The FTC’s decision yesterday to permit the formation of the United Launch
Alliance (ULA) has, unsurprisingly, been widely hailed by members of Alabama’s Congressional delegation. Manufacturing of both Atlas and Delta vehicles will be consolidated in Boeing’s Decatur, Alabama factory, adding perhaps several hundred employees. Congressmen Bud Cramer (D) and Robert Aderholt (R) both congratulated the decision. Sen. Richard Shelby (R) also issued a statement (not yet available on his web site) approving of this latest development, according to the Huntsville Times.
Member of Congress aren’t the only ones heaping praise on the ULA. In an article in the Decatur (Ala.) Daily, Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute goes a bit over the top lauding the joint venture. “Decatur is now going to be the center of space-launch capability in the Western world,” he’s quoted as saying. “…Decatur is now going to be the center of the universe when it comes to large-rocket launch capability. It’s going to be where the technology is concentrated.” And those, like SpaceX, who have complained about the anticompetitive aspects of the ULA? “That’s like a condo complaining this will make it harder for them to become a superpower.” Condo? Um, whatever.
Good for the ULA, bad for free market capitalism. I really liked the Washington Posts take in this morning’s paper with the headline “Rocket Monopoly Approved”. A good quote in there from Michael Moiseyev, assistant director of the FTC buerau of competion: “Monopolies almost always lead to higher prices, lower quality and inferior services” and points to this as a prime example.
Despite that, they approved it because, as FTC Commissioner Harbour claimed, that the DoD said it was necessary for preserving National Security and the FTC is not technically expert enough to challenge them.
With Lockheed abondoning ILS, will the ULA ever see commercial launches that will offset their costs to the tax payers or will they just enjoy the monopolostic pricing power they have with the DoD. Looking at current launch manifests, it seems that they will just be living off the government tit for now as Arianne, Proton and Sea Launch continue to dominate the commercial market. Its sad that the US companies have failed to be competitive on the world stage and have to resort to living off the DoD through an entity such as the ULA.
I hope that some of the alt.space companies like SpaceX can once again show that a U.S. company can be competitive internationally.
On a side note, anyone want to place bets in how many months/years it will take before the ULA drops one of their rockets and what excuse they will use? I am betting on the excuse will have to do with “cost cutting measures needed to be competitive in the international marketplace” though they may try to wrap it in a more patriotic message claiming “an effort to reduce costs for the US taxpayers”. I give em 18-24 months.
Either way, I just don’t see the business sense for keeping 2 rockets with the same capabilities going given the workforce inefficiencies that go along with that.
Ryan: anyone want to place bets in how many months/years it will take before the ULA drops one of their rockets
No bet! I agree with every word (with the possible exception of your last paragraph unless that is intended to be from ULA’s point of view).
The real interesting question will be whether the Administration (this one or the next one) allows them to drop the Delta-IV, since it is the one that uses US engines and since NASA is using the same engines for the VSE. The way this has played out in the past, I’d put my money on keeping that Altas, though I also think that would be the wrong decision. Most likely, retaining engine commonality between the EELV and the VSE would lower the nation’s net launch vehicle costs. However, in apparent contrast to Lockheed, Boeing certainly is doing little to support their contender. . . .
— Donald
The next logical step is to dump the Ares I in favor of either the Atlas or Delta. Both the Decatur plant and Marshall lie in Rep. Cramer’s district. It’s not in the 5th District’s interest to develop two vehicles that compete against each other (and will ultimately die together) due to the very limited market. Going with one, Atlas/Delta being the most realistic, caters to NASA and commercial markets, and stands a better chance of long-term survival.
The Alabama delegation is smart. They should see this and start forcing the issue with Dr. Griffin.
In observing the fight between the stick-based Ares 1, and the alternative of the EELVs, I am more and more convinced that Griffin is holding on to the stick — by tooth and nail — for one remaining reason. Developing the stick for the Ares 1, significantly reduces the development costs of the super-heavy-lift Ares 5, which is the core to the entire centrally-planned Griffin architecture.
I may be wrong, but my instincts say that Griffin is going to fight to the end to protect the stick.
– Al
I guess we’re STUCK with the STICK then.
Hopefully, it will fail … catastrophically.
Then it will be left to the Mr. Big’s of America to pick up the pieces of America’s manned space flight program.
Al: Developing the stick for the Ares 1, significantly reduces the development costs of the super-heavy-lift Ares 5, which is the core to the entire centrally-planned Griffin architecture.
You don’t need to speculate: Dr. Griffin has explicitly and repeatedly stated that this is his reasoning.
I have a rare moment of agreement with Tom: I fully agree with his answer (with the proviso that I would try to keep both already-developed EELVs in competition for VSE, civil application, and military launches without the extremely unwise ULA). However, as long as Dr. Griffin is in charge, I think this outcome extremely unlikely. The irony is that even though he is wrong on this issue, overall, Dr. Griffin remains probably the best choice to execute the rest of the VSE.
However, the decision to use the Delta-IV engines in both the Delta-IV and the Ares vehicle represents a key compromize that achieves at least some of the commonality goals that are the chief reason for using the EELVs. (Provided, of course, that the Delta-IV is retained.)
In the long run, the launch vehicle probably does not matter. If and when the Orian gets developed, any of a number of launch vehicles can be upgraded to carry it. In the end, the final decision will be up to the next Administration.
In the mean time, I am not prepared to oppose the VSE just because I think the wrong launch vehicle was selected. The decision is wasteful, and may be politically fatal to the project for that reason, but I don’t see why it should be technically fatal.
To go forward in human spaceflight, we all have to live with decisions we don’t agree with. My choice is to live with this one.
— Donald