,
transportation, and costs associated with launch mission integration.
However, according to DOD, about 75 percent of the costs for cost-
reimbursement contract items are combined and not broken out by
individual launch costs, which may limit DOD's ability to identify the
cost of any given launch. "

NASA qualifies as a non DOD launch so there would be a reimbursement, but the amount reimbursed is hard to determine since so much if it is bundle together.