-
ULA - America's Number 1 Space Launch Provider - Presser by Chris Bergin on 17 Mar, 2015 23:11
-
America’s #1 Space Launch Provider – United Launch Alliance – Talks Innovations Including New Launch Vehicle at Lower Cost, Higher Capability and Unmatched Reliability
CEO Says Efforts to Prematurely Halt the RD180 Engine “Uncompetitive” and a
Threat to Assured Access to Space
Washington, D.C., (March 17, 2015) – United Launch Alliance (ULA) President and CEO Tory Bruno testified today to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, regarding the future of space launch and how his company is innovating and transforming to provide more affordable space launch services.
Bruno noted that space systems are an integral part of today’s technology-driven world and are critical to not only our national security, but to the country’s economic prosperity and scientific advancement. ULA’s launch record of reliable, on time, and on or under budget – all with 100 percent mission success -- position ULA to remain the undisputed leader of this industry. In addition, Bruno also noted that a GAO report released last week confirmed that ULA’s collaboration with the Air Force on improved acquisition through a five-year block buy resulted in $4.4 billion in savings for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program, accounting for one quarter of the total savings.
During his testimony, Bruno reiterated that only ULA has the capability to launch all of the nation’s assets which means that it is critical for ULA to maintain its supply of the RD-180 engine that is the workhorse of the Atlas launch vehicle until their new launch system is in place. The new launch system, which includes an American made engine, is expected to produce its first flight in 2019 with full certification in 2022-2023.
“If the RD-180 is prematurely cut off before a new engine and vehicle is certified, there will be no other launch provider who can perform the full range of launch capabilities currently required under the law,” Bruno said referring to Assured Access to Space which requires that the nation maintain two launch vehicles at all times to support the nation’s launch requirements. “The current narrow interpretation of the Defense Authorization bill could preclude ULA from receiving previously ordered engines, which means the Air Force would only have one provider. Not only is that anti-competitive, it puts the Air Force national security mission requirements at risk.”
“The space launch industry is entering a new era and we couldn’t be more excited about our role in transforming the nation’s launch capabilities,” said Bruno, a 30-year veteran of the rocket industry. “ULA knows what it takes to provide assured access to space, and we’re very proud to be the nation’s provider. We are building on that success by creating a next generation launch vehicle that will maintain all the reliability and heritage of the Atlas and Delta, but will be more affordable with higher capability to meet the country’s future needs.”
Since its inception in 2006, ULA has consistently delivered 100 percent mission success for 94 consecutive launches and is currently at a tempo of greater than one launch per month. ULA’s Atlas V and Delta IV rockets are the most powerful and most reliable in the world, and are the only rockets that fully meet the needs of the national security community.
With more than a century of combined heritage, United Launch Alliance is the nation’s most experienced and reliable launch service provider. ULA has successfully delivered more than 90 satellites to orbit that provide critical capabilities for troops in the field, aid meteorologists in tracking severe weather, enable personal device-based GPS navigation and unlock the mysteries of our solar system.
For more information on ULA, visit the ULA website at www.ulalaunch.com, or call the ULA Launch Hotline at 1-877-ULA-4321 (852-4321). Join the conversation at www.facebook.com/ulalaunch, twitter.com/ulalaunch and instagram.com/ulalaunch. -
#1 by AnalogMan on 17 Mar, 2015 23:31
-
This is Tory Bruno's witness statement from today's House Hearing:
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS29/20150317/103135/HHRG-114-AS29-Wstate-BrunoS-20150317.pdf
(copy also attached)
-
#2 by edkyle99 on 18 Mar, 2015 03:44
-
Now I think I understand why Bruno announced that he was shutting down Delta 4 so soon. It was so he could make this speech today. Otherwise he couldn't say that RD-180 was required to meet the EELV requirements. Some will note that as he calls for continued "assured access" via. RD-180, he is purposefully shutting down ULA's own U.S. powered "assured access".
- Ed Kyle -
#3 by Coastal Ron on 18 Mar, 2015 03:59
-
"...which means the Air Force would only have one provider. Not only is that anti-competitive, it puts the Air Force national security mission requirements at risk.”
I just had to highlight that quote, since you wouldn't have found ULA stating that their monopoly was "anti-competitive" just a few short years (months?) ago, or that being a monopoly was a national security risk.
It's amazing what happens when competition enters the marketplace... -
#4 by woods170 on 18 Mar, 2015 09:09
-
"...which means the Air Force would only have one provider. Not only is that anti-competitive, it puts the Air Force national security mission requirements at risk.”
Absolutely. When I read the ULA presser I almost choked over the part you highlighted. Here you have the current sole-source provider warning for something that they basically are themselves right now. My appreciation for Mr. Bruno just dropped twenty points (on a on-hundred point scale).
I just had to highlight that quote, since you wouldn't have found ULA stating that their monopoly was "anti-competitive" just a few short years (months?) ago, or that being a monopoly was a national security risk.
It's amazing what happens when competition enters the marketplace... -
#5 by woods170 on 18 Mar, 2015 09:13
-
Now I think I understand why Bruno announced that he was shutting down Delta 4 so soon. It was so he could make this speech today. Otherwise he couldn't say that RD-180 was required to meet the EELV requirements. Some will note that as he calls for continued "assured access" via. RD-180, he is purposefully shutting down ULA's own U.S. powered "assured access".
IF (not the fat "if") that was not just the side-effect of an economic decision, but actually THE reason for shutting down Delta IV, then Bruno is actually worse than Grass.
- Ed Kyle
But quite frankly I don't believe that Bruno would be silly enough to shut down Delta IV just to make sure that RD-180 will continue to power Atlas V for many years to come. It would completely offset ULA's intentions for a replacement vehicle. -
#6 by baldusi on 18 Mar, 2015 12:42
-
He did make the argument during the hearing, that if he had to compete with SpaceX only with the Delta IV, he would lose every single category where he competes. Thus, forcing him to use Delta IV is has exactly the same effect than not allowing to procure extra RD-180 while he transitions to a new engine.Now I think I understand why Bruno announced that he was shutting down Delta 4 so soon. It was so he could make this speech today. Otherwise he couldn't say that RD-180 was required to meet the EELV requirements. Some will note that as he calls for continued "assured access" via. RD-180, he is purposefully shutting down ULA's own U.S. powered "assured access".
IF (not the fat "if") that was not just the side-effect of an economic decision, but actually THE reason for shutting down Delta IV, then Bruno is actually worse than Grass.
- Ed Kyle
But quite frankly I don't believe that Bruno would be silly enough to shut down Delta IV just to make sure that RD-180 will continue to power Atlas V for many years to come. It would completely offset ULA's intentions for a replacement vehicle.
Shotwell said that she didn't knew the Delta IV costs, but that it was ULA's work to actually make competitive LV.
Bruno then said that he had two LV in his fleet for assured access, but with competition it wasn't required.
Not exact words, but that was my general grasp. I was surprised from both Mr. Bruno and Mrs. Shotwell that they weren't more eloquent. -
#7 by Jim on 18 Mar, 2015 12:57
-
"...which means the Air Force would only have one provider. Not only is that anti-competitive, it puts the Air Force national security mission requirements at risk.”
I just had to highlight that quote, since you wouldn't have found ULA stating that their monopoly was "anti-competitive" just a few short years (months?) ago, or that being a monopoly was a national security risk.
It's amazing what happens when competition enters the marketplace...
No, there were two providers, Delta and Atlas -
#8 by woods170 on 18 Mar, 2015 12:58
-
He did make the argument during the hearing, that if he had to compete with SpaceX only with the Delta IV, he would lose every single category where he competes. Thus, forcing him to use Delta IV is has exactly the same effect than not allowing to procure extra RD-180 while he transitions to a new engine.
Getting rid of Delta IV is a decision driven by economics, pure and simple. IMO, Ed's suggestion that it may have a more political motive is pure speculation.
Shotwell said that she didn't knew the Delta IV costs, but that it was ULA's work to actually make competitive LV.
Bruno then said that he had two LV in his fleet for assured access, but with competition it wasn't required.
Not exact words, but that was my general grasp. I was surprised from both Mr. Bruno and Mrs. Shotwell that they weren't more eloquent.
And no-one is forcing ULA to use only Delta-IV. The ban on RD-180 does not come into effect for another four years, and only involves national security launches. If ULA and it's propulsion partners Blue and Aerojet-Rocketdyne are incapable of coming up with a replacement engine in that timeframe, then I feel sorry for the US propulsion industry: how low have they dropped in capabilities. -
#9 by WindnWar on 18 Mar, 2015 13:19
-
The hearing was interesting in that it Shotwell got questions about Delta IV in an attempt to point out that if Delta IV goes away and Atlas can't fly due to lack of engines SpaceX would have a monopoly and that would be a bad thing. It was a strange line of questions, and it seems like they are taking a very narrow reading the 1608 language to make it appear engines on contract already can't be used for national security launches past the current block buy except for 5 engines, so they need to lift the language so ULA can stay competitive or ULA would be forced to launch everything on the Delta IV Heavy at a great expense.
I can't quite understand how ULA retiring the Delta IV medium, and because of a strange reading of the regs can't use engines already bought leads them to having to launch everything on the Delta heavy at a price close to a $1 billion, according to Bruno. I mean the Air Force is not telling them to retire the vehicle, and if they would still be able to build and launch the heavy, why would they not be able to still build a medium if that's all they had?
-
#10 by joek on 18 Mar, 2015 14:25
-
No, there were two providers, Delta and Atlas
One provider (ULA), two vehicles (Delta and Atlas). Mr. Bruno stated during the hearing that ULA cannot complete with Delta alone. Without the RD-180's, Atlas would be off the table (at least for a time), thus leaving...
Reminds me of the scene from Blazing Saddles when Bart holds his own gun to his head and takes himself hostage. -
#11 by Space Ghost 1962 on 18 Mar, 2015 17:44
-
Yup.
No surprises how this is turning out. From EELV program inception you could see how things would play out.
DIV was intended as the sole winner riding the Shuttle economics chain. Almost made it to, and in comparison to Shuttle, with enough flights it would have. Since they went all out with the "new" to do this, a lot of things left for "improvement" after winning followed. Unlike AV where much was "evolved" with past increments of development, more of a repackaging of what was there, and not dependent on Shuttle economics chain, given the rather cynical view of it paying off from LM.
But both "won", and ULA was created. "Frequent flyer" AV because "less to be done" and lower cost because "best in category" Russian engine, a "devil's bargain" in that the way out of it always carried a billion dollar penalty, like a loan with unpredictable interest rate.
These competing "ill's" went their course as expected. Its easier to reinvest in the AV and get better returns, so frequency increases, reliability & cost decreases, your "too good deal" gets harder to walk away from. And your DIV "new stuff" leveraged off of Shuttle doesn't fly frequently, so costs don't drop, improvements don't happen, and "newness" fades. And because it fulfills a unique role that you can't afford to transfer to AV, you watch as the costs mount up over time. Shuttle EOL means this escalates too.
Newbie arrives on the scene to undercut with a low cost launch architecture, and a newly belligerent Russia has to score points stupidly on the theory of use and "trampolines". Newbie points to your fly hanging open and the Russian engine in obvious sight. Oops - who coulda seen that coming, Clevis? I shore didn't thunk it.
But with all that good old American know-how, we can make anything cheap-n-good, right? Excepting that annoying newbie of course he's not really an American one of use you see. Hmm, suddenly paying down all those accumulated DIV/H costs don't look so good, and "renewing" the "new" is even worse, after all it was the late nineties costing that we competed it with. God, if we got stuck with this sucker, we'd really be screwed Clevis!
So Congress, ignore that LH rocket over there, we've got no rocket to compete with, you'll just have to suck it in and stomach Russian engines indefinitely while we figure something out that works for our business.
Otherwise you're only bet is that wacko SX, and your general's aren't gonna like that. So I'm sorry, now one could have predicted this, we're doing the best we can, and if you force us to we can do DIV/H but you won't want to pay for it (and we have no future if you do!), so since you need to cut us a "mulligan" here. Then you'll get what we've given you all along.
Honest, its only one time! -
#12 by arachnitect on 18 Mar, 2015 18:30
-
Pick one of the following:
1. There are two providers, and missions are competed on cost (keep using RD-180)
2. There are two providers, and no Russian engines (Pay ULA big money to keep DIV M flying)
3. There is one provider for M class launches (costs for the missions they can't cover death spiral, no assured access)
What should ULA and USAF do? Answers that presuppose the availability of time travel are not allowed. -
#13 by Space Ghost 1962 on 18 Mar, 2015 18:45
-
And I love the twist on "capitalism" here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/03/18/how-elon-musks-spacex-could-conquer-the-market-for-military-satellite-launches/QuoteULA's other alternative for doing the launches, the Delta IV, is pretty pricey — about 30 percent more costly than the Atlas V, Bruno said.
OK, so one business, a monopoly, has a more expensive launch service. In a capitalist view, the monopoly concept is that for a purpose its allowed to be more expensive, and that's why we have a monopoly.
Like with Ariane V. Which is a single, LH fueled vehicle. Or H2. So what's the problem.Quote... SpaceX's rocket, the Falcon 9, is about to be cleared by the Air Force for military launches...
Anyone hear of "duopoly" brainiac? Like with weapons vendors? ATK vs AJ solids?
... If SpaceX's rockets effectively replace ULA's Delta IVs, the Pentagon will have traded one monopoly for another.QuoteThat's ironic, considering how much of SpaceX's upstart rhetoric revolves around the idea of making the space launch industry more competitive.
Gee, "two" instead of "one". Sounds like competition of a sort. Isn't that ... "capitalism"? As opposed to "cronyism"?
Irrespective of the purpose or skill of said companies, just on the basis of what's covered in the article alone.QuoteIf [ULA] stops the Delta IV rocket launches," said Rogers, "is there anybody else that can compete with you for those missions?"
Like Ariane or H2? Which are in many ways the same cost structure as DIV/H?
Shotwell struggled to answer, referring vaguely to there being international launch providers. She then went back and conceded that the Pentagon probably wouldn't trust those international services with sensitive military payloads.
So let me get this straight. Because ULA doesn't want the same cost structure it has had all along with DIV/H that is found with two other national launchers as well, it would forgo a national security need, leaving SX a defacto "monopoly", one that it hasn't gotten a dollar out of as an "official" monopolist, and that's ... bad?
Wouldn't part of being "paid" to run an "official monopoly" for a decade, be that you were "overpaid" in advance for just that reason of keeping a DIV/H going while you brought online the new vehicle?
And that being allowed to "relinquish" the throne, at a time when either a) another proven "king" would ascend, or b) that 2-N vendors would supplant with a "market" the need for a throne, like what preceded the need for it?
This isn't capitalism.Pick one of the following:
If they were/are competed on cost only, a cost is access to RD-180. One was lying all along by not budgetting in "replacement" cost, which would have shown the true cost all along. As was mentioned at the beginning.
1. There are two providers, and missions are competed on cost (keep using RD-180)Quote2. There are two providers, and no Russian engines (Pay ULA big money to keep DIV M flying)
Had the "win" reflected the true cost instead of neglecting it, the cost of DIV M would have been far less, and paid for all along. Actually, its still "do able" as a large, one time cost - they just are embarrassed to do it, since they bet on the wrong horse.Quote3. There is one provider for M class launches (costs for the missions they can't cover death spiral, no assured access)
Yes they can. They don't want to. Access is assured as long as you have two qualified options. And technically they have five if you wish to push it to the wall.QuoteWhat should ULA and USAF do? Answers that presuppose the availability of time travel are not allowed.
What gamblers get when they bet on the wrong horse. Oh, my bad! Given me more.
I guess in your book, gamblers are just unlucky time travelers
Bottom line - it's a business screw up, not a national security crisis. We've faced this before. Promoting it to a bigger crisis is just a way out of the box. -
#14 by rcoppola on 18 Mar, 2015 19:15
-
This has all gotten a bit ridiculous imo.
-Remove the RD-180 language. Use them as long as we can for any launches ensuring AtlasV can fly out their current manifest and get them close to when NGLV will be ready.
-Stand down DIV as it becomes apparent FH will be certified in the 2018-2020 timeframe.
-Let current Atlas V and F9 compete beginning this summer for appropriate payloads.
-Let NGLV compete against F9 & FH beginning in the 2022-23 timeframe.
If Russia shuts off RD-180 before the transition is complete, we'll still have F9 enhanced and may need to augment with one or two expensive Deltas, not the end of the world in the grand scheme and/or FH will be able to close the capabilities gap until NGLV with heavy capabilities comes on-line.
BE-4 and NGLV will take what it takes regardless of what Russia does or doesn't do. This RD-180 has become a self imposed error of judgment.
The points have been made. Competition and domestic engine. They are being implemented. Now just give everyone another few years to get through this transition. Stop playing games with RD-180. I don't see anyone blocking Exxon from their their billion dollar contracts for Natural gas exploration with Russia. Keep buying them as long as we can or need to. And remove any arbitrary language about how many or what they can or can't launch.
Again, all the pieces are in place. Bruno is doing what needs to be done. Elon is doing what needs to be done. We WILL have competition. We WILL have a domestic engine. Just back the hell off, give ULA some certainty on being able to fly out their manifest and get ready with the NGLV as SpaceX gets fully up to speed.
Edit: (If we hit a snag with RD-180 deliveries down the road, the USAF may very well need to move a few Block-Buy launches over to F9 allowing AV to handle only those payloads absolutely beyond F9 capabilities) -
#15 by RedLineTrain on 18 Mar, 2015 19:31
-
McCain could be an obstacle to ULA's and the Air Force's preference to change the RD-180 language.Quote
Mike Gruss @Gruss_SN 1h1 hour ago
Sen. McCain weighs in on the RD-180 debate:
-
#16 by rcoppola on 18 Mar, 2015 19:42
-
McCain could be an obstacle to ULA's and the Air Force's preference to change the RD-180 language.
Well, should I assume we'll be seeing both of yesterdays panels being invited before the good Senator's committee soon?QuoteMike Gruss @Gruss_SN 1h1 hour ago
Sen. McCain weighs in on the RD-180 debate: -
#17 by russianhalo117 on 18 Mar, 2015 19:43
-
There is this contract today for DIV:
Delta IV-H - Solar Probe Plus (SPP) - SLC-37 - July 31, 2018 -
#18 by rayleighscatter on 18 Mar, 2015 19:52
-
Demand goes away so supply goes away too. It's Capitalism 101.
This isn't capitalism. -
#19 by kevin-rf on 18 Mar, 2015 20:32
-
McCain could be an obstacle to ULA's and the Air Force's preference to change the RD-180 language.
QuoteMike Gruss @Gruss_SN 1h1 hour ago
Sen. McCain weighs in on the RD-180 debate:
Not for nothing, but McCain is a former (highly decorated) Navy man who has always struck me as someone who is quite critical of the USAF. (I also have gotten the feeling over the years that he feels the same about Boeing). You just have to look at his comments on the tanker mess (occurred at about the same time as the Boeing Delta IV mess that led to the formation of ULA).
