Who will compete with SpaceX? The last two and next two years.

[Jim]

Mark Twain's quote is directly applicable. 
This is the only place of where rumors of ULA's demise exist.

Launch vehicles that only serviced the military existed for decades.  Martin (now LM) Titan existed on it for four decades.  They only had 3 commercial launches, ever. 

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

If ULA doesn't turn things around, they could wind up selling off assets and downsizing

There is no such thing as downsizing.
And other than a factory, they have no assets to sell off.

There was little of Beal's assets other than land used by Spacex

At the moment ULA is doing a fat trimming. Not downsizing. Downsizing would come only as a result of significantly reducing annual number of future launches. I do not see this as happening even if SpaceX steals(wins) a significant number of DOD competitions, because they are expanding into new customer sets (NASA (cargo, CC)). They are not likely to disappear at least in the next 10 years. Not even be reduced in activity. They may even be able to start an expansion with a new HLV (Vulcan ACES) by adding new customers/industries/destinations such as Lunar surface. That expansion would be moderate not rapid.

[envy887]

Mark Twain's quote is directly applicable. 
This is the only place of where rumors of ULA's demise exist.

Launch vehicles that only serviced the military existed for decades.  Martin (now LM) Titan existed on it for four decades.  They only had 3 commercial launches, ever.

Different era. Titan is long gone. Atlas and Delta are following it soon (-ish). ULA has said they have to be commercially competitive to survive.

[Toast]

If ULA doesn't turn things around, they could wind up selling off assets and downsizing

There is no such thing as downsizing.
And other than a factory, they have no assets to sell off.

Their factory is exactly what I'm talking about.

There was little of Beal's assets other than land used by Spacex

The cheap land and testing facilities were instrumental in SpaceX's success.

even Virgin or Rocketlab would probably be glad to snatch up anything they can.

Those are non starters and also they couldn't afford them.

SpaceX is worth ~$21 billion today, and they didn't even exist two decades ago. Virgin or Rocketlab becoming big players is a long shot (just like SpaceX was a long shot), hence why I listed them after SpaceX and Blue Origin. But it's far from impossible. The way I see it, unless ULA makes dramatic changes (the type of changes that rarely succeed in large, well established companies), they just plain won't exist a decade or two from now. There's no way they can afford to. Their market share is drying up, and they aren't making the big strides in regaining competitiveness that they need to be.

[Jim]

Mark Twain's quote is directly applicable. 
This is the only place of where rumors of ULA's demise exist.

Launch vehicles that only serviced the military existed for decades.  Martin (now LM) Titan existed on it for four decades.  They only had 3 commercial launches, ever.

Different era. Titan is long gone. Atlas and Delta are following it soon (-ish). ULA has said they have to be commercially competitive to survive.

Not really.  the era still exists.  The NSS wants somebody to cater to them regardless of what they say.  Vulcan is Titan, Atlas and Delta.

[Jim]

1.  Their factory is exactly what I'm talking about.

2. The cheap land and testing facilities were instrumental in SpaceX's success.

3.  But it's far from impossible.

1. little useable for others.
2.  The land was always cheap and there were few to one useable test facilities.
3.  Very impossible.  They are foreign owned companies.

[Toast]

3.  Very impossible.  They are foreign owned companies.

Virgin Galactic is US based, and Rocketlab is too (on paper, at least). But above all, my point is just that ULA is on it's way out without a successful pivot. I don't see them making it, and I don't think Boeing or Lockheed as committed to keeping ULA around as some people assume. If the money's not there, they'll cut their losses and go. As JBF mentioned earlier, Lockheed already wanted out previously, and Boeing's got their satellite business to fall back on. With other cheap launch providers, investing there could be a lot more lucrative than trying to save ULA.

[gongora]

The Air Force is planning to select two providers to service their launch needs for the next decade.  Whoever they select is going to be around for at least another decade, whether ya'll like it or not.

[wolfpack]

ULA is a private enterprise and can adapt quickly just like any other private enterprise. Also, the US government is unlikely to abandon them.

SpaceX could also blow up another rocket or two and lose manifest. Or not. Who knows.

Point is, you can't predict the future. There is no "writing on the wall" for anybody.

[AncientU]

Mark Twain's quote is directly applicable. 
This is the only place of where rumors of ULA's demise exist.

Launch vehicles that only serviced the military existed for decades.  Martin (now LM) Titan existed on it for four decades.  They only had 3 commercial launches, ever.

Different era. Titan is long gone. Atlas and Delta are following it soon (-ish). ULA has said they have to be commercially competitive to survive.

Not really.  the era still exists.  The NSS wants somebody to cater to them regardless of what they say.  Vulcan is Titan, Atlas and Delta.

History has repeatedly demonstrated that the worst possible strategy for incumbent firms facing market change is to live in denial, attempt to stop time and to attempt to defend their turf based on past achievements. This defensive posture produces a dangerous culture of entitlement and inevitably fails.

http://spacenews.com/op-ed-americas-future-in-space-is-both-commercial-and-traditional/

Article goes on to say:

To survive and flourish during disruption incumbents must recapture the innovation that made their firms great, shake up management, reduce costs in meaningful ways, and show more vision. Traditional space already has the perfect model for all that in Tory Bruno, whose visionary new ULA is still a joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

Now, Boeing and LockMart need to let ULA innovate -- but the likelihood of their milking it until it shrivels up and dies seems equally likely...

[Jim]

But above all, my point is just that ULA is on it's way out without a successful pivot.

Which is just basically wrong on all counts.

[envy887]

ULA is a private enterprise and can adapt quickly just like any other private enterprise.
...

Not really. ULA functions at the whim of its parent companies and main customer, and can only adapt as they see fit. Its customers aren't exactly keen on the risks associated with innovation.

[Toast]

The Air Force is planning to select two providers to service their launch needs for the next decade.  Whoever they select is going to be around for at least another decade, whether ya'll like it or not.

True, but I wasn't saying ULA would disappear next weekend. I said a decade or two, and I stand by that--right now, they're safe because SpaceX is their only US competitor who's in a position to take their market share and current appropriations intentionally make sure that one company doesn't win everything. But when that contract ends in a decade, Blue Origin will probably be a pretty mature market force along with SpaceX. I don't see ULA winning another contract when they're competing against two innovative companies (likely with far lower costs) that are both working hard on full reuse.

But hey, anything can happen. I'm never one-hundred percent sure of anything--Maybe wolfpack is right and SpaceX will blow up a bunch of rockets in succession and their company will tank. Maybe ULA will debut engine recovery sooner than expected and it will prove more economical than SpaceX. Maybe Bezos will get bored with rockets and dump Blue Origin, leaving ULA's contracts safe as the government wants to avoid relying on a single provider with SpaceX. Maybe ATK will get their act together and build a competitive rocket with a decent flight rate and start taking market share from both of them.

That said, I don't think any of those outcomes are as likely as SpaceX continuing to develop more and more easily and cheaply reusable rockets, Blue Origin emerging as their largest competitor by doing the same, all while ULA continues to drag their feet and doesn't make the changes needed to compete. And in that scenario, it's hard to imagine ULA's presence being a long-term proposition.

[AncientU]

Maybe SpaceX will develop a second, dissimilar rocket design and take both halves of the NSS market...

[QuantumG]

Mark Twain's quote is directly applicable. 
This is the only place of where rumors of ULA's demise exist.

Launch vehicles that only serviced the military existed for decades.  Martin (now LM) Titan existed on it for four decades.  They only had 3 commercial launches, ever.

My take on the SpaceX vs ULA feud:

SpaceX are still in denial about how incapable they are of serving of the Air Force's needs. They basically want the Air Force to redesign all their payloads to fly on SpaceX boosters, and they want the Air Force to do that for free.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Maybe SpaceX will develop a second, dissimilar rocket design and take both halves of the NSS market...

Uh.. the mythical mini (7m) Raptor based SHLV? (50+mt in expendable mode)
A Vulcan payload size direct competitor?
At the same operational date 2021 as Vulcan?
Fully Reusable?
An NG direct competitor?

[AncientU]

Maybe SpaceX will develop a second, dissimilar rocket design and take both halves of the NSS market...

Uh.. the mythical mini (7m) Raptor based SHLV? (50+mt in expendable mode)
A Vulcan payload size direct competitor?
At the same operational date 2021 as Vulcan?
Fully Reusable?
An NG direct competitor?

I was thinking of the revenue generating, 9m ITSy.
If it can be used to launch $1-2M worth of fuel, it could certainly be used to launch a GPS-III or other NSS payload.  So what if 80-90% of its lift capability isn't used for an 'urgent' launch.

And yes, it could be ready around when Vulcan-ACES or NG are flying reliably.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Maybe SpaceX will develop a second, dissimilar rocket design and take both halves of the NSS market...

Uh.. the mythical mini (7m) Raptor based SHLV? (50+mt in expendable mode)
A Vulcan payload size direct competitor?
At the same operational date 2021 as Vulcan?
Fully Reusable?
An NG direct competitor?

I was thinking of the revenue generating, 9m ITSy.
If it can be used to launch $1-2M worth of fuel, it could certainly be used to launch a GPS-III or other NSS payload.  So what if 80-90% of its lift capability isn't used for an 'urgent' launch.

And yes, it could be ready around when Vulcan-ACES or NG are flying reliably.

Ok, so in the scenario where the ITS is launching 20+ times per year in its early life a couple of years after first launch the cost of launch would be about equal to the current cost of the F9 $50-60M. So yes even using it very sub-optimally (1/4 of its full capability) it would provide launch cheaper than most of the other competitors. Ride sharing with 4 other GEO sats would make it untouchable at $12-15M per sat.

Unfortunately the time frame is 6+ years from now or around 2023.

The competitive field by EOY 2019 is BO with NG maybe, ULA with Vulcan maybe or at least Atlas V, Orbital ATK with its solid HLV maybe, and SpaceX just in the US. In the world Ariane 5, Proton, GSLV, HIIB, and Long March.

[AncientU]

Maybe SpaceX will develop a second, dissimilar rocket design and take both halves of the NSS market...

Uh.. the mythical mini (7m) Raptor based SHLV? (50+mt in expendable mode)
A Vulcan payload size direct competitor?
At the same operational date 2021 as Vulcan?
Fully Reusable?
An NG direct competitor?

I was thinking of the revenue generating, 9m ITSy.
If it can be used to launch $1-2M worth of fuel, it could certainly be used to launch a GPS-III or other NSS payload.  So what if 80-90% of its lift capability isn't used for an 'urgent' launch.

And yes, it could be ready around when Vulcan-ACES or NG are flying reliably.

Ok, so in the scenario where the ITS is launching 20+ times per year in its early life a couple of years after first launch the cost of launch would be about equal to the current cost of the F9 $50-60M. So yes even using it very sub-optimally (1/4 of its full capability) it would provide launch cheaper than most of the other competitors. Ride sharing with 4 other GEO sats would make it untouchable at $12-15M per sat.

Unfortunately the time frame is 6+ years from now or around 2023.

Yes, I was thinking about when the Heavy payloads start being awarded after the batch of 'keep warm' Delta IV Heavy flights.  Awards should start around 2020, unless they do another five plus year in advance 'competition.'

Even getting some of the heavy payloads would take those big dollar payloads off the table.

[envy887]

There's no way NGL is going to be competing for NSS launches by EOY 2019. It probably won't have even a test flight till 2020.